Türk porno yayini yapan http://www.smfairview.com ve http://www.idoproxy.com adli siteler rokettube videolarini da HD kalitede yayinlayacagini acikladi. Ayrica porno indir ozelligiyle de http://www.mysticinca.com adli porno sitesi devreye girdi.
Page 2 of 2 FirstFirst 12
Results 16 to 24 of 24

Thread: Rifles are heavy!

  1. #16
    Join Date
    Mar 2007
    Location
    Australia
    Posts
    9,278

    Default Re: Rifles are heavy!

    Quote Originally Posted by JR* View Post
    Speaking from a viewpoint of genuine ignorance ... a question. The fact that modern assault rifles may not be much lighter (if at all) as compared to their predecessors, does their relatively short length make it easier to handle the weight in firing positions ? I can't remember where I read this - but I have read that the length of, say, a "Brown Bess" or a "Charleville" made it more difficult to handle in leveled/firing position due to leverage. The same would remain true of the only slightly (if at all) lighter Martini-Henry, Lee Enfield, Mauser 88 and 98 and their company. Is this a valid question ? Best regards, JR.
    All sensible questions are valid. Many answers are not.

    Undeterred by my last sentence, I'll offer my answer.

    Length isn't the factor so much as balance and purpose.

    A shortish assault rifle with a large metal magazine with, say, 30 brass rounds has a different point of balance along its length to a Lee Enfield of similar calibre with a 5 round magazine.

    Fix a bayonet to either and the point of balance changes.

    Go Hollywood with two taped 30 round magazines on the assault rifle and the point of balance changes again, as well as making it even more difficult to fire in the prone position while hugging the ground, as well as jamming dirt into the upside down mag taped to the primary mag, which rather defeats the intention of being able to maintain a high rate of fire as the first round or two will probably result in a jammed round, assuming the dirty mag could be fitted.

    However, as long as both weapons have been designed to be balanced in the hands of the soldier using them for their intended purpose, barrel length doesn't matter much by itself.

    As a general proposition, long barrels reflect the purpose of some armies to emphasise long range musketry and accuracy up to about WWII / Korean (not) War (but only Police Action) which has not been finished as there is still only an armistice in force pending resolution of peace terms. Shorter barrels reflect the reality that most infantry combat occurs at short to very short ranges where long range accuracy is irrelevant and where long barrels, notably in dense jungle and some urban environments, can be an impediment to effective use of the weapon. This is illustrated by what was commonly called the Lee Enfield Jungle Carbine, which was about four inches shorter and a couple of pounds lighter than the standard SMLE then in service in WWII and soon after. Also "The Bitch", a cut down 7.62 SLR (FN) used by Australian special forces in Vietnam in contrast to the standard SLR used by the rest of the Australian Army in Vietnam.

    Whatever advantages are obtained by sacrificing accuracy for rate of fire are offset to some extent by the logistical and personal weight problems of supplying and carrying more rounds for each soldier.
    Last edited by Rising Sun*; 05-18-2015 at 07:45 AM.
    ..
    A rational army would run away.
    Montesquieu

  2. #17
    Join Date
    Jul 2008
    Location
    South West
    Posts
    953

    Default Re: Rifles are heavy!

    Switching from the SLR to the much shorter SA 80 did pose a few problems as well as resolving others -

    Safety was terrible with the new SA80 initially as the shorter weapon was much easier to accidently point in an unsafe direction, hard to explain but with the elephant gun (SLR) you move the muzzle and you knew you were moving, the SA80 did not feel like it.

    Due to the Bullpup design the barrel length on the SA80 and SLR were very similar - the lower recoil of the 5.56 coupled with the very balanced design meant that most people could shoot out to 300m much more accurately and quicker.

    The shorter length meant that we could replace Stirling SMG's as well as the SLR's with a common weapon that was easier to handle in confined spaces or woods (the muzzle when carried at the ready does not protrude much outside of your body frame).

    The LSW (Light Support Weapon version of the SA80) was supposed to replace the LMG and GPMG in sections but in the event the Infantry got two LSW per section and ended up keeping the GPMG (later gaining the FN Minimi as replacements) while other arms had one then later two LSW (spares from the infantry) for operations per section (8 men), it was used more as a heavy barrel rifle much like the Browning BAR than a true machine gun
    IN the days of lace-ruffles, perukes and brocade
    Brown Bess was a partner whom none could despise
    An out-spoken, flinty-lipped, brazen-faced jade,
    With a habit of looking men straight in the eyes
    At Blenheim and Ramillies fops would confess
    They were pierced to the heart by the charms of Brown Bess.

  3. #18
    Join Date
    Mar 2007
    Location
    Australia
    Posts
    9,278

    Default Re: Rifles are heavy!

    Quote Originally Posted by leccy View Post
    The shorter length meant that we could replace Stirling SMG's ...
    I think your Stirling was similar to our F1 SMG.

    If so, there is nothing that could, or should, have replaced that nasty little excuse for a firearm.

    If anyone wanted to cause anxiety in a range safety officer, or instructors, the F1 wasn't far below grenades for recruits. And with good reason. During recruit training on one of the only few times I fired it a bloke near me got a runaway and did exactly what the instructors had told us not to do if we got a runaway, which was start to turn towards the firing line in his quest for help. Enfilade par excellence but, alas, on his own troops. Memorable panic among instructors, and others. The scariest, and funniest, few seconds I ever spent on a range.
    ..
    A rational army would run away.
    Montesquieu

  4. #19
    Join Date
    Jul 2008
    Location
    South West
    Posts
    953

    Default Re: Rifles are heavy!

