WIP Assault Rifle
-
Opinions please.
-
Ok iv a suggestions, for starters cocking handle, I'd put it on the opposite side, cocking a weapon on the right side is difficult when your right hand shouldn't be removed from the pistol grip at any stage, it was a fault the Brits had with the SA80, they would have to tilt the weapon to cock it with their left hand, although it is easier to cock in the prone position serious amount of time is lost in reloading and natual alignment is lost due to tilting the weapon.
-
Thanks. I will flip it.
-
Looking good but I don't see a trigger?
-
@iichiversii said:
Ok iv a suggestions, for starters cocking handle, I'd put it on the opposite side, cocking a weapon on the right side is difficult when your right hand shouldn't be removed from the pistol grip at any stage, it was a fault the Brits had with the SA80, they would have to tilt the weapon to cock it with their left hand, although it is easier to cock in the prone position serious amount of time is lost in reloading and natual alignment is lost due to tilting the weapon.
as this model is pretty much a g36c from HK i can't follow your issue. the thing on the right side isn't supposed to be the cocking lever. it's purpose is to prevent the bullet shells to fly in the face of the opperator. the cocking lever is just under the carry handle on top (i've been to german army and i know this gun pretty well).
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Kyb387tJZw4 <<<< in 0:07 you can see how its cocked.
-
Ok, my bad, haven't used this weapon, so not entirely fermilar with it, but I learned something new
After watching this clip and I must admit its a strange cocking mechanism, most weapons iv handles are cocked from the left except the SA80, unusual
-
the cocking mechanism on this weapon is pretty useful as it can be used by right or lefthanded people. (the moving part on the lever can swing both in left and in right direction).
also there are many famous weapon systems on the world which don't have the cocking lever on the left side -> Colt M4 for example has it at the root of the buttstock, AK47 has it on the right side...
-
Cocking mechanism on an AK47 is on the right for only 1 reason, it was a reverse engineered Bren gun used by the Brits, the cocking lever was on the left but the AK47 is a bren gun turned upside down, yes m4 has it to the rear of the weapon, a cocking mechanism which isn't very effective, for speed and to prevent the loss of natural alignment it is preferred on the left, I see metal storm developed a weapon which is cocked by pressing a button, can't see it being integrated into many weapons thu, not very effective if the weapon is used in poor conditions and what not, also the weapon would need a power supply.
-
Sorry Damien but the bren gun was NOT reverse engineered to produce the ak-47. If there was any influence from other nation weapons it would have been the StG 44 produce by the germans in, guess it, 1944 and used operationally by the paratroops mostly.
The bren gun was designed by the Brno small arms factory and produced at the Enfield small arms factory. The name 'bren' gun comes from the two town names BRno and ENfield.
-
There's no need to be sorry mike, the AK47 is a reverse ingineered Bren gun, I'm on my iPhone at the moment but I will explain further ahem I get in front of my laptop, but I will say if u comparing the firing mechanisim of a Bren and AK you will see they are both the same and are no where the same as the StG44, the exterior of the weapon is no indication, it's the mechanism itself that makes the difference between a AK and StG44.
-
-
http://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Bren_light_machine_gun check the dates, Bren gun was in service yrs before the German StG44 which hitler himself cancelled production of as he didn't believe in the weapon, it was being put trough it's trials near end of WW2, iv stripped both the AK47 and the Bren, both mechanisms are the same, not sure of the StG44 mechanism but the Bren has being around longer and try looking at the Bren upside down and compare to the AK47, the only difference is the pistol grip is on opposite sides, we used the Bren in the Irish reserves into 10 yrs ago, I knew this weapon inside out, I then joined the army and served in Kosovo with NATO and stripping an Ak47 for the first time was very natural to me because it stripped and assembled the same as the Bren.
-
Also check the calibre, the StG was 7.92 and both the Ak and Bren were 7.62, weapon are usually designed around the calibre, look at the P90, famously known from the stargaze series, this weapon was designed around a new calibre 5.7 . They designed the weapon around a new type of ballistic round.
-
-
@mike amos said:
http://www.thephora.net/forum/archive/index.php/t-71499.html
Both weapons are different internal, I don't think you understand the mechanism which u can't see from the outside, the mechanism of the Ak47 and Bren gun are the same, the StG44 isn't, so therefore it's not influenced by the StG44, different mechanism, the same man may have worked on both weapons but he used a mechanism which is the same as a Bren, the Bren had to be reversed Engineered to create the same mechanism for the Ak47
-
The bren was innitially chambered for the then current british ammunition which was .303" not 7.62mm. The only bren guns to fire the 7.62 NATO spec ammunition were modified mark 3 and above units and these were not in use until post world war two. The russian ammunition at the time was 7.62mm. Note the progression of ammunition types right up to 76.2mm for the t-34 tanks equiped with what was called the t34/76.
It would not have been logical for the russians to use the 7.92mm calibre used by most german weapons for logistical reasons.
As for experience, my father used the bren gun as his personal weapon during national service and they had a mixed bag of .303" and 7.62mm because the british army were then rearming with the SLR 'Belgian FN' and the ammunition was being standardised. I also had a bren gun as my personal weapon while training recruits and we had a dinosaur of a .303" chambered bren, and no ammunition to fire from it. Your information is flawed sir.
-
Lol, this Arguement could go on forever ha ha, this is fun
-
I need my laptop to fire more ammo bk at you Mike
-
Good debate is the life blood of any forum so long as we keep it clean. We are all entitled to our opinions after all.
Seriously though, similarity of componentry does not indicate a common ancestry, merely the same problems being met with similar solutions. Just take a look at formula 1 cars for example. BTW, the StG 44 began development in about 1939 and production included stampled metal for the carrier and slide cover. It would be interesting to see all three bolts and pins side by side. Those brens are heavy buggers for what they are too.
-
I found this link to another forum with our same Arguement, again it's more or less the same as our discussion, 1 individual claims the Bren influenced the StG44 and then both influenced the AK47, this would make us both right lol, Another says the mechanism of the AK47 and Bren are different but I know this is a false statement as iv had hands in both and the mechanism is the same, but it seems to be an ongoing discussion, I remember hearing yrs ago when I was a reservist that the AK47 was a reverse engineered bren gun which was captured, but the link mike posted replaces the bren with the same story, strange, but I will add the mechanism of the bren and AK are the same so if it were the StG44 they reverse engineered to influence the AK it makes no sense since its a completely different mechanism inside, but bare in mind that the AK is smaller in size compared to the Bren and similar in size to the StG44, so what could of happened here is the Russians wanted an assault rifle like the StG44 but used the mechanism of a Bren to better it, the mechanism of a Bren and AK are a very rugged weapon due to its mechanism, who really knows the real answer to this, maybe we are both right or mikes wrong
Advertisement