Military Review

Project of an automatic rifle based on a Thompson M1 submachine gun

31
Creating a new small weapons on the basis of existing samples - a common and proven practice that promotes progress and allows you to update your arsenals without any special difficulties or costs. In this case, the prototype product and the new model almost always belong to the same class: rifles are made on the basis of rifles, and pistols become the basis for new pistols. Attempts to rework weapons with transfer to another class are also being made, but not always succeed. For example, in the early forties of the last century, American gunsmiths tried to create a promising automatic rifle from a Thompson M1 submachine gun, but the result did not suit anyone.


In 1942, the M1-type Thompson submachine gun went into the series. It was a modified and simplified version of the M1928 weapon with a number of innovations aimed at cheaper production and mass exploitation. By the end of 42, a new weapon modification called M1A1 appeared. It differed from the basic M1 in an even simpler design. Its main difference was the fixed drummer, which allowed to shoot only in automatic mode. The simplicity and low cost (in comparison with the “Thompsons” of the previous models) allowed for several years to release more than 820 thousands of submachine guns of two modifications. In addition, there was a proposal to create more powerful weapons based on existing developments.

Approximately in 1942 or 1943, it was proposed to rework the design of the Thompson M1 / M1A1 submachine gun to use the new cartridge. A prospective weapons sample was supposed to use standard .30-06 Springfield type rifle ammunition (7,62x63 mm). Thus, the result of the project was to be the emergence of a new automatic rifle, created on the basis of a submachine gun.


The only known photo of a rifle at the base of a Thompson submachine gun. Photo Strangernn.livejournal.com


Probably one of the main goals of the new project was the creation of a new small arms for a rifle cartridge with the lowest possible price for production and operation. The “military” modifications of the Thompson submachine gun differed from earlier versions by a less complex design and greater low cost production. It is possible that it was these weapons advantages that were planned to be used in the project of a new automatic rifle.

According to reports, the new automatic rifle was an enlarged base submachine gun with some design changes associated with the use of a more powerful cartridge. The most noticeable result of such innovations was a change in the dimensions and proportions of the weapon. A relatively long barrel appeared, and the size of the receiver increased. Some improvements have been applied to the internal units, which, in particular, affected the distance between the store's receiving window and the trigger mechanism.

The overall architecture and layout of weapons preserved. The main unit of the rifle was an oblong receiver of rectangular section, in front of which was attached the barrel. To protect the hands of the shooter from the heated trunk in front of the box was provided a wooden forearm. If the standard shank of the M1 / M1A1 submachine gun was used when assembling the test rifle, then it can be argued that the new weapon received about three times longer barrel. In the rear lower part of the receiver was fastened trigger frame with elements of the firing mechanism, trigger and pistol grip. A wooden butt of characteristic shape was also attached to the main plate of this unit.

The supply of ammunition .30-06 was proposed to be carried out from standard detachable box magazines with a capacity of 20 cartridges. The store was borrowed from the BAR M1918 Browning Automatic Rifle. As conceived by the authors of the new project, the store should be placed in a large window at the bottom of the receiver, expanded with cut-outs in its side walls. To securely store the shop in its place, in front of and behind the window, U-shaped restraints were provided, one of which contained a latch. The two parts that held the store actually served as a receiving shaft, but they were simpler and easier.

The increase in the size of the receiver, in comparison with the basic submachine gun, was associated with the use of a new, more powerful cartridge and with the use of reworked automation. Like the prototype, the automatic rifle was supposed to work using the principle of the free shutter. Due to the high power of the cartridge, gunsmiths had to weight the bolt, redo the extractor and other parts that interact with the cartridge, and also make other adjustments. In particular, a more powerful and long return spring was needed.

The spring associated with the free gate with the required parameters was so long that it was necessary to increase the dimensions of the receiver, and also to equip it with an additional rear cup-casing. The back of the spring was to be located inside a cylindrical housing placed on the rear wall of the receiver.

As before, it was suggested that the weapon be cocked with the help of a bolt handle, pulled out through a slot in the right wall of the receiver. The slot had an increased length, which was due to the dimensions of the .30-06 cartridge and the large stroke.

