Firearms secret projects

[MechanicalMay]

Czech prototype semi auto rifles at the VHU Praha museum. I’ve identified the left one as a Krnka, and the other two are ZH-29 variants.

Does anyone know what the one in the middle is? The Heavy handguard makes me think it could be an automatic variant.

 

[jsport]

These tiny, Vietnam-era mini-grenades were known as 'Hooch Poppers'

A former Navy SEAL who carried the V40 mini-grenades in Vietnam said they were good for rooms and small buildings and not much else.

taskandpurpose.com

 

[Ravinoff]

Czech prototype semi auto rifles at the VHU Praha museum. I’ve identified the left one as a Krnka, and the other two are ZH-29 variants.

Does anyone know what the one in the middle is? The Heavy handguard makes me think it could be an automatic variant.

Left is a ZB-Krnka Model 1925, and the right is a ZH-29, but I'll be damned if I can figure out the middle one, and I can't find it on the VHU Praha site either. Absolutely weird.

 

[MechanicalMay]

Granatabüchse 43, Single shot breechloading grenade launcher built in the Nazi occupied Brno factory. Taken at VHU Praha.

 

[Ravinoff]

Granatabüchse 43, Single shot breechloading grenade launcher built in the Nazi occupied Brno factory. Taken at VHU Praha.

Okay, this I did find some more info on, because I initially thought it was mislabeled (there was a Grantabüchse 39 single-shot launcher, and a few Czech-made antitank rifles, but nothing by that exact name). There's not much known about them, but that's one of four grenade rifle...things developed by Waffenwerke Brünn, the German occupation name for Zbrojovka Brno. All four use the known 46mm and 61mm Grosse Panzergranate rifle grenades designed for use with the ubiquitous Schießbecher launcher cup - and as an aside, I think the shell pictured next to it may be an earlier Gewehr-Panzergranate as the Grosse Panzergranate rounds look a bit more like Panzerfaust or RPG rounds (see picture).

If you don't want to read that linked Small Arms Review article, here's an abridged version. You'd think at a glance that these are some form of rocket launcher, an obscure branch of the Panzerschrek family tree maybe, but you'd be wrong. They work in exactly the same way as any other rifle grenade: a 7.92mm blank is loaded into the chamber, which opens by either a rotating or tilting barrel, and the grenade shell is then loaded into the muzzle. What makes them different compared to a normal Schießbecher is recoil reduction. All four have different implementations of a kind of "floating" barrel and breechblock assembly that recoils against what I think an engineer would call "bigass coil springs", which to be technical don't reduce the recoil but spread out the impulse of it to be more tolerable.

 

[MechanicalMay]

Okay, this I did find some more info on, because I initially thought it was mislabeled (there was a Grantabüchse 39 single-shot launcher, and a few Czech-made antitank rifles, but nothing by that exact name). There's not much known about them, but that's one of four grenade rifle...things developed by Waffenwerke Brünn, the German occupation name for Zbrojovka Brno. All four use the known 46mm and 61mm Grosse Panzergranate rifle grenades designed for use with the ubiquitous Schießbecher launcher cup - and as an aside, I think the shell pictured next to it may be an earlier Gewehr-Panzergranate as the Grosse Panzergranate rounds look a bit more like Panzerfaust or RPG rounds (see picture).

If you don't want to read that linked Small Arms Review article, here's an abridged version. You'd think at a glance that these are some form of rocket launcher, an obscure branch of the Panzerschrek family tree maybe, but you'd be wrong. They work in exactly the same way as any other rifle grenade: a 7.92mm blank is loaded into the chamber, which opens by either a rotating or tilting barrel, and the grenade shell is then loaded into the muzzle. What makes them different compared to a normal Schießbecher is recoil reduction. All four have different implementations of a kind of "floating" barrel and breechblock assembly that recoils against what I think an engineer would call "bigass coil springs", which to be technical don't reduce the recoil but spread out the impulse of it to be more tolerable.

