why so heavy ?
- Thread starter Curtton
- Start date
- Status
If you ever get a chance pick up MP18 and Suomi -fully loaded they are both heavy but Suomi will be far more "user friendly" and it was a lot easier to manage in full auto.
Suomi was better then contemporary SMGs (partly) due to ergonomics,it's no wonder PPD and PPSH SMGs look the way they look.
Suomi was better then contemporary SMGs (partly) due to ergonomics,it's no wonder PPD and PPSH SMGs look the way they look.
How many SMGs of that period have you used?
A loaded 1928 Tommy is a full load, believe me, and the Lanchester, MP-28II and MP-18i were not much better.
If you want nasty weight-for-power, try the Steyr-Solothurn or the early Erma.
Even the MP-38/40 is heavy compared to later guns.
The Russian guns of wartime manufacture were designed for maximum production, minimum cost in materials and labour. That is how you get such a little sweetheart as the PPS-43.
But the Suomi is a direct development of the early Degtyarev and both are fully machined from billet. No stampings and flimsy parts that break off just when you need them.
Strength takes material.
The Model 31 might be heavy, but it also is tough enough for the Winter War.
Very few burp guns can have THAT said of them.
A loaded 1928 Tommy is a full load, believe me, and the Lanchester, MP-28II and MP-18i were not much better.
If you want nasty weight-for-power, try the Steyr-Solothurn or the early Erma.
Even the MP-38/40 is heavy compared to later guns.
The Russian guns of wartime manufacture were designed for maximum production, minimum cost in materials and labour. That is how you get such a little sweetheart as the PPS-43.
But the Suomi is a direct development of the early Degtyarev and both are fully machined from billet. No stampings and flimsy parts that break off just when you need them.
Strength takes material.
The Model 31 might be heavy, but it also is tough enough for the Winter War.
Very few burp guns can have THAT said of them.
- Location
- West coast of Vancouver Island
Thompson's are bloody heavy.
FAL stands for Fusil Automatique Legere: LIGHT Automatic Rifle. It is just about as lightweight as a rifle can be built for a full-power cartridge and work for a reasonable time without beating itself to pieces. Even then, it is NOT truly Automatic but SEMIautomatic, what the British call "SELF-LOADING".
In its original 7.92x33 cartridge, it was capable of automatic fire. When converted for test to the British 7x45 EM-2 cartridge, it was barely within limits of controllability for automatic fire. The Americans just HAD to have their 7.62x51. Converted yet again to the 7x49 Second Optimum round, the rifle was uncontrollable in automatic fire. When it appeared as a 7.62x51, more than 95% of rifles were built WITHOUT automatic-fire capability.
Yes, there WAS a full-auto variant. We called it the C2, the Aussies (who used it in combat in Viet Nam) called it the "Bang-bang-jam". It had a bipod, heavy barrel, weighed about 14 pounds, was prone to jamming and parts failure. It was too delicate for parachute operations, sometimes 20% of rifles being inoperative after hitting the ground. It was BARELY controllable and not accurate. The Americans had similar problems with their M-14/15 program, the little-known M-15 being the selective-fire, heavy-barreled version of the normal M-14, itself supposedly a selective-fire rifle which was locked onto semi-auto fire.
The M-31, on the other hand, has none of these problems. Guns today are more than 80 years old and, if they haven't been dicked with, are as reliable as rocks.
Also, consider that your FAL has a bolt which weighs about a quarter-pound. When the rifle fires, the bolt is LOCKED in place and the entire rifle takes up the recoil. The bullet passes down the barrel, some gas is bled off and operates the mechanism to reload the rifle. With the old M-31, there is a 2-pound bolt balanced on the end of a spring. The weight of the bolt keeps it closed until pressure drops to a point at which it is safe to open the breech. Simple? Yes. But it adds weight..... and reduces complication, machining, tiddy little parts that break. You get a different KIND of recoil but the weight of the gun helps to fight it.
No point going any farther. It's comparing apples to fish or something.
Get a couple of good books on firearms design and read them. For a start, I would recommend HATCHER'S NOTEBOOK, followed by George M. Chinn's 6-volume series THE MACHINE GUN. Digest that and you will have no questions..... ever. You can download all 7 over at milsurps dot com, absolutely free.
Hope this helps.
In its original 7.92x33 cartridge, it was capable of automatic fire. When converted for test to the British 7x45 EM-2 cartridge, it was barely within limits of controllability for automatic fire. The Americans just HAD to have their 7.62x51. Converted yet again to the 7x49 Second Optimum round, the rifle was uncontrollable in automatic fire. When it appeared as a 7.62x51, more than 95% of rifles were built WITHOUT automatic-fire capability.
Yes, there WAS a full-auto variant. We called it the C2, the Aussies (who used it in combat in Viet Nam) called it the "Bang-bang-jam". It had a bipod, heavy barrel, weighed about 14 pounds, was prone to jamming and parts failure. It was too delicate for parachute operations, sometimes 20% of rifles being inoperative after hitting the ground. It was BARELY controllable and not accurate. The Americans had similar problems with their M-14/15 program, the little-known M-15 being the selective-fire, heavy-barreled version of the normal M-14, itself supposedly a selective-fire rifle which was locked onto semi-auto fire.
The M-31, on the other hand, has none of these problems. Guns today are more than 80 years old and, if they haven't been dicked with, are as reliable as rocks.
Also, consider that your FAL has a bolt which weighs about a quarter-pound. When the rifle fires, the bolt is LOCKED in place and the entire rifle takes up the recoil. The bullet passes down the barrel, some gas is bled off and operates the mechanism to reload the rifle. With the old M-31, there is a 2-pound bolt balanced on the end of a spring. The weight of the bolt keeps it closed until pressure drops to a point at which it is safe to open the breech. Simple? Yes. But it adds weight..... and reduces complication, machining, tiddy little parts that break. You get a different KIND of recoil but the weight of the gun helps to fight it.
No point going any farther. It's comparing apples to fish or something.
Get a couple of good books on firearms design and read them. For a start, I would recommend HATCHER'S NOTEBOOK, followed by George M. Chinn's 6-volume series THE MACHINE GUN. Digest that and you will have no questions..... ever. You can download all 7 over at milsurps dot com, absolutely free.
Hope this helps.
They will still have their questions ,Smellie, 90% of people today will not bother to read.
I have actually heard the "young'uns" say " Meh, can't be bothered to make sense of it all."
And they say this with pride (no less).
janice
I have actually heard the "young'uns" say " Meh, can't be bothered to make sense of it all."
And they say this with pride (no less).
janice
I love putting my Thompson M1A1 into the hands of people who have never held one. First of all, they nearly drop it. Then they say "Wow, that's heavy. Did soldiers have to carry these all day?". Yeah, plus spare mags, plus ammo, plus plus plus. It is a real eye opener for most folks.
The newer non-restricteds will have a longer/heavier barrel. Not only adding to overall weight, but affecting balance too.
"Why do they call him the bullet dodger?"
"Because he dodges bullets..."
"Why do they call him the bullet dodger?"
"Because he dodges bullets..."
^ Some guys have removed the whole barrel
Oh you.
- Status