The trigger mechanism was borrowed from the base submachine gun with minimal modifications that were associated with other dimensions of the bolt and some other features of the new weapon. At the same time, the general layout of the control system and the location of the controls were maintained. So, on the left above the pistol grip were two-way control levers. One was responsible for blocking the trigger, the other - for the choice of fire mode.

It should be noted that there are no exact data on the prototype sample on the basis of which the rifle was built. If the automatic rifle was based on the design of a Thompson M1 submachine gun, then it should have been a trigger with the possibility of single and automatic fire. The shutter in this case was to be equipped with a separate movable drummer, driven by a trigger. The submachine gun of the M1A1 version was distinguished by the absence of a trigger and a fixed drummer rigidly fixed on the bolt. This modification of the weapon could fire only in bursts and, accordingly, had only one control lever of the firing mechanism. If the automatic rifle was based on a product like the M1A1, then it should have inherited the corresponding traits.

One of the main goals of the project of an automatic rifle based on the Thompson was the adaptation of the existing automation to a new cartridge. Thus, the basic principles of the two weapons were the same. Under the action of the spring and the feeder, the cartridges from the store had to climb the dismounting line, after which the spring-loaded gate had to send them to the chamber. With the help of a trigger (or a fixed drummer), a shot was made, after which the shutter was rolled back, removing and discarding the cartridge. In the rearmost position, the shutter was captured with a sear or went forward again, producing the next shot.

In the 1942-43, at least one prototype of a promising automatic rifle was manufactured. This weapon had a fairly simple design, associated with the experimental nature of the project. For this reason, ready-made serial elements of wooden fittings were used: handle plates, forend and stock. In addition, the test rifle was not equipped with any sights.

Probably, the authors of the project initially understood the prospects for this development, which could hardly be called good. This project had noticeable problems of a different nature. First of all, due to the fact that it was based on a dubious concept. Such features led the development to the corresponding result.


Submachine gun Thompson M1. Wikimedia Commons Photos


Exact data on the course of the tests and the shown characteristics of an automatic rifle based on a submachine gun are not available. It can be assumed that a relatively powerful cartridge could provide basic characteristics at the level of a BAR rifle or other types of weapons of a similar class chambered for .30-06. Thus, the initial speed of the bullet could exceed 800-850 m / s, and the effective firing range can be assessed in 800-1000 m. Naturally, the actual characteristics of the weapon, especially in real combat conditions, could be different.

It remains only to guess what kind of rate of fire could show automatic rifle, built on the basis of a free shutter and using a powerful cartridge .30-06 Springfield. This figure probably reached at least 400-500 rounds per minute or more. One way or another, a high rate of fire should have a negative effect on the overall effectiveness of the new weapon.

According to reports, the .30-06 cartridge provides a muzzle bullet energy of at least 3800 J. Depending on the type of bullet, this parameter can reach J. 4000-4050. It is not difficult to imagine the recoil force of such a weapon, especially when shooting in automatic mode. The use of such a powerful cartridge simply did not allow to rely on the use of a new rifle as a full-fledged weapon for infantry.

From the point of view of the applied cartridge, an automatic rifle based on the Thompson could be a direct competitor to the BAR M1918 product, which differs from it in its lower price and design complexity. On this, however, the advantages over existing weapons ended. The main shooting characteristics of both samples could be on the same level. In addition, apparently, the list of drawbacks was the same. Thus, the large power of the cartridge seriously complicated the firing of bursts in the standing position, and the use of weapons as a light machine gun was made difficult by the small capacity of the store and other design features.

According to reports, the project of an automatic rifle based on a submachine gun reached the stage of assembling a prototype and its subsequent tests. After that, all work was stopped. The new weapon did not have any decisive advantages over the existing samples, but did not differ from them by its shortcomings. Mass production and exploitation of such weapons did not make sense. The project was closed due to the lack of prospects. The subsequent fate of the manufactured prototype (or prototypes) is unknown.

