'gun' question..

P.S. re the Lahti weapons: the full-auto AA gun was the L39/44, not L40 as I posted before. Information about this weapon and the AT rifle is here: http://ankkurinvarsi.com/jaeger/AT_RIFLES1.htm

Tony Williams: Military gun and ammunition website and Discussion forum

Originally posted by GarryB

” all different, all failures, and all that effort was a waste of time. ”

According to Hogg and Weeks, few were ready for action in the winter war of 1939-1940 and that there were no records of their performance. He states that between 41 and 44 production started again and 1,906 weapons were made.

The calibre he gives for the weapon is 20 x 138B Long Solothurn. Other details are weight… 93lbs yet only 20mm armour penetration at 250m (at zero degrees incidence).

We may be at cross-purposes here. There were three different Lahti 20mm guns to see service that I know of:

1. The L34 ‘boat gun’ in 20×113, of which only ten examples were fitted to small craft. This was a recoil-operated weapon, firing 350 rpm from a 15-round box or 45-round drum magazine.

2. The L39 semi-automatic anti-tank rifle chambered in 20x138B, made in quite large numbers in the early/mid 1940s. It used a 10-round box magazine.

3. The L/40 fully-automatic version of the L39, used in a twin AA mounting and firing at around 250 rpm (sources vary) from a 32-round box magazine (one of these was in the MoD Pattern Room).

None of these was fitted to aircraft.

Tony Williams: Military gun and ammunition website and Discussion forum

“This was rejected by the Chief of Staff of the US Army, apparently due to NIH – the Army Ordnance Department had been developing its ‘.30 Light Rifle’ concept since the end of WW2 and didn’t want to give it up.”

I don’t think it was all that. I think certainly that the fact that a lot of money would be tied up in rebuilding allies after the war would probably result in a requirement to change as little as possible. Certainly the US… as it was footing most of the bills was always going to get its way, and if you can keep all the machines for making barrels and shorten your round by about a cm and then use that as the new standard round to replace the French, British, German, and American rounds quickly.

” all different, all failures, and all that effort was a waste of time. “

According to Hogg and Weeks, few were ready for action in the winter war of 1939-1940 and that there were no records of their performance. He states that between 41 and 44 production started again and 1,906 weapons were made.

The calibre he gives for the weapon is 20 x 138B Long Solothurn. Other details are weight… 93lbs yet only 20mm armour penetration at 250m (at zero degrees incidence).

“So you often get mistakes perpetuated in book after book, thereby gaining a currency which is quite difficult to challenge.”

And it is so frustrating when there are so many books just coy and pasted when you are interested in the real truth… I know exactly how you feel. The text is often a good giveaway as paragraphs are often copied verbatum.

Mike, the dates I have for cartridge development are rather different. The .308 Winchester was introduced in 1952 as a civilian version of the new 7.62×51 NATO round. The NATO round was developed as a shortened version of the .30-06, and the closest comparator (examined during development) was the .300 Savage of 1920, which was slightly shorter still.

Similarly, the origin of the .223 was the .222 Remington small game cartridge, introduced in 1950. This was originally selected as the basis for the military cartridge, but the case was extended slightly to make the .223 Rem of 1957, adopted with the M16 rifle by the USA in around 1964 then, much later, as the 5.56×45 NATO.

Garry,

The .280 actually had a better long-range performance than the 7.62×51 because the relatively heavy bullet had a better ballistic coefficient. At 1,000 yards the .280 had better penetration. The only criticism the American testers had was that the trajectory should be flatter. OTOH, they hammered the 7.62mm for excessive flash, blast and recoil, and recommended that the .280 be adopted as the basis for developing the new NATO round. This was rejected by the Chief of Staff of the US Army, apparently due to NIH – the Army Ordnance Department had been developing its ‘.30 Light Rifle’ concept since the end of WW2 and didn’t want to give it up. I’m up to speed on this at the moment as I’ve been researching the history for a new book I’m writing with Max Popenker on the history of the modern military rifle.

The 20mm Lahti aircraft cannon is a fascinating puzzle. Chinn has a chapter on it and gives the impression that it was in Finnish service, but I have corresponded with a Finnish enthusiast who has translated for me the relevant parts of Lahti’s autobiography. Lahti wasn’t exactly modest (everyone else was a fool for not doing what he wanted etc) but all he says about the 20mm aircraft cannon was that he produced four prototypes, all different, all failures, and all that effort was a waste of time. I have found no hard evidence to suggest otherwise. There was a Lahti L34 ‘boat gun’ in 20mm, fitted to a dozen light coastal craft, which chambered a special 20×113 cartridge (I have one in my collection) but it wasn’t fitted to aircraft. I spent some time researching this for ‘Rapid Fire’ as I was anxious to pin it down! I suspect that Hogg and Weeks relied on Chinn for their information.

