Military Review

Series submachine gun Evelyn Owen (Australia)

12
In 1939, Australian self-taught gunsmith Evelyn Owen developed and presented to the army his own version of a submachine gun. it weapon had a very simple design, and also differed cheap. Moreover, the first prototype was assembled by Owen in his own workshop. The simplicity and cheapness of the new weapon should have interested the army, but the commanders, having familiarized themselves with it, made a different decision. The military praised the enthusiasm of the inventor, but did not order the development of a full-fledged sample of small arms for the army.


Having been refused by the military, E. Owen soon lost interest in small arms and went to serve in the army. On this his career as a gunsmith could end, but soon the situation changed. The first prototype of a submachine gun accidentally caught the eye of Owen’s neighbor, Vincent Wardell, who was working for Lysaghts Newcastle Works at the time. Wardell and Owen again discussed the prospects of the project and decided once again to submit it to the military, this time as a new development of an industrial enterprise, rather than a single designer. In the new quality, the experimental weapon in 1940 was presented to the newly created Central Council of Inventions of the Army.

Council experts led by captain Cecil Dyer expressed interest in the proposal of Lysaghts Newcastle Works. This interest was not least connected with the events in Europe. By the time the demonstration of experienced weapons to the Council, Nazi Germany seized France and was preparing to attack the UK. Thus, in the near future, Australia could lose the opportunity to purchase British weapons and equipment, which is why it needed to develop its own systems. The proposal of Owen and Wardell in this case could be a "spare airfield" in case of supply problems.

Series submachine gun Evelyn Owen (Australia)
Owen Mk 1 serial submachine gun. Photo by Awm.gov.au


However, further work on Owen's submachine gun came with some problems. At the time of the demonstration of the prototype, Australia received assurances from the UK that the STEN submachine guns would be delivered soon. There was reason to believe that British weapons were superior to domestic ones in their characteristics, however, Australian experts decided not to rely on assumptions and to conduct comparative tests of the two samples. Lysaghts Newcastle Works have ordered several prototype weapons chambered for .38 S&W.

Since E. Owen at that time served in the army, most of the work on the development and improvement of his weapons was carried out by Lysaghts Newcastle Works. The main work involved the brothers Vinsend and Gerard Wardela, in addition, they helped master gunsmith Freddie Künzler. In the later stages of the project, Owen himself joined Wardell and Künzler.

Probably, the military did not want to get involved with a domestic manufacturer and wait until he completed all the design work, testing, refinement, etc. Because of this, Lysaghts Newcastle Works received an order, but was left without the necessary raw materials. The military department refused to provide ready-made barrels and ammunition for testing. Not wanting to lose the order, Wardell and his colleagues were able to convince the military of the need to change the requirements. After a number of disputes and consultations, it was decided to make a new submachine gun chambered for .32ACP. Such a change in the project made it possible to provide acceptable firing characteristics, but the main advantage was the possibility of using ready-made barrels for Short Magazine Lee-Enfield Mk I rifles.


Evelyn Owen with her submachine guns. Photo Forgottenweapons.com


Creating a submachine gun chambered for .32ACP took only three weeks, after which it was presented to the army. It should be noted that some sources indicate the date of delivery of this prototype, which can cause certain questions. According to some reports, it was submitted to the 30 army on January 1940, but this information may contradict other data on the project. Anyway, all the work on the weapon-chambered .32ACP project using the barrel from the serial rifle was completed during the 1940 year.

The prototype submachine gun was sent to the test and proved its efficiency. After that, the military demanded to carry out resource tests, during which the weapon was supposed to make 10 thousands of shots. At the same time, they refused to provide the necessary ammunition, and the chances of the company-developer to get them on their own sought to zero. Thus, the military department again transparently hinted that it did not want to deal with domestic enterprises and wanted to buy British-made weapons.

In response, Wardell and his comrades proposed a new version of the weapon, this time designed for the .45ACP cartridge. The gunsmiths rightly believed that the Australian army certainly had no shortage of such ammunition, since Thompson submachine guns and some other systems under this cartridge were in service. An order was placed for the supply of cartridges, but by mistake (or malicious intent), a batch of .455 Webley cartridges arrived at Lysaghts Newcastle Works. However, these events did not affect the course of the project. Already finished the prototype received a new barrel, made from units of the old rifle of the appropriate caliber.