View attachment 754989

Ah, I assumed it was a self propelled grenade that would be loaded into the breech but this makes more sense

 

[MechanicalMay]

Garand submission to the 1941 Light Rifle trials, select fire .30 carbine. The magazine sticks out at a 30 degree angle like a Pedersen device. Magazines with up to 50 rounds capacity were created

 

[Scott Kenny]

Garand submission to the 1941 Light Rifle trials, select fire .30 carbine. The magazine sticks out at a 30 degree angle like a Pedersen device. Magazines with up to 50 rounds capacity were created

That's wild, but it didn't meet one of the important parts of the Light Rifle requirement: weight.

 

[MechanicalMay]

British army using Vickers machine gun with bipod and stock

 

[Christopher Wang]

In an alternate timeline, the US military adopted the T48 FAL instead of the M14 and used it alongside the M16 in the Vietnam War and beyond.

 

[Firefinder]

With the FAL getting the same rep as the M14 due to Nam being that much hell on weapons. As seen by the Australia use of the FAL in that Conflict. They had just as many issues with the FAL as the M14/M16 did.

 

[Scott Kenny]

With the FAL getting the same rep as the M14 due to Nam being that much hell on weapons. As seen by the Australia use of the FAL in that Conflict. They had just as many issues with the FAL as the M14/M16 did.

No, the FAL is a far better rifle than the M14. Not least because it actually holds zero. You need to rebed an M14 every ~3000 rounds, and every time you take the action out of the stock. How do you properly clean an M14? Take the action out of the stock. Every day in a combat zone.

Did the M16 have issues? yes. Not least among them was ammunition being loaded with UNTESTED powder of a different type to that used during trials, which left much fouling and was over 10,000psi over-pressure at the gas port!!!!!

Jim Sullivan has strong words on the subject.

 

[Rickshaw]

With the FAL getting the same rep as the M14 due to Nam being that much hell on weapons. As seen by the Australia use of the FAL in that Conflict. They had just as many issues with the FAL as the M14/M16 did.

First I have ever heard of problems with the L1a1 SLR during the Vietnam War. I served in the Australian Army for over 10 years in the late 1970s to the late 1980s. I served with many Vietnam vets, none spoke of any problems, so what were they? We had problems with the M16, it was prone to stoppages and dropping magazines.

 

[Christopher Wang]

Battle Order: "The future that was stolen from us. An alt history #USArmy Rifle Squad from the 1960s had it adopted the T48 (FN FAL) to fill the M14 Rifle requirement rather than the T44 (what was actually adopted). Organization & ranks are what it was in 1965."

 

[MechanicalMay]

Indian bullpup bolt-action rifle from 1944, designed and built by Yuvraj Hanwant Singhji.

 

[TG1918]

Has anyone been to the National Museum of Military History in Bulgria? There seems to be some obscure prototype firearms

 

[MechanicalMay]

General Electric Dual Cycle Rifle, a revolving automatic rifle with a side-fed magazine. Mechanism was based on scaled down aircraft cannons and fired 3 round hyperbursts at 4900rpm.

 

[Petrus]

Has anyone been to the National Museum of Military History in Bulgria? There seems to be some obscure prototype firearms

You may find other photos from the Bulgarian museum here:

https://www.reddit.com/r/Centaura_Roblox/comments/1grxyq1/since_the_devs_are_going_to_the_darkest_depths_of

Prototypes of an assault rifle and LMGs look very interesting.

 

[Grey Havoc]

https://www.reddit.com/r/ForgottenWeapons/comments/1ixitjt/developmental_prototypes_of_the_japanese_type_64

View: https://www.reddit.com/r/ForgottenWeapons/comments/1ixitjt/developmental_prototypes_of_the_japanese_type_64/

 

[Colonial-Marine]

First I have ever heard of problems with the L1a1 SLR during the Vietnam War. I served in the Australian Army for over 10 years in the late 1970s to the late 1980s. I served with many Vietnam vets, none spoke of any problems, so what were they? We had problems with the M16, it was prone to stoppages and dropping magazines.

