The Praga I was the first machine gun design from noted Czech arms designed Vaclav Holek. Three examples were made for Czech military testing in 1922, but they were not acceptable. Instead, this design served as the first stepping stone to the eventual development of the ZB-26, perhaps the best of the interwar light machine guns.
Mechanically, the Praga I is largely based on the Vickers/Maxim system except with a locking wedge instead of a toggle joint. It also uses a forward-moving gas trap sort of action instead of recoil operation like the Maxim/Vickers. The fire control mechanism is essentially a Vickers lock, just built into the receiver of the gun instead of in a moving bolt or lock. It is a truly fascinating system!
Many thanks to the VHU – the Czech Military History Institute – for giving me access to this fantastic prototype to film for you. The Army Museum Žižkov is a part of the Institute, and they have a 3-story museum full of cool exhibits open to the public in Prague.If you have a chance to visit, it’s definitely worth the time! You can find all of their details (including their aviation and armor museums) here:
https://www.vhu.cz/en/english-summary/
I like that the museum does show prototypes. Museums these days have taken the approach of showing just one example of a type of thing, instead of showing all the variations on them. To me this smacks of controlling the narrative, rather than telling the whole story and letting the viewer form their own opinions.
Serious Madsen vibes coming off of this thing… I like it.
Remember that Czechoslovak was once inside Austria-Hungary where weapons such like
https://guns.fandom.com/wiki/Salvator_Dormus_M1893
https://www.militaryfactory.com/smallarms/detail.php?smallarms_id=860
were produced and entered (limited) service.
Observe that Pilsen (location of Waffenwerke Skoda) was relatively close to Prag (around 100 km).
is: “Czechoslovak”
should be: “Czechoslovakia”
Warhammer 40k vibes as well. Great video
What is “bullpup” about this design? The action is forward of the operating controls.
Wait, could mount-sitting machine gun (which is NOT supposed to be shoulder-fire) be bullpup at all?
@KBCraig,
I have to ask: Did you watch the video? Did you listen for comprehension?
Ian clearly says two things: One, he acknowledges that it’s not “technically accurate”, but two, that it’s about the best way to describe what they did here. It’s a “bullpupped Vickers” in the sense that the trigger assembly is forward of where it is on the actual Vickers, and it is also a very compact action because of the way it’s been modified to work, with the belt feed so far forward of where it would be in a stock Vickers or Maxim action.
Yet, you can clearly see where the mechanism came from.
This is one of those edge-case one-of-a-kind mechanisms that defies categorization, just like the way the Stoner gas system in the AR-10/15 families defies easy definition. Yes, this isn’t a true bullpup, just like the the Stoner isn’t a true gas-impingement design, but… Given the way the tech tree branched, that’s the easiest way to describe both, and still be able to achieve some ease of understanding for the “everyone else” out there.
This is, perhaps, what Maxim and Vickers would have settled on in terms of design features, had there been a bit more development time along that branch of the technology tree. As it was, due to the rapid pace of development, it was outmoded and obsolete before it even got into production. In a kinder world, where WWI never happened, and we just plodded along refining things, this or something like this might have become the ultimate expression of Maxim’s design lineage. As is, it’s a fascinating look into the sensibilities and intent of the designers back during the post-WWI era.
Speaking of which, someone really needs to develop a taxonomy and system of categorization that you could apply to technology the same way you look at animal species in biology. I’ve never seen anyone do something like that, but I bet you’d be able to do a lot of interesting work by simply laying out the “family tree” of mechanisms and features through patents and piracy, and that said taxonomy and diagramming would tell us all a great deal of value. If nothing else, then about the transmission and spread of ideas…
I did watch it, waiting for an explanation. I didn’t find one. I still don’t think it’s even remotely “bullpup”.
“Praga I(…)”
That name is intriguing, as it is name of Czech capital in Italiano, and not Čeština (Praha) and not Deutsch (Prag, default language of part of Austria-Hungary which contained said city)
“(…)were not acceptable(…)”
It is some information, but did they provided reason for that. Note significant difference between “your weapon jams a lot” and “your weapon works perfectly, but we already weapon for that purpose, thank you”.
“(…)forward-moving gas trap(…)”
This sounds like Puteaux 1905 https://modernfirearms.net/en/machineguns/france-machineguns/puteaux-m1905-eng/ if someone wished to inherit traits of said design, knowing about its’ performance, then this raise question of knowledge w.r.t. known existing automatic weapon designs.
“(…)We have what is pretty obviously a water jacket
that has been perforated to just be air cooled.(…)”
Observe shape of holes – round rather than elongated as in https://guns.fandom.com/wiki/Parabellum_MG_14 which might suggest its’ creator need to do that change ASAP and did not have hole-making-tool providing other shape that circle.
“(…)functioning on a … muzzle blast system.(…)”
That might suggest that inventor wanted to avoid gas-tube, possible of fear of dirty ammunition, clogging said tube. In that regard it is akin to Colt Model Potato Digger (also gas-operated) and Schwarzlose MG (it was delayed blow-back rather than gas-operated, but I presume better known to Czech designer as default machine gun of Austria-Hungary). Note both design are significantly older than this one.