Various prototypes of a machine gun pistol. Photo Forgottenweapons.com


At the beginning of 1941, the development team of the promising submachine gun was replenished with Evelin Owen. He was recalled from the army and sent to participate in the development of new weapons. What kind of design innovations were proposed by Owen - is unknown. Working as a team, the Australian gunsmiths did not try to perpetuate their names to the detriment of the common cause. In this case, however, in the end, the weapon received the name of E. Owen, who joined in the development of it only at one of the last stages.

During 1941, the Lysaghts Newcastle Works team of engineers continued to work on their new project and "fought" with the military. In addition, several prototypes were tested, the results of which were used to refine new samples. Tests have allowed to establish the strengths and weaknesses of the project in its current form, as well as improve ergonomics and make some other adjustments.

In early September, the 41-th military department again changed its requirements for a promising submachine gun. Now, the military demanded to remake the weapon for the use of the 9x19 mm Para cartridge. Such cartridges were used by a large number of systems, including the STEN submachine gun. By the end of the month, the work on the modernization of the submachine gun had ended, and another prototype was presented for testing.

Owen, Wardellah, and Künzler presented submachine guns of their design for 9x19mm Para and .45ACP cartridges for comparative tests. Their rivals were the British STEN and the American Thompson, using similar ammunition. These tests, during which all possible parameters and characteristics were tested, allowed Lysaghts Newcastle Works to prove its case and demonstrate the superiority of its development over the designs of competitors.


Drawing from the patent. Forgottenweapons.com Figure


At the beginning of the tests, all four models of weapons showed their best side, but as the conditions became more complex, the characteristics of the submachine guns changed noticeably. Particularly vividly the differences in the perfection of the structures appeared during the tests with pollution. The American "Thompson" after a stay in the mud continued to shoot, although it was not without delays and other problems. The British STEN test mud could not stand. At the same time, both samples of Owen submachine guns coped with all the trials.

Comparison of the four samples in conditions close to real ones helped the Australian military figure out which weapon to fight and which one should be abandoned. In this regard, the company Lysaghts Newcastle Works received an order for the production of a batch of 2000 submachine guns, which were planned to be sent to the army for military trials. Moreover, several samples and documentation on new weapons were sent to the UK with a proposal to check them and start mass production. According to reports, in the 1943 year, British experts conducted their comparative tests, during which Australian weapons again bypassed STEN and other samples.

A characteristic feature of the first submachine gun E. Owen, assembled in his own workshop, was extreme simplicity of design. In the course of further development of the weapon, the simplicity of the design was put at the forefront, which ultimately affected its final appearance. At the same time, the Wardela brothers and F. Künzler did not engage exclusively in the development of Owen’s first design. They proposed a number of significant innovations that were supposed to provide high performance without the use of compromise and dubious solutions.


Incomplete disassembly of the submachine gun version Mk 1-42. Photo Zonawar.ru


During the tests, the authors of the project constantly identified various deficiencies and corrected them. In addition, new original ideas were introduced to improve performance. Because of this, the 1940-41 prototypes differed markedly from each other in both the appearance and the structure of the internal units. Consider the design of a serial submachine gun, designated Mk 1.

The main unit of the weapon was a tubular receiver, inside of which were located the bolt, return spring and some elements of the firing mechanism. The 9 mm caliber barrel 247 mm long (27,5 caliber) was attached to it in front. To reduce the barrel toss when firing, a slot-hole muzzle compensator was introduced, outputting a portion of the powder gases up and down. The design of the compensator during serial production several times changed. In addition, the barrel initially had fins for better cooling, but then it was abandoned. The barrel was fixed in place with a special clamp. Behind the latter was a small vertical shaft shop. A characteristic feature of the submachine gun was the top location of the store, simplifying its design. Directly under the shop shaft, on the lower surface of the receiver, there was a window for ejection of the sleeves.

Behind the bottom of the receiver was provided with a screw hole for attaching the casing of the firing mechanism. The latter was a trapezoid metal unit, in front of which there was a large trigger bracket and a pistol grip. Inside housed the details of the firing mechanism. Behind the casing attached butt. The weapon was not equipped with a forearm, instead of which was offered an additional front handle, secured with a yoke on the barrel.


Owen submachine guns of different series (above and in the middle) and Austin SMG (below). Photo Forgottenweapons.com


The design of the casing trigger and butt depended on the model. Early serial submachine guns, the so-called. Owen Mk 1-42 was completed with a casing with solid walls and a frame metal butt. Subsequently, the design of these units has changed. Modification of the Mk 1-43 received a wooden butt that was simpler and cheaper to produce, and the weight gain was compensated by windows in the metal casing walls. There were also some other differences, which consisted in the production technologies, the design of the muzzle compensator, etc.

