Military Review

Baryshev pistol

22
Recently, one can observe a huge interest in arms designed by designer Baryshev. A small return in the conduct of fire and, as a consequence, the high accuracy of the weapon gives rise to many disputes that the designer’s work was underestimated and his designs would be much better than those currently in service, even if they were mass-produced. And mass production, especially with us, is capable of hacking at the root any good idea. Designer Baryshev has developed a lot of very interesting types of weapons, which have already been written a huge amount of materials, but one sample, for some reason, always miss or mention it in passing, simply noting its existence. We are talking about the Baryshev pistol, which once participated in the competition with a Makarov pistol, in which he made a good competition to the winner.


Baryshev pistolIn principle, it is not surprising that little is known about this Baryshev pistol. The thing is that, unlike other models of the weapon of designer’s authorship, this gun is very simple, actually primitive, but this is only in comparison. In fact, despite the simplicity of the design, this gun showed better results, including the accuracy of fire, but it was less reliable compared to the same PM, which is why he lost in the competition. The simplicity of the weapon is explained by the fact that low-power ammunition was used in the pistol, so, in this case, it was pointless to wise the automatic weapons, since automatic control based on the free gate was quite successful with such a cartridge. Nevertheless, some of the solutions that the designer applied were interesting, though not new. First of all, it should be noted that the return spring was located under the barrel of the pistol on the non-removable rail. Thus, in the case of incomplete disassembly of the weapon, the pistol was divided into only three components: the pistol itself, the bolt cover and the magazine. The advantage seems to be not so great, but as superiority over other samples can be noted.

Much more interesting was the fact that the design of the firing mechanism was such that it was possible to fire immediately, if necessary, although at the same time the safety of the weapon was very high. This was achieved as follows. The trigger mechanism had a fuse, or rather a safety trigger of the trigger (intermediate position between the trigger and cocked trigger), which was turned off when the trigger was pressed. In other words, the fuse was turned off when firing by the self-coax, something like a modified version of the TT trigger mechanism. In my opinion, the designer was somewhat wise with the protection system, as in most cases it is quite enough just a tight pick-up, so that there is no accidental shot, unless you exclude those cases when you play football with a cartridge in the chamber. In the end, the automatic safety of the firing pin was already known at that time, so it was possible to solve the problem in the same way. One way or another, but during the competition this high safety pistol and the ability to instantly fire if necessary was noted separately.

It works like a weapon. By inserting a magazine into the gun, the shooter detracts from the cover-bolt and releases it, thereby cocking the trigger and sending the cartridge into the chamber. After that, the trigger is removed from combat platoon and set to the position of the safety platoon. In such a half-isolated state, a weapon can absolutely safely be worn by the shooter until the first need of use. If necessary, shoot, the shooter simply pulls the trigger, if there is time, having previously cocked the trigger, thereby reducing the pull force on the trigger and increasing the accuracy of the first shot. Thus, the trigger is either first docked, and then breaks, or immediately breaks. A punctured primer with an initiating compound ignites the powder inside the cartridge, which accordingly begins to burn, emitting a very large amount of powder gases. Since the powder gases become more and more in the process of burning powder, they try to increase the distance between the bullet and the sleeve, thereby increasing the volume and reducing the increased pressure. So the bullet accelerates down the barrel of the gun and leaves it. However, the powder gases not only push the bullet, but also have exactly the same effect on the cartridge case, pushing it back.

The sleeve, trying to move backward, transmits energy from the powder gases to the shutter-casing, which in its mass is much heavier than a light bullet, respectively, and its speed of movement is less. Due to its mass, the shutter casing moves back even when the bullet has already left the barrel and the pressure of the powder gases is reduced. Thus, the shutter casing receives the energy necessary for its complete retraction and simultaneous compression of the recoil spring, as well as the trigger cocking. Having reached its extreme rear point, the cover-shutter stops for a split second and under the action of the return spring begins to move forward, removing the new cartridge from the magazine and inserting it into the chamber. The next time you press the trigger, the next disruption of the trigger occurs, respectively, the next shot also takes place, which sets the entire structure in motion on the same plan.

