July 19, 2006
Gun Pr0n.
Too much text. Need pics.
Everybody should have one of these.
What? You don't?
Reporting As Ordered, Sir! »
I won't dispute that I need one, but I have no idea what it is.
by
hdw on July 19, 2006 11:04 AM
Isn't that usually the case with you...?
8^D
by
John of Argghhh! on July 19, 2006 11:07 AM
Very pretty. Actually it looks mildly pressurised and more than a little ad hoc.
Maybe some kind of steam thing.
by
Trias on July 19, 2006 11:31 AM
"Isn't that usually the case with you...?"
Sadly true. I'm very good at what I do, but this isn't anything like what I do. Fun though.
You give me a bad time for my ignorance, but you let Trias' Maybe some kind of steam thing pass?
by
hdw on July 19, 2006 11:56 AM
Czech WWI era Choklit Gun! With aftermarket steam foamer attachment.
by
Bad Cat Robot on July 19, 2006 12:37 PM
Looks rather like a well-built pnuematic potato gun.
Mine's made out of PVC
by
KCSteve on July 19, 2006 01:08 PM
hdw - gimme a break - you were first, Trias chimed in after I went to have lunch with my Rotary District Governator... and you *are* the one always bewhinging your lackaknowledge!
And in some respects, you're all a *lot* close than you think, if BCR is a *touch* out there - I like her style!
It is pressurized - like that's giving something away.
It's compressed air - like that's giving something away.
It's like a spud gun, sorta - which *is* giving something away.
If it hadn't been stored so badly prior to my acquiring it, there are some among us who would be struck by the similarity of a certain vague feature to similar features on things with which they are familiar... which really isn't giving much away.
by
John of Argghhh! on July 19, 2006 01:51 PM
Sub-calibre compressed-air mortar trainer? I got to play with one once; they're fun...
by
Neffi on July 19, 2006 02:03 PM
Close Neffi. Close.
by
John of Argghhh! on July 19, 2006 02:14 PM
the heavy machine gun simulator attachment that always sounded too fake?? too much "Pop Pop" sounding.
by
MajMike on July 19, 2006 03:12 PM
MajMike - straying away from the near miss of Neffi. Compressed air, not a propane gun.
by
John of Argghhh! on July 19, 2006 03:16 PM
Someone said Propane Gun???
by
Boquisucio on July 19, 2006 07:26 PM
Paint gun?
by
Trias on July 20, 2006 04:22 AM
Can't sleep.
Okay, recoiless rifle?
by
ry on July 20, 2006 05:30 AM
« Dismissed, Soldier!
by
John
on
Jul 19, 2006
|
TrackBack (4)
»
The Politburo Diktat links with:
Show Trial #38
»
Online Dating Services links with:
Online Dating Services
»
Asian Sex links with:
Asian Sex
»
nzsgioxgw links with:
jratcsabi
July 12, 2006
Some tidying up of loose ends.
In case of Moonbats, break glass, and grab the Armorer's Cluebat! (Down, Denizennes, sheesh!) 32 inches Moonbat-thumping reach - with a nice, cannon-like touch to the, ahem, barrel of the piece.
Alrighty then, moving on. Remember this "Whatziss?"
Go below the fold, to the Flash Traffic/Extended Entry, and you can see it in context.
Flash Traffic (extended entry) Follows »
Reporting As Ordered, Sir! »
Ooooo! is that Red Oak 215, or Sedona Red 222 Wood Stain on The Castle Argghhh Cluebat?
by
Boquisucio on July 12, 2006 09:36 AM
Um, neither. It's fake mahogany. I'd hafta go grab the can.
I need to practice my gold-leafing skillz, too.
by
John of Argghhh! on July 12, 2006 09:59 AM
Nice looking AAD there John!
(Attitude Adjustment Device)
Don't worry about the gold leaf - a little operational activity and it will look like it was perfect. ;)
by
KCSteve on July 12, 2006 11:00 AM
32 inches, eh? I guess that trumps BillT's 27.
;-)
by
Were-Kitten on July 12, 2006 01:08 PM
Nice bat, John! I'd make one myself, but then the stately bannister of Outpost Neffi would fall down...
by
Neffi on July 12, 2006 01:22 PM
Hey, Home Depot for 12 bucks, something like that. Don't have to loot the digs man.
Geez, think outside da box whydoncha?
by
John of Argghhh! on July 12, 2006 01:32 PM
"In case of moonbats, break glass, grab the Armorer's Cluebat!"
Errr... won't we get in trouble with Beth if we do that, John?
*running away*
by
Cassandra on July 12, 2006 06:54 PM
Not if you follow the spirit of the caveat, Missy.
by
John of Argghhh! on July 12, 2006 07:12 PM
I'm sorry. A fog formed in front of my eyes when I read those words and...[fanning self] ah'm afraid ah just didn't read any furthah!
by
Cassandra on July 13, 2006 03:52 PM
I'm sorry. A fog formed in front of my eyes when I read those words and...[fanning self] ah'm afraid ah just didn't read any furthah!
by
Cassandra on July 13, 2006 03:53 PM
« Dismissed, Soldier!
July 11, 2006
Whatziss?
Toldja I'd have some Gun Pr0n for you guys.
It had a specific purpose and a specific name. And following John's lead, I'm only part of it--but it's the important part and you guys can probably intuit the rest...
Sooo--Whatziss?
I gotta go build a hill in the daylily patch. See everybody later...
Reporting As Ordered, Sir! »
Zamfir's Pan Flute! LOL
by
fdcol63 on July 11, 2006 07:22 AM
Civil war volley gun?
by
hdw on July 11, 2006 07:34 AM
gun storage cabinet?
by
Trias on July 11, 2006 07:39 AM
My first thought was the Billingshurst-Requa volley gun, but I've never seen one with only 8 barrels - and that one actually looks older than Civil War, though condition can be deceiving.
by
John of Argghhh! on July 11, 2006 07:52 AM
Australian prototype for the Metal Storm.
by
MajMike on July 11, 2006 08:03 AM
Oddly enough, my first thought was the Billingshurst-Requa too, but I figure that was too narrow of a guess, especially since my guesses are usually wildly inaccurate. Apparently I'm improving. Possibly wrong, but at least in better company.
by
hdw on July 11, 2006 08:13 AM
speed loader for a Jarre Harmonica pistol?
by
MajMike on July 11, 2006 08:17 AM
An antique!
by
Beth on July 11, 2006 08:45 AM
A prop from one of the Lone Wolf and Cub Movies?
by
Mythilt on July 11, 2006 09:11 AM
It reminds me of the hwacha. Perhaps it's some kind of multiple mini rocket launcher.
by
Trias on July 11, 2006 09:55 AM
It's a model 1863 rocket pod for a Confederate attack balloon.
by
Eric Wilner on July 11, 2006 10:29 AM
Okay - I say it's older than Civil War, and is a European Ribaudequin, in this form a volleygun, possibly with pikes attached, and probably ought to be on a wheeled carriage.
Or something like that.
by
John of Argghhh! on July 11, 2006 11:01 AM
An ancient Hoffman/ECM deivce, attached to the rump of war horses (facing to the rear of course)...
Or a signal flag holder for mongolian light infantry...
by
SangerM on July 11, 2006 12:57 PM
Cross section of Ted Kennedy's brain?
by
Draftee on July 11, 2006 01:45 PM
"Cross section of Ted Kennedy's brain?"
That would agree with John's guess of older than the Civil War!
by
hdw on July 11, 2006 03:14 PM
Some sort of volley gun or "market gun" or "punt gun" probably used for shooting waterfowl at rest.
Note that the barrels are oriented with slightly diverging pattern. Barrels may be U.S. M1841 Mississippi or M1816 flintlocks with some converted to percussion. These two are the most likely to be found with rear sights only on some of the barrels (note dovetails about 5" up on 2 of them). In use these were individually loaded from the muzzle, and then a powder train laid across the breeched between the wooden strips.
The Billinghurst Requea volley gun was somewhat similar but used breech loaded cartridges with sort of a piano hinge type strip to expedite loading. Nifty toy!
by
John S. on July 11, 2006 04:10 PM
Well seein as how I have no idea what this multishot lipstick dispenser is .... I will refrain from treating in like a caption contest just this once.
by
jim b on July 11, 2006 04:59 PM
*draggin' tail in from 94F at 96% humidity*
John's got it! It's one of those homemade zip long guns the Chesapeake hunters made from old shotguns or lengths of steam pipe, and used right up until the 1920s. Black powder, loaded on land and fired from a punt, then reloaded on land, cuz the blamed thing weighs over a hundred pounds. Thirty birds at a pop was considered average shooting.
More pix tomorrah. If I live through tonight...
by
cw4(ret)billt on July 11, 2006 06:18 PM
%$#@!
Back out into the heat 'n' humidity. Could be worse--it might be Arizona, with velvet ants trying to skitter into my boots.
But it's okay, because they have a *dry* sting...
by
cw4(ret)billt on July 11, 2006 06:27 PM
And by John, sigh, he doesn't mean me, he means the land-locked sailor boy gun dealer John.
*sniff*
by
John of Argghhh! on July 11, 2006 07:45 PM
« Dismissed, Soldier!
by
CW4BillT
on
Jul 11, 2006
June 21, 2006
Continuing the theme.
Mr. Pogue can no longer play in this round. He's too good!
MajMike gave me a start, when he started out with "collimating valometer..."
If he'd just substituted sight or instrument for valometer, he'd have been the winnah!
But Pogue got it mostly correct. A collimator. He said an early one, but it's actually the current Russian one (though this particular one was made in the Soviet era.) With guys like Pogue playing, and Frank, you'll understand why I didn't put up this picture. Of a US collimator. That would have been waaaay too easy for US Redlegs to get.
If you haven't figured it out yet, the theme this week (and into the next if it takes that long) is "Indirect Fire, How *Do* They Do That!?!" We're introducing most of the major components to get us there from the perspective of the guns. We've already met the Aiming Circle, used to "establish a common direction" i.e., get everybody pointing in the same direction. There are three components to that at the gun level. The aiming circle, the panoramic telescope (the gun's sight) and the Distant Aiming Point.
Let's face it. Infantry sucks. They have rifles, machine guns, hand grenades, and sometimes they stick sharp pointy things on their rifles (we know my problem with *that*!), and alla time they are wanting to sulkily sit around on terrain you'd just as soon they not squat on. They're uncouth, foul-mouthed, and smelly. And generally pissed off. But, if you want to keep them off your terrain, or get back the terrain they already befoul, you've got to deal with them, like any other pest.
But there's no need to actually get *near* them to do this. That's what your own infantry is for. No, you don't want to get near that many troglodytes all crammed into a small space - but that doesn't mean you can't enjoy some nice target shooting. From a distance. With a terrain feature between you and them. Unlike the other arms (whom we love like brothers, I assure you) we artillerymen can actually hit things we can't see, and generally on purpose, too. Oh, sometimes we miss, but that's usually because a Lieutenant, of almost any branch, is involved. And besides, if they're tankers, who cares? That's what 'open protective' is for, right?
So, lets discuss the bits and pieces of how we Kings of Battle keep the Queen in Drag.
And, if you're still here and not ready to kill yourself - go behind the curtain to the Flash Traffic/Extended Entry, where this edition of Gun Pr0n will continue.
Flash Traffic (extended entry) Follows »
Usetabe, back in the early days, you literally selected a distant aiming point, a readily-identifiable spot that all the guns could see, which was far enough away that all the guns had *effectively* a parallel (to each other) sight line. There are obvious problems to that, not the least of which is night time, not too mention terrain. So, very quickly, aiming posts were developed. Once the guns were laid, crews put out aiming posts, two of them, one behind the other, to act as an aiming reference point.
Again, problems with terrain, vegetation, fog, rain, etc - and especially camouflage nets, made that a problem.
Hence, the collimator. The collimator optically simulates a distant aiming point, but can be put right next to the gun - under the camouflage nets. Some, like the US version, have their own light source to illuminate the collimator so you can read the reticle inside. Others, like the russian one - have the mirror, which saves batteries in daylight by allowing you to use ambient light better. Getting an in-focus picture of the sight picture proved beyond my talents, but here is what the russian collimator looks like through the pantel (artillery-speak for panoramic telescope). The picture at the top of the post is a view of the US collimator - and since my light source doesn't work - you can see why that mirror is useful!
If I were a better photog, you'd see something like this:
Without going into excruciating detail (I've been told - as recently as lunch yesterday, that I sometimes provide a mind-numbing who-gives-a-flying-fark amount of detail - tough noogies, that's what the scroll bars are for!) the way this all works is the gunner gets the deflection (direction to point the gun) from the Fire Direction Center, sets that number on his sight, then, looking through the sight, traverses the gun until his sight-picture looks like what you see there - when he's done that, his tube is pointed towards the target (not *at* it, but close - but that's another whole series of posts!). We'll leave it at that. You want more detail, enlist in the artillery.
For that to all be accurate, and *fast* in setup, is the purpose of all those fiddly bits Trias was interested in yesterday. There is a sight, so that the cannoneer can literally aim the collimator at the gun's sight, and a level, so that the collimator is level horizontally though the trunnions - that keeps the reticle pattern vertical. There is a way for the gunner to visually interpolate if he has to - but the whole purpose of crew drill is to get it right the first time, every time, so the gunner doesn't *have* to interpolate the sight picture.
That's enough for the day. Soon, we will be moving to the Castle Inner Bailey and tie it all together.
« Secure this line!
Reporting As Ordered, Sir! »
"... can actually hit at things we can't see ..." Close enough is enough.
"... generally on purpose ..." That's what we tell the General.
"... if they're tankers, who cares?" They don't; when their MPI is a Grid Square, closing one's hatches will suffice.
Cheers
by
J.M. Heinrichs on June 21, 2006 11:55 AM
Ah, but John - that's why we developed MLRS and ATACM - so we can just blanket the grid square.
by
John of Argghhh! on June 21, 2006 01:24 PM
All this is true, to be sure... Artillery is indeed an ancient and venerable calling (I'll bet that you remember the first time you, Og, and Mog figured out how to lob a large rock at that pesky T-Rex, eh John?)
But 'tis difficult to fire them big muthas when the grunts keep stealing the firing lanyards because they ran out of rope...
...And it's even harder to fire them big muthas when a bunch of grunts from the wrong side of the tracks is in the neighborhood... (Unless we're Marine Artillery, who are first and foremost riflemen, and just going through a phase where they feel the need to butress their illusions of manhood by shooting big guns in what they perceive is compensation for their own shortcomings, kinda like a mid-life crisis, except substitute the Porche for an M-198 155mm... We have high hopes that they will get over it soon...)
And grunts talk to airplanes and helicopters too...
Why dirty up your rifle when you can have your own fireworks show?
*grin, innocent look*
What?
by
Sgt. B. on June 21, 2006 01:36 PM
arty terms translated:
"suppression" = "oops, missed again!"
by
MajMike on June 21, 2006 03:34 PM
Nah, we never say "oops".
We just say "Left 1000 add 1000 repeat, over."
Of course, we also do this for our helicopetering and otherwise lost terrestrial friends...
"Mark center of sector, out." when yer lost and seeking guidance. We were wasting so much WP doing that they developed GPS since it was obviously hopeless trying to teach you guys to read maps.
by
John of Argghhh! on June 21, 2006 04:33 PM
Only 'cause they gave the maps to the Lieutenants...
We didn't mind walking around out there; plenty of sun, lots of ammo, the occassional helo ride, and we knew that we'd get stuck burning out four-holers if we got back through the wire too early...
by
Sgt. B. on June 21, 2006 05:13 PM
who's been burning shitters?
by
goesh on June 22, 2006 09:41 AM
« Dismissed, Soldier!
March 21, 2006
Is this not cool?
Night color shot of a Destroyer of Task Force18 bombarding Kalombangara and New Georgia Islands. Woo-hoo! Get some, sailors!
Reporting As Ordered, Sir! »
Looks like a Fletcher-class. The O'Bannon, maybe?
by
cw4(ret)billt on March 21, 2006 01:51 PM
No offense, but this isn't exactly what a sailor means when he says he's gonna "get some" :-D
by
Harvey on March 21, 2006 08:19 PM
Show's how little you understand sailors and the mutable qualitys of that Angle Saxon (sic) fricative.
by
John of Argghhh! on March 22, 2006 04:54 AM
Naval Gunfire Support is a wonderful thing!
by
Mr Free Market on March 22, 2006 05:39 AM
« Dismissed, Soldier!
March 18, 2006
Gunner Zen
Kinda looks like a bottle-filling machine, doesn't it?
It's a 6inch Gun Magazine on the HMS Belfast.
If your soul calls for a bigger pic, click here.
Here's the shell hoist to the turret, a different view of the magazine (essentially the other side). All that to feed this:
Again, if you needa big pic - click here.
As compared to the magazine of an Iowa-class BB... in this case, the Iowa. Need some sense of scale?
All *that* to feed this:
Reporting As Ordered, Sir! »
Nice pics. The Belfast's mag seems to be almost surgical-theatre clean (probably because everything's automated and there's no need for those human-type thingies to be cluttering up the place).
But a question. What's with the wooden slats, seen bottom right on the first pic, and right side and along the back wall (er, I mean bulkhead) in the alternate view? They appear to be removable from the metal stanchions framing them, and the symmetrical notches at either end seem to have a purpose. But what is it?
Can someone of the maritime persuation enlighten this poor dolt? Many thanks.
by
Doug on March 18, 2006 09:43 AM
i suppose you think this makes up for posting that Stryker photo and calling that Armor pr0n??
well, maybe it does! i'll think about it.
by
MajMike on March 18, 2006 01:36 PM
Looks like high class dunnage for the powdercans or the equivilant. In the Poncho's (AO-148) they were painted. Holds the powdercans tightly in the racks.
by
Old Fat Sailor on March 18, 2006 06:42 PM
Looks like high class dunnage for the powdercans or the equivilant. In the Poncho's (AO-148) they were painted. Holds the powdercans tightly in the racks.
by
Old Fat Sailor on March 18, 2006 06:43 PM
« Dismissed, Soldier!
March 16, 2006
Whatizzit?
Okay, time for another "Whatizzit?" If I can keep it up, this might become a weekly schtick.
Up for your snipe hunt today is a really obscure and the Internet pickin's are slim. BIG CRED to anyone who gets it - with one possible exception, in a sense. If you served in the branches of the right armed force at the right time - you might well recognize it.
Two versions, same purpose. Two rounds of ammunition. On the left, the round and the casing. On the right, the round (different version) in the casing. In the center, a .38 caliber pistol round, in the foreground, a 1 Pound coin. I'm being nice and giving you a size context!
Much credit for figuring out the probable purpose, Full Gonzo Credit if you can fully identify it. This is Real Grognard Stuff - unless you served in the branches of the right armed force at the right time.
Another view - also an important clue there - and the round on the right is similar.
Higher-res view - not that it will make that much difference, available here.
I'll put up hints as needed.
Mike L, Jim C., and Pete K. are *not* eligible to play, since I did a show and tell at work yesterday.
I tell ya, it's great to work someplace relaxed enough that when you tell your boss "I brought some grenades to work today!" their response is "Kewl! Show me!" rather than carefully backing away and calling Security... I wouldn't want to work in a place like the latter! Oh, and the grenades@work were on Tuesday, not yesterday. Just in case you were scratching your head trying to figure out how those things were big enough to be grenades. They aren't.
Now, after all that build-up, watch someone sail in and nail it early.
Update. Okay. Here's a hint that should seal the deal.
Reporting As Ordered, Sir! »
Didn't want you to think I'd missed this edition. I'll be back with a guess... I actually have a clue this time.
by
High Desert Wanderer on March 16, 2006 08:05 AM
If you guys are waiting for me to solve this it's going to be a while, this isn't exactly my area of expertise.
by
High Desert Wanderer on March 16, 2006 09:31 AM
But, but, you *said* you had an idea! 8^)
by
John of Argghhh! on March 16, 2006 09:35 AM
No, he said he had a clue, which is not the same. Moreover, you assume his clue has something to do with the quiz, whereas he indicates that he will be using a guess in that role.
Cheers
JMH
by
J.M. Heinrichs on March 16, 2006 10:27 AM
I was initially going to say they looked like ammuniton for the Russian-designed AGS-17 Plamya automatic grenade launcher. But the dimensions and the proportions are wrong for that, so I'd have to guess we're looking at something designed to be fired from a 25mm flare pistol or a similar full-stocked weapon such as police forces use to fire gas projectiles and rubber bullets.
That's not an area of ordnance where I have much knowledge, so I'll leave a more detailed guess up to those more expert than I.
by
Blake Kirk on March 16, 2006 10:27 AM
John - thank you *ever* so much for your guidance...
Blake. Nope.
by
John of Argghhh! on March 16, 2006 10:36 AM
It looks very similar to a Dutch 20x22R spotting round, at this link:
http://www.quarry.nildram.co.uk/Spotter.jpg
by
fdcol63 on March 16, 2006 11:01 AM
I haven't jumped on at least one, John, because I already have an Ithaca 1911A1...and the Mrs doesn't quite buy the "But dear, this one was made by different people" line. Yet.
That, and the fact that I'm in Yakistan, while she's stuck on home with a hyper 2 year old (actually, that's redundant, isn't it?) and an attention hoggin 2 month old. I got the easy end of the TDY.
by
Heartless Libertarian on March 16, 2006 11:26 AM
Frank shoots and scores! But it's only a 2-pointer. Spotter round for... what?
by
John of Argghhh! on March 16, 2006 11:39 AM
Well, I'd say a spotter round for field artillery. But are you looking for something more specific? LOL
by
fdcol63 on March 16, 2006 12:27 PM
Yes, I am. I hate to put up the visual hint, everybody will jump right on it.
But it *isn't* an indirect fire system spotter round.
by
John of Argghhh! on March 16, 2006 12:34 PM
BTW, HDW - what *is* your area of expertise? Mebbe I can find something in the genre...
by
John of Argghhh! on March 16, 2006 12:36 PM
Oh. I thought it was something similar to those 14.5mm spotting rounds we used to use at the LTA in Zirndorf, where we affixed the 14.5mm tube on top of the M109 tube, for "direct fire" training.
I remember a round was accidentally fired into someone's apartment that bordered the LTA. LOL
by
fdcol63 on March 16, 2006 12:51 PM
Oh. I thought it was something similar to those 14.5mm spotting rounds we used to use at the LTA in Zirndorf, where we affixed the 14.5mm tube on top of the M109 tube, for "direct fire" training.
I remember a round was accidentally fired into someone's apartment that bordered the LTA. LOL
by
fdcol63 on March 16, 2006 12:52 PM
That was Charlie Battery! I remember that.
The 14.5 round (which is where I thought you were going) is actually the one to the left of the round in the pic you found (I *did* say the Internet pickins' were slim!).
by
John of Argghhh! on March 16, 2006 01:20 PM
Hmmmm - Didn't know that the Coon-Capped Peashoother required a bi-chambered spotting cartridge to find its mark.
by
Boquisucio on March 16, 2006 02:02 PM
I swear it wasn't MY gun! LOL
by
fdcol63 on March 16, 2006 02:19 PM
How 'bout a training spotting round for the LAW, rather then waste a live one. This is entirely WAG on my part
by
Rod Thorsen on March 16, 2006 11:52 PM
But it's a correct WAG, Rod. The puzzle is now complete, once again, a team effort!
by
John of Argghhh! on March 17, 2006 05:23 AM
Rod, thanks for filling in the missing piece.
by
fdcol63 on March 17, 2006 07:03 AM
A spotting round for the LAW? Geez, that's about as useful as a gun camera on a Huey.
Must have been fairly early in the M72's development process, cuz we were training with the cute li'l 35mm subcaliber rocket in '68. Max range was only 200m and you had a 50/50 chance of hitting the broad side of a barn with it.
Which replicates the full-up round perfectly, I'm told...
by
cw4(ret)billt on March 17, 2006 07:39 AM
man... i was going down that line of inquiry, but got thrown off by the look of the round on the left.
ain't those rifling marks down the side??
by
MajMike on March 17, 2006 08:53 AM
I thought the letters "LAW" were just TOO obvious. LOL
by
fdcol63 on March 17, 2006 09:01 AM
Yes, they are. It's not a rocket, it's a tracer, and fired from a sub-caliber rifle inserted in the LAW. The brass one on the right has two rotating bands, engraved from having been fired.
by
John of Argghhh! on March 17, 2006 09:05 AM
21mm Trainer for M72 LAW manufactured by Nordic Ammunition Company of Norway. This one? 'Though the one in your photo seems larger.
by
Rod Thorsen on March 17, 2006 09:35 AM
There are two different ones in there, Rod, both different sizes and materials.
by
John of Argghhh! on March 17, 2006 09:42 AM
I found what Rod was referring to - and no, it isn't that.
That's a rocket system.
Go to page 25 of the document.
The rounds I have date from the late 60's and came out of England.
I find it amusing that this document makes it sound like they found this wonderful new thing... when we *used* to have subcaliber LAW training rockets. I know, I fired a *lot* of them. Yes, I volunteered to run every range that came along when I was a Lieutenant. I got to shoot lots of stuff that way.
by
John of Argghhh! on March 17, 2006 09:53 AM
Couldn't get past the google results page. Just kept getting "permission denied". Oh well, just let this be a lesson to the kids out there, too much, but not enough, research always leads to meaningless confusion and increased fog. Sigh.
by
Rod Thorsen on March 17, 2006 10:05 AM
« Dismissed, Soldier!
March 09, 2006
Yesterday's "Whatizzit?"
As Neffi pointed out correctly, and Toluca Nole researched for you, was a replica 'Hand Gonne," recently acquired for the Arsenal.
The key bit of data I deliberately obscured was this - the touchhole. It would have made it *much* too easy.
The key clue, after stating replica and better materials - was the fact that it was open at both ends... but not a tube.
It has a socket, where the pole that served as a stock on the earliest guns, was inserted. And this represents a leap forward in some respects from the earlier practice of binding them to the stock... though, in the end, we have in many respects returned to that method, once we figured out all the ergonomics, at least with bolt guns.
Reporting As Ordered, Sir! »
... when Artillery Technology was at its peak ...
Cheers
JMH
by
J.M. Heinrichs on March 9, 2006 12:55 PM
Naaah, John. We peaked in WWI. It's been an ever-accelerating slide to obscurity since.
by
John of Argghhh! on March 9, 2006 01:24 PM
« Dismissed, Soldier!
March 08, 2006
What is it?
JMH will *hate* this.
One of the more recent acquistions for the Arsenal. Appropriate to the collection.
Any takers?
Update: We need a hint. This is a toughie - I deliberately took the pic minus a key piece of data (which would have made it waaaay to easy for you grognards - I know you want a challenge).
Length: Approximately 9 inches/22.8 cm/0.001136 furlongs/0.7544 shyaku/6.858 cun. Diameter: Approximately 1.5 inches/3.8 cm/0.0001894 furlongs/0.1257 shyaku/1.143 cun. That gives you a sense of scale. Material: Steel.
Update: Time for another hint. It's a reproduction, not an orginal. And made of much better material than the original. It's open at both ends, but is *not* a tube.
Reporting As Ordered, Sir! »
That looks like one of them whistles that would signal to everyone to go over the trench.
by
Boquisucio on March 8, 2006 09:33 AM
Good guess! Wrong - but good nonetheless!
by
John of Argghhh! on March 8, 2006 09:37 AM
Locking pin of some sort... armor shield to MG?
by
Neffi on March 8, 2006 09:39 AM
Not a clue, but now I'm stuck here waiting for someone to get it right. I knew I shouldn't have checked your RSS feed this morning.
by
High Desert Wanderer on March 8, 2006 09:47 AM
Another good guess! But not right.
by
John of Argghhh! on March 8, 2006 09:48 AM
HDW - snerk!
by
John of Argghhh! on March 8, 2006 09:51 AM
JMH gonna hate it... hmmmmm... sub-calibre insert for the Inglis HP?
by
Neffi on March 8, 2006 10:13 AM
Gas piston for a Lewis gun.
It's a bummer when ya gotta field strip one of those things in flight...
by
cw4(ret)billt on March 8, 2006 10:26 AM
Ooooh. I wish I had a Lewis! Shoot, I can't even afford one of these!
by
John of Argghhh! on March 8, 2006 10:47 AM
OH! Well, now it's too easy... the dimensions in shyaku are a dead give-away. But I'll keep my piece and see if *anyone else* can twig it.
(quick swig from flask of cheap brandy)
by
Neffi on March 8, 2006 02:18 PM
Piece of an electric firing pin?
by
Rod Thorsen on March 8, 2006 02:21 PM
Breech Ring Firing Circuit Transfer Rod.
Cheers
JMH
by
J.M. Heinrichs on March 8, 2006 02:30 PM
Neffi - that was pure BS. Everybody else, good work, thank you for playing.
Time for another hint.
by
John of Argghhh! on March 8, 2006 02:42 PM
9 inches tall, inch and a half across steel cylindar reproduction open at both ends but not a tube.
A Klingon Jigger?
by
Masked Menace© on March 8, 2006 03:02 PM
You're right, John (sigh). In fact, it was the furlongs that gave it away.
Hand gonne?
Powder measure?
by
Neffi on March 8, 2006 03:07 PM
Oooh. I like that. And, after I reveal what it is... I think Klingon would be cool with it, too!
by
John of Argghhh! on March 8, 2006 03:23 PM
Bingo! Neffi Shoots! He Scores!
Hand Gonne - which a Klingon would probably approve of as a manly jigger.
I just hid the touch-hole. I haven't made a handle for it yet.
by
John of Argghhh! on March 8, 2006 03:24 PM
Man, why am I always the LAST to find out there's a new WHAZZIT thing up? LOL
I was **THIS** close to finding out what the Diakonoff grenade was when Boquisucio beat us to it. Why, if I'd only had another couple of hours, I would have finally abandoned the wrong trail I was on in the WW1/British direction! LOL
Keep up the fun, John!
by
fdcol63 on March 8, 2006 03:43 PM
Next time my wife comments about my penchant for collecting odd things I'll have to refer her to you.
by
High Desert Wanderer on March 8, 2006 03:47 PM
Ah, yes, the "Look dear, here's someone weirder than me!" schtick. Just another service of Castle Argghhh! Inc.
by
John of Argghhh! on March 8, 2006 04:54 PM
Thanks J. M., I'm not an arty type
by
Rod Thorsen on March 8, 2006 05:21 PM
I was thinking along the lines of "I realize a twelfth hammer seems a little excessive dear, but it's not like I'm asking for a Hand Gonne for God's sake."
by
High Desert Wanderer on March 8, 2006 06:53 PM
Just show her my CDR Salamander snark from yesterday, point out that *all* of that and more is in the basement of the Castle and show her what a bargain she has in you.
Then tell her that SWWBO bought me the Vickers *before* we were married, and the Maxim *after* we were married.
Well, maybe not. Her head might explode...
by
John of Argghhh! on March 8, 2006 07:02 PM
I'm learnin' stuff.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Gonne
by
Toluca Nole on March 8, 2006 08:02 PM
Rod, you wound me grievously: I was using Tanker Talk!
Cheers
JMH
by
J.M. Heinrichs on March 8, 2006 09:54 PM
Ouch, J. M. you've busted me!!!! The hand gonne looked like it might be the outer sleeve to the whatjacalledit. I'd always known it as the electric firing pin, IMSC. The inner part looked like a firing pin with a firing pin type action anyway.
by
Rod Thorsen on March 8, 2006 10:10 PM
Is it a commercially available reproduction, and if so how can I get one?
If not I'll just have to take a 6-pack of Frosty Barley-Soda to my neighbor the machinist.
by
Kevin K on March 9, 2006 08:56 AM
Your local machinist is your best bet... well, wait, while that's true, so is this.
The Rifle Shoppe.
The Armorer will be sending custom their way, too.
by
John of Argghhh! on March 9, 2006 09:01 AM
« Dismissed, Soldier!
March 07, 2006
Snark me, eh? Really?
CDR Salamander has been watching Brit TV, and claims he found out what I *really* do for a living.
Heh. If I told you what I really do for a living, I'd have to cut your head off and put it in classified storage. You wouldn't like that. It's dark in the safe, and smells funny because of the stuff they put in there to keep the mold down.
Nah, Salamander... if I was in that bidniz, it would go more like this...
*Ahem, koff, koff*
[smarmy announcer/telemarketer/car salesguy voice]
Taking down a small country? Annoying neighbors? Revenooers snooping around the still? The Arsenal At Argghhhh! has all your pest-control needs in one stop!*
Aside from the usual selection of Small Arms, we also have a nice selection of Crew Served Weapons to choose from!
We have an extensive selection of spare parts! We service what we sell!
Need to recon that target, without getting your head shot off - we can help!
Gotta get through some wire to get to the bad guy? We've got your stuff. Worried about pursuit after dirty deeds done cheap? We can help! We've got stuff to get you in, stuff to knock 'em on the head quietly, and stuff to slow up the pursuit! All in one neat package!
Got people snooping by whatever it is you'd rather they not find? Got a defensive position you need a little coverage in the dead space for? Concerned about detectability? We have a whole selection of anti-personnel mines to choose from. Anti-armor mines by appointment only, please.
Need to be able to reach out and touch someone? Especially people who hide behind stuff so you can't just shoot them straight up? We have a wide selection of medium and light mortars to choose from, with a wide range of ammo choices!
Need help with data computation? We've got you covered there, too!
So, bit off a bit more than you can chew? Need some help with bunkers and armored vehicles? We've got a large selection of recoiless rifles and rocket launchers, and RPG systems that can meet your every need!
And don't let us forget our extensive grenade selection!
Need some extra reinforcement for that basement bunker? We got it. Have a mess of troops to mess? We got it!
And for you, CDR Salamander, today only - a special deal for the Naval Infantry! Straight from MoD stocks - the staple of Brit boarding parties for many years - the Lanchester!
With bayonets!
So, call me. We'll do lunch.
[/smarmy announcer/telemarketer/car salesguy voice]
Oh, and, as usual. The Standard Disclaimers apply.
Flash Traffic (extended entry) Follows »
*Must be of 18 or of legal age in your locality (whichever is higher). Not responsible for mis-use of products. Improper use of Arsenal At Argghhh! products may be injurious to your health, consult with your legal adviser before continuing. Other rules and regulations may apply, no warranty, expressed or implied is provided, unless required by whatever asinine Borg collective you reside in - which prolly won't let you have any of these toys anyway. The Arsenal At Argghhh! does not promote the overthrow of small or large nations without written permission from your mother. Other rules and regulations for dealing with your neighbors or inlaws may apply.
« Secure this line!
Reporting As Ordered, Sir! »
Tsk, tsk. A pink shirt clashes a bit with an AK-47.
by
seawitch on March 7, 2006 08:27 AM
My my my; dat folding stock T-56 goes great with your Mauve Oxford Shirt. Wonder what's the tread count on it.
by
Boquisucio on March 7, 2006 08:44 AM
Heh. Sticking a bayonet on a Lanchester's kinda like sticking one on a Webley, ain't it?
by
cw4(ret)billt on March 7, 2006 08:47 AM
'Other rules and regulations for dealing with your neighbors or inlaws may apply'. Now you're just teasing. I would so love to haul out a nice piece the next time my inlaws come over. Oooooh. Say it again. Mufasa.
by
ry on March 7, 2006 09:13 AM
Bill - like this?
by
John of Argghhh! on March 7, 2006 09:27 AM
Ry - bring them and Jess and come visit...
We'll take 'em shooting. They'll convert to the Dark Side.
by
John of Argghhh! on March 7, 2006 09:28 AM
The Home Shootin' Channel - Hmmmm. No wonder my business SUX at this time. I should get me myself a Nom de Télévision (like Postal BOQ), slap on a Puffy Chartreuse Shirt, and start flogging them T-56´s on TV. I bet I can move a containerload in no time.
THANX BOSS!
by
Boquisucio on March 7, 2006 09:31 AM
John,
I've got a Webley Mark IV, evidently a depot-level rebuild from the markings, and it has a 4" barrel rather than the more common 6". It's a nice piece, and the wife used it to shoot a running raccoon a few years back. One shot, just under the left shoulder-blade as it was trying to E&E away from the back porch where it had been pillaging the bin in which we store the cat food.
Between the guns and the knives and the swords around our place, it's a good thing that we don't argue much.
But that bayonet is just WRONG.
WRONG, WRONG, WRONG!
by
Blake Kirk on March 7, 2006 09:55 AM
Oh, and if anyone *has* a Webley bayonet sitting around they don't need anymore... the Castle Webley would *love* to accessorize!
by
John of Argghhh! on March 7, 2006 09:58 AM
Erm, aren't you on a strict no-bayonet diet? Due to aggravated blood loss and causing visual trauma to law enforcement officers?
by
Bad Cat Robot on March 7, 2006 10:20 AM
Ba-da-bum (rimshot)!
by
John of Argghhh! on March 7, 2006 10:24 AM
Ry......
MUFASA
*grin*
gawd... I love that movie. I know... I'm a Disney Dork.
by
AFSister on March 7, 2006 10:46 AM
I'm with BCR, John. Given your history with pointy objects, you should avoid even talking about them. Stick to firearms and explosives - much less dangerous. ;)
by
Damian on March 7, 2006 11:20 AM
*sound of cymbals*
by
John of Argghhh! on March 7, 2006 11:27 AM
Don't you mean *sound of ambulance sirens*???
by
AFSister on March 7, 2006 11:40 AM
Atleast there are no offending Beets anywhere near.
by
Boquisucio on March 7, 2006 11:57 AM
Now now- lets not be dissing the bladed stuff. The P1907 bayonet on a Lanchester is every bit as intimidating as the M1917 bayo on a M97 trench-gun- and really serves as a warning to any miscreant getting a frontal view of same... have a look sometime; then come back and qvetch!
Harrumph
by
Neffi on March 7, 2006 12:02 PM
I knew that the way that this thread was going, it was bound to get Neff's shorts all in a bunch.
by
Boquisucio on March 7, 2006 12:07 PM
It was the beets, Boq- the very thought of the Evil Purple Root makes me wanna fix bayonet. Thrusting practice is the highest possible use fer 'em...
by
Neffi on March 7, 2006 12:42 PM
"Thrusting practice is the highest possible use for 'em"
*sigh*
Thrusting practice.
*sigh*
by
Were-Kitten on March 7, 2006 12:54 PM
ummm.... if yer mind is where I think it is WK, I would suggest you shop elsewhere in the produce section...
*WHAT?!* Jus' trying to be helpful... sheesh
by
Neffi on March 7, 2006 01:19 PM
With a BEET? Is there no limit to your perversions?
That's it, I'm shutting down the PG-17 for maintenance ...
by
Bad Cat Robot on March 7, 2006 01:21 PM
BCR, if I follow this thread (and I'm not entirely sure I do, then the beet is the thrustee, not the thruster.
And for some reason that feels like the dirtiest sentence I've ever written here.
*taking a shower to get rid of that icky feeling*
by
FbL on March 7, 2006 01:39 PM
It would likely have been carried by officers only.
No comment.
Nope, none whatsoever.
Not a whit.
Soooooooo not commenting on that.
Heh.
by
cw4(ret)billt on March 7, 2006 01:41 PM
And for some reason that feels like the dirtiest sentence I've ever written here
Now Lioness, don't be so modest... or perhaps merely forgetful? You didn't come by your Castle nickname lightly, you know...
by
Neffi on March 7, 2006 01:59 PM
*blink*
Uhhhh--taking a shower to get rid of the icky feeling of writing about *beets*?!?
Geez, it's a good thing the subject of produce doesn't pop up too often around here...
*saunters off singing:
He lives down there in his valley
(Beets)
The cat stands tall and green
(Rutabagas)
Well, he ain't no prize,
And there's no women his size
And that's why the cat's so mean.
*air guitar riff*
by
cw4(ret)billt on March 7, 2006 02:02 PM
And what nickname would that be, Neffi... seeing as I named myself when I first appeared here? :P
by
FbL on March 7, 2006 02:12 PM
Well, Lioness (IKYTTT)... you no-one ever told you?! It wasn't meant to be a secret, you unnerstand- we wuz discussing you and knocking back a few 'ritas (I think you were in DC getting an award or something)and one of The Usual suspects thunk up this cute nick for ya that encompassed your wit, humor, intellect, and habit of drooling over uniformed men.
I'm truly surprised you have yet to hear it...
What is it, you ask?
Bend an ear and lean close, Tawny One... closer... OK, we like to call you The
Cripes, is that the time?! Look, it's been fun and all, but I'm late- CYA
by
Neffi on March 7, 2006 02:21 PM
Perhaps, Fuzzy, you'd be more comfortable with the beet is the receiver of the action.
There's some fancy english-teacher word for that I think...
Bill - Heh. I have this recollection of Warrants whining about not being treated like officers... and gee, the PA's even went the whole enchilada.
Want the perks, but none of the responsibilities.
by
John of Argghhh! on March 7, 2006 02:34 PM
Neffi: #1 in Google for IKYTTT.
Not that it helped me to figure out what it means...
by
John of Argghhh! on March 7, 2006 02:38 PM
Don't quote me, but I'm under the assumption that it means "I kiss your tawny tail tuft," harkening from the days when a lovesick Neffi chased my tail all over this Castle. ;D
by
FbL on March 7, 2006 02:46 PM
EEEEEEEeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeee! My eyes! My eyes! Make the image go away!
by
John of Argghhh! on March 7, 2006 02:49 PM
'...tawny tufted tail', akchooly. For shame, Lioness! Making John jealous like that; the poor lad is acting out his innate frustrations.
(pssssst John- no worries, mate! Several buckets of 'ritas and you'll be seeing polar bears in the streets...)
by
Neffi on March 7, 2006 03:19 PM
Want the perks, but none of the responsibilities.
Heh.
You stand 'em off with the Swiss Army Webley while I drop a rocket on 'em. Ummmm--might wanna duck. They're a bit heavier than beets...
by
cw4(ret)billt on March 7, 2006 03:24 PM
"We'll take 'em shooting. They'll convert to the Dark Side."
A few problems with this.
1) The inlaws emberass the hell outta me(hard, I know, considering who I am). They actually asked at a favorite steak joint, one with a juke box Bill would like and peanut shells on the floor, what side to get that would be 'the most midwestern' because they were trying to get into the ambiance and feel of living here since they came from the Metropolitan city of Portland,OR. Liked to have stood up and died---bigest tip I ever left and only time I ever scribbled an apology on the reciept. Just call the waitress a hick instead, she'll take less offense. I'm related to morons.
2) They're the Dark Side. Why have we surrendered the idea of being the Just Protectors of The Republic to the nitwits? Sorry, but playing Sith because it sounds cool has just never sat well with me. And our side is the Jedi as they were described in the fist trilogy, not the warped ones of the prequels.
3) They'll never go. Once the Armory comes out they'll bolt. And I'll be having to ask Denizens how to get out of trouble with the inlaws again(and I haven't dug out of the last tiff yet either).
by
ry on March 7, 2006 11:45 PM
Ry - By the time they *realize* they're in the Armory, it will be two late. The exit will be blocked and locked.
We *can* perform an intervention.
They'll be forced to look at diplomas with post-graduate degrees granted by normal old Ginormous State Universities.
Granted, the Library will seem a bit gruesome, but the Jess-like among 'em should appreciate the science section, as well as the sociology/psych titles.
The honor roll kid from the Public High School, attending the Ginormous State University.
The fancy coffee grinder.
The organic food in the fridge (well, okay, that's upstairs, but you get the point).
The kiln. All of SWWBO's artsy stuff.
The certificates of niceness for all the charity work.
The lack of NRA stickers.
We'll make their heads explode with all the "Doesn't Fit My Stereotype" feedback.
It'll be a mercy.
by
John of Argghhh! on March 8, 2006 05:36 AM
« Dismissed, Soldier!
March 03, 2006
Since Owen's running around picking fights in the comments today...
...let's see if we can distract him with bright shiny objects.
Silly blog graphic and refrigerator magnet to the first person who gets this one.
What is it? Whose is it? When was it used? Bonus points for succinct dissertations!
Let's see if we can attract a lurker or two with this one.
Reporting As Ordered, Sir! »
I hate suspense. Somebody answer this, because I don't have a clue.
by
High Desert Wanderer on March 3, 2006 11:20 AM
Heheheheheheheheheh. My evil plan is working!
by
John of Argghhh! on March 3, 2006 11:33 AM
I've checked back about fourteen times in the last five minutes, did I mention I don't like suspense? I had a couple of ideas, so I did a little research... Now I have less of an idea than I did before.
by
High Desert Wanderer on March 3, 2006 11:38 AM
Shinny Gun Pr0n - Yippie! Could dat be the pointy thingy on a Pre-Fragged HE V-Bessie, Bullet-Trap Boom-boom thingy?
by
Boquisucio on March 3, 2006 11:58 AM
It's a 9mm shrapnel round for eliminating ant colonies under the sink. It was developed by EuroGreenies who felt that Raid® and other insecticides--
1. cause needless mental suffering to the targets,
2. accelerate melting of the snowfields on Kilimanjaro and
3. smell icky.
by
cw4(ret)billt on March 3, 2006 12:40 PM
Hee hee hee. Well, I *might* not have yet snagged Owen's attention, but I've got at least one victim wrapped up.
Boq... look here and consider your answer.
by
John of Argghhh! on March 3, 2006 12:46 PM
And I was gonna guess Owen chaff.
by
jim b on March 3, 2006 12:54 PM
[In small sqeeeky voice:] 'Elp me - 'elp meeeee!
Gosh durn it, caught in his snare again.
Furiously slaps his head while spotting a Driving band and Gas Rings.
by
Boquisucio on March 3, 2006 01:07 PM
Actually, Boq - the ensnared person is High Desert Wanderer...
by
John of Argghhh! on March 3, 2006 01:25 PM
LMAO too funny let Owen try to upset as many individuals as he chooses . Simply consider the point of a wannabe who had raised himself above all veterans who are really heros as he trys to drive them from the internet .
Owen is one sad excuse for for a person ( notice I did not say MAN as he is not ) . Like his buddies ViperAss and Doc171 and Billy lagre and the Mrs (he he he ) lets not forget Maggie who runs the POW/MIA page and steals money.
Lets see how owen replies to the TRUTH
One REAL COMBAT NAM VET
by
Carfl on March 3, 2006 01:53 PM
LMAO too funny let Owen try to upset as many individuals as he chooses . Simply consider the point of a wannabe who had raised himself above all veterans who are really heros as he trys to drive them from the internet .
Owen is one sad excuse for for a person ( notice I did not say MAN as he is not ) . Like his buddies ViperAss and Doc171 and Billy lagre and the Mrs (he he he ) lets not forget Maggie who runs the POW/MIA page and steals money.
Lets see how owen replies to the TRUTH
One REAL COMBAT NAM VET
by
Carfl on March 3, 2006 01:53 PM
Heh. The Castle Echo hit Carfl pretty hard. I think that's a record... 11. [I deleted a bunch of 'em]
by
John of Argghhh! on March 3, 2006 02:01 PM
Okay, if anyone reads this after Carfl's stutter attack.....it looks like an anti-personnel artillery shell.
by
SGT Jeff (IRR) on March 3, 2006 02:01 PM
Incomplete answer, SGT Jeff. And, well, any more and I'd give it away... which I'm not ready to do just yet.
Gotta make Owen earn his cookie!
by
John of Argghhh! on March 3, 2006 02:05 PM
Sorry Mr. Tuttle (ret),
It can't possibly be an Ant destructive device. Ever mindful, of the Formicids, Blattids, and other tiny friends' sensibilities, The Euro-Weennies wouldn't advocate for their demise. Specially in such a violent and conflagratory way.
If anything, they would lovingly control their population with Nature-friendly and Bio-comforting agents.
by
Boquisucio on March 3, 2006 02:45 PM
Nah--the Formicae perform useful functions, so the Greenies couldn't care less about them.
However, since they consider themselves stalwart defenders of their Blattidae role models, they'd screech like scalded Spotted Owls if you tried using *anything* on 'em.
by
cw4(ret)billt on March 3, 2006 02:58 PM
Hah! Iz lookink ver' much like that thing Momma used to keep hided in her nightstand. Took MANY batt'ry and wuz ver' noisy- dunno what uzed for but Momma call it her Warzaw Willy or zum zuch ting, sheesh.
by
Andre the Pole on March 3, 2006 03:05 PM
ANDRE!
Vhat are you doin' snooping around en me nightstand!?!?!
Bend over, you naughty boy. You are due for ze spankin' ut your life!
*swat*
*swat*
*swat*
by
Andre's Momma on March 3, 2006 03:19 PM
I can take ze punish; but it more fun when Dbie do it! But zat's our liddle secret, no?
Oh- vait a minnit...
by
Andre the Pole on March 3, 2006 03:23 PM
I think this is the first time a thread has been hijacked and turned into a caption contest...
by
cw4(ret)billt on March 3, 2006 03:26 PM
Heh. I see I shouldn't have gone to that meeting.
Bill, Boq, *this* is the Cartridge, Flechette, 9mm, Anti-Blattidae. The cat hairs are a free service of Castle Argghhh! Security Forces, Inc.
by
John of Argghhh! on March 3, 2006 03:36 PM
*grin*
by
Andre's Momma on March 3, 2006 03:38 PM
And, just to make sure, I did a little simple googling. The answer to the question *is* on the 'net.
You gonna let Owen beat you to it?
That will be... distressing.
Because I have no doubt he's going to get the answer.
by
John of Argghhh! on March 3, 2006 03:40 PM
Oh but trustink me, Cheif- you not want be zeeing dat foto no times soon, I tellink you! 'Sides, Swinging Slav makazine got ze copyright...
by
Andre the Pole on March 3, 2006 03:42 PM
ANDRE!
You promised NEVER to show ze foto ut me spankin' yous.... unless you share ze moniez from ze sale!
Handink it over, bub!
by
Andre's Momma on March 3, 2006 03:52 PM
Just a hunch, but it could be a relic from the Boer War.
It's definitely *not* a Long Tom shell, but there were whole bunches of interesting tubes that were shrapnel spitters back then. Check your e-mail, cuz nanny doesn't like the link addy.
My turn to go to a meeting. *Another* meeting...
by
cw4(ret)billt on March 3, 2006 03:52 PM
Sigh. You two need to get a room. I'm trying to have a Whatizzit contest here and you guys are turning this place into a tawdry pr0n palace complete with sticky floors. Cuddit out!
by
John of Argghhh! on March 3, 2006 04:01 PM
This is the site Bill was trying to post... *except!*
http://abw.netf1rms.com/unidentified_weapons.htm
Replace the 1 in 'netfirms' with an i. The reason the Comment Nanny won't let him post it is because netf1rms.com is a *huge* hoster of spam generating websites. But it should be okay to visit this site. (At least, nothing horrible happened to me when I did it).
Scroll halfway down to the pic just above the entry titled Novelty Weapons. Look center of mass, then slightly right and slightly low.
To which I respond:
Nope. One problem with it being an artillery round is that square projection a little left of center, right at the bottom of the engraved frag/grip area.
Of course, that is something of a red herring, given what it *is*.
But I like that *site*!
by
John of Argghhh! on March 3, 2006 04:12 PM
I've been googling for about 30 min. or more now.... no luck.
No pops on "aluminum artillery crosshatch" or anything close to it.
I give.
by
AFSister on March 3, 2006 04:19 PM
I'm touched by your confidence that I'll get it, John, but I'm nowhere yet. I've spent hours looking at 47 mm shells, before I noticed that little square projection.
And is that a dial below it? Base time fuze? Could it be some sort of primitive AA rocket head?
I'd love to see a shot of the base.
by
OD on March 3, 2006 04:54 PM
Who would have thunk it André, your mother in Warsaw used a Djakonoff Rifle Grenade.
by
Boquisucio on March 3, 2006 06:30 PM
Or maybe it's a rifle grenade. Definitely WW1. Looks Germanic, somehow.
by
OD on March 3, 2006 06:59 PM
Zo Boq- you have familiar wit dis thing?! I think iz wuz for ladyz only... hope you had pot uf swine grease like Momma, WOW you yelping udderwise my fren! But here is no-one askink, no-one tellink; all velcome I thinkink.
by
Andre the Pole on March 3, 2006 07:50 PM
And Boq scorez! His spelling sucks... oh, wait, *that* was on purpose.
You can find one here, a third of the way down the page or so.
by
John of Argghhh! on March 3, 2006 07:56 PM
Between the wars, Soviet, Owen. Boq gottit.
by
John of Argghhh! on March 3, 2006 07:57 PM
Oh bugger, you got it. I should've hit refresh and I would have saved myself some time.
I was looking at Russian and German rifle grenades, but I had the wrong war.
The Djakonoff does have an adjustable base time fuze. I never knew there were such things on rifle grenades.
by
OD on March 3, 2006 08:18 PM
I'll put up more pics tomorrow.
Ah, Owen in *second* place. Life is good. ;^)
by
John of Argghhh! on March 3, 2006 08:51 PM
Here's a decent description:
http://www.geocities.com/Pentagon/Base/1852/37mm.html
You did lead us down the garden path somewhat with the 50mm bit. It's actually 40mm.
If you enjoy watching me lose you should do these more often. It's good fun.
by
OD on March 3, 2006 08:55 PM
dang it.
I shoulda gone with my gut, and google'd "grenade" because when I was describing it to someone, I said it had a crosshatch design, "like a grenade".
dang it.
by
AFSister on March 4, 2006 10:08 PM
« Dismissed, Soldier!
February 15, 2006
Okay - this is what the "WhatIzzit" is...
Okay, coupla days ago, we posted a teaser, asking "Whatizzit?"
