Say a handgun was thrown into a river, but extracted less than six hours later. Once dry, would it be usable?
Here are the relevant mechanics (assuming the gun is an autoloader):
The trigger will release the hammer spring
The hammer spring will drive the hammer forward
The hammer will strike the firing pin (or transfer bar, in some cases, which then strikes the firing pin)
The firing pin strikes the primer cap (the little circle on the bottom of the bullet)
The primer explodes and ignites the powder (this happens inside the bullet)
The slug is propelled out of the barrel by expanding gas.
That same gas pushes the slide back, ejecting the empty bullet casing
The slide spring forces the slide to come back forward, dragging another round from the magazine into the chamber
There are two areas where you might have to worry about water impairing the function:
1)If the inside of the barrel is wet. This could mess with the bullet trajectory. Some guns have such tight barrel tolerances (e.g., target pistols) that a little water in the barrel could cause a harmful misfire
2) If the inside of the magazine / slide rails / slide spring are wet enough that their friction coefficient changes, then the gun could jam or "stovepipe" (empty casing gets stuck straight up in the ejection port).
The liklihood of these malfunctions depends on how dry the gun is and what kind of gun it is. The right gun, like a Colt military model or a Glock, should fire without malfunction dripping wet.
If your character cares about the gun as a possession, then they should strip it, clean it, and oil it immediately upon retrieval.
[This message has been edited by J (edited January 12, 2005).]
If it is a revolver it is far more likely to fire without malfunction than a semi-automatic.
So the weapon could fall in the water, the character could immediately retrieve it or retrieve it 6 hours later and it should function fine.
That said you could still have problems.
If the firearms is a revolver, unless the barrel is fouled (filled with debris) it should function fine, though moisture in the barrel could affect the accuracy of the round.
If the firearm is a semi-automatic (the ones that use clips/magazines and have a slide along the top) then it will probably fire fine the first time (though moisture may cause innacuracy), but it will likely jam, as the other poster indicated. Semi-automatics need lubricant to function properly and extended submersion in water will degrade the oil that is needed along the slide rail etc.
If the weapon were left in the water long enough for corrosion to begin you might have problems, but I would think that would take days, not hours.
So if you wanna keep it safe, make the weapon a revolver and you shouldn't have any problems.
[This message has been edited by ChrisOwens (edited January 12, 2005).]
A revolver, thrown in a fresh water river, dried and the barrel cleared should work fine. The only real problem might be that the cylinder holding the bullets might be a bit stiff making the trigger harder to pull.
If everyone unequivocally believed the world were flat, you would lose the majority of your audience with a passage about a ship sailing over the horizon, no?
Perhaps you should assess your target audience, and write to that level of education to achieve the WSOD, or be prepared to spell out why the gun will still fire, all without miring the reader down in an info-dump.
I've heard that there are guns that ceramic (or something other than metal) that will not set off metal detectors. I don't know how accurate that is, but I would be willing to buy it if I read about it or saw it in a movie.
Sometimes it is enough to attribute something to the military and people will believe it. Because of course they have things that normal humans can't even begin to imagine.
That might make a cool story in itself. 
And a lot depends on the weapon.
There are very few weapons that can be thrown into a muddy river for several hours, then retrieved and immediately fired without some loss of performance. Simple weapons with less original capability tend to do well here partly because they have less to lose and because they tend to be more robust. On the other hand, most weapons can survive being wet for a few hours if someone is willing to clean them soon afterwards. And it is almost impossible that the barrel of a weapon could be so damaged beyond all repair by such an event. The main points you need to consider are; dirt or fouling, lubrication, and remaining water. I'll assume that being thrown in water rather than smashed on rocks means that gross impact damage is off the table.
By the way, virually any modern firearm can be discharged underwater, but it wouldn't be very good for the weapon in most cases. Depending on the weapon, it could seriously damage the mechanism in short order, at least enough to keep you from firing more than a couple of shots.
The whole scenario would depend on how long it was submerged. Only seconds or minutes in standing water? Shake it out, oil it when you get home it should be fine. Days or weeks in slowly flowing, muddy water? I probably wouldn't attempt to use it until after a real good cleaning.
Now, the man can dry the gun off. But due to more sci-fi mojo, I doubt he can find something to oil the gun in the town (long story short, it only looks like the town he knew on the surface, but isn't). Maybe he can disassmble it, and dry it off.
Of course, the POV is the teen, so the man finding the gun happens behind the scenes.
But it seems the answer is: The gun will work.
For example, if you absolutely had to oil the gun but didn't have the proper oil (whatever that is to begin with?), could you use motor oil or canola oil?
Again stick to a revolver, once you've wiped the mud off and cleaned out the barrel it should function passably.
In the situation described, he would retrieve the revolver from the mud, shake and wipe the mud off, maybe take a rag and push it through the barrel to clear it of any major obstructions. The revolver would still be fine, but to insure long term viability for the weapon it would need to be cleaned and porperly oiled. If he wanders around with the weapon for a week without cleaning it properly, then the metal would more than likely begin to corrode. But given the short time frame, I think you are making too big a deal over this.
As to ceramic firearms...yes such a thing exists, they are in no way available to the general public, they typically are only good for 2-3 shots. The myth surrounding ceramic firearms stemms from Anti-Gun lobby proponents attacking weapons like the Glock that use a polymer stock and other high impact plastics in it's construction. The Glock still has a metal barrel and slide and would most definately set off a metal detector.
Ceramic knives, at least the ones marketed in the US, must have metal studs in the handle so that they will be detectable in a metal detector or x-ray scanner. Of course a ceramic knife removed from the grip and affixed to a new non-metal grip could be a problem. Nice thing is ceramic knifes are very brittle and break easilly.
But then, none of this is going in the exposition. But I did want to make sure such a thing was credible.
That will buy you time (quite a bit)to get some gun oil. The problem with WD40 is that it can drive the water into the threads around the screws and down into places you would rather be dry, which is not good.
Gun oil is basically light machine oil like you would use for a sewing machine, etc. Modern gun oil is often a combination of oil, silicone and other lubricants and anti-corrosives. There is a smell to the oil that I at least find quite pleasant. Kind of a sweet smell unlike any other kind of oil I've ever used.
quote:
<If everyone unequivocally believed the world were flat, you would lose the majority of your audience with a passage about a ship sailing over the horizon, no?>That might make a cool story in itself.
Go for it, Chris!!
And interesting space ride ensues as they weave there way through the celestial spheres to catch some fire from the sun.
[This message has been edited by ChrisOwens (edited January 13, 2005).]
It was originally a short story (which was good) and he later fleshed it out to a novel (which was better in someways, but lost some of the impact of short story).
Both are worth a read.
The novel length version continues past the dark ending and shows where the cataclysmic events lead (which wasn't such a bad place after all) and consequently is not as disturbing. The novel length version is the one that really explores mass perception on reality.
If you read both, read the short story first.
