I have decided to open a topic where I will ask all the noob questions about guns. Although I have served as a conscript in the infantry for years, we do not have a gun culture and the army only tell you what they think you need to know.

Here goes:

The thing that you put at the end of the barrel - small arms or canons - has many, many names like:
- muzzle
- muzzle booster
- muzzle brake
- flash suppressor
- flash hider
- compensator?

Are there any more?

Can you please tell me what's what?
- Which category of weapon do they belong?
- What does each one do?
- if you unscrew the muzzle from ... say... an M16, can you still fire the weapon?

I have even seen muzzles that have sharp pointy bits - I presume, for stabbing people. Are they any good?

2nd question

Which is the 1st firearm with a removable magazine?

Which is the 1st pistol with a removable magazine?

Which is the 1st SMG with a removable magazine?

Which is the 1st rifle with a removable magazine?

Others please feel free to add your questions.

What was the first gun with adjustable sights?

What's the longest small-arm ever made?

Won't that be the very first SMG to appear, Italian Villar-Perosa? I cannot think of SMG with fixed magasine.

http://www.landships.freeservers.com/new_p...sa_smg_info.htm

Girandoni air rifle from late 18th Century: 22 ball tubular magazine:


Umm wait, that actually does not qualify as a "firearm"...never mind.

I don't claim to be an expert -- nor am I quoting from a notable source. Just familiar enough with "gun culture" to offer to help, and hoping I can get most of this right.

You ask about the "thing that you put at the end of the barrel" ... many guns don't have any "thing" that you put at the end of the barrel. Only some guns do.

All guns have a muzzle. The place where the bullet (or projectile) comes out is called the muzzle. It is called this whether you put any "thing" on it, or not. The word "muzzle" is a reference to a mouth, I believe. The term can also be applied to an animal's mouth. The opening with teeth, perhaps.

You might consider it the end of the barrel. But that would be like saying the mouth is the end of the throat. Yes, it is, kind of. It comes at the end of the throat, but it is useful to be able to discuss the mouth itself, not just the end of the throat. So also there is a barrel, and at the end of the barrel there is a muzzle.

There are a number of "things" that you might place on the muzzle of the gun.

- muzzle brake: This device reduces the recoil that you feel, by diverting some of the gasses that come out of the muzzle when you fire the gun into other directions beside straight forward. That way they don't form such a strong jet pushing the gun backwards when it fires. For cannons most muzzle brakes divert gasses out to the sides. For small arms most muzzle brakes divert gasses upwards, because most small arms not only recoil backwards, but the muzzle jumps upwards too.

- flash suppressor / flash hider: This device reduces the visible flash from firing the gun. Some are actually able to reduce the flash when seen from the front, so that your enemy will not see you as easily when you are shooting at them. But most only reduce the flash when seen from the rear, so that you are not blinded by the flash when you fire your own weapon. This can be particularly important at night. Flash suppressors/hiders are often cup or funnel-shaped.

- compensator: This word is not clearly defined. There can be many kinds of compensators. Most often it means a device like a muzzle brake, but which is not designed to keep the gun from kicking backwards so much as it is designed to keep the muzzle from jumping upwards when the gun goes off. So a kind of specialist muzzle brake which vents gasses upwards.

- muzzle booster: Almost the opposite of a muzzle brake. A muzzle booster seeks to channel some of the gasses that would go away to the sides, and make it go straight forward, so that there is a stronger recoil. This can help some guns to function properly ... particularly automatics (light machine guns, for example). Flash suppressors/hiders, because of their shape, often also function as muzzle boosters.


I have never heard of a case where a gun was designed for you to actually stab someone with the muzzle.

Often a blade can be attached to the front of a military gun for stabbing. This is called a bayonet. It is usually a knife, with a special mechanism for attaching it to the muzzle. Sometimes it is a spike, rather than a knife. But I've never heard of a gun where you might actually stab with the muzzle of the gun.

Hope that helps.

-Mark 1

The first bayonet were actually long knives shoved into the muzzles of muskets by irregular militia in Bayonne, France in the mid 17th century.

The XD9/HS2000 has a longer guide-rod so that the muzzle can be pressed against a target without pushing the slide out of battery. There are other examples of pistols where they put what looks like a meat-hammer on the front, I guess for the same reason. Also there's the wire-cutting flash hiders on rifles, some made big enough to cut steel rebar, never gotten around to vandalism so I've no experience if they work, but the principles seem sound - align the wire or rebar to be cut with the notches and the bullet will do the rest. And on shotguns there's a funky pointy muzzle attachment that's supposed to be for putting the muzzle against door hinges and blasting them, but I suspect sales are more for cool factor.