This was a toughie for most of you, with the bulk of you running down the rathole of the Type 89 Knee Mortar.
We gave you some hints - including the fact that most of the time, the answer lies in the Castle Archives or the photos of the Imperial Arsenal of Doom.
Owen Dyer, who asked me to do another teaser, got it right, in all the specifics, first day. Frank C. limped in a couple of days later.
It's a round for the WWI Granatenwerfer 16, highlighted in this Castle post.
The thing you had to figure out was the purpose of the smooth metal sleeve. The answer? This is a "bouncing" bomb. Due to the mud and general pulverization of the ground in the area of the trenches, lots of impact fuzed rounds didn't function, or buried themselves before exploding, making their impact minimal. Essentially, the smooth sleeve is a mini-mortar, containing a blackpowder charge which blows the bomb up into the air, where it will then function, getting around the soft ground problem.
That's it! For those of you who played, thanks! For those who didn't. Well, thanks for reading, anyway!
Oh! Wait! Vote for us!
Reporting As Ordered, Sir! »
The Good News: We've knocked off everybody but Mr C. this round.
The Bad News: Mr. C's creaming us by a 2(plus)-to-one margin.
The Good News: Mr. C liked the puns.
The Bad News: The puns may have convinced the voters to jump ship for Kim...
by
cw4(ret)billt on February 15, 2006 04:57 PM
I haven't seen the numbers change from 298 since this morning.
I did note Jim B. stealth shilling for Kim...
by
John of Argghhh! on February 15, 2006 05:19 PM
It says that the voting is closed, but you could enter your vote anyway. Silly - just should have shut off the voting form.
by
Brab on February 15, 2006 08:50 PM
725 to 360. Castle took a big hop in the sixth round, so *somebody* was voting, even if they were casting for the eliminated folks whose votes got shifted...
by
cw4(ret)billt on February 15, 2006 10:20 PM
Well, the reticularly-grooved part *looks* kinda like the Nipponese grenade...
I *tried* to vote for ye the last time, but there was a mysterious software malfunction (no kiddin!) which I attribute to evil Gatesian Windows malware interfering with the pure Penguin poo I'm putting out, here.
by
Justthisguy on February 17, 2006 12:36 AM
« Dismissed, Soldier!
February 13, 2006
What Izzit, con't.
If you have no idea what this is about - click here and get caught up.
We actually already have a winner – Owen had it right his first pass, and provided his answer in that slightly pedantic, try-to-cover-all-the-bases fashion the Armorer is prone to.
The rest of you have been going down some rat-holes. It is NOT related to what you see in this picture – which is the baseplate of a Japanese Knee Mortar, and the left and center (with a booster not seen here) are the kinds of rounds you’d see fired from that. You can ignore that Mills Bomb on the right - this pic was used for a different post some time ago.
Nor is it related to this type of implementation of this type of weapon (the one illustrated being a Brit 2inch mortar) – though it relates to a weapon of that class in employment.
No, conceptually, it’s more related to this type of weapon in implementation, if not in purpose.
Lastly – the Sekrit of most of these teasers – clues (or outright answers) to these things can be found in the photo galleries of the Imperial Arsenal of Doom.
That’s all the hints you're getting. Email your answers to johnbethd-at-yah00.com.
And Stuff Like This is why we think you should vote for us in the Best Master Gunnies competition! Only three days left! Early and often! <===Click that link! Once a day, every day! From home *and* work! At Internet Cafes! We think The BMG Trophy would look good on an Arsenal Bookshelf... but the only way *that's* gonna happen is if I steal it - unless you guys get really busy and start doing what Bill's been doing- borrowing other people's computers... of course, that would be wrong.
Reporting As Ordered, Sir! »
February 03, 2006
Ooooh, too much politics and stuff. We need Gun Pr0n.
We need some pics of stuff in the Arsenal of Argghhh!
Like this:
Or this:
For CAPT H: Context.
Reporting As Ordered, Sir! »
Dayum Dude that musta taken some serious hack saw work.
by
jim b on February 3, 2006 11:25 AM
Looks like it's in the 90-to-105mm range, made to keep a lotta pressure going down the tube...
Ratz. Conference call.
by
cw4(ret)billt on February 3, 2006 12:39 PM
Must be them tree ratz (ratz conference call) bill was tawkin about, callin him to complain and let him know Islam won't take it neither will they.
Cover your nutz bill.
by
jim b on February 3, 2006 12:52 PM
Ain't a tree rat around that can crack a copper-zinc alloy. Two words.
Hunting. Slingshot.
And if another kind of rat wants to try, I've got two more words.
Edged. Weaponry.
by
cw4(ret)billt on February 3, 2006 08:56 PM
175 mm by my lousy measurments/math.
by
Rich Walden on February 3, 2006 11:31 PM
Um, nope. 175mm rounds are nowhere near that short in comparison to their diameter. I guess I need to schlep the Castle's 175 into the light for a portrait.
I wasn't playing that game with this one, I was just tossing it up there because, well, because!
That's 105mm cannon tube, from the M101 gun system.
by
John of Argghhh! on February 4, 2006 07:19 AM
Makes me want to wax my barrel, is that wrong?
Raymond B
www.voteswagon.com
by
Raymond B on February 4, 2006 01:33 PM
Looks like it's in the 90-to-105mm range...
My calibrated eyeball wasn't too far off this time. And is that a base-bleed round? Odd lateral indents aft of the obturating band.
by
cw4(ret)billt on February 4, 2006 11:44 PM
Standard HE, Bill. What you see as indents is just tricks of the lighting and paint oxidation.
by
John of Argghhh! on February 5, 2006 08:18 AM
« Dismissed, Soldier!
February 01, 2006
Y'know, it just ain't right...
...when the holdings of the Arsenal at Castle Argghhh! include Bill the Rotorhead's favorite small arm (no ladies, not *that* one - see 27" zipper), as he opined in the comments of a post earlier this week:
Blake - The M3 was handy for cleaning out bunkers, but you had to get within fifteen feet of a firing port to do it properly. A 2.75" FFAR from 500 meters would do the same thing, albeit without that *personal* touch.
Heh. I *love* the M3. And we don't have one in the Holdings of the Arsenal of Argghhh!. 2.75" FFARs we have. Two of 'em. One with a neat sectioned warhead.
Mebbe it *is* time to put up a Paypal Button to buy the Arsenal one of these.
Reporting As Ordered, Sir! »
CRV7
Cheers
JMH
by
J.M. Heinrichs on February 1, 2006 08:47 AM
ahh, the good old greaser...
loved that piece. such a shame when we made those go away during the transition from -60 series panzers to the Abrams.
by
MajMike on February 1, 2006 08:51 AM
A bunch of years ago, there was a prototype running around of a multiple-launch rocket system for light forces based on the 70mm/2.75" rocket. The one version I saw had six standard 19-shot pods mounted in a framework on a modified 1/4-ton trailer chassis. I think it used a high-end (for the time) pocket calculator to do the firing computations, rather like the early mortar computers.
Me I rather liked the idea. I was still light infantry at the time, and I figured anything that beefed up our firepower while still being easliy moved around was a Good Thing. But it was a private venture, and Wasn't Invented Here, and so went nowhere.
by
blake.kirk on February 1, 2006 11:01 AM
A sectioned 17-pounder! Neat--now you've gotta work on getting an MPSM and a flechette. I've got a couple of practice rockets that were modified for EMI testing in the late '80s--they look weird, but they worked. Plus some dummy 10-pounders...
Blake - The main problem with that system had to do with exterior ballistics as the rockets left the tube. A rocket orients into the prevailing wind after launch and drifts. A helicopter compensates for this by launching in forward flight for direct fire. Since the old Mk 40 was fairly slow leaving the tube, it was affected pretty radically by a stiff crosswind, so we tried to orient into the wind for firing whenever feasible.
It's a whole new ball of wax for Mk 40 indirect fire--rocket dispersion increased dramatically. The switch to the Mk 66 solved an awful lot of problems, but we still had to use firing tables, compensate for wind and shoot using a "rocking horse" maneuver--launch when you're hanging by your nose a split second before you fall backwards to a hover. Dispersion isn't as great when you're able to orient into the wind, and you don't always have that luxury in a ground vehicle.
by
cw4(ret)billt on February 1, 2006 12:50 PM
Thanks, Bill. That explanation does make sense.
by
Blake Kirk on February 2, 2006 08:22 AM
« Dismissed, Soldier!
January 30, 2006
Vaporware from the Armorer...
...just to annoy Ry. Something else that will appear. Whenever I finish it.
But hopefully this week. A wholly unverifiable, but interesting, war story.
Reporting As Ordered, Sir! »
What, you expect me to be Donald Duck or something?
Exposes of the Fiddly Bits are interesting(heh, who ever thought you could learn how to disassemble a firearm on the internet?) and informative, but I'm still waiting for end of the series that's more history than armory.
by
ry on January 30, 2006 07:51 AM
Translation from collitch kid tawk:
He wants to see more of the *Castle* Collection.
by
cw4(ret)billt on January 30, 2006 07:54 AM
I've been getting pinged about the history of ammo, too.
Problem is - this place consumes resources, and doesn't produce any of the variety that would buy the time it takes to do those bits.
The longer I try to manage this place the greater understanding I have for people who write books in their spare time (vice the authors who are good/popular enough) that all they have to do is write.
If all I had to do was write... but, I don't think I can turn this thing into a paying proposition that I can stop doing that old day job thing.
by
John of Argghhh! on January 30, 2006 08:23 AM
And Ry - that bit of vaporware *will* be what you're after - more history than Armory. But remember - I generally eschew the weapons that were built and put into storage, so that they are all pretty and pristine. I want ones that have seen use.
It may be squandering Prodigal Son's Patrimony by not buying *Investment Quality* arms - but screw that, I want weapons with some history to 'em.
And these do. The background photo is a hint. One that I'm sure CAPT H can figure out.
Besides, I'm getting better with Photoshop. Note I used a relative term, not an absolute.
by
John of Argghhh! on January 30, 2006 08:29 AM
Captain H was at Dieppe?
by
cw4(ret)billt on January 30, 2006 10:35 AM
Holly Crap. How can you tell that those are Canadian troops and that that's Dieppe(damn Mountbatten)? Shiite, I don't wanna hear The Chief complain about his vision no more. Make him stop John.
by
ry on January 30, 2006 10:46 AM
Heh. Ry, When yer as old as me, much less Bill, and had any interest in milhist (especially disasters) you'd recognize the photo.
Don't be too hard on Mountbatten. It's all easy when you look back at it - and the hard lessons learned at Dieppe were put to use in Normandy.
Still, expensive in terms of good troops, especially for the Canadians.
by
John of Argghhh! on January 30, 2006 10:59 AM
Dingblasted server ate my first comment...
Ry -
1. The architecture's Atlantic coastal French and the buildings are intact (no bombing or shelling--so not Dunkirk),
2. the Wermacht troops are too relaxed to be near an ongoing fight,
3. the POWs look too fresh to have been chased all over France for a month and they still have their tin hats.
Ergo, Dieppe.
by
cw4(ret)billt on January 30, 2006 11:29 AM
Heh. I got my AARP card--I can complain about my vision all I want. It used to was 20/15 about twenty years ago and now it's 20/23.
Drat. At this rate, I'm gonna have to get bifocals in another fifteen years or so...
by
cw4(ret)billt on January 30, 2006 11:54 AM
Wait till you go 20/250 and 20/400, and do IA stuff for a living ...
I am definitely not in that photo.
Cheers
JMH
by
J.M. Heinrichs on January 30, 2006 01:27 PM
Hot Fudge Holy Moly it's bout danged time. The .45 is comin back. The M9 is on the way out.
http://www.strategypage.com/htmw/htweap/articles/20060127.aspx
Now if we can just get rid of that Poodle Shooter.
by
jim b on January 30, 2006 02:09 PM
Jim - Never tried shooting poodles. Just out of curiosity, how far *will* an M-16 lob a Standard as opposed to a Toy?
by
cw4(ret)billt on January 30, 2006 03:20 PM
Well it's a matter of how old and large the standard is. A full sized average standard it kinda just tips over. (Visual of cow tipping here)
A toy is another matter. If it is battery powered, you get one distance. If it is an old fashioned cogs and wheels wind up one, it's another.
The average for a battery powered one is about three revolutions. (Visualize three tocas over tea kettle tumbles here) The old cog and wheels model will make an average of 7 tumbles iffen you hit a gear.
Jeez I gotta splain everything here.
by
jim b on January 30, 2006 03:44 PM
Hmmm. Doesn't sound like you'd get much of anything out of it...
Didja ever try using a shih-tzu for something other than a bore cleaner?
by
cw4(ret)billt on January 30, 2006 03:55 PM
You gotta be shih-tzn me now. Everyone knows that the only thing a shih-tzu is good for is disturbing dust under a bed.
Unless of course you have them bronzed, then they will loosen up powder lead and copper, with the proper bore cleaner of course.
by
jim b on January 30, 2006 03:59 PM
Who has the odds sheet on the "objects" in the Myrtle Hill Cemetery?
Might be the rumored Noble Brothers cannons but I'm betting on cast-iron coffins.
by
homebru on January 30, 2006 05:07 PM
ROME, Ga. - University of Georgia archaeologists have been puzzling over finding an apparent manmade object buried in a historic Civil War cemetery.
Sign that writer up as a captioneer on AKO.
by
cw4(ret)billt on January 30, 2006 09:44 PM
"Don't be too hard on Mountbatten. It's all easy when you look back at it - and the hard lessons learned at Dieppe were put to use in Normandy."
Yeah, I've heard this before. But, if you send troops into an op where you know they're going to get creamed because somebody talked about it, and you know it's been leaked, aren't you failing them somehow?
The lessons could've been, and were, learned elsewhere. Nobody in the European theatre seems to have talked to the Marines and Army in the Pac Theatre who had lots of experience with Amphib Ops by that time. Dieppe was a waste of good troops for knowledge that was in hand elsewhere, in my totally amateur opinion.
Though Mountbatten does get props for greenlighting the Cockleshell missions, he's still on the hook for what he did to the Canucks at Dieppe.
(Christ, Bills vision is several orders of magnitude better than mine. This sucks. (whine) I don't want to see JMH's prescription(shudder--since that's what lays in my future)).
by
ry on January 31, 2006 04:25 AM
Allright Ry, you win. Mountbatten was an incompetent asshole. Where was the IRA when they were needed?
by
John of Argghhh! on January 31, 2006 05:40 AM
« Dismissed, Soldier!
January 29, 2006
Gun Pr0n!
Having been nominated for Best Gun Pr0n (and you *can still* vote), it's time for something I haven't done in a while - Gun Pr0n! One reason I haven't is because doing these right takes a lot of time and I haven't had a lot of time lately, and I'm a slug and like to sleep. I know. A weakness to be sure. This one took 12 hours total out of my life this week.
So, you've met the Castle Luger, Georg. You can check out his story here. You can get a sense of his prowess in the hands of a mediocre shooter here.
The basics of the Luger story are simple, though there are *several* good books out there if you are into geek-level detail. This is a blog, we'll skip that for a precis...
The Luger is one of the most distinctive and widely-recognized pistols the world over. You can thank WWI, WWII, and war movies for that. Well, that, and perhaps because the Luger Navy Model of 1904 introduced the world to the 9mm Euroweenie pellet, as Kim du Toit is want to call that round. Regardless of what I or Kim think, however, it is the most common pistol and sub-machine gun round, and the Luger Navy Model of 1904 introduced it to the world. Georg Luger was the designer of that bullet, building on his design of the 7.65 Luger round, which he developed after recognizing the need to make shorter, yet reasonably powerful rounds if automatic pistols were going to get down to a useful size.
The impetus for the development of the Luger pistol gathered steam in the period of 1890-1900. The gunmakers in Europe and the US were angling to land large military orders as the 1st rank armies of Europe were looking to modernize, and the US Army had discovered weaknesses in it’s arms in the Spanish American War. In Germany it was DWM, Mauser, and Bergmann; in England Webley &Scott, to name some of the major players. US interest came on the heels of the success of the European efforts.
What most people I’ve talked to don't know is that the Luger has an sorta-American connection. Georg Luger, the primary engineer, collaborated with the Hugo Borchardt to develop the first Luger pistol, improving on Borchardt's initial design by removing the balance and handling-destroying rear overhang and replacing it with a recoil link and spring in the butt of the pistol, vastly improving the handling of the pistol.
Submitted to the Swiss Army trials of 1898, it was adopted by the Swiss in 1900 as the Ordnance Pistol 1900. A quick distinguishing characteristic of the Swiss pistol is a grip safety that you don’t find on the German pistols - as you can see on these examples. The OP 1900 was chambered for the bottle-necked 7.65mm (called .30 Luger by us 'Muricans), and was as finely crafted a pistol as anything mechanical or chocolate the Swiss have ever produced.
Lugers were produced in Germany by primarily Deutsche Waffen Und Munitionsfabriken (DWM, the builder of Georg the Castle Luger), as well as Simson, Krieghoff, the Erfurt Arsenal, and Mauser. Vickers in England made them for the Dutch, and, as previously mentioned, the Swiss produced them at their Bern Arsenal. No one knows how many were produced due to destruction of German records during WWII, but the guesstimate is better than 2.5 million. Damn things still cost a lot for all that production!
The Kriegsmarine (Navy) was the first German adopter, in 1904, and it is they who gave us the Luger chambered for the 9mm Parabellum round, and a 6 inch barrel. The German Army adopted the Luger as the Pistole Model of 1908 in (drum roll, please) 1908, with a 4 inch barrel. Usually abbreviated P08, this is the version most of us are familiar with, though there have been many other models (see those books for geeks I was talking about). DWM produced the pistol until 1930, when it was taken over by Mauser. The Luger remained the German Army's official sidearm until the adoption of the Walther P38 in 1938, with production continuing through 1943, and issue continued throughout the war and beyond, in East German service. Counting the German variations of the P08, there were, IIRC, about 35 different variations of the Luger produced, and it has been produced in specialty runs at least as late as the 1980s, and perhaps more recently than that – but we all know I’m weak on stuff less than 50 years old…
The other relatively famous version of the Luger you might be familiar with is the Model 1914, the long-barreled version, sometimes called the "Artillery Luger" which was fitted with a long barrel that had integral long range sights, and was often used in conjunction with a wooden shoulder-stock/holster that locked onto the grip. It was for this pistol, in Air Force use, that the 32 round snail drum magazine was developed, as a way to arm pilots when the "Knights of the Air" took to shooting at each other before they got their machine guns all figured out. That pistol uses standard P08 components less the barrel and sights - and in fact, all Lugers produced for the German army have their grips slotted for the stock - even after they no longer made the M1914 or stocks.
Okay - so skip all the history carp and get on to the good stuff!
If ya wanna see him nekkid and exposed... and understand how he works, then come back, behind the curtain, to the peep show in the Flash Traffic/Extended Entry!
Flash Traffic (extended entry) Follows »
Pervs!
Heh. My kinda people!
Georg, like several of the early automatic pistols, uses dual recoil. In his case, that means that the action remains locked, and recoils as a unit, until the round knob on the toggle hits the ramp, which breaks the toggle upward. This is the basis of Borchardt’s contribution to the design. Then the bolt and toggle continue to the rear, giving that awkward humped appearance during firing and when the bolt locks back on an empty magazine.
The other famous German pistol of the era, the Mauser Broomhandle (seen here hiding amongst other Castle holdings - he's the leftmost wooden-stocked pistol - the other one is the Castle Inglis Hi-Power), also uses dual recoil, though in a different manner - and a subject of a different post. If you look at most automatics today, they still do that, though in a sneaky way requiring far fewer moving parts - the genius of John Browning. The toggle link of the M1911 style pistols does exactly the same thing the Luger's toggle link does - keeps the barrel locked during initial recoil, then, by being anchored to the frame rather than the slide, pulls the barrel out of battery and the slide continues to the rear. Again, the subject of another post.
Just as the genius of the Vickers machine gun was to change the way the toggle of the Maxim worked (and Browning’s MG genius was getting rid of the toggle altogether) so too changing the anchor point of the toggle from the slide to the frame vastly simplified the design, manufacture, and reliability of the automatic pistol by keeping all the moving parts inside the pistol and away from icky things like mud and dust and sand, all of which make Georg the Castle Luger and his brethren persnickety. And when Mean People Who Suck™ are trying to kill you, that is Very Annoying™. Very annoying, indeed.
Where was I? Oh, yeah – we’ve just finished the recoil stroke and now the bolt goes forward, strips a round, then the bolt hits home, the toggle and slide lock, and we’re ready to do it all again.
The Luger has some interesting characteristics. There isn’t a hammer. The sear bar (which the trigger lever acts on to release the firing pin) is actually exposed to view. The spring in the butt, which for most automatics, would be the hammer spring, is the recoil spring. And man, I’m really a geek….
For all his complexity, Georg is not hard to take apart and put back together. Nor, unless you get ambitious, are any parts going to come shooting out to get lost in the carpet. *I’m* not going to tell you how to pull it apart enough for that to happen – so if you lose pins and set screws – you’ve been playing gunsmith without a license.
Okay, let’s play!
First, put the pistol on safe (gesichert). Remove the magazine. Grab the circular knobs on the toggle and pull up – visually inspect and clear the chamber. Always, always, always clear the weapon before you do anything with it. And remember to take the magazine out first. Some of my funnier war stories involve people (*never* me) who forgot to take the magazine out first. Hi Mike! Remember - Safety On. I should take time to be pedantic about how the safety works, eh? Besides I took the pic and made this pretty graphic...
Okay - to continue, you have to free up the take-down bolt. To do that, you have to push back the slide a bit – which is a challenge, since the recoil spring is stout. Wimps and girly-men will put the pistol muzzle down on the table, or push it against the wall or similar surface, and then you push the take-down bolt down. The Armorer, being lazy and not wanting SWWBO to kill him for leaving muzzle dents in the furniture and walls, grasps the pistol in his right hand, and pushes it against the palm of his left hand, using his left thumb to push down the take-down bolt. See why I’m so anal about Clearing the Weapon? I have a personal stake. I’m left handed. Get your mind out of the gutter, sheesh. Okay, pull out the pin. Oops. What was that tinkling sound on the floor? That was the sideplate falling away... Actually, if you hold the pistol tilted with the left side facing slightly up, that won’t happen.
Take a look at that sideplate. It’s actually a key component. First, it covers the exposed sear bar, preventing accidental discharges. Second, it contains the lever which the trigger works on to release the sear, firing the pistol. With the take-down bolt removed, the slide will now come off. Pull the toggle up, and you can now pull the toggle pin and remove the toggle and bolt.
Now you can see how the bolt works. As the bolt recoils, the cam on the forward toggle link pulls back the firing pin against spring pressure. As the bolt goes forward, the pin is held back by the notch on the sear bar. At this point, you’ve taken it as far apart as you generally need to, but there is one more level you can go. Bolt disassembly. Whee!
Take a flat tip screwdriver, insert it into the slot on the firing pin guide at the rear of the bolt, turn it ¼ to the right – and the guide, spring, and firing pin will come out. Under tension, so be careful. Clean it all, nice light coat of oil, and pretty much assembly is the reverse of disassembly.
Anyway – there it is – Georg, the Castle Luger, bares his inner sekrits!
Move along, there’s nothing to see here. The show's over!
Wait! What's that? You want an encore, you say? You are such a geek that you want an exploded drawing of the Luger and all the fiddly bits?
Say no more! Click here.
« Secure this line!
Reporting As Ordered, Sir! »
I'm holding out for the conclusion of the 'History of Firearms' series. (looks at watch, set to geologic time, and taps foot).
by
ry on January 29, 2006 02:12 AM
Pllpppppt!
by
John of Argghhh! on January 29, 2006 07:51 AM
If nothing else, this post proves that you're the best gun pr0nographer out there.
Which is why I gave you my vote :-)
by
Harvey on January 29, 2006 08:10 AM
Heh. I guess Oleg woke up - he caught me and left me in the dust again...
by
John of Argghhh! on January 29, 2006 04:51 PM
Yout watch is running fast, Ry--it's only half-past the Ogliocene...
by
cw4(ret)billt on January 30, 2006 12:06 AM
The problem will start when the topics become lithic.
Cheers
JMH
by
J.M. Heinrichs on January 30, 2006 06:51 AM
Ok, JoA, I voted for ya 1st this time.
The Complete Description, Laid Out:
1. JoA
2. Oleg
3. Kim
4. Uncle
5. Head's something
6. Mr. Completely
7. Cowboy Blob
8. Kit's Forever Vain
9. Xavier Thoughts
10. I'm sorry, really, who was the other guy?
I *think* that's what I wrote for the contest!
by
Justthisguy on January 30, 2006 07:17 AM
Like I said, though - Oleg's pics of naked Kit with a gun, now that Oleg has noticed and told his fans, ain't beatable...
by
John of Argghhh! on January 30, 2006 07:25 AM
« Dismissed, Soldier!
January 23, 2006
Time for a gun post...
...and not just because we've been nominated at Countertop Chronicles for "Best Gun Pron" in the Gunnies, either!
A topic covered in the gunblogs, I know by Murdoc and others, as well as me... Metalstorm gets closer to entering service. This is an ugly little spud.
WASHINGTON, Jan. 20 (UPI) -- Next month a new high-explosive munition will be fired in Singapore and then tested again by the U.S. Army, heralding what may be a sea change in weaponry: a gun that can fire 240,000 rounds per minute.
That's compared to 60 rounds per minute in a standard military machine gun.
Metal Storm Inc., a munitions company headquartered in Virginia but with its roots in Australia, has been developing a gun that can shoot at blistering speeds, albeit in short bursts as each barrel is reloaded.
Company website with video click here.
Speaking of Murdoc, I'll let him have at this story.
Speaking of machine guns... take a look at the durability (not to mention reliability) of the latest rendition of that venerable old pig, the M60. Do me a favor - right click and save as - don't stream it. Right-click and save-as here.
I'll close this post with a picture of a new Castle Armory acquisition - a M1886 German Shrapnel round - that has a very interesting (to the Armorer) time fuze. Subject of a future post.
Reporting As Ordered, Sir! »
Okay, kids, nip over to Countertop Chronicles, ASAP. We're number two so far, but Oleg's running away with it.
by
cw4(ret)billt on January 23, 2006 09:40 AM
Hey, John - Remember my e-gram when you first ran the MetalStorm story, about my vision of a deuce-and-a-half full of bullets and batteries following each GI?
Heh. Now we know why SecDef is turning those six ARNG combat brigades into truck drivers...
by
cw4(ret)billt on January 23, 2006 09:54 AM
I have been following metalstorm for years!! They actually have ideas about ways to use that technology for more than just bullets that kill, including firefighting, etc. The technology is really impressive, and has had the U.S. interested for a loooong time.
Glad to see it coming along nicely...
by
SangerM on January 23, 2006 10:23 AM
The Metalstorm ideas look useful, and I can think of a number of military applications. For that matter, science-fiction author John Ringo has envisioned multi-barrelled Metalstorm packs firing 105mm APFSDS rounds from a heavily modified M1 tank chassis as a HEAVY Short Range Air Defense (SHORAD) system. Evidently the barrel packs would be easily ejectable and replaceable, rather like MLRS six-packs are today.
Changing the subject a little...
As someone who spent a LOT of time as an infantry company armorer in the late 70's and early 80's keeping a sextet of Hawgs functioning, I'm duly impressed by the M60 video. However, when I was an armorer, the problem was never with NEW guns, but rather with the older guns that had been beaten around a great deal. Consistently, the two biggest maintenance problems with the M60 were excessive play in the reciever due to loose rivets or cracked welds connecting the longitudinal rails to the front plate, and wear and spalling on the camming surface on the front of the operating rod yoke. The M240 has its own quirks, but receivers that become loose over time is not one of them, and it uses a vastly different mechanism for locking the bolt.
The M60 was based on a great concept: marrying the action of the Lewis Gun to the feed mechanism of the MG42. The concept just wasn't implemented as well as it might have been.
by
Blake Kirk on January 23, 2006 11:08 AM
The M60 series machine gun?
*shudder*
Ugh! The trigger housing group is held on by a forward retaining pin, which, in turn, is held on by a leaf spring that hooks onto the trigger retaining pin, and the forward trigger housing retaining pin. It drops off, the forward pin goes, and you lose all ability to control the firing of the weapon...
The M60E3 was even worse, as they tried to lighten the weight, and put the bipod assembly on the gas tube... Waaaaaay too much dependance on spring loaded detent pins...
Nope, didn't like the M60, but it was the only thing we had...
by
Sgt. B. on January 23, 2006 01:37 PM
The M60 was fun to shoot. It was also easy to take apart (cock it, lift the feed tray cover, and pull the retaining pin - oh yeah, stand to the side). Also a lot easier to haul up and down the lava and mud hills in Hawaii than pieces of .50 cal.
But I was only a temp-hire-grunt, and as soon as I could, I went east-way east-to wear the 1AD patch instead of that electric strawberry.
And my first PSG was a 60 guy in vietnam, and he LOVED the thing, but then he was a healthy 6-4 montanna swede on whom it looked like an M16 did on the rest of us. He's the one who taught me how to take 'em apart in a hurry. Of course, he also taught me how to make candles out of the wax wrapping on 4.2 mortar shell cartons, and how to roll my own one-handed (I never could get that right, though). A real product of the era...
by
SangerM on January 23, 2006 07:43 PM
Quick question/fact check:
That's compared to 60 rounds per minute in a standard military machine gun.
According to FAS, an M-16 can go
90 rpm and 900 rpm. (A true expert would have to verify these for this research jockey). And I'm sure that there are other guns in the arsenal that have similar or higher rates of fire.
Anyone care to have at it?
by
lawhawk on January 24, 2006 01:42 PM
I actually meant to get into that in the post, but saw a shiny object...
There's a conflation of the MK19 40mm grenade launcher with machine guns.
I was posting this for the geeks, and forgot that normals might drop by...
...and then the shiny thing walked by, er, caught my attention.
by
John of Argghhh! on January 24, 2006 01:57 PM
And the Mk 18 could dump them down the spout as fast as you could crank it. Of course, your arm would be ready to fall off after about thirty seconds...
by
cw4(ret)billt on January 24, 2006 03:15 PM
« Dismissed, Soldier!
January 12, 2006
A new teaser.
In our post about the MSM's concern over the Army co-opting milbloggers as propaganda outlets, a fella who makes his living as a journalist STABO'd in, and donning his Bracers of Argument, put himself in the middle of the Circular Firing Squad that are the Denizens of Argghhh!.
I'd say it was a draw, and mostly entertaining for the spectators. While Owen is anti-OIF, one should not mistake him for a pacfist, or anti-war per se. You can read that for yourself in the debate in the comments. In the midst of flinging out his bon mots and wry observations, he let drop this little gem, which, of course, knowing me, could *not* go unchallenged...
b) I like to think I am something of an expert on small arms and my knowledge of most weapons goes a bit beyond familiar.
Oh, really? The Armorer could *not* let that go unremarked and unverified. So I set him a task (again, read the comment stream, towards the bottom of it).
I will happily concede that he certainly walks the walk, though he may not win the high hurdles at the Weapons Geek Trivia Contest. In his defense, I deliberately picked a very obscure bit of kit that almost no one who didn't use a PIAT in WWII would have recognized. And he did get there - which is more than anyone who participated in the original trivia contest can say. So Owen has Castle Cred as far as the Armorer is concerned.
But wait! There's More! As a condition of the challenge to Owen, I said he could have a go at us. His challenge is in the Flash Traffic/Extended Entry. Let us just say that the Armorer is *impressed* with Owen's challenge.
Flash Traffic (extended entry) Follows »
In short, I want one. This is Owen's. Not just challenge - he *owns* the weapon. Good man! He has a standing invitation to the Castle. That said, Owen - I went downstairs this morning and there's drool all over everything from your perusal of the collection. Clean that up, wouldja? The Scrup'ls don't do drool.
There are other views here, here, here, and here. There are two other clues which will be revealed over time, if you guys flounder.
Here's what he posits in his email:
Hi John, pics attached.
Try it first without the ones called "extra clue", as they show markings.
You haven't got a chance of getting this. I will worship as a God anyone who can identify this weapon. It's totally obscure.
Regards, Owen
I've already answered Owen, in email - which is why you won't see me playing. Let's just say I got it in one, essentially. It *is* an obscure bit of kit - but I think Bill and Boquisucio are up to the task. And all are welcome to participate. C'mon, lurkers, strut your stuff.
« Secure this line!
Reporting As Ordered, Sir! »
ummm....
i dunno, but anyone holding it looks like "target" to me.
by
MajMike on January 12, 2006 12:04 PM
Wal, I always say, if you can't eat it, drink it, or take it to bed with you..... what good is it?
I have no idea what this wannabe bazooka is but it obvioulsy just came out of the dishwasher.
I can tell by looking at it he uses Cascade, with the anti water spot additive.
by
jim b on January 12, 2006 12:10 PM
Looks like a bedoodlewoopie gun to me.
yep. bedoodlewoopie.
by
Were-Kitten on January 12, 2006 12:51 PM
Heh. I'll assume the lack of *serious* attempts is because the Smart Guys® are busy-busy-busy researching. Except for Boquisucio, who is moving.
by
John of Argghhh! on January 12, 2006 01:15 PM
Blowpipe maybe? Or Javelin?
I'm not going to look it up, because I'm on government time (right!) but I'd it looks MANPADish to me, it's clearly not an SA-7 since they aren't obscure.
by
lex on January 12, 2006 01:17 PM
John... sweetheart.
Have I *ever* even come close on any of these contests? I'm just here for comedic relief; I leave the real work to the rest of you gun nuts out there.
by
Were-Kitten on January 12, 2006 01:23 PM
I see it's time for a focusing hint.
*Not* a MANPADS. For those thinking to themselves, "Gee, Donovan, *that* was helpful. NOT!" That would translate to MAN Portable Air Defense System. I.e., shoulder-fired missiles, etc.
It is not of that ilk. While you could volley these things at helos, such as the Somalis did on that bad day in Mogadishu, they were not intended for anti-aircraft use. They were intended for attacking people who suck because they hide behind things so that you can't kill them easily. Perhaps more importantly, the people who really suck because not only do they object to you killing them, they *insist* on trying to kill you.
by
John of Argghhh! on January 12, 2006 01:25 PM
Ya, ya, I know. You're the "Round Number" girl who parades around holding up the "Round 1," and "Round 2" etc, signs.
by
John of Argghhh! on January 12, 2006 01:29 PM
Oh - and they are still current issue for a very small number of armed forces. And given the source of Owen's, I suspect they may also be out there in the International Arms market and thus show up in the hands of armed rabble, too.
by
John of Argghhh! on January 12, 2006 01:31 PM
Were Kitten is around girl?!?!?!?!
I want pictures of her in the round girl attire to verify this bit of info.
by
Jon The Mechanic on January 12, 2006 01:33 PM
*puff-puff-scramble*
Dadgum work requirements...
Just tossing a chip on the table to let you know I got here.
Iron sights plus bolt-on optics that don't appear to be NVS, smoothbore with a babybarf green / ChiCom paint job. Leather sling.
Okay. I'll be back...
by
cw4(ret)billt on January 12, 2006 01:40 PM
Um...I was thinking Russian or Chinese version of the RPG, but I'll defer to someone's superior knowledge about which country uses the color (chin-com).
But, RPG, I'm not sure. Maybe Bazooka but the picture I found shows a similar config with different handles and a shoulder rest. another appearing on the same page scroll down to 4th image, though all of these are not close enough to make a definitive match.
by
kat-missouri on January 12, 2006 01:53 PM
Okay..bazooka, chinese, circa 1950's with a modern (or at least late 80's to 90's) site bolted on.
Considering the model year (realizing it could have been made after 50's, but still the base model for it) and the new site, it was last seen in the hands of some would be rebel from Africa, but just as likely Pakistani or Indian military.
by
kat-missouri on January 12, 2006 02:02 PM
Kat - your pics are of the M20 3.5 inch bazooka.
*Not* what this is.
Bazookas are very thin-walled, being just tubes to contain the rocket exhaust and maintain the vector as the rocket accelerates. The barrel walls on this weapon are clearly pressure-bearing.
Need another hint? Click here.
by
John of Argghhh! on January 12, 2006 02:09 PM
*ding! ding! ding! ding! ding!*
Round 1 to Kat.
Next up... Round 2!
(Jon... pictures of me *without* my "round girl" attire are much more appealing.)
*struts around Castle in red stilletos and leopard print bikini*
by
Were-Kitten on January 12, 2006 02:24 PM
Okay...still communist made, with the handle could be closer to a 70's or 80's model. Looks a bit like this one from the Bosnian conflict (taking it clear off the continents I was proposing though I suppose it could still be Pakistan or India considering their purchasing partners)
by
kat-missouri on January 12, 2006 02:28 PM
Pssssst, hey, card girl, over here!
Um, this is a tag team match. While Kat may have done the best of the challengers... the round *still* goes to Owen, as no one has gotten it *right*.
by
John of Argghhh! on January 12, 2006 02:28 PM
Kat - That ChiCom green is a descriptor. Yugoslavia painted some equipment with it, so the various Balkan states use it, too. Including Albania.
by
cw4(ret)billt on January 12, 2006 02:32 PM
*drat*
First day on the job, and I'm already screwing up.
(better than screwing down, I suppose)
by
Were-Kitten on January 12, 2006 02:32 PM
PS.. RPG since John was nice to say it was used in Somalia to shoot at helicopters.
Still looking for exact make and mode. though I think the last pic was pretty close. unfortunately it did not provide any more info besides "RPG" and "Bosnia conflict" and, since I'm pretty sure that Bosnia never made their *own* it's got to be Chinese or Russian pre 1992.
by
kat-missouri on January 12, 2006 02:34 PM
Sigh - WK - as long as you get screwed, you care because...?
Kat - I didn't say it was used in Somalia. I said - oh, wait. I *did* say that.
Ahem. What the Major *meant* to say was, "while you *could* volley these weapons at helos, such as the Somalis did with RPG-7Vs in Mogadishu..."
And Kat - take a look at the sights on your last picture and the *non-optical* sight on the teaser.
You are tracking well, weedhopper.
by
John of Argghhh! on January 12, 2006 02:46 PM
84mm Recoiless Rifle? Having trouble identifying the nation of origin. Who used that maalox green?
by
MCart on January 12, 2006 02:47 PM
Last hint picture. Click here. You now have all the pieces you need to complete this puzzle.
by
John of Argghhh! on January 12, 2006 02:48 PM
*puff-whooof*
Okay, Kat found the critter, evidently, and Zrak is a Bosnian optics manufacturer.
Smoothbore, sophisticated sights, beefy barrel--Bosnian 57mm reckless rifle with extended blast tube ILO an expansion chamber.
What's it called? BFOM-D.
by
cw4(ret)billt on January 12, 2006 03:00 PM
I hate to admit it since I am in the armorer's residence, if it's bigger than a rifle and smaller than a tank, I'm not too familiar weapons in that range. However, yes, I did note the site and the round handle and the shoulder backstop so I am trying to locate it, but, I must also admit that I have no idea where to look for lists and pictures of weapons except to put the closes proximation of my guess in google and hope for the best.
I am severely disadvantaged that way. ;)
by
kat-missouri on January 12, 2006 03:03 PM
Ah..team work. Very good of you, Sir Bill.
So, it *was* Bosnian. Interesting. I thought most of these manufactured under licenses from Russian manufacturers?
by
kat-missouri on January 12, 2006 03:07 PM
Kat - Actually, FRY (Former Republic of Yugoslavia) might be a better term. Yugoslavia *did* manufacture under license, but it also had some home-grown items, such as the J-1 and the G-2A / G-4. Any of the factions could have used it, but I base my call on the almost pristine Zrak sight; if it had been a Serb weapon, it'd show more wear, because the sights are made in Sarajevo...
But BiH and Republika Srpska make better leather than Serbia, and that sling just looks tough.
by
cw4(ret)billt on January 12, 2006 03:24 PM
Kat - yer doing *very* well. You found a pic I didn't.
Bill - I'm not familiar with BFOM-D and a quick Google doesn't come up with anything. Got any references to use to match your nomenclature to a picture?
by
John of Argghhh! on January 12, 2006 03:28 PM
Ok, unless the projectile is stuffed in a huge sabot... I REALLY don't think that's a 57mm weapon..
I'd almost bet money it's not.. It's much closer to the RBR-90mm M79 rocket launcher..
by
MCart on January 12, 2006 03:29 PM
MCart - 84mm is a good-sized bore and the thing gets heavy...
Between you, me and the wall sconce, I don't think that bipod would be up to stabilizing something much bigger than a 57mm.
by
cw4(ret)billt on January 12, 2006 03:30 PM
ZRAK site says it's used for 128mm "rocket" I'll take that as a launcher.
No image but Yugoslavia Military site indicates:
M-71 LRL 128mm indirect fire rocket launcher
As well as M-79 Osser 90mm rocket launcher
Both for infantry
by
kat-missouri on January 12, 2006 03:35 PM
MCart - this is an 84mm Bore.
The weapon on the tripod is a 57mm bore.
An RPG has a 40-44mm bore. The lower item is a Palestinian-made RPG-7 with a 40mm bore. Above it is a 3.5 inch M20 bazooka (that's for Kat's benefit)
by
John of Argghhh! on January 12, 2006 03:36 PM
John - It's the acronym for
Beatsda
Fork
Otta
Me
-Decidedly
by
cw4(ret)billt on January 12, 2006 03:38 PM
Kat - none of which are hand-held. Bear in mind - that sights can be used on multiple weapon systems. 128mm, well, that's *huge* for a handheld, even if it *is* a rocket.
by
John of Argghhh! on January 12, 2006 03:43 PM
SNERK SNERK SNERK! Ahhh, where's Boquisucio when you need him?
You guys are really close, and doing very well. I'm impressed.
by
John of Argghhh! on January 12, 2006 03:45 PM
Got it. I was thinking that, but it kept saying "infantry" weapon.
This one which is closest to bills:
57mm M-18
Also from the same site
by
kat-missouri on January 12, 2006 03:48 PM
I'm sticking to my story. In fact, your linked photo's reinforce my opinion that the launcher in question is bigger than 57mm.
Unless the individual in the picture has REALLY tiny hands, I still think that's in the 70-90mm range.
Knuckle-to-knuckle, i'm pushing a bit over 120mm myself..
Then again, that's a dainty thumb and ring... Hmmmm.. Is that a female holding it? Yeah, 70-90mm.. Sticking to it, until someone ponies up with the actual model.
by
MCart on January 12, 2006 03:48 PM
Kat - Heh. At least you're finding things. All I get on 50% of Google and 75% of the links in this place is "Access Denied."
Now, if I was home *right now* instead of *two* hours from hence, I could thumb through my Country Assessment Handbook...
by
cw4(ret)billt on January 12, 2006 03:50 PM
Time for another clue (and don't feel bad, Kat - while I puzzled it out in about 15 minutes last night, it took 30 minutes of Googling to confirm it).
The bore is 44mm.
by
John of Argghhh! on January 12, 2006 03:51 PM
Correction, my fist is only 109mm.. Eyeballing it isn't accurate I guess...
by
MCart on January 12, 2006 03:52 PM
Beh... I give up. You people never put a decent frame of reference in the picture...
by
MCart on January 12, 2006 03:54 PM
Except the m18 57mm looks like this
by
kat-missouri on January 12, 2006 03:54 PM
"Access Denied."
Grumpf.
OBP-44.
Owen's Boz Popgun.
Gotta go fight traffic...
by
cw4(ret)billt on January 12, 2006 04:06 PM
Kat, yeah, exactly like the one in my basement I linked a pic of a couple comments back...
Which *is* an M18 57mm.
MCart - you quit too easy. An average sized humna female standing in front of a dishwasher isn't enough context for you.
Or was the "Bore is 44mm" insufficient? 8^D
by
John of Argghhh! on January 12, 2006 04:10 PM
Yugo M-57 44mm anti-armour rocket launcher
by
kat-missouri on January 12, 2006 04:26 PM
No I give up, because apparently i'm no good at this, if I don't already know what the thing in question is. Between this one, and the 600lb pig-dog exterior guard, i'm apparently having problems with size perception in pictures.
Though I did realize I was in trouble when I more closely examined the ring and thumb...
The only one of these i've gotted was the fuzzy UAV photo where you asked what kind of airplane it was. :)
by
MCart on January 12, 2006 04:27 PM
Sorry, picture here
by
kat-missouri on January 12, 2006 04:27 PM
Bill, your BFOMD description reminds me of a couple I used a couple years ago while attending training to be a Nuclear Plant Operator. Two of the questions on the final test were answered with BTFOOM and AGAFC.
Beats
The
Fark
Out
Of
Me
and
Ain't
Got
A
Farking
Clue
I didn't get credit for those.....
by
klkk on January 12, 2006 04:29 PM
Kat not only correctly ID'd it, she *also* nailed Owen's source.
He *will* be impressed!
Good on yaz!~
by
John of Argghhh! on January 12, 2006 04:34 PM
well I missed it cause I didn't see that bayonet lug on the side.
by
jim b on January 12, 2006 04:37 PM
Well, I am duly impressed Kat. You found stuff on the Net that I've never found, and got a picture very quick.
The Bosnian fighter in the pic is my wife, who does indeed have tiny hands, though quite a large belly as she's five months gone.
You even found the ad from the people who sold it to me. My favourite bit of the ad:
"Canadian clients do not require a firearms license to order one of these. This launcher CAN be sold and shipped to clients in the United States, but ONLY after it has been deactivated to BATF standards (an extra charge would apply for the work involved)."
The boot is on the other foot for once...
John and I discussed everyone's chances of guessing it and were quite pessimistic in the absence of the famous Boquisucio. You did way better than we expected.
As John mentioned, I am 'anti-OIF'. Perhaps this fine piece will get a chance at a second career, should it ever come to Operation Enduring Annexation of Canada :)
I look forward to trying the higher hurdles of the Weapons Geek Trivia Contest. I can see the level is often pretty high.
by
OD (Owen) on January 12, 2006 05:10 PM
My wife, by the way, is mad that I took a shot with a messy kitchen in the background.
by
OD on January 12, 2006 05:12 PM
Owen - you're safe. We've already decided we'll take the Maritimes and Prairie Canada, and most of BC (less Victoria, which becomes a City State). In return, Rump Canada (Ontario and Quebec) gets the Northeast US.
Slam dunk, I say.
by
John of Argghhh! on January 12, 2006 05:38 PM
Thank you for the compliments, though I admit that John gave enough hints and Bill was certainly helpful with the chi-com reference (although, I was pretty sure I had never seen that color on anything this side of the pond)
Plenty of good info and directions from folks on here to make good google reference. I'm sure that Bill would have beat me to it if he had appropriate access.
As for Canada, we've discussed the whole annexation thing and we've decided that we have enough of our own crazies 'round here, though we were sorely tempted by a few western provinces and a Canadian friend of mine *did* ask if we would so they could get compensation for all their dead cows (you know, killed during the war). Apparently the mad cow thing was ruining their ranch's profits and she had seen that we were compensating people for their chickens and such, you know, over *there* and she wanted in on that deal.
Besides, we think Canada makes the perfect buffer zone/early warning system for the next little ice age or the Chinese-inuit alliance invasion, whichever comes first.
Heh..messy kitchen? You're wife must be my brother's long lost psychic twin. You go to his house, open a can of coke, get one sip, turn your head for a moment and it's gone.
by
kat-missouri on January 12, 2006 05:59 PM
Oh, great. Get beat up in traffic and miss Kat's
TRIUMPHANT S C O O O O O O R R R E!!!!
Way to go!
(Won't find it on Google, sez he...heh)
by
cw4(ret)billt on January 12, 2006 08:37 PM
It's true it was dumb of me to say that, considering that I bought it on the Internet myself.
It just shows how fast the web is growing, though. Most of the stuff you guys found wasn't there when I last looked two years ago.
by
OD on January 13, 2006 02:16 PM
« Dismissed, Soldier!
December 12, 2005
Castle Artillery Pr0n
And now for something completely different, (ok, not really for longtime visitors), from the stocks of the Castle Armory. Since people who hide behind things but still want to sneak up on you (or even jump up, run at you and stick you with long pointy-things-with-sharp-edges really suck, people (i.e., artillerymen) thought up Shrapnel. In this case, a very specific artillerist, Major General Henry Shrapnel (though he invented it, I believe, when he was a mere Lieutenant).
So - from the Armory Holdings, a used WWI French Time/Impact Fuze. Of a type originally developed in 1889, this particular version is the 24/31mm Modele 1915, sitting in the nose of a 75mm Shrapnel round, seen here disassembled (albeit an empty round with none of the cool fiddly-bits).
This is how you normally find them... with the nose of the projectile attached. In WWI, true shrapnel rounds (vice fragmenting HE now that the fact is that *all* fragments are called shrapnel) were essentially one-use mini-shotguns delivered over the target, where a small black powder charge in the base blew out a small plate, upon which were stacked lead or steel balls. The nose blew out, and the balls scattered like shot from a shotgun. Unlike the shrapnel rounds from the Civil War era, which suspended the balls in a matrix and then blew the whole round into pieces. Now when you read a WWI memoir that talks of the little puffs of white smoke from the shrapnel... you'll know what it means. It doesn't mean standard HE bursting in the air.
Since you rarely see these old "beehive" fuzes intact, here are two - one ready for putting in the shell, the other with its lead foil protective cover. The cannoneer punched a hole at the appropriate time mark (there is a spiral powder train in the body of the fuze) so that when the round was fired, flame from firing would flash around the projectile as it left the muzzle, finding entry at the punch mark, igniting the powder train. Hence the lead foil cover - the flame exposure is very brief, so the powder has to catch quickly and must thus be protected from moisture. They also had an impact component, that series of pointy-things inside of springs running down the middle, as shown in this cutaway drawing:
Here's a graphic cutaway from a Victorian-era Brit ammunition manual that shows what these rounds generally looked like. This particular round in the drawing didn't have a "blow-away nose" like the round in the Castle holdings - it just blew out the brass fuze, which being a softer metal, shears out before the threads on the baseplate of the projectile did. If it was a "burster" type round, the central tube would be filled with powder - here it's a flash-tube to convey the flame from the fuze-function down to the charge in the base.
Here is a photo of three Brit rounds from the 1890-1914 era. The two on the left have bursting charges in the base - you can clearly see the brass flash-tube running down the middle to the charge in the base. The one on the right has its bursting charge up top - meaning it probably blows out the base or shatters the round. Shattering the round is most likely, since the balls would not have near the velocity (and would have a much greater dispersion pattern, which can be good or bad depending on the way the target infantry is arrayed). I'm guessing that one didn't last long in service.
Lastly: Don't forget to Vote For Us!
To close this completely - you can see some of these fuzes larger cousins on the "ready rounds" in this engraving of French Artillery from WWI, with a 155mm on the left, and a 270mm Mortar on the right - the rounds for that monster are fitted with the Beehive fuze. The engraving is from a book published just after the war, and is in the Holdings of the Castle Library.
Reporting As Ordered, Sir! »
Good stuff, John. Castle Argghhh! Not Just An Adventure, An Education!
by
Neffi on December 12, 2005 02:19 PM
So *that* is why the French 75mm rounds are always shown in pictures with a thingy sticking out of their noses. Guess they didn't have the Krupp Patentzuender, with the clockwork in it, that caused the icky death/fuze calculation in the lawsuit.
In other news, the Sweety and I went shooting together yesterday; first time in 3 years for both of us. We didn't do too badly, all things considered; I think both of us can reliably hit you in the upper torso from across the room.
But, man do I hate indoor ranges! (realistic as they are for any probable serious social use of our pieces)
Yah, JoA, I saw that comment. Will try to write something. Real Soon Now.
by
Justthisguy on December 12, 2005 11:16 PM
P.S.: I'm amazed that a rifled breech-loading piece, with presumed tight seal of the rotating band, would reliably light that fuze. I guess it's a very hot environment just in front of the muzzle just after firing.
I voted for you again, that makes three times. Sorry I dint do more, but was distracted. What I can't understand is how Blackfive got so many votes. I mean, the boy visited Naples FL and actually *liked* the place! He therefore obviously doesn't have full use of all neurons. Isn't he some kind of infantry person? Maybe that explains it.
by
Justthisguy on December 13, 2005 12:04 AM
Hmmpf. Wouldn't put it past him to have snuck into the computer centers of all of the Retirementvilles and switched his addy with the hotlink to AARP...
by
cw4(ret)billt on December 13, 2005 03:55 PM
« Dismissed, Soldier!
November 28, 2005
Okay, Okay. Context *Isn't* Everything.
'Pears that accuracy in writing code is also right up there.
Grumpf. There's more to this bloggin' thing than meets the eye. Especially if what's supposed to meet the eye *doesn't*...
F'r instance, if you dropped in here and clicked away at the links and didn't see this bit of etchery
or the foundry's marque
it's because I bollixed the code. Looks like I'm a magnet a$$ for stupid bit more of a tyro than I'd thought. Anyway, John got it in one--what a surprise. I never thought he'd recognize them in sunlight. And, for your edification, here's the context
and--ta-daaaah!--the verification.
Soooo, how did the Water Battery's antiques wind up at Fort Lewis? Here's one theory:
Fort Lewis is in the state of Washington, the capitol of which is Olympia; Admiral Dewey's flagship was the cruiser Olympia. The night after the Battle of Manila Bay, some sailors from the Olympia were sitting around Emiliano's Cantina and one of 'em said, "You know, I'll bet we could score some points with the babes back in Olympia if we brought those two shiny carriage anchors back. I'll betcha it'll only take fifty of us to carry 'em back to the ship." So, the fifty sailors hefted the guns and were enroute back to the boat, but soon tired and decided they needed some additional porters. They left the guns and went in search of their other shipmates.
