We came around the corner. Crooked-barrel side-shooters and more.
The true heyday of concealed fire systems came during World War I. Although the designs varied, the principle was essentially the same: the rifle was placed on the parapet, with a duplicate trigger mechanism below so the shooter could fire from a trench below the parapet. Aiming was accomplished either through a periscope sight or through the standard sighting devices using a system of mirrors.
A British homemade trench rifle in 1915 and a German mass-produced Deckungszielgerät on the front lines of World War II. Although these systems are essentially from different eras, separated by almost 30 years, and manufactured at different technological levels, the principle is absolutely the same, and their combat effectiveness does not differ significantly. These perescope rifles appeared in the British army in 1915 at different points in the front completely independently of each other, and for a long time they existed only as frontline homemade designs of varying technological levels. A classic example of grassroots initiative at the front.
Such designs were used quite extensively, by all sides in the conflict. During World War II, when the joyous rides on European roads ended and things in vast Russia were not going so well, the Germans remembered these designs. Thus, a whole family of devices emerged—the Deckungszielgerät. Literally, a device for aimed shooting from cover.
The very first device was designed for use with rifles and consisted of an adapter that fit over the rifle's buttstock, with its own stock, a duplicate trigger (a flexible rod was mounted on the main trigger), and a telescopic sight. The advantage was that this unified device could be used with any completely standard German rifle, whether bolt-action or self-loading. And then there were all the disadvantages of such designs, dating back to the First World War: if you want to reload, you have to lower the entire device into a trench or climb out onto the parapet.
Over time, similar devices appeared for machine guns (with mirrors, but without periscope sights) and for StG assault rifles. There was no sign of widespread use, and such designs could no longer influence the course of the war or even the situation on a particular section of the front; the war was simply different.
A Rundumfeuer with and without a mounted machine gun and armor shield, plus what it looked like inside and outside. It was all very German here – great, cool, effective… but too little and too late.
But the Germans' development of the idea of firing from cover through a periscope sight found a very effective and practical application – on armored vehicles.
The Sturmgeschütz III, developed before World War II, was designed to only fire at infantry with its main gun. The self-propelled gun was intended to be covered by infantry, the very vehicle it was designed to support. At first, this seemed to work. But with the outbreak of war with the country of the victorious proletariat and the transformation of the StuG into a versatile self-propelled gun with fighter capabilities, tanks It turned out that they had to operate without infantry cover, meaning defense against infantry lay entirely with the vehicle and its crew. To fire at infantry, they had to climb out of the fighting compartment and expose themselves to everything the SPG's armor protected them from.
The issue was addressed at the factory rather late, and only on the late F8 model did the gunner's shield appear. This meant that anti-infantry duties were delegated to the loader, who still had to climb out of the fighting compartment to fire at them, but this time he was protected by a shield. The shield was intended to be universal. A machine gun was mounted in the embrasure for firing at infantry, while a machine gun mounted on the shield provided a firing position for air targets. Cons? Well, they actually outweighed the pros. Protection was provided only in the forward hemisphere, and the shield itself severely limited the field of fire. While the loader was firing, he was completely disengaged from the crew's duties, and his hatch remained open, exposing the fighting compartment to all the delights of a hostile battlefield.
What did the Vorsatz attachment do with 7,9mm Kurz bullets? No comment, as they say.
Overall, not very good either. Better than nothing, but it wasn't a complete answer to the aspirations of German assault gun crews. That's when the Rundumfeuer device appeared. It was a remote-controlled machine gun mount, controlled from the fighting compartment. The same loader fired the machine gun, but now he was completely protected by the vehicle's armor and didn't even have to open the hatches.
The mount was fairly simple—pure mechanics with a system of levers; the most complex part was the ZF 1128 periscope sight with 3x magnification. In theory, the mount provided 360-degree fire. One obvious drawback: the machine gun was exposed to external influences and enemy fire, and reloading it required leaning out of the fighting compartment. Still, it was far better than a simple gun shield mounted on the armor, and the mount was quite simple. All in all, it was very un-German—simple, cheap, and effective. And then it was just like the Germans—too little, too late.
Although the mount was relatively simple and inexpensive, and could, in theory, be installed on previously produced vehicles, it only became standard equipment on the Jagdpanzer 38(t), whose production began in April 1944. Some SPGs, such as the StuG III and StuG IV, received them even later than the spring of 1944, while others never actually received them. It was only towards the end of the war that the Germans finally realized that the StuG needed a bow machine gun… It was already 1945.
The curved barrel attachments aroused genuine interest among the American military. In 1945, during demonstration tests with firing from captured ammunition weapons A major general of the American quartermaster service personally participated. The first photo clearly shows the hole in the barrel.