    Quote Originally Posted by Rising Sun* View Post
    I think your Stirling was similar to our F1 SMG.

    If so, there is nothing that could, or should, have replaced that nasty little excuse for a firearm.

    If anyone wanted to cause anxiety in a range safety officer, or instructors, the F1 wasn't far below grenades for recruits. And with good reason. During recruit training on one of the only few times I fired it a bloke near me got a runaway and did exactly what the instructors had told us not to do if we got a runaway, which was start to turn towards the firing line in his quest for help. Enfilade par excellence but, alas, on his own troops. Memorable panic among instructors, and others. The scariest, and funniest, few seconds I ever spent on a range.
    Had a runaway with a Stirling once - 32 round magazine - I was b####cked for not carrying out the runaway immediate action drill which was to remove the magazine - blow that I just held onto it pointing down the range for the 3 1/2 seconds it takes to empty a full mag - thing used to point up in the air even just firing a 3 round burst while holding with both hands.

    Funniest though has to be when one of my mates was using an LMG (7.62mm Bren) on the firing point next to me - I heard one round from his double tap and saw the barrel sailing down the range - he had not secured the barrel locking lever properly.
    IN the days of lace-ruffles, perukes and brocade
    Brown Bess was a partner whom none could despise
    An out-spoken, flinty-lipped, brazen-faced jade,
    With a habit of looking men straight in the eyes
    At Blenheim and Ramillies fops would confess
    They were pierced to the heart by the charms of Brown Bess.

  5. #20
    Join Date
    Jun 2008
    Location
    -
    Posts
    759

    Default Re: Rifles are heavy!

    the precision is better if a rifle is heavy and the recoil transmission is much smaller
    most of the ww2 sniper rifles are heavy, or recommend to attach a bayonet to made a better precision
    "The consciousness that I am alive, makes me wild dreams every day"
    (Helmut Wolff lieutenant colonel, one who survived the breakout of Budapest)

  6. #21
    Join Date
    Jul 2008
    Location
    South West
    Posts
    953

    Default Re: Rifles are heavy!

    Quote Originally Posted by imi View Post
    the precision is better if a rifle is heavy and the recoil transmission is much smaller
    most of the ww2 sniper rifles are heavy, or recommend to attach a bayonet to made a better precision
    I only know about the Lee Enfield and later British rifles, a heavy weapon will absorb recoil better so helping to prevent the round being 'snatched' by movement of the rifle before the round has left the barrel.

    Adding a bayonet shifts the already heavy rifles centre of balance further forward (fulcrum/pivot action) and caused a tendency for the barrel to drop, better precision is done by supporting the length of the barrel fully - we used to adopt lots of firing positions to hold the weapon firmly and allow it to naturally point to the target, for longer ranges though you really need a forward support which is why nearly all sniper rifles now have bipods to support the end - a bayonet would have just made it harder to hold and I doubt the added weight would have made much difference for recoil purposes
    IN the days of lace-ruffles, perukes and brocade
    Brown Bess was a partner whom none could despise
    An out-spoken, flinty-lipped, brazen-faced jade,
    With a habit of looking men straight in the eyes
    At Blenheim and Ramillies fops would confess
    They were pierced to the heart by the charms of Brown Bess.

  7. #22
    Join Date
    Mar 2007
    Location
    Australia
    Posts
    9,278

    Default Re: Rifles are heavy!

    Quote Originally Posted by leccy View Post
    Funniest though has to be when one of my mates was using an LMG (7.62mm Bren) on the firing point next to me - I heard one round from his double tap and saw the barrel sailing down the range - he had not secured the barrel locking lever properly.
    Another attempt. https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=_Px0wErIeJI
    ..
    A rational army would run away.
    Montesquieu

  8. #23
    Join Date
    Feb 2015
    Location
    delft
    Posts
    126

    Default Re: Rifles are heavy!

    HA, found it:
    http://www.globalsecurity.org/milita...t/1992/EWL.htm

    A study on what the "optimum" carry weight is for the footsoldier, how every top brass understands that it should be less than the current state, but that over the years, effectively, the soldier had to carry more and more...




    And a bit more on topic; the first time I (as a kid) learned of the Thompson SMG was in comics and movies where heroes fired the thing from one hand.
    Not until I finally laid hand on a real Thompson SMG in a(nother) museum that I felt cheated by these entertainment industries (this was before all the internet & youtube ability to search all kinds of info..).
    Example: http://www.misterkitty.org/extras/st...comics171.html
    Last edited by Frankly Dude Really; 05-28-2015 at 05:50 AM.

  9. #24
    Join Date
    Mar 2007
    Location
    Australia
    Posts
    9,278

    Default Re: Rifles are heavy!

    ..
    A rational army would run away.
    Montesquieu

Page 2 of 2 FirstFirst 12

Thread Information

Users Browsing this Thread

There are currently 1 users browsing this thread. (0 members and 1 guests)

Bookmarks

Bookmarks

Posting Permissions

  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts
  •