|
Post by demonnachos on Jun 24, 2016 23:14:13 GMT
I'd much prefer just a regular magazine honestly, but one thing I can't sort out is who thought putting the damn thing on top of the rifle was a good idea? That is where the sights go you tossers (I'm looking at you Bren designers, and the idiots who designed the Japanese weapon that was similar but I don't recall the name of).
|
|
|
Post by Horsie on Jun 24, 2016 23:31:12 GMT
You're thinking of the Type 96 and Type 99, internally they were different from the Bren, but looked similar, while the Bren was actually a British version of the Czech ZB26. There were quite a few machine guns back in the day that were set up like that (and at least a couple of SMGs, the only two I can name are the Australian Owen and F1), the idea was that it would ensure reliable feeding if the cartridges were fed by both a spring-loaded follower and gravity.
|
|
|
Post by demonnachos on Jun 24, 2016 23:40:57 GMT
Reliable loading doesn't mean a thing if you can't see what you are trying to shoot.
|
|
|
Post by Horsie on Jun 24, 2016 23:55:12 GMT
The sights are offset to one side;
|
|
|
Post by demonnachos on Jun 25, 2016 0:02:24 GMT
Two things to note, biggest of which is just how blind you are on the right side. You have no field of view with that thing (especially since you aim with your right eye, meaning your left FoV is hampered already. The battlefield is not a good place to get stuck with tunnel vision. The lesser issue is aligning the sights, being offset above the barrel like most sights is already a bit of an issue but adding horizontal alignment issues on top of that means you need to adjust for distance both vertically and horizontally.
|
|
|
Post by Horsie on Jun 25, 2016 0:27:58 GMT
Remember we're talking about WW2-era LMGs, something like this was supposed to be operated by a gunner and one or two assistants (who would carry ammunition, load empty mags, change mags, spot targets, etc.), and it wasn't expected to be a tack driver; this sight setup worked, otherwise it wouldn't have been used on a number of LMGs from several countries. I know the Bren and the Japanese Type 96 and 99 were supposed to be quite accurate, and I expect the Czech ZB26 was as well, I expect a gunner would know how to compensate for the offset with a little practice (something that I doubt would be a serious issue within the range these weapons were intended to be used at).
|
|
|
Post by demonnachos on Jun 25, 2016 2:13:00 GMT
Didn't the Bren only have a 20 round mag? Not much of an LMG with that shallow of an ammo pool (sure the BAR isn't any better admittedly) So I just read one the funniest comments in a long while, "Military flintlocks are considered assault weapons and are banned in New York because they can be equipped with bayonets" I hope this is true just because that would be utterly hilarious. It was on this video which makes me want to use a ye olde flintlock as a carry-pistol:
|
|
|
Post by Horsie on Jun 25, 2016 2:29:51 GMT
A lot of early LMGs used relatively low capacity box mags.
I think you could use a plug bayonet with any musket of the appropriate bore diameter, so technically any musket would be covered by that.
|
|
|
Post by demonnachos on Jun 25, 2016 3:08:49 GMT
The capacity LMGs seems a bit silly honestly, especially since the purpose of an LMG is suppression fire.
I really can't grasp that it took so long for them to realize they can just attach a sharp thing to the barrel rather than stuff one in there. I wonder what would happen if you fired while your plug bayonet was in there? I am betting the musket would blow up in your face, but part of me wants to believe it would shoot the bayonet as projectile (Hollywood style)
|
|
|
Post by Canuovea on Jun 25, 2016 4:22:22 GMT
My Step-Grandfather used a Bren, and not solely in a "suppression" manner either. He preferred it to the German MG he carried around before he got his hands on the Bren because the Bren got less hot less quickly. Allegedly, he was extremely accurate with it and any other gun he used. So I guess it comes down to familiarity, preference, skill, and role.
|
|
|
Post by wordweaver3 on Jun 25, 2016 6:12:20 GMT
I wonder what would happen if you fired while your plug bayonet was in there? I am betting the musket would blow up in your face, but part of me wants to believe it would shoot the bayonet as projectile (Hollywood style) Compared to modern powders, black powder burns much slower and produces lower pressures. Bore obstructions tend to get blown out rather than cause damage to the barrel. It wasn't uncommon for a soldier to launch their ramrod downrange in the heat of battle, the only damage done was they were minus a ramrod. Though I suppose if you really rammed the bayonet in there it could burst the barrel. The whole point of the plug bayonet was that you had already shot the rifle and didn't have time to reload again before engaging, so shooting it would have been a rare occurrence, though it probably happened. I doubt it would fly straight though, probably tumble wildly. Still wouldn't wanna get hit by it.
|
|
|
Post by demonnachos on Jun 25, 2016 6:26:23 GMT
We need to test that theory out, it could be an interesting experiment.
|
|
|
Post by wordweaver3 on Jun 25, 2016 6:42:37 GMT
Couldn't find anything on Youtube. I guess nobody ever thought to try it.
I suppose if you found an old rifle you didn't mind blowing up and a few dowel rods carved in the shape of a plug you could test it. I know we used to put tape over the bore of our muzzleloaders when we went hunting to keep rain and snow out and that didn't hurt the guns, but tape is a far cry from a solid piece of wood.
|
|
|
Post by wordweaver3 on Jun 25, 2016 7:04:02 GMT
I seem to remember Mythbusters doing something like that though, but damn if I can find it.
I distinctly remember them trying to blow a muzzleloader up with an obstruction, I think they started off testing the ramrod launch and moved up to more abusive tests. I seem to have a vivid memory of them hammering a steel rod into the barrel at one point and still not getting a failure.
|
|
|
Post by wordweaver3 on Jun 25, 2016 8:06:46 GMT
Now that I think about it, that wasn't Mythbusters. That was a couple of yahoos on Youtube trying to blow up a Hi-Point.
Along the same vein of odd things to test...
There was a big thunderstorm here earlier and for some reason I had an odd thought: if you were struck by lightning while carrying a firearm, would the rounds in the gun discharge?
|
|