The biggest complaints I've read about the FAL in Vietnam weren't really due to any design flaws, but the basic nature of a full caliber service rifle. It's heavy and long, and the weight of the ammo adds up pretty quickly too.
Those were the biggest complaints about the M14 as well. The traditional layout with the wooden stock also caused some trouble due to the humid jungle conditions that the FAL didn't have to worry about, but generally speaking I don't think there would have been a huge difference if the US did adopt the FAL. Most of the same factors that contributed to the adoption of the M16 would still come into play.

Because of a long history of some older veterans and shooters praising the M14 as being the last "real rifle", and an amazing one at that, I think there has been a kind of counter-culture trend in recent years of younger people disparaging the M14 as some awful piece of trash. Factually it's somewhere in the middle of these two extremes. Compared to the FAL the method of manufacture is dated and so are the methods of cleaning and maintaining it. But at the time many in the US Army wanted their new rifle to functionally be just like the very-successful M1 Garand. Same manual of arms and all that. In terms of being a product-improved M1 Garand I think it largely succeeds. But by the time it entered service such a design was increasingly obsolete. The concept that the M14 could replace all of the other weapons in the infantry squad was also fundamentally unrealistic. It really couldn't have been accomplished by the FAL or any full caliber battle rifle for that matter.

I'd argue that adopting the AR-10 would have probably been better than adopting the T48/FAL. But IIRC at the time of the trials it was still an immature design, and they didn't offer any chance to refine it. The Army went with the very conservative option that was the closest to their prior rifle. Definitely not the first time they had overlooked innovations in firearm design in favor of what they're used to.

 

[Rickshaw]

The biggest complaints I've read about the FAL in Vietnam weren't really due to any design flaws, but the basic nature of a full caliber service rifle. It's heavy and long, and the weight of the ammo adds up pretty quickly too.
Those were the biggest complaints about the M14 as well. The traditional layout with the wooden stock also caused some trouble due to the humid jungle conditions that the FAL didn't have to worry about, but generally speaking I don't think there would have been a huge difference if the US did adopt the FAL. Most of the same factors that contributed to the adoption of the M16 would still come into play.

Because of a long history of some older veterans and shooters praising the M14 as being the last "real rifle", and an amazing one at that, I think there has been a kind of counter-culture trend in recent years of younger people disparaging the M14 as some awful piece of trash. Factually it's somewhere in the middle of these two extremes. Compared to the FAL the method of manufacture is dated and so are the methods of cleaning and maintaining it. But at the time many in the US Army wanted their new rifle to functionally be just like the very-successful M1 Garand. Same manual of arms and all that. In terms of being a product-improved M1 Garand I think it largely succeeds. But by the time it entered service such a design was increasingly obsolete. The concept that the M14 could replace all of the other weapons in the infantry squad was also fundamentally unrealistic. It really couldn't have been accomplished by the FAL or any full caliber battle rifle for that matter.

I'd argue that adopting the AR-10 would have probably been better than adopting the T48/FAL. But IIRC at the time of the trials it was still an immature design, and they didn't offer any chance to refine it. The Army went with the very conservative option that was the closest to their prior rifle. Definitely not the first time they had overlooked innovations in firearm design in favor of what they're used to.

The L1a1 SLR had wooden furniture throughout it's life downunder. While it was long and heavy it was quite manageable by most soldiers without any trouble. Compared to the M16 it was more reliable and harder hitting and less prone to stoppages (and dropped magazines). No soldier I knew of ever complained about it as a service rifle.

I remember reading magazine articles from the US about how the M14 was prone to stoppages and was good because it didn't have a pistol grip. Funny how they took to the M16 which did have a pistol grip. I have heard stories from ex-SASR soldiers that the M14 they played with were weak and very prone to breakage. I have no idea as I never handled an M14.

