Q&A 26: SHOT Show and More

More Q&A! No specific theme this time, but a combination of SHOT Show news, what-ifs, and some specific questions about me…

0:00:34 – SHOT Show Report
0:05:22 – 1895 Lee Navy destructive testing
0:07:40 – Opinion on the L85A2
0:09:25 – How did NATO adopt the 5.56x45mm?
0:11:32 – Cold War small arms: West vs Warsaw
0:13:38 – Flitelite belt-fed AR
0:15:21 – Fashion and art in guns
0:17:08 – Gun gadgets – folding Glocks, digital displays, etc
0:19:20 – Favorite gun from Project Lightening
0:20:21 – Why not more AK-based rifle designs
0:23:09 – The 9x39mm AK on the US market
0:26:16 – Aimpoint P1 ACRO
0:29:01 – Weird Lebel variations
0:31:12 – Why did Browning design semi-rimmed cartridges?
0:33:40 – Match gear: original or reproduction?
0:35:40 – Collections, factories, or museums with pre-CNC machine tools
0:38:35 – Better to keep or restore sporterized guns?
0:41:25 – What if the US had adopted the M1 in .276 Pedersen?
0:43:05 – Guns that are unintuitive to disassemble
0:43:57 – Imports of SSD reproduction guns form Germany
0:47:34 – Historical reenacting
0:49:24 – Cost and practicality of semiautomatic bolt rifle conversions
0:51:20 – VZ58 upgrades
0:52:05 – How do WWII submachine guns hold up compared to modern ones?
0:53:02 – Armament for powered exoskeletons
0:55:02 – Was the Lebel in use in the 1940 Battle of France?
0:56:31 – The US and military shotguns
0:57:37 – Specific tactics for the RSC and Chauchat in WW1
0:59:38 – Pro and con of 7.5mm Berthier and Lebel conversions
1:01:30 – What is the M16/AR15 had not been adopted?
1:02:24 – What rifle would I choose for the US Army in 1938?
1:05:14 – Is the comped red dot handgun a fad?
1:06:32 – Do I gable in Vegas?
1:07:25 – How did I become interested in gun history and engineering?
1:08:20 – What are my hobbies outside guns?
1:09:40 – What music do I like?
1:10:23 – Besides funding, what would I need to expand Forgotten Weapons?

46 Comments

  1. Loved the Krebs 9×39 proto, but it was built on an $1800 gun. 4 grand OTD would not surprise me. For a one-trick-pony.

  2. I observed that many gun-guys in U.S.A. have long,-or short-, beards, almost all wearing something on the head, and there is absolutely nothing personal on this remark.Is there a special reason to look like this,is it a monkey-like mimitism between them, or women have associated this look with the activity ? Until now i thought they prefered Cary Grant, and women need taking care of, like guns !
    Beards and hair can bother the action,… any action it might be ! Bolts through (feeding) lips…of the magazine, ejection… ports, etc !
    So, what for to keep the round in hand if there is no chamber to accept putting it in ? Serious gunsmithing problem…

      • Indigenous population yes, but on foreign military occupation force there, it just looks stupid.
        They are not fooling anyone in the long run.
        Wonder how they so far did not come also with an idea of making uniforms similar to their long dress alike robes, to end it up completely ludicrous.

    • The hat is generally for shade (shooting is an outdoor activity don’tchaknow?). Mr. GunsnGear is the only guy I know of off-hand that uses a brimless hat when shooting and I’m pretty sure he wears that more because of his hairstyle than anything.

      As for the beards, I’ve got no idea. Only instance I’ve got any idea of is that for American soldiers it’s a hearts and minds things in Muslim majority countries, but the ones allowed to do that are rarely in the US, just from it.

  3. i think Hudson will die. there is just no need for a newly engineered pistol these days. what can they really offer that hasn’t already been done and is worth the design time.

  4. Who needs a suppressed 9 x 39? But load that case with lighter and faster bullets, chamber it in a decent bolt action, and you have a whitetail-getter. And a fun iron for hobby shooting, too.