In any case, assuming your ammo is still good after an immersion in water, the second thing you have to worry about is…BARREL OBSTRUCTION! When a gun is fired, the presence of even a few drops of water can and will cause the barrel to burst. Or, if you’re lucky, you’ll end up with a walnut—an abrupt bulge somewhere between the chamber and the muzzle.
With semi auto handguns, a barrel obstruction can cause a case rupture. In a Colt .45 ACP, for example, a large portion of the brass cartridge remains exposed after it has been chambered. That is, it remains unsupported by the walls of the chamber, and in the event of a barrel obstruction, this exposed portion can rupture. When that happens, the force of the expanding propellant gets vented straight down into the grip—the part you hold in your hand when you pull the trigger. It’s common to loose a couple fingers when this happens.
If you're going to fire a gun that's been immeresed in water, you'll probably want to open the slide and shake out as much of the residual water as possible.
Short of something like that I just don't see a Colt in fireable condition malfunctioning that catastrophically.
Not that firing a wet weapon is a terribly good idea.
As for the venerable Colt ACP, the fact that the chamber leaves a portion of the cartridge exposed, and thus unsupported, is one of the few shortcomings of an otherwise excellent design.
Specifically, the area of the chamber that fails to support the cartridge is the upper half of the feed ramp, which is milled directly into the chamber. The removal of material at this point exposes part of the cartridge. Take the barrel out of your Colt and insert a dummy round into the chamber and youll see what I mean. Thats why the brass at the head of a typical ACP cartridge is so thick. I dont know whether the same is true for a Glock as Ive never owned oneI buy Amuricin! In that same vein, I'm actually rather dissapointed that the Army's switching over to a German-designed rifle. Oh well...
As for long arms, the early M16 variants (the ones with the so-called pencil-barrel) suffered from the occasional burst barrel, and water was one of the causes.
I have to admit, I never gained a particular fondness for the M16. If you're talking about the G11, I heartily approve of it.
http://www.safetycenter.navy.mil/media/groundwarrior/issues/Summer02/twom4s.htm
Also, if you're shooting hollow points, a small amount of water can prematurely spread open the projectile, increasing the bearing surface between it and the barrel. The result is a drastic increase in chamber pressure, and the potential for a ruptured case or a burst barrel.
The hazards of water obstruction may be counterintuitive, but they are real nonetheless. Please be safe!
I asked one of the ballistic engineers at work what the biggest problem was with the AR15/M16, and he answered, “The M16 poops where it eats.” In other words, it vents propellant gasses directly into the most crucial area of the action: the bolt carrier assembly.
Those were not necessarily his exact words.
Right now, the Army is testing the XM8, which is designed by Heckler & Koch. This rifle is, in fact, a member of the G36 family.
Agree on hollow points. And if the barrel is filled with water it could be bad, depending mostly on the length of the barrel and whether it is gas-actuated.
I wouldn't rate the fact that the M16 vents gases right onto the bolt very high in my list of things I don't like, but it is in there. I just don't like the whole package. It wasn't put through enough trials before adoption, in my opinion, and I don't understand why we still use it, since nearly every other developed nation has leapfrogged us in assault rifle design in the interm.
The danger has little to do with the mass of the water in front of the bullet. Rather, it depends more on the friction coefficient of water as it transitions from a liquid to a superheated gas, while at the same time forming a bearing surface between the projectile and the barrel. There are a lot of variables at work here, and they are all in flux as the bullet travels down the barrel. In a gun, water behaves very differently from Hoppes No. 9 powder solvent.
Like I said, the danger is counterintuitive but very real. To assert otherwise (especially in a public forum) is to invite disaster.
I apologize for turning into a big drama queen over all of this, but this is serious stuff. Guns are necessary and valuable tools, but if you don't respect them they'll bite you and you’ll turn into gruesome story research material.
Anyway, enough preaching!
Now for the fun stuff. The G11 is waaaaaaaaay to complicated to make for a good combat rifle. The soldiers who have actually shot the thing say it feels like shooting a sewing machine, with all those little mechanical bits whirring and clicking inside. Any army armed with the G11—in its present form—would end up like the Brits in the first Gulf War, when a third of their new and untested SA-80’s croaked. Besides, the G11 looks more like the package that a rifle comes in than the rifle itself. So there!
What kind of range are you looking at if you want to accurately fire a Colt 45? (How far away can you be?)
Of course, in a high-stress situation, my accuracy would go waaaaay down. I recall reading somewhere that in police shootings, your avarage police officer only hits his intended target five out of twelve times. Combat stress is a serious wild card.
Most firearms exchange in a civilian setting take place at less than 15', and often result in noone getting hit.
If you are talking about Joe Schmo civilian who maybe shoots a pistol once every month or two, I'd be surprised if he could hit a man sized target at further than 20' in a heated exchange where adrenaline was flowing.
Someone who has been under fire and shoots regularly will do better, but I'd still peg the range at 30-35'.
I shoot periodically with a friend, who is a federal instructor at Quantico, when he isn't in the field working for the DEA. He can shoot consistently and accurately out to around 75-80'. I know he is accurate further out, but the civilian range we shoot at doesn't go any further. This is controlled shooting in a passive environment.
When you add elements like, being shot at etc. then the range is going to drop dramatically.
So under controlled situations, like a shooting range, a competent shooter should be able to fire consistently out to 30 yards/meters or so.
In real life combat the effective range drops to under 10 meters/yards.
Opinions on this are going to vary, but this is from personal experience and conversations with friends of mine that serve in law enforcement and the military.
With a precision target pistol and controlled setting the range will increase too, though unless you are writing about target shooting, in combat those ranges would dictate using a longarm or SMG.
1. The shooter, though a civilian, has been practicing at a shooting range five days a week for fifteen years. So I suppose one question would be how far can she shoot at the shooting range?
2. The target is unarmed and if all goes well, won't even know that the shooter is there, so she will not be under fire. The biggest concern for her is staying hidden, and so she will want to be as far away from the target as she can accurately shoot. I'm sure she won't trust her best distance under the controlled conditions of a shooting rang, but how much would she want to close that distance in to protect her anonymity and maintain her accurace?
3. Would another weapon be better?
If it were me, I'd screw annonymity and get as close as possible before shooting. Handguns tend to be less lethal than people think. Instant, one-shot kills are pretty rare, regardless of the caliber. If she wants to make sure her victim is dead, she'd have to put at least one good hole in his head.
If she wants to stay far away and do more damage to the target, a long arm would be better. Using a high power rifle equipped with a scope, a practiced shooter could inflict a lethal wound from at least two hundred yards. If she's good, she wouldn't even need a scope.
[This message has been edited by Corpsegrinder (edited February 01, 2005).]
I'm going to stay a staunch fan of the G11 for the time being. There are things I don't like about it, like the silly little rotating tab to work the "bolt" arrangment. But it's still a very cool weapon. I think that it's too early to speak to whether there would be issues in a mass produced version. In absolute terms, the action is mechanically simpler than that of conventional automatic weapons.