The next creation of the dark Aryan genius, the Krummlauf, was born largely from the need to protect armored vehicles. This was a whole series of curved barrel attachments (yes, they weren't weapons per se, but rather adapters) for rifles and the latest assault rifles. The attachments were attached to the barrel with a lock similar to that of a German rifle grenade launcher, or screwed onto the barrel and had a curvature of 30 to 90 degrees. They were intended for use both as a means of protecting armored vehicles and as an infantry weapon. The experience of urban combat had been rather bitter, and armored vehicles were increasingly suffering from infantry anti-tank weapons, despite increasing armor thickness. The idea of eliminating the machine gun ball mount to preserve frontal armor was also in the air.
Initially, the devices were supposed to work with 7,92×57 Mauser rifle ammunition and, accordingly, standard German rifles. It didn't work out. Simply put, the rifle cartridge either blew the barrels or rendered them completely unusable after a ridiculous number of shots. Then the developers turned their attention to the already available 7,9 mm Kurz intermediate ammunition and, accordingly, the systems designed for it.
Everything seemed to be working, but a new problem arose. The intermediate-caliber rifles for which the Krummlauf was developed had a system that relied on gases to escape from the barrel. The increased gas pressure as the bullet traversed the arc caused the system to malfunction. Essentially, the gas-operated mechanism was subjected to pressures it wasn't designed for. So, holes had to be drilled in the barrel to simply bleed off the gases. These gas-operated vents for assault rifles were called Vorsatz.
The Americans even went so far as to install an M3 with a curved barrel into a human tank. The idea was to aim it through a periscope observation device, albeit very loosely.
The result was a literally crooked, leaky barrel with no service life (at a 90-degree angle, it lasted almost 150 shots) and frankly mediocre accuracy. Plus, a special sight was required to hit anything, and a special mount was needed for the tank. The Germans themselves, even during the war, concluded that a mortar with fragmentation ammunition would be much more practical for tank defense than this kind of rigged tactic.
There was also a variant of the Krummlauf—a curved-barrel attachment that doubled as a rifle grenade launcher. This was more logical and simple. A "holey" barrel wasn't required, as the shot was fired with a blank cartridge; there was no need to push anything down the barrel. However, such a system was useless for a tank, as reloading would only be possible from outside the vehicle or by dragging the machine gun and mortar behind the armor. In urban combat, firing a mortar from behind cover is possible with sufficient skill and desire.
While the idea of protecting tanks with curved barrels was quickly abandoned, Goryunov's curved-barrel machine guns served for a long time in permanent emplacements. A curved-barrel SGM in a BUK-1 casemate mount (a curved-barrel turret mount).
But the Krummlauf sparked genuine interest among the victors. Both the US and the USSR not only showed interest in such systems but also produced their own. The Americans curved the barrel of the M3 submachine gun. This increased the barrel's lifespan, but the accuracy and range were even lower than the original, which is logical, considering the pistol cartridge was used. The USSR developed the system, like the original, using an intermediate cartridge and based on the Kalashnikov system. Previously, they experimented with a curved barrel on the PPSh, and there was a version of the Goryunov machine gun with a slightly curved barrel, and they also made an attachment for the RPD.
American and Soviet designs were also considered for tank defense against infantry. They were even installed on combat vehicles, tested... and came to the same conclusion as the Germans: rubbish. True, the curved-barrel Goryunov machine guns served for a long time in casemate mounts on the border. Their last deployment was on the Chinese border, in permanent fire positions, but fortunately, these systems never saw combat use there. Furthermore, at some point, they were dragging everything they could to the Chinese border, as the country essentially found itself on an unexpected "second front" where they were preparing to fight. So these systems may have been sent there for a reason, so to speak.
Now we can say that the topic of crooked-barrel weapons is completely closed for the military. These weapons are very specific, story Although its history is relatively brief and lacks any combat-heavy episodes, it constantly attracts the attention of those interested in weapons history, so it is not surprising that such systems do appear in the public sphere, but only through the efforts of private individuals like weapons bloggers.
The Original Corner Shot and... the Corner Shot Cat
The history of modern "side-firing" weapons began in the 1980s. At the time, Amos Golan and Asaf Nadel were serving in the Israeli special forces. During the First Palestinian Intifada, Golan witnessed several Israeli soldiers killed during an assault on a house in the Gaza Strip. A group of soldiers burst into the house through the front door and came under fire from Palestinians hiding just around the corner. It occurred to Golan that it would be a good idea to peek around the corner without exposing himself, and even better, to be able to fire the same shot without having to expose himself.
The system's development began in the 90s, and then a search was underway for funding for mass production. Eventually, a group of independent investors from the United States expressed interest in the design, and production began there in 2003.
Crooked barrels have popped up more than once in the hands of various bloggers and gun enthusiasts. Such designs were used by both the MythBusters and Matt from Wrecking Ranch; in fact, one of his crooked barrel designs is pictured.