It can be argued that the main problem of the project of an automatic rifle based on the "Thompson" was the selected cartridge. The designers decided to use rifle ammunition .30-06 Springfield, which ultimately affected the characteristics of the weapon. Already in the first half of the forties, it became clear that the continued use of existing cartridges does not allow solving all current problems. For the further development of small arms required new ammunition. The result was the emergence of new intermediate cartridges, which became the next impetus for the development of weapons. The concept of an automatic rifle for a rifle cartridge was not completely rejected, but was later implemented in other ways and at a different technological level.


On the materials of the sites:
http://world.guns.ru/
https://gunsmagazine.com/
http://strangernn.livejournal.com/
Author:
31 comment
Information
Dear reader, to leave comments on the publication, you must to register.

I have an account? Sign in

  1. aszzz888
    aszzz888 24 February 2016 06: 52
    0
    A relatively long trunk appeared

    Why such a long trunk? Lost and bend! fellow
    1. Siberia 9444
      Siberia 9444 24 February 2016 08: 30
      0
      Maybe I'm wrong, but with such a cartridge of 7.62 * 63mm (4000 J), another will not come. With this energy, the bullet needs a "long" to accelerate along the barrel from here and the speed is 850 m.
  2. the47th
    the47th 24 February 2016 09: 05
    0
    So why was BAR 2.0 for Americans? The prototype would hardly weigh less, it would hardly be cheaper, it would hardly be more reliable.
  3. alex-cn
    alex-cn 24 February 2016 09: 08
    +2
    In general, I poorly imagine the compatibility of the cartridge 30-06 and the free shutter. Either the kilogram shutter should weigh or not return cocking by hand.
    1. Tarikxnumx
      Tarikxnumx 24 February 2016 14: 54
      0
      Well, in fact, the Germans, for example, quite succeeded in cutting down the HK G3 under 7,62x51 NATO (cartridges are similar in energy characteristics and bullet weight). There, however, is not quite a free shutter, but with roller deceleration. And these same rifles are still quite popular in third world countries.
      1. Alex koch
        Alex koch 24 February 2016 15: 29
        +1
        But it seems to me that the author nevertheless fantasized over the photograph, and it was still shot in 1915-1916, and inside the Blish shutter, originally conceived as semi-free
      2. Vladimirets
        Vladimirets 24 February 2016 16: 09
        0
        Quote: TarIK2017
        under 7,62x51 NATO (cartridges are similar in energy characteristics and mass of bullets).

        Well, 30-06 is still more powerful.
    2. AK64
      AK64 25 February 2016 22: 29
      0
      In general, I poorly imagine the compatibility of the cartridge 30-06 and the free shutter. Either the kilogram shutter should weigh or not return cocking by hand.

      Thompson's shutter was not completely free, it was "partially locked" by an oblique inclined prism.
      "Partially" because the pressure of the shot on the prism squeezed it into the bolt, and the bolt opened.
  4. Alex koch
    Alex koch 24 February 2016 09: 21
    +1
    The developer of this submachine gun is usually considered the American general John Toliver Thompson. However, Thompson himself was more likely to act as a merchant who, in 1916, together with Thomas Ryan, who financed the project, founded Auto-Ordnance with the aim of developing an automatic / self-loading rifle based on the patent they bought on an original half-bolt design issued to John Blish in 1915 [ 1]. The direct developers of the weapons were the engineer Theodore H. Eickhoff hired by Thompson and Ryan, as well as Oscar V. Payne and George E. Goll.

    By 1917, however, it turned out that Blish’s bolt, acting due to the frictional force of the bronze liner moving inside its skeleton, does not fully lock the barrel for the duration of the shot, as was stipulated by the patent. The liner only slowed the shutter back to its extreme rear position, slowing it down at the time of the shot. This significantly limited the range of ammunition power that could be used in weapons, which immediately put an end to the initial project of an automatic rifle - the only of the cartridges accepted into service in the USA that worked normally with the Blisha shutter was unsuitable for this type of weapon in ballistic qualities relatively low-powered Koltovo pistol ammunition .45 ACP.