The submachine gun Owen had automatics on the basis of a free shutter. The shutter itself was made in the form of a cylindrical unit with a hole in the back for the installation of a return-combat spring and the front part of a complex shape formed by a cylinder and a rounded surface. Inside the gate, a special rod was fastened with a pin, on which a return spring was put on during assembly. When the bolt was placed inside the receiver, the stem went into the hole of the special partition. Thus, the bolt and spring remained in the front chamber of the box, and the rod fell into the back, where the loading handle attached to it was taken out through a slot in the right wall of the receiver.

The trigger mechanism was located in the casing, next to the trigger and the fire control knob. It consisted of only a few details: the trigger, the sear that locks the bolt in the rear position, the fuse-translator of the fire and several springs. The interpreter-fuse box, displayed on the left side of the casing and located above the pistol grip, made it possible to block the sear, as well as to shoot single or in a queue.


Another option camouflage coloring. Photo World.guns.ru


The box-shaped detachable stores on the 32 cartridge were placed in the receiver shaft of the receiver. The upper location of the store simplified the supply of ammunition, and the spring ensured the movement of cartridges even in non-standard positions. It should be noted that the shop’s mine was not located along the longitudinal axis of the weapon, but shifted to the right. This provided the possibility of aiming with the help of the available unregulated rear sight and front sight.

The Owen submachine gun had a length of the order of 810 mm and weighed (without a magazine) about 4,22 kg. Thus, this weapon could not boast of great ease of use, but comparative tests showed that the loss in weight and dimensions is fully compensated by reliability and firing characteristics.

The principle of operation of the weapon was quite simple. Before shooting, the shooter had to insert the magazine into the reception shaft and load the weapon by pulling the bolt handle back. At the same time, the latter was retracted to the extreme rear position, squeezing the reciprocating spring and engaging the sear. Shooting could be conducted only with an open shutter. When you press the trigger the bolt under the action of the spring went forward, clinging to the cartridge in the store and handed it to the chamber. At the extreme anterior point of the hammer strike, he struck the cartridge primer and a shot occurred.


Australian soldiers with Owen SMG. Photo of Wikimedia Commons


Under the force of recoil, the bolt began to move backward, stretching the cartridge case behind it. Having reached the rocking extractor, it was disconnected from the bolt and under its own weight fell through a window in the lower surface of the receiver. The shutter, in turn, went to the rear position and, depending on the fire mode, clung to the sear or went forward again.

Such mechanisms allowed the Owen submachine gun to fire at a rate of up to 700 shots per minute. The effective firing range provided by the 9x19 mm Para cartridge does not exceed the 150-200 m.

For disassembly and maintenance of weapons should use the appropriate lock and remove the barrel. After that, the bolt and reciprocating spring were removed from the receiver. Unscrewing the bottom screw, it was possible to remove the casing of the firing mechanism. The butt, regardless of the design and material, was also attached to the screw and could be detached from the casing of the trigger.

The used ammunition system, despite its unusual appearance, provided the submachine gun not only with high performance, but also good resistance to dirt. The lower position of the window for ejection of the sleeves made it difficult for dirt to get into the receiver box, and also made it easier to remove it: sand, earth, or water when moving the bolt fell out of the window themselves. A large trigger guard was also useful. When firing, drop-down cartridges fell on it and bounced off to the side, without burning the fingers of the shooter.


Early prototype of Owen SMG Mk 2. Photo by Awm.gov.au


In the 1942 year, after conducting military tests, a new weapon was put into service under the designation Owen SMG Mk 1 - "Owen submachine gun, version 1". Later this designation was changed to Mk 1-42 (by year of release) to distinguish it from later versions. During the years of World War II, the Australian industry launched the 45433 order for new submachine guns. About 12 units of thousand belonged to the base modification Mk 1-42 and equipped with metal butts. In 1943, the production of the Mk 1-43 variant was launched, featuring a new USM casing and a wooden butt. Such weapons were made in the number of 33 thousand.

A curious feature of Owen's serial submachine guns was the coloring. This weapon was intended for use by the Australian army, which led the fighting mainly in the southern regions of Asia and the Pacific with its own landscape features. For this reason, the weapons were camouflaged for the jungle, mostly yellow and green. The overwhelming majority of submachine guns that have survived to our day, have exactly this color, although there are both black and unpainted samples.