A Warrant Officer sauntered by, saw the guns, thought they'd look great on his lawn, tucked one under each arm and walked off.
As I said, it's a theory...
Heh.
Anyhow, botching the code kinda serves me right for throwing in pix of bowling ball launchers. Next time, I'll stick with the really *good* stuff, like
the Cobra gunner's view of the bombardier's station after the bombardier's been watching the Cobra get closer--and then remembers *his* guns are dummies.
Ummmm--*that's* a theory, too...
Reporting As Ordered, Sir! »
So, did/do the Cobra chin guns have zippers on their apertures, too, and were those zippers longer than the distance frome the zero mark to the 27" mark on a yardstick?
by
Justthisguy on November 28, 2005 02:35 AM
*And* opened the crew door in-flight! That was one scared bombardier!
JTG - perhaps you can infer the answer from this...
by
John of Argghhh! on November 28, 2005 04:46 AM
Of course he opened the crew door--ever try to bail through that dinky little breeze-port?
JTG - Here's a closer peek. Note the shocking dearth of zipperdom.
by
cw4(ret)billt on November 28, 2005 05:49 AM
Hmm ...
For a moment I thought that was the left turn signal ...
Zipperdom??? Shouldn't it be "Zipperness"?
Cheers
by
J.M. Heinrich on November 28, 2005 06:54 AM
I prefer to think of it as 27" of zipper nirvana....
by
Were-Kitten on November 28, 2005 07:17 AM
Or "Zipperocity"--I guess it would depend on whether you're remarking the absence of the noun or the presence of the adjective; e.g.:
"Hey! There's no zipper on the turret!"
vs.
"Hey! The turret's zipperless!"
*checking watch*
That last one should draw a "*perk!* Zipperless?" shortly...
by
cw4(ret)billt on November 28, 2005 07:23 AM
Hmmm...
That's not really fair, Chief... After all, if the Cobra found that beauty in it's operational mode, it'd be at 30,000 ft., with about a hunnurd o' his buddies, as well as a couple o' Ponies itching for a fight...
As for the cannons... Well, letting two cannons go wasn't anything... After all, the Navy had a whole dagnab Bay!
*grin* Jus' sayin', y'know..?
by
Sgt. B. on November 28, 2005 08:57 AM
I remember seeing those at Lewis. Thought they were pretty and not necessarily historic artifacts. Which just goes to show little ol' me that most bases are museums without the building.
Just like the ancors at Fort Leonard Wood.
by
Cricket on November 28, 2005 10:04 AM
Yes..why are their anchors at fort leonard wood?
by
kat-missouri on November 28, 2005 11:21 AM
Kat - They're "gun carriage" anchors--they keep the carriages from rolling down the lawn in a stiff breeze. That's about all they're good for now, except as artifacts. Unless some four-star decides everybody on Ft. Lewis needs new belt buckles and fires up the try-pot.
Sarge B. - Heh. I flew staggered left on this critter with an OH-6A in 1987, and it *wasn't* at 30k. No Little Friends around, either--'cept *me*.
by
cw4(ret)billt on November 28, 2005 11:36 AM
Because the Fort lacks Zipness, it thus requires ancors their.
Cheers
by
J.M. Heinrichs on November 28, 2005 11:37 AM
It appears that Cricket's Exterior Guard is making the rounds of the keyboards...
by
cw4(ret)billt on November 28, 2005 11:41 AM
And the anchors at Leonard Wood are to keep the place from drifting into Kansas and bumping Riley into Leavenworth.
by
cw4(ret)billt on November 28, 2005 12:27 PM
Hmmm. Given anti-clockwise rotation of low pressure systems, and the movement from west to east of said systems... and the relative location of said installations - I am moved to suggest more likely that FLW would bump FL into FR, rather than FR into FL, though I wouldn't mind the Cavalry Museum being a little closer than it is currently, and I think the Atomic Annie currently overlooking the highway by the FR airfield would look cool across the street on the LHS campus... and this is one public HS campus that would be happy to have something as politically incorrect a thing as a cannon, much less a cannon built for the sole purpose of launching nukes, on the grounds.
by
John of Argghhh! on November 28, 2005 12:50 PM
One might as well ask why there is an A-10, an old LAV, and a tank next to the anchors on FLW. One might ask, but the real answer is that the stuff just looks cool sitting on the corner there by the hospital, and it gives small kids and under-mature adults neat things to climb on . . .
I was just there to keep my kid from falling off, ok!?!?
by
SangerM on November 28, 2005 01:01 PM
Hmmm. Considering the recent earthquake activity in the region, any tremblors in the meizoseismal area would be characterized by general ground warping and fissuring, resulting in FLW migrating in the direction of the upthrust plate, causing it to bump FR into FL and then shifting the whole shebang directly adjacent to the impact area at FS.
Or not...
by
cw4(ret)billt on November 28, 2005 01:13 PM
Heh...I was thinking this was about being prepared for the melting of the polar ice cap and the eventual re-inundation of the area by sea water, anchors providing a place for the only surviving military, the navy, a place to tie up and look for survivors. ;)
by
kat-missouri on November 28, 2005 02:16 PM
Zipperdumb???
*ducks and runs for cover*
by
Punctilious on November 28, 2005 03:10 PM
Geez, Punc's been working out. She ducked-and-covered so fast, she outran the echo...
by
cw4(ret)billt on November 28, 2005 11:25 PM
Did I start this? Which ended up having Gurl Cooties, etc.? Zippers *can* have non-sexual connotations, like keeping one's guns warm, and keeping trash and cold breezes out of the important parts, and so forth.
by
Justthisguy on December 1, 2005 12:18 AM
« Dismissed, Soldier!
by
CW4BillT
on
Nov 28, 2005
October 05, 2005
She who stutteringly brings up...
...feminine "sekrit-purpose" devices...
Iiiii Donnnn'ttt knowwww anyyythingggg abouttttt thingsssss that viiiiiiibrate
...(admittedly following *her* lead) later in the same thread complains:
*sigh* The quality of gun pron on this site has dramatically dropped.
Heh. *Who* dragged pr0n into this anyway? A pox on all yer houses!
Fine. I'll pander. How about a Wall of Muskets?
From the Tower Armories, a souvenir of SWWBO's trip last week. Compares favorably to the Arsenal at Argghhh!, I suppose.
Where they've got us beat, however, is out in the inner ward! With things like this 24 pounder gun on a fortress carriage.
Reporting As Ordered, Sir! »
Hey she ain't the only one advertising cancer Pron
by
BloodSpite on October 5, 2005 11:40 AM
Now, that's some power tools!!.... The Wall o' Muskets I mean.
by
Bo-Bo-Bo-Boquisucio on October 5, 2005 11:43 AM
Geeeee, Jjjjjjohn....
Yyyyyooou sssssure do knnnnnow hooooooow to sssssseduce a ggggggirl.
*grin*
SWWBO- I really like that Armory shot! VERY cool.
So... who's planning the Denizen European Castle Tour?
by
AFSister on October 5, 2005 12:50 PM
Geeeee, Jjjjjjohn....
Yyyyyooou sssssure do knnnnnow hooooooow to sssssseduce a ggggggirl.
*grin*
SWWBO- I really like that Armory shot! VERY cool.
So... who's planning the Denizen European Castle Tour?
by
Ahhhhh-Sister on October 5, 2005 12:50 PM
(come on now- you didn't REALLY think I'd only post that comment once, do you?)
*running away*
by
AFSister on October 5, 2005 12:52 PM
Hello? Am I in the right place? How did Castle Argghhh! become House of OOooOOooOOhh!
by
Fred on October 5, 2005 02:41 PM
Stick around long enough Fred, and you'll find out.
It just sorta happens every once in a while...
by
Ahhhhh-Sister on October 5, 2005 02:44 PM
It's the camp followers Fred. *shakes head sadly*
by
John of Argghhh! on October 5, 2005 02:50 PM
Hey... every camp needs followers. Some of us just follow alternate paths around the camp. And sometimes that path goes through the Jungle Room via the Bar in the Armory. Makes for a very interesting "following".....
by
AFSister on October 5, 2005 02:54 PM
*low-crawling for the bunker*
by
cw4(ret)billt on October 5, 2005 02:56 PM
Ooooh big boy... that's a mighty big gun you've got there.
by
Cassandra on October 5, 2005 03:39 PM
...and one thing we know about our Cassie... she likes a big gun!
by
John of Argghhh! on October 5, 2005 03:46 PM
*sitting on the sidelines, as she is much to highbrow to be a mere follower of camps*
by
Fuzzybear Lioness on October 5, 2005 04:09 PM
You know, we don't just follow any camp. We have our standards, too and any place that has really big guns and knows how to use them will attract the best sort of camp followers.
I particularly like the fortress carriage gun since it can be hooked up and towed any place it's needed. A utility tool, so to speak.
But, that rack of guns just gives me goose bumps. The good kind.
by
kat-missouri on October 5, 2005 04:47 PM
Oh..nearly forgot, definitely like the fact that it's a "24 pounder". ;)
by
kat-missouri on October 5, 2005 04:49 PM
*Needs a cold shower...*
by
lex on October 5, 2005 05:57 PM
LMAO at Kat and Lex! :D
by
Fuzzybear Lioness on October 5, 2005 06:53 PM
*still laughing*
Okay, I give up... It's about time we had a party around here! Neffi, where's the ritamatic?
And I'll admit it: big guns make me drool, too. ;)
With that in mind... I've been thinking that maybe I need to get a myself a big gun... and some coaching so I know how to get it loaded, hold it to maximum effect, and make it hit the spots I want it to.
Anybody know the best place to find one?
*long silence in the Castle*
I did say "handgun," didn't I?
by
Fuzzybear Lioness on October 5, 2005 07:10 PM
Like, in this thread, talking about a gun that fits in your hand helps, Fuzzy... sheesh!~
by
John of Argghhh! on October 5, 2005 07:15 PM
Now John, FbL is already blushing- for shame, Sirrah!
bwahahahaha
errr.. ahem
OK- Lioness, check yer Yeller Pages for local gun shops. They often offer beginner's classes in handgun instruction, or can steer you in the right direction. Arizona is an open-carry state, so you can pack a piece wherever you go.
Arizona may also be a 'shall-issue' state for concealed carry- I'll check that out....
by
Neffi on October 5, 2005 07:29 PM
Who said I was trying to help, John? ;)
by
Fuzzybear Lioness on October 5, 2005 07:42 PM
And besides, I have very small, delicate hands...
by
Fuzzybear Lioness on October 5, 2005 07:43 PM
And since I'm a musician, they're quite agile and skillful, too. :D
by
Fuzzybear Lioness on October 5, 2005 07:44 PM
oooooooooohhhhhh, Fuzzie- more allegro!!! Now!!!!
[PG17C scans his new thesaurus..]
by
Neffi on October 5, 2005 08:21 PM
Ladies, ladies, ladies... you should know by now. It's NOT the size of the ammo. It's how it's loaded. And..the technique used for cleaning after wards............or before.....
by
klkk on October 5, 2005 08:28 PM
Damn. Who ever ran out of cold water before?
by
lex on October 5, 2005 09:36 PM
"Damn. Who ever ran out of cold water before?"
I see my work here is done... *grin*
*Lioness laughter echoes through the Castle halls as FbL sashays away*
by
Fuzzybear Lioness on October 5, 2005 09:47 PM
Nice rectangularly reticulated rack of robustious rubiginous rumblers.
Oh, did the gurls say somethin'?
by
Justthisguy on October 5, 2005 10:03 PM
I find the thing with handguns is... not to let them just go off until you're good and ready.
You don't want that thing exploding in your hand, you know... unless that's what you intended.
Control is key :)
*running away*
by
Cassandra on October 6, 2005 07:44 PM
Now see John?
This is very cool. Sometimes the Ladies *can* contribute to these military discussions, don't you think?
by
Cassandra on October 6, 2005 07:46 PM
Snerk!
by
John of Argghhh! on October 6, 2005 07:55 PM
HA!
*bows to the snarkmistress, Cassandra*
nicely done, lady!
by
AFSister on October 6, 2005 09:48 PM
Yeah, mayhaps...
And then there's the whole "fully-automatic" aspect...
Each shot an individually packaged orgasm...
... For a machine gunner, anyway...
by
Sgt. B. on October 6, 2005 10:10 PM
WOOP! WOOP! WOOP!
*sound of pg-17c scurrying about like the robot from Lost in Space, arms flailing...yelling "WARNING! WARNING! WARNING!"*
Jeez... you just HAD to say the "O" word, eh Sgt?
Of course, that does explain why so many of you guys seem to like machine guns.
Reminds me of a joke I recently heard:
A beautiful young lady gets on a plane, takes her seat and starts sneezing and moaning. She sneezed throughout the flight, their affect obviously wearing her out as she slouches in her seat. Finally, the guy next to her says "Boy, you really seem to have a bad cold". "No", she says. "I have a rare medical condition that makes me sneeze a lot." "Oh? What happens?", he says. She replies, "Well, every time I sneeze, I have a little orgasm."
"REALLY? Wow... so, what are you taking for it?", he asks.
"Pepper"
ACHOOOOO!
*grin*
by
AFSister on October 7, 2005 08:17 AM
Reminds me. There's been a flouncing shortage 'round her. WUWT?
by
ry on October 7, 2005 08:33 AM
*lurching in* You rang?
by
Pepper on October 7, 2005 09:02 AM
You're right, Ry... there hasn't been much flouncing. Flopping and flaunting maybe... but not much flouncing.
ACHOOOOOOO!
ohhhhhh YESSSSSSSSSSSS
Hellooooo PEPPER!
*flounces away giggling and sneezing*
by
AFSister on October 7, 2005 09:09 AM
I love this place...
*ROFL*
by
Fuzzybear Lioness on October 7, 2005 12:16 PM
« Dismissed, Soldier!
September 15, 2005
Big Gun Pr0n
The Arsenal at Argghhh! is more than small arms. We have grenades, mines, maces for trench raiding, comfort items... etc. We also have a relatively decent assortment of artillery ammunition (it *is* after all, the ammunition that is the true weapon).
We even know where we can get one of these:
The dummy training projectile for the Iowa-class battleships. They're in Idaho, and at around 1800 pounds each, they'd be a tad expensive to ship.
More importantly, perhaps, we don't have the proper gear in the Arsenal to schlep 'em around, either (including the surly sailor!).
But someday... someday, when the dream tower on the bluff overlooking the river is built... I'll get *two* to flank the driveway!
Oh, and I should caveat, all of this is in compliance with the Standard Disclaimers®.
And for all these reasons and more... the nomination of Judge Roberts is important to both sides of the debate. Why? Because things like the New Orleans rather arbitrary confiscation of firearms are going to end up before the court.
Reporting As Ordered, Sir! »
...and at 1800 lbs you won't have to worry about anyone stealing 'em either.
Freudian compensation indeed :-)
by
Masked Menace© on September 15, 2005 09:01 AM
It's not compensation, Menace. Simply mutual respect...
by
John of Argghhh! on September 15, 2005 09:05 AM
*snort*
by
Masked Menace© on September 15, 2005 09:11 AM
Ohhh.... Yes Yes Yes...SIR!
(showing my mutual respect)
*grin*
by
Were-Kitten on September 15, 2005 09:16 AM
I would suggest that it is the trained soldier who is the true weapon ...
(Gunners is always compensating.)
Cheers
JMH
by
J.M. Heinrichs on September 15, 2005 09:22 AM
Certainly Mr. Peanut and The Sambuca are comfort items, but that Petty Othifer with the grimy dungarees, no thanx.
by
Comforted Boquisucio on September 15, 2005 09:25 AM
I knew, when I re-read that bit, exactly what snarks (#1 deserved) I was gonna get from Heinrichs.
Both of 'em. Even though I was *nice* to him in the previous post.
by
John of Argghhh! on September 15, 2005 09:53 AM
I am pretty sure a surly sailor ain't that hard to find, and the block and tackle gear looks pretty standard. So, time to start figuring out that shipping ;-)
by
PigBoatSailor on September 15, 2005 11:22 AM
But we're missing the whole turret thingy!
by
John of Argghhh! on September 15, 2005 11:24 AM
Ostensibly, it's not a turret but a gunhouse.
Cheers
JMH
by
J.M. Heinrichs on September 15, 2005 11:49 AM
...and if it mounted catapults in lieu of guns, it would be a
*bgtzzzzzt!* GRAAHHH! SNAP!
Down, PG--bad construct! NO WD-40!
by
cw4(ret)billt on September 15, 2005 01:05 PM
And if it provided residential accomodation for "Great Horned Owls"?
A "Whooo"-house.
Cheers
JMH
by
J.M. Heinrichs on September 15, 2005 01:31 PM
Arbitrary confiscation? I know what that is, on the surface, and I will go back and click the link, but
if martial law was declared, wouldn't confiscation be a given?
by
Cricket on September 15, 2005 01:35 PM
John, yer a stellar writer and I love yer blog.
I read the link and decided that while arbitrary certainly fit, rapacious, capricious and ill advised
would be good choices too.
Good for the citizens who stayed and protected themselves and stayed. That chief of police is
a nitwit.
Now, I go back to the original question, having read the link: If the city was under martial law,
wouldn't there have been an 'orderly' confiscation using registration records?
by
Cricket on September 15, 2005 01:44 PM
And if the city was under martial law, why did Hizzoner have to "re-issue" his mandatory evacuation decree? Twice?
And why were (still are, actually) the Actives cruising the streets/canals merely "offering transportation" to those residents who "wish" to leave their homes?
And why weren't/aren't the noncompliant arrested?
And why isn't the ACLU squawking about the suspension of habeas corpus?
All in all, it doesn't appear that the city is under martial law, it's just a city with a martial presence...
by
cw4(ret)billt on September 15, 2005 03:48 PM
I just wanted to say that one of these pictures did actually seem a little pornographic.
Not that I'm complaining and I'll let everyone guess which one it was. LOL
by
kat-missouri on September 15, 2005 07:01 PM
Ms. Kat, would it be the last one?
by
The Master on September 16, 2005 11:12 AM
The ACLU is squawking about background checks, sadly enough. How DARE we know something about the strangers we are asked to take in! What insolence is that?
Strangely enough, I never heard or saw a declaration of martial law unless it was on a MSM news site, and then that could be their best guess-equating martial law with a martial presence. One does wonder.
However, going back to the martial law thingy: If martial law WERE declared, would it follow that the populace be evicted or placed on 'house arrest' with strict curfews?
by
Cricket on September 16, 2005 12:38 PM
Once again, the Lady cuts to the heart of the matter.
When martial law is declared, the military commander becomes absolute monarch; everyone within the area becomes subject to military law, i.e., the Uniform Code of Military Justice. Civil authorities are normally left in situ to provide a continuity of administration, but that option, too, is left to the military commander.
If martial law had been declared in NO, my guess the commander's priorities at that time regarding the citizenry would be
1. immediately round up all remaining able-bodied males and organize them into boat-borne rescue teams with a central reporting location,
2. arrest the recalcitrant (and hold them incommunicado--why waste manpower on visitor escorts?),
3. evacuate all remaining women and kids,
4. house the rescue teams in one of the minimally-damaged hotels under dusk-to-dawn lockdown.
Draconian. Which is why I don't think that martial law has been declared, or the MSM would be raising pure hell.
by
cw4(ret)billt on September 16, 2005 04:26 PM
That shell deck is always lightly oiled, you know, to aid in the parbuckling. I wonder how hard it is to keep yer footing, there, especially if the ship is moving in all degrees of freedom. I know the Iowas are big, but they do roll and pitch somewhat. I wonder what deck angle and acceleration you'd have to have for one of those projectiles to fall over.
by
Justthisguy on September 16, 2005 05:04 PM
JTG - always looking on the bright side!
by
John of Argghhh! on September 16, 2005 05:10 PM
JTG - always looking on the bright side!
by
John of Argghhh! on September 16, 2005 05:10 PM
Hey, what can I say? After that nasty person tipped me into the Moat, and I spent some undead time at BCR Labs, well, Snarkatron got a good deal on some used left-side diodes...
It's all Neffi's fault.
by
Justthisguy on September 18, 2005 12:14 AM
Thanks for clearing that up. I have often wondered under what conditions martial law would be declared, as I do remember after the earthquake, we didn't have it per se. We had a curfew and some sensible temporary measures, and once power and water were back on, things really eased up a bit.
by
Cricket on September 18, 2005 03:19 PM
« Dismissed, Soldier!
by
John
on
Sep 15, 2005
»
Alphecca links with:
Hey, Big Boy...
»
Unpartisan.com Political News and Blog Aggregator links with:
Democrats shift focus in court fight
»
NIF links with:
Another Today
»
Don Surber links with:
The First Katrina Lawsuit
»
PatriotVoices links with:
Farewell to most powerful ICBM
September 09, 2005
Just for kicks.
Update: Visitors from The Galvin Opinion will find the Castle's Katrina stuff by clicking here. This post is actually one of the few non-Katrina posts this week! Of course, it's *all* good...!
What the heck, *more* gun pr0n!
Jordana of Curmudgeonry hosts the Carnival of the Recipes, the 56th iteration of SWWBO's idea!
Speaking of SWWBO - look who is posting a Lefty's Ideas... in a postive light! There *is* some common ground... and while I am *not* a fan of MoveOn, I'll credit 'em for what Amber posts on her diary.
On top of all that, SWWBO is a Concerned Citizen who also had a bemusing experience.
Heh, Castle Argghhh! - periodically, all SWWBO, all the time!
Kat, channeling La Malkin, is *not* interested in another commission, bi-partisan, blue collar, or otherwise. Me neither. I say show up at the polls with pitchforks.
Alan continues his assault, Day By Day.
While all the horror and heroism unfolds in the Southeast, there is *still* a war on, and *still* combat wounded - who need our assistance. Fuzzybear Lioness has more on how you can decorate your barren, pathetic walls and help at the same time.
Barb likes Ben Stein. So do we. Of course, then there's these guys. But it *is* New Orleans, I suppose. Mardi Gras forever...
Cassandra asks God to take away her Kool-Aid...
Were-Kitten, groggy from coordinating Red Cross Volunteer activities, did find time to take a quiz. My result:
I'm a Defender Ship/Base Defender... Gee, who'd a thunk?
"I am fiercely protective of my friends and loved ones, and unforgiving of any who would hurt them. Speed and foresight are my strengths, at the cost of a little clumsiness. I'm most comfortable with a few friends, but sometimes particularly enjoy spending time in larger groups."
Jack loses his router, and waxes philosophical (but not about the router).
Sergeant B calls out Spokane...
Soon-to-be 1SG Keith takes a cheep shot at the Castle in this otherwise blandly adequate, Inspected-for-your-OPSEC-safety post. Hey, Keith - pppllllpppppptttt!
Reporting As Ordered, Sir! »
Hey, I was only pointing out that it hadn't been on the Castle before, fine story that it was......
by
MSG Keith on September 9, 2005 09:58 AM
Thanks for the link, John. :)
by
Fuzzybear Lioness on September 9, 2005 10:40 AM
Thanks for the linky-love, John. I think I'll take Ben Stein's piece and laminate it for all the nay-sayers in my local ecology.
by
Barb on September 9, 2005 12:27 PM
YAY! Linky-Castle-Lovin! Thanks John! I should post an update about my disaster relief efforts. Things are busy, but I'm still finding PLENTY of ways of getting myself in trouble!
by
Were-Kitten on September 9, 2005 03:49 PM
Very nice Type 99, John- but the bayonet is for an earlier issue. That rifle should have the straight crossguard and simplified pommel...
I can help, eh?
by
Bayonet Geek on September 9, 2005 05:33 PM
Yes - except that bayonet is the one on the rifle when it was captured by Corporal Huggins.
by
John of Argghhh! on September 9, 2005 05:36 PM
Excellent- I love those 'straight-out-of-the-closet' finds.
Very nice.
by
Bayonet Geek on September 9, 2005 06:04 PM
John,
Check your e-mail if you havn't yet. Great message from the Iowa Jima Skipper.
by
Sarenyon on September 10, 2005 04:11 AM
« Dismissed, Soldier!
August 26, 2005
Gunfight Rulez.
Another oldie but goodie. I agree with these rules. I own a lot of guns, but I can't talk to you in detail about muzzle velocities, hand load specs, MOA, etc. I'm not that kind of geek. I'm all about hitting the target, center of mass, reliably, as quickly as possible, from uncomfortable positions.
Subject: USMC & USN RULES OF GUNFIGHTING
USMC Rules For Gunfighting During War
1. Bring a gun. Preferably, bring at least two guns. Bring all of your friends who have guns.
2. Anything worth shooting is worth shooting twice. Ammo is cheap. Life is expensive.
3. Only hits count. The only thing worse than a miss is a slow miss.
4. If your shooting stance is good, you're probably not moving fast enough nor using cover correctly.
5. Move away from your attacker. Distance is your friend. (Lateral and diagonal movement are preferred.)
6. If you can choose what to bring to a gunfight, bring a long gun and a friend with a long gun.
7. In ten years nobody will remember the details of caliber, stance, or tactics. They will only remember who lived.
8. If you are not shooting, you should be communicating, reloading, and running.
9. Accuracy is relative: most combat shooting standards will be more dependent on "pucker factor" than the inherent accuracy of the gun.
9.5. Use a gun that works EVERY TIME. "All skill is in vain when an Angel pisses in the flintlock of your musket."
10. Someday someone may kill you with your own gun, but they should have to beat you to death with it because it is empty.
11. Always cheat; always win. The only unfair fight is the one you lose.
12. Have a plan.
13. Have a back-up plan, because the first one won't work.
14. Use cover or concealment as much as possible. The visible target should be in FRONT of your gun.
15. Flank your adversary when possible. Protect yours.
16. Don't drop your guard.
17. Always tactical load and threat scan 360 degrees.
18. Watch their hands. Hands kill. (In God we trust. Everyone else, keep your hands where I can see them).
19. Decide to be aggressive ENOUGH, quickly ENOUGH.
20. The faster you finish the fight, the less shot you will get.
21. Be polite. Be professional. But have a plan to kill everyone you meet.
22. Be courteous to everyone, friendly to no one.
23. Your number one Option for Personal Security is a lifelong commitment to avoidance, deterrence, and de-escalation.
24. Do not attend a gunfight with a handgun, the caliber of which does not start with a "4."
U.S. Navy Rules to Gunfighting
1. Adopt an aggressive offshore posture.
2. Send the Marines.
3. Drink Coffee.
Hat tip, Randy K.
On a only tangentially-related note: What Television Has Taught Me about Handguns from King of Fools.
H/t, SWWBO!
Reporting As Ordered, Sir! »
LOL - perfect!
Although if all the blue-water folks do is send in the Marines and quaff coffee, what are all those 16" barrels on USN battleships for? And why exactly do the Marines prefer fighting within their range?
by
Damian on August 26, 2005 09:45 AM
You forgot:
4. Wait around in General Quarters in range of all the enemy cruise missile batteries while the Marines fiddle around in the mud, making instantaneous demands for impossible levels of support and reminding you of how the Navy "screwed them" back at Guadalcanal...
by
lex on August 26, 2005 11:00 AM
Snerk! Yeah, you guys have been paying for being wusses at the 'Canal for a loooong time!
You weren't much help at Belleau Wood or Chapultepec, either!
by
John of Argghhh! on August 26, 2005 11:16 AM
The 'Gunfight Rules' bit is a mish-mash of similar posts going around the internet, but a significant number of those can be attributed to Clint Smith of Thunder Ranch:
http://www.thunderranchinc.com/TRoregonhome.html
He's uttered some other gems as well:
"If you carry a gun, people call you paranoid. That's ridiculous. If I have a gun, what in the hell do I have to be paranoid about?"
"If you're not shootin', you should be loadin'. If you're not loadin', you should be movin'. If you're not movin', someone's gonna cut your head off and plant it on a stick."
-Clint Smith
by
MCart on August 26, 2005 11:19 AM
Are you sure a Marine wrote this? I seem to remember a gun is not exactly the proper...ummmm...equipment for shooting.
by
Masked Menace© on August 26, 2005 11:30 AM
Velly funny stuff Kemosabe! LWOL!!
Excellent rules, tho. This will make it to the save for future ref. use...
by
SangerM on August 26, 2005 01:53 PM
"... a gun is not exactly the proper...ummmm...equipment for shooting."
I BEG your pardon..?
Says who?
Oh, and the Navy made up for Guadalcanal by perfecting their close air support techniques, by the by...
And, Lex, I thought that was what the whole Aegis system was about...
But I'm just a dumb Marine machine gunner... What do I know...
*grin*
by
Sgt. B. on August 26, 2005 01:59 PM
Sergeant B - I'm shocked. MM© is obviously referring to: "This is my rifle, this is my gun. This is for fighting, this is for fun!"
You *sure* yer a Devil Dog?
by
John of Argghhh! on August 26, 2005 02:17 PM
With a hot .50 cal, you can do both... Super-sized, with fries...
*evil grin*
by
Sgt. B. on August 26, 2005 02:41 PM
You forgot to add the Air Force portion:
NUKE 'EM TIL THEY GLOW.
SEND IN THE MARINES TO SHOOT 'EM IN THE DARK.
GO HOME TO YOUR WOMAN,BOURBON,AND BED.
WATCH IT ON THE NEWS THE NEXT MORNING.
by
dennis l on August 26, 2005 06:11 PM
Just remember - if you survive the first ten minutes of combat you will live forever. Only training and a little luck can give you that ten. After that, if you are still alive you can start thinking again.
by
Walter E. Wallis on August 26, 2005 09:56 PM
Sadly, the description of my shooting is, "He may shoot slow, but on the other hand, he misses a lot too."
btw... I'll take my .357 magnum to a gun fight any day. Hey, it is a Ruger Blackhawk. If I miss with all six shots I can always beat them to death with it.
by
tkc on August 28, 2005 03:13 PM
tkc - snerk! Good description. You might scare 'em with that pistol, too. I had it's bigger brother, the Super Blackhawk, which *does* meet the criteria, but yeah, especially with the right bullets, a .357 will make 'em take notice.
by
John of Argghhh! on August 28, 2005 03:28 PM
« Dismissed, Soldier!
by
John
on
Aug 26, 2005
»
Alphecca links with:
Around Town...
»
NIF links with:
Bahng Chicka Bonck Beow
»
TFS Magnum links with:
Gunfight Rules
»
SayUncle links with:
Gunfight rules
»
Searchlight Crusade links with:
Links and Minifeatures 08 28 Sunday
»
Rocket Jones links with:
A List of Lists
May 16, 2005
A Post just for JTG
Since he's whining in email to SWWBO about less politics, more guns! (hmm, there's a political statement in there, somewhere).
So, JTG:
This
Post
Is
for
You!
Wow. I used to have a *lot more time* for this stuff.
Reporting As Ordered, Sir! »
Ah yes- 'Less politics, More guns'... the cry of revolutionaries everywhere heh
by
Neffi on May 16, 2005 09:27 AM
Ooh! Shiny! Thankee kindly, sir.
by
Justtisguy on May 16, 2005 10:15 PM
« Dismissed, Soldier!
May 05, 2005
A crying shame.
This little movie is going to make Sergeant B break into tears.
Click here for the horror.
Update: Due to extreme bandwidth theft, I have blocked the videos. Please drop me a line at the Armorer's contact email, and I will be happy to provide this video.
The attached note made *me* grind my teeth.
All,
Please take a moment to look at this short video clip and feel free to use it for training, etc...it was put together by one of our Senior TACOM Small Arms Equipment Specialists at Rock Island who operated our Small Arms Support Center(SASC)in Balad, Iraq; essentially a "mini Depot" repair facility for all Small Arms...his comments are below.
This was done at the Ware Lab here at Rock Island to re-create the mistakes that continue to occur in Iraq. The troops screw the barrel into the 50 without pulling the bolt back to release the locking spring.
They then loosen the barrel up 3 to 4 clicks and attempt to fire it.
I would see between 5 to 8 of these guns a week at the SASC in Balad.
It destroys the gun, and can injure the soldier.
Dammit, it *ain't* rocket science. It's a failure of leadership. There is simply *no excuse* for blowing up a Ma Deuce because you don't follow proper headspace procedures.
Argghhh!!!
Sergeant B sez (pulled up from the comments):
There are horror stories of M2s blowing up because of a failure to set proper headspace... Headspace is the "gap" between the face of the bolt, and the beginning of the chamber. The case of the round (the brass part that holds the gunpowder) is supported by the walls of the chamber (located in the barrel)... To comply with the laws of explosive force, the pressure of the gas created by the burning gunpowder in the round after firing will attempt to escape using the path of least resistance, normally down the barrel, pushing the actual bullet before it. This is the way it is supposed to work... Unfortunately, if the headspace has not been set, that force will blow out of the side of the cartridge.
As each round contains the equivalent of a quarter stick of dynamite, this causes devestating damage to the gun, and normally to the gunner and team leader as well.
I have seen guns where the receiver walls have been blown out, or severely deformed, cooling blocks shredded, and Marines flat on their backs as the Corpsman tried to disengage the backplate assembly from their chests...
In one instance, we were firing a "mad minute" also called a "Final Protective Fire" at 29 Palms. We were firing our M2s from tripods, and had our supporting AAVs beside us, with their turret mounted M2s. In the midst of the firing, I heard an explosion in the turret of the nearest AAV, and saw a three foot long bar go spinning down range. I grabbed the Corpsman, and ran into the back of the AAV, where I saw the track commander (who happened to be the brother of one of our platoon sergeants, sliding out of the turret. The track was filled with smoke. The turret M2 had exploded, and the bar that we had seen was the barrel of the gun. We grabbed the sergeant and dragged him out of the vehicle, and began checking him for wounds... He got lucky, and had minor burns, but no new holes.
Turns out that during the movement over rough terrain, the locking lug on the barrel extention (that holds the barrel into place) had broken off, and the vibration of the vehicle had unscrewed the barrel from the gun. The sergeant hadn't checked it before firing, and derned near blew his head off. This was one of the few times when a sergeant got his butt chewed by a corporal.
The very first thing you do after screwing the barrel into the receiver is check headspace and timing... This is Gunner's Law... Not perfroming this is a failure in leadership, and is almost criminal negligence, especially with the M2...
Thanks for the word, John.
Reporting As Ordered, Sir! »
There are horror stories of M2s blowing up because of a failure to set proper headspace... Headspace is the "gap" between the face of the bolt, and the beginning of the chamber. The case of the round (the brass part that holds the gunpowder) is supported by the walls of the chamber (located in the barrel)... To comply with the laws of explosive force, the pressure of the gas created by the burning gunpowder in the round after firing will attempt to escape using the path of least resistance, normally down the barrel, pushing the actual bullet before it. This is the way it is supposed to work... Unfortunately, if the headspace has not been set, that force will blow out of the side of the cartridge. As each round contains the equivalent of a quarter stick of dynamite, this causes devestating damage to the gun, and normally to the gunner and team leader as well.
I have seen guns where the receiver walls have been blown out, or severely deformed, cooling blocks shredded, and Marines flat on their backs as the Corpsman tried to disengage the backplate assembly from their chests...
In one instance, we were firing a "mad minute" also called a "Final Protective Fire" at 29 Palms. We were firing our M2s from tripods, and had our supporting AAVs beside us, with their turret mounted M2s. In the midst of the firing, I heard an explosion in the turret of the nearest AAV, and saw a three foot long bar go spinning down range. I grabbed the Corpsman, and ran into the back of the AAV, where I saw the track commander (who happened to be the brother of one of our platoon sergeants, sliding out of the turret. The track was filled with smoke. The turret M2 had exploded, and the bar that we had seen was the barrel of the gun. We grabbed the sergeant and dragged him out of the vehicle, and began checking him for wounds... He got lucky, and had minor burns, but no new holes.
Turns out that during the movement over rough terrain, the locking lug on the barrel extention (that holds the barrel into place) had broken off, and the vibration of the vehicle had unscrewed the barrel from the gun. The sergeant hadn't checked it before firing, and derned near blew his head off. This was one of the few times when a sergeant got his butt chewed by a corporal.
The very first thing you do after screwing the barrel into the receiver is check headspace and timing... This is Gunner's Law... Not perfroming this is a failure in leadership, and is almost criminal negligence, especially with the M2...
Thanks for the word, John.
by
Sgt. B. on May 5, 2005 10:14 AM
lessee, if I remember correctly:
If the Go don't go, or the No-Go goes, it's a no-go
If the Go goes and the No-Go dont go, it's a go.
CHA-ching!
by
SangerM on May 5, 2005 11:41 AM
Yes... But in a pinch, one dogtag is a go, two dog tags is a no-go... Or back the barrel off three clicks...
The GOOD gunners memorize the number of clicks that each barrel requires, but they still check the headspace anyway...
by
Sgt. B. on May 5, 2005 11:46 AM
Heh. I marked the guns and barrels to each other, and the number of clicks on the barrel - and made 'em verify. The numerology was a 'combat emergency only' SOP.
by
John of Argghhh! on May 5, 2005 01:15 PM
The failure in the clip was not the worse case failure. Back in the deep dark days (1978 or so) with the old and venerable M60A1 RISE AOS (w/IR elbo) a mastergunner was seting up for a minni tank range using the M2 HB mounted on the serchlight mount (not unlike the system used by the IDF. THe master gunner test fired the gun and the cover flew a good 30 meters downrange. But for the grace of God no one was hurt. But the gun ended up condition code X.
by
mudpuppy1975 on May 5, 2005 02:54 PM
Yes
I just had a soldier injured in Afghanistan due to this very same issue
Failed to correctly headspace and time the M2 and caught part of the round in his leg-- he's OK
But what criminal is only getting 1500 rounds a year to qualify 10 gunners in the Bn (BTW- it can't be done when 590 round is req'd for qual)
But poor leadership and a paratrooper out of action
by
redleg on May 6, 2005 09:13 AM
Redleg, I am complete agreement with you, and your tone of disgust(?)over lack of training...
If you're going to use the beast in combat, you should have the proper training, properly funded.
No matter how proficient your people are, there are certain actions and procedures that must be made instinctive... For you, the procedure for deploying your reserve chute is something you can do in your sleep... Same-same with the M2... There's a balance of blame here, between the Gun Team leader, and the command for not dedicating enough gun time for these procedure to become automatic. (I know, preaching to the chior on this one...)
Unfortunately, this is a condition experienced aby ALL services... ('Lest ye think that I'm denigrating the warriors of the Army...)
(Now if us Jarheads could break you of this unhealthy habit of throwing yourselves bodily out of perfectly good airplanes, ya'll would be GREAT Marines!!!)
*wink*
Semper Fi, Redleg! Keep the faith!
by
Sgt. B. on May 6, 2005 12:07 PM
Tell ya what, SGT B, you let us jump out of airplanes, we won't talk about you guys driving tracked armored vehicles off the stern.
by
John of Argghhh! on May 6, 2005 12:49 PM
What, like this?
Hmmm... Okay, deal... But I reserve to right to shake my head in bemusement...
by
Sgt. B. on May 6, 2005 03:48 PM
No doubt our years of not getting enouhg rounds to qualify liv fire with the M2 are coming back to haunt us. I would bet big money that the gun crew was "eye balling" HS & T in stead of using the gauge, probably not newbies, but guys who had gotten too lackadaisical.
by
SFC SKI on May 8, 2005 04:41 PM
No doubt our years of not getting enouhg rounds to qualify liv fire with the M2 are coming back to haunt us. I would bet big money that the gun crew was "eye balling" HS & T in stead of using the gauge, probably not newbies, but guys who had gotten too lackadaisical.
by
SFC SKI on May 8, 2005 04:41 PM
That's freakin' scary.. That's one too many M2's exploding. Yikes!!!!!
That's definitely a leadership issue that should not be neglected any longer.
by
Desult on May 8, 2005 05:28 PM
« Dismissed, Soldier!
by
John
on
May 05, 2005
»
Winds of Change.NET links with:
Iraq Report, 09 May/05
April 29, 2005
Gun Zen
The crud has migrated to the chest, enough so that I finally conceded and didn't go into the office today. Via the joys of a wireless connection (and anticipating the event yesterday) I brought the work machine home and will be slaving away, anyway. Dang those suspenses. But, since I slept in, feel like crap, and gotta get this thing done - here's what I've got for you today, courtesy the Admiral of the Moat Fleet and the Blogfather.
Gun videos! Prolly ought to right-click and save-as, but do whatcha want...
Via Boquisucio: Fun with machineguns!
Remember Jaws? Where Roy Scheider shoots the scuba tank in the shark's mouth? I remember when I saw the movie thinking - that kinda steel wouldn't fail that way... but aluminum might. Well, someone has tested the theory. The shark prolly would have been unhappy, regardless...
And finally... *rubbing bald head, staring at nothing* "the horror... the horror..."
Did someone mention cannon? Cannon-cockers? Heh. Musta been me. No, wait - it was Murdoc - talking about the infantry of the 2nd Battalion, Eigth Regiment of FIELD ARTILLERY. AUTOMATIC!
But what's more important... besides that Jointness - is the ratio of 'Combined' (i.e., allied forces)... 3:1.
That, and the fact that they scored some eBay material there - all those Ba'ath Party medals!
Reporting As Ordered, Sir! »
AAAHHHHHH!!!!!!
A kitten cannon? A kitten CANNON? *sniff* *sniff* And here I thought you *liked* having the kittens around the Castle.....
*gather up fellow Castle Kittens and heads for the hills, far away from cannon*
by
Were-Kitten on April 29, 2005 10:14 AM
Good thing for sharks, that they can count on never ending rows of new teefs.
by
Boquisucio on April 29, 2005 10:28 AM
Hey! I said "The Horror!"
by
John of Argghhh! on April 29, 2005 10:42 AM
When I tried it, little fluffy got to meet the spikey thingy up close and personal. OUCH!!!!
by
Boquisucio on April 29, 2005 11:07 AM
Someone has too much time on his hands, doesn't he?
Poor kitties. I will put out some catnip for them and some smoked salmon and see if they come back, and you guys quit doing the cannon thing.
I thought it was a kitty setting off a cannon and you were thinking of your cats getting into the arsenal.
by
Cricket on April 29, 2005 11:23 AM
Ooooh, my kitty went 1,156 feet. Good kitty.
by
PigBoatSailor on April 29, 2005 11:31 AM
Beat me. Mine only went 796 feet.
by
John of Argghhh! on April 29, 2005 11:55 AM
Boq - A lovely video to start my day off right *Grin*!!
Really, John - shooting kitties from a cannon? How rude...
I couldn't get past 324 ft, I'd never make it as a redleg.
by
Barb on April 29, 2005 12:03 PM
Oh yea,
Nothing sez GOOD MORNING like David Cassidy & The Partridge Family.
by
Boquisucio on April 29, 2005 01:12 PM
Ha 262ft. Right into Audrey´s mouth, nuth'n but rim.
FEED ME SEYMOUR!!!
by
Boquisucio on April 29, 2005 01:44 PM
*btw- my kitty went 1200 feet*
RRROOOOAAARR!!
by
Were-Kitten on April 29, 2005 03:26 PM
My best was 1,756 but I've been practicing.
by
Punctilious on April 29, 2005 04:39 PM
Were-Kitty... *gather up fellow Castle Kittens and heads for the hills, far away from cannon*
heh... 1200 feet, eh? Methinks the Lady doth protest too much...
by
Neffi on April 29, 2005 07:25 PM
So enough of this kitten cannon stuff. I just did the weapon meme came up desert eagle. So what do you think? The .50AE in mauve or should I stick to the 357 version in boring old dark grey?
by
Punctilous on April 29, 2005 09:46 PM
here is a link to your gun.
http://www.collectorsfirearms.com/pr4559.htm
where is the link to your quiz?
by
rammer on April 29, 2005 09:58 PM
Oh, go with the .50 - but please, not in mauve ;-)
What gun quiz? Where is it? Sounds fun...
by
Barb on April 30, 2005 10:51 AM
You know, I am a bit slow... The term "AUTOMATIC EIGHTH" has been slinging around in my head for days, but I couldn't figure out why or what it meant, then I happened to relooked at this link, and it hit me, that was the name of the Arty unit in the 25th Inf when I was there. Duh!
I always liked that name, it has a nice ring to it, very mechanical and lethal sounding, yet lyrical...
Yeah, that's it, lyrical... kaBOOM! (14 round per minute per gun at one point, according to the link).
General Brooks was the Div CG when I was there, father of the two current General Brooks', and he was an Arty guy! Use to run PT in red shorts and a crossed-cannon t-shirt if I remember correctly.
by
SangerM on May 2, 2005 09:36 PM
« Dismissed, Soldier!
March 18, 2005
Oooo. Brass. SWWBO likes brass...
Roving Castle Picture Provider Randy K. went to the UK - and sent us pictures of pretties!
Like this very early version of the M79 Grenade Launcher.
The data plate sez: Combined wheellock and matchlock hand-mortar. The stock inlaid with engraved stag-horn Nueremberg Mark and maker's mark G.H. over a pierced heart on lock plate, about 1590. One of the few surviving grenade launchers of the late 16th Century.
The curators are obviously of the opinion the engraved stag-horn is what's important here. The Armorer would rather take a look at the mechanism.
SWWBO would allow one of these in the living room, you betcha!
Hi-res pic available, click here.
Reporting As Ordered, Sir! »
Gotta wonder if anyone ever really fired that sucker.
by
Chuck Simmins on March 18, 2005 01:17 PM
Gotta wonder if anyone ever really fired that sucker twice.
by
Fred Boness on March 18, 2005 01:45 PM
If they did it didn't blow up in their face but...
by
Punctilious on March 18, 2005 02:22 PM
Black powder doesn't produce the same viciousness of recoil as modern powders do. Nor does it generate the same sharp pressure curves - which is really a report of the Department of Redundancy Department reports.
Assuming no flaw in the casting, and using the proper powder - you would be hard put to make that gun fail.
The grenade might go off in your face... but that's not the gun's fault!
by
John of Argghhh! on March 18, 2005 02:42 PM
hmm that one feller is getting mighty fresh with the damsel...
by
Neffi on March 18, 2005 03:24 PM
I thought so, too, Neffi. Looks a lot like you and Lioness...
by
John of Argghhh! on March 18, 2005 05:19 PM
OK, so that's a presentation piece. I'll bet the service models got more use as trench clubs than as hand-mortars... and yeah, I agree with The Armorer- they should turn it around so we can see the lock. Nice piece though, quality, eh?
by
Neffi on March 18, 2005 08:15 PM
Any idea what that thing fired, exactly?
I'd guess shot.
by
ACE on March 19, 2005 11:50 AM
Grenades, actually. And shot. Little hollow balls filled with powder or incendiary materials. Essentially like fireworks.
by
John of Argghhh! on March 19, 2005 12:08 PM
Don't mind me - just testing.
by
John of Argghhhh!!! on March 24, 2005 08:23 AM
« Dismissed, Soldier!
March 02, 2005
Getting back to my roots.
In light of comments in the post below, it is obviously time to drag this thing back up into the light for all you not-long-time readers. This is just a periodic post for relative newbies to the site who don't realize the real reason I set this thing up was to share my collection with the world - and point out you don't know what the guy next door has in his basement... but that doesn't mean he's a nut. As the blog has morphed over time, now and again I've gotten a little too wrapped up in the politics and the war - and, well, yes, work, too - and I've strayed a bit from my roots. Well that and the great parties the Denizens throw in the comment sections now and again... Please don't stop, Denizens! It makes it fun when sometimes it's real work to maintain (fought off 1,780 spams today, for example... but 132 got through and had to be slain inside the Keep!).
With great hubris I too have made the mistake that many celebrities make - that my opinions on things political somehow matter more than others. Well, not really. This is more the equivalent of standing on a soapbox at "Speakers Corner".
Anyway - for you guys who are here because you heard that John of Argghhh! actually sometimes talked about guns and militaria - here's the navigation map to The Story So Far. They link to the appropriate archives by topic. I'm working a new post on the evolution of the Vickers Machine gun - but these things take time! In fact, here's proof - I have the collecting jones so bad that I actually tracked down this - an actual Australian Army inventory sheet - so that I could fill this (procured buck-nekkid empty three years ago) so that it looked like this.
Hi-res click here.
Anyway - here's some linkages to the discussions - where it says "The Arsenal" is a link to the photo-archive. (always available on the sidebar)
Rifles
Pistols
Sub-machine Guns
Machine Guns
Gun P0rn: A Naughty Expose' of the fiddly-bits.a>
Artillery
Grenades
Helmets
Ammunition
General Militaria
Guns by Nation
And, of course, there is always the direct link to the Imperial Arsenal itself!
Visitors should also note the following caveats:
Periodic Goblin Warning (SM)
As a service to Goblins who are considering Seizing The Arsenal (this excludes LE types: y'all come with a warrant, knock [no no-knocks, please, the front door is expensive], take what the warrant specifies and we'll talk about it in court - just please take care of 'em, you know, periodic cleaning, oiling, etc. They're used to being spoiled like that) here is a periodic warning on Why Trying To Steal My Collection Isn't A Good Idea.
Note to thieves trying to figure out where I live: Once you do that, you've got to get past the living interior and exterior guard, the security system (hint, cutting the phone and cable WON'T help), and finally, if I'm home - me. WonderWife (TM) v3.x is also right handy with the Winchester M97 trench gun. I like that one because it's handy, will blow you into large chunks, but not pass through the walls of the house to annoy my neighbors. Hardwood floors, so clean-up is easy. I'm a reasonable fellow, if you surrender meekly or run away, that will be fine. Not interested in killing or maiming anyone unless you are dumb enough to attack me or my family. The furry members count as family, BTW. Do that, then I will clean the gene pool. Plus guys, impressive as it looks, it's not as valuable as you might think - and it would be very hard to move, since you would be flooding the market. Not to mention the fact that every dealer within a (classified) radius would have a list of serial numbers and descriptions within 24 hours (ain't the internet great?). Oh, yeah - did I mention that robbing licensees is a federal offense? The feds don't go overboard after little stuff, but whacking this collection would likely garner their interest - so choose your accomodations! Plus 'bangers won't like these - the ones that look like they can shoot a lot - can't, and many of them won't work properly if you hold them sideways like they do in the movies.
So, go find an easier target, eh? No - better yet - get a real job that has better fringes.
Periodic Disclaimer for anti-gunners and law enforcement surfers (I don't mind you LE types) Heck, I don't mind the anti-gun types until they start trying to send LE types to take 'em away... here we go with the Periodic Disclaimer (TM):
Everything you ever see in photos here that I own is fully legal to own, federal, state, and local - WHERE I LIVE! Your mileage may vary, such as living in the Borg Collectives of California, Massachusetts, New Jersey, etc. Though ya might be surprised to find out what's legal where you live. I am a licensed collector (which isn't a license to collect, just to receive via the mails), and that only applies to curio and relic firearms. Fortunately, that's about all I want to own. On these pages I will from time to time share my toys, much like Kim du Toit does.
Reporting As Ordered, Sir! »
You know you are a long time reader of Castle Argghhhh! when: You can nearly recite word for word the Periodic Disclaimer for anti-gunner and law enforcement surfers. *grin*
by
Boudicca on March 2, 2005 03:16 PM
And we appreciate our long-suffering Denizens! Even if you did skip the party yesterday!
by
John of Argghhh! on March 2, 2005 04:33 PM
hmmm I see a transmission link for the '48 Studebaker coupe in one of those boxes, and a left-handed Veeblefetzer adjusting tool. And an inverted Tesla conjoining rod...
by
Neffi on March 2, 2005 05:59 PM
So *thats* what those are. I wondered.
by
John of Argghhh! on March 2, 2005 06:37 PM
You have dam good stuff, John- the Arsenal is muy impressivo those of us with 'a collection on a budget' are only jealous hehehe
by
Neffi on March 2, 2005 06:49 PM
John - I like the Disclaimer, particularly the part about the furry members of the house being family! And on the soapbox thing - you are better than most any other 'moderated' forum (such as a radio talk show) for encouraging conversation and discussion on a wide variety of topics.
I hope the folks who come here mostly for gun pr0n don't feel that the occasional comment party gets too out of hand ;-)
by
Barb on March 2, 2005 07:11 PM
Barb - as I told the one grumpy emailer... unlike radio and tv, he can just scroll past it!
by
John of Argghhh! on March 2, 2005 07:13 PM
Well I haven't seen it before (and skimmed most of it anyway as I'm not planning a break-in or lawsuit anytime soon and have better things to do with my time than to turn you in to the feebs) so I don't mind.
by
Cassandra on March 2, 2005 07:18 PM
I believe in the RKBA. Many many years ago when I was a young teenager (19), I was visiting some friends in CA. It was a hot midsummer night (well, in the south bay a heat wave was 80 degrees but I digress)and I was awake past midnight.
I heard some scraping and footsteps, and I barely turned my head to the window. What I saw froze my blood and I could not scream. I was paralyzed with fear. A man was at my screen window, with a knife, poised to cut his way in. Just then, my friends' dog
came around the corner, growling with deep anger and chased the intruder off. As soon as he was distracted, I rolled off the bed, low crawled to their bedroom and they were WAY ahead of me.
He had a .357 magnum and she had a .22 pistol.
He didn't want to tangle with the dog, but he just leaped the fence and was gone.
This perp came back twice more and the third time they fired warning shots into the ceiling. He took off and was never heard from again.