    Wikipedia.

    Where did the 42nd come from?
    1. carbine
      carbine 24 February 2016 11: 25
      -6
      Quote: Alex Koch
      which immediately put an end to the initial project of an automatic rifle - the only cartridge accepted into the U.S. that worked normally with the Blish bolt turned out to be a relatively low-power Koltov pistol ammunition .45 ACP unsuitable for this type of weapon in terms of ballistic qualities.

      Wikis, of course, are authoritative authors. Only now, the post-war Thompson on the cartridge .45 ACP + P completely reached the criteria for a fully automatic rifle. At the same time, Thompson wartime (on the cartridge .45 ACP) did not reach the performance of a full-fledged army rifle (he was fully automatic assault rifle, according to today's terminology). Both samples had problems with aiming further than 200 m, it was necessary to work as a whole. In those days, nothing could be helped, the level of development of weapons did not allow. This problem was solved by the Americans only in the 60s of the last century, when Thompson was replaced by the M16 on the cartridge M193.
      Another thing is curious here. In those days, when the United States refused even from automatic weapons of the assault rifle category (weakened army rifle), the USSR with great fanfare switched to hybrids (selective-fire weapons) of a similar category (assault rifle). And then he actively passed off this regrettable fact as a "great achievement of socialism." The inhabitants of the USSR paid dearly for this "great achievement".
      1. Alf
        Alf 24 February 2016 21: 23
        +2
        Quote: carbine
        In those days, when the United States refused even from automatic weapons of the assault rifle category (weakened army rifle), the USSR with great fanfare switched to hybrids (selective-fire weapons) of a similar category (assault rifle). And then he actively passed off this regrettable fact as a "great achievement of socialism." The inhabitants of the USSR paid dearly for this "great achievement."

        More specifically, please, and then a continuous set of terms piled in a heap without a single digit.
        And about
        Quote: carbine
        "great achievement"
        . What do you mean ?
        1. carbine
          carbine 25 February 2016 01: 04
          -2
          Quote: Alf
          More specifically, please, and then a continuous set of terms piled in a heap without a single digit.

          More specifically in other comments on the same thread.
          Quote: Alf
          . What do you mean ?

          On weapons on a cartridge of 7,62x39 mm.
  5. Threshkreen
    Threshkreen 24 February 2016 10: 01
    +3
    I don’t know where you got such strange information from, but I can assure you that a rigidly fixed drummer does NOT mean at all that a weapon can fire only bursts. All modifications of the Thompson had a translator of shooting modes and could shoot both bursts and single shots.
    1. AK64
      AK64 25 February 2016 22: 34
      0
      I don’t know where you got such strange information from, but I can assure you that a rigidly fixed drummer does NOT mean at all that a weapon can fire only bursts. All modifications of the Thompson had a translator of shooting modes and could shoot both bursts and single shots.


      At Thompson, the drummer was not fixed rigidly.
  6. carbine
    carbine 24 February 2016 10: 58
    -9
    Quote: Ryabov Kirill
    Probably, the authors of the project initially understood the prospects for this development, which could hardly be called good. This project had noticeable problems of a different nature. First of all, due to the fact that it was based on a dubious concept. Such features led the development to the corresponding result.

    Of course. All weapons of this type (selective-fire weapon) are based on a dubious concept and all led to a corresponding failed result. This is MP43 / StG44, and AK / AKM / RPK, and ASV-36, and AVT-40, and M2 Carbine (this one even looked good). Oh yes, I forgot the APS, he is also from this series. All of them ordered to live long, and lived relatively short.
    It is a pity that such a weapon in the USSR for some reason was in honor. And even some samples managed to stamp in unmeasured quantities.
    1. alex-cn
      alex-cn 24 February 2016 11: 30
      +3
      And against this "g ... a" of the AK / PKK, the Americans did not win to the end or lost all armed conflicts from Vietnam to Afghanistan. By the way, in Vietnam, our PPSh also fought. He was very good in the jungle.
      1. carbine
        carbine 24 February 2016 17: 09
        -3
        Quote: alex-cn
        And against this "g ... a" of the AK / PKK, the Americans did not win to the end or lost all armed conflicts from Vietnam to Afghanistan. By the way, in Vietnam, our PPSh also fought. He was very good in the jungle.

