Is there any REAL VALUEto be gained by the combination of a roller action with it's fluted chamber or is this little more than firearms gimmickery?

I understand the reason and function of such actions. What I don't understand is WHY? It seems to my little brain these actions offer nothing over the much more widely used gas/pistol design.

The roller allows a simple, compact action design, wich can fire powerfull cartidges. The gas operated systems do this aswell. A strait blow back does this too, tho it would not be able to contain large cartridges. A strait blow back system would need a 27 pound bolt for a 30-06.

There is suposedly an advantage to long peroids of operation, with out cleaning, for the roller actions. It is generally agreed that gas systems will cease relieable operation at about 3000 rounds, continuosly fired. Where as the roller aciton do not seem to have this limitation, it sould be said that any blow back action would have this advantage tho, as well as recoil operated systems.

The best machingun ever was roller locked, MG42/MG3. I like this action type for a sustained fire type weapon. Tho the Maxim style long recoil action is just as robust for firering and firrering and firering. They are not as light as the MG42 is. In a combat rifle, for war, where the gov'ment is giving you ammo, I would say there is nothing but advantages to the CETME/HK weapons, certinaly no disadvantages.

It is in the relm of the recreational shooter that its benefits come into question. As I said in that other thread, I have a friend who says he has reloaded for his HK91, and not had problems. He is not a type to have to make himslef seem big thru BS, if you ever met him you would see why. I have always liked the HKs. However, I really like the feel of the FAL rifles better. And you can get an excelt FAL for less then half of what HKs are going for these days.

Kristofer

[ 11-10-2002, 04:02: Message edited by: KBGuns ]

KB - I agree. I like the FN-FAL a lot better than an HK. The HK has all the comfort and natural feel of a 2 X 4 IMHO.

How do gatling guns eject? Surely they aren't gas/piston?

I am not shure, so dont hold me to this. I believe gatling guns are entirerly mechanitcal acitons, such as a pump or lever rifle. Powered externally, by electric motors on the modern guns. As the motor tunrs, cams would lock and unlock the actions at the right times, or clock positions in the rotation. Firering at 12 o'clock, ejecting at 4 feeding at 8, assuming clock-wise rotation. I say actions, becasue gatlingguns seems to be 6 complete guns spun on a common center.

Kristofer

I suspect your guess is correct, KB. As fast as modern gatling guns fire, a gas/pistol action would have a hell of a lot of moving parts flying around and something to go wrong. The original gatlings may have worked the same way as they didn't seem to much care how fast they were fired.

Uh, I don't know anything about this. I do however feel that Pecos45 has made many positive contributions to this forum. Illigitimi non carborundum et semper fidelis.

Dagga, with my limited abilities in Latin, I don't know whether to salute you or cry. You'll have to translate that for me. As far as my "contributions" to the forums go, I suspect there are some out there not smart enough to understand many of them while others understand the hidden meanings all too well. I shall let history judge.

But as I'm not running for any elected office, all the trolls can suck on this:


[ 11-10-2002, 10:25: Message edited by: Pecos45 ]

Pecos45,
Your link doesn't work. I think I get the message though. Comedy has been a big part of the shenannigans lately. It has been quite QUEER at times.

The latin is part fake (illigitimi non carborundum = don't let the bastards wear you down) and the Marine Corps motto, of course:

Semper = ever, always
Fidelis = faithful, trusty, sincere, sure, safe, strong.

I have learned to control my responses to certain posting venues around here. Ah said conTROLL.

Semper fidelis.

Ah, good, you fixed it. Flamethrower instead of blowjob. Good choice.

Well I could explain how the original Gatling guns worked, but I would probably be acussed of being a troll. I thought that latin looked just a tiny bit FAKED.

Daggaron, I thought doctors all knew latin. Does this mean that doctors only know enough latin to change the name of common illnesses to latin equivalents so all us patients don't know what the doctors are talking about?