Tanknet poster Max Popenker has a web site that will keep you busy for hours and hours:

http://world.guns.ru/

If you remove the muzzle device (most commonly a flash suppressor or muzzle brake {NOT "break"}, the weapon will still fire, but it may not be as controllable. Back during the US "Assault Weapons Ban" firearms had to have those devices and threading (they are usually screwed on) removed to be "legal." Since no gases were diverted rearward, they are actually quieter for the shooter.

*Those sound like open-ended "prong" flash suppressors. Early M16s had them, but they tended to catch on vegetation, so they were changed to the closed end "squirrel cage" type. And no, they were not for stabbing, although they could draw blood if so used.

Well, there WAS some twin-barreled, twin-row-22-round-drum-fed automatic revolver monstrosity, but I keep and keep on forgetting where and when it was made and what it was called. Anyone help please ^^

Oh no, I do know about those. I have encountered examples of those old M16 open ended prong muzzle in our armouries.

I can't find them now but these flash-hiders I was speaking of had sharp, serrated or jagged, point that protrude, and look like thy serve the purpose of being able to injure by stabbing.

I am still looking for those pics.

Which is the 1st firearm with a removable magazine?

Puckle Gun 1716:

see http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/James_Puckle

I now live in China and cannot access Wiki. Do you have any pics you can post?

What about 20th century-type weapons like WW1 or 2 bolt-action rifle or later? As I understand it, even the SKS didn't have a removable magazine.

Is the M14 the first American combat rifle with a removable mag?

Is the FG42 the first German rifle with a removable mag?

OK, here is one example of such "defensive" flash hiders I was talking about. There are even more evil-looking ones.

http://www.autoburst.net/USP45.html

I'm with Mk 1. Such a stabbing device just would not be practical, compared to a bayonet. It would be more likely to make the other guy madder. With the device illustrated, there is probably a rationale that it helps air circulation to help reduce muzzle flash-which, BTW is also dealt with by additives to the powder which reduce flash.

Thanks Mk 1, that was useful!

Al also to everyone, for the patience.

If you're tired of being Blinded by Brilliance, and are ready to be Baffled by Bulls**t (and you can access them), check out some of the USian firearm websites.

The Lee Metford and Lee Enfield rifles had detachable box magazines. The Russian Tokarev, and Simenov, self loading rifles also had detachable box magazines. There were also the Czech ZH29, and French MAS44 self loading rifles with detachable magazines.

I think that the first U.S. Military rifle with a detachable box magazine was probably the M1885 Remington Lee .45-70 rifle used by the U.S.Navy. Their was also the M1 Carbine developed during WW2 and the M1918 Browning Automatic Rifle.

I think that the Mkb 42 was developed at about the same time as the FG42. I'm not sure which made it into service first. Several German firms were developing assault rifles during this period. There was also the German G43/K43 self loading rifles. These all saw some service around 1943.

If I understand correctly, the early Colt revolvers, the Patterson, Walker, and Dragoon revolvers of the 1830s-1850s, and also the Colt "New Army" revolver of 1860, might be considered as having detatchable magazines.


They often were supplied with two cylinders. Soldiers would go into battle with the second cylinder pre-loaded. The Colt guns had no brace over the top of the revolving cylinders (as were found on other revolvers, such as the Remington 1858 Army.) It was faster to change the cylinders than to re-load even 1 chamber of the cylinder. So in action, a soldier was expected to shoot off his first cylinder, then change to his second cylinder, before he had to apply himself to the fairly time-consuming task of re-loading the cylinders.

Not quite the same as a "detatchable magazine", as the cylinder included the firing chambers, and so were far larger and of heavier construction than a "magazine" in the modern sense. But prior to the acceptance of metallic cartridges, this was about the only practical solution to rapid re-loading. Perhaps they should be considered a for-runner of the detatchable magazine.

-Mark 1

Can you modify a FN FAL to fire less powerful loadings?

The purpose is to make the weapon controllable in full auto. I am thinking of the MP44 which iis supposed to be very controllable in full-auto bursts.

The original FN-FAL prototype was in 7.92X33mm, as I remember--same cartridge as the STG-44.

Then, they did it in the 7mm that the British had come up with, and it was pretty close to the ideal for assault rifles.

Unfortunately, the US in it's infinitude of wisdom, chose to force 7.62X51mm down NATO's throat, and, well... The FN-FAL became the oversize, uncontrollable-on-full-auto, Main Battle Rifle (yeah, I know that's not really "correct" terminology, but I've always liked that term for the 7.62mm self-loaders--sort of evocative of the idiocy their designers made manifest) that it is.

Sad. When you think of what might have been, had the idiots running Springfield Arsenal actually had some common sense.

It's painfully ironic to realize, sixty-years on, that we might have had the "ideal assault rifle" in the 1950's, and still been using the damn thing to this day, if certain people had been eliminated from the equation. <sigh>

I can see no thing that would prevent it. After all wasn't that made in form of FN CAL?