It is far more interesting that at the same competition when comparing the PM and Baryshev's gun, the appearance of the weapon was noted, and not in favor of the latter. Honestly, I don’t know what the Baryshev’s gun didn’t like outwardly, in my opinion a quite nice sample that is not worse and not better than the same PM. And if you imagine a rounded "face" of a weapon with a noiseless firing device, then you get a handsome man. It should also be noted that the gun does not have controls that could catch on the clothes when removing the weapon, even the shutter lag is controlled using the button, duplicated, by the way, on both sides of the gun. The magazine is fixed with a spring-loaded latch at the bottom of the handle, similarly to all the same PM. An interesting point is that the trigger pistol sector, that is, in any of its provisions, it closes a slot on the back of the housing-bolt, which reduces the amount of dirt that can get into the weapon. Nevertheless, even such a measure of protection against dirt did not make the weapon super reliable, even in ideal operating conditions.

The main problem of the weapon was that the designer set the high precision of the pistol for the sake of reliability. Since the gun consisted of many parts, specifically 37, when fully disassembled against Makarov's 27 pistol, its reliability was, by definition, lower. All the same, whatever one may say, but the simpler the device is, the more reliable it is, a vivid example of that scrap, although it can be, if not broken, then bent with enough enthusiasm. All parts of the weapon were fitted with minimal tolerances, because moisture, dirt, and just old grease could be the reasons for the failure of the weapon. But in accuracy, this weapon bypassed all its competitors in the competition, although it is not known what would happen to the gun if it were launched into mass production. The reason for failure under ideal conditions of weapon operation was often that the shutter did not always roll back all the way back, respectively, the spent cartridge coming out of the chamber returned into it and recharging was not carried out. It is difficult to say what was the cause of such a problem without encountering it personally. Perhaps the reason was too rigid return spring, and perhaps all the same fitting of parts in the amount gave such a result. One way or another, the designer was in no hurry to change anything in his gun, so it can be assumed that, with increased manufacturing tolerances, the gun would lose its high accuracy.

So at various distances compared to the same Makarov pistol, Baryshev’s pistol turned out to be a quarter more accurate, while the sample’s failures were equal to 0,84 and the percent of shots in ideal conditions, when the Makarov pistol could “boast” of only four hundredths of a percent. Well, since we started talking about numbers, it is impossible not to note the size and weight of the weapon. The length of the Baryshev pistol is 162 millimeter with the barrel length 95 millimeters. The height of the weapon is 120 millimeters, thickness is 30. Gun weight is 735 grams. It would be possible to say that the weapon is more accurate in comparison with the PM because of the greater weight and the greater length of the barrel, but agree that 2 millimeter and 19 grams are weak arguments.

So you can summarize. The Baryshev pistol is indeed a more accurate weapon in comparison with the PM, but this accuracy is achieved not by the design features, but by the high precision of parts manufacturing. The consequence of this accuracy is the low reliability of the weapon. In general, in this case, the weapon clearly cannot claim a deserved place for the PM, well, let's try to sort out the rest of the samples in the following articles.
Author:
Photos used:
weaponland.ru
22 comments
Information
Dear reader, to leave comments on the publication, you must to register.

I have an account? Sign in

  1. avt
    avt 23 August 2013 09: 21 New
    +6
    But what Baryshev did, he didn’t know. request Thanks for eradicating illiteracy. + laughing
    1. Constantine
      Constantine 23 August 2013 10: 09 New
      10
      Quote: avt
      But what Baryshev did, he didn’t know.


      I also smile Baryshev is generally a talent. Ours would be worth a look at his machine, for example, and not constantly upgrade the AK. You see, the synthesis of solutions would give out a new legend of small arms smile
      1. bazilio
        bazilio 23 August 2013 12: 27 New
        +2
        I also did not know about Baryshev's pistol. Thanks for the info)))
      2. avt
        avt 23 August 2013 19: 22 New
        +2
        Quote: Constantine
        Ours should look at his machine, for example,

        And his rifle in the video caught me and a grenade launcher, with such a caliber and so heaps good .
      3. Corsair
        Corsair 23 August 2013 22: 22 New
        +2
        Quote: Constantine
        Baryshev is generally a talent. Ours would be worth a look at his machine, for example, and not constantly upgrade the AK. You see, the synthesis of solutions would give out a new legend of small arms

        I was interested in the figure of the designer Baryshev, I decided to "dig" the Internet. And here is what I found (I give separate excerpts, "omitting" part of the information):