 

[Scott Kenny]

The biggest complaint about the M14 is that it's just not accurate. Needs to be rebedded about every 3000 rounds or every time you take the stock off, whichever comes first. And IIRC basic cleaning that is supposed to happen every day says the stock comes off.

The other comment is that it's just not controllable in full auto from the shoulder.

But the idea that a 10lb and 40" long rifle could replace a Thompson or M3 SMG was straight from the Good Idea Fairy.

 

[perttime]

I remember a FAL/L1A1 looking pretty big when held by a Nepalese soldier. Those guys were not all that large.

 

[Colonial-Marine]

The L1a1 SLR had wooden furniture throughout it's life downunder. While it was long and heavy it was quite manageable by most soldiers without any trouble. Compared to the M16 it was more reliable and harder hitting and less prone to stoppages (and dropped magazines). No soldier I knew of ever complained about it as a service rifle.

I remember reading magazine articles from the US about how the M14 was prone to stoppages and was good because it didn't have a pistol grip. Funny how they took to the M16 which did have a pistol grip. I have heard stories from ex-SASR soldiers that the M14 they played with were weak and very prone to breakage. I have no idea as I never handled an M14.

Yes the SLR had wooden furniture for most of its service life, but I meant more in regard to the construction/design of the rifle. The M14 internals are sort-of embedded in the wooden stock like many prior rifles. The FAL in comparison better reflects the manufacturing methods developed during and after WWII. The wood swelling due to the miserable humid jungle conditions isn't going to impact the SLR much, while it can negatively affect accuracy with the M14, M1, etc. I know there are maintenance procedures to prevent that, but it's still a real pain in the rear to deal with. They had tested and were looking to switch over to synthetic furniture for the M14 but that was about the time production ceased. I think some still found a way to Vietnam for field testing/use.

I haven't read too much personally about the M14 being weak or prone to breakages. Many early production rifles did have all sorts of problems though, I'd say primarily because they were trying to disperse the manufacturing and that was far more difficult than they had expected.

I don't mean to suggest that the SLR got any particularly large number of complaints, but being a bit heavy was more of a truism for all of the 7.62mm NATO service rifles compared to the intermediate caliber designs being introduced. Infantrymen griping about the weight of their rifles when on patrol would seem to be something of a timeless practice. In an actual firefight a lot of those complaint would vanish. Australian infantry in Vietnam seemed well commanded and did a good job at utilizing their advantages, plus most of them were probably pretty strong guys. As a whole they seemed to prefer the SLR but it sounds like the M16 was still appreciated for pointmen and some other roles, it did generally replace the Owen and F1 submachine guns over time there.

The early M16 had all sorts of problems which is its own long and complicated saga, and some of those extended to the magazines for sure, but was dropping from the rifle entirely unprompted one of them? I know the magazine release button was originally too easy to accidentally press which is why they added the "fence" around it.

The biggest complaint about the M14 is that it's just not accurate. Needs to be rebedded about every 3000 rounds or every time you take the stock off, whichever comes first. And IIRC basic cleaning that is supposed to happen every day says the stock comes off.

The general issue M14 was less accurate than the AR-10 or AR-15/M16 for sure, but I can't help but think some of the criticisms in that area has been overexaggerated in recent years. It doesn't help that early production M14s had a long list of problems, accuracy being one of the more notable ones, and often time that reputation long outlives the full extent of those problems. The design was able to be accurized into the very precise M21 and several marksmen variants, which is more than what could be done with the FAL/SLR. Of course, a common complaint was those is that it was very easy to do something that would throw off accuracy. Again, I'd have to argue it was simply outdated versus being a "bad" design. I suppose you could argue that makes it flawed, but it's very clear the Army wanted something very similar to the M1 Garand even though much had changed by the latter half of the 1950s.

The other comment is that it's just not controllable in full auto from the shoulder.