        I’ve been waiting since. When the Americans change their minds, the AK / PKK will be copied insolently and will be adopted into the armament of their army. And on top of the PCA polished. Something is dragging things out. Apparently they cannot master production, it is difficult for them. For the Chinese and other Romanians, it’s not difficult, but for the Americans, it’s difficult. Darkness.
        PS. While waiting, already in the USSR AK / RPK / PPSh for some reason refused. And they accepted a certain weak likeness of the American M16A1. Apparently, I can’t wait for the AK / RPK / PPSh from the Americans. Waited in vain.
    2. Alex koch
      Alex koch 24 February 2016 11: 41
      +1
      Everything mixed up, horses, people ...
      As far as I see, the authors had in mind the concept of using an essentially free shutter with a powerful rifle cartridge. But here is the doubtfulness of the concept
      Quote: carbine
      similar type (selective-fire weapon)
      a big question ...
      1. carbine
        carbine 24 February 2016 12: 19
        -5
        Quote: Alex Koch
        But here is the doubtfulness of the concept

        In the desire that the shoemaker also play the pipe. He could have done it, but in amateur performances. But professionally, no.
        So with selective-fire weapons. As a self-loading, it can work at best, and as an automatic weapon, only usually at short distances (submachine gun). Those. selective-fire weapon is a semi-automatic weapon + machine pistol in one bottle. But what kind of rate of fire a machine pistol (submachine gun) is built in there already depends on the particular selective-fire weapon sample.
        The concept of the M2 Carbine is more or less clear, it is an army weapon "just in case." Those. if there is a military uniform, then there must be a weapon. This is the cheap M2 Carbine that will do the trick.
        The concept of ASV-36 and AVT-40 is also understandable. It is unfortunate that they were not really brought up as self-loading structures.
        The German concept of the MP43 and StG44 is also clear. Specialized units (panzergrenadiers) were armed with advanced submachine guns rather than self-loading with the PP function. Those. the Germans considered the MP43 and StG44 primarily as a PP. This can be seen even by the original, not propaganda, designation MP (about "hiding from Hitler", this is another Internet nonsense; the Gestapo would quickly hide the "hiding from Hitler" in a special place).
        But what about the AK / AKM / PKK concept? The entire army did not consist of specialized units. Why did she have this "happiness", and even in such quantities? No, then similar "army weapons" from the army were flooded. But they stamped it, and then gave it to "friends" a lot. And all at the expense of the population of the USSR.
        I won’t even write about APS. There are no words.
        1. Alex koch
          Alex koch 24 February 2016 12: 48
          +3
          And you did not allow the idea that such a concept arose not in the minds of cabinet thinkers, but on the battlefields?
          1. carbine
            carbine 24 February 2016 16: 06
            -2
            Quote: Alex Koch
            And you did not allow the idea that such a concept arose not in the minds of cabinet thinkers, but on the battlefields?

            Not allowed. Because on the battlefields usually only corpses and cripples appear. And thoughts arise in other places. In addition, one should not confuse thoughts with the whims and "wishlist" of capricious stripes and uncles, without a strong basic education.
        2. Alex koch
          Alex koch 24 February 2016 12: 53
          +3
          Quote: carbine
          The entire army did not consist of specialized units. Why did she have this "happiness", and even in such quantities?

