Announcement

Collapse
No announcement yet.

The Owen sub-machine gun

Collapse
X
 
  • Filter
  • Time
  • Show
Clear All
new posts

  • SteveF
    replied
    Originally posted by gweloboy View Post
    Shooting on a range is different to shooting other people. Most fighting takes place within 100 yards which is why the Russians developed the 7.62 x 39. Miniguns seem to suggest 'spray and pray' does have its strengths.
    Yes, when you are in a city. In WW2 the number the Germans and Russians came up with was 300 yards, and when in Afghanistan and the Taliban is on the next ridge it winds up being more like 500-600+. Better long range performance is why the 5.56 went from a 55gr bullet to a 62. If you watch some of those TV shows, the Taliban just sit up on a ridge, aim in the general direction of the fire base and start banging off rounds with the hope of hitting something. Once the Taliban wounds an American, our guys get pissed, figure out which rock the guy is behind and launch a laser guided missile at him. As far as the miniguns, haven't done it myself but I'd concede that hitting a man sized target firing one aimed shot at a time while riding in a moving helicopter or vehicle is pretty hard to do.

    RWO - Yeah, I've seen those videos. Pretty amazing how much it moves.

    Greystone - So, of the 100,000,000+ AK-47 and variants, there are 350,000 that are as accurate as an M16/M4. Good to know.

    Steve

    Leave a comment:


  • greystone
    replied
    Depends.
    A variant of the AK, like the Finnish-design and Finnish-built RK62 automatic rifle, is considered the most accurate automatic battle rifle in the world.

    I personally shot 93 on first test, and 92 on second, all rounds being within the head-sized sweet spot, prone, 150 m range.
    This was with a rifle manufactured in 1967, I had never fired before, circa 1997.
    On my last routine re-training, compulsory for some special-forces personnel (aircraft mechanic, worked on Mig21bis).

    On a 300 m range all rounds would be on-target, prone.

    Wiki mentions sub moa accuracy.
    https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/RK_62
    I routinely achieved this sub-moa, in the Air Force technical school I won attendance to, circa 1987.

    Hammer forged match barrel, standard, and Finnish mechanical craftsmanship is widely seen as similar to Swiss or German or Japanese best efforts.



    Originally posted by RWO View Post
    Ever seen a slow motion video of an AK being fired? The barrel flops around visibly. Apparently the barrel-receiver connection or the receiver itself is structurally weak.

    RWO

    Leave a comment:


  • RWO
    replied
    Originally posted by SteveF View Post
    I'd pick the M14. As far as the M16 never equaling the AK, in many years of High Power Rifle and Military Rifle competition I've never once seen someone show up with an AK. Have fired a couple of them and would much rather have a rifle that will let me hit the target at 300 plus yards. The one I personally owned was about a 8 MOA rifle on its good days.Steve
    Ever seen a slow motion video of an AK being fired? The barrel flops around visibly. Apparently the barrel-receiver connection or the receiver itself is structurally weak.

    RWO

    Leave a comment:


  • gweloboy
    replied
    Shooting on a range is different to shooting other people. Most fighting takes place within 100 yards which is why the Russians developed the 7.62 x 39. Miniguns seem to suggest 'spray and pray' does have its strengths.

    Leave a comment:


  • Corbettprime
    replied
    Spray and pray will never equal one well aimed and accurate round.

    Leave a comment:


  • SteveF
    replied
    Originally posted by gweloboy View Post
    .............................Correct me if I am wrong but the US did not adopt the FN-FAL because it wasn't American. The M-16 and it's variants have never quite equaled the AK as a battle rifle - ridiculous devotion? .........................l.
    While there are many examples of "we like ours better because it's ours" having fired both the M1A (semi version of the M14) and an FN-FAL I'd pick the M14. As far as the M16 never equaling the AK, in many years of High Power Rifle and Military Rifle competition I've never once seen someone show up with an AK. Have fired a couple of them and would much rather have a rifle that will let me hit the target at 300 plus yards. The one I personally owned was about a 8 MOA rifle on its good days.

    Steve

    Leave a comment:


  • gweloboy
    replied
    The Bren was a Czech design(BR=Brno, EN =Enfield). The Germans used Czech versions in 7.92. Changing the magazine was easier when lying down and less chance of jamming the works. Correct me if I am wrong but the US did not adopt the FN-FAL because it wasn't American. The M-16 and it's variants have never quite equaled the AK as a battle rifle - ridiculous devotion?
    That being said, the Owen magazine placement was daft to say the least. The Sten/Sterling position out the side is the most logical.
    Last edited by gweloboy; 04-14-2019, 01:39 PM.

    Leave a comment:


  • TRX
    replied
    The Owen wasn't all that strange, at least for a Commonwealth design. The Brits were ridiculously devoted to the Bren LMG, which also fed downhill.

    Leave a comment:


  • Miniart
    replied
    This post needs some pics.
    The designer started at 16 years of age. He Owen has many unique features.

    Leave a comment:


  • SteveF
    replied
    Originally posted by danlb View Post
    It sounds like the magazine design added to it's reliability. Springs are fine, but springs strong enough to push 33 bullets can make it a hassle to load.
    I'll take tiny bit (strongly stressing "tiny bit") of loading hassle over can't see the frickin' target any day.

    This is one of the lessons I just was teaching to a 23 year old. If you think something should be done a certain way, and EVERYONE else thinks it should be done another way, there is probably a good chance you are the one who is wrong.

    Steve

    Leave a comment:


  • Carld
    replied
    If concerned about a spring then why not a drum mag under the gun?

    Leave a comment:


  • ncjeeper
    replied
    Originally posted by danlb View Post
    but springs strong enough to push 33 bullets can make it a hassle to load.
    My Mac mags are 32 rounders. Takes a lot longer to load them than it does to empty them.

    Leave a comment:


  • danlb
    replied
    Originally posted by SteveF View Post
    From Wiki:

    " The placement of the magazine allows gravity to assist the magazine spring in pushing cartridges down to the breech, which improves feeding reliability. "

    Is there some reason why the Aussies alone weren't able to make magazine springs that work properly so they could put the magazine in the right place?

    Steve
    It sounds like the magazine design added to it's reliability. Springs are fine, but springs strong enough to push 33 bullets can make it a hassle to load.

    Leave a comment:


  • Yondering
    replied
    Originally posted by SteveF View Post
    From Wiki:

    " The placement of the magazine allows gravity to assist the magazine spring in pushing cartridges down to the breech, which improves feeding reliability. "

    Is there some reason why the Aussies alone weren't able to make magazine springs that work properly so they could put the magazine in the right place?

    Steve
    It's cause they're down under. Right?

    Leave a comment:


  • mirhamxa
    replied
    It was also used in the Vietnam war
    Last edited by mirhamxa; 12-12-2018, 06:50 PM.

    Leave a comment:

Working...
X