“(…)is this rotating switch.(…)This is a semi-auto selector(…)”
Not only tactical usefulness is dubious for me, but also implementation. Can you use your fingers to detect which setting was chosen? Can you operate it reliably in winter gloves? Nonetheless it is still better than TURNER https://guns.fandom.com/wiki/Turner_carbine which has… Allen wrench(!) as fire-mode-selector.
Strikes me that the blow-forward idea is a vestigial remnant of the concerns/fears people had about black powder fouling… Lay you long odds that were you to somehow “translate” this design to the pre-smokeless era, it’d work reliably well enough to serve as a gas-operated system for those times of high fouling.
Similar to the way people refused to consider boring holes in barrels for gas systems until the issue of gas cutting and other problems was solved, the ideas about fouling held on for a lot longer than many of us realize today. Were you to take a modern gas-operated design back to the 1930s, a lot of evaluators would be horrified by the very idea of tapping the barrel for gas, because of their past experiences doing things like that. You’d also likely have a hell of a time getting your modern weapon into production, because a lot of those concerns were not only valid prior to that point, they were just then getting solved in terms of actual production-quantity output.
This is a lot like the Colt “Potato Digger” design, in that it was meant to work around technical constraints that had more-or-less been solved. Also, Browning’s innumerable patents, along with Maxim’s.
You look at the big picture from those times, and you have to recognize that there are certain deficiencies with our concept of “patent”. You should not be able to block innovation to the point where your patents are like Rollin White’s, and you’re able to strategically block an entire industry from utilizing a very obvious idea. I think that you obviously need to be able to work out how to get around the problem of people not paying inventors for their work, but at the same time… If you’re not bringing a product to the market, what benefit does that have to anyone, and why are you able to block people from doing things like Rollin White’s bored-through cylinders?
I’d argue that that particular case led to a lot of damage to the industry, and even Colt and Smith & Wesson themselves. It put them in the catbird’s seat for marketing, but it also encouraged a certain complacency and sloth. Also, any time you’re using lawyers and legal stratagems to get ahead, you’re likely doing damage to your entire industry. They should have found a way around all of that, and ensuring just compensation for people like White. Which might not have been all that much, considering the reality of his claims, and the fact that his original patent didn’t actually work all that well…
“(…)concept of “patent”(…)like Rollin White’s(…)”
I would say this one was rather… shady, even by standards of 19th century. If they would be fair and done actual prior search, said patent would never be accepted, due to Casimir Lefaucheux whose design did have such cylinder and would constitute prior art.
the whole purpose of “patents for invention” was revenue, it never had integrity
we therefore see H&k patenting the polygonal rifling that was used extensively by Charles Lancaster and probably others in the 19th century
David Carbine Williams’ floating chamber had already been patented in the united state, when Williams was 3 months old…
those are just two examples off the top of my head, there will be plenty of others
far from having omniscience of all human inventions, patent clerks can’t even search their own institutional archives reliably
but that isn’t the purpose of the institution
its purpose is to collect revenue
Vast majority of patents are NEVER realised on the market. Gullible inventors “wanna be millionaires” pay for nothing.
But tbh, many of the(se) patents are unnecessary and retarded.
Ian, the pronunciation Nazi here again: Zhubrovka is a drink, the gun maker is called ZBROYOVKA (= the Armory or Arsenal). Yes, I like them both, too, but it would behoove you rather to separate the two, for the sake of humanity 🙂
I seriously like this gun!
I love the thinking behind it, using the established basic of the Maxim / Vickers lock, but putting it on a standing breech. Beautiful.
There seems to be a very fundamental question though
what moves more reliably?
action parts that can be designed for that purpose, and run on oiled rails and slideways?
or a relatively fragile cartridge case that you have inherited rather than designed, and that’s design is primarily to form a container and a gas seal?
despite the beauty of this machine gun, perhaps it is better to have the action parts doing the moving and so far as possible, have the cartridges firmly held and controlled by their rims / extractor grooves?
“just rewards to inventers”
is there such a thing?
having the idea is not the difficult part especially compared to producing a profitably saleable product and gaining customer acceptance for it.
at the beginning of the 18th century, Savaray held the patent for “raising water from mines by means of fire”
his “miners friend” which used steam to directly displace water was neither safe nor effective
Newcommen, who developed the first actual self acting steam engine, and a practical tool for pumping mines and powering mills and works – the difficult part, had zero legal protection or right to the work of his mind and hands
Fortunately Newcommen and Savaray were able to become partners in the work.
savaray could easily have blocked newcommen, if he had been inclined to.
the next development of engines, converting reciprocating motion to rotary motion was blocked by a patent on the crank!
fortunately there was an inelegant work around of that patent with the sun and planet gearing.
bring those principles forward in time
it is perfectly conceivable that a dilettante could have patented “creating light by electrical heating”
without actually building a working light bulb.
such a patent would have blocked commercial use of the work by Eddison, Swann, Maxim etc
just rewards anyone?