Casey

Roller actions are very interesting. The SIG 510 P4 (AMT in semi) is such an action, and it yields low recoil, a high degree of accuracy and seems extremely maintainable. Shame the AMT is so unusual.

A local orthopod owns a registered full auto 510P4 and it is easy to shoot and easy to hold on a 100 yard target. Nice!

One should be careful about the "sainting" the MG42. Admittedly it is the slickest GPMG of its time, but both the M-60 and the MAG performed better in US Army "shoot to destruction" tests. Fewer jams and longer receiver life. MAG won the event.

Chin's "The Machine Gun" shows all modern Gatlings (GAUs) to be motor driven in rather extensive discussion of them.

Casey,

All doctors don't know Latin. Their handwriting just makes it appear that they do.

Longbob, at least you did not misunderstand my humor. I was of course, joking in my last post.

Casey

MS - Yes Sir, I am aware all the gatlings of "modern generation" have been motor driven. I think their predecessor was a gun called Hi-Vap and it used the electric landing gear motor off a DC-3 to drive it.

The wild thing about the "Hi-Vap" was it used "caseless" ammunition (sort of) and fired a flechette as I recall.

The limiting factor on machineguns is metalurgy and our ability to feed the beast. We have figured out how to make them shoot about as fast as we want, but keeping barrels in them and ammo to fire are the real problems.

Certainly there are "practical limits" as well, a point where it's useless to make the guns fire any faster even if we can. That point has probably been reached.

If I recall correctly the Hi-Vap used a triangular plastic-like case similar to the later Tround cartridge , was chain fed ( at least in the Naval versions I have seen photos of ) and had an enormous rate of fire , in excess of any current weapon of that style . The basic objective of the beast appears to be to throw as big a volume of projectiles into the air as possible in the shortest time possible . I dont know exactly what calibers were available , but I do know that .30 was on offer- I have a dummy and a high pressure test round in this cal.

Mike,

I have been looking for a copy of "The Machine Gun". Do you know if it has been reprinted or better yet put on CD by any one?

I here suposedly that there a MG42 receivers today serving as MG3s. We will see how long the M60 lasts. You must remember that MG42s were made in war time Germany. I am certin that if one were to make them today, with good steel, and reduce the rate to the about 600rpm of the M60 and MAG, it would out preform them. It does not suprised me that two new machine guns preformed better then a beat up war relic.

Kristofer

[ 11-11-2002, 00:33: Message edited by: KBGuns ]

Haven't seen a reprint of Chin's work yet. I was fortunate enough to have acquired a signed copy of all 5 volumes some years ago ... one of those things that will get passed to my sons who appreciate it.

BTW, the Army testing was done with new production 308 caliber MG3s. The results are in Small Arms of the World.

The niftiest MG42 variant is the Swiss gun ... all milled parts at receiver. Hell for heavy, but hell for strong. Great piece for fixed positions.

In general, metallugy is less a problem than the seeking of balance between longevity and weight in modern guns. Some poor soul has to hike these things around after all.

Sortly after the change on the laws affecting the manufacture of new receivers for the civilian market in 1986, I started looking for an MG42 or an M60. Wanted a belt gun and MAGs simply were not obrainable.

Discovered some concern amongst MG shooters abt MG42 and was able to find a new Maremont for a reasonable price ... very nearly the original price of the 200 in registered civilian circulation. Has served very well, though too valuable to shoot now.

I would not knock the 42, but there have been reports since of 42 blow-ups even with modern ammunition. (And, of course the Kent Lomont MAG blow up that he ascribed to C4 spike ammo.)

Muzza, your recollection of the HiVap is the same as mine, except I think the original caliber was smaller, in the neighborhood of .22 caliber projectile. I kept the article in the old gun magazine for years. Heaven knows what became of it.

As I recall the gun could only fire for a few seconds and then the barrels were basically tent pegs. But in those few seconds it would dump SEVERAL 1,000 rounds.