@thekirk: Yup, 7.62x51 was an odd choice... Maybe the unification push came too soon and if it was few years later the more intermediate cartridges might have enough users to win? Nah... Forget it, vz.52 7.62x45 cartridge got into service and was there for plenty of years before being pushed out by Soviet model 43 7.62x39... Thus facilitating need of two rifle-calibre cartridges in squad, with 7.62x45 there was rifle and GPM using the same, but MG vz.52/57 reworked for 7.62x39 was just plain weak and new GPMG was in 7.62x54R.

Remingtons could be used with spare cylinders too. In fact it is easier to swap cylinders on a Remington than a Colt. BTDT with both.

CTTOI, since the early S&W had to take the cylinder out to reload, you could swap cylinders with them too.

Here's another picture then. The advertised purpose of this large one is for cutting rebar. http://cmmginc.secure-mall.com/shop/index....hop=1&cat=8 Stabbing with a muzzle seems idiotic, can't see why you'd want the other guy to be able to control where the muzzle points.

Is that thing supposed to hold the muzzle in place to cut rebar with standard (ball) ammo? Somehow that doesn't sound good for the rifle.

No, it has absolutely nothing to do with cutting rebar. Check the link. It is a device for increasing back pressure in short-barrelled M16 variants to improve functioning.

Yes, I did check the link and read the part about increasing back pressure. Check Luckyorwhat's last post (#28). He posted, referring to the pic of a muzzle-end device, "The advertised purpose of this large one is for cutting rebar." My question was directed at that statement.

I looked at the link again, and it mentioned a "cap with rebar cutter," as well as increasing back-pressure for 11.5in carbines.

To rephrase my question, How does one cut rebar with this device?

Those things are used for cutting rebar in breached reinforced concrete; you place the rebar you want to cut in either of the two grooved channels, which hold the rebar centered, and then fire the weapon. The bullet will hopefully cut the rebar, similar to how the Stg. 58 flash hider was to cut barbed wire. How well these things work, I don't know, but I'd sure as hell recommend eye protection...

Personally, I think this is a very last-ditch sort of solution, sort of like the AK-47 bayonet's wire-cutter provision. It will work, but there are much better tools for doing this. However, if it's all you've got, it's not a bad little thing to have.

That really sounds like a surefire recipe for "very bad things" ™

I don't think it is great, but neither will I say it is "idiotic". Especially not with the reason provided, with all due respect.

In all close combat with any kind of weapon you have to push the business end of the weapon in the direction of the enemy. How is a rifle with a sharp muzzle different from a rifle with a bayonet in employment?

We tend to dismiss things we don't completely understand. These special muzzles do not claim to replace bayonets. But in CQB, it is inconvenient to attach a bayonet. Such a muzzle just adds a little extra point to fight with.

Having said this, I am not stating they are good or even necessary. I am only describing the purpose for which they were created.

how often do people get into melee combat with firearms outside of movies?

Well, the FN CAL is a 5.56 rifle. I was talking specifically about making a FN FAL fire a weaker 7.62x51 NATO round. Though I have asked this question a long time ago, I found out only recently that the Japanese did indeed make a 7.62 rifle in the 60s that fired a weaker 7.62 round.

I wonder if this would not have solved some problems... Like this weaker 7.62 round would still have more "knock down power" than the 5.56. It would still do a better job of punching through barriers than the 5.56. Especially when fired from big heavy weapons like the FN FAL, it would be more controllable in FA.

Why is a SAW in 7.62x39 too weak? Is it that the range is not enough etc? IIRC the RPD was in 7.62x39 and it was quite useful.

Since the invention of the minie ball - not much at all.
Since the invention of the brass cartridge - even less.
And the self loading rifle - even less.
Adding in the mid-power, short barreled, assault rifle with a high capacity magazine - to the point that you could *almost* say "never"

Pointy things on the ends of rifles are so rarely used/useful now that they are far more dangerous to the user than his adversary.

Really? I'm sure both you and Jason speak from extensive experience.

I have hit one guy with the M16's rifle butt when he disobeyed a simple order and replied with some remarks about my family etc. I got no more trouble from him afterwards.

Another time 2 platoon mates get into a fight and the bigger chap got a full buttstroke to the midriff, and was out of action for a few minutes. Again no more trouble afterwards. Talk about "stopping power". After that we took our bayonet drills (you know, those useless "pointy" things) with renewed enthusiasm.

I guess I am from a diferent, less advanced era from you both for I find hitting people with rifles to be sometimes necessary and always effective.

It's not always in combat - of which I have no experience unlike you both - but I would imagine useful for intimidating prisoners, suspects and the odd smart alec etc.

Yes, ahem... I do know of the invention of brass cartridges and self loading rifles, what I don't know is if they have invented a rifle that doesn't jam or run out of ammo in tight situations.