But that first night was my intro to personal safety. The next day, L taught me how to take apart a .45, and how to load and clean both a revolver and a semiautomatic pistol. He taught me to dry fire using a pencil until I got my glitch worked out and could hit the bull's eye.
N, his wife, is an excellent shot and well, even though I believe in the second amendment, I never worried about it until now.
That was for other people. Not anymore. I don't want my kids to have to worry about their personal safety, but I also don't want to them to be targets.
I don't have an arsenal, but I have some weapons and I know John would howl with laughter if he heard what they were. However, they mean responsibility to me and I take the 2nd seriously.
So, if any of the castle ladies pack some heat, share with this little old bug what you learned and why.
by
Cricket on March 2, 2005 07:20 PM
And I concur with Barb - it's your blog - talk about what you want.
If folks come back, you know you're doing something right, neh???
by
Cassandra on March 2, 2005 07:21 PM
I don't own a gun and have never felt the need to buy one, but if I lived somewhere where I needed one, I would like to think I could go out and buy one.
And I have no objection to others owning one.
I grew up with guns in the home (hunting rifles) and have fired one before. I'm not afraid of them - I just never thought of having one. I almost bought one once when the Unit was overseas, but the kids were too young to teach about safety and I was afraid they'd get into it and there would be an accident. At that point in my life I was in my early 20's and wasn't that careful 24/7 - my youngest boy wandered into a neighbors' bedroom once and picked up their pistol (which didn't have the safety on, by the way) and was loaded. I never forget that day. So it wasn't worth it, to me, after seeing my toddler with a loaded pistol in his hand. One second of carelessness is all it takes and I wasn't sure I had what it took to ensure their safety - my boys were curious and climbed like little monkeys.
But I know it's possible to be safe with guns in the home. I just didn't want the responsibility.
by
Cassandra on March 2, 2005 07:28 PM
C'mon, Cassie... you know we try to gauge the crowd. We *need* our claques! But yeah, aside from a weak self-image that's pretty much how things run 'round here.
by
John of Argghhh! on March 2, 2005 07:30 PM
...of course we're talking about a woman whose youngest boy unlocked her tool chest and drilled three little holes over his bed with her favorite push drill before neatly locking it back up again...
sigh...
by
Cassandra on March 2, 2005 07:31 PM
Cricket - I never laugh at people's choices. I may not concur with them, but ya gotta work with what you can handle and what you can afford.
And treat 'em all as dangerous.
by
John of Argghhh! on March 2, 2005 07:31 PM
Well, having seen the Arsenal and a portion of the disclaimer elsewhere, I decided to read it and go to the links.
Blogs are free speech. Iffen I don't like it, I scroll past. Here, though, the only things that make my eyes go out of focus is when the jet jockeys and chopper jocks start talking about lift and physics in relation to enemy identification and I think to myself: That is why they are paid the big bucks.
by
Cricket on March 2, 2005 07:31 PM
Cassie - your experience with the pistol and the kid are important considerations. Congratulations on making the prudent choice for the situation.
Many people don't.
And I don't keep loaded weapons. That's my compromise.
by
John of Argghhh! on March 2, 2005 07:38 PM
I think that's what played into it for me.
The only point for me in having a weapon was for protection. And if it was going to be any good, it kind of needed to be loaded - I wasn't going to have time to stop and load it if someone broke in.
But with small children around, I didn't want to keep a loaded weapon in my home. So it was rather a catch-22, since I was afraid I wouldn't be vigilant enough (others might, but I was afraid I wouldn't, given the inquisitiveness of my boys). And though I'm extremely conscientious about big things, I'm the kind of person who often leaves caps off things, so I just didn't think I ought to take that kind chance.
But if we ever move to the country where there are no police, I'll get a big dog and a gun in a heartbeat. It's the difference between feeling relatively safe and knowing you need to rely on yourself.
by
Cassandra on March 2, 2005 07:53 PM
My pieces are loaded, always. I keep one in my bedstand, one in the bookcase near the front door, one in a hidden compartment in the Jeep, and I carry a Sig in a paddle holster (legally). But my kid is grown and gone away... my daughter (at UTSA in Texas) is a crack shot with a revolver and practices regularly. She is also thoroughly familiar with the TX laws regarding use of deadly force, and mature enough to pack the heat (years of training and exposure, courtesy her Old Man).
Obviously, this situation isn't for everyone... and might be unnecessary. But then- a convicted child molester just recently went on a rampage down the road in Denver, raping five women and children (known)in three days before being caught. I believe in being ready...
by
Neffi on March 2, 2005 07:59 PM
What is it Bob Heinein said..."an armed society is a polite society"?
That always made me laugh.
by
Cassandra on March 2, 2005 08:03 PM
HEINLEIN...
argghhh
by
Cassandra on March 2, 2005 08:05 PM
Residing here at The People's Republic of Suburban Maryland, you hafta be coy about poking 158gr. of LRN's; even in the defense of your own home. Couple of months ago, a home owner in the same county, got prosecuted when a fiend broke into his own home. Thank God the jury saw the light and did not convict. No one should go through so much headaches, sleepless nights and legal fees trying to justify the defence of your own family.
At least I'm not 3 miles down the road in DC, where even peashooters are verboten.
John, thanks for reinviting me into your Armoury. 'Tis many moons since I poked my head into the nether cubbies of your collection. Thanx
by
Boquisucio on March 2, 2005 08:29 PM
Sir, and Ma'am:
I do wish y'all would put a stouter door, and a better lock, on the likker locker. When the Maenads and Scruples get going, I just want to hide in a corner, having first grabbed a shiny pretty weapon to take apart and reassemble to distract myself from their shrieking and howling.
by
Justthisguy on March 2, 2005 08:56 PM
JTG - noted, but it doesn't work. Bad Cat Robot gave the little weasels handheld Dimension Doors. Bill's working on a fix, but he used the wrong screws and the gizmos fell apart from the vibration due to the dancing.
Boqs - you pretty much just confirmed why I should post a variation on this post more often!
by
John of Argghhh! on March 2, 2005 09:00 PM
Understood, Sir.
We have, I betcha, all of us, been wrongly screwed (morally, if not physically) at one time or another.
by
Justthisguy on March 2, 2005 09:10 PM
Cricket - Both Hubby and I have handguns, not for any particular protection event, just 'cause. His 'n' hers handguns for protection, several rifles for hunting (which are going on the sale block soon, doubtful we'll hunt anytime soon with 'em), and shotguns for trap shooting.
Don't pack yet, in the sense of carrying concealed - because I want to take a class before I do. It's on the to-do list, though :-)
by
Barb on March 2, 2005 10:31 PM
I have never been wrongly or badly screwed physically, as even bad is good.
Morally, I've been raped. No-lube, prison nightmare raped.
But I got over it. Though the perpetrator survived and prospered. The Multi-verse is a cruel mistress without conscience or care.
by
John of Argghhh! on March 3, 2005 06:30 AM
« Dismissed, Soldier!
Gun Pr0n
I'm busy, got something working I may get to later, depending on how work goes!
In the meantime, to tide you over. Gun Pr0n. The STEN Mark II, product of Messrs Smith and Turpin, at ENfield. Cheap, easy to make, simple, and remarkably reliable sub-machingun the Brits and Commonwealth forces used during WWII and beyond. I've fired both a STEN and all the major versions of Thompson guns - while I prefer the .45 cartridge to the 9mm, I vastly prefer the STEN as a weapon for ease of carry and use. So - given my predjudices on caliber, it's not surprising that I am such a fan of the US M3 Grease Gun.
Click the picture for hi-res. This shows the weapon with bolt forward.
Cocked.
Safe.
Reporting As Ordered, Sir! »
Interesting. The STEN and the PPSh were about the only two weapons I didn't see anybody carrying as a "personal protection device" in the Land of the Great Practical Exercise. The large expanse of sand trap might have had something to do with it, although I've seen pictures of Legionnaires (ca 1953-1954) carrying them through the elephant grass.
by
cw4billt on March 2, 2005 08:10 AM
Far as I know, the STEN was pretty reliable in all conditions. The PPSh *has* been seen in the Sandbox this time around.
In the hands of Marines.
by
John of Argghhh! on March 2, 2005 08:46 AM
Though it is in all probability a Chinese Type 50 - though the Chinese usually used the box magazine, so...
by
John of Argghhh! on March 2, 2005 08:50 AM
I bow to those who successfully collect "live" weapon systems...
As a "Living Historian", I place a great deal of emphasis on protecting the public form itself. When I display weapons with my military vehicles, I use plastic replicas (should they be stolen, I sleep well knowing that nobody is going to do much damage with a little blue plastic BB, as opposed to a 5.56 NATO FMJ round...)
Towards that aim, I am always interested in finding the de-milled and replica versions of what John displays.
I heard, at one point, that there were de-milled STENs out there at pretty good prices. Any word on this?
Thanks for the continual education, PapaBlog!
by
Sgt. B. on March 2, 2005 11:27 AM
I saw what was adverted as a STEN de-mil at a gun shop in south Jersey about five years back; turned out to be a replica (and a bad one, at that).
by
cw4billt on March 2, 2005 01:21 PM
I live in Kansas - all of my stuff *is* demilled or dummy or DEWAT.
That's a dummy STEN, built to a very specific, ATF-approved design that allows a moving bolt (clever eyes will note there is no extractor) because it cannot be disassembled without cutting it up, and the bolt is incomplete so it won't strip a round (though you can't tell from this angle) and the barrel is fusion welded shut at the breech and welded to the trunnion so that it can't be swapped out. It was built exactly for re-enactors to carry around, without having to be concerned about safe storage and liability issues.
I don't own a shootable NFA weapon. If I lived 1.5 miles east, in Missouri, where I could own them... I would have a *much* smaller collection.
A dummy Vickers goes for about $1500. I don't know if there are any registered DEWAT Vickers. One of the 12 or so registered shooters goes for $25K or better. Even a semi-auto Vickers goes for $4-5K.
But it's obviously time to post a Periodic Disclaimer and cause people to go "Aw, I thought that sh*t was real, what a loser!" *and* for the ATF guys to go, "Damn, I thought we had an easy score there!" I'll opt for disappointing the ATF guys over making purists happy... as bass-ackwards as that may seem on first read.
by
John of Argghhh! on March 2, 2005 01:25 PM
No worries here, your reputation is intact, for it is the knowlege of the firearms that is important.
I am harvesting resources for DEWAT and de-milled guns pertaining to WW2 to present...
The list of LIVE "pieces" are limited to an M-1 Garand, an M-14, an AR-15A2, and something in the small frame .45cal semiauto...
.50 cals will happen when I win the lotto, and, should that happen, I'll pay for all denizens to gather at the "Turkey Knob" shoot for a weekend of cap-busting!
by
Sgt. B. on March 2, 2005 01:38 PM
Woo-woo! I'm down wit dat!
by
John of Argghhh! on March 2, 2005 02:31 PM
In the meantime, if ye could keep a weather eye out for said DEWATs and de-mills, I'd sure like to hear about 'em...
by
Sgt. B. on March 2, 2005 02:55 PM
I don't collect firearms, of either description, because it's not legal for me to do so without much bowing and scraping to assorted national, provincial, and local authorities. I used to know folks who could get me whatever I wanted on short notice (for cash only) but I haven't been hanging with that bunch for a long time now. I'm sure they, or their analogues, still exist, even up here in the gun-free world of Soviet Canuckistan.
by
Nicholas on March 2, 2005 04:34 PM
What's interesting is - the deacts you can own in Canada have greater functionality than the ones we can own down here... but, in the right places, we can own fully functional ones.
You can't own an arguably historically significant Luger, because it has less than a 4" barrel... but I can - unless I live in NYC...
(cue Twilight Zone Music)
by
John of Argghhh! on March 2, 2005 05:38 PM
And then there is the Sterling, lovely piece of kit. And you weren't expected to qualify on the "Fling at Target" relay.
Cheers
JMH
by
J.M. Heinrichs on March 2, 2005 10:11 PM
Sterling? Ha! Just another wire-spring wonder! What I wanna know, is how much will I have to pay for a working Lanchester? Phosphor Bronze and Forged Steel! Fit for Sea Service! (or living in a closet in Southern Florida)
by
Justthisguy on March 2, 2005 11:27 PM
I *do* like the Sterling, as well. Fun to shoot, though I *did* pinch myself folding the stock once.
The Owen is also an interestingly ugly spud of a subgun.
by
John of Argghhh! on March 3, 2005 06:27 AM
Had a guy who wanted to sell me a "tanker" Garand (shorty) for what would have been a good price. It was a badly-cut-down plain vanilla M-1, and it looked like he'd hacksawed into the gas cylinder, too. Idiot.
by
cw4billt on March 3, 2005 06:55 AM
There's a special place in Hell for blokes who try to pass off "garage hack-jobs" for the mil-spec modifications, and an even hotter place when they try to convince you that they are historically accurate...
by
Sgt. B. on March 3, 2005 01:27 PM
« Dismissed, Soldier!
February 25, 2005
The Answer
All righty then... yesterday I brought out the Arsenal's Chinese Type 51 copy of the Soviet Tokarev pistol. He was damaged during his career on active service, though not as badly as his previous owner who was deadlined and dropped from the reporting system.
And the answer? How many dings?
And the Lord of the Keep spake, saying, 'First shalt thou peer closely, seeking the places where metal is not, yet whereat it should be. Then shalt thou count those places where metal, due to energetic energy transfer, hath been made thinner, yet denser, than previous. Seek thou also the place where plastic no longer is where it once was. Truly, there shall also be a lessening of metal, and a increase in density there. When thou has done this aright - Then, shalt thou count to four. No more. No less. Four shalt be the number thou shalt count, and the number of the counting shall be four. Five shalt thou not count, nor either count thou three, excepting that thou then proceed to four. Six is right out. Once the number four, being the fourth number, be reached, then, lobbest thou thy Cap of Celebration towards yonder scruple, who, being naughty in My sight, shall snuff it.' So ends this reading from the Book of the Castle, Chapter Miniatus Armas.
Indeed. Four is the answer. Except when it is five. As it is. But not for this, as the 5th point of damage is on the side that is terra incognito - the Far Side of the Pistol, (a new album coming soon from Pink Floyd). The hit on the backstrap hit a pin which transferred the energy over to the other side, damaging that grip as well. Per the comments from some of you yesterday, you may recognize this staining pattern, as well. There's more than that, but it proved challenging to photograph with the time I have this morning.
Reporting As Ordered, Sir! »
Its a pitty that Mr. Parker hasn't been much acquainted with her as of late. Then again, her patina fits her well for an old girl like her.
by
Boquisucio on February 25, 2005 09:05 AM
Well, she'd be offended to be parked, since she was blued! Some girls are just old fashioned girls...
by
John of Argghhh! on February 25, 2005 06:04 PM
I guess it wasn't a holy handgrenade that caused the damage?!?
Mighty small dings if from a 30 cal. MG.
by
SezaGeoff on February 26, 2005 04:59 AM
Geoff - who actually knows when the damage occured - the owner was pretty badly used, having been pounded back into a burning BTR, with cooking off ammo and spalling from the .50 caliber fire that continued to pound the BTR because the occupants were fighting to the end.
Sorry I can't *exactly* account for what caused each bit of damage. It wasn't someplace you wanted to be.
And go figure how the pistol survived the fire without damage...
by
John of Argghhh! on February 26, 2005 06:11 PM
Just wondering,
I hear that 140lbs worth of protein makes a great fire blanket.
by
Boquisucio on February 28, 2005 12:12 PM
OK, Boq, since you brought it up....
I wasn't gonna post my thoughts on that, they being the kind to provoke the "Ewww Gross!" response in my self and others, but I must say that water, H2O, is famous for its great heat capacity, and I think an "object" composed mostly of water may well have fallen across that there pistol and absorbed a lot of that fire's heat.
by
Justthisguy on February 28, 2005 10:47 PM
Justy,
Sorry for the distasteful images that I conjured. Usually, I'm all thumbs when expressing myself.
by
Boquisucio on March 1, 2005 08:49 AM
« Dismissed, Soldier!
February 24, 2005
Okay - we did it with Bill, now let's do it with me.
Get yer mind out of the gutter.
This is the Arsenal's Chinese Type 51 Pistol, a copy of the Soviet TT33. Like "Hubert," Twitchy Bill's Trusty Steed, this pistol and its previous owner had a tough day at the office.
Unlike Twitchy and Hubert, the pistol's then-owner did not survive the encounter. Evidence of the encounter is visible on the pistol. How many hits do you see?
Click here for hi-res.
Reporting As Ordered, Sir! »
6, maybe 7??
by
AFSister on February 24, 2005 10:11 AM
I see 4 hits.
by
cowboy blob on February 24, 2005 10:12 AM
A 1966 Vintage, 7.62x25mm Tokarev Chink Knock-off. Nice museum piece; though I wouldn't like to get poked by one.
Of all the baby pictures, its good to see that were willing to adopt even ugly ducklings like that. Good thing for you that its previous parent wasn't too quick on its trigger.
At a quick glace, I count Four (4) chips: Middle-Rear Slide, Trigger, Lower Receiver, and Lower-Rear Hand Grip.
by
Boquisucio on February 24, 2005 10:19 AM
It was an orphan, what could I do? Actually - I like the Tokarevs as shooters. Fit my hand comfortably, reasonably accurate. Not the most potent round, perhaps... but who uses just one anyway?
by
John of Argghhh! on February 24, 2005 10:25 AM
Looks like six definite Close Encounters of the Third Kind with an M-79 round and two possibles, for a guess of eight:
1. Sleeve above safety.
2. Two possibles on top of sleeve, just to the right of #1.
3. Trigger.
4. Frame between grip and trigger.
5. Two on rear of frame, one intruding into grip.
6. Just below "8" of "1968."
Lot of minor dings and pitting (good ol' ChiCom backyard blast-furnace steel).
by
cw4billt on February 24, 2005 10:36 AM
It's a 1966, for clarity's sake. Made at Factory 66. It did *not* however, come from where you might expect from that date.
by
John of Argghhh! on February 24, 2005 10:38 AM
I see 4, but there could be one more toward the front (a hazy area.)
Which leads me to wonder, if the gun got hit 4 times, how many times did the owner get hit. Ouch.
-SangerM
by
SangerM on February 24, 2005 10:40 AM
Actually, could this have belonged to someone on the wrong side of a claymore? Looks possible. . .
by
SangerM on February 24, 2005 10:54 AM
Claymore wouldn't have left that much pistol to be picked up.
by
name muffy the merciless on February 24, 2005 11:04 AM
What Muffy said.
The individual holding the pistol had just finished really pissing someone off by shooting it at them.
Those were the 'ti-ti' hits.
The sent/returned ratio was about 30 to 1. Then the belt had to be changed.
by
John of Argghhh! on February 24, 2005 11:10 AM
John,
Certainly, for its day the Tokarev was the cat's meow. At an age in which the best that the EuroWeenies could match was the 6.35x16mm, the TT was a Tiger in comparison.
And besides, a parent's love is unconditional; specialy to his adopted children.
by
Boquisucio on February 24, 2005 11:11 AM
oh
by
SangerM on February 24, 2005 11:18 AM
Late as usual, I see. Even at highest res, I only see 4, myself.
Ouch, indeed.
by
Barb on February 24, 2005 11:27 AM
*grin*
Belts, huh?
Since it didn't leave the field with its owner, and assuming that the owner didn't leave under his own steam... Does it really matter..?
by
Sgt. B. on February 24, 2005 02:48 PM
SGT B - yep, and I should correct the earlier... the sent/recieved ratio from the pistol's perspective was 1 to 30, not the other way around.
by
John of Arghhh! on February 24, 2005 03:08 PM
cw;
I saw the same, plus a possible in the lower right corner of the grip. That's pretty fuzzy, but there's a streak and dimple I can't explain otherwise there.
by
Brian H on February 24, 2005 06:06 PM
Brian H - That's the half-ring the lanyard clips to.
by
cw4billt on February 24, 2005 07:04 PM
I saw four dings. I imagine you've cleaned it. My (definitely, but still talks to me) ex-sweety has an Arisaka her Daddy brought home (late production, with gross tool marks) which has its Mum and some "brown" stains on the stock.
She is absolutely opposed to cleaning off the "protein stains."
by
Justthisguy on February 24, 2005 07:05 PM
Anybody know where "Factory 66" is? My 213 is stamped with a 66 within a triangle; absolutely no Chinese stampings.
by
cowboy blob on February 24, 2005 07:50 PM
I see four hits fer sher... and I expect that on a dark, still night- with the moon glowly softly through the mists swirling about the Redoubt of Castle Arrgh- a somewhat tattered spectre drifts slowly through the halls and chambers... seeking his pistol... [flicker of blue light; rolling crash of thunder] oooooohhh...
by
Neffi on February 24, 2005 07:57 PM
Well the Chinese have delt with Albania and Cuba alot. so I say it may be from the Yugoslavian-Kosovo area, or Grenada.
I also see only the 6 dings
by
gunner on February 24, 2005 09:44 PM
I once owned a No 1 Mk III Lee Enfield whose former user had had a very bad day. The forward end of the forestock/handguard and the rear part of the buttstock were completely filled with chunks of ragged metal on the left side. The area not affected corresponded to where a human torso would have protected the stock. Sorta felt creepy holding the rifle and imagining an HE round or grenade going off behind me.
by
Robert From NC on February 24, 2005 10:24 PM
Oh, and by the way, I only see 3 hits on the pistol, since the notch in the slide ahead of the slide release is there for takedown purposes, and I'm betting the grip area was covered by the wielder's hand. (Shadowy areas on the grip appear to be logo and lanyard ring)
by
Robert From NC on February 24, 2005 10:33 PM
« Dismissed, Soldier!
February 23, 2005
OKay, let's answer that teaser...
The consensus (with some not-so-gentle shoving by the Armorer) was moving towards a Vickers firing lock. Some people picked up on the hint that when the Armorer does this sort of thing he's using pictures which are up in the Arsenal photo album... and paid attention to what folder was what.
Of course, in preparation for this, there was also some Maxim stuff in that folder...
Here is a Vickers lock and a Maxim lock side by side - and just as importantly - they are oriented as if they were in their respective receivers.
They are in the 'locked' position - ready to fire.
Some of you twigged fairly early to a Maxim-style lock (on the right in this photo, a Russian/Finn M1910). All Maxims, all calibers, use a lock that is virtually identical. There may be slight dimensioning differences based on calibers and materials, but they all follow this pattern.
The Vickers is a Maxim-derived gun - and the difference is in the lock. The Vickers shoots more quickly, and is smaller and lighter than equivalent-caliber water-cooled Maxims. And the secret to that is in the lock. Vickers took Maxim's design and left the extractor as it was (that's the part to the right side of the locks which strip, feed, and eject the rounds) and flipped the lock upside down. This made the 'break' of the knuckle in recoil all take place within the vertical space occupied by the lock - instead of breaking below the lock, like the Maxim does. Got that?
1. Strip.
2. Feed.
3. Eject.
This action is why you cock a Maxim-style gun twice... once to strip from the belt, second time to feed the stripped round to the breech, while stripping the next round.
A safety note. In the pics above, you see what looks like a cut-out in the extractor. That's actually a modification done to make the lock safe to handle. This was a training lock used by the Finns. These weapons are VERY DANGEROUS - aside from the Usual Caveats for firearms - WHEN HANDLING THE LOCK. Why? Because the lock contains the firing pin, firing pin spring, sear, and hammer - though you wouldn't recognize the hammer as such. Technically, it's termed a *tumbler*. Point being - if you have a round in the extractor, in front of the firing pin, and you trip the sear (not hard to do) you have an unsupported round that is going to explode. Wear your goggles and Interceptor if you are planning on running with these scissors.
In this picture, you can see how a Maxim operates - loading, firing, ejecting. In most machineguns - the action is straight line - reciprocating back and forth, with the bolt twisting to lock in the breech. On Maxim's guns - the lock stays in the vertical plane, but the actual 'locking' of the weapon occurs when the arm returns to horizontal. Then, upon firing, the barrel gets an initial rearward impulse that moves the recoil plates back along the sides of the locking arm, camming it to break, at which point the lock continues rearward against the action of the fusee spring, which sends the lock forward again to start the process all over again. Complicated. Expensive - but damned reliable, which is why the Maxim still serves in China, and the Vickers served in Brit usage until 1968 or so. But all that, with pictures... is the subject of a later eye-glazing post.
Let's take a look at the locks overlaid on a full-scale poster of the Soviet Maxim. If you click the link, you'll see the Maxim lock overlaid on the poster. Take a look at how the receiver extends down below the water jacket surrounding the barrel (the right side of the picture).
Now take a look at a Vickers. Although this picture doesn't show it that well (hey, excuse to take more!) the receiver on the Vickers is not much deeper than the water jacket - and the reason for that is the weapon ejects the spent brass through a hole right under the water jacket. A tremendous savings in strategic materials, weight, production time, and an increase in firing rate. What more could you ask? The Maxim is much deeper, hence heavier and more clumsy to lug around. I wish I had an MG08/15 to show the attempt to deal with that.
That then - is the genius of the Vickers modification to Maxim's design. Flipping the lock. Just look at the space it saves.
The drawings in this post are from Dolf Goldsmith's book, The Devil's Paintbrush - though the actual drawings are Ministry of Defense drawings from the MoD Pattern Room. Anyone who is *serious* about their machineguns parts with the lucre for those two books - which aren't cheap.
Vickers - The Grand Old Lady of No Man's Land.
Maxim - The Devil's Paintbrush.
Available from the publisher, and elsewhere, I'm sure.
Reporting As Ordered, Sir! »
Mine hat doth tip on to you, Master of this Keep.
That Belgie Engineer was truly an inspired man. To devise this contraption at such an early developmental age, took great forethought.
by
Boquisucio on February 23, 2005 08:14 AM
I'll stick with Wayne Mutza's pubs. He sends me freebies [*large cheese-munching grin*]...
by
cw4billt on February 23, 2005 08:50 AM
And Hiram was born in Maine. Just sayin'.
So, who's Wayne Mutza and do I wanna get to know him?
by
John of Argghhh! on February 23, 2005 09:17 AM
Wayne Mutz is a photographer- I just sent you a pic on email.
by
AFSister on February 23, 2005 09:32 AM
ok- make that "MutzA". Wayne Mutz is, like, a totally different dude. Ohmygaud, he is so NOT Wayne Mutza!
by
AFSister on February 23, 2005 09:34 AM
INteresting to note that the .50 cal Browning also must be double pumped, again, first to strip the round from the belt, and second to insert the round into the chamber. The .50 is a closed bolt weapon, and is the ONLY machinegun that we would initiate ambushed with (the M60 and M249 were open bolt, and if the round failed to fire, the bad guys would hear the distinctive sound of the bolt slamming home...
Keep 'em comin' Papa! Thanks for the G-2!
by
Sgt. B. on February 23, 2005 10:02 AM
Wayne Mutza is also a technical writer--he's done books for Squadron Pubs (among others), making the mysteries and intricacies of various aircraft palatable for the aficionados.
Dunno if you'd want to get to know him, though, John--he's kinda old, y'know? I mean, the guy's got at least six months on me...or I've got six months on him. I forget...
by
cw4billt on February 23, 2005 11:21 AM
Well, Bill, you're not 55 yet are ya? if not, you ain't old.
Otherwise, oops.
:-)
by
SangerM on February 23, 2005 11:40 AM
Been red shifting from the double-nickel for some time now...don'tcha remember that e-gram: "Dude--yer OLD!"
by
cw4billt on February 23, 2005 01:00 PM
Sanger- Remember Twitchy Bill in the picture is a 1st Lieutenant college graduate in Vietnam...
Dude is oooooold.
Bill - I like you older guys... easier to trick you out of Margarita money!
by
John of Argghhh! on February 23, 2005 01:41 PM
And we like you guys because after the first one, you never realize that your drink gets smaller every time you turn your head...or that your change keeps disappearing a quarter at a time...or that charges for six-packs of Geritol keep showing up on your AmEx bill...
by
cw4billt on February 23, 2005 02:30 PM
« Dismissed, Soldier!
February 21, 2005
Teaser
Here's a teaser for an upcoming series of posts I'm working on. Another multi-day fest of Gun Pr0n!
Anybody besides JMH and Neffi (c'mon guys, it's not like it's a challenge for you - this would be like having a pro player on a high school team) want to hazard a guess as to what this is? For? Etc? You two can respond email so you can still count your coup points...
I'll give you something I usually leave out - scale. This is a little larger than life size.
Update: Here's a really obtuse hint. Just cuz' SWWBO's gone and I'm feeling mean.
Otay. Here's another hint.
Yet another hint...
Final (I think) Update:
Okay - we're getting close now. CRFan - I'm jealous you've got an MG08/15!
Final hints - look at the pic, look at the pics below - and tell me which one you think is which - and why... because there is a key difference, and it is the key difference between any weapon with Maxim in it's name and a Vickers (vice a Maxim-Vickers... which, has Maxim in it's name, but sometimes you guys don't keep tips like that in mind). I dunno about you guys - this really wasn't intended as a "What is it?" post like I've done in the past - but this one has been fun for me.
Pic 1.
Pic 2.
Pic 3.
Pic 4.
Okay - one of 'em is a red herring for Phil! Wanna take a guess at what that is, Phil? It's not the obvious one...
Reporting As Ordered, Sir! »
Hammer, Ordnance, Armourer for the use of, MK1*
too easy....
by
Neffi on February 21, 2005 10:02 AM
Pintle, machinegun...
M60 series?
by
Sgt. B. on February 21, 2005 10:17 AM
Belt buckle pistol from WWII?
by
Mike on February 21, 2005 10:19 AM
All three are *not* correct.
by
John of Argghhh! on February 21, 2005 10:22 AM
Wuz looking at that and came to the same conclusion... It'd be difficult to elevate the weapon...
by
Sgt. B. on February 21, 2005 10:36 AM
Ian Hogg's favorite paperweight!
by
Neffi on February 21, 2005 10:44 AM
...errrr.. that would be Ivan, natch
by
Neffi on February 21, 2005 10:48 AM
Ivan?
by
John of Argghhh! on February 21, 2005 11:00 AM
Hmmm, about 60% of normal weekday traffic at this point... which indicates an awful lot of readers are gov't/bankers surfing from work!
by
John of Argghhh! on February 21, 2005 11:06 AM
Government Issue automatic nose picker. (For those really hard to get loogies.)
by
GEBIV on February 21, 2005 11:12 AM
Consider the topic, John! I have no idea what the first pic is, and the 'obtuse hint' was not terribly helpful ;-)
by
Barb on February 21, 2005 11:15 AM
My comment was on visitors, not commenters!
by
John of Argghhh! on February 21, 2005 12:11 PM
A cannon lock. Is that round smooth part on the left where you tie the lanyard?
by
Justthisguy on February 21, 2005 12:32 PM
Nope. I've provided another hint.
by
John of Argghhh! on February 21, 2005 01:00 PM
Yet another piece of equipment to chuck down the TC's hatch to see if the gunner and loader are on their toes...
by
Sgt. B. on February 21, 2005 01:10 PM
I'm with Barb on this one (although I do work for a financial company and am off work today- LOL!).
Looks like some fandangled (technical term, ranks up there with "whatchamacallit", "thingy" and "thingamajig") corkscrew to me.
Pass me the wine, willya, Sanger? You bottle hog!
by
AFSister on February 21, 2005 02:21 PM
It's part of one of those thingamajigs. You know, the kind that go BANG really loud and wake up the neighbors? Like guns. That's it. Kinda like guns.
by
spd rdr on February 21, 2005 02:22 PM
The hints are so-o-o helpful, thanks!
Could you pass the bottle over here next, AFSis? I'm at work, but I need something to drink anyway.
by
Barb on February 21, 2005 03:12 PM
Blech...I can't get either of your hints to open in either IE or MF.
But it's obviously the hatch release handle on a Panzerkampfwagen Mk IIc.
by
cowboy blob on February 21, 2005 03:29 PM
Or a mounting attachment for a Boys Antitank Rifle?
by
cowboy blob on February 21, 2005 03:33 PM
Barb- catch. And don't spill. No party fouls allowed at work- gets the boss really angry.
See John? I HAVE been paying attention to your lessons in weaponry. spd rdr confirmed my suspicion that this is, in fact, a thingamajig. And here you thought I'd been goofing off in Tech Terms 101!
Of course, everyone else is claiming this is a part to a gun thingy, but I'm sticking to the corkscrew theory.
Yellow Tail, anyone??? *hic*
by
AFSister on February 21, 2005 03:37 PM
A Jack or some other type of hoisting equipment.
by
TIM C on February 21, 2005 04:39 PM
And it turns an M-5 Stewart tank into a lowrider, right?
by
Cowboy Blob on February 21, 2005 04:45 PM
Jack... that's a good guess in some respects.
Completely wrong, but understandable.
A lotta you guys have never *seen* an armored vehicle jack up close, have you. I did say the pic was slightly larger than 1:1...
by
John of Argghhh! on February 21, 2005 04:52 PM
Thanks, AFSis! No breakage here, wouldn't waste a nice wine.
by
Barb on February 21, 2005 05:29 PM
Looks like a Shock Puller.
by
purple raider on February 21, 2005 05:52 PM
Just so it's clear... it's a firearm component...
by
John of Argghhh! on February 21, 2005 06:01 PM
I'm going with the Fingerspitzengefuehl.
Degtyarev lockwork.
by
Justthisguy on February 21, 2005 06:01 PM
It is the lock from a Maxim or Vickers machinegun, which are the same thing only with different names because Vikers was just the first company licensed to produce the Maim designed gun.
by
Chris Denny on February 21, 2005 06:17 PM
Corkscrew. I'm tellin' ya- it's a corkscrew. Even has a cute little foilcutter and a re-corker. Very convenient.
by
AFSister on February 21, 2005 06:25 PM
Chris - you are close - but they aren't the same thing. There is a significant difference between the Vickers-Maxim and the Vickers. Between any Maxim and a Vickers.
So, to keep it from being just a guess... if you think that's what it is - which is it, and why?
by
John of Argghhh! on February 21, 2005 06:37 PM
It's the barrel release mechanism for a Bren gun.
Either that or a cigarette lighter.
by
cowboy blob on February 21, 2005 06:40 PM
Hmmmm. Blob, that's so out in left field I'm tempted to trot downstairs and take a picture of the barrel release of a Bren...
by
John of Argghhh! on February 21, 2005 06:47 PM
Since you are a red leg and I see what I think is an optic I'd say the head assembly for a primitive (antique) aiming circle
by
Phil on February 21, 2005 06:57 PM
I wish I had about 10 of them for my 08/15--the only one I see for sale is $550 retail. The lock is the heart of the gun.
by
CRFan on February 21, 2005 07:02 PM
I am indeed a Redleg, and I own about eight or nine - I'd have to go count - different aiming circles... but this ain't one of 'em!
by
John of Argghhh! on February 21, 2005 07:02 PM
...ruptured case extracter for da Vickie??
by
Neffi on February 21, 2005 07:20 PM
breech assembly/disassembly tools
by
Phil on February 21, 2005 07:26 PM
Dang, you have a Bren, too? I'm olive-drab with envy.
by
cowboy blob on February 21, 2005 07:56 PM
Is it a barrel release for a Vickers/Maxim, then?
by
cowboy blob on February 21, 2005 07:59 PM
Blob - Heh. I hate to break it to ya, son. I have a Mark I and a Mark II. Someone hasn't been paying attention on the Castle tours...
All - make sure you check the updates. There's new pics up there - and no, Blob, that ain't a barrel release. To get the barrels out of either of those guns you had to unload 'em, pull off the backplates, remove the recoil plates with the barrel secured in them by the trunnions. And then ya hadda repack your asbestos seals.
by
John of Argghhh! on February 21, 2005 08:09 PM
OK I would say it is from a vickers as it has more parts and see,s to have a higher level of fit and finish than one would see on a Maxim made in russia like yours.
by
Chris Denny on February 21, 2005 08:09 PM
Well, it's a Vickers part because it's in the Vickers folder...and the post's subject line is "gun pics / machine guns" but damned if I can tell what it is, perhaps the rear sight?
by
cowboy blob on February 21, 2005 08:47 PM
Magazine release, perhaps?
by
cowboy blob on February 21, 2005 09:01 PM
Blob - go look at the Maxim folder... or the Maxim posts in the Machine Gun/Gun Porn archives...
by
John of Argghhh! on February 21, 2005 09:02 PM
And Blob... since when do belt-feds have magazines?
Let's see who jumps that comment first...
by
John of Argghhh! on February 21, 2005 09:08 PM
No, wait...not magazine, it's not the aircraft version. My final guess, part of the trigger mechanism.
by
cowboy blob on February 21, 2005 09:21 PM
ooh ooh MG34... used drum mags in the AA role... [pant pant]
by
Neffi on February 21, 2005 09:24 PM
I'd argue that point. You could argue they were just round boxes for the belts. No springs were involved, you couldn't just load 'em with bullets sansabelt (heh) and expect 'em to fire...
by
John of Argghhh! on February 21, 2005 09:26 PM
MG Lock?
by
cowboy blob on February 21, 2005 09:39 PM
Well, ok- but a magazine is just an enclosed box containing cartridges to be fed to the mech of the gun, independent of a seperate source (ie ammo box). The saddle drum for the MG34 is kinda a hybrid, eh? Belt feed within a magazine... hmmmmmm mebbe you could say a true belt gun has a feed pawl, while a mag gun relies on springs within the magazine to force the cartridges into play. So the MG34 (sans feed tray cover) will accept a magazine, but is still belt-fed for all that... my head hurts, I'm going beddies...
by
Neffi on February 21, 2005 09:42 PM
While you're all wracking your brains, contest on my blog, no weapons involved...Sorry.
Lotsa weapons elsewhere, though!
http://cowboyblob.blogspot.com/2005/02/where-is-it.html
by
cowboy blob on February 21, 2005 10:38 PM
No wonder the scruples keep getting out--you took the trandimensional sub-quantum heavy-left router off their cage!
I will not be responsequence for the consibles to any etaoinshrdlu...
by
cw4billt on February 22, 2005 05:29 AM
I see the drugs are kicking in, Bill. You've got to keep an eye on those dogs...
by
John of Argghhh! on February 22, 2005 05:47 AM
Don' need no steenkeeng drawgs.
Sorry (Darn--I always do that on tequila...).
by
cw4billt on February 22, 2005 07:01 AM
pft. Bill- you broke out the tequila at 5AM!
And didn't invite me, Cass, Barb OR Cricket? I would have brought limes and salt, and Cricket has been working so hard on her Mexican menu.
hmpf. I thought we were friends.....
by
AFSister on February 22, 2005 09:32 AM
AFSis - wondered where you guys were. Been waiting for you in the "HOO-AH!" post...
Ow!
by
cw4billt on February 22, 2005 09:56 AM
...feedpawl?
*don't laugh too hard plz*
by
YaRdApE on February 22, 2005 10:52 AM
Scratch that...it's the biocanooten valve off the Johnson Rod...
...or it's the stabilizer joint from a Belgian waffle maker...
It's a toughie.
by
YaRdApE on February 22, 2005 11:55 AM
If it's not a Vickers MG lock, it's a Maxim MG lock that got misplaced in your Vickers kit.
Right?
by
cowboy blob on February 22, 2005 01:58 PM
« Dismissed, Soldier!
February 16, 2005
Bad Days.
Yesterday, SWWBO and I both had Bad Days. Bad Days in ways that are completely typical for the respective individuals.
You can read about SWWBO's here. Hey, she posted it! It's not like I'm talking out of school or something.
Anyway - she calls last night to chastise me for not answering my email. (That's related to her Bad Day) We get off the phone, and I go back to what I was doing, which was maintenance.
To shorten a short story further, I bayoneted myself yesterday. Yep. At least Dad got to shoot the guy who bayoneted him. That just would have made things more annoying in my case.
Dang. That hurts.
Bled like a stuck pig, too. Now I know, on several levels, what that means.
Anyway, there I was getting ready to clean up a Czech Vz24 Mauser. The thing's long enough without the attached bayonet, so off comes the John-sticker. Part of maintenance is bayonet maintenance, so I try to pull off the scabbard to check the blade. This is a nice, Predzuce 44 bayonet with a VERY SHARP TIP. And it's always had a sticky scabbard - which I may now look into more closely.
Anyway, sitting there, rifle all properly cleared and resting on the table, I'm trying to get the scabbard off (yes, bayonet-geeks, the blade was inserted properly - this is a spring problem) - while at the same time not wanting to suddenly have the blade clear, with my hands suddenly flying left and right - to knock down the rifles stacked there waiting their turn for the Armorer's attention.
Which means I'm putting a good effort into pulling apart - while at the same time holding together... which sets me up for my magical moment.
The scabbard gremlin - sensing victory - lets go, hoping for a game of 'pick-up-sticks-with-rifles' when I foil his evil plan. The counter-tension I've got going works, and nary a rifle is disturbed. The bayonet however...
It goes.
Not far. Only about, oh, an 8th of an inch too far, plunging the point into the knuckle of my right index finger. Who'da thunk that particular body part was so well supplied with blood? *I* certainly didn't!
This morning, it's a little, tiny dink. Hurts like hell though, since apparently it wasn't my Herculean effort at stopping the bayonet that worked... it was the bone inside the damn knuckle.
Sigh.
Still - I'd rather bayonet myself than have to admit that I sent some sappy love note to someone else's spouse... especially after having busted MY spouse for not responding to it... hee hee hee.
And, a Bad Day bayoneting yourself while cleaning your collection is better than being a liberal twisty-pants all wrought up over the fact that someone, somewhere, *didn't* have an abortion yesterday...
Reporting As Ordered, Sir! »
...perhaps its Karma... you know, for mating a Yugo bayonet with a Czech rifle. "Bayonet-geeks" indeed harrumph
by
Neffi on February 16, 2005 07:39 AM
Maybe it was the cuss words while you were trying to de-scabbard it--did you use Serbo-Croatian or Montenegran?
And, if I may be so bold as to brag a bit, I have never had a US bayonet misbehave in such an unseemly fashion. W-e-l-l-l, okay, once, but I wuz uprooting dandelions with it...
by
cw4billt on February 16, 2005 08:14 AM
So now that we've both been attacked in the hand we could form a special club. Maybe the "He-Man & Woman Hand Poker Haters". Not to be confused with the "He-Man & Woman Poker Hand Haters". That's a whole 'nuther story.
Bill- got a visual for this one yet? It's only fair, you know John...
by
AFSister on February 16, 2005 08:20 AM
Neffi - ssshhhh! You weren't supposed to notice that bit. Besides, the Germans weren't that picky.
by
John of Argghhh! on February 16, 2005 08:22 AM
Ew. Dandelions. When I was about 3 or 4 I was helping my Grandpa weed the garden. He showed me how to use the dandelion pick. If you've never seen one, it looks like a 2 inch wide thin metal "v". I promptly picked it up and stabbed it into the ground- via my foot. Went right through my Keds. Needless to say, that's the first and last time I got to use the dandelion pick.
by
AFSister on February 16, 2005 08:24 AM
Ya know, John, that was a post just chock-o-full fraught with "issues."
Breath deep, innnnnnn, ouuuuuuut, innnnnnn, ouuuuuuut.
There, see.
But lest I forget, "very nice how you managed to segue from self-inflicted wounds to liberal pinko commie babykiller hate! Verrrrry nice.
;-)
by
SangerM on February 16, 2005 08:49 AM
Issues? What issues? (looking around for issues)
by
John of Argghhh! on February 16, 2005 08:56 AM
By your left hand--see the box of Leenex?
by
cw4billt on February 16, 2005 09:07 AM
Just lift up yer petticoats, John. Plenty of "issues" there...
by
AFSister on February 16, 2005 09:07 AM
Now there's a visual for you.
AAAAAHHHH! M-Y E-Y-E-S!!
by
cw4billt on February 16, 2005 09:10 AM
TINS aLeRt.
Remember the scene in Young Frankenstein where Gene Wilder stabs his leg with a scalpel? I did exzctly that with a long blade exacto knife once.
I was modeling (wearing shorts), trimming lead off small figures; the knife was coming loose in my right hand, and I didn't want to let go of the figure with my left hand, so I unconsciously tapped the knife on my leg to push it back up in my hand; except instead of being pushed up, the blade went into my thigh to the hilt.
Just think really big OUCH combined with a great deal of instant self-loathing for being so &^*&$*^ STUPID!
I'm a bit more careful with exacto knives now.
-SangerM
by
SangerM on February 16, 2005 09:17 AM
I'm surprised your wife still lets you near them...
by
cw4billt on February 16, 2005 09:23 AM
"I bayoneted myself today". That's the funniest thing I've heard since a good friend said, "Ow, I just kneed myself in the balls"! Don't ask, apparently it can be done.
by
Tim Bowden on February 16, 2005 09:25 AM
Damn, that's gotta be some "low-hanging" fruit!
by
John of Argghhh! on February 16, 2005 09:40 AM
Abd as for what Issues? Well, um...
1) "Bad days" (sounds like there have been others)
2) "It's not like I'm talking out of school or something" (feeling the need to pre-emptively justify, are we?)
3) "She calls last night to chastise me" (Uh-oh... Wifey-Hubby issues)
4) "I bayoneted myself yesterday" (nothing for me to Fisk here, is there?)
5) "Czech Vz24 Mauser w/ Predzuce 44" (I'm sure there's some repressed anti-commie cold-war thing in you that draws you to own and obsessively clean former enemies' weapons)
6) "The scabbard gremlin - sensing victory" (Hmmm, superstition and anthropomorphizing is indicative of something dark and ugly, deep, deep inside. At least if I translated that ancient Babylonian correctly)
7) "I'd rather bayonet myself than have to admit that I sent some sappy love note to someone else's spouse (Seems extreme, hmmmm? Self-destructive tendencies to avoid having to confront those repressed marital stressors? Possibly some deep-rooted jealousy, fear of competition?)
8) "especially after having busted MY spouse for not responding to it" (Ah, pleasure at another's misfortune. Verrrry interrresting.)
9) "being a liberal twisty-pants all wrought up over the fact that someone, somewhere, *didn't* have an abortion yesterday" (I'm not even sure I want to explore how you got from all of the above to this.... [shudder])
SO! How'm I doing at pretending to be a liberal a$$wipe who twists even the most innocuous comments to some nefarious ends... Assuming I'm intelligent enough to have nefarious ends.
-SangerM
And PS: You're right BillT EWWWWWWWW!
by
SangerM on February 16, 2005 09:43 AM
Heh. I suppose, to go along with "I bayoneted myself yesterday" I could add the story about running myself through with a saber... but naaaahhh, that was a long time ago in a basement far far away.
by
John of Argghhh! on February 16, 2005 09:43 AM
Abd as for what Issues? Well, um...
1) "Bad days" (sounds like there have been others)
2) "It's not like I'm talking out of school or something" (feeling the need to pre-emptively justify, are we?)
3) "She calls last night to chastise me" (Uh-oh... Wifey-Hubby issues)
4) "I bayoneted myself yesterday" (nothing for me to Fisk here, is there?)
5) "Czech Vz24 Mauser w/ Predzuce 44" (I'm sure there's some repressed anti-commie cold-war thing in you that draws you to own and obsessively clean former enemies' weapons)
6) "The scabbard gremlin - sensing victory" (Hmmm, superstition and anthropomorphizing is indicative of something dark and ugly, deep, deep inside. At least if I translated that ancient Babylonian correctly)
7) "I'd rather bayonet myself than have to admit that I sent some sappy love note to someone else's spouse (Seems extreme, hmmmm? Self-destructive tendencies to avoid having to confront those repressed marital stressors? Possibly some deep-rooted jealousy, fear of competition?)
8) "especially after having busted MY spouse for not responding to it" (Ah, pleasure at another's misfortune. Verrrry interrresting.)
9) "being a liberal twisty-pants all wrought up over the fact that someone, somewhere, *didn't* have an abortion yesterday" (I'm not even sure I want to explore how you got from all of the above to this.... [shudder])
SO! How'm I doing at pretending to be a liberal a$$wipe who twists even the most innocuous comments to some nefarious ends... Assuming I'm intelligent enough to have nefarious ends.
-SangerM
And PS: You're right BillT EWWWWWWWW!
by
SangerM on February 16, 2005 09:45 AM
Dayum, Dude. Here's yer toilet paper!
by
John of Argghhh! on February 16, 2005 09:47 AM
Well, that was dumb. I don't know how I managed to get it in there twice...
And yeah, BillT, the wife does monitor my use of sharp objects now. Nothing more edgy than a plastic putty knife unless I am wearing full protective gear. . . You know, kneepads, helmet, gloves, etc.
SangerM
by
SangerM on February 16, 2005 09:49 AM
Never mind nefarious, Sanger- I wanna see the ad for which you were modeling those shorts...
by
Neffi on February 16, 2005 09:52 AM
Tim Bowden: Your comment got me laughing so hard some coworkers had to come see what was so funny. NOT a good thing, for sure. I need to get control. . . S'waht comes of being up till 0430 working on work-stuff. All work and no play makes Bobby a dumb-a$$, or something like that. . .
John: 'Tanks for the roll-up!
by
SangerM on February 16, 2005 09:54 AM
Neffi: It was for the "Wool Stockings as a Viable Alternative to Waxing" consortium.
Wanna guess what THAT's all about?
-SangerM
by
SangerM on February 16, 2005 10:00 AM
All this hilarity and conversation, and none of you bozo's besides Bill is gonna tackle the question of the day tacked on to the Caption Contest Poll?
Or did we just hit the site today by searching Google for "Self-bayoneting?"
by
John of Argghhh! on February 16, 2005 10:03 AM
Whew! Just checked... there aren't any entries for that... yet.
by
John of Argghhh! on February 16, 2005 10:03 AM
John,
If I remember the legend of St. Valentine correctly, when he was in jail, and having no access to ink, he would write notes to his followers using his own blood as ink.
If you were attempting to pay homage to him on the day after his day, I could suggest trying more subtle instruments next time.
by
Boquisucio on February 16, 2005 10:16 AM
Either that or cut a slit through the point so's the blood will flow more consistently onto the paper when you write.
by
cw4billt on February 16, 2005 10:55 AM
A little Walt Whitman for you, John:
"How solemn, as one by one.
How solemn, as one by one,
As the ranks returning, all worn and sweaty—as the men file by where I stand;
As the faces, the masks appear—as I glance at the faces, studying the masks;
(As I glance upward out of this page, studying you, dear friend, whoever you are;)
How solemn the thought of my whispering soul, to each in the ranks, and to you; 5
I see behind each mask, that wonder, a kindred soul;
O the bullet could never kill what you really are, dear friend,
Nor the bayonet stab what you really are:
... The soul! yourself I see, great as any, good as the best,
Waiting, secure and content, which the bullet could never kill, 10
Nor the bayonet stab, O friend!
by
AFSister on February 16, 2005 11:09 AM
Men do the darndest things... this sounds like a pathetic Cry for Help to me.
I have a nice little scar in the palm of my hand where I jammed a chisel into it whilst making Pinewood Derby cars at 11 pm with my boys when the Spousal Unit was in Oki. But I don't scar much so it's almost invisible now - for years I could feel it every time I opened and closed my hand - I really cut the (*&^ out of myself. I think that's my only stab wound though...
Then there's the Legal Filing Injury that nearly took most of one knuckle off - that was gruesome. Nice scar from that one, and I wasn't getting paid nearly enough to make it worthwhile. Worst job I ever had. Really should have gotten stitches - I'm amazed it healed cleanly.
Maybe we need a Gallery of Gruesome Injuries. Or a contest for the most idiotic self-inflicted injury.
by
Cassandra on February 16, 2005 11:10 AM
*looking at John over the rim of my glasses*
Oh Papa-Blog, what did you do..?
by
Sgt. B. on February 16, 2005 11:51 AM
John, I've done dumber. I have, on more than one occasion, kicked the heel of one foot with the big toe's nail of the other one, and drawn *significant* blood. And, no, I was sober at the time. I've only gotten inexplicable bruises from drinking too much.
SangerM: That "Wool Stockings" thing reminds me; I had a roommate one quarter who had transferred from VMI (where they therefore declared him ritually dead, he assured me) who complained about the wool uniform trousers rubbing the hair off of his legs.
"Issues"? With scabbards? John, you do know what the Latin word for "scabbard" is, don't you?
snork
by
Justthisguy on February 16, 2005 03:12 PM
Ah, should have written "gotten only inexplicable bruises, while drinking too much." Dang commas! Must go look at Celestial Grammar again.
by
Justthisguy on February 16, 2005 03:23 PM
I won't even mention the time I got blown off the top of Hubert into the North Swamp by a Chithook driver coming in a wee bit too fast.
Darn--I wasn't gonna mention that...
by
cw4billt on February 16, 2005 03:36 PM
SangarM, I will bet that a non-trivial percentage of all minor self-inflicted wounds over the past 50 years have involved the delightful #11 blade. I was wearing heavy denim jeans when I did something similar to my leg. Merely dropped it, rather than tapping. Sliced cleanly thru the fabric and still had enough momentum to draw blood.
by
triticale on February 16, 2005 04:39 PM
triticale and Sanger - add me to the #11 casualty list...
by
John of Argghhh! on February 16, 2005 08:53 PM
It's a terrible thing... but you can have fun with that later. Someone will ask you how you got that scar and you can just say, "Bayonet" and leave it at that!
by
Boudicca on February 16, 2005 08:54 PM
I used to work with a retired Marine Corps O6 named Joe who said he had been bayoneted twice (he had the scars too). Once by a Korean and once by a Vietnamese soldier (I'm not sure if VC or NVA). Joe had joined the Marines underage and ended up in the Korean War as an enlisted rifleman, where he got stuck during some ugly battle near Chosan, I think. When he was evacuated, the Corps found out he was underage and he was discharged upon return to the States. He rejoined when he was able, and some time later, he was commissioned, and a bit later, the Vietnamese soldier tried to stick him. He put his hand out and took the knife through his left palm, which he twisted away and then he shot the guy with the pistol in his right hand.