There is information about the development of an upgraded submachine gun with the designation Mk 2. Due to some design innovations, it was planned to raise the firing characteristics, as well as further reduce the weight. This version of the weapon reached mass production, but could not force out the base Mk 1. As a result, the release of the Owen submachine gun of the second model was limited to several hundred pieces.

The series production of the Owen SMG submachine gun continued until 1944. The simplicity of the design and low cost of production made it possible to manufacture more than 45 thousand units of such weapons, which was sufficient to solve all the problems of the Australian army. This weapon was actively used by Australia during the Second World War and subsequent conflicts. With Owen submachine guns, Australian troops marched into battle in Korea and Vietnam. At the end of the sixties, a massive write-off of submachine guns began, which developed their resources. Some of the remaining reserves were sold to third countries. A replacement for weapons of the Second World War were the F1 own Australian developments.


Serial Owen SMG Mk 2. Photo by Awm.gov.au


Working at Lysaghts Newcastle Works, Evelyn Owen was listed as an employee and received wages along with his other colleagues. In addition, after the adoption of a new submachine gun for service, the payment of premiums and patent royalties began. In total, Owen made 10 thousand pounds on his project. He used the money to build his own sawmill. At the same time, Owen continued to work on promising weapons in an initiative manner. After the war, a self-taught engineer became addicted to alcohol and died in 1949, never seeing the use of his weapon in new conflicts.

From the point of view of Lysaghts Newcastle Works, the design of the submachine gun was not particularly successful. Until the middle of 1941, she had to work on her own initiative, not counting on any reimbursement of expenses. In addition, Vincent Wardell had to literally fight for the project and, as they say, spend my nerves on his progress. Only after the start of mass production, the companies appointed a premium for the creation of a project in the amount of 4% of the value of orders. However, payments under this contract were constantly delayed, which is why the company received the full amount only in 1947 year - three years after the end of production. Due to delays in payments from the military department, the company could not repay loans on time, which led to an increase in already considerable debts. Payment of debts, fines, etc. led to a reduction in company profits from baseline 4% to 1,5% of the total cost of mass production.

Self-taught constructor Evelyn Owen began creating his own submachine gun in the late thirties, wanting to help the country in defending against possible threats. In the future, the specialists of Lysaghts Newcastle Works, who brought the project to mass production, showed their enthusiasm on this basis. As a result of the joint work, one of the most massive Australian weapons emerged, which, however, first led to large spending, and then brought its creators only quickly faded glory. However, in stories small arms submachine gun Owen SMG remained as one of the most interesting developments, even if not received much distribution.


On the materials of the sites:
http://forgottenweapons.com/
http://world.guns.ru/
http://gunsite.narod.ru/
http://zonwar.ru/

Author:
12 comments
Information
Dear reader, to leave comments on the publication, you must to register.

I have an account? Sign in

  1. Volga Cossack
    Volga Cossack 9 December 2015 07: 10 New
    +1
    funny machine. camouflage pre-applied always pleased ......
  2. Maki Avellevich
    Maki Avellevich 9 December 2015 07: 17 New
    +2
    Horror.

    harder only with the musket
  3. hghg
    hghg 9 December 2015 07: 26 New
    0
    Not very good, but cheap and simple submachine gun.
  4. Fotoceva62
    Fotoceva62 9 December 2015 08: 53 New
    +3
    For the arming of partisans and militias, it’s quite, and for the regular army, complete squalor. Considering in what conditions and at what time the sample was created, it is a completely mobilization solution. Australia was waiting for the Japanese invasion and, considering the state of affairs with small arms automatic weapons in the metropolis (full of seams), tried to do it herself. For 40_x years the level is weak.
    Not gunsmiths. In the photo of the Shpitalny PP which was produced for the 1941 Tula militia. Feel the difference or remember the Kalashnikov PP.
    1. gross kaput
      gross kaput 9 December 2015 11: 17 New
      +2
      "Sometimes it is better to chew than talk" Ts. Advertising orbits.
      Quote: Fotoceva62
      PP Shpitalnaya