One thing I have discovered in researching and writing books is that not many authors do much original research – they just take information from existing texts and rework it. So you often get mistakes perpetuated in book after book, thereby gaining a currency which is quite difficult to challenge. For example, I blame William Green, writing in the 1960s, for saying that the Messerschmitt Bf 109K had MG 151 cannon in the cowling (no chance), MK 103 on the engine (planned but not delivered) and MK 103 underwing (no chance). But you still see such ‘facts’ quoted…

Tony Williams: Military gun and ammunition website and Discussion forum

“The official US Army tests at Fort Benning in 1950 conlcuded that the .280 was better than the US .30 – but the top brass rejected their own people’s conclusion…”

The story I usually read is that they claimed the round “lacked range”, which is of course rather ironic as it was not intended as a long range round. It was certainly politics.

“anything else in recent years to the ‘ideal’ military small arms cartridge”

The problem there is that there is no such thing really. There are always compromises… jack of al trades, master of none so to speak. Most fo the guys I have spoken to in the Russian special forces seem to really like the 9 x 39mm weapons like the 9A91 and AS and VSS.

“My uderstanding of the sequence was slightly different; that the full-auto L40 version of the L39 was specifically developed as an AA weapon, to be fired from a mounting.”

According to Hogg and Weeks “military small arms…” 6th edition it says that the L39 was developed directly from an aircraft cannon with minimal modification to make it ground firable. It was rechambered for a more powerful round and both semi and full auto models were made [for the Anti tank role I am assuming].

Now I am not suggesting Hogg and Weeks are perfect… they describe the APS as being heavy as a pistol and too small and low in capacity to be a SMG. Some chaps I have chatted with love the weapon, it is accurate and powerful enough (it can use PMM ammo) to kill reliably. The fact that there are plenty of images around showing Russian spec ops with them suggests they weren’t the dead end in design Hogg and Weeks and many other “experts” suggest.

“Tony I think you will find that the US rejection of the British .280 round was due to their usual “not made here” syndrome.”

Hehehehe… I think the NIHS (not invented here syndrome) is a bit of a myth, though after their aweful experiences in France in WWI with the Chauchat who could blame them. Their tanks have German guns… that replaced British guns, their standard sidearm is Italian, while many of their government and Spec Ops use Swiss pistols. Their standard light anti tank weapon is Swedish, while their marines use a reusable anti tank rocket launcher that was Israeli.

Tony I think you will find that the US rejection of the British .280 round was due to their usual “not made here” syndrome. Let”s be honest the 7.62X51 mm is actually a 1937 round called .308 Winchester Which they had plenty of ammunition manufacturers already producing so why take on a round which your chosen supplier has to invest in new tooling to produce? Within 5 years of persuading the NATO countries to adopt the 7.62 round the US started pushing for a change to 5.56 which is really a round of older lineage than the 7.62. It was originally known as .223 Remington, a round which was well established by 1935 as a pest control round.

Originally posted by GarryB
Most trends with the small calibre weapons that were trendy for a while seems to be a trend for slightly larger calibre and bullet weight. In a few years I think the Americans might even admit that the British .280 round for the EM-2 wasn’t a bad idea at all.. 🙂

The official US Army tests at Fort Benning in 1950 conlcuded that the .280 was better than the US .30 – but the top brass rejected their own people’s conclusion…

The Chinese have a 6.8mm round that seems to be entering into service, while the Russian have experimented with a 6mm round, although they can of course fall back to 7.62 x 39mm weapons still widely available to them, unlike the Americans and NATO who have comitted to the 5.56mm weapons. The Americans are currently experimenting with a round very similar to the old British experimental round.

The Chinese round is actually a 5.8×42, and the Soviet 6mm experimentals were very hot, high-velocity rounds intended to replace the 7.62x54R in MGs and sniper rifles. However, the American 6.8×43 Remingon SPC is a very interesting development which appears to come closer than anything else in recent years to the ‘ideal’ military small arms cartridge (see: http://www.quarry.nildram.co.uk/Assault.htm )

Also the 20mm Lahti Model 39 was made in semi and full auto models… the latter becoming more popular as the anti tank capability of the round made it redundant so they were converted to full auto for use against aircraft.