For all that, though, he said the closest he came to dying was when a US Army Rifle company took themselves a mad minute, and he and his folks were patrolling about 200 meters in front of them... I don't know how that happened, but he said it was the scariest time he'd had because everything was getting shredded at about waist level, just over his head...
Last I heard Joe's wife was running an antique store in downtown Fredericksburg VA, and he was planning to get involved in that. Hard to imagine that life when it was starting out, eh?
-SangerM
by
SangerM on February 16, 2005 09:53 PM
Man, I am about stupid!!!!
I wrote above: "I was modeling (wearing shorts)...." I meant working on models (as in scale figures and plastic models. Only on review (about 12 hours later now) did I read it the way Neffi asked (and even though I answered his question, I never got it.)
Damn, I AM stupid sometimes.
Sheesh.
And oh yeah, lots 'o years wearing wool socks inside army boots gave the front of my lower legs Sock Pattern Baldness. It's really pretty funny looking.
-SangerM
by
SangerM on February 16, 2005 10:08 PM
I'll pass, thanks.
Shorts.
[*snicker* *snort* *guffaw!*]
Sorry. I just flashed a mental picture of you and Bernie Montgomery, arms akimbo, berets at a rakish angle, standing on the military crest of a dune, staring down the Afrika Korps. In shorts...
by
cw4billt on February 16, 2005 10:37 PM
Ah yes, the #11 exacto blade. There is a discontinuity in the loops and whorls of my sinister index finger, due to a #11 blade accident when I was a kid.
by
Justthisguy on February 16, 2005 10:49 PM
Okay--it's late enough so that the ladies are all abed.
Long story short. 1967, summertime, customer orders a pastrami sandwich; busted handguard on the meat slicer; half-inch-thick slice of right thumb tip included with the pastrami.
Customer returned next morning and commented he never realized that pastrami had bones in it.
by
cw4billt on February 16, 2005 11:10 PM
« Dismissed, Soldier!
February 07, 2005
Dreams...
The Castle does not yet have the resources, in both time and funding, for a display of this sophistication.
WWI German equipment at the National Infantry Museum, Fort Benning, Georgia.
But it *is* nice to know that Great Minds think along similar lines.
The "Germanic Wall" in the Arsenal at Castle Argghhh!, which includes Austrian and Swiss long iron. (Like I said, space is at a premium, so disregard the Brit sniper rifle and the Bren gun on the AA tripod...)
Hi-res version is here.
Reporting As Ordered, Sir! »
Nuttin shabby about that, John- I'll take my displays 'hands-on' rather than under glass any day. But that Maxim would look good next to the Bren, no?
by
Neffi on February 7, 2005 07:17 AM
When the War of the Worlds hits, I'm heading for the Castle! You've got enough fire power for a small army of bloggers, haven't you John?
by
AFSister on February 7, 2005 08:17 AM
Hands off the Bren! It is mine, mine mine I tell you!
*sobbing*
by
Cricket on February 7, 2005 08:22 AM
Why the goesche der kriegsmarine as a backdrop? Shouldn't it be displayed with the 20mm mount from the Prinz Eugen?
by
cw4billt on February 7, 2005 08:24 AM
Cricket - Wash your hands before you go posting again--you've still got linseed oil all over them from caressing the Bren's stock!
by
cw4billt on February 7, 2005 08:27 AM
Cuz I like that flag, that's why. And they carried those rifles on the ships.
I'm not terribly naval at the Castle, but we give 'em some credit here and there.
by
John of Argghhh! on February 7, 2005 09:06 AM
I like navels. Innies, not outies.
Oh hell-navAL.
by
AFSister on February 7, 2005 09:15 AM
Oh pooh. You are just being piththy.
by
Cricket on February 7, 2005 09:29 AM
And what's with the dinner plate directions?
You got me all hungry for salad and I couldn't see it
in this browser.
I may have to switch browsers.
by
Cricket on February 7, 2005 09:37 AM
AF Sister - you need to click on the Castle in the left sidebar. All questions are therein answered.
by
John of Argghhh! on February 7, 2005 10:28 AM
John:
Cricket = Looking for buttons
AFSister = Looking at buttons
by
cw4billt on February 7, 2005 12:09 PM
John - Darned if you're not right again. I'd totally forgotten about shipboard Arms Lockers. Doubly embarassing to have to admit to forgetting the two primary functions of the Marines, too:
1. Insure the maintenance of good order and decorum aboard ship and
2. Give the sailors practice leading during the dances...
[*swiftly donning kevlar jock*]
by
cw4billt on February 7, 2005 12:42 PM
Bill,
I suggest a package of frozen peas for that soreness. It worked quite well for my neighbor following his vasectomy.
John-
OK. Scrap that. You have enough to arm a SMALL COUNTRY of bloggers. Maybe even enough for all of Europe by now, with the way they seem to be lifting their petticoats while running from conflict. Jeesh! I hope you have a sprinkler system installed. That would be one hella BOOM if anything ever happened!
by
AFSister on February 7, 2005 01:39 PM
Oh yeah-
John you should make the Eagle "Jihad This" into a mug or t-shirt! That was OUTSTANDING!
by
AFSister on February 7, 2005 01:41 PM
Sis - what, you think I store the ammo and explosives with the weapons? Fates forfend!
Nothing in the house except the Ready Reaction Force ammo. All the rest is properly secured, stored and marked.
My neighbors might be annoyed, but the Castle would be okay...
by
John of Argghhh! on February 7, 2005 01:54 PM
AFSis - The kevlar is to prevent structural damage from fragments.
Brass doesn't get sore.
by
cw4billt on February 7, 2005 03:16 PM
John-
Glad to see Beth has knocked some sense into you over the past few years. Seeing all of those grenades, guns and other weapons of mass destruction together made me shiver. Well, I think that's what gave me the goose bumps.
HEY!!!!!!!!!!
WAIT A MINUTE!!!!!!
So THAT'S where Saddam hid the WMD's! Man, oh man. They were right here under our noses this whole time, in hidden jpg's!
Bill-
Don't you need a structure to prevent from damage before the Kevlar will help?
*puts on really fast shoes and runs away*
by
AFSister on February 7, 2005 03:32 PM
Don't bother running, you'll only die tired.
As for the grenades and stuff - that's all in the house.
It just ain't live.
I don't own *live* 155mm DPICM. That would be dumb, not to mention illegal.
But I do have purpose built inert dummies, or inerted ordnance...
Purpose-built inert dummies... no, I'll leave that one lie today, given 1SG Kasal.
by
John of Argghhh! on February 7, 2005 03:46 PM
"Gunner, target. Twelve o'clock, three thousand--snarkstress at desk, nose pressed against monitor, sensible shoes. TOW with SARAFIM warhead, selector AUTO."
"Searching...searching...okay, middle window. Gimme constraints."
"You're in constraints. I confirm your sight pic with pipper. Wire-cut switch identified. Shoot."
BAMF! "TOW on the wire. Tracking...tracking..."
by
cw4billt on February 8, 2005 09:40 AM
« Dismissed, Soldier!
January 31, 2005
I may be ugly, but...
Anybody remember the movie Blazing Saddles? Of course you do. Well, there's a scene where Alex Karras' character Mongo ("...just pawn in Great Game of Life...") doesn't like the way a horse is looking at him and decks the animal with one punch. Mongo is, of course, a fraction of the the horse's size and weight, but nevertheless slowly and relentlessly plods up to him, cocks his fist and BAM!...horsie go to sleep.
When I saw that again after several years in the Hog, I thought, "What a superb analogy. 'I may not be the prettiest thing you've ever seen on the battlefield, and it might take me awhile to get to the fight, but don't even THINK about letting me connect if we ever go toe to toe.'"
So John sends me this clip from Montieth, one of our more frequent and always-interesting reader/commentors. (Note: PLEASE Right Click and Save As to keep the bandwidth use under control)
OK...a couple of things. Yes, it's impressive but here's a couple of things to consider when you watch...
- The HEI round has about as much explosive content as the soldier's hand grenade, except that it's going about 3200 feet per second and 70 of them exit the barrels in your general direction every second (after the first second of firing and the the gun has reached it's full rotation speed).
- "General direction" is, actually, a misleading term. The gun has a mil dispersion of 5. In English, that means that at one thousand feet 80% of the bullets remain inside a 5-foot circle. As range increases, that circle widens in an essentially linear way--at 2K, 10 feet; 3K 15 feet; 5K; 25 feet. Sound like a lot? Imagine the assault platoon you're facing being able to throw, simultaneously, 70 hand grenades at you from a mile away and getting them all to land in the space of your mess tent...and when they hit they're somewhere north of supersonic.
- The GE/Philco-Ford cannon they came out of has, roughly, 6 billion moving parts. OK, maybe not 6 billion, but more than, say, your car's engine. So what. Wellllll...when I pull the trigger, the gun goes from a standing start to 3900 RPM in just under 1 second and fires from the barrel directly in line with the jet's fuselage centerline. When I release said trigger, the gun spins down to zero, reverses, counts the empty shells in the seven-barrel breech assembly until it senses a live round, and stops when the breech is reset with the next live round is in the firing barrel...in 1.5 seconds. Next time you go for a drive, stop in the driveway and rev her up to 3900 RPM. See if you can do it in a second...then shut it down and see how long it takes to stop (much less reverse the crankshaft rotation)...it'll probably take longer than a second-and-a-half. OK, I don't expect you to try to give your car engine whiplash (our visitors usually aren't DemocraticUnderground types), but you get my drift.
- Did I mention the thrust rearward the gun generates? 18,000lbs. With both engines producing about the same amount of thrust (which is why it takes us so long to get to the fight), well, thank God for physics...it keeps us airborne.
- The gun is loaded with special equipment that attaches to the front underside of the forward fuselage...we call it the dragon...and belts/links are not used. The bullets are fed into the system and carried along a conveyor that goes into the back of the ammo drum. The rounds are held by a groove in their cartridge bases on a helix assembly the corkscrews through the drum; the tips of the bullets are pointed at the center of the drum and when they reach the front of the drum are picked up and fed into the breech assembly as individual rounds. They travel through the firing sequence, are pulled from the barrel and placed back on the conveyor to travel back to the rear of the ammo drum and back into the helix. Elegant, closed-loop, beltless system.
- Of course, when the thing breaks it's freakin' spectacular. No, it doesn't explode, but the sudden stop of a mechanical jam can really screw up all that metal. Fortunately, most failures are in the electronic control system. When the jet senses the unload/recock process didn't work right (took too long(!), post-firing bullet count was off, etc.) you'll get a "Gun Unsafe" light in the cockpit. You play it safe and bring it back IAW emergency procedures but usually it turns out to be a bad chip or whatever. In the 20+ years I flew the jet, I can't remember a serious mechanical failure...and I think I would.
...and one last thing...
The GAU-8/A is NOT a Vulcan...it is the Avenger. To equate the two would be like equating a 9mm with a .44 magnum.
So there you have it...my 2 cents. Thanks again to Monteith and now John will get off my a$$...or not.
Instapilot
Reporting As Ordered, Sir! »
*DROOL*
Cripes, I'm gonna drown... Me being a machinegunner and all...
Niiiice...
by
Sgt. B. on January 31, 2005 02:53 PM
Sarge B. - After you've had one of these things unload 20 feet over your head, even though you know it's pointed 'way downrange, a certain bodily fluid other than *DROOL* tries to get your immediate attention.
I used ta HATE it when they played "Bounce The Loach"...
by
cw4billt on January 31, 2005 03:11 PM
The Vulcan ain`t no slouch either. It has a maximum rate of fire of 6000 rounds per minute. They`re normally set at 2000 - 2800 rpm depending on the aircraft to extend trigger life.
1200 rounds at 6000 rounds per minute is only 12 seconds. Not much in a dogfight but plenty if you`re going for a hard target.
On the Saratoga we used to save our 5 gal. paint buckets specifically for target practice.
After a launch someone would throw a few over from the fantail and aircraft would shoot them.
The spreading paint is easy to spot from the air and even easier if they hit the target.
by
Joatmoaf on January 31, 2005 03:57 PM
Consider yer a$$ unloaded until the next ATO, flyboy. Just try not to keep scratching missions for that *crew rest* excuse, eh?
by
John of Argghhh! on January 31, 2005 04:11 PM
20mm is cool but it's just not in the same league. That's not its fault...the slugs the Avenger slings are an order of magnitude heavier...which accouints for the slower rate of fire of the Gau-8 (inertia and all that) but the substantially longer energy conservation and range.
20mm is great for an air-to-air target but it just doesn't have the "smash" a 30mm gives for armor penetration.
One thing I didn't mention was the air-to-air firing solution Hogs have now had for a number a years, thanks to the low-altitude terrain avoidance displays and software. Think about a bullet designed to K- or M-kill a tank hitting an airplane. This last part is a long story...I know this doesn't sound right, seeing as how we're talking about something for terrain avoidance. Just trust me. Anyway, we can now shoot you in the face, on the beam and going away. Granted, it ain't something I'll have a lots of chances to do, especially if fighting a fighter, put all I need is one.
by
Instapilot on January 31, 2005 06:00 PM
For making tanks go away, I still like a nice ATGM...crank in hi-mag and you get to see their faces when they finally see it (if they're quick).
For air-to-air, we came up with something that may (or may not) have worked:
1. Bad guy sees Cobra, turns inbound.
2. Cobra sees bad guy, orients on same, raises nose and punches off a pair of Mk 66s.
3. Bad guy has dilemma--he sees the launch, but has no idea if they're missiles or rockets. If he bets missiles, he breaks off and we play more games; if he bets rockets, he presses the attack and winds up flying through the flechette mulcher...
One F-16 guy I know says it would work, another just called me a "sick, sick [compound vulgarity deleted by increasingly nervous NetNanny]" and walked away muttering...
Any thoughts from the starch-wingers?
by
cw4billt on January 31, 2005 08:29 PM
And as a former Redeye guy, I say screw 'em all. I only need one from behind the tree. Well, except at an A-10, dang-it, which has TWO engines, and they're on the outside, and all, so hitting one just pisses 'em off... Etc.
But the hardest thing to get a tone on was the OH-58 when it was right overhead, the top mounted exhausts never registered on the heat seeker. I understand the stinger took care of that and could even do head on shots. Fast movers? No problem. I could do one of them and they'd never see it coming.
P.S. I used to be a TADIL tester. We'd talk through some problems and stuff at joint meetings, and most time the meetings were congenial. After the AF shot down the two Blackhawks over Northern Iraq (and before we learned the Army pilots had TURNED THEIR IFF OFF, though the pilots did claim visual ID), the Army guys sat in one meeting and said the Army had just ordered another 4,000 Avenger systems. That's the army AD system that carries stingers and fast bullet launchers, is operated by an E3/E4, and is mounted on the back of a humvee--it's the thing John found disturbing in front of the Washington Monument. Well, The AF AWACS folks didn't see the humor in it, nor the other over-land flyers, but the Navy guys just shrugged and said yeah, so what. If one of those ever gets close enough to hurt the Navy, AEGIS would take it out too.
The less-than-congenial conversation went downhill from there.
Talk about a tough meeting. . .
-SangerM
by
SangerM on January 31, 2005 09:31 PM
One other useless comment: according to urban legend, Alex Karras actually broke that horse's jaw 'cause it turned into the swing. I've never gone to triple check that, but it sounded cool...
by
SangerM on January 31, 2005 09:35 PM
18,000 lbs. of backtthrust, huh? I immediately had an evil thought about backing into a parking place...
by
Jutthisguy on January 31, 2005 09:52 PM
SangerM - One of the Dirty Little Secrets to come out of the Black Hawk shootdown was that, contrary to the official party line from the Pentagon, the F-15 guys not only descended below their hard floor to attack the UH-60s, the wingman actually engaged in a low-level, multiple-pass tail chase on the bird he shot down and almost flew into the bottom of a cliff while doing it. An SF-type with a camcorder caught the action. I--and fifty other very somber helicopter pilots--watched it on our Safety Standdown the following year.
A clear case of multiple screwups, compounded by a double-case of buck fever--ain't nothin' about a Black Hawk with extended-range tanks that remotely resembles an Mi-25.
Rumors about the Stinger being an all-aspect critter are 100% true. We played against Stinger teams at A.P. Hill in 98-99 and in spite of active IR jammer, CARC paint and BH exhaust suppressor, they acquired our Cobras whenever they got line-of-sight. If we were quick, we could break the lock by nipping behind a treeline before they could "shoot"--but if we saw them first...
Parr-teee!
by
cw4billt on January 31, 2005 10:59 PM
BillT, Interesting re: that BH thing.
1) I heard pieces of it where I was, but never all the details, nor the end-result. What we were told was that the pilots never got close enough to really see, though they claimed visual ID. We were also told that an AWACS guy vectored them in, and gave the go-ahead to shoot. We were also told the pilots of the BHs had turned off IFF (why? Story was, maybe 'cause the folks on board didn't want to be followed/ID'd). Never did get more than that
2) In Mar/Apr 1994, I was in El Paso, supporting the annual Air Defense Exercise. I had just turned north onto the highway that goes out to White Sands where my duty for the day was, when I saw what looked like an MI-24 flying west-east about 6-10 klicks ahead, maybe 500 Ft AGL. It was a bright day, but the helicopter was mostly in silhouette for the 5-10 seconds I could see it. I looked real hard and then, because I knew there couldn't be a HIND flying around over Ft. Bliss, I made the mental switch to thinking maybe it was possible a Blackhawk could look like a HIND--not real likely, but ok, anything's possible. Strange as hell, but then I'd never seen a real HIND, just pictures, movies, etc. So, explained to my general satisfaction, with a note to be less harsh on AF guys at next TADIL meeting. Of course, about 30 minutes after I got to White Sands, an officer coworker showed up (an ADA guy), and he says, "Hey!! Did you see that HIND down there over Ft. Bliss? It flew right over the gas station I was at! Wow!!" I told him what I saw and suspected, and he said it was one we'd got from an ally, and was being used in the exercise to give the radar and gun folks some actual imagery... Ah HA! I says! So it was an MI-24, and THEREFORE, it was real unlikely those guys to have seen a HIND when looking at Blackhawks because they look NOTHING alike. I made sure I told the AWACS guys that when I got back to the office.
-SangerM
by
SangerM on February 1, 2005 01:16 AM
John,
Next time, maybe you could include pictures of the hottie firing said weapon. Now THAT would be something to look at!
I know, I know.....gurls
by
AFSister on February 1, 2005 07:51 AM
SangerM - The pilots didn't "turn off" their IFF (Mode 4). What happened black-box-wise was that they'd been assigned squawks for both Mode 3/A ("Who I Am and Where I'm Going") and Mode 4 ("I'm Friendly") for operating on the Turkish side of the border. AWACS was supposed to issue them new squawks for operating over the Kurds, but never did. AWACS tracked them, knew where they were, but did NOT vector the F-15s to their location, the F-15s spotted them on radar. When they interrogated Mode 4, they didn't get the proper response and smelled blood. They told AWACS they had Hinds in sight, the location matched that of the Hawks, but AWACS never told the Eagle drivers to double-check their visual ID and never issued a heads-up to the Hawk pilots or had them confirm their location. You may also have been told that the Hawk drivers never knew what hit them--another lie. The second Hawk to be attacked dodged the first missile by flying over a rock outcrop and then diving behind it, according to the SF guy who filmed it with the camcorder. The gun camera footage also shows the first Hawk pouring on the coals in an effort to get behind some rocks, but he never made it. Just an all-around effing mess.
by
cw4billt on February 1, 2005 08:06 AM
[continued]
SangerM - The Hind was a present from Israel, I'm told (See? Nice folks share). The guy you probably saw flying it now has a more mundane job, flying C-12s. He told me the thing flies like a champ and is "built like a German building" but has crapola avionics and all push-the-flight-envelope bets are off at altitudes above 8,000 feet.
by
cw4billt on February 1, 2005 08:16 AM
Bill & Sanger-
Great comments on the BH incident. Thanks-
by
AFSister on February 1, 2005 11:45 AM
I have always had this fantacy of a GAU-8A, 6 or 8 107mm recoiliess, a M88 hull, AGT1500 powerplant, Bushmaster cannon and a few other goodies.
by
Mudpuppy on February 1, 2005 02:23 PM
Great Discussion y'all,
Its been said that a dog's bark is louder than its bite, but let me tell you, 'bout two years ago, I saw both the GAU-8 & GAU-19 bark at Ethan Allen, VT. They not only filled the valley with their roar, but tore-up the target "cave" like no one's business.
Pity that Ethan Allen is a clean range, only TP's were spit down range.
Boquisucio
by
Boquisucio on February 1, 2005 02:43 PM
Boquisucio - You're lucky--if they'd been live, your ears would still be mad at your feet for bringing them there... =]
by
cw4billt on February 1, 2005 03:34 PM
Actually (green/green incidents aside), if one of them Warthawgs was ten feet above my head, I was in contact with the pilot or the FAC, and said 'Hawg and Dash Two were prosecuting a target on my request, I assure you, them boids would give me such a feeling of security that I'd think I was back in me lovin' momma's arms.
(Just as long as I could dodge the brass from said 'Hawgs.)
A-10... *sigh* Nice boid, purty boid, good boid... Wish WE had some...
by
Sgt. B. on February 1, 2005 03:46 PM
You did, sorta-kinda--OV-10s.
Those 5" Zuni 'phone poles
Were dee-lightful to see
When they were aimed at the DShK
That was aiming at me...
by
cw4billt on February 1, 2005 04:35 PM
Sarge B. - We had no problems with the boys in the Hawgs a-tall; in fact, we had a symbiotic relationship called JAAT (Joint Aerial Attack Team).
We'd bust up the AA/AAA and the A-10s would pop in while we did the duck and cover deal, then we'd pop up someplace else and cover their egress.
Repeat 5 times.
If you're real nice to John, he'll let you see the picture I'll e-gram to him in about a half hour...
by
cw4billt on February 1, 2005 04:41 PM
Thanx for the Comment cw4billt,
When it came time to get close and personal with the GAU's we were order to PELTOR them up.
I figure that that was the best way to avoid a grudge match between them ears and feet. Afterall, the feet were all nice and comfy in warm shoes, and them ears were feeling a bit nekked in the stiff November wind.
The ones left out behind on the cold, were our eyeballs. Sure, the sight of the TP's biting the sand was great, but some fireworks would have been candy for them.
Boquisucio
by
Boquisucio on February 1, 2005 05:18 PM
Thanx for the Comment cw4billt,
When it came time to get close and personal with the GAU's we were order to PELTOR them up.
I figure that that was the best way to avoid a grudge match between them ears and feet. Afterall, the feet were all nice and comfy in warm shoes, and them ears were feeling a bit nekked in the stiff November wind.
The ones left out behind on the cold, were our eyeballs. Sure, the sight of the TP's biting the sand was great, but some fireworks would have been candy for them.
Boquisucio
by
Boquisucio on February 1, 2005 05:18 PM
Boquisucio - Agreed. Sparks and pops are the scoop of ice cream next to the cake--not entirely necessary, but s-o-o-o much more rewarding...
by
cw4billt on February 1, 2005 07:09 PM
Dusty - just a little late to the comment part ! Just wanted to say Thanks - that video provided much pleasure for self and friends :-)
Bill and Sangor - the discussion of the BH incident was very illuminating, thanks.
Barb
by
Barb on February 4, 2005 10:10 AM
« Dismissed, Soldier!
by
Dusty
on
Jan 31, 2005
»
Delftsman links with:
the A-10
January 19, 2005
Gratuitous Gun Pic
Since I'm pimping Canadian ordnance today - let's go with a little eye-candy.
The Castle's Inglis Hi-Power. A Chinese-contract pistol that never made it to China, having been diverted for use by the Canadian Army. Complete with the Chinese stock-holster, and sporting custom wood grips. On display in the case, he sports his proper black plastic grips.
Hi-res here.
Reporting As Ordered, Sir! »
You forgot to mention the slightly optimistic rear sight settings. Mine went to 500m.
Cheers
JMH
by
J.M. Heinrichs on January 19, 2005 12:33 PM
I did a post about that... which I know realize was on the original, now-deceased, blogspot site.
Gosh, guess I'll have to do another one.
But yes, just like the sights on the Artillery Luger, the sights on the Chinese Hi-Powers are, well, a tad optimistic.
by
John of Argghhh! on January 19, 2005 01:45 PM
great pic! if you want grips for that, we're in the business and always willing to try something new!
by
hans mahler on January 19, 2005 03:21 PM
« Dismissed, Soldier!
January 13, 2005
Gratuitous Gun Pic
One of these would look good on the battlements of the Castle. Mebbe two.
A CIWS - not the Royal Navy sailor servicing it! Something for you sailors, today.
Reporting As Ordered, Sir! »
I'll send you some (expended) brass and links--you can scatter them 'round the trebouchet and pretend...
by
cw4billt on January 13, 2005 11:29 AM
I remember when the Canadian navy's contribution to Gulf War I left Halifax these were on each vessel, we watching from an office tower each had a moment of illogical dread that these guns responded automatically not only to incoming missles but also wharfs of flagwaving schoolkids. Nasty pieces of machinery.
by
Alan on January 13, 2005 12:10 PM
Ahhh... Those old Vulcans still stand the test of time.
That rocks. :)
by
Casey Tompkins on January 13, 2005 12:25 PM
Bill - what makes you think I don't have a belt or two? I just haven't posted a picture...
by
John of Argghhh! on January 13, 2005 01:32 PM
TP, TP-T or DU?
by
cw4billt on January 13, 2005 01:48 PM
Beats launching a cow via catapult, I'll wager.
by
Ciggy on January 13, 2005 01:52 PM
Nothing beats a catapult cow!
Except APFSDS.
Cheers
JMH
by
J.M. Heinrichs on January 13, 2005 02:13 PM
You can take the CIWS if I can have her.
Deal?
by
Sigivald on January 13, 2005 05:54 PM
Deal, Sigi. I've got a gurl already. I don't have a CIWS!
by
John of Argghhh! on January 13, 2005 06:10 PM
Did you see in the Inside the Ring a couple of Fridays ago?:
Force protection
Tuesday's bombing of a mess tent in Iraq that killed 22 U.S. service members, American contractors and Iraqis has focused more attention in the Pentagon on the issue of force protection.
In addition to suicide bombers penetrating base security, enemy rocket and mortar attacks continue to be a major threat that the Pentagon is working to counter.
Weapons designers have started one crash program that uses the Navy's Mk15 Phalanx Close-In Weapons System, known as the CIWS and pronounced "sea wiz." The gun uses six extreme rapid-fire 20 mm cannons guided by search-and-tracking radar that has been used effectively by ships to guard against anti-ship missile attack.
The land-based system uses a fire-finding radar that can detect mortar and rocket launches, allowing the Phalanx gun to lay down a line of fire in the direction of the incoming round.
Tests at the White Sands, N.M., testing range have shown that the ground-based CIWS can hit targets up to 50 percent of the time. While not perfect, the new anti-mortar system would provide limited protection from insurgent attacks and may be rushed into service in Iraq.
by
Myron L. on January 13, 2005 07:04 PM
Better+cheaper:
1. Procure Hughes (ooops) MD-530 with pilot, with ANVIS-6, with GIB (Guy In Back) armed with M-240/M-249.
2. Fly zone recon.
3. Take out weapons, gunners and al-Jazeera camera crews while they're still setting up and fiddling with the makeup and light meter.
4. Return for fuel, ammo and coffee.
5. Repeat as necessary.
by
cw4billt on January 13, 2005 07:46 PM
(Caption for the picture)
"R2, is that a gun in your chasis or are you just happy to see me?"
by
Mythilt on January 14, 2005 08:20 AM
Mythilt - HA! Good 'un!
by
cw4billt on January 14, 2005 09:03 AM
Thank you.
I really wish we had been allowed to see the CIWS fire when I caught a ride on the Connie from Seattle to San Francisco back in 1997. One of the smarter things the Navy used to do, the Tiger Cruises, family members allowed to ride on the ships for a few days experiencing what the crew experiences. Didn't get to see the CIWS fire, but did get to watch carrier ops, and the escorts gave us a show blowing holes in the water a few miles away.
Was much fun.
by
Mythilt on January 14, 2005 12:15 PM
Mythilt - two short video clips, one with sound, are at http://tri.army.mil/LC/CS/csa/aagatlin.htm#Phalanx
if you want to see R2 in action...
by
cw4billt on January 14, 2005 01:01 PM
« Dismissed, Soldier!
December 22, 2004
Gratuitous Gun Pic
Hey, they may be ugly, and the MAS38 may have shot a worthless cartridge, but French SMGs weren't all bad.
The MAT49 at least folded up nicely.
Hi-res here.
Reporting As Ordered, Sir! »
Mak'eeng eet vairee su-tah-bool for zhos' gahmes of zhe queek-draw, oui? Baht zhere ees zhe oh, so pes'kee frawnt sahht...
by
cw4billt on December 22, 2004 09:46 AM
Yep, MAS38, that's the one. That's what I mean, like expending all of that engineering talent to solve a non-real problem, and have it shoot a rather wussy cartridge, to boot!
Frogs! Just weird.
Disclaimer (declaring my interest):
They make some good cheese, but I think their wine is overpriced.
by
Justthisguy on December 23, 2004 12:39 AM
The first time I ever saw one was Anthony Quinn holding one in a movie where he played a French Paratrooper in Algeria. I always thought they were pretty cool.
by
gunner on December 23, 2004 09:42 PM
« Dismissed, Soldier!
December 19, 2004
Gratuitious Gun Pic
I had a photo-essay planned for today, but some technical problems (like an unmountable boot sector) are getting in the way. So, while I deal with that, here's a shot of some of the pistols, artillery sights, periscopes, and other optics in the collection of the Arsenal at Castle Argghhh!
Hi-res here.
Reporting As Ordered, Sir! »
John - I want to come play with your toys! You have way more fun toys than I do ;-) (And I've been teased that my husband and I could hold out for weeks in a seige!)
by
Barb on December 19, 2004 01:29 PM
Looks exactly like our tent in the Delta. 'Cept cleaner...and not as much ammo...and missing a bunch of grenades...and no c-rat cans...and no snakes...and no 122-slivers sticking in the wall...other than those minor differences, though...
by
cw4billt on December 19, 2004 03:23 PM
...ooops--almost forgot the thumb-sized red roaches (at least, I hope you don't have any in the Armory. They bite.)
by
cw4billt on December 19, 2004 05:07 PM
No roaches, but the grenades are one section left...
by
John of Argghhh! on December 19, 2004 06:19 PM
Ahhhhh...almost perfect. But I don't suppose the Armoress would appreciate a November '69 centerfold...
by
cw4billt on December 19, 2004 07:11 PM
The first weapon I ever fired was a Lugar (the kind with that odd cross-wise barrel-shaped charger on top). I was about 5 or 6, I think, and a favorite uncle took me to the range with him. "Being Jewish," he said, "it's especially fitting that you're learning to shoot with this weapon. Never forget how to use one."
I didn't get it at the time, but I never forgot the thrill of the first shots. I don't remember much else about that time of my life, or even that uncle, but the first few shots with that pistol are still vivid.
And over time I came to understand the comment.
Now, even though it may sound silly, I have to say it gives me the greatest kind of comfort thrill to know there are thousands of small armories like John's all over the country, and tens of thousands of lesser ones. I have relatives who own several hundred rifles, pistols, shotguns, etc. I have friends who have closets _full_ of firearms. I know of a guy who supposedly could arm a Vietnam-era rifle company.
Frankly, nothing makes me feel more secure as a citizen of this country than this. I guess for me it's the constitutional equivalent of a security blanket.
-SangerM
by
SangerM on December 19, 2004 08:12 PM
Did someone say "Luger?"
by
John of Argghhh! on December 19, 2004 08:49 PM
That's the one! Wow! Thanks! (and great write up).
by
SangerM on December 19, 2004 11:16 PM
« Dismissed, Soldier!
November 29, 2004
A little more Fallujah news.
Know someone who fought at Fallujah? Know someone who didn't, but is in awe of the fight and fighters? Know someone who likes to collect comparatively rare t-shirts?
Look no farther! The wife of a deploying National Guardsman has designed a shirt to fit your needs!
LollaFallujah 2004
Her eBay store can be accessed here.
Hat tip to Myron for the pointer!
Regular visitors to the Castle know about the Arsenal. And the fact that the Armorer generally eschews new firearms for those that have a firmly established history.
The Armorer is pleased to see that US troops serving in Fallujah share his tastes, and are making use of an oldy-but-goodie, the PPSh 41, the Russian 'burp gun.' Although, given the source of most Iraqi weapons, this one is probably actually chinese, the Type 50.
Hat tip to Chris C. for the pics.
Next, Strategy Page has two interesting bits on Fallujah:
1. Some analysis of how we went about it. Fallujah, the Plan Survived Contact with the Enemy.
and,
2. Jim Dunnigan's thoughts on how Iraq may represent a tipping point in how Muslims are forced to view the world.
Update: Doug MacGregor continues his habit of not making friends. In the last link, he continues to show that truth-telling to power never is a very popular job that gets you promoted - just like John Boyd found out. Interesting views expressed herein - and I'm not in a position to strongly agree or disagree, but I find the viewpoint, well, interesting, and I freely admit I'm always having to fight with myself to keep an open mind and *not* get locked into a "Waterloo Mentality."
Reporting As Ordered, Sir! »
MacGregor seems to be rather armored-centric, and is in fact incorrect in several of his statements.
For example, he completely discounted the effect produced by six weeks of bombardment in the 1991 Gulf War. The colonel apparently thinks that the Iraqis were so bad that "A fraction of the force" would have sufficed. I don't suppose the above-mentioned six weeks of bombardment, pre-war operations which convinced the Iraqi leadership to adhere to their static defense, and a deliberate use of American mobility had anything to do with our victory. Whoops. I forgot to mention how careful the Air Force was to destroy the Iraqi C3I capability before the war. Why should they waste resources like that if (as Mac says) the pilots "knew from the time we decided to go in there that they had no threat in the air?"
Some other assertions which are incorrect, or misinterpretations include force retention (right now the only challenges relate to reserve forces), and the use of wheeled armor, even though the Strykers seem to be doing well in Iraq.
MacGregor also ignores the intelligence gathered which shows that the Iraqi Baathists had developed detailed, extensive plans, over several years, to create a "resistance" after an American victory. These men literally invested in the plan by scattering caches of (well...) cash through Iraq, which would be later used to disrupt any foreign efforts to rebuild the country.
This is not to say that the man doesn't know what he's talking about; he clearly understands the need for greater "joint-ness" in all operations, for a more flexible mindset -including integration of special forces-, and for a move away from divisions to brigades. I'd love to have more folks like that around the DoD, just to keep the bosses challenged.
But then, I'm the kind of crazy who thinks we should reintegrate the Air Force with the Army... ;)
by
Casey Tompkins on November 29, 2004 12:48 PM
Not good enough, Casey: The Air Force must be returned to its previous subservience to the Army. Only then will it rise to its rightful place in the military firmament.
(And my tongue is only partially in my cheek.) I did a "staff paper" in 2002 titled "Iraq War: Tactical Exercise With Live Enemy Troops", so I tend to not be in the Billy Mitchell Club.
Cheers
JMH
by
J.M. Heinrichs on November 29, 2004 01:33 PM
A TEWLET, eh? Or, perhaps, TEW(LE)T...
So, John, izzis classified NREL(US), or can it be shared?
by
John of Argghhh! on November 29, 2004 01:39 PM
You'll have to wait until I resurrect the hard drive it's lurking on; on a computer not used since '94.
I wrote "staff paper" because my syndicate director pointed out that real staff papers use the staff paper format, but mine appeared to be something called an "essay".
And I will not offer it for distribution until I re-read it, and consume a large quantity of Single Malt (to account for hitting the 'Send' button).
It probably should remain "BF'd" (Buried Forever).
Cheers
JMH
by
J.M. Heinrichs on November 29, 2004 09:20 PM
Actually, J.M., that's what I had in mind... :)
I mean -really- what can the Air Force do know that they couldn't do as the Army Air Force? Seriously?
The sad part is that I've been an Iron Bird nut all my life. Even as a wee lad, my favorite pages in the American Heritage History of World War Two were the pictures of the planes. I long ago lost my heart to the Queen, and the Lightning. But I will -to be honest- admit that the smart pilots picked the Jug. Heh. :)
I'll also admit that part of my comments were -to a degree- not accurate. Some reports (notably StrategyPage) have given high marks to the Styker in combat, while others (here at Arrrgh!!) give the vehicle lower grades.
It's all due to context. Sometimes you need to bring in the heavy iron, no? And it just occured to me that this segues quite nicely back to my above comment. The Lightning and the Mustang were magnificent long-range escorts, but the Jugs were much, much better at ground support and tank-busting. I guess it's a "Republic thing..." Heh.
On the gripping hand, I think we should ditch the B-1 and B-2, and work on building the Stratofortress II; a (relatively) stealthy airborne truck which can deliver UAVs and JDAMs to order, with a long loiter time.
by
Casey Tompkins on November 30, 2004 02:24 AM
« Dismissed, Soldier!
November 22, 2004
Whitworth Cannon
I got a request in an earlier thread for pictures of the Whitworth rifled breech loader breech and bolt. Bolt in this instance referring to the round it shot (or at least I hope that's what the requester was after!).
I've got some stuff in the reference library - but I didn't have any good pictures of the breech mechanism to scan, so I went hunting on the web. And, as I expected, about all I could find was this, the most common photo of a Whitworth, from the Civil War. I found some other British guns, but none of those shots showed the breech to any good effect.
But joy of joys, after a couple of refinements in my Googling, I came up with these photos. They are from this website, devoted to the hobby of making and shooting miniature cannon. This may be the avenue the Arsenal has to go in order to indulge our taste in cannon.
Anyway, here are two pretty good shots of the Whitworth - in model form, made by a remarkable mini-cannon-founder, Ronald Nulph.
The Whitworth was a "screw-gun," meaning that it's breech block worked exactly like a screw - requiring multiple twists of the breech handle to close and seal the breech. Developed at a time before brass cartridges cases of that size were practical, they were plagued by sealing problems at the breech over time, in addition to some of the inherent weaknesses in the wrought-iron construction methods used.
These problems would so plague the screw-guns that first rank armies of the era went back to rifled muzzle-loaders until a solution was found in the form of the 'interrupted screw' breech and the french-designed DeBange obturation system. The interrupted screw breech (still preferred on large guns) with the DeBange sealing system allows for the breech to close and seal in a quarter-turn, vastly speeding service of the piece. The DeBange obturator was essentially a mushroom-shaped steel spindle that sat in the center of the breech block. It sat on a split ring, obturating pad (usu. a hard, heat resistant rubber or asbestos compound) with another split ring on top of it. The compression of firing pushed the mushroom back on the split rings and obturator, which bulged to seal the breech. The charge is initiated by a primer (looks like a large blank) inserted into the lock. Just like a rifle cartridge case, the brass case seals the lock, the pad seals the breech, the interrupted screw allows a quarter turn to seal, giving you a very strong, very fast breech for large caliber guns. The various forms of dropping and sliding blocks (as used on smaller guns and tank guns) give even greater speed - but at the cost of weight, which is why larger caliber guns use stepped thread screw breeches - with at least the exception of the German 155mm guns, which still use blocks. The stepped screw breech still soldiers on, however - as this picture of Redleg Marines sending a present via their M198 Howitzer to muji's in Fallujah amply demonstrates.
The diagram above is a DeBange interrupted screw breech in a naval gun. The cannoneers on the Marine gun would recognize the essentials of this breech.
The second part of the question was the Whitworth bolt. Bolt, in artillery parlance of the Civil War era, meant an elongated rifled projectile that did not explode - the rifled equivalent of solid shot (in this case, a 30pdr Parrot bolt).
The reason a Whitworth bolt is interesting is because the Whitworth gun (designed, incidentally by Sir Joseph Whitworth) used a novel method of rifling. Rather than cutting grooves into the bore of the piece to spin the projectile, the Whitworth gun's bore was hexagonal in section, and twisted down the bore to provide the spin to stabilize the projectile, and provide a predictable drift that could be offset in aiming.
Consequently, the ammunition had to be specially made to accommodate that - which gives you a projectile that looks like this.
Seen behind the bolt is a 12pdr spherical case (exploding shell) with a Bormann fuze.
Obviously, one of the last things the Confederates needed was a gun that required specialized ammunition. So, while the Whitworth was an accurate gun, it's propensity in it's wrought iron mode to explode without warning, and the requirements for specially-made ammunition, combined with it's relative lack of power made it a not terribly useful gun. But what Whitworth learned in the design of this gun and his rifles was carried forward part and parcel into the guns we cannon-cockers use today.
There, that should about cover it. I really could go on for pages, but this is a blog, eh?
Reporting As Ordered, Sir! »
Cool! I want a cannon too! I wish I had the machining skills.
by
arditi on November 22, 2004 08:36 PM
This is the same Whitworth that designed the stronger than SAE/Metric Whitworth threads.
by
Montieth on November 22, 2004 08:41 PM
Now the question is, will John call this series of comments "the Whitworth thread?"
by
cw4billt on November 22, 2004 11:44 PM
Thanks Mr Gun pr0n Man!
I seem to remember reading in some first hand accounts of Gettyburg that the CSA cannoneers used the Whitworth as a muzzle loader, and I just wanted to see what the breech looked like.
Thanks a lot!
See-Dub..that was awful
by
MunDane on November 23, 2004 11:41 AM
Em-Dee,
I only did it to spare you the humiliation of posting it. Please--no thanks required.
MunDane--oooog...
by
cw4billt on November 23, 2004 12:11 PM
When Longstreet along with Pickett and Hood's divisions was detached to SE Virgina/NE North Carolina, one of the operations he contemplated was the recovery of New Berne, NC. As part of the plan, he would place his only Whitworth on the north bank of the Nuese river and asked Maj. Gen W.H.C. Whiting to send one of his Whitworths that was being used to protect Wilimington, NC. Whiting responded that he only had 3 and he needed all of them to cover the blockade runners. I think that says alot about how highly regarded the Whitworth was to Confederate generals. Lee's Lieutenants has a couple of examples of the Whitworth being used to target individuals...
by
Myron L. on November 23, 2004 11:13 PM
Whitworth also made muzzleloading rifles during that period that used his hexagonal bore. The conical, cast lead, bullets were easier to produce for the user than his cannon's ammunition.
There are some replicas of the rifle being made nowadays, and they're pretty accurate.
by
SteveH on November 24, 2004 02:10 AM
I have dredged up an old, white metal/brass barrel kit of the Whitworth that I built when I was a kid. I believe the model was sold by the Marine Model Company.
After some effort I have located all of the large parts and some of the damaged, smaller ones.
The pictures of the breech on this site indicate that my model featured simplified detail. This cannon is one of the many things that I would enjoy reassembling from my past.
by
Pete Dodge on February 8, 2005 08:43 PM
« Dismissed, Soldier!
by
John
on
Nov 22, 2004
»
The Politburo Diktat links with:
Show Trial #24
November 21, 2004
So, what was it?
Bill the Rotorhead and Samuel Tai were the correct guessers (Bill first - but he had an unfair advantage, being our Casca, and is old enough to have crewed one of these, though he only admits to being a balloonist during the CW) with those of you who figured out bronze CW-era guns doing pretty well, too.
It's a rifled James 12-pounder, from the collection of the National Infantry Museum (album in progress, not much captioning as yet) at Fort Benning, Georgia.
Reporting As Ordered, Sir! »
A foul canard--I have never admitted to being a balloonist. It must have been some other devilishly handsome Tom Selleck lookalike you saw at Fair Oaks.
by
cw4billt on November 21, 2004 06:42 PM
Heh, you can see where all the RedLegs fondle the muzzle when they walk past. Some poor troop must spend hours each week polishing the gun up only to have retired artillerist walk up, fondle and caress it and leave oils and acid on the bronze only to cause it to turn green again...
:-)
by
Montieth on November 22, 2004 06:22 AM
Nah, not us. We know better than to fool around with the open end. We'd be in back, straddling the trail, looking down the sights (and of course, all of us would have our own pendulum hausse' to put in the rear bracket).
by
John of Argghhh! on November 22, 2004 06:43 AM
When I was in the 7th Cav at Hood in '74-ish, the 75th Ranger Co had a plaque mounted on a pedestal in front of their barracks. It was also on the path to our mess hall. Of course, we all dragged our hands across it going and coming, and it was purely a pleasure to see the tarnish getting ahead of the polisher detail. I'm surprised they didn't lay for us...
Ahhhhh, the joys of youth.
-SangerM
by
SangerM on November 22, 2004 08:35 AM
SangerM--
Consider your plaque-petting as payback.
In 1969, one of the more amusing (and one of the few printable-in-this-forum) of the random writings over the only flush urinals in Can Tho was, "ATTENTION, CAV: PLEASE DO NOT EAT THE LARGE PINK BREATH MINTS. THANK YOU. RANGERS!"
by
cw4billt on November 22, 2004 08:57 AM
I just got back to this--pink breath mints, eh? That's funny.
As for the rangers, well the 75th guys at Hood were the ones who taught me to rappel and several other things, too. In fact, it was them who taught me I could do lots of stuff I never would have thought, as in actually jumping off the edge of a 120 foot cliff at Belton Lake, even though my knees were visibly shaking and my voice had gone up 14 or 15 octaves. Basically they shamed me into doing it, but I am not at all complaining, as I am sure everyone here can understand...
-SangerM
by
SangerM on November 23, 2004 09:52 AM
« Dismissed, Soldier!
November 19, 2004
It's National Ammo Day!
If ya haven't yet, ya better go buy some! 100 rounds. Any caliber, any mix of calibers. More than 100 rounds. If you don't own a gun - go get one - or buy ammo for someone else! (In keeping with all the laws, folks, in keeping with all the laws!)
The little guessing game on "What is it?" is going well. Lots of good analysis going on. Montieth and Samuel are closest, though I was tempted to say it was a prop shaft coupling on an aircraft carrier... (you'll have to see the comments in the post below to understand why I might be so tempted...)
Here's another hint.
Reporting As Ordered, Sir! »
Lessee, it's obviously a rifled bronze piece of some kind. The pic showing the foresight seems to indicate it's been fitted with a rifled iron liner. Looks like rust pits in the bore, too. A 12-lber Napoleon sleeved with a rifled liner?
by
Justthisguy on November 19, 2004 11:32 AM
A Brit 12-pounder modified for use as an infantry close support weapon, judging by the bayonet stud... =]
by
cw4billt on November 19, 2004 12:55 PM
An Armstrong gun?
by
MunDane on November 19, 2004 01:28 PM
Bill - figures you aviators wouldn't recognize a sight when you see it... ya never use 'em anyway, except thermals to look for couples humping in their cars...
by
John of Argghhh! on November 19, 2004 01:42 PM
Hey...us Bradley-type grunts do that too...one of my crews caught a guy pleasing himself in the porta-john once. Not exactly sure how long they watched that.
by
Heartless Libertarian on November 19, 2004 02:25 PM
Argghhh! Dave, you ain't helping. At least the aviators are into hetero... now I'll hafta keep an eye on my six when moving amongst the crunchies!
by
John of Argghhh! on November 19, 2004 02:57 PM
My apologies after seeing the clue. It is not an aircraft carrier. It is clearly a Zepplin.
by
Alex on November 19, 2004 08:04 PM
I ain't as pro as some of you,but could it be a brass cannon. 2nd clue does'nt look like a sight,maybe a percussion cap?? I'm guessin.
by
pete on November 19, 2004 09:23 PM
Naval rifled Parrot from a civil war ironclad or blockade runner? This picture is of the cover for the fuze hole.
by
gunner on November 20, 2004 12:33 AM
Well, since Parrott guns weren't made of bronze and there's no evidence of the reinforcing band, it ain't a Parrott.
My (non-tongue-tucked-firmly-in-cheek) guess would be that it's an early model XXXXXXXX {edited to give you other guys a chance] field piece.
BTW, John, us aviators don't need thermals to be voyeurs--I've spotted lots of couples doing Vi@gr@ field-tests in broad (sorry--couldn't resist) daylight.
Well, not lots...but at least they waved.
Okay, she waved... =]
by
cw4billt on November 20, 2004 09:20 AM
Is it a James rifle cannon?
by
Samuel Tai on November 20, 2004 02:53 PM
« Dismissed, Soldier!
by
John
on
Nov 19, 2004
»
Aaron's Rantblog, aka Aaron the Liberal Slayer links with:
Celebrate!
November 18, 2004
Oh, BTW -
Anybody wanna take a stab at identifying the weapon two posts down? Just for fun.
Just in case you need a hint.
Reporting As Ordered, Sir! »
Some kind of early Brass Rifled cannon. Can't tell if it's breech loading or not (quite likely).
by
Montieth on November 18, 2004 05:02 PM
At first,I was thinking along the same lines as Montieth,but,I bet the pic is misleading as to the size.I'll go with something smaller than a cannon.
by
mikeatSE on November 18, 2004 07:04 PM
Clearly it's an aircraft carrier.
by
Alex on November 18, 2004 07:13 PM
..the main gun on a T62?
by
arditi on November 18, 2004 07:45 PM
The edge of the rifling where it meets the crown is very brassy. Plus it's green tinted and very deep in rifling. That seems to indicate the use of Black Powder as a propellant as opposed to shallower rifling for newer powders. Plus, the crown is very wide.
by
Montieth on November 18, 2004 11:02 PM
If the pic is life size, this would indicate a 140mm, or 5-1/2" rifled gun of some type. There appear to be ~20 lands and ~20 grooves. Maybe these aren't conventional riflings, but ridges for a some kind of early sabot?
I think we can rule out Civil War Parrott guns, since the sabots maxed out at 9 lands & grooves.
by
Samuel Tai on November 19, 2004 12:23 AM
Rifled bronze...
with an aiming post?
From the wear on the munzzle end..this was a working gun.
But civil war stuff tended to have a lot fewer grooves...(exception 3" Parrot CSA)
So I am going to bet this came from either the Crimean war and some Turkish piece from that war (because they are less exspensive than the English pieces) Possibly russian because they were behind the times...so to speak.
by
MunDane on November 19, 2004 01:15 PM
Keep going, fellas. Yer bouncing all around it.
by
John of Argghhh! on November 19, 2004 01:43 PM
« Dismissed, Soldier!
It's National Buy Ammo week, and I'm almost late for a meeting...
So, we'll default for now to a gratuitous gun pic, and a plug for National Buy Ammo Day - which is tomorrow!
Reporting As Ordered, Sir! »
Now, there's an idea I can get behind!
by
Bithead on November 18, 2004 12:20 PM
Looks exactly like the muzzle of the SKS that some (deceased) delta-dweller pointed at me when I blew the mat off his spider hole. Same size, too... =[
by
cw4billt on November 18, 2004 11:31 PM
« Dismissed, Soldier!
November 17, 2004
I'm busy, thank heaven Dusty showed up!
But here's a gratuitous gun pic, in anticipation of National Buy Ammo Day.
A close-up of the action of a Colt Revolving Musket, actually a key weapon (even dangerous as they were to the user), in Colonel Grenville Dodge's 1st Brigade, 4th Division holding the line on the first day of the Battle of Pea Ridge (Elkhorn Tavern to you Lost Cause adherents).
This weapon is in the collection of the National Infantry Museum. I know of one locally, and I'm trying my damndest to get in the owner's will.
Reporting As Ordered, Sir! »
Hey, Mr Gun-Pr0n supplier,
Any chance you could post a pic of a Whitworth Bolt, as well as breech of same?
Thanks!
by
MunDane on November 17, 2004 10:38 AM
Grenville Dodge, otherwise known as the Father of the Transcontinental Railroad.
by
Heartless Libertarian on November 17, 2004 12:51 PM
« Dismissed, Soldier!
November 14, 2004
Monteith provides this dope about the Ferret.
You asked, Monteith answers. Between the two of us, we have the makings of a pretty good museum! Bring in Chris, and heck, we could probably make money!
Where do I start...
The Daimler Ferret is an outgrowth of the WWII Daimler Dingo and Daimler Armored car. The Dingo, being a LMG (light machine gun) armed scout car (2 man crew, 3 tons, wireless set, etc) and the Daimler Armored car being a 'wheeled light tank' as the role was envisioned at the early stage of it's design.
The Dingo came first and was used by the BEF in France. It was a purpose-built vehicle with a chassis and drive line arrangement built for war from the start vs a civilian light truck chassis being adapted by fitting an armored body (ala the Humber Light Recce cars or earlier Lanchester/Rolls/Crossley armored cars). The power plant was a Daimler 2.5 liter straight 6 engine driving through a fluid coupling, Wilson pre-selector gearbox and separate transfer box for forwards and reverse capability. Thus the vehicle had 5 gears forwards and reverse (get out of trouble as fast as you get into it, you know).
The Daimler Armored car was largely an expansion of the existing Daimler Dingo chassis to a 7 ton size and with a 3 man crew. The armament was a 2 pounder (40mm) AT gun and a coaxial BESA 7.92mm MG. There was also a Bren LMG for AA and close in defense work plus personal weapons. The Daimler armored car had a similar drive line to that of the Dingo including the 5 speeds forwards and reverse but instead had a larger 4.5 liter engine.