      Shpitalnyy does not belong to this construction in any way, its author is Korovin, and most importantly this command post is not related to the defense of Tula in 1941. it doesn’t, he appeared later and took part in the 1942 competition. at the new BCP, the first stage of which he happily failed and won, as is well known, Sudaev with his BCP. 41g each in Tula, a number of other PPs developed by Korovin on the basis of their early designs but maximally simplified were riveted in an emergency order, there wasn’t even any kind of stamping because there was simply no time for making stamps for setting up the equipment and working out the technology as simple as possible and bent steel strip receiver, all parts as simple as possible with the manufacture of universal metal-cutting machines without special equipment.
      PS Another example of how erroneous information, launched in a quick, slabby hackneyed article in the magazine "Arms" 15 years ago, has by now been replicated many times and has become an "axiom" that does not require proof.
      PS2 the same software Korovin of the Tula militia
  5. martin-159
    martin-159 9 December 2015 09: 07 New
    0
    The main thing is that its production.
  6. alex-cn
    alex-cn 9 December 2015 09: 26 New
    0
    And they wrote about the famous "walls" that it could literally be assembled from water pipes.
  7. Sasha75
    Sasha75 9 December 2015 10: 39 New
    0
    We made weapons for ourselves, so it’s their choice and many decisions like a magazine from above, these production flaws store springs were weak, and only from above they ensured normal operation of the software and everything subsequent in its construction was connected with such problems, and such a platypus turned out.
  8. Rebus
    Rebus 9 December 2015 10: 54 New
    +1
    About people like Owen, the Strugatsky brothers wrote - "Disabled people of creative work. Persistence to create. There is no talent to create."
  9. topical
    topical 9 December 2015 12: 50 New
    0
    ordered several prototypes of weapons under the cartridge .38 S&W

    No, why did they pervert there in Australia? This cartridge is better than .22 LR cartridge. But still, for the army of rubbish.
    After a series of disputes and consultations, it was decided to make a new submachine gun under the cartridge .32ACP.

    It would be better whiskey thirsty. It would be more sense.
    but the main plus was the ability to use off-the-shelf trunks from Short Magazine Lee-Enfield Mk I rifles

    Now the main "trick" is clear. True, a three-line caliber is suitable for a rifle, but not for a pistol and PP. But these are "little things". Most importantly, the trunks did not have to be done.
    Thus, the military department again transparently hinted that it does not want to deal with domestic enterprises and wants to acquire British-made weapons.

    Still would. Comparing Walls on a 9x19 mm cartridge with this masturbator is even somehow not convenient.
    In response, Wardell and his comrades proposed a new version of the weapon, this time designed for the .45ACP cartridge.

    Yeah, i.e. the military specifically indicated to them what they were wrong.
    For comparative tests, Owen, Wardells and Künzler presented submachine guns of their own design with 9x19 mm Para and .45ACP cartridges. Their rivals were the British STEN and the American Thompson, using similar ammunition.

    If you do not buy ready-made and do it from scratch, I would not use a 9x19 mm cartridge. In the time of WW2, he was rather weak. The Germans used it only because they did not want to start rearmament. Moreover, it was cheap.
    But a cheap version of Thompson should have been done. Because Thompson had the only flaw, the price. True, still expensive ammunition.
    The effective firing range provided by the 9x19 mm Para cartridge did not exceed 150-200 m.

    Apparently the author had in mind the range of the actual fire. Because effective range PP on a cartridge 9x19 mm with a barrel of such a length of 60 m
    In 1942, after conducting military trials, new weapons were adopted

    In vain. Cheapness is cheapness, but efficiency should not be forgotten either. On a .45ACP cartridge, this weapon would be incomparably better. And the weapon on the 9x19 mm cartridge cannot be called good. You can not call him bad. The price is below average.
    Serial production of Owen SMG submachine guns continued until 1944.

    In the late sixties began a massive retirement of submachine guns

    Not at all surprised. For wartime, with a sin in half, due to the cheapness of the ammunition, it will pull. For more, no.
  10. Grigorievich
    Grigorievich 9 December 2015 13: 51 New
    +1
    That "walls", that this is some kind of squalor. Wherever the Anglo-Saxons were, the head works in one direction.
    1. The comment was deleted.
    2. topical
      topical 9 December 2015 14: 53 New
      +1
      Quote: Grigorievich
      Wherever the Anglo-Saxons are, the head works in one direction.