My uderstanding of the sequence was slightly different; that the full-auto L40 version of the L39 was specifically developed as an AA weapon, to be fired from a mounting.

Tony Williams: Military gun and ammunition website and Discussion forum

“That distinction has admittedly become a bit blurred from the days when (almost) everyone carried .30/.303/7.9mm weapons, but it can currently be taken to refer to anything up to 7.62mm.”

Most trends with the small calibre weapons that were trendy for a while seems to be a trend for slightly larger calibre and bullet weight. In a few years I think the Americans might even admit that the British .280 round for the EM-2 wasn’t a bad idea at all.. 🙂
The Chinese have a 6.8mm round that seems to be entering into service, while the Russian have experimented with a 6mm round, although they can of course fall back to 7.62 x 39mm weapons still widely available to them, unlike the Americans and NATO who have comitted to the 5.56mm weapons. The Americans are currently experimenting with a round very similar to the old British experimental round.

“The only 20mm shoulder gun design for auto fire I’m aware of was the Solothurn S18-1100”

Also the 20mm Lahti Model 39 was made in semi and full auto models… the latter becoming more popular as the anti tank capability of the round made it redundant so they were converted to full auto for use against aircraft.

Originally posted by mike currill
You have improved my education somewhat on the matter of these weapons. I did know about the Barrett and the other American one which I can not remember the name of at the moment but I did not realise anyone actually made any thing larger. Do you have anydetails on these two such as dimensions, muzzle velocity etc.?

Well, there’s an entire appendix of my book ‘Rapid Fire: the Development of Automatic Cannon, Heavy Machine Guns and their Ammunition for Armies, Navies and Air Forces’ on heavy rifles: the old anti-tank rifles and the new anti-materiel ones. 😉

Tony Williams: Military gun and ammunition website and discussion
forum

Originally posted by GarryB
I’ve never seen such a usage, as a cannon is by definition fully automatic, and is always mounted rather than hand-held.

Some anti tank rifles, like the Model 97 were not mounted… they had bipods, often with an extra leg at the rear of the weapon, though not always as they occasionally got in the way. A 20mm calibre weapon (20 x 124mm) that was capable of firing fully automatically but only from a 7 round mag.

That’s a (common) misapprehension. I have examined a Type 97 and had correspondence with someone who has a translation of the handbook. It was semi-automatic only. The belief that it could fire full-auto may have come from two sources; the fact that it was developed into a full-auto aircraft cannon (the Type 1 and Type 3, initially known as the Type 97), and the fact that when the gun was tested in the USA, the sear failed and the whole magazine let rip…

The only 20mm shoulder gun design for auto fire I’m aware of was the Solothurn S18-1100 anti-tank rifle (the much more common S18-1000 was semi-auto only). So that’s the exception which proves the rule :), although at a weight of 50kg (110 lb) it hardly qualifies as ‘hand-held’!

The term ‘rifle calibre’ refers to the standard military rifle calibre, i.e. up to 8mm; the term HMG is reserved for larger calibre weapons, in practice between 12.7 and 15mm.

Yet there are rifles now that go beyond these figures. The Anti Tank rifle as such is dead, but the anti material rifle lives and is becoming quite widespread.

True, but those are not in the ‘standard military rifle calibre’, by which is meant the rifles carried by the ordinary infantry. That distinction has admittedly become a bit blurred from the days when (almost) everyone carried .30/.303/7.9mm weapons, but it can currently be taken to refer to anything up to 7.62mm.

Tony Williams: Military gun and ammunition website and discussion
forum

I have seen some version so of these weapons wit what look like large and vented silencers, which I presume are flash hiders… though at 2km range the flash shouldn’t be too obvious during the day.

Details are:
(note both use specially made sniper ammo… not HMG rounds though they are compatible the accuracy is not good enough)

KSVK (bullpup)
calibre 12.7 x 108mm.
length 1.35m
magazine capacity 5 rounds detachable box.