Anyway, I agree that it is dangerous to fire most guns underwater (more so with longer barrels and gas-actuated automatic fire and so forth). But I still maintain that it is possible in a pinch. Firing a weapon in a combat situation is inherently dangerous anyway.
During the Civil War, the 1st & 2nd Berdan Sharps shooters recorded kills at distances of over a mile. They were armed with a single shot breech loading weapon with iron sights. They fired a .56 caliber combustible case cartridge, which had a a trajectory like a rainbow, but which was also extremely consistent.
The Confederates, on the other hand, were partial to the British-manufactured Whitworth rifle, a muzzle-loader which was equipped with a primitive scope. The Whitworth had a hexagonal bore--like a modern Glock. The Whitworth was a hair more accurate than the Sharps, but took much longer to load.
Then, of course, during the Revolution, there are accounts of British officers being picked at ranges of 300+ yards by Americans with longrifles, firing patched roundball.
My point is that you can do almost anything with iron sights that you can do with a scope. The main advantage a scope offers is ease of use, which speeds up training and gets more long range shooters into the field sooner.
As for the G11, I could be wrong but I don't think it's ever gone through the extremely rigorous testing that the US Army puts its equipment through. For that matter, I think the XM8's been through more real-world testing than the G11 has. Down here at the Yuma Proving Ground where I work (though, at the moment, I'm up in Delta Junction, Alaska; -45 degrees Fahrenheit), Heckler & Koch routinely tests their products. I don't recall that the G11 has ever been down here, but many other H&K weapons have.
In my infinitely humble opinion, the G11 is a weapon whose time has not yet come. Other, more conventional rifles work almost as well as the G11 (assuming it performs as advertised). Therefore, there's no real need to equip soldiers with such a radical weapon.
The G11 is kind of like the story of the Gattling Gun during the Civil War--a group of cannoneers with a three inch ordnance rifle can put ALMOST as much lead into the air (shooting canister rounds) as a Gattling gun, per minute. The three inch ordnance rifle was much cheaper per unit, had a shorter logistical train, greater reliability, and it could also fire many different types of ammunition: air burst rounds, point detonation rounds, solid shot, canister, & etc. That's the real reason why the Gattling never really caught on.
Machine guns didn't become a real factor until the belt-fed Maxum.
As for the accuracy of "unaimed" combat firing ("point shooting") I would recommend the books "Kill or Get Killed" or "Shooting to Live"
I wholeheartedly agree that a longarm is a better choice if otherwise feasible. An average marksman can fire an incredibly devastating slug from a 12 gauge shotgun 60 yards with accuracy without a scope. A marksman with a scope and the time to sight it in can increase that range to 100-120 yards. Rifles like a 30.06 can shoot 100 yards open-sighted and several times that scoped.
One thing to keep in mind is that no matter what weapon is used, only a shot to the head or spine will result in "lights out" death. A determined person can survive and continue fighting for up to 30 seconds after suffering a bullet through the heart. I've never shot anyone through the heart, but the FBI published a report that said that and I'm willing to take their word for it. Personally, I've seen a deer run for 50 yards with an arrow through both lungs and the heart. Something to consider for writing a realistic shooting death.
As for the G11, until someone can show me a complaint more significant than "it makes sewing maching noises when I work the action using that twiddly little wind-up key", I'm remaining a staunch advocate. Twenty years ago it ahead of its time. Today it's getting to be an old maid.
The Gatling Gun didn't catch on before the end of the Civil War for the same reason that European officers in WWI still thought massed frontal assaults on entrenched enemies was a viable idea. It had nothing to do with the tactical facts and everything to do with the human fact that humans are idiots. That's the same reason that the Maxim was the first really significant machine gun. Browning had showed his invention to the Navy well over a decade before that, and the weapon had performed flawlessly, but in the end nobody thought it was more than a toy.
Neither head shots or spinal column wounds actually result in "lights out". But that's probably beside the point. What kind of bullet "kills" you makes a big difference in how fast and how dead you stop. Almost as big a difference as where you get shot. A lesser but important factor is how fast you were moving before you got hit. If you were primed for action, your much more likely to do something about getting shot than if you were just walking around not even thinking about the possibility of getting shot.
" . . Physiologically, a determined adversary can be stopped reliably and immediately only by a shot that disrupts the brain or upper spinal cord. Failing a hit to the central nervous system, massive bleeding from holes in the heart or major blood vessels of the torso causing circulatory collapse is the only other way to force incapacitation upon an adversary, and this takes time. For example, there is sufficient oxygen within the brain to support full, voluntary action for 10-15 seconds after the heart has been destroyed.28
In fact, physiological factors may actually play a relatively minor role in achieving rapid incapacitation. Barring central nervous system hits, there is no physiological reason for an individual to be incapacitated by even a fatal wound, until blood loss is sufficient to drop blood pressure and/or the brain is deprived of oxygen. The effects of pain, which could contribute greatly to incapacitation, are commonly delayed in the aftermath of serious injury such as a gunshot wound. The body engages survival patterns, the well known "fight or flight" syndrome. Pain is irrelevant to survival and is commonly suppressed until some time later. In order to be a factor, pain must first be perceived, and second must cause an emotional response. In many individuals, pain is ignored even when perceived, or the response is anger and increased resistance, not surrender. . . ."
Full text of the article can be found
here: http://www.firearmstactical.com/hwfe.htm
or here:
http://www.seark.net/~jlove/handgun_wounding.htm
Survivor--I take exception to your "one shot in ten" prediction for open sights. A few years ago, when I was shooting five days a week, I could pop dixie cups at 100 yards with a notch-and-post sighted .22 better than 9 times out of 10. A friend of mine could set up soda cans at that range and shoot the tabs off with better than 90% accuracy.
While they essentially proved that it is impossible to create an ice bullet, they talked to someone (an expert but I don't remember his name) about the idea and the basic concept of a bullet that would be lethal but also leave minimal forensics evidence. The expert talked about the use of a liquid-tipped bullet, which I think was created using a hollow point bullet and some sort of geletin or something.
The way I understand it, because the tip is a liquid, it retards the forward motion of the bullet and causes a violent "re-bound" effect (I know that isn't the jargon, but my brain isn't working properly this morning). Internally, the damage is extensive and the "re-bound" effect supposedly ejects the forensics evidence back out the way it came in.
Sounded interesting.
The concept behind alternate munitions, like "ice" bullets, was to be able to supply munitions to soldiers by taking advantag of the available materials. It's application was solely for use in arctic environments. The idea being that the the rifle use an alternate method for firing the charge and that the slug be comprised of compressed ice.
I believe the test bed weapon used a caseless charge to fire an ice slug, which was created by scooping snow into a receptacle in the stock. They did build a functioning prototype, to the best of my knowledge, but it was considered non-cost effective and the program was scrapped.