At war's end the Daimler Dingo and Armored Cars soldiered on, but around the end of the 40's a replacement was sought. The Ferret was an expansion of the basic design with some refinements and a larger engine. Daimler was approached to carry out the development of the prototype and production after the prototypes were approved. There were two main variants, a liaison vehicle that had no turret (pintle-mounted MG) and a scout version that had a 1 man manually traversed turret containing a MG. The drive line was just as similar as it's two predecessors, just updated in a few areas for details and easier servicing. The engine in this case being a 4.25 liter straight 6 Rolls Royce design.
All three vehicles have an individual drive shaft running to each wheel station allowing a lower overall profile as there is less requirement to fit crew and other kit above a large front and rear mounted differential. The transfer box is what contains the differential. The two WWII era Daimlers have standard frames with the armored bodies fitted to them whereas the Ferret has the drive line components directly mounted within a monocoque body(meaning the body is built to be a single unit), this allows a low height, but increases noise as the drive shafts and other running gear are with in the enclosed space of body with the crew. Power is transmitted to the 4 wheels which have reduction gearing in the hubs for a lower amount of torque exerted on the drive shafts for a correspondingly higher amount of torque where the rubber meets the road.
Normal crew is 2 men for the scout car version and 2-3 for the liaison version. Internal stowage arrangements are dependent on which role the vehicle is assigned. Wireless sets were standard kit with 2 sets and an intercom component as part of the radio sets. Early ferrets used WS 19 sets with WS 88's for liaison with infantry units. Later on they used the Larkspur series C42/45 and B47/48 depending on arm of service. Ferrets in the 80s used the Clansman series of radios and intercom sets.
The Ferret had two larger siblings for the heavy armored car role and wheeled APC (armored personnel carrier) role. Those being the Saladin and Saracen. The Saladin and Saracen have 6x6 arrangements that follow the ferret's configuration with individual drive shafts for each wheel station. The Saracen swapped the engine from the rear to front for reasons of easy debussing (dismounting, 'un-assing' in US miltary parlance) by the PBI (Poor Bloody Infantry) carried in the back area.
As John stated in comments, the Ferrets were built from '53 to '71 and were used up through the first Gulf War. The British used them everywhere their forces needed reconnaissance and scouting including, Cyprus, Northern Ireland, Germany, Aden, North Africa and Southeast Asia. Several Commonwealth nations also operate Ferrets to this day. The last Ferrets were disposed of following the Gulf War and make a very good choice for wheeled armor by the average collector. Prices range from $10K up in the US.
Photo's of all three are available here.
Plus details and movies of the Daimler Armored
car are at this place.
There is also a parallel set of movies on the Humber Armored Car.
Photos (with lots of interior shots) of Monteith's Ferret, as well as some of the more interesting vehicles that took part in the Veteran's Day parade are available here.
Oh, and did I mention... I WANT ONE!
Reporting As Ordered, Sir! »
Beautiful photos, thank you.
by
slehtine on November 14, 2004 11:58 AM
... my bro in Alaska has a real cherry Ferret... I'll send you a photo of the next time I am up there riding with him... he mounted his old .50 cal on top of it.....
by
Eric on November 26, 2004 06:39 PM
« Dismissed, Soldier!
November 09, 2004
Okay, sports fans.
This one was tougher than I expected. It even disturbed the Commissar. Dunno why, though. It's Commie iron. Arditi and Captain H pretty well nailed it, with just a little help.
Here's your final clue to the challenge. New pics also added to the album. Apparently, not many of you have seen the inside of many tanks. And at least two of you who have, CW4Bill and the Instapilot, have only seen the interiors of tanks because you blew their turrets off, which does make it hard to get a good sense of the interiors, what with the altitudes, ranges, speed and all.
This beast is one of several vehicles kept around here so SOF soldiers can learn how to hotwire 'em, drive 'em, shoot 'em, and blow 'em up. Hey, if you know how to use the other guy's stuff, you don't have to bring as much of your own, eh?
Reporting As Ordered, Sir! »
Grumpf. Should'a remembered about the commonality of certain Cyrillic letters with Englitch (and me a Suvorov/Rezun fan, too)--way to go, Arditi and Captain H!
by
cw4billt on November 9, 2004 08:29 AM
As I e-mailed from work, it's a heck of a lot easier to ID them from the outside. The POV from the driver's hatch & the clunky interior had me thinking it was an upgraded Sherman. Hell, with the "bra" armor, I can tell you the letters that follow the numbers. (And just what is it w/ Army intel guys & boobs? The "bra" armor on this and the "Dolly Parton" model of T-72... Sheesh!)
by
Cybrludite on November 9, 2004 08:41 AM
Funny--I was more certain of what it is from looking at the insides. It's the base-model that I guessed (not many have a left-side driver), but I don't know enough to ID the variant/redesigns beyond what you've revealed so far. Good job you guys who got it from the photo's John posted! Wow!
-SangerM
by
SangerM on November 9, 2004 09:01 AM
And here I was guessing M24 Chaffee...
Course, I've only seen inside a Brad, Abrams, LAV-25, and Challenger.
by
Heartless Libertarian on November 9, 2004 11:41 AM
Checking out the gun tube.... I pronounce this a T54 100mm rifled gun with bore evacuator at the end of the tube is a dead give away to any of us "land combat" types. this tank has been upgraded with the standoff applique armor and the goodies inside.
by
mudpuppy on November 9, 2004 02:31 PM
It's a bad guy tank. Guns. Heh.
by
Instapilot on November 9, 2004 02:48 PM
Dunno if the spaced steel turret-bustle qualifies as "standoff applique armor"...
by
cw4billt on November 9, 2004 03:46 PM
Come on guys, everyone knows that this is a upgraded t-55, the t-54 100mm did not have a bore evacuator..... probably picked up in the balkans with that paint job and add-on site on the top of the turret and the add on bra...
by
tankjunkie on November 9, 2004 04:21 PM
Okay, you guys are all so smart...what do the letters spraypainted on the front mean? FSD?
by
JDM on November 9, 2004 06:11 PM
Now that thing looks like it could do some damage. Blow em up.
by
Rod on November 9, 2004 06:17 PM
What are the three or so small vehicles along the fence? Simply training vehicles or a tankette?
by
gunner on November 9, 2004 08:33 PM
Gunner: They're Wiesels.
http://www.twilightarmouries.ca/AFV/LAV/mak_wiesel_2.htm
Cheers
JMH
by
J.M. Heinrichs on November 9, 2004 08:44 PM
JDM - Foreign Studies Directorate.
Gunner - CAPT H is, as ever, correct. I myself have never seen them without the machinegun turret. I had to look twice to confirm what they were. Those are some cramped little two-man vehicles!
by
John of Argghhh! on November 9, 2004 08:49 PM
That damn driver's hatch kept throwing me. It is a T55 upgun (not that you need me to agree). Good thing I didn't bet, I thought 62, but there is an excellent picture of an upgunned t55 drivers hatch at
this link! The small tubes/pipes running along the front of the hatch-well threw me, as did the sudden drop off to the immediate left front of the hatch... Oh well.
BTW, for those who've never been inside a maneuvering, firing tank, the lack of an attached rotating turret floor must really sucks for the loader, who has to shuffle around with the rounds as he watches for turret-attached hardware coming his way. And all the used casings on the floor. I used to think M60s were cramped, then I saw one of these up close... Screw that!!
-SangerM
by
SangerM on November 9, 2004 09:19 PM
I was about to ask "what loader", then checked it out. They did not remove the loader until the 64 model.
4 guys in that would be cramped.
by
gunner on November 9, 2004 10:56 PM
JDM,
FSD means
a. Foreign Steel Directorate.
b. Funky Scrap Department.
c. Firing System Defunct.
d. Fix Suspension Defects.
e. All/None/Any of the above.
by
cw4billt on November 10, 2004 06:58 AM
« Dismissed, Soldier!
November 07, 2004
Some of you need some help...
...with the "Identify this tank" challenge. There has been one successful ID thus far.
Here's a clue:
And here's another.
Reporting As Ordered, Sir! »
Tidbits from the National Infantry Museum
Which, being full of guns, with grounds full of artillery and tanks, is one of the Armorers favorite places to visit. The Armorer doesn't want to move here, but he does like visiting!
In the rotating exhibit section, to the right of the entrance, there are some OIF and OEF exhibits. Saddam's hunting rifle and ceremonial sword are in great company. The collection of the Infantry museum holds other relics of tyranny, such as Himmler's hunting guns and Goering's marshall's baton.
American infantry have thrown down numerous tyrants in their day. Assisting and assisted by their brother Anglosphere infantry, I would hasten to add. And, now and again, French infantry, when their government allows it. Ably assisting in this effort, and acknowledged by the museum, are their fellow-travelers, the Artillery and Armor.
The museum contains furniture the Armorer would like to have. Especially this piece for the living room. She Who Will Be Obeyed will allow it becaue it has a lot of nice brass in it.
And boy is the museum full of interesting little tidbits. Two Davy Crocketts. Several items the Armorer would like to add to the Funny Hat collection.
Developmental. rifles. all. over.
Mortars. Funny cars. And guns, guns, guns. What's not to like?
There's even a train!
If you are ever in Columbus, go visit Ft. Benning. See the Airborne School - and above all, visit the National Infantry Museum!
Reporting As Ordered, Sir! »
John--Just tell Beth the Gat is a rare New England horizontal candelabra, designed for gracious al fresco dining during those pesky nor'easters. =]
by
cw4billt on November 7, 2004 02:23 PM
Actually - I was serious when I said SWWBO would approve of the Gatling Gun. She's already approved in principle (because of the brass 'n bronze) but she prefers the "camel" mount as it has a smaller footprint!
by
John of Argghhh! on November 7, 2004 02:43 PM
That's a WW1 trench locomotive. Gauge was 60cm, nominally 2 foot. I have scale drawings of a lot of that equipment. In the popular military modeling scale of 1/35th, HO gauge track and components work out well.
by
triticale on November 8, 2004 10:05 AM
I guess I'll have to visit Columbus one day.
In my opinion the museum in Erlbach, Luxemburg is the best war museum ever. Erlbach changed hands multiple times during WW2, and they just have more stuff than they know what to do with. However, your pictures from the National Infantry Museum have sure whetted my appetite.
I just found your blog. I'll be sure to check back often. Keep up the good work
by
qoolalex on November 8, 2004 09:32 PM
I missed that one in all the years I've spent over there. Have to add that to the list, along with revisiting the Heeresgesichtliches Museum in Vienna, and Tankograd in Russia.
Hmmmm. Post fodder. Great military museums I have seen... and poll the readership for the ones I've missed...
by
John of Argghhh! on November 9, 2004 05:59 AM
« Dismissed, Soldier!
October 21, 2004
The answer to the teaser...
Okay. The teaser I posted was pretty tough. A lot of thought went into most of the responses. If you're new to how I do this... *usually* not always, but usually, there are clues in the Arsenal photo album. In this case, the answer was there, as I had already uploaded all the photos while I was still doing a little research to flesh out the post.
It's a tround. From Triangular Round, seen here with a Brit WWI-era .303 MkVIIZ ball round. The Tround was developed by David Dardick, who developed a revolving pistol that could be magzine fed. Yep. A magazine fed revolver (see picture links below)
The tround uses a strong plastic (some sources also assert aluminum-reinforced) cartridge of triangular section. The gun is a revolver, but the chambers are open to the outside. The cylinder was wrapped in a casing (which is why in the picture below it doesn't look like a revolver), except where the cartridge was loaded and the case ejected, similar to the drawing here, from Chinn's series of books on machinegun development (ya want those books or CD if you are into machineguns). That's the innovation that makes it possible; the cartridge drops straight into the chamber through the gap in the casing, rotates in line with the barrel and when fired is supported by both the cylinder and the casing, which in combination act as the more traditional chamber.
Primer view. (click the link, you guys from Sixgunner - I do too know the bullet end from the primer end!)
The Dardick pistols and carbine were produced in Hamden CT, from around 1959-61 There were 3 different pistol models, and a carbine modification.
Model 1100: This came with two interchangeable barrels for the .38 Special and .22 Long Rifle. The barrel lengths were 3.0 inches. It could hold 11 trounds.
Model 1500: This also came with 2 interchangeable barrels for the .38 Special and .22 Long Rifle, but had 6 inch barrels and could hold 15 trounds. I have seen sources which also say the 1500 only carried 11 trounds.
Model 2000: The Model 2000 held 20 rounds.
Rifle Conversion: Remove the barrel and the pistol frame could be fitted into a stocked rifle.
Numrich/Gun Parts Corporation also produced Dardick pistols, but what little info I've found on that indicated they never worked reliably due to manufacturing flaws in cylinder timing.
There are three types of trounds, of which I have two. The first, and the kind I don't have, is really a carrier for the standard cartridge, which slipped into the tround. The second, of which the black one I used in the teaser is one, were purpose-built, with a primer, powder, and bullet integral to the tround. Tround are reloadable. Reloading would have been relatively easy, as there is no case expansion and thus no need for resizing or crimping. Simply replace the primer, load the powder and press the bullet in place. There is an internal cannelure in the case to hold the bullet and provide enough resistance for the initial pressure build to ensure a more complete powder burn and reliable tround-to-tround perfomance - though I have no idea how many times you could reload one.
The example in the Arsenal is a .50 caliber dummy, part of a bunch made for the development of a tround-loaded light machine gun in the late 80's early 90's.
The other tround in the collection is the one which had the most commercial success. It was developed for a drilling device for rock drilling. This is a salesmans sample. Sarco has 'em for sale I believe - they want $100 which is a heckuva lot more than I paid for mine at a gunshow.
Made of clear plastic, it has three ceramic 'bullets' in it, with a common powder charge and primer. To quote from Sarco's website:
Super rare 20mm rock drill cartridge - Dardik's only commercial success. This was a rock drill gun and if drilling hit a snag it shot three ceramic bullets in to the holes to pulverized [sic] the snag.
I think it was Gunner of No Quarters who asked me if I knew anything about trounds. Now you know pretty much all that I do. Sorry if I was a little slow, Gunner!
Reporting As Ordered, Sir! »
Thanks for the post, John. I'd always wondered if L. Neil Smith had made up the whole "automatic revolver" thing for his SF novels. You've certainly answered my unasked questions!
by
Nicholas on October 21, 2004 06:06 PM
Zounds, you have dug up a fascinating bit of history here. I love reading about offbeat firearms and rounds. Have you ever run across the Gyrojet? I think I read long ago that it was some type of pistor which fired a rocket-propelled round..
by
John Cunningham on October 22, 2004 12:00 AM
Well John, a search of the Castle's archives would have brought to light this and this!
by
John of Argghhh! on October 22, 2004 06:07 AM
Can you direct me to more info on the tround machinegun development in the late 80s that was mentioned?
by
Chet on January 3, 2005 01:16 PM
« Dismissed, Soldier!
October 20, 2004
A little teaser.
This is the subject of an upcoming post.
Have fun.
Reporting As Ordered, Sir! »
A piece of a main rotor of an old Kiowa or maybe a cobra? How about a scale? :-)
by
SangerM on October 20, 2004 10:18 PM
Actually, being black and straight, it looks like it could be part of the main rotor from an MH/AH-6, Little Bird. Other than that, I haven't a clue...
SangerM
by
SangerM on October 20, 2004 11:07 PM
Hmm... not flat, I see the highlights. Slight (very) enlargement at the left-hand end. Scraped-out dent in one place. Looks like it's made of metal, but some bad person has deliberately cropped all background and maybe even some details of the image of the thing itself.
My conclusion: A picture of an old object made of some kind of metal, which could be _anything_.
P.S. Glad yer gettin back to Gun Pr0n, the politics are making me crazy! (more than usually)
by
Justthisguy on October 21, 2004 04:11 AM
No details were harmed in the making of this picture... I just put the thing on a white background.
While the Arsenal at Castle Argghhh! does have some esoteric stuff - it does not yet contain helo rotors.
It *does* have a helo cockpit seat from the old Choctaw, which the Armoress pretty much forced the Armorer to buy back in the early days of the Courtship.
Which is pretty cool if you think about it.
by
John of Argghhh! on October 21, 2004 06:35 AM
It's a packet of MRE cheese spread that's been heated up on the engine of an OH-6, probably the combustor section. The indentation (center) made by the ignition wiring harness is a dead giveaway... =P
by
cw4billt on October 21, 2004 07:42 AM
The highlights and damage to it make me think wood, but the color is wrong. Looking closely at it, the left end looks slightly crimped, not round but slightly squashed ovaloid. The right end looks like it has been cut straight into to make a tenon joint, making the right end either D or rectangular. I think the right end is meant to fit into a socket. I think it is perhaps a brace used to hold something in place. Considering the Armorers background, maybe its an old bracestock they used to hold a fieldpiece in a certain position while they worked on it, kind of like you might have an old piece of wood you wedge in between two parts while you work on the guts of the hardware.
by
Mythilt on October 21, 2004 09:33 AM
Boy are you guys gonna be surprised!
by
John of Argghhh! on October 21, 2004 10:19 AM
The helicoptor pilot's seat was too good to pass up. I'd really like to get to that Dallas gun show again someday!
by
Beth Donovan on October 21, 2004 10:51 AM
A single granule of smokeless powder. Without scale I can't tell if it's the great big granule of cannon powder or the little one of small arms powder. It looks very much like a highly magnified granule of IMR 4350 or 4831.
by
Peter on October 21, 2004 12:38 PM
I have no idea what that is, but perhaps you or your readers know what THIS is.
If your comments don't accept html, here's the link:
http://airbornecombatengineer.typepad.com/airborne_combat_engineer/2004/10/name_that_weapo.html
I realize you're not a navy person, but cannons and naval guns having something in common, don't they?
Sorry if it looks like I'm horning in on a thread. I just need to confirm what I think it is. (I'm waiting on a confirmation call.)
Thanks for the recent link, Sir, and keep up the good work.
by
ACE on October 21, 2004 01:42 PM
Ace
With all those traverse wheels sticking out of the mount, it looks a lot like one of the secondaries (i.e., a "sponson gun") from one of the old Olympia-class battleships. Best guess on the caliber is six-inch.
No, I never manned one at Manila Bay, John, but I know that's what you're thinking...
by
cw4billt on October 21, 2004 04:32 PM
Actually Bill, I was thinking more along the lines of convoy duty in WWI on the Virginia-class BBs, or mebbe a cruiser.
But I think your instincts are pretty good - my guess is that it's a 6inch/50 caliber gun, which, after they left naval service, soldiered on as Coast Defense guns in the Endicott forts until 1943 when we shut down the Coast Artillery.
by
John of Argghhh! on October 21, 2004 04:52 PM
Sounds like you nailed it, John. I'm still waiting on a confirming call from GT Navy ROTC, but I'm pretty sure it's one of the 12 broadside guns on the USS Georgia, which was a Virginia Class, commissioned in 1906. If you do a google search, you can see pictures of the ship and the 6 6in. guns on each side.
Thanks for your help.
by
ACE on October 21, 2004 11:10 PM
Oh, very nice. "Do a Google search."
Kinda takes all the fun out of guessing, but that's what I just did, and, by Neddy Jingoes, you guys have got it!
Ace, call the squids and tell them, "Never mind"--unless, of course, they can tell you exactly which gun (i.e., "Port side, number three.").
Now that would be a trivia question worthy of the Armorer!
by
cw4billt on October 22, 2004 09:07 AM
My question, for my edification, would be: When were broadside guns (are they called sponson guns when they are actually inside the ship, not on platforms?) last used in the US Navy, and why were they eliminated. I know the wood ships used in the Civil War had them, and the Virginia Class in the early 1900s seemed to carry the same into into steel. What replaced them? Deck guns?
Hey, my Dad was Army and I was Army, so my knowledge of the Navy is very limited.
Maybe I'll "do a google search" and find the answer.
Thanks again for your confirmation, guys. I'll be doing a post on the first USS Georgia within days.
by
ACE on October 23, 2004 06:22 AM
I think by the era we're at in naval construction with the New York and Pennsylvania-class battleships (New York & Texas, Pennsylvania and Arizona) we're calling them secondary batterys. All four ships of those classes carried sponson guns (the aforementioned 6 inchers) and you can visit the Texas in Houston. So there were sponson-mounted guns serving through WWII.
The Colorado-class, which I *think* is the next class of BB after the Pennsylvanias and the last class built before the Washington Naval Treaty restrictions were the last BBs with sponson-mounts.
Here's a picture of the USS West Virginia entering San Francisco Harbor in the 30's - you can see the guns below the superstructure.
With the new designs mandated by the limitations imposed by the WNT, and general advances in naval technology, marks the period when we went to turret or deck-mounted 5in/50/51/54s.
Any sailors or naval-history geeks got better data?
by
John of Argghhh! on October 23, 2004 09:12 AM
« Dismissed, Soldier!
October 04, 2004
Extra-Super Serious Geek Alert!
WARNING-WARNING-WARNING-WARNING!!!! If you are easily bowled over by technogeeky jargon, just skip on down one. If high school physics broke your spirit, just keep on movin' on - if you think Superman comics are packed full of useful insights into how Newton's Laws and the Laws of Thermodynamics work... just keep on keepin' on!
Still here? You'll like this. The Instapilot will like this. Anybody wanna argue the math? [N.B. - it was sent to me, I didn't work this out]
We know the formula for kinetic energy is KE = ½mass x velocity2 . Now let's check in with the Movie Physics Guys.
So in their example, a small .45 caliber bullet weighing 15 grams and traveling at 288 meters per second yields is 619 joules of energy.
They further explain that if a man weighing 139 lbs (63.2 kg) were to fall off of a bed, it would yield roughly the same energy as being shot by that bullet; the difference being with a fall the energy is disbursed through the entire surface area of the man's body versus a bullet where the focal point is a tiny circle.
KE = ½mass x velocity2
KE = (.015kg / 2) x (288 m/s x 288 m/s)
KE = 619 joules of energy
Potential energy is defined to be PE = (mass) x (g) x (height), where the height is the vertical distance of the object from the ground and g stands for gravitational acceleration or acceleration due to gravity. Near the surface of the earth, g is a constant approximately equal to 9.8 meters per second per second (m/s2). You can use these formulas to calculate the total energy of the system by just adding up the forms.
PE = mass x gravity x height
PE = 63.2kg x 9.81 m/s x 1 meter
PE = 619 joules of energy
So taking this information, let's plug in the numbers of the Apache's M230 automatic gun ammunition. We have each 30mm round weighing 350 grams and traveling at 800 meters per second.
KE = (.3505kg / 2) x (800 m/s x 800 m/s)
KE = .175 x 640,000
KE = 112,160 joules
Now that's a little hard to wrap your army around... I mean just how much energy is 112,000 joules? Well, for starters it's 180 times the energy of the .45 caliber handgun bullet. So imagine 180 people all pointing .45 caliber handguns at this guy's body and everyone pulling the trigger all at the same time. Hmmm, yes...messy.
Furthermore, we can calculate just how high up this guy would have to plunge in order to release the same amount of energy as was released when he caught one of the Apache's 30mm rounds square in the chest...
112,160 = 63.2kg x 9.81 x height
height = 112,160 / (63.2 x 9.81)
height = 112,160 / 619.99
height = 180.9 meters (or 593 feet)
Now, taking our queue (sic) from the evolution of skyscrapers, I found an average 4.26 meters (13.96 feet) per floor. Thus this terrorist you see splattered all over Main Street in downtown Baghdad? He looks the same as if someone tossed his happy ass off a 42 story building.
And the best part? The Apache's 30mm gun is really a popgun compared to the 30mm gun of an A-10 -- same diameter slugs but they're much heavier and travel much faster. So should you be unlucky enough to eat one of the Warthog's tank killing depleted uranium slugs...
KE = (.91kg / 2) x (1500 m/s x 1500 m/s) = 1,023,750 joules of smack down
1,023,750 joules / 619 joules per .45 cal bullet = 1,626 people shooting you at once
1,023,750 joules = 63.2kg x 9.81 x height
height = 1,651 meters or 5,417 feet or a 1.02 mile freefall
But at a fire rate of 3,900 rounds per minute, the A-10's bullets will be more like Lays potato chips -- nobody's gonna eat just one. All you terrorist rats in Iraq and Iran better keep that in mind when you hear the whoop-whoop-whoop of helicopter blades, eh?
Hat tip to Cary!
Reporting As Ordered, Sir! »
Wow.
I just love when science explains the effects of high-velocity/large calibre ammo on things.
Now lets do the math for that anti-personel tank round that John was talking about. (At least I think that it was talked about here...)
by
GEBIV on October 4, 2004 07:59 PM
Now, for fun (and I sho wisht I wuz good wit nummers), imagine how much energy is released at the point of impact from a few dozen 25mm rounds from an AC-130 circling at 15K feet overhead. Or how it must REALLY suck to be on the incoming end of the 40mm, and especially that ass-kicking 105!!!
The only thing I think must be more fun to watch/use are the miniguns in the MH-53 Pave Lows and the MH-60 Pave Hawks. What they may lack in size, they more than make up for in street-clearing, stump-grinding rpms!
SangerM
by
SangerM on October 4, 2004 09:09 PM
... and the 120mm APFSDS long-rod penetrator fired from an Abrams has more than 10x the energy of the A-10's 30mm.
Cheers
JMH
by
J.M. Heinrichs on October 4, 2004 10:03 PM
Scientific Sickness! A 10 on the ouie gooie geek meter.
by
Mark Adams on October 4, 2004 10:24 PM
Mark! Again you wander through! Well, look at it this way - if you want to have a military available for Democrat Presidents to use, we've got to take kind of a non-partisan approach to this. Ya can't just toss us out as thug Republican stooges every time the PIP (Party In Power) and have the rest study horticulture...
Just a thought!
You should hang around Police/Fire/Ambulance/Trauma Center locker rooms. Kinda goes with the territory! Trust me - if you are going to have an army, it's better to have one that has some idea of what it's doing... then you don't find yourself having to kill children with car bombs to express your displeasure with the regime change...
by
John of Argghhh! on October 4, 2004 10:40 PM
One problem. The equations here are assuming that 100% of the energy from the bullet is transfered to the body. In fact, relatively little of it will be transfered, because the body just doesn't have enough stopping power. In the initial example of a single .45 bullet, you might actually get 100% energy transfer. For instance, if the person were wearing a bullet proof vest which succeeded in stopping the bullet (or at least slowing it down enough that it didn't exit out the back) then the force of impact would be exactly like that 1m fall out of bed.
If a human body (say it was the hulk) actually stopped a bullet from an apache, then yes, it'd be accelerated backwards as though it had been dropped off a 40 story building, which, even though the bullet didn't pass through, would pretty much liquify any ordinary person. As it is, the bullet passes clean through, and only loses perhaps a few hundred Joules.
Instead, I propose an alternate system. Let's say the human body is capable of stopping one .45 bullet's worth of energy before giving up & allowing the bullet to exit through the back (in reality, it'd probably take 2 or 3 people to stop a .45, especially if it avoided big bones, but we'll just use the 1 person idea for now). In that case, you could line up 1,626 terrorists, and with a single round from an Apache, you could puncture every single one of them.
Now all we have to do is figure out how to get them to all line up!
by
Beck on October 5, 2004 02:23 AM
Good points, Beck. Of course, the .45 was developed for that purpose with that in mind, to not go through people, if possible. The example above also does not include a discussion of the attenuation curve as the bullet loses energy over range.
Still - it is an illustrative example, ain't it.
As for your falling out of bed analogy - not in my experience - if for no other reason than you've generalized the energy too much - there is a concentration of the impact energy.
Both my father and I have been shot wearing flak vests. We agree it's far more analgous to having the Hulk hit you in the chest with a baseball bat than falling out of bed. In my father's case, it did result in broken ribs and the bullet penetrated, albeit just under the skin along the ribs.
by
John of Argghhh! on October 5, 2004 05:57 AM
I once worked with someone who had, in an earlier life, participated in RAF weapons research. The conclusion reached was simple. Rate of fire is no substitute for weight of fire. You can fire enough .32 ACP from a full-auto Skorpion to total the ballistic energy of one round from an elephant gun, but it won't stop a charging elephant.
by
triticale on October 5, 2004 08:04 AM
The other thing, since we're being pedantic, is that air resisteance when falling off the taller buildings. I'm not sure that they won't have hit terminal velocity. In more ways than one.
by
Fred on October 5, 2004 08:21 AM
Wasn't the .45 designed to defeat the kind of simple armor the Moros wore? That was the line we got when I joined the Army....
by
SangerM on October 5, 2004 09:56 AM
It was designed to hit 'em and stay in 'em and knock 'em down - not so much because of the armor, but because they drugged themselves and were, well, perhaps just tougher, and the .38 wasn't doing enough damage to cause them to lose interest in dropping your intestines around your ankles.
Same problem the Brits had in colonial warfare that caused them to go to the .455 round. Stopping power for non-wussy natives who were grumpy about exterior meddling in their affairs. Apparently euro-soldiers were wusses who would go, "Oh! My! I've been shot! I must sit down and rest."
The natives were more like, "Izzat the best you got? Eat assegai, asshat!"
Or, in the case of the Moros, bolo machete.
by
John of Argghhh! on October 5, 2004 10:10 AM
« Dismissed, Soldier!
by
John
on
Oct 04, 2004
»
There's One, Only! links with:
Big Guns!
September 28, 2004
If you don't know what you are talking about...
...it's better to just shut up and be thought a fool than to open your mouth and remove all doubt. (This may be a punishing post for you guys on dial-up, I apologize in advance)
How 'bout the Amazing Kerry? Another one of those 'searing' memories...
"My favorite gun is the M-16 that saved my life and that of my crew in Vietnam," said Mr. Kerry, a veteran, according to the October issue. [Of Outdoor Life] "I don't own one of those now, but one of my reminders of my service is a Communist Chinese assault rifle."
Guess he had to have that because he threw away his medals. Oh, wait, those were someone else's.
Mind you, this fellow is sponsoring an Assault Weapons Ban that would have been more strict than the late, unlamented one. So, we expect him to know something about the things he wishes to legislate and regulate, right? Or to rely upon the advice of those who do. And to have staff who understand these things. Is that unreasonable?
Well, out here in the 'sphere, we right wing gun nuts (and prolly some lefty gun nuts, too) had fun with and pointed out his cluelessness regarding a subject near and dear to many voters hearts - such as the shotgun he accepted (and later returned) which would have been illegal under the awful wording of his law (but he and his staff said, "No, it wouldn't." but which most people, on both sides of the issue said, "Yes, it would, Senator." Then there is the fact that the laws are labyrinthine enough now that the well-intentioned gift of the shotgun was illegal, though only those of us who are 'into' guns apparently knew that - but that doesn't stop the good junior Senator from Massachusetts from wanting to add more to the pile of badly-written, feel-good, ineffective law on the subject.
So, what does the Senator (or his staff, depending on which version of events the campaign is putting out now) think is an assault weapon? According to the New York Times:
Senator John Kerry's campaign said yesterday that Mr. Kerry did not own a Chinese assault rifle, as he was quoted as saying in Outdoor Life magazine, but a single-bolt-action military rifle, blaming aides who filled out the magazine's questionnaire on his behalf for the error.
Leaving aside that I don't know of any double/triple/quadruple-bolt action rifles (Department of Redundancy Department alert), we find the Senator, as is his wont when things break the wrong way - blaming subordinates. And, from this, we are to infer that subordinates made up and supplied the quote? Or is there a program the campaign uses, that strings together phrases from the Senator's past speech to generate plausible-sounding verbiage for campaign questionnaires? Who is this "Campaign," guy, anyway? Can we speak to him? Did he write the Senator's legislation regarding assault weapons? We're beginning to think he might have... Oops, we can - because it wasn't the campaign speaking (I know the artifice, I'm being Safire-ishly snarky here) because:
Michael Meehan, a spokesman for the campaign, said Mr. Kerry, the Democratic presidential nominee, owns two guns, a double-barreled 12-gauge shotgun and the rifle, which Mr. Meehan said Mr. Kerry "keeps as a relic" and had never fired. Mr. Meehan said the gun had no make or model markings on it and that Mr. Kerry "got it from a friend years ago," adding that such rifles were first manufactured in Russia more than 100 years ago and were used by the North Koreans and the Vietcong.
Okay, so which of you guys thinks that thing is an assault rifle? Five-shot bolt action rifles are now assault rifles? Well, in WWI and WWII they were, true enough- at least until true 'assault rifles' came along in the form of the German Maschinen Pistole/Sturm Gewher 44 (Sturm = Storm/Assault, Gewehr= weapon). So was the Springfield Model 1903 in the US Army. Sigh. And yet this gentleman and his underlings want to regulate this stuff. When they are clueless about it, other than "Guns are dangerous, and people can do bad things them... so we must regulate them, and, preferably, ban them altogether, because, well, like, you know, it's good for the kids and man-in-the-moon-marigolds, or something. And you people who want guns and stuff are too stupid to be allowed them, because, like, well, - you don't know anything about 'em and stuff, like, well, um, we do.
So, here's a primer, courtesy the Arsenal at Castle Argghhh!, to help you guys tell the difference.
Chinese (Bulgarian, Russian, Polish, fill-in-the-AK-blank) Assault Rifle. (Though even this isn't - it's a semi, and doesn't have a bayonet lug).
Not Assault Rifle. But, it *is* on of those "rifles were first manufactured in Russia more than 100 years ago" a 1895-dated Imperial Russian Mosin-Nagant Model of 1891, M91 for short. (And I bet, if you clueless dolts had brain cells that make contact, there's markings on it... they just don't say "Chinese Assault Rifle" in english - but unless it's been scrubbed, it'll tell ya who made it, when, and where. And as far as I know, there aren't that many of the 'scrubbed' rifles in the US - since the ones that were scrubbed for clandestine use had their S/Ns removed, too. But - pull that action, and I'll bet you find proofs on the tang.
Hi-res here.
Plus, it's just a bit longer than those AK's and SKS's.
Just a bit...
Unless of course, it is one of the younger siblings of this rifle, the M38, without a bayonet, or the M44, with a built-in bayonet. Lot of them floating around in Korea and Vietnam, too. In fact, this M38 came home with a soldier from the Korean War, and the M44 came home from Vietnam.
M38 hi-res here.
M44 hi-res here.
Remember your pals, the French? Who said yesterday they won't play with you either?
This is a French Assault Rifle. Post-WWII, notice how nice and clean and shiny and unused it is.
It even has one of those dreaded bayonet mount-cum-grenade launcher-cum-flash suppressor thingys you don't like.
Hi-res here.
But it's still pretty short, Senator.
Hi-res for the MAS 49/56 is here.
Okay, Senator (and your underlings). Here's a test. One of these is a Dreaded Assault Weapon. One is not. Can you tell?
Hi-res for the M1903 is here.
Hi-res for the L1A1 is here.
Reporting As Ordered, Sir! »
Are the sights on yours graduated in arshins? The one's on Mr. Kerry's? Wonder if he knows.
by
Justthisguy on September 28, 2004 10:39 AM
If you know your sights - you know that the M91 is in arshins, and the M38 and M44, being post-Revolution, are in meters... though the changeover wasn't instantaneous, as I have a 1922 dated Tula M91 with hex reciever and sights in arshins.
by
John of Argghhh! on September 28, 2004 11:45 AM
Maybe you can clear something up for me. When we were issued M-1 Garand's we were told the story that Mr. John C. Garand sold his patent to the U.S. government for the total sum of one dollar. (doing his part to fight WWII) Is this true, or just an old sea story? Can't see any firearms manufacture doing that today.
Semper Fi
Jon
by
MSgt Jon Townsley on September 30, 2004 01:00 PM
« Dismissed, Soldier!
by
John
on
Sep 28, 2004
»
Dispassionate Lib links with:
Blogtopian Pen Pals
September 21, 2004
Random Cool Stuff from the Arsenal.
I've been too serious lately, and the Instapilot has been pretty busy. Time for pointless pictures of cool stuff in the dungeon of Castle Argghhh!
Like this compressed-air artillery crew trainer from WWII.
If you've got the bandwidth (or the time), and think that's a cool bit of kit, click here for the hi-res version.
And then this, for Mike at Sworn Enemy:
Reporting As Ordered, Sir! »
September 14, 2004
Welcome back into the light...
Here are the weapons at the Armory of Castle Argghhh! that were subject to controls under the AWB, when in their original, military configuration, i.e., bayonet lugs, flash suppressors, and grenade launchers (all features eagerly sought by criminals):
Our M1A (in the middle).
Our L1A1
Our ROMAK (semi-auto AK clone).
Here are the weapons in the Armory that would be subject to banning by the strict interpretation of the bill (though the shotgun would be a stretch even for a liberal judge) that Senator Kerry is co-sponsor of:
Our Garand.
Our M1 Carbine, M1A, and Winchester M97 Riot Gun (top, center, bottom, in order)
Our French semis (the three on the bottom).
Our Tokarev carbine.
Our Tokarev rifle.
Our SKS's.
Our L1A1.
Here's what I could still own.
Our DEWAT Vickers.
Our DEWAT Maxim.
Under the law, both are reactivateable (izzat a word?).
If I were to acquire a registered base cup, our M2 60mm mortar would be legal in shootable condition, too.
As Charles Krauthammer noted (via Volokh in Legal Affairs), this isn't about safety, or crime. It's about boiling the frog, stone-souping the masses, desensitizing the public, for eventual confiscation. Which is why we will fight these fights again. Forever. Until/Unless they win - when the only way the fight will be fought again is as it was fought in 1776. Which is not really a Good Thing. So, we'll have to keep fighting 'em off, and fighting 'em off, and fighting 'em off.
Sigh.
Oh, and first time visitors to the Castle who find themselves shocked and horrified should probably go here, and read the Standard Disclaimer™ and stuff, before you grab the phone and ring up the ATFE. And first time visitors to the Castle who see an 'insta-collection' opportunity should probably also go read the Standard Disclaimers - especially the Periodic Goblin Warning™.
Reporting As Ordered, Sir! »
So. 'tis 11:45 since expiration. How many essential additions to the collection have been made? And where is the Hawg Fleier's input?
Cheers
JMH
by
J.M. Heinrichs on September 14, 2004 10:47 AM
Well, until we know what SWWBO's raise is, and whether or not she'll *share* it (this kid in college thing is making her stingy, dang it) not a dang thing.
As fer Dusty, I don't know if he even owns a gun.
I'm pretty sure, that unlike me (I've got a M1911A1) he's not got a GAU-8 stored anywhere...
by
John of Argghhh! on September 14, 2004 11:03 AM
Well well. A veritable cache of weaponry, all well-oiled and just for sport.
The 2nd Amendment didn't say, even when read with squinty eyes between the lines, a single THING about what kind of arm. No words about cosmetics, not a single footnote about the emotional implications of rate-of-fire, and nary a consonant regarding the competition's armory. It was EXPECTED that the holders of the weapons would use the God-given common sense to have themselves competent in the use of those weapons of freedom, and that there was no need for a legaslative body to control the free men using them. So there.
By the way: Could you spend a little time commenting on the French semi's in your rack? I have no experience with any of those types and I hear good things about them. A comment or three would be interesting.
Dan Patterson
Winston-Salem, NC
by
Dan Patterson on September 14, 2004 04:09 PM
Yea, I can do that, Dan. It may take a bit, so be patient. Real life (i.e., where the paycheck comes from) is intervening pretty heavily right now!
by
John on September 14, 2004 08:32 PM
« Dismissed, Soldier!
August 28, 2004
The answer to the question...
If you need to refresh yourself on the question... go here.
Many good guesses, not just in the comments, but in email, from people who were afraid they might get ridiculed for being wrong... (this is *not* that kind of site - unless you get stupid and snarky first!). Lots of people (22 in all) played this time, and much good logic and knowledge was on display.
Pretty much everybody fell victim to what Douglas Adams spoke of in Hitchhiker's Guide to the Galaxy: '.....where due to a tragic miscalculation of scale, the entire battlefleet was swallowed by a small dog.'
1. We had people guess this.
2. And one like this.
3. And this.
4. Mebbe one of these.
5. Possibly one of those.
6. Someone even suggested these.
7. Surprising me (as this would have been my guess a few months ago), no one guessed this.
The answer is in the Flash Traffic.
Flash Traffic (extended entry) Follows »
Just to refresh your memory... it looked kinda like this.
In scale, with (L-R) an 8mm Mauser, 9mm Parabellum, mystery bullet, 81mm Mortar primer (12 guage blank, essentially).
See what I mean about scale? By photographing it on fine-grained white paper, and giving you no context, you supplied the scale. And y'all went big. And, to be fair, you really had to be a geek to know it was the bullet to a Gyrojet Pistol.
Gunner, of No Quarters Blog, went out and did a little searching himself and came up with this French site, which shows another variant of Gyrojet bullet. Be patient - Google is translating it for you.
Here's a crappy shot of the base end - showing the primer and the angled venturis that spun the bullet for stability.
I'll close this out with a shot of all of 'em together... just to reinforce that scale thing!
Last, but not least, what's in the numbered pictures above?
UPDATE: Oops. I screwed up (has to do with how I was building the post). I actually answered the question below in the version of the post that I apparently threw away... Beck having actually provided an answer (correct) in the comments clued me in to there was a problem! Which is cool, since I now know an interesting tidbit about Beck! So, I'll repair this post... and provide the answers.
1. 90mm Armor Piercing solid shot.
2. 57mm/6pdr Armor Piercing solid shot (essentially identical to the 2pdr guessed, just proportionately larger)
3. 75mm APCBC (Armor Piercing Capped Ballistic Capped) in this case in the 75mm recoiless rifle cartridge.
4. 57mm Recoiless Rifle.
5. US Navy 5in dummy training round.
6. As Beck noted, a pipeline pig.
7. 30 pounder Parrot solid bolt.
« Secure this line!
Reporting As Ordered, Sir! »
OK, I'm not up on your collection. Do you have a gyrojet pistol? That is the ultimate in old Science Fiction cool!!!! It was used as a murder weapon in an old Larry Niven story, and probably a lot of other stories from the early, glory days of SF pulp fiction. If you have one, post a photo, please!!!!
by
Jack on August 28, 2004 12:46 PM
Gyrocs are cool sounding, but the practical limitations really kind of kill them. First off, they are not close in weapons, the 'bullet' has to accellerate out of the barrel a pretty decent distance I recall. Thus, in the kind of combat one expects with pistols, its a bit useless (Close in, tight fighting.) That said, I'd think the Gyroc from RunAway would be cool, heat seeking bullets.
by
Mythilt on August 28, 2004 07:54 PM
Neat!
I hate guessing!!!
Cheers
JMH
by
J.M. Heinrichs on August 28, 2004 08:06 PM
John, you spoilsport.
Jack - I've been tempted, many times, but haven't yet broken out the bucks for a Gyrojet.
by
Beth on August 28, 2004 08:45 PM
I wonder if the price of unshot Gyrojet ammo is now high enough to justify going into new production. Think about it. Fewer legal hassles than making actual gun ammo; it's a rocket with less than four ounces of propellant, and thus completely (Federally, at least) unregulated. I don't even think the G-j launcher qualifies as a gun under the Fed regs. If it did, you could certainly cobble up one for yourself more easily than rifling a steel barrel, etc.
I do wonder what the guy used for propellant, and of course there's always the issue of the development work he must have done, and how to duplicate and/or acquire it.
by
Justthisguy on August 29, 2004 12:37 AM
Two things: first, the whole concept of rocket bullets is unbelievably neato. I would even go so far as to say it's nifty. I didn't even know such a weapon had ever been developed.
Second thing, #6 is what's known as a "pig." It's a big wodge of metal for raming down a pipe. They serve various purposes, from pipe cleaning, pipe wall thickness checking for QC, and even pipe expanding. When I worked at Shell Oil, I helped develop technology for a pig that could be rammed down solid well pipe at enormous pressure & thereby expand the pipe diameter by ~20%.
Since such enormous abuse to metal combined with high pressure meant absolutely rediculous amounts of friction, heat, and stress, accidents were extraordinarily messy to clean up.
by
Beck on August 29, 2004 01:54 AM
« Dismissed, Soldier!
August 27, 2004
Gotta Love it!
...when readers provide you Gun P0rn. And of a type that will keep a certain subset of readers happy, too!
Click the pic for high-res.
One of the cooler-looking of the untested-in-combat tanks: Sweden's S-Tank, or Stridsvagn 103.
By the way, tank fans. Give this place a visit. Doug's Heavy Metal Gallery.
Hat tip - frequent commenter Monteith!
Reporting As Ordered, Sir! »
I just looked at the pic closely.
I think I like the TC.
by
John of Argghhh! on August 27, 2004 08:09 PM
iirc, that's Alan Cors' daughter. She drives a lot of the armor. I also have photo's of her driving the freshly restored M5 Stuart.
by
Montieth on August 28, 2004 11:17 AM
Interestingly, those bars on the bow were not seen in public until about 5-6 years ago (my guess) as they are intended to 'ward off' shaped-charge munitions.
Some points about the S-Tank:
1. Technically it's a tank-destroyer vice a tank;
2. The powerpack is twin engined: originally a RR diesel (B-series) for general mobility, and a Boeing gas turbine cuts in for high power requirements/sprinting;
3. The gon is fixed in the hull and has an autoloader with dual 24 (?) round magazines;
4. Aiming is via two systems:
a. elevation by suspension: hydropneumatic which the first and fourth suspension units are raised/lowered to change the fore-aft agle of the hull;
b. traverse by turning the hull using the steering motor in the transmission;
5. Three-man crew: crew commander, driver and radio operator. The driver is also the gunner, and the CC has a back/over-ride gun-control. the rad-op face rear and can drive the S-Tank in reverse, ie the vehicle can reverse as fast as it can advance.
6. While the S-Tank has not been 'battle-tested', the hull configuration, based on WW2 data, is replicated by the Merkava. Its major defect is how well it can shot on the move, ie, its tank-likeness. Evidently, the Swedish Army intended the S-Tank as a high-mobility anti-tank weapon and its defects in the tank attack role were secondary. Despite the enthusiasm for shooting-on-the-move, at long range, accuracy is enhanced by being stationary (even for a short period: shooting from the halt); it is at reletively short range (c.
Tanker anecdote to follow ...
Cheers
JMH
by
J.M. Heinrichs on August 28, 2004 08:52 PM
« Dismissed, Soldier!
August 23, 2004
Maintenance day, continued.
As mentioned earlier, yesterday was Maintenance Day at Castle Argghhh!, with much dusting, checking of rust-proofing, some rearranging, and, perhaps most importantly, some poking in long-overlooked corners.
One of those corners was the Ordnance Closet, wherein the Armory's store of artillery and tank projectiles, rockets and bombs, which are not normally on display out of space considerations (should we ever remember to buy lottery tickets and those, winning ones... watch out! Sadly, I doubt the Arsenal numbers any sugar-daddies or -mommas among it's readers). We were mildly distressed to find this, buried in the far-more-damp-than-I-realized corner of the closet. Looks like I need to either add a, or re-site the existing, de-humidifier.
So, as I was gonna hafta deal with it anyway, I decided it was time y'all learned more than you wanted to know about Dual Purpose Improved Conventional Munitions - DPICM - which I will punish you with in the Flash Traffic.
Flash Traffic (extended entry) Follows »
When I was a young studly Lieutenant in Germany, and Dusty a slightly older "Mud Mover" (and was kindly providing a guaranteed lunch break at Graf with the noon cease-fire so he and his ilk could Move Mud) the Soviet Union still existed. Yes, Virginia, there really was an Evil Empire squatting sullenly on the east side of the Iron Curtain, behind the Ephel Duath mountains, in the land of Mordor, where the shadows lie. Er, Eastern Europe.
Anyway, there we were, with the many echelons of Soviet and Pact armor formations dancing in our uneasy dreams. How to deal with all those tanks? Of the many things we developed to deal with them - I'm going to talk about one, DPICM, and, the M483 cargo carrier round which delivered them. (Yes, Virginia, the Army sold these things off as surplus (they're inert, weigh about a 100 pounds, and only dangerous to your foot should you drop one) - I got this from the surplus store out by the LA International Airport (Lawton Area International Airport, that is.))
DPICM was developed to extend the idea of cluster munitions to artillery - as a way to get a more lethal bang for your buck, especially when dealing with armor. While High Explosive rounds are effective against tanks, at least 155mm and larger - they still have to hit pretty close, and absent a direct hit (not likely with indirect fire, except as a statitistical anomaly) they only disable - breaking road wheels and tracks, taking off antennas, etc - all easily repairable (well, unless you are the one breaking track, anyway). While that's fine for taking them out of the fight in the main battle area (MBA), where you can follow-up with direct fire at some point, we were looking for ways to kill tanks with artillery, both in the MBA and before entering it, and via missiles, at even greater distances. We didn't want to create a pure tank-killing/bunker-busting round (like the Copperhead) as we still needed to be able to deal with infantry and soft targets, and didn't want to swap out too many of our rounds out of the basic load for that purpose. We needed to keep standard HE M107 as well, to deal with things like obstacles, buildings, etc, as well as places like urban terrain and woods/jungle, where the bomblets get hung up in the trees, pre-detonated by the roofing, etc.
So we developed what we in the business call a 'dispensing submuntion'. A little bomblet inside the carrier round.
As you can see, the sub-munition consists of a small shaped charge, sufficient to blow through the top of the tanks then in service (that's where the armor is thinnest) and while reactive turret armor will defend (at least the first time) against these, the decking covering the engines won't. It's capable of penetrating 2.5 inches of rolled homogeneous steel armor and a *classified* thickness of composite armor. It has a little streamer that is released when the safety releases as the bomblets separate upon dispensing. This serves to stabilize the round (shaped charge down) and arm it. The casing is fashioned from material calculated to hold together long enough to form the jet of the shaped charge, then it breaks apart - creating fragmentation to annoy any soft, chewy infantry in the vicinity.
These bomblets are stacked in the round, one on top of another, for a total of 88 bomblets (the long tube on the left is actually the dummy filler that goes into an MLRS rocket to simulate the bomblets - we don't shoot DPICM in training!)
As Iraqi soldiers found out in Desert Storm, the stuff works pretty well. Actually, if I recall correctly, the Egyptians and Syrians found out too - one of the emergency supplies we delivered to the Israelis in October 1973 was stocks of the brand-spanking-new DPICM rounds initially intended to move into stockpile for USAREUR (US Army, Europe).
PEO Ammo has a little video of DPICM (in simulation). Do them (and yourself) a favor, right click and download. (Playback quality is enhanced and bandwidth suckage reduced if you do that.) I'll try to find some actual video, too.
The round is pretty simple, all in all. Put on a time fuze, set it for the proper height-of-burst based on range, and fire it. At the appropriate time, the fuze functions, kicks out the base of the projectile, and the spin of the projectile dispsenses the submunitions, giving an elliptical pattern over the target aread, the width and length of the ellipse determined by the height of burst and slope of the trajectory - regardless, it's greater than standard HE, and more effective.
As an example, the rule-of-thumb for an MLRS rocket was around 800 meters long by two hundred meters wide, with safety considerations.
This brings up another problem. DPICM is a very efficient round, and the sub-munitions have self-destruct fuzing - but there is a still a dud rate of 1-3 bomblets per 100. There are 88 in one round. So, a three-round volley from a battalion of 18 guns yields 142 or so un-exploded rounds, creating, in effect, a very low-density minefield. While Abrams and Bradleys could deal with that, HMMWVs and other wheeled vehicles would not. Not too mention crunchies on foot. It's a very real problem, as this excerpt from a Gulf War diary relates:
25 Feb 1991 Another gray day. Had TOC duty from 1900-2400 last night. Nearly comatose. No coffee, raining. Moving the TOC forward, we're caught in a DPICM area. Driving slow, looking for bomblets, don't want to hit any. Passing abandoned bunkers and a burned out truck. Craters everywhere. S-2 captured a Russian truck! AK-47s everywhere. TOC NT725510 Saw my first live mine. Just got word that another soldier was killed by picking up a DPICM bomblet, 3 critically wounded. We have to be very careful, everywhere we drive. 1600-about to get comfy for the night when we got word of JERIMIAH III.
The whole thing is worth a read, btw.
Artillery ammunition choices were restricted in Operations Enduring Freedom and Iraqi Freedom over dud-rate considerations, as well. The problem with AF cluster bombs is worse, with dud rates among the older weapons well up into the 25% range, leaving a heck of a UXO problem where they were used. They're effective as hell, but you have to take into consideration what the battlefield is going to be like after the battle, too.
Last, but not least - dispensing submunitions are not a new idea. Major General Henry Shrapnel of the British Army developed them in the late 18th century, as these examples of US Civil War shrapnel rounds show.
Which brings to mind a little technical thing of mine. On a purely technical note, what most people call 'shrapnel' is actually fragments. Shrapnel is more properly applied to submunitions contained in the shell - like Shrapnel's musket balls in a cannon ball. But, usage over time trumps snarky purists like myself.
Kinda like those of you who don't make the distinction between clips, which load magazines, and magazines, which load weapons... but I've ranted about that before!
« Secure this line!
Reporting As Ordered, Sir! »
Well, John, from one snarky purist to another, we've got to do our best to keep those definitions straight!
by
Jack on August 23, 2004 12:45 PM
I'm impressed, Jack - that means you at least scrolled through the whole thing!
by
John of Argghhh! on August 23, 2004 12:56 PM
Oh, man, you flicked me on one of my pet peeves!
Nobody, with the possible exception of the Russians, has fired a Shrapnel shell since 1918! Did you know that somebody in Britain still lives, whose surname is Shrapnel? Honest, I saw it as someone's name in the credits in some silly BritCom on PBS.