          That is precisely why yesterday’s collective farmer-tractor driver-turner is very difficult to shoot at living people, this is a human being, and high firepower at a relatively great distance gives him at least some chance of not being killed in the first battle
          1. carbine
            carbine 24 February 2016 16: 15
            -3
            Quote: Alex Koch
            Yesterday's collective farmer-tractor-turner, it’s very difficult to shoot living people, this is a human being

            What, only Soviet? Turners of other countries shot people at once and easily?
            Quote: Alex Koch
            and high firepower at a relatively large distance gives him at least some chance of not being killed in the first battle

            Hmm. The contradiction lies precisely in the fact that Soviet weapons, as a rule, did not have "high firepower at a great distance." Even on the "imperial" cartridge 7,62x54 mm R, this statement is true. And already since Soviet times, this is not true. You can take all the Soviet rifle cartridges directly, everywhere there is a flight according to the performance characteristics and some strange products on these cartridges. The next full-fledged army cartridge was put into service in the Russian Federation, this is the Para pistol cartridge. And between them is a black hole called the USSR shooter.
            1. Alex koch
              Alex koch 24 February 2016 16: 43
              +3
              Oh really?
  7. The comment was deleted.
  8. Alex koch
    Alex koch 24 February 2016 11: 30
    +3
    Quote: carbine
    Only now, the post-war Thompson on the cartridge .45 ACP + P completely reached the criteria for a fully automatic rifle

    What are the interesting criteria?
  9. Alex koch
    Alex koch 24 February 2016 13: 00
    +2
    Quote: carbine
    No, then similar "army weapons" from the army were flooded.
    You know, I often communicate with people who use it quite often, and in real combat conditions, I heard a lot of flattering reviews ... But they "flooded", in fact, because any mechanism eventually becomes unusable and needs to be changed, and in the light of global trends, it was changed ... for the same, only of a reduced caliber.
    1. carbine
      carbine 24 February 2016 16: 50
      -4
      Quote: Alex Koch
      You know, I often communicate with people who use it quite often, and in real combat conditions,

      I wonder where you found them? Do you live in Africa?
      Quote: Alex Koch
      heard a lot of flattering reviews ...

      Even if you met such people, their opinion on this topic does not cost much. They can tell you something about the ergonomics of weapons. And this is where their usefulness in the design and evaluation of small arms ends.
      Those. cosmonaut's advice to the designer of the spacecraft is limited mainly by the shape of the chair and the locations of the toggle switches. Those. ergonomics, no more.
      Quote: Alex Koch
      And they "flooded", in fact, because any mechanism eventually falls into disrepair and needs to be changed, and in the light of global trends, it was changed ... for the same, only of a reduced caliber.

      That is, as I understand it, you do not understand the design of small arms at all. And what is the essence of the new cartridges ("little things"), you also do not know. I do not find it necessary to engage in educational programs, I will only note that the AK-74 is an SMG of the level of an assault rifle (fully automatic assault rifle). And AK is a selective-fire assault rifle (I already wrote about it in more detail on this thread). Those. these are weapons of completely different subclasses.
      The difference is primarily in the rate of fire at combat distances, over the submachine gun. Moreover, the difference is fundamental, since further 150 m AK is by and large a self-loading, not an automatic. In addition, the AK-74 has 10-15% more "lethality". And there are many more different differences.
      1. Alex koch
        Alex koch 24 February 2016 16: 53
        +1
        And we only shoot in the ball in Africa?
        1. carbine
          carbine 24 February 2016 17: 01
          -3
          Quote: Alex Koch
          And we only shoot in the ball in Africa?

          Of AK in caliber, 7,62 mm is mostly there. Back in Asia sometimes. There people are poorer, therefore they save.
      2. Alex koch
        Alex koch 24 February 2016 16: 54
        +2
        Where have you read such nonsense?
        1. carbine
          carbine 24 February 2016 17: 03
          -4
          Quote: Alex Koch
          Where have you read such nonsense?

          In a terrible amount of sources. You won’t read so much in your life.
          Although, I would recommend you. Then you will understand that what you seem to be delirious by ignorance is precisely the truth. Only here I do not recommend reading the Internet. Why stupid to hammer a head?
  10. Alex koch
    Alex koch 24 February 2016 16: 48
    +3
    Quote: carbine
    What, only Soviet? Turners of other countries shot people at once and easily?