About the only real use for bayonets these days is crowd control. Bayonets are very useful for shifting people whom you don't want to shoot with a weapon thaat will go through six bodies.

Short-barrelled shotguns with long bayonets are great for crowd control. Used in a riot-control formation, intimidating is not the word.

I don't have any combat experience but I've been around guns and other weapons enough to know that were I in combat and even if I was stuck with a jammed weapon or out of ammo about the very last thing I would think to do is try to get into a melee with the enemy.

There is such a huge proliferation of specialized close combat/confined spaces weapons: automatic shotguns, SMGs, carbines that to have to resort to a melee weapon seems inherently rare occurrence. The best protection in the event of a weapon malfunction is always going to be the rest of the members of your squad/fire team not some warhammer 40kesque magical combi weapon.

as cool as guns with swords (even little bitty knife like ones) are I haven't heard any trooper wax poetic about the effectiveness of his pointy stick.

That is not to say H2H combat doesn't happen. My grandfather was struck in the face by a rifle butt and lost some teeth and had a partial jaw break - the German soldier obviously fared much worse although I don't know the details since he never wanted to talk about it.

I'm not sure disciplinary issues and brawls with fellow soldiers constitute any sort of valid argument for why melee weapons should be part of general issued kit.

Nevermind. Just a cranky rant.

Matt

awww..I enjoy reading cranky rants

My understanding is that even when the bayonet got more work (in the times of slow-to-load muzzleloaders), it was used at best at the beginning of the charge and once troopers mixed, it was easier to use the rifle, even if bayonetted, as large and heavy blunt object.

Did read somewhere that the largest impact of bayonets was psychological, both for attackers and attacked - it showed the attackers are crazy enough to go in close and personal and there was that thing about facing seemingly unstoppable mass of men with long pointed sticks approaching you...

After all the most famous bayonet charge of ACW was caused by 20th Maine running low on ammo.

There are tons of those anecdotal stories talking about how crummy bayonets were for trench fighting and the proliferation of weapons like maces and the use of trenching tools as melee weapons as well.

"Statistics" showing that bayonets were not reponsible for casualties can be misleading. I recall a prof saying once that the bayonet was not used in combat n the ACW because some medical service only treated seven bayonet wounds. My response was, "You don't get wounded with a bayonet, you get KILLED!" There are plenty of eye-witness accounts of bayonet fights (or massacres) in the ACW.

A similar misleading use of medical statistics is the assertion that artillery was the biggest killer in WW1. This was called into doubt in one battle by a researcher who examined hospital corps records for 1 July 1916 and found not ONE SINGLE instance of anyone being treated by the RAMC for rifle-caliber wounds to the torso or head. This tends IMHO to the conclusion that people shot in the torso or head by rifle or MG fire did not survive to be entered into RAMC treatment records.

That, or clearly very few people ever got shot in the torso or head

There are many people here (not me) with actual combat experience, why not listen for a change?

Whether to get into a hand 2 hand fight or not is very not often your choice, is it?

So what do you do when you run out of ammo? Run? What if you're surrounded? Surrender? What if they're not taking prisoners?


And these things don't run out of ammo?


Well, we can't go by what you have heard or not. Unless you receive weekly briefings by the US military, what you hear or not does not figure in any scheme of things, does it?


Don't contradict yourself now, you just said people don't whack each other with with firearms other than in movies.


You can take it literally, and make sarcastic remarks afterwards, or you can take it as quoted examples of how effective hitting someone with a rifle still is, no matter what day and age.

cheers

I typically do listen. How many people have piped up saying that melee attachements aren't past their effectiveness? I'm honestly waiting for E5M to post and end this silliness once and for all.



If you are surrounded and out of ammo you are fucked plain and simple. As others have already said in an age of large volume automatic fire at the small unit level there is little room left for charges into melee range.



No I specifically questioned how OFTEN people get into melee range in this day and age. WW2 was still a war fought with many bolt action, mag fed weapons. Ie is there enough melee combat to warrant issuing a piece of kit to every combat soldier?

Finally get off your high horse. For someone with self admittedly zero combat experience you seem very willing to insult every else about our opinions.

Me, high horse? Who's the one making sweeping proclamations. Who's the one deciding what is or isn't depending on what he has heard or not? Anyway, enough time is wasted. If you really are one to listen, it's time to shut up.

Chino, are you another fan of Mike Sparks by any chance?

http://www.geocities.com/equipmentshop/bayonets.htm

Next question:

As I understand, the MG3 uses non-disintegrating links.

The MG3's predecessor - the MG42 - IIRC, uses disintegrating links.

Are there any special reasons for switching to a non-disintegrating belt? Are there any advantages? Doesn't a long length of spent link dangling from the weapon get in the way?

Ooooh.... the "Mike Sparks" label. I am so scared.

Look here little man - stop wasting everyone's time if you have beef with me use the PM.