Technology

doug941 wrote:AirTech The main problem with the M16 first generation wasn't so much the chamber/barrel, it was the rounds themselves. Eugene Stoner designed the weapon to fire a small grain, fast burning powder. The DOD substituted a large grain, slow burning powder that they had warehouses full of. With the replacement powder it was still burning when it reached the gas port, hence the action jamming. A second but still dangerous fault was the orginial three prong flash suppressor which tended to bend and become non-usable.
Lyonheart Both the Lewis and the Maxim have their good points. The Lewis was air-cooled but the Maxim could and was sized up to fire 37mm cannon shells (the 2pdr pom pom)

M-16. I never had a problem with mine in SEA. My older brother was a marine stationed at Khe Sanh. His unit came to the conclusion it was incompatible manufacturing of the feed cartridges and magazines. His gunny refused certain manufacturers once they figured out the serial number ID (like a VIN).

TN4994 To expand on my earlier post. The original design powder being a pistol type powder would have finished burning before the bullet reached the gas port. The large grain powder that was used was surplus made for M1s and M14s. As large grain powder, it would still be burning when it got to the gas port and could cause jams. What is normally called "smokeless powder" actually isn't. It does produce smoke, but in VERY small amounts. Since the DOD did not issue cleaning kits with 1st generation M16, if they jammed you were toast. You probably remember the bolt closure feature on the right side of the rifle? That was because of the jamming problem. With the 1st generation flash suppressors if you hit the muzzle hard enough, the prongs could bend into the path of the bullet leaving a "D" shaped bore. The M16A1 was redesigned with a 6 slot suppressor that had a reinforcement ring on the end.
3 prong photo media.midwayusa.com/productimages/880x660/Primary/487/487530.jpg
6 slot photo https://d2t1xqejof9utc.cloudfront.net/s ... iginal.jpg

AirTech wrote:Not chrome plating the bore and chamber was the reason the first generation M16's were such a lousy battle rifle. ...

Doug941 summarized all of the other, more critical IMHO, faults with the original version of the M-16, except for one critical difference with the AK-47; machining tolerances.

The M-16 and other AR derivatives are made with very fine machining tolerances. Tolerances are so close that mud, sand or dust can cause jamming, and certainly cause excessive wear.

The AK-47 and derivatives function with far looser machining tolerances so they tolerate mud, sand, and dust far better than AR derivatives. The lack of a chrome plated barrel would mean more frequent cleaning is required, but nothing like the "once a day or whenever it's fired or both" requirement of even chromed AR derivatives.

doug941 wrote:TN4994 To expand on my earlier post. The original design powder being a pistol type powder would have finished burning before the bullet reached the gas port. The large grain powder that was used was surplus made for M1s and M14s. As large grain powder, it would still be burning when it got to the gas port and could cause jams. What is normally called "smokeless powder" actually isn't. It does produce smoke, but in VERY small amounts. Since the DOD did not issue cleaning kits with 1st generation M16, if they jammed you were toast. You probably remember the bolt closure feature on the right side of the rifle? That was because of the jamming problem. With the 1st generation flash suppressors if you hit the muzzle hard enough, the prongs could bend into the path of the bullet leaving a "D" shaped bore. The M16A1 was redesigned with a 6 slot suppressor that had a reinforcement ring on the end.
3 prong photo media.midwayusa.com/productimages/880x660/Primary/487/487530.jpg
6 slot photo https://d2t1xqejof9utc.cloudfront.net/s ... iginal.jpg

Evidently I was issued an updated version, and I had a cleaning kit.

Interesting sidebar: If the ICA is looking for an early introduction of automatic weapons there is an example of a bolt action rifle converted into an automatic rifle, the Huot Automatic rifle:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Huot_Automatic_Rifle
http://www.forgottenweapons.com/huot-automatic-rifle/
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Fx-ZmsE9G6Y

The conversion was actually pretty simple, the gas system was added and connected to the existing "straight pull" action of the existing Ross rifle (which the Huot is based on). Despite the rather poor reputation of the Ross, by 1918, the ammunition problems were pretty much solved, and Huots were tested and found to be quite reliable. Sadly for Huot, the war ended before large scale production was authorized, and the weapon never went into production or service.

Thucydides wrote:Interesting sidebar: If the ICA is looking for an early introduction of automatic weapons there is an example of a bolt action rifle converted into an automatic rifle, the Huot Automatic rifle:...

IIRC, there was a similar adapter for the Springfield '06. It wasn't a permanent conversion, but a replacement for the bolt that required no other modification to the rifle.

Weird Harold The conversion device you mentioned was called the Pedersen Device and allowed it to fire French .30 pistol rounds. There were also a number of conversions for the Lee-Enfield in various calibers in semi- and automatic fire. The Howard Automatic, the Ekins, The Rieder, the Howell, Two varied Charltons from Australia and New Zealand.
Thucydides While the Ross was notable for its problems with ammo, it also suffered from being overdesigned. Its extraction design was garbage and its tolerances where such that if you even thought about dirt it jammed. It was designed to be a thousand yard killer and had no thought to what would happen if it got dirty.

Being that this thread is about technology. I presume that snowshoes and snow skis are a given. Raven's Land uses caribou and snow lizards to haul cargo, so there is the posibility of dogsleds (though Keelhaul would disapprove).
Anyone recall the outrigger modified for snow and ice sailing?

lyonheart wrote:A rational enemy would have stopped since the port's operation was never threatened [ditto for London's] but Hitler and the SS weren't rational, but the flak troops might have explained the V-1's weaknesses if they'd been asked to analyze the concept and its costs, though they didn't know about the USA's proximity fuse and 3 cm gun control radars.

Pournelle, with his 2D political chart noted that the NAZIs were not only not rational, but their basic writings proclaimed they weren't. Unfortunately we now have many who are not rational, some of which proclaim they are very rational indeed You need to check their assumptions against reality evidence.

Thinking the universe is basically rational is an axiom, and my geometry teacher taught that no axiom is provable, except by comparing the results with the facts. In rationality circular thinking is inevitable, since a comparison assumes the universe is rational. OTOH, assuming an irrational universe makes it impossible to test ANYTHING.

I'll take good test methods anytime.