|
|
Post by the light works on Jan 18, 2018 3:32:23 GMT
so:
rapid fire vs aimed shots, and dynamite crossbow.
|
|
|
|
Post by the light works on Jan 18, 2018 4:09:53 GMT
myth one: in a gunfight, it is better to take your time and aim than to shoot rapid fire from the hip.
Myth 2: from Jonah Hex, a semiautomatic crossbow pistol that fires dynamite.
so obviously, this is the one with them shooting dynamite from earlier teasers.
that said, anecdotally, I am reminded of a skeet shooting day where we were down to our last clay, and despite the fact we had five or six people all shooting at it, it sailed off into the distance, untouched.
this compares to us having about a 75% first shot hit percentage and close to 95% adding a second try.
so, my biggest question about the movie: was the hero crossbow in the movie self cocking or just magazine fed? I haven't watched the movie.
other than that, making a (semi-spoiler) remote controlled magazine fed dynamite firing crossbow is an impressive engineering project.
on the final test of slow vs rapid, I would have liked to see it be less about number of hits and more about time until first lethal hit, but otherwise, they laid out a good test with good scenery.
addendum critique: both rapid fire tests seemed a little slow to me.
|
|
|
|
Post by ironhold on Jan 18, 2018 4:15:22 GMT
Yeah, this is the one that Science accidentally spoiled during the holiday marathon by airing the wrong "new episode" promo.
...Repeatedly.
I would imagine that someone ended up getting a rather massive lump of coal in their stocking...
That being said -
Modern-day movies still use some of the same gunfight tropes we see in Westerns, so I can imagine a later re-test using modern firearms (an "automatic" pistol and a civilian-grade tactical rifle, respectively).
|
|
|
|
Post by the light works on Jan 18, 2018 4:46:46 GMT
Yeah, this is the one that Science accidentally spoiled during the holiday marathon by airing the wrong "new episode" promo. ...Repeatedly. I would imagine that someone ended up getting a rather massive lump of coal in their stocking... That being said - Modern-day movies still use some of the same gunfight tropes we see in Westerns, so I can imagine a later re-test using modern firearms (an "automatic" pistol and a civilian-grade tactical rifle, respectively). the basic facts of it were very sound. rapid fire with a pistol tends to spread your grouping a lot more than rapid fire with a rifle. and with a rifle shouldered, rough aiming is a lot easier than with hip shooting. all in all, I've found that rapid unaimed fire only works better if you are lucky. back in my paintball days, I got lucky more than once, but nowhere near reliably enough to count as statistically relevant. |
|
|
|
Post by silverdragon on Jan 18, 2018 8:21:41 GMT
Back in my rapid fire SLR days, maybe it was that modern technology has improved, machine guns back then tended to pull, up and to the right with the ones we had.
In the case of the SLR, rapid fire was one tap per round, we were taught to allow the rifle to settle before we fired again, so grouping was reasonably accurate.
They were not Full Automatic. For good reason.
Shooting from the hip, un-aimed fire, we are taught was "Heads down" fire, designated to force the enemy to take cover, more of covering fire for getting yourself organised sort of thing, you aint expected to hit anything, but those you are aiming in the general direction of dont know that.
This can be seen many days on Paintball ranges, someone pulls a "Hail Mary" rapid fire, and everyone else dives for cover?.
But all in all, this is spray and pray against measured aimed fire, results should be as expected.
Pistol vs Rifle, horses for courses, Pistol for close range work, Rifle for accurate long range shots.?.
|
|
|
|
Post by koshka on Jan 18, 2018 19:13:37 GMT
There's some people on Twitter calling out the guys for not quick-firing the rifle from the hip -- apparently that's how it's done in a lot of old Westerns. I don't watch enough movies to judge how valid that complaint is, though.
I've never seen the Jonah Hex movie, but IMDB says it was set during Grant's presidency, which means sometime between 1869 and 1877. That should mean he was (in-universe) using old-style dynamite instead of the more stable modern stuff. Which to me sounds like the magazine-go-boom ending would have been even more likely.