But the idea that a 10lb and 40" long rifle could replace a Thompson or M3 SMG was straight from the Good Idea Fairy.

The FAL or G3 weren't all that controllable in full auto from the shoulder either, the AR-10 was somewhat better, but ultimately switching to an intermediate caliber was necessary for that level of controllability. There were some pretty obvious flaws in the thinking that led to the adoption of 7.62x51mm NATO over all alternatives. I just don't know how someone could have examined an M1918 BAR, then examine an M1/M2 carbine or M3 submachine gun and then ask for a gun that could be all of those things just as effectively. Then again one could argue there are a lot of pretty obvious flaws with the current NGSW program so maybe not much is learned in the end.

 

[Scott Kenny]

The general issue M14 was less accurate than the AR-10 or AR-15/M16 for sure, but I can't help but think some of the criticisms in that area has been overexaggerated in recent years. It doesn't help that early production M14s had a long list of problems, accuracy being one of the more notable ones, and often time that reputation long outlives the full extent of those problems. The design was able to be accurized into the very precise M21 and several marksmen variants, which is more than what could be done with the FAL/SLR. Of course, a common complaint was those is that it was very easy to do something that would throw off accuracy. Again, I'd have to argue it was simply outdated versus being a "bad" design. I suppose you could argue that makes it flawed, but it's very clear the Army wanted something very similar to the M1 Garand even though much had changed by the latter half of the 1950s.

According to the US Army Marksmanship Unit, you need to rebed an M14 or M21 every 3000 rounds or every time it came out of the stock. In addition to using a different operating rod/charging handle assembly.

I'm not sure that the new, all-metal "chassis systems" are any better in that regard.

The FAL or G3 weren't all that controllable in full auto from the shoulder either, the AR-10 was somewhat better, but ultimately switching to an intermediate caliber was necessary for that level of controllability. There were some pretty obvious flaws in the thinking that led to the adoption of 7.62x51mm NATO over all alternatives. I just don't know how someone could have examined an M1918 BAR, then examine an M1/M2 carbine or M3 submachine gun and then ask for a gun that could be all of those things just as effectively.

LtCol Rene Studler has a lot to answer for.

Then again one could argue there are a lot of pretty obvious flaws with the current NGSW program so maybe not much is learned in the end.

I really think someone should have carried an M1918 BAR in .270 into the NGSW Program office and ask if this would work.

 

[perttime]

Seen for sale somewhat local to me:
an M28-76 precision rifle, based on the 1891 Mosin-Nagant action. This was a development step towards the 7.62 Tkiv 85 sniper rifle.

 

[HoHun]

Hi,

The FAL or G3 weren't all that controllable in full auto from the shoulder either, the AR-10 was somewhat better, but ultimately switching to an intermediate caliber was necessary for that level of controllability.

Since you mentioned the G3: I'd agree that there probably were rather low expectations regarding the usefulness for fully automatic fire.

I just looked it up in "the Reibert", which basically is mostly a reprint of selected Bundeswehr "central service instructions", and it seems automatic fire was reserved for two specific situations:

- Firing from the hip at 30 m or less when superior numbers of enemy soldiers are met at short range unexpectedly, or
- firing in short bursts with the weapon supported (on a sandbag or whatever) when defending against a Korean-War-style human wave attack at 50 m or less.

Both situations were put under the general caveat that automatic fire will only be effective if the enemy presents a large target and is taken by surprise, otherwise rapid single shots are to be fired.

Regards,

Henning (HoHun)

 

[Rickshaw]

I don't mean to suggest that the SLR got any particularly large number of complaints, but being a bit heavy was more of a truism for all of the 7.62mm NATO service rifles compared to the intermediate caliber designs being introduced. Infantrymen griping about the weight of their rifles when on patrol would seem to be something of a timeless practice. In an actual firefight a lot of those complaint would vanish. Australian infantry in Vietnam seemed well commanded and did a good job at utilizing their advantages, plus most of them were probably pretty strong guys. As a whole they seemed to prefer the SLR but it sounds like the M16 was still appreciated for pointmen and some other roles, it did generally replace the Owen and F1 submachine guns over time there.