Now to the woman behind the bush shooting the target. Just keep in mind that handguns have a very noticeable flash when fired (especially at night) and are also very loud. You could have the weapon equipped with a homemade silencer. Though it will only be good for maybe 4-6 shots before it is rendered useless and it will not be as silent as a commercial silencer (which is highly illegal to own in most states and difficult to obtain).
If she uses a silencer the effective range of the weapon drops and you will need to use a round that is subsonic. Just keep those things in mind if she is trying to stay hidden.
(Imitating Mr. Burns.) “Excellent!”
I love it when women talk about guns.
J is right. "Kill or Get Killed" and "Shoot to Live" are both excellent books. These are extremely valuable references for writers.
Ah, a topic dear to my heart...the hand-cranked Gattling Gun vs. the belt-fed Maxim.
"If you want to make a lot of money, invent something that will enable these Europeans to cut each others throats with greater facility."--anonymous comment made to Hiram Maxim at the Paris exhibition. This sentiment led him to develop the Maxim machine gun. As brilliant as John Browning was, I believe Hiram Maxim was the first to actually build and market a belt-fed machine gun. Besides, Browning's early machine guns were air-cooled (eg., the model 1890(?) "Potato Digger"), and thus did not have the sustained fire capability of the Maxim, which was water-cooled from the get-go.
The belief that the Gattling gun didn't catch on until the end of the Civil War because "...humans are idiots" simply doesn't square with the technological history of this weapon. In point of fact, the Gattling gun didn't catch on at all during the war. Here are the reasons why, using the 1862 model as a point of reference:
* The primitive, paper cartridge ammunition was fragile, unreliable, and led to jams. Think of it as a cigarette rolling machine, but with burning bits of black powder gumming up the works instead of tobacco.
* Stoppages were extremely difficult to clear under field conditions.
* The weapon simply could not be broken down in the field. (Compare this to the seven-shot Spencer repeater, whose inner workings could be completely removed in less than a minute; over fifty thousand Spencers had been issued by 1864. Or the Henry, would could be broken down in about five minutes; over ten thousand Henry's were in circulation during the war.)
* The 1862 model lacked a practical gas sealing system, to prevent combustion gasses from leaking out of the Breech--as opposed to the Sharps rifle, which also used paper ammunition, but which employed a floating gas check to cap off the chamber. Remember, we're using combustible paper cartridges, here.
* The Gattling was roughly the same weight and size as a contemporary field gun. It offered nothing in the way of portability. It was therefore classified as artillery--and rightly so.
* The 1862 Gattling cost roughly $1000 per unit--those are 1862 dollars, son.
* The thing was all but impossible to crank and aim accurately at the same time.
The 1862 Gattling was used with some success during the siege of St. Petersburg in 1864, but only from fixed fortifications.
So in short, Survivor, I believe you are confusing the 1862 paper cartridge model with the 1865 metallic cartridge model, which didn't show up until after the war was all but over.
The 1862 Gattling was ultimately unsuccessful because it was dependant on an immature technology: self-contained ammunition. Likewise, one of the big objections raised toward the G11 has to do with its radical, unproven ammunition.
The Brits adopted the Maxim in 1889. However, prior to that, they'd already been using the Gattling gun in quantity since at least 1875. When the Maxim came along, the Brits dropped the Gattling like a Schenkl shell with a sputtering time fuse...
The sand of the desert is sodden red--
Red with the wreck of a square that broke;--
The Gattling's jammed and the colonel dead,
And the regiment blind with dust and smoke.
The river of death has brimmed its banks,
And England's far, and honor a name,
But the voice of a schoolboy rallies the ranks,
"Play up! play up! and play the game!"
30 feet sounds like a bad range to me. It's close enough that your target could cover the intervening distance in a couple of seconds if you miss your first shot, which means you'll have to deal with CQB anxiety. It's far enough that you can miss your first shot and be in a poor position to pursue if the target flees. It's close enough that the target might well hear or spot you even if you're being very stealthy. It's far enough that the target won't immediate freeze. And so on and so forth. Just my opinion, though.
Browning's early machine guns didn't get developed because he was told that the military wasn't interested, even after they'd seen the concept prototype tested. His first prototype was belt fed, though it wouldn't have been a very practical weapon.
The ammo of the G11 would have been considered "radical" over hundred years ago, and was untested twenty years ago, but the main reason that it isn't in service today is because people are idiots. I'm not saying that the weapon couldn't use some more development, I'm saying that it is promising enough that someone should develop it.
Survivor--
"...people are idiots." Sigh.
This sentiment is no doubt true in regards to the procurement of many potential weapons, but it's simply not true in the case of the G11...or the Civil War Gattling.
Both weapons were excellent concepts (they still are!) but they were initially unsuccessful because they were founded on immature technology. This is a VERY common theme in the history of weapons development--ever hear of the Messerschmidt 163 Komet? How does that song by Led Zeppelin go? "...military ideation marches on like the burn on the end of my joint but the song remains the same." Or something like that. Hammers of the gods, dude.
As for the early Browning machine guns, yeah, they worked but the Maxim worked better and it came along first. Browning was too smart to waste time by trying to play catch-up ball, so he turned his attention toward other projects.
Oh yeah, and how are iron sights "inherently" inaccurate?
Iron sights are inherently inaccurate beyond a certain range because you cannot see the target anymore, a man sized target being completely obscured behind the front sight post of your weapon. With an adjustable elevation on the rear sight, you can overcome part of this problem but you still can't overcome the fact that the forward sight post is only a few feet from your eye and the target is hundreds of yards away, meaning that they aren't in the same focal group. Scopes were invented for a reason, they aren't just to make the rifle look pretty.
You still haven't provided any evidence that the current G11 is based on "immature" technology. What exactly is wrong with it?
What you are describing isn't "inherent inaccuracy." It's obedience to the laws of physics.
Inaccuracy is just the wrong word to use. Inaccuracy means that even if the shooter sights on the correct point in space, the bullet still might miss the target. That's not the case with iron sights, even at extreme ranges.
What you are saying is that the laws of optics make it exponentially more difficult to sight on the correct point in space at extreme ranges with iron sights. Sure. Nobody's disagreeing with you about that. But "inherent inaccuracy" is the wrong phrase to use to describe that.
By your reasoning, scopes are "inherently inaccurate" past a certain range. A Win Model 70 chambered in .308 with a super match grade, fluted, floated barrel, McMilan A-4 tactical stock, adjustable cheek rest, and Leupold Vari-X III 6.5-20 tactical scope is "inherently inaccurate" past a certain range because you exceed the scope's ability to adjust for elevation.
[This message has been edited by J (edited February 05, 2005).]
I very respectfully beg to differ with Survivor.
I believe you have it backwards: Browning’s machine guns did not achieve any longevity until after he STOPPED producing gas-operated weapons and instead concentrated on recoil-operated weapons. E.g., the M1917, the M1919, and the M2.