      The Yankees are also Anglo-Saxons. But their Thompson is gorgeous. Like the rest of the shooter. Apparently the matter is not in Angosaxians.
      Although, of course, aligning Stan with Thompson is not very correct. Sten is a European submachine gun, and Thompson is a submachine-gun (SMG). And these are different things. Unless the cartridge is everywhere pistol. But there is nothing more in common.
      Interestingly, in Europe submachine-gun (SMG) is usually translated as a submachine gun. In fact, this is not so, the Americans never mass-produced such weapons as the European submachine gun. And the translation is categorically incorrect. Suffice it to say that Tommy Gan was replaced in due time by the M16A1. Does she have much in common with European submachine guns? They are not at all. And Tommy-gun, this is really a real small machine gun, with an effective range of fire corresponding to this status, firing pistol cartridges.
      1. Massik
        Massik 9 December 2015 21: 10 New
        +2
        A magnificent Tommy Gun was the fact that he was much more expensive than all his classmates and weighed 4.7 kg when not equipped. The only thing he was magnificent at that time was the workmanship, which is no wonder under such production conditions and a powerful cartridge.
        1. The comment was deleted.
        2. topical
          topical 9 December 2015 22: 09 New
          0
          Quote: Marssik
          And magnificent Tommy Gun was that he was much more expensive than all his classmates

          How is this known? After all, the first classmate (an automatic weapon with the same effective fire range) Tommy Gan appeared only in the 60s of the last century. This classmate was called M16A1. And as far as I know, this classmate (or rather, the receiver) was also not cheap. Anyway, good things are expensive. This is an axiom.
          As for the European submachine guns, they are not Tommy-gan's classmates and were not. Of the total they have, only a pistol cartridge. And even then, with Tommy Gan he is quite specific.
          According to the TTX, Tommy Gan's classmates are M16 of all models and RPK-74. It's all.
          At the same time, with excellent efficiency, Tommy-gun possessed very mediocre external ballistics. This was due to the ammunition used. Therefore, only an experienced shooter could effectively use it at 100%. But even an inexperienced shooter could use it as a submachine gun (i.e., weapons with a class one step higher than the European PP). In addition, the penetrating ability of his bullet later, already at the time of bulletproof vests, became insufficient. The lack of external ballistics and penetration was corrected in his receiver, M16A1 (new ammunition). Well, that’s all in a nutshell.
          Quote: Marssik
          and weighed 4.7 kg when not in running order

          I agree, Tommy-gan weighed a lot. But not much, for his performance characteristics. I repeat, do not compare it with the European PP. These are not classmates. Somehow it happened that the Americans did not produce analogues of European PP. Not interested in them. Generally. And the Europeans did not produce analogues of the American submachine-gun (SMG) on a cartridge with a classic bullet.
          Quote: Marssik
          The only thing he was great ... and a powerful cartridge

          Not at all. The Tommy Gang cartridge was not at all powerful. The energy of his bullet was only 584 J. For comparison, the energy of the bullet of the German MP-40 (and the British Wall) was 580 J. The energy of the bullet was of little use to the Soviet PCA (wrong cartridge) was 690 J.
          So the secret of Tommy Gan’s excellent performance is not in the powerful, but in the right cartridge. But this is experience, knowledge and skill (company, in other words). All that was not in the USSR when he adopted the 7,62x25 mm TT cartridge for the army. And, if that, the cartridge 9x18 mm PM, too. And, if that, the cartridge is 7,62x39 mm, too.
          But the motivation for adopting a dead 5,45x39 mm is quite understandable. It was, though controversial, but quite deliberate step. However, now this "deliberate step" climbs sideways.
          1. Massik
            Massik 10 December 2015 16: 13 New
            +1
            Mdaaa great nonsense at some in the minds ...
  11. bionik
    bionik 9 December 2015 16: 24 New
    0
    Here are our craftsmen. Handicraft submachine gun of the Tolstopyatovs of the first sample. Caliber:
    5,6 mm
    Applicable cartridge:
    .22LR (first two)
    Homemade cartridge (last two)
    Store Capacity:
    25 - 28 rounds (first sample)
    7 - 15 rounds (second sample) Length (mm):
    405 mm (first sample)
    460 mm (first sample)
    250 mm (barrel length of the first sample)
    325 mm (second sample)
    365 mm (second sample)
    245 mm (second folded specimen)
  12. Mountain shooter
    Mountain shooter 9 December 2015 20: 43 New
    0
    The original design. And no one noticed that he doesn’t throw him when shooting? Sits like a glove. And the store from above doesn’t interfere. And you do not need to rise above the parapet.