It would have been nice if they'd placed some dynamite at the appropriate distances, and set up another blast disk, just to show whether Hex could have survived those explosions if the crossbow had worked perfectly.
|
|
|
|
Post by the light works on Jan 18, 2018 21:42:03 GMT
There's some people on Twitter calling out the guys for not quick-firing the rifle from the hip -- apparently that's how it's done in a lot of old Westerns. I don't watch enough movies to judge how valid that complaint is, though. I've never seen the Jonah Hex movie, but IMDB says it was set during Grant's presidency, which means sometime between 1869 and 1877. That should mean he was (in-universe) using old-style dynamite instead of the more stable modern stuff. Which to me sounds like the magazine-go-boom ending would have been even more likely. It would have been nice if they'd placed some dynamite at the appropriate distances, and set up another blast disk, just to show whether Hex could have survived those explosions if the crossbow had worked perfectly. the one show I have seen a lot of rapid fire rifle work in is The Rifleman it bears mentioning that it is stated in at least one episode, he has the rifle modified so he only has to close the lever to fire. (this is confirmed to be possible by (redacting) the (censored) |
|
|
|
Post by Cybermortis on Jan 18, 2018 21:51:44 GMT
You'd be correct; The Bothan let slip that they had tested this. I was not, for obvious reasons, at liberty to say this beyond confirming that the synopsis for an earlier episode had been mixed up with this one.
The SLR was the British version of the FN-FAL, a 1950's Battle rifle capable of single and fully automatic fire in its stock form. Like most of the first and second generation fully automatic rifle designs it was all but uncontrollable on full automatic. (This was more to do with the round used than the gun itself, as a British design from the same period had the same issue when it was converted to use the same round).
Some nations 'solved' this issue by adding a burst fire mode. The British however instead opted to remove the automatic mode entirely, leaving their version as a single shot semi-automatic rifle. This also fitted with the long standing tradition of the British army focusing on accuracy rather than just rate of fire. And of course prior to this the principle rifle had been the bolt action Enfield, so it was easier for troops to convert to the newer weapon. (As opposed to the US Army who's principle rifle had been the M1 Garrand)
Old Style dynamite was not THAT unstable if new and prepared correctly. The danger is/was from old or poor quality dynamite where the Nitroglycerine 'sweated' out of the binding material.
|
|
|
|
Post by the light works on Jan 18, 2018 21:57:55 GMT
as far as the dynamite crossbow, checking the other two sets of burst discs might have been informative.
|
|
|
|
Post by the light works on Jan 18, 2018 22:09:29 GMT
You'd be correct; The Bothan let slip that they had tested this. I was not, for obvious reasons, at liberty to say this beyond confirming that the synopsis for an earlier episode had been mixed up with this one. The SLR was the British version of the FN-FAL, a 1950's Battle rifle capable of single and fully automatic fire in its stock form. Like most of the first and second generation fully automatic rifle designs it was all but uncontrollable on full automatic. (This was more to do with the round used than the gun itself, as a British design from the same period had the same issue when it was converted to use the same round). Some nations 'solved' this issue by adding a burst fire mode. The British however instead opted to remove the automatic mode entirely, leaving their version as a single shot semi-automatic rifle. This also fitted with the long standing tradition of the British army focusing on accuracy rather than just rate of fire. And of course prior to this the principle rifle had been the bolt action Enfield, so it was easier for troops to convert to the newer weapon. (As opposed to the US Army who's principle rifle had been the M1 Garrand) Old Style dynamite was not THAT unstable if new and prepared correctly. The danger is/was from old or poor quality dynamite where the Nitroglycerine 'sweated' out of the binding material. the other designation for the same family of rifle is L1A1. |
|
|
|
Post by silverdragon on Jan 19, 2018 6:33:14 GMT
There's some people on Twitter calling out the guys for not quick-firing the rifle from the hip -- apparently that's how it's done in a lot of old Westerns. I don't watch enough movies to judge how valid that complaint is, though. I've never seen the Jonah Hex movie, but IMDB says it was set during Grant's presidency, which means sometime between 1869 and 1877. That should mean he was (in-universe) using old-style dynamite instead of the more stable modern stuff. Which to me sounds like the magazine-go-boom ending would have been even more likely. It would have been nice if they'd placed some dynamite at the appropriate distances, and set up another blast disk, just to show whether Hex could have survived those explosions if the crossbow had worked perfectly. Just to question something I believe from my old days with an ADR licence, Dynamite, it has changed, for the good, to a more stable product, that wont "go off" suddenly with no warning?. If I believe what I think I know, so correct me here, Old style dynamite was SO