The only gas-operated Browning to see significant use in World War 2 was the M1918, and it was rather mediocre. The M1918 was simply inadequate to the role of a squad automatic weapon. Luckily, this inadequacy was offset, in part, by the excellent M1 Garand. (The best squad automatic weapon of World War 2 was Britain’s Bren gun, though the Russian Degtyarev was also very good. The German Mg 42 is over rated.)
“But you will notice that virtually all modern machine guns are based on the Browning model of gas actuation rather than recoil, and have been since WWII.”
Well, no.
The “Browning model” (for which he obtained a patent in or near 1890) involved a rotating lever and an exposed gas tap. However, virtually all modern gas operated weapons utilize a cylinder and piston, including the Swedish Ljungman and its notable derivative, the AR15/M16. (The M16’s gas piston is located inside the bolt carrier; the shaft and gas seal of the piston are part of the bolt.)
Browning’s best full- and semiauto designs were all recoil operated. This includes civilian long arms like the Browning Model 11. Browning was—and is—the undisputed master of the recoil-operated weapon. Virtually all modern semiautomatic handguns are based on either the Browning delayed blow-back system, or the Browning simple blow-back system, both of which are recoil-operated.
Now for iron sights vs. scopes.
I agree with J. It’s not a matter of "inherent inaccuracy". To clarify matters, my original assertion regarding iron sight vs. scopes was, and is, as follows:
My point is that you can do almost anything with iron sights that you can do with a scope. The main advantage a scope offers is ease of use, which speeds up training and gets more long range shooters into the field sooner.
Now for the continuing G11 debate.
“You still haven't provided any evidence that the current G11 is based on "immature" technology. What exactly is wrong with it?”
Coming right up, sir! It all has to do with reliability.
The most important consideration in regards to ANY military equipment is reliability. A reliable sharp stick is superior to a broken, non-functioning G11. The easy-to-produce and reliable Russian tanks of World War Two beat out the complex and unreliable German tanks of the same era. Caseless ammunition still has not reached the level of reliability of old-fashioned brass ammunition.
Therefore, caseless ammunition is immature, and by extension, so is the G11.
Managed to read through every post about all the guns, while meeting up with my old friend google every other post to find pics of the mentioned weapons.
Always found weapons technology fascinating, and it's interesting to read all this. Some great knowledge on show by J and survivor but I'm dumbfounded by your technical insights Corpsegrinder! What did you say you do again?
Anyway its 3:40AM, time to hit the sack. Cool looking and seemingly futuristic weapons invented 20 years ago can only keep you up for so long! I gotta add though, the XM8 looks just as futuristic(and cool) as the G11 sounds. I'd be happy with either!
PS. Hope the story comes out well in regards to the thread topic
Why, thank you. I’m a civilian contractor for TACOM, the branch of the US Army that tests new and recently deployed weapons systems. At the moment, I’m up in Delta Junction, Alaska, trying to figure out why nothing works right when it’s -47 degrees Fahrenheit.
The northern lights are very nice, though.
[This message has been edited by Corpsegrinder (edited February 05, 2005).]
Just because something can be both precise and inaccurate, that doesn't mean that something too imprecise to meet a standard is therefore able to be accurate. Just because the physical laws that govern the behavior of light dictate that something can't exceed a certain level of precision (and therefore can't be accurate under a specified condition), that doesn't mean that it is inaccurate to say that the thing is inaccurate under those circumstances.
If the shooter can't sight on the correct point in space with any confidence, then the weapon is inaccurate. And yes, obviously if a target is simply out of range for the sights, then the sights are inherently inaccurate for that range. That's what I'm saying. If the sights do not allow enough precision to reliably hit a target at a given range, then they are inherently inaccurate at that range.
This argument is so dumb I'm going to drop it. Iron sights aren't good enough beyond 300 meters. Scopes are. There are things you can do with a scope that the laws of physics prevent you from accomplishing with iron sights.
I'm not dissing Browning's recoil/blowback designs. I'm saying that the same design is limited in utility for a good machine gun. I suppose that I need to clarify that I meant weapons designed since WWII, though it should be obvious that even weapons designed in the middle ages saw service in WWII, so that's not exactly what I would sensibly have meant. The world spent decades futzing around with recoil operated machine guns because Browning was told that there was no use for gas actuation. He didn't forcefully pursue the concept because he didn't want to beat his head against a wall trying to get people to buy something they were too stupid to appreciate. Which is why it was left to later inventors to develop the gas actuation concept.
Which is the point of my argument. Because Browning was dissuaded from developing the concept when he first invented it, it took years for the potential to be realized.
I'm not going to touch the question of reliable Russain tanks vs unreliable German tanks in WWII, but I'm going to request a clarification on caseless ammunition. You keep saying it isn't reliable. Since when? There were major problems with caseless ammunition as late as twenty years ago, but what are the major difficulties now?
“Browning was told that there was no use for gas actuation. He didn't forcefully pursue the concept because he didn't want to beat his head against a wall trying to get people to buy something they were too stupid to appreciate…I'm not dissing Browning's recoil/blowback designs. I'm saying that the same design is limited in utility for a good machine gun.”
No. Browning was too smart for that. When he switched from gas- to recoil-operated weapons, he was being a good businessman. And in any case, your second assertion is inaccurate because it erroneously presupposes that gas- and recoil-operated systems are designed to fulfill the same combat requirements.
In point of fact, gas-operated systems are best suited toward light, man-portable weapons which fire 5.56 to 7.62mm ammunition. Conversely, the recoil-operated systems are best suited toward heavy, high-impulse projectiles. Are you asserting that the light systems are “good machine guns” while the heavy systems are not? …or were you talking specifically about assault rifles? If you were, then your statement would be accurate.
Here’s a specific example of how your original statement is inaccurate: Both of the weapons for which the Stryker ICV’s remote weapons system is optimized, are recoil operated. The first of these weapons is the M2HB—designed by John Browning, himself. The second is the 40mm M119, which is a foreign derivative of the Browning-designed delayed blowback system. Both of these weapons systems are “good machine guns”.
Conversely, the secondary armament of the Stryker mortar carrier variant is the light, gas-operated M249, which is another “good machine gun”.
This same separation of gas- and recoil-operated systems dates all the way back to the First World War. During WW1, the most successful heavy machine guns were all recoil-operated. E.g., the Maxims, Vickers, Parabellums, etc. Conversely, the most successful man-portable systems were gas-operated. E.g., the Lewis gun and the Browning M1918.
The machine guns that broke this rule—the French Hotchkiss and the Chauchaut—were mediocre, at best. The Chauchaut was pure garbage. And they were both French. Hmmm…
“I suppose that I need to clarify that I meant weapons designed since WWII, though it should be obvious that even weapons designed in the middle ages saw service in WWII, so that's not exactly what I would sensibly have meant.”
Okay, ya stumped me--which machine guns from the Middle Ages were used during the second world war? Sorry…I just couldn’t resist.