    Why is this, did you hear about post-war intermediate cartridges? And about weapons under them? About the British, for example, and for what reason they were abandoned? And why did Israel abandon the cool FAL rifle chambered for NATO 7.62 in favor of Galil, in fact a copy of the Finnish Valmet, that is, the same Kalashnikov?
    1. carbine
      carbine 24 February 2016 17: 00
      -3
      Quote: Alex Koch
      Have you heard about the post-war intermediate cartridges? And about weapons under them?

      You know, I have not heard anything about the post-war serial intermediate cartridges and weapons for them. In addition to the Soviet 7,62x39 mm, of course. The Czechs also played a little naughty with their 7,62x45 mm, but there is no need to talk about a full-fledged series. And the next intermediate cartridge was the American 5,56 × 45 mm NATO.
      Quote: Alex Koch
      About the British, for example, and for what reason they were abandoned?

      Those. any, even unsuccessful, research of a homeless person in a garbage dump, you tend to pass off as "excavations during an expedition"? What for?
      Quote: Alex Koch
      And why did Israel abandon the cool FAL rifle chambered for NATO 7.62 in favor of Galil, in fact a copy of the Finnish Valmet, that is, the same Kalashnikov?

      But this is nonsense. Galil and Kalashnikov had nothing in common. Generally. And Valmet sold to Israel should not be confused with Valmet, which was made from Kalashnikov. Would you at least understand the question, or something.
      By the way, Galil was later replaced by M16. It turned out to be cheaper. And better.
      1. cth; fyn
        cth; fyn 25 February 2016 06: 16
        +2
        Well, he didn’t get it on the MCA because of the TTX, but because of political reasons, they’re not fools in the USA and they give out loans to buy weapons made in the USA, the Israelis had no choice.
        1. karbine
          karbine 25 February 2016 20: 14
          -1
          Quote: cth; fyn
          Well, galil on mku not because of TTX replaced, but because of watered motives,

          Well yes. M16 turned out to be better and cheaper. And loans, they are not free. They must be given. With interest.
          1. cth; fyn
            cth; fyn 2 March 2016 15: 11
            0
            if you would give a comparison of performance characteristics, cost of samples, comparison of the year of operation and its cost, I would agree, but until then it reminds me of a dispute between two kids when someone shouts louder and is right, this conversation does not appeal to me, because does not carry anything constructive.
            As for loans, giving them away is not a problem, but it’s difficult to conjure weapons from the air.
  11. Alex koch
    Alex koch 24 February 2016 17: 15
    +4
    Quote: carbine
    That is, as I understand it, you do not understand the design of small arms at all.

    Are you a weapons designer? And many of your samples adopted?
  12. Alex koch
    Alex koch 24 February 2016 17: 17
    +1
    Quote: carbine
    But this is nonsense. Galil and Kalashnikov had nothing in common. Generally. And Valmet sold to Israel should not be confused with Valmet, which was made from Kalashnikov.

    And we do not live in parallel realities?
  13. Alex koch
    Alex koch 24 February 2016 17: 20
    +1
    Quote: carbine
    Those. any, even unsuccessful, research of a homeless man in a garbage can

    That is, the British army in 51 adopted the cartridge "Rifle, Automatic, caliber .280, Number 9 Mark 1" - a bum in the trash? Or the U.S. Army with a .300BLK (7.62x45 mm) cartridge, similar to the M43, recently adopted?
    1. carbine
      carbine 24 February 2016 20: 29
      -1
      Quote: Alex Koch
      In 51, the British Army adopted the cartridge “Rifle, Automatic, caliber .280, Number 9 Mark 1” - a bum in the trash?

      Is that a cartridge or a rifle? I think you messed up something? But there were variations under the cartridges of 6.25 × 43mm, 7 × 49mm. What is that huge series of weapons on these cartridges? 50 products?
      Here are 50 items and there is that "bum in the trash heap". Just an experiment. Unsuccessful.
      Quote: Alex Koch
      Or the U.S. Army with a .300BLK (7.62x45 mm) cartridge, similar to the M43, recently adopted?