Essentially, the Corner Shot is a weapon accessory. The pistol is mounted in a polymer mold that replicates the shape of a specific weapon model. The Corner Shot itself has an articulated joint that allows the pistol to be fired around a corner using a high-definition camera while aiming through a monitor. The system had its own stock and duplicated the trigger of the original weapon. In essence, it was a sort of carbine-style pistol adapter, flexible and featuring a rather interesting (for 2003) aiming system using a video image on the monitor.
China has long had several of its own Corner Shot-type systems. This photo shows a demonstration by one of the Chinese police units.
However, using a pistol meant the effective range of the shot was extremely limited, and therefore, the enemy was highly likely to spot the pistol peering at them from around a corner. For this reason, a concealment system was developed for the Corner Shot system—a fake cat attached to an adapter with a pistol, which then poked out from around a corner. Sound creepy? It didn't look so good either. The system resembled a cheap, out-of-shape stuffed animal. This meant it could only be mistaken for a cat from a distance. Furthermore, the concealment had obvious limitations—a "cat" hovering at human height would certainly arouse suspicion, so concealment could only be used while lying on the ground. Naturally, there are no reports of successful use of this astonishing concealment system.
Pakistan also developed its own Corner Shot in the 2010s.
Nowadays, Corner Shot has not only gained popularity outside of Israel but also spawned clones. Electronics have become even smaller and more affordable, making it easy for many manufacturers to assemble a similar system with a camera and screen. China, South Korea, Pakistan, India, and Iran have all developed their own variations of the system.
The drawbacks of such designs are obvious. The only thing that can be used relatively comfortably with a Corner Shot device is a pistol. The weapon's forward and lateral reach is too great, and the device itself significantly increases its overall size. Therefore, using any weapon other than a pistol is difficult. Although Corner Shot devices exist in theory for assault rifles and even grenade launchers, there is no information on their actual use.
The Accutact Anglesights sight for shooting from behind cover. Its main advantage is its simplicity and affordability, but its disadvantages remain the same: aiming is quite uncertain, and you'll still expose your hands to enemy fire. The US military considered the sight, but tested it and rejected it. As a result, it's only being purchased in limited quantities by various US law enforcement agencies.
Plus, the system is still quite bulky and expensive. So, various manufacturers continue to experiment with designs similar to those used back in World War I. That is, a sight is installed on a fairly standard weapon, allowing the shooter to remain almost entirely hidden behind cover, while the weapon is positioned around a corner or over cover. For this purpose, both relatively simple sights with a mirror system (essentially a variation of a device for recording aiming errors) and more complex systems with cameras, eyecups, and the like are used. However, this method allows for rather limited aimed fire, as the weapon has no support during firing, and the shooter must hold it with his own hands, either pointing them from behind cover.
None of these systems have been successfully used in combat. The American military, for example, has looked into this, and one of the latest News On this topic, it is claimed that a similar sight for assault rifles was "invented" by our opponents in the conflict in eastern Ukraine. However, again, there is no news of its successful use.
In general, sticking your hands into a trench and firing a burst is quite effective even without a scope. Belarusian soldiers are practicing clearing enemy trenches.
Systems like Corner Shot can still be considered purely police-oriented. In fact, they are used by either pure police units or those with missions similar to those of SWAT teams. Assaulting a building or stronghold with a camera-equipped pistol where there are no civilians, only armed adversaries who must be eliminated, is simply foolish. What's the point of peeking around a corner if you know for sure there's an enemy around that corner, one you must eliminate? That's precisely why the most effective CQB system in the SVO zone right now is the TM-62M, thrown through a window.
It's plausible to assume that the limited use of specialized sights for shooting around corners on standard assault rifles and machine guns when clearing enemy trenches would be appropriate. But here, everything comes down to ease of use, the widespread availability of such devices, and their practical utility. After all, combat is often close quarters, and simply firing a burst blindly around the next bend in a communication trench can be just as effective as aiming through an awkward sight... Or better yet, simply throwing a grenade.
The photo shows a still from a video showing the aftermath of a ten-kilogram "pancake" filled with Torpex being dropped on a Ukrainian Armed Forces air defense system. We know the enemy is there, we know the enemy is waiting for us... So why bother? The video itself was filmed in Russian. drone back in the summer of 2024
Corner Shot systems are already being replaced by various robotic systems. After all, to shoot an enemy from around a corner, you still have to approach that corner. An armed drone, on the other hand, allows the operator to be much further away and, in theory, fire even more accurately. So, we'll likely see the complete disappearance of various "side shooters" or their complete transformation into a rare accessory exclusively for police special forces.
Why shoot from around a corner when you can send a drone armed with a weapon around it? A Chinese robotic "dog" at a shooting range.
Information