OSV-96
calibre 12.7 x 108mm
dimensions firing (with optical sight): 1.69m x .126m x .302m
folded: 1.1m x .132m x .196m
Magazine capacity: 5 rounds

http://club.guns.ru/images/convention/2.jpg

Look at this link for the ammo comparisons with 12.7 x 108mm and 7.62 x 54mmR.

http://club.guns.ru/images/convention/1.jpg

and this is the folding OSV-96… sometimes called the V-94.

http://club.guns.ru/eng/convention.html

If you go to this page you will see a few interesting images… including a few new rounds they have developed… a 9 x 39mm (based on the AKM round but necked out to 9mm and firing a very heavy round at subsonic velocities for use in silenced weapons and a 9.3 x 64mm round for the SVDK as a sort of .338 laupa magnum type round for the 800-1200m range… with 50 cal for longer and 30 cal for shorter ranges.)

Originally posted by GarryB
Here is another AMR… the OSV-96.

As you can see in this photo it can be folded in half.

(empty without sight it weighs 12.65kg, while in the same condition the KSVK weighs 11kgs).

These weapons look very good. Points I have noted at a quick glance include: Nothing on them that is not strictly necessary. What looks to be a very effective flash hider. Thinking about it I hope that flash hider is effective with such a powerful round out of what appears to be quite a short barrel I think the muzzle flash would be pretty awesome.

You have improved my education somewhat on the matter of these weapons. I did know about the Barrett and the other American one which I can not remember the name of at the moment but I did not realise anyone actually made any thing larger. Do you have anydetails on these two such as dimensions, muzzle velocity etc.?

BTW 15mm can not be used as a threshold for the MG/cannon division due to the 15.5 x 106mm HMG by FN. (BRG-15).

Here is another interesting 14.5mm weapon from Russia (WWII PTRS-41):

Here is another AMR… the OSV-96.

As you can see in this photo it can be folded in half.

(empty without sight it weighs 12.65kg, while in the same condition the KSVK weighs 11kgs).

“The low-velocity 30mm and 40mm automatic grenade launchers s high-velocity automatic weapons.”

Yes, I know about AGLs, I was referring to some texts from German and Russian sources that any automatic weapon a machinegun… 75mm+ calibre weapons being called cannons.

“I’ve never seen such a usage, as a cannon is by definition fully automatic, and is always mounted rather than hand-held.”

Some anti tank rifles, like the Model 97 were not mounted… they had bipods, often with an extra leg at the rear of the weapon, though not always as they occasionally got in the way. A 20mm calibre weapon (20 x 124mm) that was capable of firing fully automatically but only from a 7 round mag.

As you mentioned above the defintiion of Cannon has changed over time, though these changes haven’t necessarily occured everywhere.

“The term ‘rifle calibre’ refers to the standard military rifle calibre, i.e. up to 8mm; the term HMG is reserved for larger calibre weapons, in practice between 12.7 and 15mm.”

Yet there are rifles now that go beyond these figures. The Anti Tank rifle as such is dead, but the anti material rifle lives and is becoming quite widespread.

“Anything above 0.3″ up to 15mm is classed as a heavy mg and 15mm is about the smallest caliber that egularly used explosive rounds.”

Not true. Raufoss (spelling) has some very effective HE round in 50 cal, and 14.5mm round with HEI projectiles are standard rounds for use against aircraft.

“If you want to be the guinea pig and fire a 14.5mm rifle(if you know anyone that makes them, I don’t) be my guest, I sure as hell would not want.”

They were very popular on the Eastern front against trucks and even in urban combat. I have a very nice photo of a PTRS-41 positioned to fire across a narrow street… feel safe behind that wall? Equally in Chechnia I have heard of 2km range kills with 12.7mm cal weapons.

“So just think what your 14.5mm would do, I think arranging surgery to rebuild your shattered shoulder before you fire would be well advised.”

They were widely used as anti tank weapons and the Germans used any they could capture too.

“The Hungarian Gepard M3 weighs in at 46 lbs and the South African Mechem NTW-20 is available with interchangeable barrels, for either the 14.5mm or the 20mm round from the MG 151/20. Weight is around 60-65 lbs.”

The NTW-20 is a particularly interesting weapon… in 20mm it relies on shell weight or HE power and is credited with an effective range of about 1.5km, but when the barrel and mag is changed and 14.5mm rounds are loaded the effective range is given as 2.5km. Just looking at the aiming stadia of a BRDM-2 vehicle shows the enormous difference in trajectories between the 7.62 x 54mm and the 14.5mm…

Just after WWII somehow a few 14.5mm weapons got sold to the US, where they were converted to the mild US 50 cal.

“I had enough years of the SLR (modified FN/FAL) whilst I was in the army and that thing was plenty brutal enough for me thank you.”