Well, now that we’ve cleared that up, let’s go back to the heart-rending saga of the G11. Your question is as follows:
“You keep saying it isn't reliable. Since when? There were major problems with caseless ammunition as late as twenty years ago, but what are the major difficulties now?”
Well, the major problems NOW are the very same problems that Dynamit Nobel encountered back during the 60’s and 70’s—have they managed to solve these problems since then? Frankly, I don’t know. What I do know is that no one has successfully PROVED that these problems have been solved. This isn’t a court of law; the burden of proof rests on squarely Heckler & Koch, and by extension Dynamit Nobel. And frankly, H&K has ALWAYS been hesitant to subject to the G11 to the aggressive, extreme testing that the USP, the MP5, the PDW have endured. As I said before, even the XM8 has endured more testing than the G11.
In order to be successful, caseless ammunition must be able to endure the same range of environmental conditions as brass ammunition, right? (I’m talking small arms ammo here; caseless and combustable case rounds for artillery is another subject.)
The challenge that caseless ammo faces is the fact that traditional brass is extremely reliable. Milspec brass is very resistant to complete immersion in water. It performs well in a very wide range of environmental conditions. Brass ammo also has a very long shelf life—I routinely shoot 30 year old surplus ammo through my M1 Garand; it’s not as accurate as fresh stuff, but it works.
Thus, brass fulfils the primary requirement for military equipment: extreme reliability. No, wait; that’s not quite right. What I mean is, EXTREME RELIABILITY!!! DROP AND GIVE FIFTY, MAGGOT!!!!!!!!!!! There, that’s what I mean. You know, soldier proof.
Has caseless ammo been developed to the point where it fulfills this very tough requirement? Well, no one has proved it, yet. Like everything else in the military, caseless ammo is guilty until proven innocent.
“This argument is so dumb I'm going to drop it. Iron sights aren't good enough beyond 300 meters.”
Argument? Huh? I must’ve missed something. I though this was all a fascinating discussion that was contrasting two different points of view. If you wanna drop it, sure. But before we do, let me point out that when I say iron sights are good out to extremely long ranges, I am speaking from personal experience.
Here is the rifle I use when I go out to the thousand yard range down in Yuma, AZ (It’s not hell, but you can see it from here.)…
http://arizona.rifleshooting.com/srca/swede.html
This is the M95 Carl Gustav rifle, with a 30-inch barrel and a ladder sight that’s calibrated out to two thousand meters. Mine was manufactured in 1917. With careful hand loads, this rifle CAN and DOES hit a 24” trash can lid at six hundred yards…with nothing but a good rest and iron sights. Hit to miss ratio: approximatly 75%.
The Mark One Mod Zero Eyeball is a wonderful thing. Give it a try with whatever high power rifle you shoot. You might surprise yourself.
Caseless isn't good enough till you say it is, and you won't say it is until it's good enough. I get it. And I still say it's stupid.
Recoil designs are inherently limited in which weapons they can be successfully used in by a number of factors, including the relative mass of the weapon to the bullet and the cyclic that can be achieved. Gas actuated systems are not limited in these ways. You admit this, even while you claim that I'm mistaken to assert it. Again, whatever.
Appeals to your own authority do not impress me. Sure, I know a few people that design weapons systems, so that has something to do with my nonchalance. But even if I didn't, I still hold out for an argument that goes deeper than "because I say so."
No problem. Lemme introduce ya to summa these nice folks…
Palma is an international organization dedicated to long range shooting. A typical Palma match involves 1000-yard matches for BOTH scoped and iron sighted rifles, both of which use the same six foot dia. target. FYI--at a thousand yards, the relative size of a six foot target is about the size of the period at the end of this sentence. (Well, maybe depending on the point size of the text on your screen.)
One of the culminating events at a typical Palma match is the mixed scoped and iron sighted match. As one would expect, the outcome of such a match depends more on the skill of the shooter than on the equipment being used. Its fascinating to watch a guy (or gal) with a scoped Remmington 700 competing side-by-side against someone with a Creedmore Sharps, firing hand-loaded black powder cartridges.
This is the home page for the Michigan Long Range Invitational, a Palma-sponsored match that will be held in Sept. of this year.
This is the home page of the American Single Shot Rifle Association. These guys are mostly collectors, but their site still has a lot of good info on long range black powder.
http://www.crci.org/Tournaments.htm
This is the Colorado Rifle Club schedule of events for this year—check out the number of long range black powder events & high power “any rifle any sights” matches.
http://www.researchpress.co.uk/targets/sandyhook.htm
This last one’s a golden oldie.
“Caseless isn't good enough till you say it is, and you won't say it is until it's good enough. I get it. And I still say it's stupid.”
No, I’m not the one who makes that particular determination. I simply observe, document, and quantify the results of a structured test, upon which that determination is made at a later date. The decision you’re describing is way above my pay grade. But that’s okay; flattery will get you everywhere.
If you know something I don’t then please, by all means, tell me about it! If some other military organization is is torture-testing caseless ammo, I wanna know. I have a professional interest.
Honestly, I find that I learn as much from an amicable discussion, such as this, as I do from reading a plain, dry text. If you have first hand knowledge of something interesting, then share the love, dude! It doesn’t help me when all you offer is a semantic analysis of my previous statements; give me something that I can track down and explore on my own.
“Recoil designs are inherently limited in which weapons they can be successfully used in by a number of factors, including the relative mass of the weapon to the bullet and the cyclic that can be achieved. Gas actuated systems are not limited in these ways. You admit this, even while you claim that I'm mistaken to assert it. Again, whatever.”
That’s because you are mistaken. Do you have a source for your info? I am very curious as to where you’re getting this. Here’s an example of how you're mistaken: the German Machinegerwehr 43, AKA MG-43. This was the typical late-war German squad automatic weapon, and it was recoil-opereated. Here are the specs:
Rate of fire: 1200-1800 rounds per minute.
Weight: 11.5 kg
Calinur: 7.92x57mm--typical German high-power round.
I’d love to check out the sources for your info.
[This message has been edited by Corpsegrinder (edited February 07, 2005).]
For the scopes v. iron sights, I'll stick to my guns (so to speak) and reiterate that I do not have the sort of eyes for which it doesn't make a difference. Neither do most humans. The optical limitations of my eyes and the eyes of people I happen to know are a serious limiting factor on how useful iron sights can be at long range.
Never heard of the MG-43. I presume it is similar to the MG-42, given your description. I'm not certain about this weapon's specifications, particularly the remarkable variation in rate of fire. But I do find it interesting that most of the modern weapons developed using significant features of the MG-42 are not recoil operated. See, with gas-operation, you don't have to balance barrel/bolt assembly weight, desired cyclic, and ammunition type, and mechanism in a tricky four way equation. You can just design the weapon the way you want it. If you choose not to believe that difficulties exist in adapting a recoil system to specific weapon requirements, then I will not waste time trying to persuade you.