      Tell us which units of the US Army and in what quantities are armed with weapons on this wonderful 7.62x45 mm cartridge.
      I'll tell you a secret one thing. A number of different cartridges are produced in the USSR (and the Russian Federation too). The same .22 Long Rifle, for example, is very widespread. But something is not heard that the army en masse switched to it. It's the same with your "intermediate cartridges". Moreover, they are also not massive, but for experimental weapons. There was no mention.
      1. Alex koch
        Alex koch 24 February 2016 21: 24
        +1
        Quote: carbine
        What is that huge series of weapons on these cartridges? 50 products?

        Have you adopted it? Both the cartridge and the machine. And then the new cabinet, under US pressure, refused.
        Quote: carbine
        I'll tell you a secret one thing. In the USSR (and the Russian Federation too), a number of different cartridges are produced

        But were they adopted?
        1. carbine
          carbine 25 February 2016 01: 00
          -2
          Quote: Alex Koch
          Have you adopted it? Both the cartridge and the machine.

          You see. In the army it is impossible to capitalize (put on balance) weapons that are not accepted for service. Therefore, everything that is capable of at least somehow shooting is adopted. Accounting for the sake of, nothing more. This does not mean that these samples will be produced.
          Quote: Alex Koch
          But were they adopted?

          They were not made for the army.
      2. Alex koch
        Alex koch 24 February 2016 21: 34
        +3
        And in general, you only have some general phrases, for some reason flavored with English terms and 0% of factual information. Perhaps, if you would confirm your theories with references to some authoritative sources, and the conversation would be different. And so your "Insane number of sources" is more like the number of insane sources.
        But the fact remains that the 7,62x39 cartridge is one of the most widespread in the world, as well as weapons for it
        1. carbine
          carbine 25 February 2016 01: 01
          -1
          Quote: Alex Koch
          But the fact remains that the 7,62x39 cartridge is one of the most widespread in the world, as well as weapons for it

          Did you come up with this yourself?
          1. alex-cn
            alex-cn 25 February 2016 07: 11
            +2
            The Kalashnikov assault rifle is included in the Guinness Book of Records as the most widespread weapon in the world. Currently, according to some sources, there are about 100 million AKs in the world.
            Various modifications of the Kalashnikov assault rifle are in service with the armies and special forces of 106 countries.
            In addition to the US armed forces, army-style M16 rifles were adopted by the US police and were widely exported. They were used by the armies of more than 70 states.
            This is not what I came up with, these are quotes from reference books ...
            1. karbine
              karbine 25 February 2016 11: 27
              -1
              Quote: alex-cn
              The Kalashnikov assault rifle is included in the Guinness Book of Records as the most widespread weapon in the world.

              There is great deceit here. The fact is that there are two "Kalashnikovs". And they are completely different. But they usually count as one. From this, the numbers are large, but not correct.
              1. alex-cn
                alex-cn 25 February 2016 12: 22
                +3
                and M-16 modifications to a dozen, only that the cartridge has not changed ...
                and the Kalashnikovs even three - ak-akm ak-74. Yes, plus Chinese, Yugoslav, Bulgarian, Czech copies. BUT for some reason no one tried to copy the m-16.
                1. karbine
                  karbine 25 February 2016 20: 06
                  -1
                  Quote: alex-cn
                  and M-16 modifications to a dozen, only that the cartridge has not changed ...

                  This is exactly what modifications. And AK / AKM and AK-74, these are two models of completely different weapons. A completely different class. Similar in appearance and with the same mechanism. But the weapons are completely different.
                  Quote: alex-cn
                  BUT for some reason no one tried to copy the m-16.

                  Well yes. Copied. But not so large. Americans did not sell licenses to friends. For the promise of eternal friendship.
                2. The comment was deleted.
  14. Alex koch
    Alex koch 25 February 2016 07: 59
    +1
    Quote: carbine
    You see. In the army it is impossible to capitalize (put on balance) weapons that are not accepted for service. Therefore, everything that is capable of at least somehow shooting is adopted. Accounting for the sake of, nothing more. This does not mean that these samples will be produced.

    Quote: carbine
    Did you come up with this yourself?