        The phenomenon of Baryshev is that, as opposition to him grows, he only increased his efforts. He only fought not in the cabinets, but at the drawing board, in the workshop and at the shooting range, where his samples were demonstrated and tested. The invariable result of such tests was the request of the military: "Give us your weapons!". The border guards of the KGB of the USSR and the GRU of the USSR Ministry of Defense spoke in favor of its quickest implementation. It became known abroad, and is now patented, except for Russia, in Austria, England, Belgium, Germany, Italy, France. Switzerland (also protected by Europatent in these countries), Czech Republic, Slovakia, Ukraine and China; There is a patenting process in India. Patents are issued both for a locking device and for industrial designs, in particular, an automatic rifle ABB-7,62 and an automatic grenade launcher AGB-30. Moreover, in Ukraine and the Czech Republic, Baryshev’s weapons were tried to be stolen, that is, put into production without his name and participation. It is good that these attempts were stopped. And we have...
        At one “wonderful” moment, we heard the order of a high official: “Destroy all Baryshev’s samples. Two days for execution!” Indeed, they showed particular attention. Indeed, gunsmiths always and everywhere try to preserve any prototypes, regardless of their future fate, for this is not just a piece of history, but designs that carry elements of novelty and technical solutions that can find application in the future. So such an order says a lot ... True, the “destroy” still failed.
        And another excerpt:


        We are armed with the complex A.F. Baryshev. It includes samples of personal, individual and group weapons, from pistols to 30-mm automatic grenade launchers. Almost all of them are designed and manufactured on the basis of commercially available samples and unified with them at 70-75%, and unification inside the module is 60-65%. The modular construction of the complex is based on the use in all samples of a fundamentally unified design of the locking unit and some other elements, which will reduce the costs of its production, operation and development in the army. For more than three decades, Baryshev's designs have existed.

        Weaponplace.ru
  2. Owl
    Owl 23 August 2013 09: 42 New
    +3
    a larger diameter spring applied to the PM, worn on the gun barrel - much easier to maintain and more reliable
    1. Black Colonel
      Black Colonel 23 August 2013 13: 36 New
      +1
      And the dimensions, respectively, are smaller. Hence the weight is less.
  3. sq
    sq 23 August 2013 10: 36 New
    +4
    Baryshev’s weapons are more suitable for those special operations where accuracy is more important for weapons than reliability.
  4. RBLip
    RBLip 23 August 2013 10: 56 New
    +3
    good article. I read about machine guns, I heard about a gun for the first time. thanks to the author! hi
  5. georg737577
    georg737577 23 August 2013 12: 44 New
    +3
    In PM, due to the shape of the chamber, a small percentage of delays is obtained. I wonder what form of chamber in PB - straight or conical? And Baryshev is one of the most prominent gunsmiths. I like the fact that he always went his own way, often finding extremely simple and rational solutions where it seemed impossible to come up with something new.
  6. bazilio
    bazilio 23 August 2013 12: 50 New
    +5
    Thanks Cyril. I hope there will be reviews about the remaining trunks of the Baryshev system.

    Now about this sample. It is not surprising that in the pistol Baryshev put accuracy at the forefront, in all his models he tried mainly to increase accuracy.
    The reason for the loss of this PMU pistol is reasonable and obvious - the concept of all post-war small arms was guided by several basic principles - mass, simplicity (for the quickest possible development of weapons by a large number of even illiterate fighters) reliability (which would shoot in any conditions + foolproofness can also be attributed to reliability) , ease of production and low cost, so that it would be possible to rivet the trunks of hundreds of thousands and millions. It turns out that the Baryshev pistol did not fit into this concept - reliability is lower than PM, the minimum tolerance values ​​indicate a more complex production, which unambiguously leads to a higher cost, which, together with lower reliability, generally exclude mass character. The simplicity of the design - it may be more complicated than the construction of the PM but not much, the scheme of automation with a free shutter should not be particularly complicated.
    Design is pretty.
    Conclusion - to create a good small arms designers have to find a compromise between reliability, accuracy, simplicity of design, complexity and cost of production. Moreover, the balance between the specified parameters is determined by the terms of reference, goals, objectives and conditions of use. In general, it is not easy for designers.
  7. bazilio
    bazilio 23 August 2013 12: 50 New
    0
    Thanks Cyril. I hope there will be reviews about the remaining trunks of the Baryshev system.