unstable, several states and most cities banned its movement through their restriction areas completely. Therefore, the owning and using of such, may be illegal, so you cant test Old style dynamite, as production of that stuff is against strategic arms limitations laws or something like that, its an illegal substance to own, and, if you ever find any left over from the old days, you have to have a bomb squad attend to dispose of it, "On site", as in it will be dealt with in situ as an UXB, because not even they can transport it anywhere at all. So I question, is it even possible to try to replicate old style dynamite at all?. On the firing of a full automatic machine gun "From the hip", thats bloody dangerous to even try, if the thing pulls the wrong way, you may end up hitting yourself?. On quick-firing a rifle from the hip of a modern style SLR, is that even possible with the way the hand grip is designed?. As in, sure you could do it, but the origami of folding your hand and fingers to pull the trigger would ruin any chance of accuracy at all.?. |
|
|
|
Post by silverdragon on Jan 19, 2018 6:43:55 GMT
You'd be correct; The Bothan let slip that they had tested this. I was not, for obvious reasons, at liberty to say this beyond confirming that the synopsis for an earlier episode had been mixed up with this one. The SLR was the British version of the FN-FAL, a 1950's Battle rifle capable of single and fully automatic fire in its stock form. Like most of the first and second generation fully automatic rifle designs it was all but uncontrollable on full automatic. (This was more to do with the round used than the gun itself, as a British design from the same period had the same issue when it was converted to use the same round). Some nations 'solved' this issue by adding a burst fire mode. The British however instead opted to remove the automatic mode entirely, leaving their version as a single shot semi-automatic rifle. This also fitted with the long standing tradition of the British army focusing on accuracy rather than just rate of fire. And of course prior to this the principle rifle had been the bolt action Enfield, so it was easier for troops to convert to the newer weapon. (As opposed to the US Army who's principle rifle had been the M1 Garrand) Old Style dynamite was not THAT unstable if new and prepared correctly. The danger is/was from old or poor quality dynamite where the Nitroglycerine 'sweated' out of the binding material. Therefore the 7.62 "SLR" I handled in my days, alongside the Enfield .303, would have been the "Modified" semi-automatic which was reasonably accurate, but not to be used at long distance, hence the real target shooting to score highly was still done using the .303 . As you say, the "legend" of its full auto mode was completely all but uncontrollable on full auto, therefore, useless in full auto, so it was "Evolved" into a recoilless rifle, well, not fully recoilless, but less than a .303..?... it did eventually find its own spot, but the main use was a self-loading quick fire ability to put several round down the range at quicker pace than the .303 . It was the rate of fire that made it useful. Nothing else. But you worked with what you had?. Being able to keep on target through the sights and put a good grouping together without totally loosing sight of the target as you re-load, that had its spot in being useful. Knowing not to get your eye too close to the sights, priceless. |
|
|
|
Post by the light works on Jan 19, 2018 15:37:21 GMT
There's some people on Twitter calling out the guys for not quick-firing the rifle from the hip -- apparently that's how it's done in a lot of old Westerns. I don't watch enough movies to judge how valid that complaint is, though. I've never seen the Jonah Hex movie, but IMDB says it was set during Grant's presidency, which means sometime between 1869 and 1877. That should mean he was (in-universe) using old-style dynamite instead of the more stable modern stuff. Which to me sounds like the magazine-go-boom ending would have been even more likely. It would have been nice if they'd placed some dynamite at the appropriate distances, and set up another blast disk, just to show whether Hex could have survived those explosions if the crossbow had worked perfectly. Just to question something I believe from my old days with an ADR licence, Dynamite, it has changed, for the good, to a more stable product, that wont "go off" suddenly with no warning?. If I believe what I think I know, so correct me here, Old style dynamite was SO unstable, several states and most cities banned its movement through their restriction areas completely. Therefore, the owning and using of such, may be illegal, so you cant test Old style dynamite, as production of that stuff is against strategic arms limitations laws or something like that, its an illegal substance to own, and, if you ever find any left over from the old days, you have to have a bomb squad attend to dispose of it, "On site", as in it will be dealt with in situ as an UXB, because not even they can transport it anywhere at all. So I question, is it even possible to try to replicate old style dynamite at all?. On the firing of a full automatic machine gun "From the hip", thats bloody dangerous to even try, if the thing pulls the wrong way, you may end up hitting yourself?. On quick-firing a rifle from the hip of a modern style SLR, is that even possible with the way the hand grip is designed?. As in, sure you could do it, but the origami of folding your hand and fingers to pull the trigger would ruin any chance of accuracy at all.?.  not so much. you do have to support the foregrip, because it is possible for the breakdown latch to be vibrated loose. |