Everybody needs to read Robert Graves' autobiography, "Goodbye to All That." When he had a piece of a shell go through his chest from one side to the other, he didn't call it shrapnel, he called it a piece of a shell.
P.S. He had a Mom like mine: She soaked the bloodstains out of the tunic he was almost but not quite killed in, stitched up the entrance and exit holes, and had him wear it again. Waste not, want not.
by
Justthisguy on August 23, 2004 05:57 PM
John,I enjoyed that truly informative piece.That was cool.
Only problem is,the rust on that round has my mind creating horrific visions of what lays deep in my gun safe.I'm not exactly the top of the maintenance pool.
www.swornenemy.org
by
mike on August 24, 2004 02:39 AM
Well, to calm your fears somewhat... that's the only round that was having that problem - and it was accelerated because of 'dissimilar metal corrosion,' i.e., the combination of aluminum base, steel carcass, and bronze rotating band can, with sufficient moisture, cause a very weak battery... speeding up the rust.
by
John of Argghhh! on August 24, 2004 04:44 AM
John,
Could you further elucidate the difference between a clip and a magazine? Or a link to where you've already explained it? That's a new one to me.
I understand the irritation; I used to get really irked with people who confused baud rate with bit rate, or thought that kilobyte was 1,000 bytes; or megabyte was 1,000,000. :)
And CPU clock rate isn't as important as most folks think.
And (a bit more military {g}) a P-38 or a P-47 can't break the speed of sound, no matter how far the damn thing fell.
by
Casey Tompkins on October 23, 2004 01:38 PM
Sure, Casey.
A clip holds the rounds, and is used to load them into a magazine. They are usually flat, and have a spring in them, and holds the rounds in by the base. There are also 'en-bloc' clips, like the M1 Garand uses, or the Mannlicher-style magazine rifles. "Stripper clips" you insert the clip into the magazine, put your thumb on the top round, and push down, 'stripping' the bullets from the clip and into the magazine. En-bloc clips you load the whole clip into the magazine and it stays in the magazine until it's empty, whereupon it drops out through the bottom of the magazine (Mannlicher style mags) or is ejected from the magazine like the M1.
A magazine holds the rounds for loading into the
breech of the weapon. Most magazines can be loaded singly, or from clips. Mannlicher-style magazines you usually have to insert the clip and leave it, unless it's been modified, like the German Commission 88 rifles which had the magazine modified to allow single or clip-loading, with the clip staying in the mag.
Therein lies a disadvantage of the en-bloc clip,
because you can't 'top-up' the magazine, you have to empty it. Fighting the US in WWII, the germans learned to listen for the distinctive 'ping' of the clip ejection from the M1, which told them the rifleman in question was reloading, so it was safe to make a move.
One way US troops dealt with the issue was to
deliberate fire off or unload rounds within a platoon or squad, so everybody didn't run out of ammo simultaneously.
This website shows ammo on a stripper clip and loading it into a magazine.
The way to remember it is that clips feed magazines, magazines feed weapons.
A magazine does not (excepting those Mannlicher-style, of course, there's *always* an exception) requires clips - but clips do *always* require magazines.
Howzzat?
by
John of Argghhh! on October 23, 2004 09:38 PM
« Dismissed, Soldier!
August 02, 2004
This should be in the Castle Argghhh! motor stable...
Although, if the s/n can't be traced back to a Seabee unit, I might be tempted to reflag this little beauty. From Her Wonderfulness, Joanie, Da Goddess, comes this shot of a jeep I would love to own... and I will share more of these as the week progresses.
I don't know who the restorer is (anybody knows, lemme know) but he's a righteous dude in my book!
Click the pic for a hi-res view.
Reporting As Ordered, Sir! »
A very nice local couple owns this jeep. If they're out at Cruise Night again this week, I'll see if they have an e-mail address that I can send you.
by
Da Goddess on August 2, 2004 10:39 PM
« Dismissed, Soldier!
July 22, 2004
Time for a moment of Zen.
Ahhhhhhhhh. I feel better now. Nothing like a little relaxing trip through the gun room.
Reporting As Ordered, Sir! »
from this frequent reader (is lurker what you call it?) /first time poster... H.O.L.Y.C.R.A.P.
That is simply amazing. What year did you win the lotto? Seriously though excellent site. I try to hit your site at least once a day.
by
Scott on July 22, 2004 01:51 PM
I hope that empty 2 liter of coke (standard issue I presume) in the back there is fully secured soldier.
It's all fun and games until someone leaves an unsecured soft drink bottle laying around where unsuspecting children could find it.
by
Beck on July 22, 2004 06:48 PM
Does that stapler have a trigger lock?
by
Colt Springfield on July 22, 2004 06:58 PM
I have been lurking over to your site for about a month now. We have very similar sentiments concerning, politics, life and gun porn. Ha I am also an avid collector of guns and militaria and have been for a number of years. I was a US Marine from 1982-1986...on the old M60A1 tank...good years and I like that war room! Check out my militaria website at www.arditi43.com
Semper Fi, Arditi
by
Arditi on July 22, 2004 08:21 PM
Sadly, no. I'm irresponsible. Not a trigger lock in the place. And the Coke is unsecured, too.
Of course, you have to know your weapons well enough to know what ammo goes with what... and there isn't any shootable ammo in the house.
Except for the shotgun, upstairs. But that is a horse of a different color.
And, there are no small children in the house, other than furry, four-footed ones.
by
John of Argghhh! on July 22, 2004 08:30 PM
John,if I was sitting on top of all that beautiful hardware,I think I'd have the 20 mm Gatling in a turret on the roof to protect all the other stuff.Tough on the zoning laws,I realize.
Seriously though,congrats on amassing the most impressive collection I've ever seen in private hands.
by
Colt Springfield on July 22, 2004 10:39 PM
I find it calming to load a few rounds:
kerchunk clink - round one
kerchunk clink - round two
rinse, repeat
Then too, I believe there is only so much peaceful relaxation in the world so, when after a bad day, I tell my co workers I am going home to clean my guns I can just feel all the relaxation in the room being sucked up by me. Peace all.
by
Fred Boness on July 22, 2004 11:16 PM
Fred, you are a *baaaaad* man!
Colt - there *is* the vault door you have to consider... and you should go see the JM Davis gun museum just outside of Tulsa, OK. Mr. Davis (now deceased) was my kinda collector. He had a tank and artillery, too.
Of course, he was an Oil Baron. I'll hafta win the lottery, I fear. I got all the cheap stuff. Now the stuff I'd like is in the $700 up up up range.
by
John of Argghhh! on July 23, 2004 05:48 AM
« Dismissed, Soldier!
July 14, 2004
Answer to the "What is it"
Hi-Res.
The object in question is one of four darts contained in the bullet in this experimental bullet designed to improve the performance of what Kim du Toit calls the "9mm Euroweenie Pellet." The case is marked 9mm Luger. Well, actually, because it's cut in half, it's marked 9mm Lug. The darts are embedded in rubber.
Here is the cut-away with a standard Winchester 9mm, and here it is with an 8mm Mauser, just to keep you in scale.
So, those of you who argued for penetrator, or 'core' were correct, if you had a leetle teeny tiny scale problem.
In looking at everyday things since I posted the initial bit, I noted that the metal tip of a ball point pen looks very similar, and, so would a removable tip from a drawing compass, something one commenter got very close to.
Now - anybody know who made these? I don't. I got it off of Auction Arms some years ago and have no idea where it originated.
Oh! Yeah! The background - that's not pigskin. It's a really cheap blanket!
Reporting As Ordered, Sir! »
4 darts? While it looks good. I think the frangible(?) rounds being sold today do what this seems to be attempting. Being darts they might have been trying for deeper penatration. But the bullet "opening" would not really release them in a true line. Maybe they were trying to make them tumble by having 4 crowded in there,thus "cutting" 4 paths.
That is an interesting little item. Not quite a flechette.
by
Gunner on July 14, 2004 10:26 PM
I think you're right, Gunner.
by
John of Argghhh! on July 15, 2004 06:44 AM
« Dismissed, Soldier!
by
John
on
Jul 14, 2004
»
Les Jones Blog links with:
Thursday Gun Links #25
July 12, 2004
Apparently my blogging jones is wandering aimlessly in the void...
...and I'm stuck with nothing to say. Politics has just gotten painful. Iraq is going better than the media will tell us, but there's no telling some people.
I'm not getting good jokes or juicy stuff in email - or the new classification regime has overclassified everything into non-usability.
So I'm stuck, as Homebru puts it, "Posting pictures of rusty bits of metal and saying "What's this?""
Guilty.
Some of you guys actually play the game, and it's kinda fun seeing how peoples minds work on the the problem.
Homebru didn't even come by, near as I can tell, for his special one. And no one tried guessing what the rusty gun in a field was... (it was a 20mm from a Colorado Air Guard F-100 fighter that crashed on Mt. Cirrus in the Rockies in 1967, that was re-visited in 1996. Sounds like a fun hike, actually). Homebru's challenge was, of course, a red herring. It was a picture of farm disks from Jacob Rose's website, here. Jacob takes some nice pictures.
So, my Muse having deserted me, I'm left to posting pics again.
This time at least, it ain't rusty.
Any guesses?
Reporting As Ordered, Sir! »
That looks like a bear-nekkid lead core. From my vantage point 'tis hard to gauge the caliber. That background looks like pig-skin. Thus, WAGgin' from its grain it looks like that of a plain vanilla 7.62mm Ball: M-80
by
Boquisucio on July 12, 2004 06:57 PM
How about the 7.62mm penetrator from a .50cal SLAP round?
(Not a WAG; a SWAG!)
By the way, re the F-100 loose cannon, I wanted to go for the 30mm cannon from a CZ M53/59, but the vegetation background didn't fit.
Cheers
JMH
by
J.M. Heinrichs on July 12, 2004 09:29 PM
WAG here.
Part of an artilliarymans tool kit for working with maps. The tip of one of their measuring instruments.
Does not look like a submunition but I could be wrong.
I thought the wrecked item could have been an old 37mm Jap gun, but the image was rusty and I could not see the end of the barrel to proove it was a barrel and not something else.
by
Gunner on July 12, 2004 09:39 PM
As for feeling like you are falling back on old pictures don't. The talk here is good, but the old pictures was what brought us here. Maybe finding your roots is a good thing.
by
Gunner on July 12, 2004 09:41 PM
Gunner - that's an excellent guess, and is just the kind of out of the box thinking that makes doing this fun (for me, anyway). It wrong, but it does show how getting a group of people together to do some tasks can be useful!
As for the rusty gun post, I really didn't expect anyone to get that one, it was just there snarking homebru's snark about rusty bits of metal - kinda showing what I could do if I really put my mind to it!
by
John of Argghhh! on July 13, 2004 06:14 AM
For some reason, pics in the posts on your site and Beth's site are not showing up on by box... it may only be a problem with my video driver...but I thought I'd let you know.
by
Madfish Willie on July 13, 2004 09:27 AM
JMH:
My first SWAG (I humbly stand corrected), was that of a penetrator(aka "Little Widow-makers"). But on closer look - and assuming that it is a penetrator - its ogival stirations would make the projectile way unbalanced. The little imperfections in its ogive would cause a shifting center of gravity as the projectile spins itself down range. Then again, it could be a Pakistani Penetrator... but I digress.
Steel is unyielding. When subjected to the drawing press, the copper jacket would be the one to mould itself to the penetrator and not the other way around.
On the other hand, a lead core would be the one to mould itself to the copper jacket. These stirations would smash themselves against the back-face of the copper jacket: thus, conforming itself into centered balance.
That is a long explanation for my rationale behind my SWAG.
In regards to the hypothesis of a .50 Cal. SLAP, I rotundly disagree. That hasn't the vaguest shape of a Sabot.
As far as the exact type of lead core that it may be, (either M-193 5.56mm, M-80 7.62mm or .50 Cal. M-2), I defer to the erudite expertise of the Master of this Keep. And if it isn't a lead core...I will gladly have a chuckle: being thoroughly satisfied by this small piece of Ammo/Weapon P0rn.
you press the projectileThe Stirations would not give under the as the drawing press would not
by
Boquisucio on July 13, 2004 06:18 PM
Gee, it looks like a piece of mechanical pencil lead sitting on the carpet to me.
by
GEBIV on July 13, 2004 09:19 PM
NOTICE THE TIP HAS BEEN GROUND,SO IT COULD NOT RATIONALLY BE LEAD. SURELY IT IS THE TUNGSTEN CARBIDE CORE, AND A NICE ONE, OF AN ARMOR-PIERCING ROUND, PROBABLY A .762. AND IT'S NOT stirations FOR CHRIST'S SAKE.
by
C. A. BUNKER on December 22, 2004 01:37 PM
« Dismissed, Soldier!
by
John
on
Jul 12, 2004
»
Les Jones Blog links with:
Thursday Gun Links #25
July 09, 2004
Lets look at a cartridge, in detail, eh?
Click the picture for a hi-res view.
In this case, a Canadian-produced .577 cartridge for the Snider rifle. The Snider rifle is a transition rifle, the cartridge is a transition cartridge. The Sniders were the equivalent to the US Springfield Trapdoor or Austrian Werndl rifles, being a conversion of the muzzle-loading Enfield 3 Band musket and it's kin to a breech loading capability. The Snider had a 'flip-open' breechblock that opened to the side, the Trapdoor had a 'flip-up' action that opened upwards, the Werndl rolled to the side.
The cartridge represents the second generation of cartridges, when manufacturers were getting away from pin-fire and rim-fire to center-fire. This cartridge represents the bridge from the early systems to what we have today.
The details are in the Flash Traffic. Click on the thumbnails to open the slides and links - and I recommend you right-click and open them in a new window, so you can go back and forth.
Flash Traffic (extended entry) Follows »
Slide 1. The Base. Here you see the really complex part of the cartridge.
Steel Base Disk. As mentioned elsewhere, case failure during primary extraction was a problem with early metallic cartridges. As the brass alloys had not been fully developed, they couldn’t make a brass with the right qualities of strength and malleability to allow an extractor to act on a brass rim, as we are used to now. So a steel base disk (with all the corrosion issues inherent therein) was used. This held the primer pocket, which consisted of the pocket itself, the anvil, and the primer cup. The cup contains the priming compound, and is held to the base by flaring out the pocket.
Primer Cup. Provides a seal to protect the compound and anvil.
Anvil. Struck by the hammer, the mechanical shock is transmitted to the priming compound, which detonates, flashing through the Flame Hole in the pocket, igniting the charge which explodes, or burns, not detonates. (The difference, you ask? Detonate means the energy is released throughout the ‘energetic compound’ virtually instantaneously. Explodes means the flame front burns through the compound (in this case the black powder grains) with a measureable (still really fast) speed. One has a pressure curve that peaks essentially instantly and drops to zero quickly, the other has a curve that builds fast, peaks, and subsides. You choose your compound based on what you want to accomplish. Note the primer pocket sits in a clay plug, which forces the use of only on flame hole. Modern cartridges have numerous flame holes in the pocket, to speed initiation of the powder. Why’d we do that, you wonder?
Clay Base Reinforce. That plug is there because of the weakness of the layered brass construction. It provides a rigid base for the brass at the base of the cartridge, so that it doesn’t deform during handling, loading, closing the breech, and extraction. Combined with the Brass Base Reinforce, you have enough strength to maintain rigidity of the cartridge, provide a seal when fired, and the strength to survive extraction without ripping off.
Slide 2. The Case.
This cartridge is an example of the second generation of primer-fired metallic cartridges. We still haven’t developed the technology to properly ‘draw’ a fully formed cartridge case from a brass ingot. Problems with the formulation of the alloy, annealing, etc, made it difficult to draw brass into the kind of cartridges we use today with any uniformity and proper strength and malleability. The first cartridges were made of copper, which was found to generally be too soft for the job and suffered corrosion problems. The move to brass started with making a separate, usually steel, base. Then you wrapped brass foil around a mandrel to get the cartridge shape. You mated the two and had a cartridge. A cartridge that suffered from being weak, to being vulnerable to moisture, and subject to ‘case separation’ in primary extraction. That’s where the base of the round would rip off, leaving the rest of the casing inside the chamber, making it impossible to reload. Bad in combat, or when being charged by a pissed-off elephant or other large critter you’ve annoyed. In this shot, you see a paper-wrapped Snider, a wrapped-brass Martini-Henry, and a Swiss 10mm copper rim-fire, with a clip of 8mm Mauser for comparison. As you can guess, this is a comparatively expensive bullet to make. In this slide, from left to right, you see:
Clay Forcing Plug – discussed under “The bullet.”
Felt Wad. Just like in a shotgun round, the felt wad was there to keep the powder compressed, and to assist in making the round water-resistant.
Black Powder Charge. Coarsely-grained black powder. The coarseness is to maximize the surface area of the powder so that it will burn quickly and uniformly, developing it’s max pressure early, and providing a constant rate of expansion as the bullet travels down the bore – with the two goals of it not burning so fast that it causes the barrel to fail at the chamber, nor too slowly that it is still burning outside the barrel, resulting in a loss in velocity for the bullet. You also didn’t want it working too well, as the lead bullet would fail and partially liquefy, cutting range, destroying accuracy, and fouling the barrel, too.
Paper-wrapped brass case. These cartridges were wrapped with a lightly oil-impregnated paper for several reasons. One was lubrication, to aid in extraction, the other was to help seal and waterproof the cartridge. The rumor that the lubricant for british cartridges was pig fat and/or beef tallow (depends on whether the target for the rumor was Muslim or Hindu) was a contributor to the Sepoy Mutiny in India in 1857.
Slide 3. The Bullet
Lead-Antimony bullet. The true “weapon.” Everything else is just a part of the system to get the weapon to it’s intended target. Made of a alloy of lead and antimony to be heavy, easy to work with, deform on impact to provide maximum energy transfer to the target. The antimony acts as a hardener for the lead. To assist in maximum energy transfer there is the “Dum-Dum” cavity.
Dum-Dum Cavity. Dum-dums get their name from the Dum-Dum Arsenal in India, where the British discovered that cutting an “x” in the tip of the bullet made them deform spectacularly on impact, transferring more energy into the target, doing tremendous damage. Not like the lead didn’t do that pretty well already, but, when you are hunting large game or drug-hyped Afghans, anything is a help. There were some obvious problems with that practice, so experiments were carried out and it was determined that casting a cavity in the bullet, with an opening to the nose, gave predictable results, especially regarding the ballistics of the round, maintaining accuracy. Here's a shot of the bullet with the clay plug in the hole leading to the cavity (we've later determined you don't need to do that.
Forcing Cone and Plug. The clay plug was acted on by the expanding gases, pushing up into the cone, which forces the skirt of the bullet into the rifling, ensuring a good seal and a good grip by the rifling. The US discovered in the Civil War that no plug was necessary – the action of the gasses was sufficient to expand the skirt of the bullet.
There ya go. Now you know more about the .577 caliber Snider cartridge than you ever wanted to. Congratulations if you got this far!
Click the pic below for a hi-res view.
« Secure this line!
Reporting As Ordered, Sir! »
Sometimes my brain runs away with me. Too bad I rarely catch up.
The Snider was not the offending weapon at the heart of the Sepoy Mutiny. The Snider was a conversion of the offending weapon, the Enfield rifle, with it's greased cartridges...
"In 1853 the British authorities began the distribution of the Enfield rifle with a smaller bore and a lighter bullet than the older type of musket. The issue of this rifle to native troops in India was one of the major causes of the Indian Mutiny, for it was believed that the grease round the bullet was cow’s and pig’s fat, the former being defilement to the Hindus and the latter to the Mohammedans. A gunmaker named Snider invented a way of improving the old Enfield rifle and turning it into a breech loader, and, for a time, the British Army used nothing but the Snider rifle. Then in 1866 the Government offered a prize for a new army rifle, and no fewer than one hundred and four different makers competed. Nine rifles were chosen for a final test, and after a very stiff competition it was decided that Henry’s system of rifling with Martini’s breech mechanism would make the most serviceable weapon. The Henry rifle, I might mention, afterward became the Winchester, which has long been a favorite in America. The Martini-Henry had seven grooves with one turn in twenty-two inches. It was extremely accurate, and twenty rounds could be fired in fifty-three seconds. "
http://www.usgennet.org/usa/topic/preservation/science/inventions/chpt21.htm
by
John of Argghhh! on July 11, 2004 07:13 PM
YOUR PIECE ON THE SNIDER BOXER CARTRIDGE AND PROBLEMS ATTENDING FURTHER CARTRIDGE DEVELOPMENT WAS EXCEPTIONAL-- BUT, ON BEHALF OF SCHNEIDER CARTRIDGE INVENTOR WHATSISNAME EVERYWHERE,I MUST PROTEST YOU LEFT OUT A STEP,AS ORIGINALLY THE SNIDER WAS DESIGNED TO TAKE THE SCHNEIDER CARTRIDGE,"A CENTER FIRE USING A PERCUSSION CAP WITH A SEPARATE ANVIL HELD IN A COMPOSITE HEAD. THE HEAD WAS ATTACHED TO A CARDBOARD CASE... SIMILAR TO A SHOTGUN SHELL." IF YOU WOULD LIKE A PHOTO DETAIL OF A SNIDER CONVERSION-'51 SWISS STUTZER MADE FOR THE SNEIDER CARTRIDGE, LET ME KNOW.
by
C. A. BUNKER on December 18, 2004 02:24 PM
YOUR PIECE ON THE SNIDER BOXER CARTRIDGE AND PROBLEMS ATTENDING FURTHER CARTRIDGE DEVELOPMENT WAS EXCEPTIONAL-- BUT, ON BEHALF OF SCHNEIDER CARTRIDGE INVENTOR WHATSISNAME EVERYWHERE,I MUST PROTEST YOU LEFT OUT A STEP,AS ORIGINALLY THE SNIDER WAS DESIGNED TO TAKE THE SCHNEIDER CARTRIDGE,"A CENTER FIRE USING A PERCUSSION CAP WITH A SEPARATE ANVIL HELD IN A COMPOSITE HEAD. THE HEAD WAS ATTACHED TO A CARDBOARD CASE... SIMILAR TO A SHOTGUN SHELL." IF YOU WOULD LIKE A PHOTO DETAIL OF A SNIDER CONVERSION-'51 SWISS STUTZER MADE FOR THE SNEIDER CARTRIDGE, LET ME KNOW.
by
C. A. BUNKER on December 18, 2004 02:25 PM
YOUR PIECE ON THE SNIDER BOXER CARTRIDGE AND PROBLEMS ATTENDING FURTHER CARTRIDGE DEVELOPMENT WAS EXCEPTIONAL-- BUT, ON BEHALF OF SCHNEIDER CARTRIDGE INVENTOR WHATSISNAME EVERYWHERE,I MUST PROTEST YOU LEFT OUT A STEP,AS ORIGINALLY THE SNIDER WAS DESIGNED TO TAKE THE SCHNEIDER CARTRIDGE,"A CENTER FIRE USING A PERCUSSION CAP WITH A SEPARATE ANVIL HELD IN A COMPOSITE HEAD. THE HEAD WAS ATTACHED TO A CARDBOARD CASE... SIMILAR TO A SHOTGUN SHELL." IF YOU WOULD LIKE A PHOTO DETAIL OF A SNIDER CONVERSION-'51 SWISS STUTZER MADE FOR THE SNEIDER CARTRIDGE, LET ME KNOW.
by
C. A. BUNKER on December 18, 2004 02:25 PM
Nice pics ! Thanks. Re the stuff on the bullet&Dum Dum etc...Dum Dum was an arsenal that manufactured Snider ammo for Imperialist purposes,the nose cavity [initialy filled by a wooden plug ]was for stabilising the slug in both three & five grooved barrels.The expansion was a tad painfull and the arsenals name became synonomous with with all bullets that made big holes for what ever reason. A bad rap for a bunch of ordnance corps guys just working for the RAJH,not to mention the the Dum Dum chamber of commerce .
by
snider knechtel on December 26, 2004 01:45 AM
« Dismissed, Soldier!
by
John
on
Jul 09, 2004
»
Les Jones Blog links with:
Thursday Gun Links #25
»
Les Jones Blog links with:
Thursday Gun Links #25
July 06, 2004
Answer to the last challenge.
Well, hats off to Captain H of Her Majesty's Canadian Forces, who, using all the tools at his disposal, and while in the midst of a move, got the right answer, correct in all details.
Gunner, with a little coaching, got there too.
The fact that I set this up for a tanker, well, so some of ya don't need to feel bad ya didn't get it.
Guesses ranged from tripods to rifle bolts. Good guesses all.
Oh, yeah. The answer.
76mm TP-T HEAT round for the US M41 Walker Bulldog tank.
TP-T HEAT = Training Practice-Tracer High Explosive Anti-Tank. Guessing the weapon system (not a requirement, extra credit to CPT H) was made easy because the M41 tank was the only tank we had in service after Korea with a 76mm gun.
Here's a shot of the markings.
Reporting As Ordered, Sir! »
by
John
on
Jul 06, 2004
»
Les Jones Blog links with:
Thursday Gun Links #25
July 03, 2004
Here's one to keep you busy over the weekend.
High-res version is here.
Same rules as before. Answers in email.
johnbethd*@*DIESPAMBOTDIE*yahoo.com
Removing the asterisks and capped letters, natch.
Answer to the Challenge.
Oddly enough, none of the usual characters were players this time. But we did have a new crop, two of whom got the right answer! Here's the original post.
Martin got in with the first correct answer, and Neil came in with the correct answer too, after thinking about it across a couple of emails.
Here they are, with a 12 Gauge blank for scale.
High res shot is here if you have the bandwidth.
Here's the 81mm, standing next to a round. Inserted. High-res shots here and here.
Here's the 60mm, standing next to a round. Inserted. High-res shots here and here.
These are WWII primers, made by Winchester. They look just like shotgun rounds, and are made the same way, but have a different, hotter burning powder in them.
Thanks to those of you who chose to try (or got there in time, as I know some of you were traveling this weekend.
Reporting As Ordered, Sir! »
So they fired the main charge. Cool. I never knew that. Better then designing a whole new primer system. They used what they already had.
I knew they looked just like shotgun shells, and for a second I thought they may have been something else, but you are not into airplanes so I threw that idea out.
by
Gunner on July 3, 2004 01:22 PM
Gunner - I am too into airplanes!
But no, you're right, those aren't starter cartridges...
And I goofed in the post. That's a 10 Gauge blank, for my Winchester signal cannon, which got a workout on the 4th!
Ah, the smell of gunsmoke!
by
John of Argghhh! on July 5, 2004 08:22 PM
« Dismissed, Soldier!
July 02, 2004
Viven-Bessiere Rifle grenade and launchers. Part 1
Nota Bene: this is a long one, and I've chopped it up into four parts.
Okay, as I have said before, people who are trying to kill you while you are trying to kill them suck. They’re supposed to just surrender, right? I mean, why can’t we all just get along – especially if you’ll do what I tell you! Anyway, once this whole blackpowder/gun thing got going, especially as the guns got better, people started doing things like hiding. And that sucks. Besides, they rarely come at you alone, and if you’ve got a single-shot rifle and all, well, gee, it would be nice to be able to get more’n one guy at a time, if you could, and ya know the penny-pinching bean counters who don’t ever *have* to do any of this fighting stuff, well, they think fancy guns are an extravagance, but they’re willing to spend some bucks on grenades.
But then that means you have to throw them, right? And back in the day, pretty much only Americans played baseball, a game that teaches you how to throw a long way. So the namby-pamby Europeans, decided to find ways to loft grenades without having to stand up and throw ‘em like a man, yet were cheaper than mortars, artillery and such. First they started out with stick grenades . Then they moved on with rod grenades, that you stuck in the barrel of your rifle, fired a special blank, and off it went. Of course, this required you to carry blanks AND remember to use them. If you didn’t, well, it ruined the rifle, and caused annoyance to yourself and those around you.
Of course, then we discovered that it ruined the rifle anyway, splitting stocks and such, as well as bulging the barrels, which required that stocks be reinforced, and barrels replaced. The Brits carried that the furthest, by wrapping ‘EY” (grenade launcher, so designated from rifles no longer accurate enough for issue use) rifles with copper wire, so when the stock split the grenadier didn’t get a faceful of splinters. The Indian Army, who carried forward the WWI Enfield rifle design into the 1970’s, went so far as to wrap their rifles with sheet metal. Well, the rod grenades are a different post, so to heck with them. Let’s move on to grenade discharger cups, and in particular, the French WWI version.
To save eyestrain on the main blog, I've broken this into four parts.
Part II, the story, con't.
Part III. The Launchers.
Part IV. The Grenades.
Reporting As Ordered, Sir! »
i was at a martial festival at Fort Meigs a few weeks back and spotted a related weapon, a grenade mortar, that would heave a 2 inch diameter spherical grenade about 100 yards. i took a photo of it with my crappy phone camera and here it is.
enjoy.
by
rammer on July 2, 2004 10:03 PM
I'll take one of those!
by
John of Argghhh! on July 3, 2004 10:37 AM
« Dismissed, Soldier!
June 18, 2004
Some more on weapons development.
This time, the XM107 Sniper rifle. Note to gun rights people: I know this brief plays into the hands of those who want to ban the .50 cal rifles altogether - the whole purpose of this rifle is long range materiel destruction. But before you excoriate me for posting it - they're already running with that meme and have this info. Save your typing skills for something else! This just gives you a window into how the Army does this stuff.
Click the pic to view the briefing.
Reporting As Ordered, Sir! »
I want one...maybe two.
by
Chris Muir on June 18, 2004 12:39 PM
Or you can plunk down about $5500 and get a semi-auto only version of the M2. Sorry, corporate filters won't let me get into those sites, but they are legal ( at least federally ). Personally, I don't have the money for either. :(
by
Chris Van Dis on June 18, 2004 02:00 PM
Here you go John, I saw ~~ this ~~ and thought you'd like it. In case you haven't seen it before. ;-)
Its from mASS BACKWARDS
On topic though, a 50 cal sniper weapon? Wow I had no idea. I want one too. 8^)
by
Calliope on June 19, 2004 07:33 AM
Nice. REAL NICE.
by
SpaceMonkey on June 20, 2004 12:40 AM
Reminds me of my beloved Barrett in its design
by
BloodSpite on June 21, 2004 12:44 AM
Some questions I have now that I've had some sleep:
100 rd limit per day? I know as a sniper the chances of being in a extreme fire fight situation is minor how ever it has happened (Mogadishu, for example). You could hit that in a good day at the range training your team.
I saw that the weapon itself is cleared for airborne operations, but the scope is not. I saw that they are considering an alternative mount.
Thats a bit unerving.
A good tactical situation is to air drop a team in country and then evac after wards.
But no scope for a sniper, while not immpossible, amkes their job really hard.
Any thoughts?
by
BloodSpite on June 21, 2004 08:41 PM
« Dismissed, Soldier!
June 04, 2004
All right, another challenge...
...though frankly, it seems these are either too hard, and most of ya don't give a hoot, either.
Too bad. My blog, costs ya nothing but wasted moments of your lives...
And there is a secret those who do play haven't twigged to, yet.
So, what's this?
All ya win are bragging rights...
UPDATE: Here's a hint - all of the photos I use for the challenges (to be more specfic, the photos from which I snip the challenges) are in the Arsenal photos...
Reporting As Ordered, Sir! »
Its a reverse diframbulator.
Seriously I'm stumped. I've studied your pictures for longer than I want to admit. I really wanted to get this one.
We have a round brass rod with a bolt-type fitting on one end and a silver colored metal something on the other. There's also a thin metal part of unknown function that we can see edge-on near what appears to be a bolt shaped device. I thought at first it was something on the barrel of the Bren gun in your collection due to the silver color. Then I decided it must be a brass fitting for the drain hose on one of your water cooled MG's.
Now I think its an adjustable leg for a tripod for one of your sites, like a camera tripod leg that goes in and out for level.
by
Calliope on June 9, 2004 08:02 PM
Go to the photo ablum and have a close look at #127.
Cheers
JMH
by
J.M. Heinrichs on June 9, 2004 08:20 PM
And we have a winnah!
by
John of Argghhh! on June 9, 2004 10:47 PM
I should have got it dagnabit. I never expanded the pics on the muzzle loaders.
I did have a lot of fun studying the other ones though. 8^)
by
Calliope on June 10, 2004 05:26 AM
« Dismissed, Soldier!
June 02, 2004
Viven-Bessiere Rifle grenade and launchers. Part IV
The Grenades.
There were at least three types of grenade made for the V-B system. First, was the standard HE grenade, which US industry produced over 20 million of for the war. Next was a message grenade that was used by the French, but rejected by the US. Lastly (that I’m aware of) was a pyrotechnic grenade, used as a carrier for flares, star clusters, and smoke.
Like the launchers, the US V-B grenades were essentially the same as their French forbears. The main difference between the two versions of the HE grenade is that the US grenade was made out of malleable iron instead of cast (brittle) iron. Both grenades were serrated internally to assist fragmentation – and because external serration would increase gas loss (and matching range loss) during launching. As John Heinrichs noted in comments to the earlier post on the subject – many grenades were serrated externally to improve the soldiers grip, and that the serration was for that purpose – it being known that external serration was ineffective in assisting controlled fragmentation. The historical record is mixed. There are US records dating to WWII where it came as a surprise that external serration was ineffective – perhaps simply because if anyone had tested prior to that, it was unknown to the then-serving officers on the Board.
I suspect it’s all correct. Some people and manufacturers knew, some didn’t, and most didn’t care in any big way.
Anyway, back to the story… The grenades are about 2.5 inches long and 2 inches in diameter (you metric-types can do your own conversion…) and weighed 17 ounces or so, just over a pound. They had a range of about 200 yards when fired at 47 degrees, and a ‘danger zone’ of 75 yards from the point of burst. Since the range exceeded the bursting radius, the grenade was considered both ‘offensive’ and ‘defensive’. The distinction being that an offensive grenade has a smaller bursting radius than its average throwing distance – i.e., it can be used by a soldier in the open, whereas a defensive (generally more powerful) assumes the user is under cover.
The pyrotechnic grenade (cylinder in the middle) was simply a carrier for combustable material, whether phosphorus or some other incendiary compound. They weren’t very effective and didn’t see much use.
Last, but not least, is the ‘message grenade’. Intended for use by cut-off units, it contained a tube into which a message could be inserted, and the grenade then fired. Upon landing, a small smoke charge would go off to make the grenade more visible. Several problems arose. The smoke charge was too small, consequently, it was hard to see. The fuze failed to function in soft ground. Until the somewhat mobile battles of late 1918, pretty much all the ground people were fighting over was soft ground from years of pounding. Lastly, if you were cut off, you couldn’t tell anyone you were going to be sending messages, so they wouldn’t be looking for them when they landed. If they were trying to get to you – same problem, exacerbated by the fact that cut-off and surrounded units are many times closer together as individuals on the battlefield… and getting hit with one of these things, well, sucked.
Here endeth the tale.
Reporting As Ordered, Sir! »
Viven-Bessiere Rifle grenade and launchers. Part III
The Launchers.
There were essentially 5 types of V-B launchers in US service. To minimize the time between adoption, production, and issuance, the V-B launcher and grenades were adopted as-is. The only initial changes needed were the dimensional changes required to adapt to US rifle barrel/front sight profiles. When US production caught up there were 4 US- specific Marks of launcher adopted, though the Mark II was never manufactured.
1. The original was the French launcher. While US producers were tooling up to the new specs, the French produced 50.000 launchers for issuance made to the French specs, with the problems alluded to in the report above.
2. Mark I. Between the time the specs were determined and US producers were tooled up, the French produced another 50.000 launchers to the US spec.
3. Mark II. Not much is known about this one. It was spec’d but never adopted or produced.
4. Mark III. These launchers were stamped on the outside for which rifle they were intended to be used, and the launchers intended for the M1917 had a knurled band on them so that a soldier could assure himself he had the right launcher in darkness. (Trivia- the US issued more M1917 rifles during the war than M1903s). The Mark IIIs were like the original French launchers in that they had a straight slot milled in the stem and they slipped over the barrel and were shimmed in place.
5. The Mark IV had a spiral groove that hooked around the front sight and gave a more positive lock. The version for the M1917 rifle maintained the knurled band. My example is a M1917 version. The knurled band is eroded away by years of being buried on the battlefield, but it fits the M1917 easily, and will not fit the M1903. At least not with the effort I’m willing to put forth!
Part IV. The Grenades.
Reporting As Ordered, Sir! »
Viven-Bessiere Rifle grenade and launchers. Part II
The French led the way with the ‘cup discharger” (as the Brits called them) style of grenade launching. The Brits, Germans, Russians, and the US followed them in close order. When US forces arrived in theater in France in 1917, we discovered that while it looked cool and impressed the ladies that you could stand up and toss a grenade 50 yards, the veritable sheet of lead the Germans were sending about 1 inch over the top of whatever cover you were behind tended to spoil your aim. So the US simply adopted the French version in-situ and over time made some minor changes in light of experience. The Brits, Germans, and Russians all developed their own launchers and grenades. I’ll cover the German discharger in a later post – and I’ll cover the Russian, too, if I ever score a launcher. I can cover the Russian grenades.
The British version (also a post for a later time) used standard grenades, with or without a special baseplate, and launched the grenades using the special blanks (in this case, Austrian) already developed for the rod grenades. The French, German, and Russian models were all ‘bullet-through’ grenades, designed to be launched using standard ball ammunition, with the bullet passing through a tube in the center of the grenade. In the French version adopted by the US, the bullet also initiated the fuze, which is kinda cool. You could also load two grenades into the launcher and launch them together, with a concomitant decrease in range, but more fun in the target area (as long as you weren’t the poor dumb b*st*rd in it)
The upside of this type of launcher is that it used standard ball (‘ball’ being the technical term for regular bullets, being a holdover from when bullets were balls) ammunition and didn’t damage the bore of the rifle in the way rodded grenades did. On the debit side, in addition to putting all that weight on the end of the barrel (affecting accuracy should the soldier have to do some shooting beyond grenades) the god of recoil still demanded payment, sometimes in the coin of broken stocks. This is reportedly the primary reason the second recoil lug was added to the stock of the M1903 rifle in 1917.
The normal firing mode was to place the butt of the rifle on the ground, align the rifle to the target, and adjust for range by raising or lowering the barrel (pivoting on the butt for you snarky purists). The French went so far as to make special racks that you could load multiple rifles into and salvo fire. These racks had vernier adjustments and simple range tables, enabling more accurate (and comparative saturation) fires than individual soldiers firing their rifles, though obviously not terribly practical in the assault.
The US adopted the V-B system in July 1917 for use with the M1903 and M1917 rifles. Until production was established for US rifles, some number of Lebel and Berthier rifles with launchers was issued to US units, and came with some french trainers. Despite the usual grumblings from the Ordnance establishment regarding non-standard ammunition and weapons, the field commanders said “Tough shit, I want something, and all you offer is nothing, so suck it up, bub!” and took the rifles and went out and killed Germans with ‘em.
As is ever the case when you leave the troops alone for a minute, clever (but not necessarily technically competent) troops started adapting the Lebel V-B launchers to the US rifles. A surviving report from the 42nd Division covers the topic:
“Someone at the Ordnance Base re-designed the base of the French tromblon to that it would fit the muzzle of the Springfield rifle, but they failed to take into consideration the great difference in pressure developed by the propelling charge of the American cartridge. It seems that the Rainbow (nickname of the 42nd Div) was the first to receive this new brainchild and they were promptly issued to the infantry squads in the divisions. The next day many of the men were in the hospital and their rifles were beyond repair.”
Part III. The Launchers.
Reporting As Ordered, Sir! »
May 28, 2004
Well, the challenge was waaay too hard.
Though the assorted guesses (well maybe less the squirt gun), indicated some thought and knowledge, they weren't even close.
The answer is in the extended post.
Flash Traffic (extended entry) Follows »
The muzzle of a Vickers MMG nestled inside a half-parabolic flash suppressor.
Scale means everything, doesn't it?
« Secure this line!
Reporting As Ordered, Sir! »
May 27, 2004
Since we had fun with the last one...
What's this?
Reporting As Ordered, Sir! »
Going out on a limb here, but is that the fuse end (as in the tail end) of an old cannon?
by
Michael on May 27, 2004 07:57 AM
Cap-and-ball revolver, view of a nipple without percussion cap. Is the number "11" the nipple size?
Note: that as in other activities, safety requires one nipple be bared.
Cheers
JMH
by
J.M. Heinrichs, Capt on May 27, 2004 09:50 AM
I can't even think of a smarty-pants reply. :/
by
Calliope on May 27, 2004 04:53 PM
The business end of a 1958 made .45 replica squirt-gun. With nickle plated pistol grips.
by
GEBIV on May 27, 2004 09:11 PM
The base of a morter shell or Piat round.
by
gunner on May 28, 2004 11:26 AM
« Dismissed, Soldier!
May 21, 2004
Recoiless Rifles.
Calliope asked some good questions, so here's some answers...
The conundrum was this: Getting better projectiles to kill tanks into smaller/lighter guns - preferably that the troops could carry themselves and not require motor transport. Especially light troops, like airborne forces.
What to do, what to do.
Conventional guns are tubes, sealed at one end. Open the sealed end, stick in your cartridge, close the breech, fire. Newton's observation that for every action there is an equal and opposite reaction then takes hold. You send a lump of steel in one direction, the barrel wants to go in the other direction, less the impact of various inefficiencies such as friction and heat transfer from propellant to tube, etc. There are just limits to what you can do here. You can improve the performance of a given gun system by using shaped charges instead of solid shot. Of course, that presents a different problem, since shaped charges don't like to be spun. You can re-tube it to a 'squeeze bore' gun where you use special ammunition that swages away going down the bore, which will achieve a greater velocity, at the cost of greater ammunition cost and complexity and tube wear. You can be more efficient than that and put a sleeve, or sabot, around the smaller projectile and fire it from the same bore (the process used on most tank guns today). All of this is fine - except it doesn't make your gun any smaller, and aside from adding a muzzle brake to it, it really doesn't help your recoil any. If just improves performance of the existing system against more resistant targets.
You can use a rocket. Once the shaped charge was developed, that became practical. This time, instead of sealing the tube and pushing out a projectile, you seal the tube and let the gases vent out the open end. Same thing - only this time the projectile sits on the end of the tube and the tube flies with the 'jo. This is the concept used by the bazooka, and it worked, though you suffered some limitations in ammo types, because the state of the art at the time pretty much limited you to shaped charges, which limited the tagets you could attack. And the ammo was expensive.
So, what else can you do? Well, the first recoilless gun (Argghhh! I can't find my copy of Hogg/Batchelor's Artillery!) was developed during the 1700's. Not terribly practical, it would have achieved it's recoil-cancellation by firing the projectile one direction, and an equal weight of shot the other. Difficult to employ tactically, yes? But what if you could use the gases? Meter them out the rear of the piece, so that the thrust from that canceled the thrust from the projectile? And thus the recoilless rifle was born.
The rest is in the extended post.
Flash Traffic (extended entry) Follows »
The 57mm was the first US gun. The Burny gun was the first Brit piece, which took a different approach, of using multiple venturi tubes.
The photo above is the breech of my gun. The black 'sausage shaped' holes are the vents, more technically known as venturis. Making use of the 'venturi effect' these vents are carefully shaped and sized to precisely meter out the gases from burning propellant to produce just the thrust needed to counter recoil. Since the bun requires no other recoil-absorbing mechanism, you can save a lot of weight. And once the principle was proven, it was easy to scale 'em up to bigger calibers.
So, Calliope wanted to know why pre-engraved rifling? That was to ensure uniform, predictable resistance from round to round. Variations in the bronze used for rotating bands, inconsistent seating by loaders under combat pressure could result in teeny-tiny delays in how fast the projectile starts it's trip down the bore. Since the gases aren't suffering those delays, accuracy and range could be effected. You could even have forward recoil. So, the rounds were pre-engraved, and the casings had lugs on them to prevent improper seating of the projectile. The fuzes were shaped so that is was easy for the loader to get the round in the chamber without fiddling, and a tiny twist one way or the other was sufficient to seat the round properly.
The breechblock, which, as John noted, is of the interrupted thread type, only requires a quarter turn to open and close. Because the chamber is vented, the gun can be lightweight overall and the breechblock can be much lighter.
The breechblock supports the end of the cartridge, keeping the base aligned with the firing pin.
Lessee, what have I missed...
How do we get those gases out the vents? Simple. Since the cartridge case does not, unlike in small arms and larger guns, perform any sealing of the breech, we punch it full of holes, so that the gases of combustion boil out of the casing into the breech, moving the projo on it's way, and exhasuting themselves out of the rear. Having lost a trouser leg to the backblast of a 90mm reckless rifle, I can attest you should keep soft and chewy bits out from behind the gun while firing.
« Secure this line!
Reporting As Ordered, Sir! »
WOW. John, What a great post. I know zilch on guns, but what I've learned from your site. And you show the quality, intelect and true nature of the gun collector. many thanks.
by
John Crocco on May 21, 2004 10:14 AM
How about the Davis recoilless gun, 1905-1912? Scoll down to "Davis Gun" here for a mention: http://www.serve.com/mahood/nellis/ttr/ttrbook.htm
"The Davis Gun (from an HP 0/400 site)
This was a form of recoilless weapon, invented by Cdr Cleland Davis of the US Navy. When fired, the shell propulsion from the muzzle was intended to be 'compensated' by a discharge of lead shot from the rear of the gun's barrel (in essence the same principle as the more familiar 'Bazooka' anti-tank weapon of World War II). Ordered for trials by the British Admiraity's Air Department in early 1915, the Davis gun was extensively tested over the following two years and in July 1917 was fitted experimentally to several Handley Page 0/100s at Manston."
And a mention on Page 9 here: http://www.history.navy.mil/avh-1910/PART01.PDF
You're doing this deliberately, aren't you? By the way, on this(office) computer (Windows etc) your "make a link here" doesn't work as advertised.
Cheers
JMH
by
J.M. Heinrichs on May 21, 2004 10:26 AM
Fascinating post John. I had no idea. Its amazing how inventive firearms manufacturers have been over the years.
by
Calliope on May 21, 2004 02:33 PM
There was one other problem with recoiless projectiles if I remember correctly and that was the gases vented out the back were extremely hot. I seem to recall my father telling me about recoiless rounds being fired at Chinese tanks and lighting the brush on fire behind them. It also made firing them prone, when not on a tripod impossible as your legs got blistered and blasted.
by
MunDane on May 21, 2004 05:02 PM
MunDane: It's not a problem, it's a feature. If you were to participate in the live fire drill of a Civil War Napoleon 12lbr, you would learn that the gun crew "stands away from the gun" prior to firing: the gun, in the absence of a recoil system, will moved back some 10ft or more, very quickly ( John can provide details). A shoulder-fired recoilless like the 57mm above is fired safely when fired as taught.
My experience is with the 84mm Carl Gustav; the firing position was generally prone, with the body aligned 45deg away from the bore axis (do not spread your right leg). The loader would be lying 90deg to the bore axis facing the rear section of the gun (the venturi). Both would be positioned outside of the blast cone of the gun. Further details, ask and I'll try to find illustrations of which I speak. By the way, the rules are no different for firing from a tripod, the positions are analogous.
Cheers
JMH
by
J.M. Heinrichs on May 21, 2004 09:13 PM
So if I understand, in addition to spin (which stabilizes the shell in flight), rifled barrels also provide uniform resistance to the load traveling down the barrel. This provides a more constant chamber pressure (from shell to shell) and allows better accuracy through consistency. Yes?
If this is so, do rifled barrels have sufficiently higher muzzle velocity (over smoth-bore tubes) to make a sub-sonic/super-sonic difference? The difference between, say, a mortar's "fwump" and a rifle's "crack"? Or is this just due to the powder charge?
I have a back-of-the-mind memory that the WWII German 88 was said to have a sound totally different from allied artillery.
by
homebru on May 22, 2004 10:44 AM
Homebru - that's a deceptively complex question to answer...
Several modern tanks guns have dispensed with rifling - fin stabilizing all the rounds, as it makes the gun more versatile and the ammunition simpler to manufacture (rather than trying to reduce or prevent spin on shape-charge munitions, for example - as well as making them capable of missile launching.
As for uniform resistance... kinda - though you have examples of increasing twist rifling out there too. That's all a matter of math, and how far out and flat you want/need the trajectory balanced against the costs of getting there.
The discussion regarding the RCLs pertains to recoil, and keeping that uniform by ensuring the projectile is seated the same way, every time, without gymnastics on the part of the loader. To that end, the pre-rifled rotating band, is also a feature on some mortar designs, although for different purposes.
Uneven ram on the part of separate loading artillery rounds can introduce significant errors. Rifles and other high velocity weapons really rely on having more powder than they need, within known parameters (that's where the flash comes from) to overcome those issues on loading. But they are using mechanical means (or the firers shoulder) to overcome recoil issues.
As for the 88 - all weapons have distinctive sounds, based on bore size, projectile shape, and amount of powder. Whether the round is boat-tailed, rocket-assisted, etc, makes a difference, as do things like muzzle brakes, bore length, etc.
The 88's sound was consistent with any medium caliber high-velocity round of that shape from a gun of that length, in a sense.
by
John of Argghhh! on May 22, 2004 11:09 AM
PLease can you help me, or do you know who can help me, with drawings/pictures and outside dimensions of the Davis recoilles guns which were tested during WWI in England?
I need these information for a drawing which I am planned to make of the Armstrong-Whitworth triplane airship fighter, only one prototype and not armament. But it proposed that, if it should in production, it should be armament with a Davis recoilles gun.
Thank you for your help.
With regards,
Jan den Das
by
Jan den Das on September 8, 2004 02:51 AM
Jan - I don't have any drawings, and couldn't find any pictures in any of my references.
I would suggest you contact the people at The Ordnance Society.
They have an extensive library, and on their website their publication index shows they covered the Davis guns ammunition in issue 46 of their newsletter. So they, or the author of the piece, may have what you seek.
by
John on September 8, 2004 06:10 AM
i really appretiate the effort u peple have made.i am an engineering student,working on a project of bomb disposal disrupters.disrupter is a small water cannon.i want to mount that disrupter on a robot ,thats why i want to make my disrupter recoilless.
can u give me more details about using ventuti principle in making recoilless disrupters.i'll be gratefull to u.you can email me.
by
ilyas on September 22, 2004 12:51 AM
i really appretiate effort made by u people.I am an engineering student,working on a project of bomb disposal disrupters.A disrupter is a small water cannon made for improvised explosive devices.I want to mount this disrupter on a robot.Thats whay i want to make it recoilless.
i want your help in this regard. i also heard about recoilless techology,what is it.please help me.you can email me on ilyasmailbox@yahoo.com
by
ilyas on September 22, 2004 08:34 PM
« Dismissed, Soldier!
by
John
on
May 21, 2004
»
King of Fools links with:
Cool Information
May 19, 2004
Answer to the gun stumper.
First off:
Quaff Quaff Quaff Quaff Quaff Quaff Quaff Quaff Quaff Quaff Quaff Quaff Quaff Quaff Quaff Quaff Quaff Quaff Quaff Quaff Quaff Quaff Quaff Quaff Quaff Quaff Quaff Quaff Quaff Quaff Quaff Quaff Quaff Quaff Quaff Quaff Quaff Quaff Quaff Quaff... buuuuurrrrrp!
It is something old - if 1945 qualifies as old.
Here's the original question and the answers.
It's not a muzzle-loading cannon. That would be one hell of a counterbore if it was! (For those who don't know - a counterbore is when you drill in from the muzzle, making the bore larger than the rifled portion. There are many reasons this is done, but in black powder weapons it was mainly done to prevent cracking. It can also be done to repair muzzle damage, and that is often done in small arms. The russian arsenal rebuilt Mosin rifles are sometimes found with counterbores.)
Those who guessed/deduced artillery - you are correct, as far as it goes. There are too many lands and grooves for a small arm. They are also too pronounced. And, too flat at the breech. There was no forcing cone - which should have given it way that it was not a small-bore arm, either. The 'rusty' portion is flat. That would be one odd looking cartridge - for a rifle or a tank or artillery piece. Another option would be separate loading artillery - but their breeches have some other tell-tales, such as the 'swiss groove' - and they too still have a forcing cone for the initial ram and seating of the projectile.
There is really only one weapon that fits the evidence (and you had to be able to figure out that there was no forcing cone): a recoiless rifle. Where the cartridge sits unsupported in the breech and the rifling is pre-engraved on the rotating band of the projectile.
I told you you were going to have to be a geek to get it. There were some very informed guesses. I was impressed. Calliope - your brother made a good guess too - it does look like the sleeve that would engage a prop shaft. And John, you were correct - it uses an abbreviated form of interrupted screw breech block.
The 'dirt' in the bore? The rust-colored stuff is cosmoline. The crunchy particulate matter is welding residue from when the weapon was dewatted and the bits carefully rewelded to meet ATF specs to still be a "non-gun."
Here's a picture with a slightly different POV.
The weapon in question? A 57mm M18 recoiless rifle. Made by Firestone, in Canada (note the "C" serial number), in 1945.
Reporting As Ordered, Sir! »
And what was the unofficial name given it during its early development?
Cheers
JMH
by
J.M. Heinrichs on May 19, 2004 09:19 PM
Wow. I dunno anything about artillery. I don't see how it could work right with the cartridge unsupported like that. But like I just said...
by
Calliope on May 19, 2004 09:55 PM
That's my basement!
by
Beth Donovan on May 20, 2004 06:19 AM
You win, John. I dunno, and none of my references (well, the ones I was willing to dig through) mention it.