    Now about this sample. It is not surprising that in the pistol Baryshev put accuracy at the forefront, in all his models he tried mainly to increase accuracy.
    The reason for the loss of this PMU pistol is reasonable and obvious - the concept of all post-war small arms was guided by several basic principles - mass, simplicity (for the quickest possible development of weapons by a large number of even illiterate fighters) reliability (which would shoot in any conditions + foolproofness can also be attributed to reliability) , ease of production and low cost, so that it would be possible to rivet the trunks of hundreds of thousands and millions. It turns out that the Baryshev pistol did not fit into this concept - reliability is lower than PM, the minimum tolerance values ​​indicate a more complex production, which unambiguously leads to a higher cost, which, together with lower reliability, generally exclude mass character. The simplicity of the design - it may be more complicated than the construction of the PM but not much, the scheme of automation with a free shutter should not be particularly complicated.
    Design is pretty.
    Conclusion - to create a good small arms designers have to find a compromise between reliability, accuracy, simplicity of design, complexity and cost of production. Moreover, the balance between the specified parameters is determined by the terms of reference, goals, objectives and conditions of use. In general, it is not easy for designers.
    1. The comment was deleted.
    2. The comment was deleted.
  8. Chicot 1
    Chicot 1 23 August 2013 13: 43 New
    +7
    I do not presume to judge about the pistols of Anatoly Filippovich Baryshev. I didn’t take it, I didn’t shoot ...
    But about PM I can notice one thing - a damn reliable car. Not without flaws, but in his class (service pistols with a free shutter) he is one of the best, and this is undeniable ...
    Regarding some special "accuracy" of Baryshev’s pistols ... Fire contact with the use of short-barreled firearms usually occurs at distances rarely exceeding 20-25 meters, and often it occurs at distances of 5-10 meters. In such conditions, reliability is more important than some kind of "accuracy" of the weapon. Yes, much also depends on the preparation of the shooter himself, his psychological qualities, etc. etc...
    In a word, there are no special advantages of the Baryshev pistol over the PM and never has been. And in front of modern samples and even more so (because of the difference in the cartridge used) ...
    1. alex-cn
      alex-cn 23 August 2013 16: 16 New
      +2
      According to the American police, the majority of fire contact is 7-11m. it's not a minus, but just an addition
  9. alex-cn
    alex-cn 23 August 2013 16: 19 New
    +2
    Thanks Kirill, I didn’t even hear about Baryshev’s pistols before your article. I am surprised and even envy where you accumulate all these miraculous guns. I even want to contact with a capital letter!
  10. archi.sailor
    archi.sailor 23 August 2013 21: 38 New
    +3
    I heard about such a designer A.F. Baryshev, one Zhuk wrote about him (I apologize for the memory, I don’t remember the initials of this kind man) in his atlas on small arms. This is not him, A.F. Baryshev, participated in the competition and lost? Correct for inaccuracies
  11. bunta
    bunta 24 August 2013 00: 49 New
    +2
    I wanted to write an article about this. But I can’t get it in any way. I will limit myself here.
    A system with a free shutter, despite the simplicity of the circuit, is the most complex in terms of calculation, design and practical implementation. From the side, the process really looks like pushing the sleeve by the pressure of gases from the chamber. In fact, the gas presses not only on the bottom of the sleeve but also on its walls, sealing the sleeve against the walls of the chamber with monstrous force. In order for the sleeve to move, it is necessary that the pressure on the bottom of the sleeve exceeds the pressure on the walls times the coefficient of friction between the chamber and the sleeve. If the coefficient is unnecessarily small, the sleeve will move away before the pressure drops, will exit the chamber, and if not tear, the gases will inflate the sleeve in the place where it comes out of the chamber - a longitudinal gap. The bullet will not gain the necessary speed (energy).
    If the coefficient is too large (sand has fallen between the liner and the chamber), the liner will simply tear off the bottom (transverse rupture of the liner). To reduce the pressure with which the sleeve is sealed to the chamber, Revelli grooves are made. These are the longitudinal grooves in the chamber, into which gases enter and by their pressure from the chamber side slightly compensate the pressure from the sleeve. Such grooves are made for powerful cartridges and not only in automation with a free shutter. The disadvantage of the grooves is the difficulty of manufacturing and cleaning. Obviously, the force of the return spring and the mass of the shutter must be calculated so that they can only start moving at a pressure in the bore that does not tear the sleeve across, or the sleeve is pulled out and it leaves the chamber in such a way that the residual pressure again did not lead to a longitudinal rupture. In addition, the bullet must crash into the grooves and start moving, and this takes some time.
    Now the fun part is happening. We look at the dynamics.
    If we assume that the initial impulse shifted the sleeve, it kicked the shutter and it began to gain speed in the rollback pulling the sleeve behind it - this is not true. Because at this moment the sleeve has already been sealed to the chamber and, through the ejector, the shutter will experience severe braking, and the ejector tooth will have a high load. That is, the energy received by the shutter at the first moment is completely insufficient to start recharging. Yes, it is not desirable because of the possibility of transverse rupture of the sleeve. In addition, the shutter will soon begin to experience increasing spring force and cocking resistance. Actually, the shutter movement begins when the pressure in the chamber has subsided. Thus, the physics that prevents the shutter from opening early and the designer’s desire to keep the shutter closed longer coincide.
    The second part of the Marleson ballet is coming.
    The sleeve presses on the bolt already seriously, but we remember that the pressure in the sleeve is already such that it cannot guarantee to break its walls when exiting the chamber. In addition, a spring presses on the shutter and puts the trigger on the bandwagon. Will the shutter gain enough energy for reliable recharging?
    The third part of the Marleson ballet is called the law of conservation (impulse, energy ...). Unlike gases that gently act on the liner and bolt, it begins to act as soon as the bullet detaches from the barrel. This conservation law says that the recoil force is inversely proportional to the mass ratio of the bullet and the weapon (approximately). Roughly speaking, if a bullet weighing 3 grams takes off from a weapon weighing 300 grams with an energy of 300 J, then the recoil energy will be 3 J. Now let's look at the gun. The trunk tightly sealed into the frame is reliably grounded through the hand of the shooter. The speed of the barrel-frame-hand-shooter-globe system is zero, since the mass is huge. From the system, a shutter weighing 300 grams remains. It is he who receives these 3 joules. Thus, a purely mechanical recoil momentum is added to the movement of the shutter caused by the pressure of the gases.
    1. bazilio
      bazilio 25 August 2013 14: 53 New
      0
      Quote: bunta
      I wanted to write an article about this. But I can’t get it in any way. I will limit myself here.