    • According to http://gunrf.ru/rg_patron_9x39_eng.html
      In the middle of 1980s a new type of special cartridges 9×39 with subsonic muzzle velocity was created in the USSR. The bullets were intended for silent sniper rifles and silent submachine gun designing at the time and later receiving the names such as VSS and AS. The new weapon was demanded not only by special operations reconnaissance and intelligence units but also special operations units of law enforcement agencies during special combatant urban operations.
      Heavy bullet of new cartridges has provided high lethality. At the same time the bullet with subsonic muzzle velocity did not give such dangerous ricochets quantity like conventional rifles and submachine guns bullets. A significant reduction of shot sound level provided by integrated silencer has increased comfort of weapons application in closed containers and facilities.

  5. Re: British use of shot guns.

    I’ve not seen evidence the British used extended mags on either their A5s or (later) 870s in Malaya or Borneo. They appear to have mostly used standard 28” barrel sporting guns, with buckshot. One assessment was that they were more effective than either the Sten or the Bren in fleeting jungle contacts. SOP was two quick shots per target. That said, shot guns were outnumbered by Stens and M1 carbines.

    A major later use for the shot gun is as a breacher. Tool, not weapon.

    The British kept shot guns in the arsenal, especially with higher end units, in small numbers ever since. Mostly 870s.

    During the Afghan conflict, the Army also acquired new semi-auto combat shotguns, the Benelli M4 Super 90, to augment the section’s close-in firepower against ambushes in towns and villages.

    • During the Rhodesian bush wars, the government contracted with Browning to build extended magazine tube (with extended wooden forearms) Browning A-5s. Here is a short writeup and some photos;https://modernserviceweapons.com/?p=2995
      There are some interesting Russian shotguns also. “The New World of Russian Small Arms and Ammo” by Charlie Cutshaw is some interesting reading on Russian small arms, including shotguns.
      Also, as much as I dislike using Wikipedia as a reference, here is a listing of Russian small arms, including shotguns, is use by mil/LEO/security forces https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_modern_Russian_small_arms_and_light_weapons

      • ” I dislike using Wikipedia as a reference”
        List your linked is certainly incomplete as it lacks 18,5 KS-K for description of Russian shotguns you might refer to Modern Firearms https://modernfirearms.net/en/shotguns/russia-shotguns/185-ks-k-eng/ although again this also does not contain entries for all Russian shotguns. Nonetheless note that:
        t in Russia there is no general tradition of police use of shotguns, and many SWAT-type law enforcement officers in Russia prefer assault rifles or submachine guns over shotguns. (from 18,5 KS-K entry)

  6. Maybe you could hire an assistant who helps you with research and video production to have more time for the more important stuff. But I don’t know if this would be ecologically worthwhile.

  7. “Flitelite belt-fed AR”
    This reminded me about SPU https://www.thefirearmblog.com/blog/2016/01/05/belt-fed-5-45/ turning RPK-74 into belt-fed without need of alteration of said RPK-74. It remained only prototype, as creating Rakov’s Gadget* for 5,45×39 cartridge proved to be impossible. Did Flitelite offers such device for putting cartridges in belts?

    *in Russian parlance it denote device that accept as input loose cartridge and give as output cartridge in belt. This https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=q1nbIXaBrLM should explain.

  8. “Why did Browning design semi-rimmed cartridges?”
    I must ask, maybe naive question: Did J.M.Browning designed cartridge he used personally? Or maybe he was given ready design around which to design automatic pistol (c.f. 9×18 Makarov cartridge which is NOT design of N.F.Makarov)? Or maybe part of “Browning” cartridges are his design, while other is not?

  9. “semi-rimmed cartridges”
    When you use single-stack box magazine holding few examples, semi-rimmed is nothing wrong, but when you want big-capacity box magazine rimless cartridge are generally easier to work with, than semi-rimmed.
    Examples:
    Kpist m/37 firing semi-rimmed 9 mm patron m/07 has “canted” magazine see 4th xor 5th image from top: http://www.gotavapen.se/gota/artiklar/kpist/kpistar_i_sverige2.htm while Kpist m/37-39 firing 9×19 cartridge has magazine at right angle.
    Samopal vz. 61 firing 7,65 mm Browning [.32 Auto] cartridge has banana magazine for 10 rounds, even if straight-wall nature of that cartridge would suggest usage of stick magazine.
    There exist .38 TJ derivative of .38 Super cartridge, which is technically still semi-rimmed, but with very small protruding and supposed to head-space at mouth. It is said to feed more reliable from double-stack magazines.
    That being said, it is possible to create working double-stack magazines for semi-rimmed cartridges (c.f. CZ 83 in 7,65 mm Browning) but its harder than for rimless cartridges.