That doesn't change the fact that the laws of physics have some things to say about the matter.
quote:
A typical Palma match involves 1000-yard matches for BOTH scoped and iron sighted rifles, both of which use the same six foot dia. target.
A quick google search suggests that the limit of unassisted human ability to discriminate the existence of a contrasting object from its environment is, on average, when the size of that object drops below about a twentieth of a degree. At 1000 yards, this would be approximately 3 feet. Note that this is only very slightly smaller than the 20" bullseye on those targets. In some situations, this drops to a fifth of a degree (10 feet) or below. Most people would barely be able to see the target these people are shooting at, let alone hit it.
Hitting it requires being able to accurately locate the centre of the post in your sights, because chances are you're not using one as slim as the bullseye of the target itself (which would be about 1/32 of an inch at the end of a typical rifle), which is a much harder job than detecting presence; that fifth of a degree figure is about as good as you're going to get, judging by the description of how it was derived, so unless you have substantially above average visual ability the closest you're going to be able to point your rifle is within 10 feet. And that's before any inaccuracy introduced by the mechanics of firing it. If you're really good, I'd say you might hit it 25% of the time.
So, I can only conclude that the people I read about on the web sites you pointed to hitting the bullseye almost all of the time have much better vision than the average man. Not to mention incredible skill in firing their weapons.
Yeah, the best I can do with iron sights is to hit a 24" circle at six hundred yards. I'm lucky if I can even get it on the paper on a thousand yard target, and I've got 20/20 vision. Those thousand yard guys are mutant freaks...but only in the nice way. 
Survivor--
"Fine. I'm the one asking the question..."
Sheesh! C'mon, Survivor, play nice. Remember, "...those without mirth hath no defense against wit."
"...do you have any specific information on what is currently wrong with caseless ammunition? Specifically, that used in the G11."
The "current" problems with the G11 are the same ones that knocked it out of the Advanced Combat Rifle demo trials. Most of the info that follows comes straight out of JANE'S DEFENSE WEEKLY...
* The pitted, orange peel-like surface of the ammunition tends to collect dust, grit, & etc. Consequently, the ammo transports all of this crud straight into the rotating chamber, where it then destroys the weapon's gas seals.
* The gas seals in the chamber resemble those of a Wankle rotary engine. That is, they are spring-loaded wipers that act against the polished circumference of the chamber as it rotates. The introduction of grit into these extremely critical surfaces greatly accelerates their eventual failure. (This may not be so much of a problem in Central Europe, but it's a very big concern down in Yuma where we have lots of fine, sugary sand blowing around in the air. It's an even bigger problem in the Middle East.) However, brass ammo works as well in the Middle East as it does in Germany.
* The wearing surfaces of this weapon must endure more heat than those in a weapon that fires brass ammunition. Spent brass carries a great deal of heat away from an automatic weapon when it is firing, but not in a G11. These bearing surfaces are composed of a high-tech self-lubricating plastic, but engineering polymers simply don't tolerate the lethal combination of intense heat and grit. These critical sealing surfaces must operate within extremely close mechanical tolerances in order to function. However, brass ammo doesn't have this problem because it comprises its own sealing surface. Brass (or copper, or aluminum, or mild steel) is a self-renewing gasket between the bolt and the chamber.
Heckler & Koch were unable to directly solve the problems described above. Instead, they attempted to bypass them by marketing the G11 as a "sealed system".
In other words, Heckler & Koch attempted to wangle a contractual stipulation to the effect that there be NO USER-SERVICEABLE PARTS in the G11. If the weapon broke, or experienced a serious jam (like, if a big chunk of monograin breaks off and falls into the rotating chamber) then the entire weapon must be sent to a place where it can be serviced by a contractor rep.
There, the H&K techs would ostensibility break the seal, split the case, and correct the problem. The weapon would then be resealed and returned to combat.
This "sealed system" concept also included the ammo & magazines, which came preloaded from the factory. Soldiers were to be discouraged from transferring loose rounds to top off partially depleted magazines, which isn't a problem with brass ammo either.
Presumably, a sealed system would prevent system-killing contaminants from ever entering the weapon in the first place. But, it would also prevent soldiers from performing quick, simple field repairs on non-function weapons.
In effect, the only way to repair a simple problem would be to replace the entire rifle. The logistical constraints of such an arrangement would eventually reduce the number the of working rifles in the hands of the troops.
It all comes down to reliability, and ease of maintenance is a subset of reliability.
"But I do find it interesting that most of the modern weapons developed using significant features of the MG-42 are not recoil operated. See, with gas-operation, you don't have to balance barrel/bolt assembly weight, desired cyclic, and ammunition type, and mechanism in a tricky four way equation."
Um, I really hate to break this to you, but the MG-42 and -43 were both RECOIL-OPERATED. I mean, it seems like you've put so much...imagination into all of this.
Can you cite any real world examples to back up what you're saying?
Oh yeah, I have to admit that line about the cannibals with poison darts was pretty good.
[This message has been edited by Corpsegrinder (edited February 08, 2005).]
As for problems in the ACR competitions, I was thinking of something more recent than 15 years ago, but since I did say "20 years ago" at some point, I'll let it slide for now. On the other hand, I will continue to assert that the failure to aggressively pursue the G11 concept represents military/industrial stupidity at its finest.
Until the establishment shows some willingness to pay more than token attention to a new concept every 15 years or so, it is effectively excluding the possiblity of exploiting new technology by anything but vanishingly slim luck.
Oh, and about user-servicability and all that, maintaining an M16 is an increadable pain in the neck, as admitted in all the selling hype for the "ultra-reliable" X-8. I suppose that "reliability" is only an issue for new rifles.
And not to take sides but you still haven't provided any evidence survivor Gimme something to read damnit! I love it!
Re M16's... GAH!
My only experience with guns and rifles comes from being the Marines. I could easily hit a human-sized target, center mass, at 500 yards, with whatever sights on the rifle -- I'm assuming they are iron sights as described in previous posts. Still, when you're front sight post covers the entire target, it's a pain.
But the point I want to make about M16's is that they are utterly unreliable. Even in pristine conditions, properly maintained, cleaned, and lubricated, they would still jam for no reason at all. Not to mention that the stamped-metal magazines were so shoddy that a good drop onto a solid surface would render them useless.
When M16's were introduced during Vietnam, a lot of soliders got killed because their weapons didn't work. Many soliders appropriated the more reliable AK's from the dead Vietnamese. And typical military idiocy, that knew that M16's were substandard, persisted in forcing it's troops to use the rifles when they should have cancelled the contract with the manufacturer.
There are so many things inherently wrong with the design of an M16 (which marginally improved with the "B" versions) that one wonders how any rational thinking person would equip their troops with it. Perhaps some high-ranking general got kickbacks from the sales of M16's. It's the only logical conclusion.
Yeah, I read your post. The problem is that your post is essentially meaningless unless you cite some real world examples to back it up. This is THE GREAT HERE AND NOW, dude. This isn’t ancient Greece where “…all knowledge is accessible through pure thought, alone”.