|
|
|
Post by the light works on Jan 19, 2018 15:40:34 GMT
You'd be correct; The Bothan let slip that they had tested this. I was not, for obvious reasons, at liberty to say this beyond confirming that the synopsis for an earlier episode had been mixed up with this one. The SLR was the British version of the FN-FAL, a 1950's Battle rifle capable of single and fully automatic fire in its stock form. Like most of the first and second generation fully automatic rifle designs it was all but uncontrollable on full automatic. (This was more to do with the round used than the gun itself, as a British design from the same period had the same issue when it was converted to use the same round). Some nations 'solved' this issue by adding a burst fire mode. The British however instead opted to remove the automatic mode entirely, leaving their version as a single shot semi-automatic rifle. This also fitted with the long standing tradition of the British army focusing on accuracy rather than just rate of fire. And of course prior to this the principle rifle had been the bolt action Enfield, so it was easier for troops to convert to the newer weapon. (As opposed to the US Army who's principle rifle had been the M1 Garrand) Old Style dynamite was not THAT unstable if new and prepared correctly. The danger is/was from old or poor quality dynamite where the Nitroglycerine 'sweated' out of the binding material. Therefore the 7.62 "SLR" I handled in my days, alongside the Enfield .303, would have been the "Modified" semi-automatic which was reasonably accurate, but not to be used at long distance, hence the real target shooting to score highly was still done using the .303 . As you say, the "legend" of its full auto mode was completely all but uncontrollable on full auto, therefore, useless in full auto, so it was "Evolved" into a recoilless rifle, well, not fully recoilless, but less than a .303..?... it did eventually find its own spot, but the main use was a self-loading quick fire ability to put several round down the range at quicker pace than the .303 . It was the rate of fire that made it useful. Nothing else. But you worked with what you had?. Being able to keep on target through the sights and put a good grouping together without totally loosing sight of the target as you re-load, that had its spot in being useful. Knowing not to get your eye too close to the sights, priceless. it's a nice all 'round rifle. certainly not a super long range "reach out and touch someone" rifle, like the modern purpose built ones, but it generally makes the holes where you want them. especially coupled with a long eye relief scope. |
|
|
|
Post by Cybermortis on Jan 19, 2018 16:23:16 GMT
The issue with most automatic rifles designed in the late 40's and 50's was the cartridge rather than the design of the gun.
The short version is that when NATO was looking for a standard round the US Military pushed for a cartridge based on the .303 round. They got their way and this became the 7.62mm NATO round which was really overpowered and oversized for full automatic rifles. The Soviets did much the same thing with their standard round, making it too large and powerful for an automatic rifle.
|
|
|
|
Post by the light works on Jan 19, 2018 16:47:47 GMT
The issue with most automatic rifles designed in the late 40's and 50's was the cartridge rather than the design of the gun. The short version is that when NATO was looking for a standard round the US Military pushed for a cartridge based on the .303 round. They got their way and this became the 7.62mm NATO round which was really overpowered and oversized for full automatic rifles. The Soviets did much the same thing with their standard round, making it too large and powerful for an automatic rifle. the geometry of the gun is also relevant - traditional rifles place the plane of the barrel above the contact point with the shoulder, which makes aiming more consistent by placing the barrel line closer to the shooter's sight line. compare to the more modern automatic rifles which elevate the sights above the barrel, placing the barrel more in line with the contact point of the stock.    with a single shot, it does not matter as much if he recoil pushes the muzzle upwards, after the bullet has left the barrel, but in automatic fire, the following shots will cause the muzzle to "climb" |
|
|
|
Post by silverdragon on Jan 20, 2018 8:21:40 GMT
Note on above.
When target shooting with the .303, its common to wind your arm into the strap to arrest its upwards kick, not too tight, you allow it some movement, because your going to reload and re-aim the thing afterwards.
On a Martini-Henry falling block type target rifle, you cradle it in a way that it stays on target more of the time after the shot, thus allowing you to chase shots, although you do load it one at a time, but again, you have to manually re-load.
But BOTH allow the rifle some movement with the kick-back.
None of the serious target rifles are recoilless until you get to spending some serious money...
Which we all know comes with a Military allergy... they do hate spending serious money.
Automatic, thats where the recoilless HAS to be evident.