  10. “.276 Pedersen”
    Actually this in terms of recoil impulse is closer to 7,62×39 than you might think.
    RECOIL IMPULSE OF CARTRIDGE is defined with following formula:
    (m*v + 1275*w)/g
    where m is bullet mass in kg, v is muzzle velocity in m/s, w is powder charge mass in kg and g is constant equal to 9,81.
    (from https://aleksey-lvov.livejournal.com/2558.html )

    Therefore recoil impulse of 7,62×39 (57-H-231C) according to data here: https://worldweapon.info/patron-762×39 roughly equals to 0.96 [assuming 710 m/s muzzle velocity]. I was unable to get full data of .276 cartridge but https://modernfirearms.net/en/military-rifles/self-loading-rifles/u-s-a-self-loading-rifles/pedersen-t1-eng/ gives 9,7 g bullet at 730 m/s, which might be roughly reverse-calculated using chart available there:
    https://forum.guns.ru/forummessage/13/1201119.html
    10 g bullet at 720 m/s gives about 1,05. From 610 mm barrel of T1 Pedersen, but less from shorter (carbine) barrel, so in fact it might give equal or even less recoil to AK if 415 mm barrel would be used.

    • Looking for more data I found: https://forum.cartridgecollectors.org/t/276-pedersen-discrepancies/14050
      it says that values of examined example were 125 gr and 31.7 gr of powder, muzzle velocity 2740 fps, which in formula-compliant units means 0,008 and 0,002 and 898,36, which lead to recoil roughly equal to 0.99 so it looks that, recoil impulses are roughly equal, so assuming that we have weapon of same mass, same shape and same Rate-of-Fire difference in felt recoil between these two cartridge would be negligible.

      • is: “(…)898,36(…)”
        should be: “(…)835,15(…)”
        And therefore:
        is: “(…)0.99(…)”
        should be: “(…)0.94(…)”
        Thus in turn .276 recoil impulse is already even bit smaller.
        Sentence about negligible difference still holds true.

        (side-note: damned wild non-metric system of measurements)

  11. “Cold War small arms: West vs Warsaw”
    I am not sure what does WEST mean there, so I assume it denotes Primal NATO Dozen.
    Assessment would differ not only at which point, but from distance at which shots are fired and which exactly member of WEST is examined.
    Generally as noted, before introduction of 5,56 Warsaw Pact armed with 7,62×39 weapons would have advantage at distance beyond sub-machine gun reach and below effective range limit of 7,62×39 but situation is not clear at lower range or bigger range.
    Anyway this reminded me about paper-pen game called Twilight 2000.

  12. “1:02:24 – What rifle would I choose for the US Army in 1938?”

    1) I’d have over-ruled MacArthur’s objections to the .276 Pedersen, had the original M1 Garand with 10-shot en-bloc clips issued as the standard rifle.
    2) I’d have ordered the BAR to be tweaked into a top-feed like the French LM1924/29 or phased out in favor of a .30-96 BESAL.

    3) If I spy could have divulged the plans and ongoing developments of the French held in deepest secrecy, the self-loading MAS-40 five-shot self-loader in .276 Pedersen or even .30-06 to suit MacArthur’s objection.

  13. “Re-enactment vs. cosplay shooting”

    I do both. Unfortunately, Ian is correct that a proper impression often entails changing hair styles as much as sartorial patterns. I’ve had to shave and adopt unsightly and uncomfortable hair styles… Neck beards… Weird side-burn things, clean shaven… It is a pain for certain time periods.
    Fortunately, adopting a Hispanic and/or Francophone “impression” allows one to continue to groom a moustache. Also some German impressions too… One could even go between a Wilhelmine German WWI “frontschwein” and a Revolutionary War Hessian mercenary impression with but the addition of a wig and mitre-type grenadier hat.

    Cosplay to see how the gear worked is done in North America by the N-SSA for Civil War skirmishing. I find this a lot of fun, but it is not as modern or “tactical” as the two-gun matches or run and gun events. Still, if one likes 19th century arms, the events afford one the opportunity to test all of the gear, with some exceptions. Also, Cowboy Action Shooting, although one needs two pistols, a shotgun and a rifle, which is a bit much compared to a three gun match.

Leave a Reply

Your email address will not be published.


*