“Until the establishment shows some willingness to pay more than token attention to a new concept every 15 years or so, it is effectively excluding the possiblity of exploiting new technology by anything but vanishingly slim luck.”
Well, in point of fact, small arms technology has already leapfrogged past the G11. What I’m talking about is a weapons system with NO moving parts (except for the projectile(s), the trigger, and other user-interface gadgets) that can fire a wide range of mission-adaptable ammo without having to be reconfigured. In low intensity urban enviornments, it’ll need to be able to switch between “lethal” and “less-than-lethal” force with a push of a button.
To continue R&D on the G11 would therefore be a step backwards. You really need to do something about this unhealthy G11 fixation of yours…tell me, what are your deep feelings about your mother?
“Oh, and about user-servicability and all that, maintaining an M16 is an increadable pain in the neck, as admitted in all the selling hype for the "ultra-reliable" X-8. I suppose that "reliability" is only an issue for new rifles.”
Huh? Why are you using the word “admitted”? H&K does not manufacture the M16, thus they are not in a position to admit anything. And, in any case, I am by no means an XM8 partisan. Official testing and evaluation on the XM8 is still ongoing, and at least for the time being, and there are no immediate plans for deployment.
HSO—
Yeah, the M16 was a fiasco. In Vietnam, the AK-47 had it beat, hands down. Remember the M1 Garand? In the Ardennes, when an M1 would freeze up, the soldiers would all stand around and p!ss on it, then beat on the cocking handle with the butt of another rifle until it broke loose. Then it would work just fine.
Zerhoe—
“…being stuck in the desert with a gun you can't open while being shot at. Sending it to the base might take a while, if you don't die before then. Mmmmm...actually that sounds like a half decent start to a story eh...hehe”
You’re right! Maybe I should concentrate on getting some REAL writing done…
I'm not big on the concept of being able to fire lots of different kinds of munitions (including mixed lethal and non-lethal) from the same weapon. I think it's a dead end, the sort of thing that is likely to increase casualties among the soldiers using it. A good weapon should basically do one thing, but do it flexibly and well.
As it happens, I think that the sealed munition concept is workable for any army that uses conventional logistics. We're not in the business of living off the land, after all. But I'm not a supporter of it as such. I do think that the overall lifespan of the weapon measured in thousands of rounds expended isn't really very relevant to whether or not it is any good on the battlefield. A weapon needs to be able to fire all the ammo you brought with you. If you need to trade it in or whatever at that point, then that isn't any skin off the soldier's nose.
I suppose that we all hate M-16's. I've never been able to figure out why the army wouldn't jump at anything else.
My attachment to the G11 is more a matter of...art, I suppose. There are actually a number of things that I would change about the design, if I were developing it. I think that it is a shame that H&K never got any incentive to continue development. Perhaps I lack a "fixation" on brass.
Oh, and perhaps you should tell me about your father now?
In WWI, the Canadian government decided to equip its army with the Mark II Ross Rifle. While the Ross Rifle was a good sniper rifle, it was terrible as a field rifle. It jammed easily, especially in wet and muddy conditions. If it was improperly assembled, the bolt assembly could fly off and hit the soldier in the head.
It took more than three years for the Canadians to officially change over to the British Lee-Enfield.
(I was going to mention this sooner but couldn't think of the rifle's name).
40 years (compared to 3 years above) of using M16's and they've still not had the sense to change it. Talk about stupidity. I guess it's a good thing we rely on dropping heavy bombs all over the place before sending in the grunts.
Artillery is the real killer, though. In the Civil War, the ratio of casualties inflicted on the enemy was something like 60% for small arms and 40% for artillery. In World War 2 it was 60% for artillery and 40% for small arms.
In World War 1, it was also 60% for artillery and 40% for small arms.
[This message has been edited by Corpsegrinder (edited February 10, 2005).]
But battles are won by the guys too tough/smart/lucky to die by the big guns. The big guns are just to clear the pawns off the board so that the real fighting can be done.
I hope you got a good deal on that Enfield. Even though it doesn't protect you from artillery, a soldier's weapon is the difference between being a pawn and being a square.
"But battles are won by the guys too tough/smart/lucky to die by the big guns. The big guns are just to clear the pawns off the board so that the real fighting can be done."
Oh yeah? Let's see you prove that, junior birdman.
I feel that enough generals on both sides of enough modern wars have demonstrated the limitations of even the best artillery that I'll decline an invitation to prove it personally.
Certainally not! Refer to definition 3a, below, especially the “as by evidence or logic” part…
Definition of "prove":
Pronunciation: 'prüv
Function: verb
Inflected Form(s): proved; proved or prov•en /'prü-v&n, British also 'prO-/; prov•ing /'prü-vi[ng]/
Etymology: Middle English, from Old French prover, from Latin probare to test, approve, prove, from probus good, honest, from pro- for, in favor + -bus (akin to Old English bEon to be) -- more at PRO-, BE
transitive senses
1 archaic : to learn or find out by experience
2 a : to test the truth, validity, or genuineness of <the exception proves the rule> <prove a will at probate> b : to test the worth or quality of; specifically : to compare against a standard -- sometimes used with up or out c : to check the correctness of (as an arithmetic result)
3 a : to establish the existence, truth, or validity of (as by evidence or logic) <prove a theorem> <the charges were never proved in court> b : to demonstrate as having a particular quality or worth <the vaccine has been proven effective after years of tests> <proved herself a great actress>
4 : to show (oneself) to be worthy or capable <eager to prove myself in the new job>
intransitive senses : to turn out especially after trial or test <the new drug proved effective>
What has this to do with writing?
I'll conceed that it is possible to "win" a battle by simply using heavy weapons to entirely sterilize the contested area along with any areas that could contain enemy reserves, if your rules of engagement allow it and you call such an engagement a "battle". I don't. The more usual term is "extermination". Depending on the specifics of the situation, the term "genocide" could also be applied.
It is also the case that in environments where all the combatants are forced to fight from vehicles to remain combat effective, it would be probable that virtually all casualties would be inflicted by artillery in the broader sense of the word. But that's a very human-centric way of viewing the general concept of "artillery" and "small arms" being applied to a situation that isn't really human-scaled.
Basically, this is a matter of definition. But I find it more useful to look at a battle in terms of autonomous combat units, and divide weapons into "artillery" and "small arms" by whether they are targeted on specific autonomous combat units rather than by whether a human could plausibly carry and use them by hand. This scales both ways, a can of Raid counts as artillery in a battle between two ant colonies just as a 20mm cannon counts as a small arm in a dogfight.
Since you're going to be writing about a battle involving trolls, I think that it is important that you consider that probably none of the weapons employed by the soldiers on at least one side of your battle could be called "small arms" under the human-scale based definition.
A land war in Asia is the first classic blunder a person can make.
I think a battle between trolls would involve lots big rocks and various extremely offensive odors.