But there is an argument that an automatic is for multiple targets so will be on the move anyway, so the recoilless part is just for comfort of the user, not for any form of accuracy?.
Again this is horses for courses, what use is each item for.
Your bog standard .303 is traditionally for "Every soldier has one", so every soldier, even the cooks, have the ability to return fire as needed.
They can be accurate, in the right hands, but mostly, they are reliable.
Anyone needing to reach out and touch someone at a distance, if that was their profession as sniper, even if they are military taking out selected targets, they are going to insist on something a bit better than your bog standard Enfield 303/7.62 ?.
I loved the .303, they are solid, they feel about right, and are uncomplicated.
But having used a Martini falling block, I also see why they have their own fan base... ease of use, and "quality" feel being high on that list.
|
|
|
|
Post by the light works on Jan 20, 2018 10:24:48 GMT
Note on above. When target shooting with the .303, its common to wind your arm into the strap to arrest its upwards kick, not too tight, you allow it some movement, because your going to reload and re-aim the thing afterwards. On a Martini-Henry falling block type target rifle, you cradle it in a way that it stays on target more of the time after the shot, thus allowing you to chase shots, although you do load it one at a time, but again, you have to manually re-load. But BOTH allow the rifle some movement with the kick-back. None of the serious target rifles are recoilless until you get to spending some serious money... Which we all know comes with a Military allergy... they do hate spending serious money. Automatic, thats where the recoilless HAS to be evident. But there is an argument that an automatic is for multiple targets so will be on the move anyway, so the recoilless part is just for comfort of the user, not for any form of accuracy?. Again this is horses for courses, what use is each item for. Your bog standard .303 is traditionally for "Every soldier has one", so every soldier, even the cooks, have the ability to return fire as needed. They can be accurate, in the right hands, but mostly, they are reliable. Anyone needing to reach out and touch someone at a distance, if that was their profession as sniper, even if they are military taking out selected targets, they are going to insist on something a bit better than your bog standard Enfield 303/7.62 ?. I loved the .303, they are solid, they feel about right, and are uncomplicated. But having used a Martini falling block, I also see why they have their own fan base... ease of use, and "quality" feel being high on that list. I really enjoyed having a chance to shoot an authentic M-1 Garand. not that it has any particularly stellar attributes, but it WAS our first American self loading rifle. |
|
|
|
Post by Cybermortis on Jan 20, 2018 14:28:23 GMT
Cost is a major practical and political consideration for military firearms, but its not the only one nor is it always the principle reason for Military forces rejecting one design for another.
The biggest factor tends to be a mixture of reliability and ease of maintenance in the hands of front line troops. There is no point in having a highly accurate and cheap gun if it will jam if it gets within a mile of dirt, sand or water. When you see armies using complex or unreliable guns this is either a result of political decisions, or the guns are being used by individual units in specific situations where maintenance is not an issue.
The SA-80 is an example of a politically motivated purchase. British politicians insisted that the British Military HAD to have a homemade rifle. However the Military itself did NOT want the SA-80. As one British officer put it "...It would jam two or three times per magazine even on the firing range...". The Military wanted to replace the SLR with the M16, while development continued on a new British rifle as they at least knew the M16 worked. The British Government found this politically unacceptable, forced the adoption on the SA-80 and then spent most of the next decade trying to pretend nothing was wrong. It was only after the first Gulf War in 1991 that they quietly started to admit that maybe, just maybe, the SA-80 wasn't as good as it should have been. And then only because the gun proved so unreliable in actual deployment units were literally pulling SLR's out of their stores and issuing them in place of the newer weapon. That these old SLR's, many of which dated back to the 1950's and had been fired thousands of times, proved more effective than the new rifle speaks volumes about what happens when politicians ignore the advice of soldiers.
Examples of high maintenance weapons being used by specific units comes from special forces. The MP-5 series of sub-machine guns are highly accurate guns, but they are also fairly complex and require a lot of maintenance. For front line troops or extended operations this is a bad mixture. But special forces love these guns for short duration missions in close quarters due to their accuracy and reliability (when maintained). Here maintenance is not an issue.
As an aside and something of a post note to the issue of reliability here. It is interesting to note that special forces have access to a huge number of different types of firearms and are free to pick from the types they have access to as they see fit for the mission at hand. What is interesting is that when the SAS is deployed on missions where a rifle is called for, they pick the M16 rather than the SA-80. In fact I don't think the SAS has ever used the SA-80 on deployment as they have such a low opinion of the weapon.