Enlighten us!
by
John of Argghhh! on May 20, 2004 07:23 AM
Gosh, Calliope - I guess I'll have to take some more pictures... and a new post!
by
John of Argghhh! on May 20, 2004 07:24 AM
Well...if you're going to go to the trouble I'll be reading it. Points that raised my eyebrow:
1) How do you rapid feed a gun like that? It appears to me the loader has to be looking into the barrel to get the round in the barrel since it doesn't have a normal chamber.
2) I admit I was a bit surprised that the round has grooves to fit the rifling. Put simply...does that work? When you feed it do you have to rotate the round to get it to fit the rifling and seat?
3) It looks to me like the unsupported round would tend to explode. Is the casing unusually constructed since its unsupported by chamber walls to contain the explosion?
Don't get me wrong, its certainly a cool piece. Wish you could shoot it and take picture of THAT for us. :D
by
Calliope on May 20, 2004 08:33 AM
All good questions I will answer in the fullness of time (have to finish chores first before I can take the needful pictures).
by
John of Argghhh! on May 20, 2004 08:40 AM
"Kromuskit", see reference.
Cheers
JMH
by
J.M. Heinrichs on May 20, 2004 10:22 AM
I'd heard the term before, but always in reference to the 75mm reckless rifle. I assumed it was the name of the designer.
I do have to admit, however - while I am pleased you have discovered the URL button - I'm not very good at Finnish.
So I have found a easier to read link.
by
John of Argghhh! on May 20, 2004 11:30 AM
Oh wow. Your link has a Bren Gun. I watched the History Channel this week thinking that was a pretty darn cool weapon.
Do you have a Bren Gun John? That barrel swapping stuff just looked so cool to me.
by
Calliope on May 20, 2004 01:58 PM
Um, I have two. A Mk1 and a Mk2.
by
John of Argghhh! on May 20, 2004 02:28 PM
You name it, we have it - well, not everything. I really really want a Blunderbuss.
by
Beth Donovan on May 20, 2004 02:44 PM
All Hail the mighty WOMBAT
Weapon of Magnesium Battalion Anti-Tank
105mm RR. British Airborne nuts had them mounted on little tiny jeeps. With a .50 cal ballistically matched aiming rifle. The rifle hit, so would your shell. Most crews didn't have to wait for the .50 to hit
The jeep was there to get the hell away before the surviving enemy decided your now visible as hell position was just the place to fire any remaining machineguns.
To make it light most of it was magnesium castings. recall: Hunk magnesium doesn't burn easily, or no easier than aluminium.
by
Fred on May 21, 2004 11:15 AM
« Dismissed, Soldier!
May 18, 2004
Okay, firearms aficionados...
What's this?
If you want a bigger version... here.
Most of you will get the generic aspect of what... I'm after the specifics.
No prize other than bragging rights.
Reporting As Ordered, Sir! »
From the number of rifling grooves, I'm guessing it is something big. From the condition, I'm guessing it is something old. A Dahlgren or a Parrott?
by
triticale on May 18, 2004 07:24 AM
105mm howitzer
by
Sir Knight on May 18, 2004 08:20 AM
....
I was going to say a rusty chamber on an old rifle but I see that (once again) I might embarrass myself if I do that....
by
Calliope on May 18, 2004 09:15 AM
That's not rust - that's a preservative.
It is rust-colored, but it ain't rust!
by
John of Argghhh! on May 18, 2004 09:20 AM
Mom?
by
GE on May 18, 2004 09:38 AM
GE - you related to these people?
by
John of Argghhh! on May 18, 2004 10:25 AM
Ok, after quite a bit of thought, I'm not sure, but I has to be either one end of a barrel or the other. We're either looking up the barrel from the chamber, or down it from a flash suppresser/muzzle break. Of course, I could be, and probably am, totally wrong. In the end I have to go with the muzzle end of it as there doesn't seem to be any of the things you would expect to find in a chamber of any kind. In either case, it needs a cleaning, unless that's cosmolean, (is that the right spelling?), I see there in the forground.
by
Nick on May 18, 2004 11:37 AM
My evil plan is working. I have confused the masses...
Nick is both close, and very wrong.
Keep thinking!
You have to be either a real geek on the subject of firearms, or a lucky guesser, or a clever analyst to figure this one out.
Which is why I chose it!
by
John of Argghhh! on May 18, 2004 11:53 AM
My brother says its a transmission connecting yolk for a drive shaft.
by
Calliope on May 18, 2004 01:40 PM
Ok, the number of lands & grooves means that it is an artillery piece, and since you can see wear on this end, we are looking at the breech of said piece.
It must be a rather high caliber, I think prolly at least a 3". KNowing your love of militaria relating to WWI, I am betting it is a breech of a 76mm Fronch artilery.
I just never have heard of having so many lands and grooves in a weapon before. 24? That is an awful lot! They also don't seem to twist at all...
by
MunDane on May 18, 2004 04:19 PM
So few takers. I'm disappointed in youse guys!
by
John of Argghhh! on May 18, 2004 05:51 PM
So few takers? I have read through your comment list and notice only a few missing from your usual suspects that know so much. The rest of us... have not a clue! I would guess a big fish eye.
by
Boudicca on May 18, 2004 06:17 PM
I, on the otherhand, will seek the advice of a BSM tomorrow.
Cheers
JMH
by
J.M. Heinrichs on May 18, 2004 08:49 PM
Ah, so I will have to wait to reveal the answer until John has a chance to consult with his experts and render a verdict.
Here's a hint:... nah, nevermind. Wait for it!
by
John of Argghhh! on May 18, 2004 08:54 PM
He is the usual suspect I have been waiting for! Go, JMH, Go!
by
Boudicca on May 18, 2004 09:04 PM
Looking up the breach end of a M68 M68A1 105MM cannon, US gun based on the brit L7 naval gun for distroyers......
by
Eric on May 18, 2004 09:40 PM
Is it a Rodman gun?
by
xCavTrooper on May 19, 2004 06:14 AM
Eric, thanks for prompting me to quibble, but the current RN naval gun is the 115mm Mark 8 Mod 0 or 1, derived from the 105mm gun of the Abbott, from which was also derived the 105mm Light Gun, sometimes known as the M 119A1 Lightweight Towed Howitzer.
(ed note - Tankers seem to not be trainable about URL buttons...)
URL to prove John's point.
Cheers
JMH
by
J.M. Heinrichs, Capt on May 19, 2004 09:35 AM
*taps her foot impatiently*
by
Calliope on May 19, 2004 09:57 AM
We're all waiting on little Johnny...
8^)
by
John of Argghhh! on May 19, 2004 10:21 AM
Having been informed that John chooses to "Not Guess" I will reveal all this evening, after I get home from a day staring in the bowels of simulation output, divining the nature of reality therefrom.
by
John of Argghhh! on May 19, 2004 10:26 AM
Well okay; MunDane is correct in that the photo shows the Breech/chamber of a rifled gun. Eric mentioned the M68, which has a sliding breech, like that of the M119 and its' M2 predecessor, but the edges of the photo look to be that of an interrupted screw. That would mean a 155mm like unto the M198 or that Paladin thingy.
If I am incorrect, our host will undoubtablely begin quaffing spirits in quanity, ... but it ain't my fault, the Gunnery Gods were hiding today.
Cheers
JMH
by
J.M. Heinrichs, Capt on May 19, 2004 02:18 PM
(sounds of party)
Pop! Fizz. Pour. Sip. Aaaaaahhhhhhh!
But you are closer than you think, John.
And you are going to kick yourself when all is revealed later this evening.
Ah, sweet victory! Made even sweeter by the fact it was made in Canada...
by
John of Argghhh! on May 19, 2004 02:32 PM
Neener, neener neener - I know what it is!
And yes, John is very devious. And deviant!
by
Beth Donovan on May 19, 2004 03:09 PM
« Dismissed, Soldier!
February 03, 2004
Small Mortars, Part 1. The Japanese "Knee" Mortar.
Okay, lets face it. If you are an infantryman, life sucks. It sucks because your own guys make fun of you (as long as there is room to run). When they get sloppy they accidentally kill and maim you. The pay ain’t that great, and living under canvas or in muddy holes just isn’t all that much fun. (These are many of the reasons I was an artilleryman, lending dignity to what was otherwise a vulgar brawl). Add to that the crappy food, full of sand, smothered in flies (mmmmm, protein!), and living in filth with nasty, inadequate clothing (while those b*st*rd quartermaster guys lived in requisitioned houses and replaced all their clothes all the time, not to mention running the bath and laundry, and always treated you like you were stealing when you needed to replace something), and amusing yourself by seeing how many rats you could kill with your bayonet while waiting for the bombardment to end, or for those flying a**holes to drop their bombs and bugger out for 3 hots and cot with nightcaps at the club.
Then. THEN there’s that other poor dumb b*st*rd who is just as miserable as you are and he’s trying to kill you in the bargain. On purpose, not just by accident, like your own artillery, tanks, and aircraft are doing. (But ya wanna know the dirty little secret? Except when it's for real, and sometimes even then, good chunks of it is fun. As long as there's no serious blood, on either side).
Anyway, people who try to kill you suck. And ones who are trying to do it on purpose, well, they REALLY suck. And not in that nice “lady of the evening” way, either. These people just really, really suck.
So, first they tried to kill you by stabbing you, hacking you, bashing you.
Like with this Georgian infantry officer’s sword, Saxon battle axe, or Swedish war hammer, all standing in for the thousands of years that most people who sucked were trying to do you in at close range. What’s a feller to do? Sharp pointy things,
sharp-edged things, and blunt
objects HURT.
Flash Traffic (extended entry) Follows »
So, you try to keep people at a distance right? And kill them before they can get close to you. Initially, you go with that bow and arrow thing. But that’s a lot of work (especially cranking that damn crossbow). So, you keep bribing the guys who make the artillery to spend a little effort figuring out how to make little tiny artillery pieces so you can get some of that ‘kill ‘em at a distance’ action! Of course, those damn officers don’t like that much, preferring instead to give you cheap stuff they are comfortable with (and let’s face it, they aren’t that sure, given the way they treat you, they want you to be able to shoot at things far away, because well, y’know, ya might lose your bearings in a battle and shoot the wrong way, right? All as an accident, of course!
But, over time, the other poor dumb b*st*rd has a leader who wants to win, and so he arms his guys with guns and so you finally get some of that action because while your officers are mean, fat, and stupid, they don’t like losing either.
Even if the damn thing is a little long.
So, over time, people starting giving you things like these to stick in one end or the other of a tube of steel and you start plinking away. So then what happens? People who hide behind things so you can’t kill them suck.
Okay, two can play that game, and you start hiding too. But then it’s pretty hard to kill those guys who suck because they are trying to kill you. So, after a lot of hemming and hawing, people start handing out grenades so that you can toss them behind that palisade, fence, wall, mound of dirt, and get at those b*st*rds who are hiding there, waiting for a chance to pop up and kill you.
So THEN what happens? Someone gives that other guy a grenade, too. And people who throw grenades at you suck because they are loud and disturb your naps while hiding behind things so that people won’t kill you. And they hurt. Worse, they can kill. And people who do that to you, well, they suck. But since they have to expose themselves kinda to do that, people give you rifles, which shoot farther and more accurately than muskets, and then put telescopes on the rifles, so you can shoot that b*st*rd while he’s too far away to toss that grenade thingy at you.
Then the b*st*rds start giving you silly hats to wear. That just adds to the weight, doesn’t it? Like you don’t have enough other crap to carry around. Like this silly piece of kit that’s always in the way – but someone who REALLY REALLY REALLY sucks started tossing things like Phosgene and Chlorine around. That sucks.
Then as it always seems to happen, the other guy gets that stuff too, and you can go back to napping and leaving each other alone – except for that damn artillery. Of course, then you find out that the other guy has ambitious officers and he starts sending people who sneak up on you under the cover of darkness and throw grenades in your trench. And that sucks. So you put out some barbed wire and get creative with booby traps (booby trap pic). And you have those cool things like machine guns now. Except that you find out that Hiram Maxim (who sucks) has been selling them to everybody and their cousin and everybody has ‘em, and lets face it – people who mow you down in waves with machine guns just because you are trying to kill them suck.
Then, THEN! They take the snotty creeps in the Cavalry and put them in tanks. Now that really sucks. But that’s a different post. I only bring that up here to get out of this trap I’m in and end the War to End All Wars and move on to WWII so I can get to the little mortars.
So, here it is, November 12, 1918, millions of people are dead, and northern France and most of Belgium are pretty well candidates for urban removal. Heck, there are parts of France and Belgium in 2003 where people are finding remnants of the war, and farmers and relic hunters are getting injured by not-quite-dud ordnance and even pockets of Lewisite and mustard gas, which are damn persistent agents.
Okay. We all know there isn’t going to any more war, but heck, we’ve still got soldiers, so let’s do some analysis of the last war. And please please please, let’s have it be a war of maneuver, not position and pure attrition. So Basil Liddel-Hart and JFC Fuller put some thought into it, Heinz Guderian and Erwin Rommel put some thought into it, Marshal Tukhachevskii, Charles De Gaulle, and George Patton too.
Thus our poor dumb b*st*rd infantryman found himself schlepping all that stuff across the countryside (unless he was lucky enough to be motorized) but he still had that problem of people who sucked trying to shoot him, stab him, club him, and hide from him behind stuff so that he couldn’t shoot them. Inconsiderate jerks.
One of the problems with grenades is that about the best the average Joe can do is 35 yards or so. And frankly, you like to keep the bad guy farther away than that. And, what the heck, why not have a bigger bang at that end, too? But – too big a round and you start having to haul some pretty hefty stuff around. So, let’s think small. In the 50-60mm range. Small enough that one guy can hump the mortar itself, along with some ammo, and everybody can carry a few rounds in the platoon, and you’ve got yourself a little gizmo that can get that jerk behind the berm.
Today, we’ll look at the Japanese response to this. In later installments, we’ll look at the US versions, both the Airborne and regular (i.e., with a bipod and baseplate) and the Brit version. The Brit version came in two types as well, a long and a short. We’ll have to settle for the long, since I don’t have a short one. Anyone know of a cheap German and Soviet 50mm platoon mortar that needs a new home, drop me a line!
The Japanese mortar is called the Type 89 Leg Mortar. They called it that because when you put it in it's carrying case, you then strapped it to your leg. In a translation error, it became known as the 'Knee' mortar. This was further reinforced when photos were found of Japanese soldiers holding the mortar on their thigh. These were just cheese photos to impress the Geishas back home - as several GIs found out when they broke their leg trying to shoot 'em. The impression is further reinforced because the baseplate is curved.
Here's a pic of the base, along with, from left to right, a mortar round, Type 91 grenade, and a Brit No. 36 Mills bomb for comparison.
This thing weighs about 11 pounds and fires round weighing 20 to 30 ounces. There was provision to add a small launching charge to the bottom of grenades and you could fire them as well. It was decently accurate and ranged out to over 600 meters.
Tech data:
Actual Data:
Barrel Length: 248mm
Overall Length: 608mm
Weight: 4.7kg
Range with Type 89 Grenade: 650m
Range with non-Type 89 Grenade: 190m
Year Introduced: 1929
The mortar was aimed by holding it at a 45 degree angle and using the white line on the barrel, aligning on the target. There is a clinometer for it, and if anyone has one they don't want anymore, let me know! Range was achieved by an adjusting nut that moved a rod up and down the rifled barrel. The deeper in the barrel, the farther the round would go. It was fired by pulling on a leather handle attached to the trigger. The purpose-built rounds had copper rotating bands and low-pressure expansion chambers that would cause the copper to expand and engage the rifling.
Here is a photo of a Japanese soldier firing a Type 89.
So, there you have a look at the Japanese solution to giving the platoon a little mobile firepower under their direct control. Next time we visit this, we'll hit the Brit version. Below is a picture of the Type 89 The other rounds with it are from left to right - French 50mm, US 60mm, and Brit 2 inch (51mm). The Allies went for a bigger bang with their rounds - we'll see what, if any, the trade-offs were.
Remember, troops - the object in combat is to make the OTHER poor dumb b*st*rd die for his country.
« Secure this line!
Reporting As Ordered, Sir! »
by
John
on
Feb 03, 2004
»
INDC Journal: "Documenting the Moonbat Swarm" links with:
Another Warning and Something for the Gun Nuts
December 21, 2003
Ta-daaaa! PIAT P0rn!
Okay, ladies and gents, the wait is over. PIAT P0rn is here! Here you see Pete PIAT next to Carl the Gustav. (Yeah, I'm lazy, still haven't lugged Carl back to his shelf). While it was kinda covered in the comments to the original tease post below, we'll get into the down and dirty of Pete today.
I was going to direct you to a site that details a battle during WWII where a PIAT gunner won the Victoria Cross. But proud Canadian Dr. Funk beat me to the punch. To save you having to drop down, I'll just stick it right in here. Hat tip to Dr. Funk saving me any further work on that aspect (and a salute to PIAT Gunner Smith, I might add!)
Okay, so what did you do with a PIAT? You shot these. You shot them direct fire mode at point targets, like tanks, pillboxes, machine guns, etc. Or you shot them indirect fire at area targets out to 370 meters. A good gunner could hit point targets out that far as well, but the geometry of sighting could get a little complex - especially if you were trying to keep your head from getting shot off!
In Brit parlance, this is a bomb. It's a shaped-charge warhead, capable of defeating most WWII tank armor, if not the frontal armor of the last generation german tanks, certainly the top and flank and rear armor.
What were the challenges here? Well, number one, shaped charges do NOT like to be spun, it disperses the plasma jet that does the actual damage. So that ruled out a gun. Plus, this weapon was intended for leg (actual walking, non-motorized) infantry and airborne forces initially. So they tried to keep it a little bit on the light side. (It's still a monster to hump). So, how to make a recoiless gun without it being a gun - and yet able to absorb the recoil of a 3 pound projectile being sent with enough ooomph to travel 370 meters?
You make it a spigot mortar. With a whopping huge spring to absorb the recoil. And you stick what amounts to a .303 blank in the tail of the bomb, making the tail, in effect, the barrel.
With the rod retracted, you set the bomb in the flanges on either side of the hole. The base of the bomb is flared to fit these flanges and hold tight. The flanges served to hold it in place and align the tail for the rod. Holding in place was important when you were above your target, such as during the city fighting for Arnhem Bridge during Operation Market-Garden.
Flash Traffic (extended entry) Follows »
When you are ready to fire, you aim, pull the trigger, releasing the rod, with it's firing pin end. That flies up the tail, hits the blank, and away goes the bomb. And you, boyo, had better be leaning into that thing, so that the impact doesn't break your shoulder and there is enough resistance to recock the spring. Otherwise you are in a world of pain as you try to recock a 200lb spring while laying down under fire, just having pissed off the enemy.
This is the spring we're talking about. Even using the manual, I have a hard time resetting the spring and I'm no small fella and I can still bench 275 lbs.
In this picture, I want to point out several things. The monpod is extended to achieve maximum range. This indicates it is a Mark II version of the PIAT, evidenced by the adjustable monopod. At the same time, the direct fire (out to 100 meters) sights are extended. That would be the two post-like thingys sticking up from the slab-sided items offset to the right on the top of the spring housing above as well as behind the trigger.
You use these sights like a conventional rifle. Look through the appropriate peep for the range, find the front post, align on target, pull trigger - and hope you were leaning in and on target.
To hit those jerks too far away for direct fire, or who are hiding from you (the b*st*rds!) you used the indirect fire - essentially firing in the same way a 2inch mortar (subject of a later post) was fired.
If you note on the range plate, you see the letters "HA". High Angle. This was used for long range shooting (you can see the graduations out to 370m) or closer in where you needed plunging fire to clear an intervening obstacle (like the jerks hiding behind the tank you just took out).
At the rear of the sight (on the right in the pic) you see a leveling bubble, also shown in the pic below. You set the range, then you used the white line on the casing to align the PIAT on the target. You then leveled the bubble, either by adjusting the way the butt sits, digging out underneath the butt, adding something under the butt to raise it, or, less likely in HA mode, adjust the monopod up front. Then you pulled the trigger. For low angle shots you used the obscured part of the sight, went through all that leveling stuff, and fired.
Despite how complex it sounds (and it is, it takes a lot of practice to make a good PIAT gunner and have the sense for the long shot) it could be done quickly and efficiently by trained (and motivated) gunners. The Brits kept the PIAT in service into the 50's, eventually replacing it with the US M18 3.5inch bazooka (subject of a later post), and then the Carl Gustav reckless rifle coyly hiding behind Pete here.
Well, there ya have it, ladies and gents. Now you can all rush out, get a PIAT, and start practicing. BTW - these are not classified as destructive devices anymore, and anyone who can buy a rifle can buy one of these (Federal law - state law may differ, especially in the Borg collectives of New Jersey and California). Why? Because if you can find a LIVE PIAT round, you've got yourself a $3000 piece of gear (that IS a class III destructive device) and there aren't any of those legally registered.
« Secure this line!
Reporting As Ordered, Sir! »
Sweet. Thanks, John!
by
Sophorist on December 21, 2003 10:15 PM
Thanks for the hat tip. Incidentally, I heard once that Smith was one of those classic soldiers with "Velcro chevrons". Supposedly, not long after the VC, he'd been made a Sergeant and got into a fight on leave..which resulted in his having his rank taken away again. Which explains why he was only a Sergeant when he retired in the 60s.
by
Dr_Funk on December 21, 2003 10:52 PM
« Dismissed, Soldier!
December 04, 2003
It's been busy...
But for you Regular Readers who are looking for new gun pics, I've got some stuff on the fire. I haven't forgotten you - I just had other things to do! Keep checking!
And thanks for hanging around (and even bugging me - you know who you are...) No! No! The rest of you - Do Not Bug Me!
Reporting As Ordered, Sir! »
November 26, 2003
Maximizing the Maxim, Part VII - 2.
Good day, boys and girls! (Special handwave to Gunner and Sasa!) Two days ago we learned that the Sokolov Pulemyot Maxima, M1910, was HONKING HEAVY! And, as anyone who has ever schlepped a ruck, ammo, water, and weapon knows, troops don't like stuff that's heavy.
At all. So, in order to achieve that nearly 100 pound load for the gun, they took the thirty pound gun (with water) and put it on a 70 pound wheeled carriage.
Flash Traffic (extended entry) Follows »
Well, if you are going to expect the troops to lug that thing around (can you imagine doing that in woods? Marsh?) you better give them something to work with. In this case - a towing lunette. Run a rope through it and the crew can share the load. It is better than this approach, perhaps.
Photo
It *is* a complicated versatile mount. The rear legs fold up underneath for easier stowage. The turntable allows left to right traverse. The whole upper mount slides forwards and backwards on the lower mount to allow a great range of movement to account for being in holes, or on high ground shooting down, or low ground having to shoot high. The original version of the mount had two more legs in front so that you could elevate is sufficiently to use it in an anti-aircraft role. More weight, more complexity, that feature was dropped during WWI. The wheels are made of wood, in the classic fashion of wagon wheel design.
Photo
Getting a little closer, we better see the details of the elevation mechanism. Unlike the british Vickers gun, which also had a graduated dial on the mount for precision firing on known targets that either couldn't be seen or to engage multiple targets in an indirect fire mode, the Maxim has only a fine adjustment for elevation, to help gunners attack targets at long range by shooting at a pre-determined elevation. The big black handle was used to level the gun. The coarse thread screw was used for fine adjustment, and the elevation was read off the silver dial. The smaller lever on the upper mount is the release for moving the upper mount forwards or backwards on the rails of the lower mount.
Photo
All right, boys and girls, that concludes our series on Max the Maxim and all his cool accessories. If you thought this was a long series, wait until I decide to tackle the Vickers!
All the parts of this series can be accessed here in the Gun Pics archives.
« Secure this line!
Reporting As Ordered, Sir! »
November 25, 2003
Maximizing the Maxim, Part IV
Okay, boys and girls. Today's installment in "Maximizing the Maxim" concerns ammo cans and the things you stuff in them. Let's start with the older stuff.
Here is a WWII era Finn ammo can. As you can see, it has a cloth belt, essentially unchanged since WWI in design. There is an outside chance it started life in the Imperial Russian Army, but that's not likely. If it started life as a sovietski, then it was early - as we shall see later in the post.
The belt has a metal starter tab, to help you get it through the feedblock. The canvas belt has brass spacers that serve to keep the belt tight enough to hold cartridges (though a stretched belt could be rehabbed by getting it wet and letting it shrink (with bullets IN it). Every fourth brass spacer is extended. This is mainly to give the person doing the loading a visual cue about how far forward to push the rounds. The belt is thickened at the leading edge, so that the leading edge is roughly the same thickness as the rear with the cartridge in it. This improves feed reliability.
Photo
Next (below) is a post-war Finn ammo can, marked with the now-familiar (if you've read all this series) SA mark.
Flash Traffic (extended entry) Follows »
Unlike the previous can, which has a canvas carrying strap, this can's strap is leather. Other than that, the cans are identical.
Photo
The contents differ, however. This can has a post-war steel belt. For those of you familiar with more modern machineguns- the Maxim style guns, including the Vickers, didn't use disintegrating link belts. The way the action works, there is a tendency to jam. It wasn't like they didn't try! I haven't come across information as to which belting system was preferred operationally. I do know from experience, even with a belt-loading machine, the steel belts are easier to load and aren't as prone to having rounds fall out.
Photo
Okay, coming up next down below is a Soviet can. You can tell because it's stamped with a star, and some stiffening ribs. There are differing accounts as to whether the Soviets discontinued this in WWII to speed up production. The records, if there, haven't been found (or translated into english, anyway).
Photo
What makes this can unique is the contents. Not a belt, but tongs and cans. Fitted to the case, to make it easier to carry (if not much lighter, being filled with fluids) and to fit in pre-built racks, etc on vehicles.
Photo
Most sources say the cans carried, in decreasing order of size, water, lubricant, and solvent. I'm frankly sceptical that the large can carried water - simply because it isn't enough to fill the water jacket. The argument goes that it functioned as a condenser and was used to refill the water jacket. That's possible, but the hose doesn't fit well in the cap opening and the can is very unstable with the hose in it. As you slew the gun left and right while firing, the can falls over pretty easily. But, who knows until some of that russian stuff gets out into english or german, which I can read! Solvent and oil makes perfect sense. The tongs are an extra pair to the ones in the gunners kit for retrieving brass casings that failed to eject and are jamming the recoil mechanism. Pretty clever, really, in terms of trying to make it easier to keep all the stuff you need to feed and care for Max with his crew.
Photo
Here's one last shot showing the cans stacked on one another to show off the fitted nature of the cans (and to highlight the stability issue I talked about earlier.
Photo
That's it for today, boys and girls. Tune in again for Maximizing the Maxim, Part VII - 1, the Sokolov mount.
« Secure this line!
Reporting As Ordered, Sir! »
November 24, 2003
Max the Maxim, Part Kolme*
I suddenly realized I've been a bad boy! I never gave you Max's stats! Of course, none of you ever asked for them, either, so I guess ya didn't care that much or choose (wisely, I might add) to do some research on your own. Here are some relevant numbers to the following discussion of spare barrels and carriers, and future posts about ammo cans, belts, water and lubrication cans and finally, Max's "wheels," his Sokolov mount.
Sokolov Pulemyot Maxima
Operation: Recoil operated, water-cooled, full auto only
Caliber: 7.62x54mm Rimmed (7.62 Russian)
Ammunition: Heavy Ball M1930; 185 gr bullet, 50 gr charge
Muzzle velocity: 2830 fps
Capacity: 250-round fabric, steel, or aluminum belt
Weight: 52.8 lbs, unloaded (Honking Heavy!)
Weight: 99.71 lbs, approx, with shield and water (Honking Heavier!)
Overall length: 43.6 in
Barrel: length 28.4 in, 4 grooves, right hand twist
Rate of fire: 520-580 rpm
Effective range: 1000m (1100 yds)
Okay, we can shoot 1000 rounds in under two minutes. In about 4 minutes we'll have boiling water, and in about 5 minutes we're gonna need to change barrels. Plus, we're pounding the heck out of his innards. How many of you put 1000 rounds through a gun, much less 5 thousand? Plus, he's HONKING HEAVY! I know, I display him up on a shelf about 4.5 feet high. I had to take him down to take pictures. Then I put him back up. He's heavy! Anyway, now do ya see why Max has all this cool kit? So, let's move on to spare barrels and the carriers that carry them.
These are Finn carriers. The Finns were willing and able to spend some time and money on their stuff. Let's turn the page and look closer.
Flash Traffic (extended entry) Follows »
The russian barrel carriers are like the gunners kits - grey canvas with leather reinforcements, slung over the shoulder. The Finn gunner's kits could be slung or mounted on your belt. The carriers were slung. The big one is made of wood. It has a hole in the bottom to aid drainage in the crappy weather conditions in which most battles are fought. It's hot and wet, hot and dry, wet, dry, cold and wet, etc. It's just never 68 with a slight breeze. God really doesn't approve of war, y'know?
Photo
Here, in an admittedly crappy shot, we see the barrel nestled in it's little wooden house, waiting for it's moment to defend the honor and integrity of Finland. Though you can't see it well (hey, I'll try to get another pic, keep yer shirt on) you can see the the grooves in the breech face to ensure alignment of the lock, and the trunnions, the bumps on the sides of the barrel that fit into the recoil plates. When you look at the fitted wood, the the lathe turned body of the carrier, you get some appreciation of the amount of effort that went into these. Not knowing how many barrels were damaged by the less-robust russian carriers, I don't have a good feel for whether or not this was a good application of wartime resources.
Photo
This is a shot of the SA property mark on the carrier.
Photo
Okay - here's a shot of the barrel removed from the carrier. Yes, it's greasy. I keep it that way, since it's stored in a concrete room. You can see on the left the thicker portion of the barrel where it emerges from the water jacket into the booster cup. At the other end, you can see the bronze trunnion bearing, and the trunnions themselves, those knobs on the side of the square part. In front of the bronze bearing you can see a cannelure, or groove. That is where you wrapped the asbestos string.
Photo
Alright, let's finish out this bit with a close-up of the leather carrier - which, frankly, probably took as much effort in terms of time and resources to make as the wood carrier. Again we see the SA property mark - I don't know what the T is, it could be an inspector or a manufacturer's mark. Or even a unit mark. Anyone?
As a final thought - the reason that the Finns may have been using leather and wood is because they had it available. I don't know of much cotton that's grown in that region, and supplies might have been scarce in ways they were'nt for the Soviets.
Coming up in Part IV - Ammo cans, belts, and other things you stick in ammo cans.
*I'm led to believe that Kolme is 'three' in Finnish.
Previous posts in this series are here. And Here. And Here.
« Secure this line!
Reporting As Ordered, Sir! »
How long did it take to change a barrel out?
by
gunner on November 24, 2003 07:36 PM
Depends on how well trained, scared, and tired you were - as well as environmental conditions.
I've never done it in these kinds of weapons - I'll see what I can dig up.
by
John of Argghhh! on November 24, 2003 07:38 PM
T could stand for manufacturer, as Maxims, Suomi smg's and spare parts, etc. were produced in the factories of Oy Tikkakoski ab.
One just wonders, why gun works would do leather accessories..
And yes, kolme is three. :)
by
Sasa on November 25, 2003 07:20 PM
« Dismissed, Soldier!
Maxim P0rn, part Deux.
Greetings once again, Gun P0rn fans! Today we extend the discussion of Max the Maxim by showing off his accessories, the usually overlooked area of collecting firearms.
Nothing makes a bureaucrat happier than to increase the soldier's load. And boy, were Russians good at it! Loading up, I mean. Not that they have a lock on it. Take a look at US light infantry on the march.
Let's start with Max's nice leather handbag shall we?. Well, okay, it's his gunner's actually. But when it comes to things like this, we should consider the gunner to be Max's personal assistant. Isn't this just precious? This is the Finnish version. The Russians preferred a nice canvas and leather number.
That's just so special! So, what does the good personal assistant carry around with him? Well, let's go check!
Flash Traffic (extended entry) Follows »
So, he carries this stuff, obviously!
Photo
We have to have our tongs! How else can we get the damn brass that fails to go out the ejection port and gums up the works? Then, we need that list, so we can make sure we always have all our fiddly bits. Quit straining your eyes - unless you can read finnish, of course. Then, in that nice little line of fitted pockets we have the cleaning brush, ruptured cartridge extractor, the missing punch, cleaning jag (for use with a cleaning patch), and the not-missing punch.
Photo
Stepping away a bit, we see the oil can and the brass thingy is a spare nut for the water hose. Under the spout of the oil can we see the handle of the combination tool (of which more later), and what looks like a brass rod is in fact a special tool, used in conjunction with the ruptured cartridge extractor, for getting into the breech of the gun and removing cartridges that failed to extract due to the head pulling away.
In the tin laying open in the corner, you have spare firing pins, springs, washers, pins, etc. The can occupies the empty pocket in the case. The white cotton looking stuff is abestos string, which is used to wrap around the barrel and provide a waterproof seal between the water jacket and barrel. Wash your hands after playing with that stuff, children. And don't stick your fingers in your mouth, either!
Photo
Let's take a closer look (much closer) at the combo wrench. The finns have marked it as their property (that SA-in-a-square). The wrench head has been welded to the shaft. I don't know if that is a standard russian method, or if the Finns put their own together. So, let's see some of the things you can do with this puppy.
Photo
The screwdriver head is for removing the steam tube from inside the water jacket, whether for cleaning or repair.
Photo
The square hole is for removing/tightening the booster cup.
Photo
One of the pins on the side is for cleaning the holes in the booster cup while the gun is still in service (there is a lot of carbon build up in this area which affects performance and wear on the barrel, as we'll see later) or as an alternative wrench should the square lug 'round' off. The other pin is used for some interior disassembly that I just can't get a good picture of.
Photo
Here we see the booster cup removed, the well-greased muzzle of the barrel protruding. The barrel is not that thickness throughout, it's just that thick for about another half inch. The purpose of that is weight, to control recoil, heat dissipation from the booster, and to provide enought surface area for the gases to work against. The combo tool and cup are sitting on a being-restored WWI german water can, which was freely used by all who came across it since it was so well thought out.
Photo
The combo tool has one more use I haven't discussed. Reamer. This is the 'handle'. As you can see it's serrated and fairly sharp.
Photo
This end inserts into the muzzle booster to clean the carbon out and improve functional reliability. This needed to be done every couple thousand rounds, (belts are 250 rounds, so it won't take long) or anytime the barrel needs changing. These weapons were almost always used in pairs, so that one would be capable of firing while the other was swapping barrels, clearing a blockage, etc.
Okay - that's it for now. Coming soon, Part III, Spare Barrels and their Carriers!
UPDATE: Many Thanks to Sasa, who provided this translation of the list in the gunner's kit:
Here is translation of that sheet in the bag (picture 2), those lines I could read, starting under handle of pliers. It is not accurate translation though, english is not my native language, and I have no knowledge of guns. I just look at the pretty pictures.
hylsypihdit = cardridge pliers
hylsynpoistin, kannallinen = cardridge remover, with counterfoil
hajoituskara (? I don't recognise word "kara"..), 3,9 ja 5 mm = dismantling axle
peltirasia, johon kuuluu = tin container, which contains
- iskuri = hammer
- iskujousi 2 kpl = 2 hammer springs
- yläpitimen jousi = "upper holder" spring
- yläpitimen apujousi = auxiliary upper holder spring
- alapidin = lower holder
- sulkuvälin asetinlevy = "applicator plate of lock space"
- asbestilankaa 2 m = asbestos string 2 m
Sasa - your english is at least as good as my German, the only other language I will admit to speaking!
« Secure this line!
Reporting As Ordered, Sir! »
Here is translation of that sheet in the bag (picture 2), those lines I could read, starting under handle of pliers. It is not accurate translation though, english is not my native language, and I have no knowledge of guns. I just look at the pretty pictures.
hylsypihdit = cardridge pliers
hylsynpoistin, kannallinen = cardridge remover, with counterfoil
hajoituskara (? I don't recognise word "kara"..), 3,9 ja 5 mm = dismantling axle
peltirasia, johon kuuluu = tin container, which contains
- iskuri = hammer
- iskujousi 2 kpl = 2 hammer springs
- yläpitimen jousi = "upper holder" spring
- yläpitimen apujousi = auxiliary upper holder spring
- alapidin = lower holder
- sulkuvälin asetinlevy = "applicator plate of lock space"
- asbestilankaa 2 m = asbestos string 2 m
by
Sasa on November 24, 2003 05:38 PM
Sasa! Kiittää!
by
John of Argghhh! on November 24, 2003 06:42 PM
« Dismissed, Soldier!
November 20, 2003
Update on Max the Maxim
For those of you who were in here before 7:30 AM CST today or last night - some new pics and info have been added to the Maxim post. It's at the very end - concerning the fusee spring and cover.
Hmmm. I wonder if "Max the Maxim Gun Porn" will get me linkers from Google looking for the magazine? Almost like all those guys around the 'sphere who were writing about the Paris Hilton XXX Video floating around.
I'd never do that of course. That would be bad.
Off to the Nut Mines supervised by Evil Squirrels! See ya later.
Reporting As Ordered, Sir! »
November 19, 2003
New! Improved! Max the Maxim Gun Porn! What's not to like?
Alrighty, get ready for an orgiastic celebration of gun ownership. No humans were filmed nude for this feature.
Those of you, like Gunner and Ghost of a Flea, who have been following me since Beth and I first got started on Blogspot, will vaguely remember having met Max the Maxim before, when I blogged about helping all my lethal implements accessorize.
Well, via that post, you know Max's history. Let's lift the curtain on the newest Chippendale Dancer! A well-traveled M1910 Maxim Machine Gun...
Here he is, peeking from out behind the curtain...
Now shoo away the faint of heart and come behind the curtain for the rest of the show!
Flash Traffic (extended entry) Follows »
Here's Max fully on stage now, wearing this nice little cotton duck number - it keeps his niblets from getting all grungy in that battlefield environment.
Photo
Max is fully accessorized, from his gunner's cute little Budyanka to his spare barrels (don't we wish we all had spare barrels!) he's fully equipped to service his target! He's even got a shield for Safe Penetration of the Enemy's Lines!
Photo
Here he is, in a full monty! Slinky hose, booster cup, water jacket to keep that barrel from overheating, shield, and all on a nice, three way adjustable, battlefield mobility enhancer. Max needs those wheels. He's a hefty feller!
Photo
Shake yer booty Max! Show 'em that empennage... the charging handle, the feed tray, the grips, so your gunner can control you. That erect sight, to help him get his rounds on target!
Photo
Ah, let's show them where it goes in! Whether it's a belt of bullets in the feed trayon the left, or water into the water jacket through that fitting where the chain is - here is where the action is!
Photo
Okay - as we covered your history in the first post back on blogspot - let's show them the evidence. The "Korj, 1944" means Max got rebuilt in 1944. The mark below that is the state arsenal mark - the people who did the rebuild. The SA in a square stands for Suuomen Armee, or Finnish Army. Remember, Max defected during the Winter War! He was born an Imperial Russian in 1917.
Photo
Here is Max's working end, as opposed to his business end! Rear sight, trigger, grips, charging handle. The item that looks like a holster, kind of is - it holds Max's spare firing lock. These guns didn't use a bolt like we think of them, they used a 'lock'. More of that fiddly-bit later.
Photo
Here is where the gunner caressed Max (not that Max is gay, really, but, well, it's complicated.) The grips are wood, checkered for gripping. The tops of the grips unscrew, and there are oil brushes inside. In sustained fire mode, Max needs oil as his mechanism gets very hot and expands. In the middle, the horizontal rectangular plate is the trigger. Above it, the much smaller squarish gizmo is the safety. You have to push that in with one thumb before you could depress the trigger with your other. Here's an example. My thumb is on the trigger. Jus a little above and to the right is the safety.
Photo
Here is a shot of Max's guts. On top, in green, is the fusee spring cover. This covers the spring that returns the gun to battery after recoil resets the action. It's adjustable, so as the spring starts to wear out, you can up the tension in combat until you have a break and can replace the spring.
In the middle is the main part of the action. The knowledgeable among you will immediately detect that Max is a dummy. His sideplates are too thick and he's missing his recoil plates, the transfer the energy of the recoiling barrel to the lock and locking arm. On the right, is the lock. Behind is the rod with a knee joint in it, kind of like the Luger pistol and it serves the same purpose - to rigidly hold the lock in place until pressure has dropped sufficiently for it to be safe to open the lock.
Photo
Speaking of the lock - here is Max's spare lock, free from the carrier on the mount. Odd looking, ain't it. As Robin Williams might say, "What a ridiculous piece of flesh!"
Photo
So, how does that lock thingy work, anyway? To cock any Maxim style machine gun from a 'cold start' you have to work the mechanism twice. On the first throw, you are pulling the lock back and sending it forward. When you do that, it looks like this.
Photo
At this point, all you've done is caught the first round from the belt. So, you pull back the charging handle again, and it looks like this.
Photo
Now, you have one round (the lower one) in the chamber, and one round ready to be stripped from the belt.
The lock is vewy vewy dangewous now - so be caweful!
Why? Because the lock is not only the bolt - it also contains the firing pin, firing pin spring AND SEAR. One of the dangers of a Maxim-style gun is that you can fire the round at the firing pin without the lock being seated against the barrel! This lock has been demilled to make it safe in that regard. The grooves which would hold the round over the firing pin hole have been ground away (the finns did that, this was an instructional bolt) and the firing pin tip has been ground away as well. Which is fine with me. The 7.62x54MM cartridge is a damn powerful one to have go off in your hand. The rounds you see are purpose-built Soviet dummy rounds, used for armorer testing and instruction.
Photo
To finish the cycle, you pull the trigger, the round fires, the action cycles, and the round that was on top is in the middle, the one in the middle is heading down the discharge tube after being fired, and a new round has been gripped, ready to be stripped from the belt. What's the whole process, you ask?
Simple, like all Maxim-style guns including the Vickers, at the muzzle end you have a 'booster' of some sort -which is really just a surface for the gasses to work against to generate pressure to start the BARREL into recoil. The US M1919-series guns work that way, as do the German MG34 and 42. This is Max's booster.
Photo
The holes let excess gas bleed out after having done its job. The barrel recoils back and two 'recoil plates' attached to the trunnions on the barrel (more on that in Part Two, Accessorizing the Maxim) act against the rod carrying the lock, causing it to start back and and then starts working against the fusee spring, which is in the fusee spring housing, outside the receiver on Max's left side.
Photo
Why is that outside? Seems, well, like risky? It's outside because you need to be able to adjust the spring (the sliding scale thing up front), replace the spring, or replace the fusee link - that bit at the back end of the spring that actually works on the rod).
Photo
This is also where Max's 'birthmark is", showing his Tsarist beginnings.
Photo
Okay, that does it for today - tomorrow (or maybe later, these things take time to do, fellas): Accessories!
« Secure this line!
Reporting As Ordered, Sir! »
Great shots. As you said it is a dummy, is it built up from a de-milled kit? Like the ones I see of assault rifles with the receivers torch cut.
by
gunner on November 19, 2003 09:22 PM
Yes. All original parts except the sideplates and missing the recoil plates (that's why the sideplates are so thick).
by
John of Argghhh! on November 19, 2003 09:26 PM
Nice...thanks for the explanation of how that puppy works.
by
Sophorist on November 19, 2003 11:54 PM
« Dismissed, Soldier!
by
John
on
Nov 19, 2003
»
Boots and Sabers links with:
Drool
»
The Anti-Idiotarian Rottweiler links with:
My Kind of Maxim
»
Electric Venom links with:
The Letter Of The Day Is J
»
Sophoristically Speaking links with:
blog spotlight: john of argghhh!!!
October 19, 2003
Sunday GunPorn™
Okay! Today let's take a look at a sexy little number who actually hails from Poland, the Degtyarev Pechotnyi 28. This little number was the first Soviet designed (as opposed to inherited (?!?) from the Tsar. Using a modified Kjellman Frijberg locking system (hehehehehe - I love to toss that stuff around) the DP introduced a locking system still in use in russian and russian-derived machine guns. It uses a fat firing pin with recesses cut in the sides. As the pin goes forward, it cams 'flaps' out of the side of the bolt which lock the bolt in place when firing, and on recoil, the retreating pin cams them back out again. Fast, robust, simple to make, and not affected by dirt as much (too bad you can't say the same for the magazine!
Oh, you want less words, more picture? Okay. Here you go!
She's shown here with her little friend, a Polish-made TT-33 Tokarev pistol, made in 1953, that has a safety (unlike the original soviet pistol). His safety was built in from the get-go, not like the butcher-job safeties put on recent imports in order to get them past the ATFE inspectors.
Time to get funky - let's go behind the curtain....
Flash Traffic (extended entry) Follows »
Ya make it? Okay, close that thing behind you, don't want any Gun Fearing Wussies coming in and fainting or wetting their pants. I hate it when that happens.
So, noticed that big flat magazine? Right pain in the ass it is, too.
Photo
Degtyarev chose this flat, sheet metal drum magazine because he wanted to get a lot of rounds in it, but didn't want to make the gun's profile any higher than it already was. He didn't want it looking like the Bren, for example.
It's a simple magazine, but it's slow to reload, so you had to carry chests and bags of spare magazines. As with all guns of this era, she can nicely accessorize!
Photo
Here you see her with all her magazine bits exposed! And her gunner's kit, with cleaning rod, multi-tool, blank firing adaptor, spare springs, oil bottle and other fancy stuff. You can also see the length of the receiver resulting from the need to chamber and eject the relatively long 7.62x54R round. All in all, a nicely equipped babe. She is a bit hefty though - weighing 26.5 pounds loaded.
And with that bipod, she's kinda nose-heavy when walking her around.
Let's close today's show with a little spread-leg closeup!
Photo
« Secure this line!
Reporting As Ordered, Sir! »
by
John
on
Oct 19, 2003
»
AlphaPatriot links with:
Argghhh!
»
Say Uncle links with:
Uh Oh!
October 16, 2003
More GunP0rn™
I was busy yesterday, and will be again today, so my commentary will be light again (not that most of you come here for that...). Oddly enough, Misha links to my post yesterday, everyone comes here to look at the pictures, and goes back there to comment. Weird the way it works. Like reading your local paper and sending your Letters to the Editor to Time.
Anyway - as the discussion ran it's usual meandering way into a discussion of the various merits of which arm, which caliber, etc, Ironbear broke in with a comment "But absolutely nothing says "I love you" like a Carl Gustav M2 M550 round through the window..."
I was inspired. So here she is, that stocky little Scandinavian number, the M2 Carl Gustav 84mm RCL! So here's to you, Ironbear, GustavPorn™!
So, there she is on stage, all her bits covered, and the strap dangling deliciously akimbo on her shoulder. This little sweetheart was born in Sweden, and later emigrated to Israel. She came to the US after the IDF dumped her for another woman! Talk about miffed! She was dumped for her younger sister! She's still proud of who she is, and doesn't hide her identity from anyone.
Want to know more? Then come behind the curtain... no cover charge, no tip to the maitre 'd blog....
Flash Traffic (extended entry) Follows »
Here she is, having dropped her covers and exposed her bits!
Now she kicks up her legs and gives us an upskirt shot!
Here's a shot of her up-front bumps, for use by Manly Men™ who like a No-Frills Woman™ and want to get down and dirty up close! However, when she accessorizes, she can enhance those bumps and keep the Other Poor Dumb Bastard™ at a distance!
What!?! Who is this? Two of her friends, Illum and TP-HEAT have come to help out with the show!
Arrrrreeee ya ready to rrruuuuuuummmmmmbbbbbllleee!!!!!????? Here is her Sharon Stone™ shot!
And to top it off, (turn the lights down, guys - and check out the windows for the cops).
Wait for it.
Wait for it.
Here it is! Insertion!
Ooops! Looks like TP-HEAT has suffered pre-backblastulation!
Technical Non-innuendoed Note™: Now you can see how this particular reckless rifle works. Instead of venturis, the base of the cartridge case holds in just long enough to launch the projectile, then gives way and blows out the vent. This is why you don't stand behind a reckless rifle gunner, and why shooting these things from inside buildings is, well, exciting, to say the least!
BTW - LE-types... if you check the last displayed (vice linked) photo, you can see the brighter line just in front of the rifling? This represents the edge of the bore-diameter hole cut in the breech. She thoughtfully covers her ugly surgery scar with the cheek rest. And in the 'insertion' photos, you'll notice the round isn't all the way in - that's because she can't chamber ammunition any more, just like the applicable immigration laws specify. In short, she's legal, dudes!
My usual caveats apply!
Goblins - you have your own set of warnings.
« Secure this line!
Reporting As Ordered, Sir! »
Heh heh. Glad you liked the wisecrack, John. An old friend of mine was fond of that quote - where I stole it from. [He was an reckless gunner, perhaps unsurprisingly]
"Oddly enough, Misha links to my post yesterday, everyone comes here to look at the pictures, and goes back there to comment."
Works the other way today: you comment there, we come over here to post. ;]
Impressive weapon. I always loved the M2 550... although I don't think I'd care to hump the bitch or her ammo load over rough terrain.
by
Ironbear on October 16, 2003 03:26 PM
Fun piece of kit to fire, although my last opportunity was in '81. At that time it was the M2 but during the mid-80s we upgraded to the M3: steel liner for the rifling and wrapped in fibreglass?/carbon fibre?. This reduces the barrel weight from about 35 lb to less than 20 lb. I understand that the M3 is the version chosen as the Ranger Assault Weapon.
Also a different topic: http://www.britishguns.net/soq/
Cheers
by
J.M. Heinrichs on October 17, 2003 09:49 PM
My only opprotunity was in '80-81. Looonggg time ago. ;]
I've read about the Gustav M3 in Jane's, J.M., but never had a chance to see one in IRL.
by
Ironbear on October 18, 2003 05:59 AM
Thanks for the detailed pictures. I am working on building a replica for airsoft. Do you know of any links that give good measurements? Or do you know where I can get a de-milled Charlie G ibn the USA?
by
zbear on March 8, 2004 10:26 PM
« Dismissed, Soldier!
by
John
on
Oct 16, 2003
»
Say Uncle links with:
Gotta love it
October 15, 2003
A New Service! Custom Gun Porn™!
Having had requests from two of my loyal readers (and certainly Gunner is my most prolific commentator!) I've decided to add a new service to readers of this site. If, in perusing the Gun Pics™ you find something that interests you in more detail (and it can be stuff other than the guns, too) feel free to leave a comment or drop a note, and I'll be happy to work it into the schedule and show you dirty, nasty, greasy guns, up close and personal! Banned in many countries and some counties here in the US!
Today's inaugural effort is for Emperor Misha and Gunner. Sphagin's masterpiece, the PPSh41, Lahti's masterpiece the Suomi, and a french burpgun, the MAT49, designer unknown by me, but with an interesting feature of a fold-up magazine. To save space (and spare the eyes of the unknowing Gun Fearing Wussy who finds himself here by accident, and as an aid to my bandwidth-challenged readership (you know who you are, you niprnet types!), only one pic on the front, the rest will be "behind the curtain" in the extended post... no charge, and since WonderWife™ hasn't installed any Paypal thingy like she's threatend, no tips, either!
Here ya go, Master of the Universe!
A nice, 1942 PPSh41 and a complete, if missing the red star, M1936 helmet.
There's another shot here.
Now go behind the curtain for Gunner's pics!
Flash Traffic (extended entry) Follows »
Front end view of the Suomi:
She starts to strip here. She's gone all the way, here! Full frontal firearms nudity!
Here comes her french partner! Ooo-la-la!
And once again, she starts to dance! And finally, ends her act with the splits!
Okay, okay - move along! Next group! You there - wash your hands, you filthy beast!
My usual caveats apply!
Goblins - you have your own set of warnings.
« Secure this line!
Reporting As Ordered, Sir! »
Ohhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhh.... Yeahhhhh, baby!!!! I think I'm in lust!... No, love!... Lust!... Definitely lust!... Have never seen a Suomi!.... verry cool!!!
by
L. C. Red Ruffansore on October 15, 2003 06:07 PM
Is that a grip safety on the MAT49? Also is this an original calibre or one of the conversions the NVA/VC used?
by
Gunner on October 15, 2003 10:36 PM
That is a grip safety, and the weapon is in the orignal 7.5 French caliber.
by
John of Argghhh! on October 16, 2003 06:57 AM
I love it !! Show us more.
Bye-the-bye: My motto-(though not original)--\
"Kill 'Em All, Let Alla Sort 'Em Out" !!
by
Jon Edwin on October 16, 2003 08:39 AM
Jon, scroll up one post and your wish is granted!
by
John of Argghhh! on October 16, 2003 10:44 AM
I saw a lot of those MAT 49s in the 1960s Anthony Quinn/George Segal Foreign Legion/Algeria film 'Lost Command'. Very accurate guerilla war film! Even saw The featured MAT 49s doing the splits... Cool and clean photos, John of Argghhh!
by
L. C. Red Ruffansore on October 17, 2003 09:16 PM
SWEEEEET.... How about posting some pics of modern guns too? There are plenty of sexy new candidates as well!!!!!!
by
Crimson Phoenix on November 17, 2003 12:31 AM
« Dismissed, Soldier!
by
John
on
Oct 15, 2003
»
The Anti-Idiotarian Rottweiler links with:
Gratuitous Gun Pr0n
»
Say Uncle links with:
Gotta love it
»
Madfish Willie's Cyber Saloon links with:
Around the Bar...
Click the picture for a hi-res view.
© Pamela Bobik
(01).JPG){kind=link}