My SLR (L1A1) is quite comfortable to fire. It is rather pleasant compared to my model 1938 Mosin Nagant carbine. The SLR has a push and doesn’t kick up like the MN does.

Here is one AMR the Russians are currently using… a KSVK bullpup 12.7 x 108mm.

Originally posted by mike currill
If you want to be the guinea pig and fire a 14.5mm rifle(if you know anyone that makes them, I don’t) be my guest, I sure as hell would not want.
Some guy in the US built a single shot rifle for the Browning 0.5″ cartridge years ago. This monster weighed in at 85 pounds(no that is not a typing error unless the magazine got it wrong.) Anyway the guy rested across the roof of his car and when he fired it the thing kicked up to a 45 degree angle, walked him back three paces and sat him on the ground. So just think what your 14.5mm would do, I think arranging surgery to rebuild your shattered shoulder before you fire would be well advised.

Mike , I have an Mpeg of the 0.5″ shot Browning Enforcer being test fired , I’m no PC Guru and can’t post it , if you want it Email me at

[email]ageorge@haemonetics.com[/email]

and I’ll try and send it before I finish work .

I still say if you want to fire one of those things you are welcome to it. I had enough years of the SLR (modified FN/FAL) whilst I was in the army and that thing was plenty brutal enough for me thank you.
I do, however, agree with the earlier statement that the dividing line between machine guns?rifles and cannon has become somewhat blurred in recent years.

Actually, rifles in .50 (12.7×99) and the Russian equivalent (12.7×108) are now commonplace, being used in the long-range sniping, EOD and anti-materiel roles, particularly by special forces. The rifles typically weigh 12-15 kg (26-33 lbs).

Rifles are also made in 14.5×114 calibre, despite the cartridge being almost twice as powerful as the .50. The Hungarian Gepard M3 weighs in at 46 lbs and the South African Mechem NTW-20 is available with interchangeable barrels, for either the 14.5mm or the 20mm round from the MG 151/20. Weight is around 60-65 lbs.

There are a couple of other 20mm rifles, the Finnish Helenius being chambered for the old 20mm ShVAK aircraft gun round, while the Croatian RT20 fires the 20×110 Hispano (with the help of some gas being ducted to the rear to reduce recoil).

All of these guns have big muzzle brakes to reduce the recoil, and usually have some sort of recoiling-absorbing mechanism.

Tony Williams: Military gun and ammunition website and discussion
forum

Originally posted by GarryB
“It has generally been the case that MGs fired solid bullets while cannon fired shells filled with HE, but there have always been many exceptions.”

It is getting blurred even further these days with quite effective HE rounds for 12.7mm and 14.5mm (15mm weapons exist but are still really developmental and are not in widespread service). Also there are proposals in the West for tripod mounted 30mm weapons to be used in the role 12.7mm HMGs have been used for in the past and of course the Soviet armies and many Eastern block countries still use ZU-23-2 cannon in the role most other countries use HMGs… ie perimeter defence… especially when used in open positions where targets at extreme range are visible (ie a hill top base in Afghanistan). For many armies due to translations problems or errors the distinction is very blurred, with rifle calibre weapons called cannons or large calibre weapons called machineguns (30mm-40mm).

It is generally a common sense thing… look at the weapon involved, its ammo, and its usage. A 20mm anti material rifle could be called a cannon, as it uses a cannon round, though a 14.5mm rifle is not called a HMG. So technically the difference is the use of a rifle calibre or a cannon shell… with HMGs being considered rifle calibre…

If you want to be the guinea pig and fire a 14.5mm rifle(if you know anyone that makes them, I don’t) be my guest, I sure as hell would not want.
Some guy in the US built a single shot rifle for the Browning 0.5″ cartridge years ago. This monster weighed in at 85 pounds(no that is not a typing error unless the magazine got it wrong.) Anyway the guy rested across the roof of his car and when he fired it the thing kicked up to a 45 degree angle, walked him back three paces and sat him on the ground. So just think what your 14.5mm would do, I think arranging surgery to rebuild your shattered shoulder before you fire would be well advised.

Originally posted by Ant Harrington
Transall’s definition maybe right,but I’d always thought the term was given to any weapon capable of firing explosive rounds/shells?

Both this and the 15mm rule are used together to get the correct answer. Anything above 0.3″ up to 15mm is classed as a heavy mg and 15mm is about the smallest caliber that egularly used explosive rounds.