In close quarters automatic fire is useful in taking a person down quickly, as one shot is not automatically going to do so. This is the reason sub-machine guns became popular during trench raids in WW1, and were issued to raiding parties in place of a rifle. Hard earned experience showed that in close quarters fighting a single shot gun was not exactly ideal, and a bolt action rifle in particular was likely to get you killed if you were facing more than one opponent.
Automatic fire is intended for area-suppression at range, but them only for very short periods as rifle barrels are simply not up to sustained fire of that kind. What it is not intended to do is actually hit anything - that is a bonus. The figures we have about the number of rounds fired vs the number of enemy killed in Vietnam probably fail to take this into account; By which I mean they are automatically assuming that rounds fired were being specifically targeted at an enemy rather than being aimed at a general area.
|
|
|
|
Post by the light works on Jan 20, 2018 14:40:50 GMT
Cost is a major practical and political consideration for military firearms, but its not the only one nor is it always the principle reason for Military forces rejecting one design for another. The biggest factor tends to be a mixture of reliability and ease of maintenance in the hands of front line troops. There is no point in having a highly accurate and cheap gun if it will jam if it gets within a mile of dirt, sand or water. When you see armies using complex or unreliable guns this is either a result of political decisions, or the guns are being used by individual units in specific situations where maintenance is not an issue. The SA-80 is an example of a politically motivated purchase. British politicians insisted that the British Military HAD to have a homemade rifle. However the Military itself did NOT want the SA-80. As one British officer put it "...It would jam two or three times per magazine even on the firing range...". The Military wanted to replace the SLR with the M16, while development continued on a new British rifle as they at least knew the M16 worked. The British Government found this politically unacceptable, forced the adoption on the SA-80 and then spent most of the next decade trying to pretend nothing was wrong. It was only after the first Gulf War in 1991 that they quietly started to admit that maybe, just maybe, the SA-80 wasn't as good as it should have been. And then only because the gun proved so unreliable in actual deployment units were literally pulling SLR's out of their stores and issuing them in place of the newer weapon. That these old SLR's, many of which dated back to the 1950's and had been fired thousands of times, proved more effective than the new rifle speaks volumes about what happens when politicians ignore the advice of soldiers. Examples of high maintenance weapons being used by specific units comes from special forces. The MP-5 series of sub-machine guns are highly accurate guns, but they are also fairly complex and require a lot of maintenance. For front line troops or extended operations this is a bad mixture. But special forces love these guns for short duration missions in close quarters due to their accuracy and reliability (when maintained). Here maintenance is not an issue. As an aside and something of a post note to the issue of reliability here. It is interesting to note that special forces have access to a huge number of different types of firearms and are free to pick from the types they have access to as they see fit for the mission at hand. What is interesting is that when the SAS is deployed on missions where a rifle is called for, they pick the M16 rather than the SA-80. In fact I don't think the SAS has ever used the SA-80 on deployment as they have such a low opinion of the weapon. In close quarters automatic fire is useful in taking a person down quickly, as one shot is not automatically going to do so. This is the reason sub-machine guns became popular during trench raids in WW1, and were issued to raiding parties in place of a rifle. Hard earned experience showed that in close quarters fighting a single shot gun was not exactly ideal, and a bolt action rifle in particular was likely to get you killed if you were facing more than one opponent. Automatic fire is intended for area-suppression at range, but them only for very short periods as rifle barrels are simply not up to sustained fire of that kind. What it is not intended to do is actually hit anything - that is a bonus. The figures we have about the number of rounds fired vs the number of enemy killed in Vietnam probably fail to take this into account; By which I mean they are automatically assuming that rounds fired were being specifically targeted at an enemy rather than being aimed at a general area. the irony in that is when the first gen M-16 was issues, there was a communication breakdown in which a gun that was supposed to be a bit easier to maintain was thought to be intended to be able to be maintenance free, which left it while truly being a bit susceptible to fouling, to have an early reputation for being prone to jam. a few modifications and being bit stern that it should still be cleaned periodically were required before it began being considered to be reliable. the Kalashnikov models, meanwhile, took the route of trying to make it everything-proof and while they are a very sloppy, clattery action, they really will tolerate an impressive amount of abuse and neglect. my understanding is that the maintenance manual really does specify the procedure for clearing a jam is to bang it on a rock until the shell is knocked out. (though not quite in those words) |
|