      As always, Comrade Bunta clearly expresses his thoughts. It would be nice if you, dear Riot, would still continue to publish reviews, preferably from the cycle "notes techie")))
      1. bunta
        bunta 26 August 2013 15: 47 New
        0
        Thanks for your kind words. As soon as time permits, I will definitely continue.
  12. Lecha57
    Lecha57 24 August 2013 06: 28 New
    0
    I think that in small arms there should be diversity and work only in one standard, probably boring.
  13. crambol
    crambol 26 August 2013 15: 51 New
    +1
    Quote: Corsair
    at one “fine” moment, the order of the high official was heard: “Destroy all Baryshev’s samples. Two days for execution!”


    I would castrate such bureaucrats, regardless of rank, with great pleasure, in order to somehow reduce this prolific muck, which is so idiotic ruining new developments.
    Glory to Baryshev!
  14. Plowman
    Plowman 27 August 2013 19: 14 New
    +1
    It seems the author of the article is misleading. In general, the article is about Anatoly Fillipovich Baryshev, and the pistol is Konstantin Alexandrovich Baryshev. In 1948, the respected Anatoly Filipovich was only 17 years old, and about 15 years remained before he created his own locking system.
  15. Petr7
    Petr7 2 November 2016 18: 08 New
    0
    The author of the article is somewhat mistaken about the authorship of the described gun! The constructor of the pistol described in this article is Baryshev, but not Anatoly Filippovich, but Konstantin Alexandrovich! I repeat, the name of the designer of this pistol is Konstantin Aleksandrovich Baryshev !!! A very talented Russian gunsmith, a follower of the Western approach to weapons manufacturing (like Sergey Alexandrovich Korovin), with a very difficult fate. By the way, Anatoly Filippovich Baryshev, along with his machine gun, machine gun and grenade launcher, also invented the 14th B-50 loading pistol, which has nothing to do with the pistol described in the article !!! At the time of the competition in 1948, Anatoly Filippovich Baryshev was only 17 years old, and Konstantin Alexandrovich 26.