The M16 was very much a mixed bag downunder. We used a mix of XM16/M16/M16a1 and all three could be issued to personnel. They all suffered from stoppages and were unreliable. They tended to be issued to Lead Scouts, Section Commanders and Section 2-i-Cs. Sometimes Section tail-end Charlies also carried them, although they could have a choice of weapon which included shotguns. The M16s became more unreliable over time due to poor maintenance by armourers.

The early M16 had all sorts of problems which is its own long and complicated saga, and some of those extended to the magazines for sure, but was dropping from the rifle entirely unprompted one of them? I know the magazine release button was originally too easy to accidentally press which is why they added the "fence" around it.

The M16 used to drop magazines particularly with blanks. They were also prone to stoppages. It was simply something they did and were well known for.

The general issue M14 was less accurate than the AR-10 or AR-15/M16 for sure, but I can't help but think some of the criticisms in that area has been overexaggerated in recent years. It doesn't help that early production M14s had a long list of problems, accuracy being one of the more notable ones, and often time that reputation long outlives the full extent of those problems. The design was able to be accurized into the very precise M21 and several marksmen variants, which is more than what could be done with the FAL/SLR. Of course, a common complaint was those is that it was very easy to do something that would throw off accuracy. Again, I'd have to argue it was simply outdated versus being a "bad" design. I suppose you could argue that makes it flawed, but it's very clear the Army wanted something very similar to the M1 Garand even though much had changed by the latter half of the 1950s.

What the Army wanted and what the Army got were two separate things. They wanted a rifle, as I understand it, that could drop a horse at a thousand yards. Which is why they wanted to continue with the .30 and accepted 7.62x51mm. They simply didn't like the FN-FAL more fool them. Even the EM2 was a better rifle but their unwillingness to accept a bullpup design prevented them from accepting that solution.

The FAL or G3 weren't all that controllable in full auto from the shoulder either, the AR-10 was somewhat better, but ultimately switching to an intermediate caliber was necessary for that level of controllability. There were some pretty obvious flaws in the thinking that led to the adoption of 7.62x51mm NATO over all alternatives. I just don't know how someone could have examined an M1918 BAR, then examine an M1/M2 carbine or M3 submachine gun and then ask for a gun that could be all of those things just as effectively. Then again one could argue there are a lot of pretty obvious flaws with the current NGSW program so maybe not much is learned in the end.

7.61x51mm was a good round for a semi-automatic rifle. They should have been under no delusions that it could be fired fully auto from the shoulder. I've tried to control an L1a1 fully auto from the shoulder and failed dismally. It could be adapted to fire fully auto if you knew what you were doing. It was simply a too powerful round for that. The F88 Steyr bullpup was much more controllable and more handy. I am not sure why Americans dislike bullpup weapons so much.

 

[Scott Kenny]

What the Army wanted and what the Army got were two separate things. They wanted a rifle, as I understand it, that could drop a horse at a thousand yards.

And when was the last time someone saw cavalry on the battlefield while they were doing this? 1941?

I am not sure why Americans dislike bullpup weapons so much.

Fear of getting their head blown open when the weapon chamber breaks.

I wish I was joking.

 

[Rickshaw]

And when was the last time someone saw cavalry on the battlefield while they were doing this? 1941?

Fear of getting their head blown open when the weapon chamber breaks.

I wish I was joking.

Never happens in real life.

 

[Scott Kenny]

Never happens in real life.

I know. Yet there's still requirements for additional metal between the chamber and the user's head in every bullpup.

 

[Rickshaw]

I know. Yet there's still requirements for additional metal between the chamber and the user's head in every bullpup.

Just further improves the balance.