AK-53
Country of
Origin: Switzerland
Appears In:
In-company weapons research by SiG
Notes:
I decided to include this weapon not because it was used in any great
numbers (or any numbers at all), but because it is so weird.
The AK-53 is the only working example of a blow-forward automatic rifle.
When the rifle is fired, the barrel moves forward and back instead of the
bolt. This means that the overall
length of the weapon is quite short despite a long barrel, but it also means
that the firer’s aim can be easily thrown off.
It also lends itself to rapid barrel heating, which in the case of the
AK-53, usually means that the remaining rounds in the weapon cook off, and then
the reciprocating barrel jams in its sleeve until it cools again.
Needless to say, SiG could not get anyone interested in the AK-53 and it
rapidly became a museum piece.
Weapon |
Ammunition |
Weight |
Magazines |
Price |
AK-53 |
7.5mm Swiss |
4.9 kg |
30 |
$1121 |
Weapon |
ROF |
Damage |
Pen |
Bulk |
SS |
Burst |
Range |
AK-53 |
3 |
4 |
2-3-Nil |
7 |
3 |
5 |
79 |
Armalite AR-3
Country of
Origin: US
Appears in: Gene
Stoner's entry for the competition for the new battle rifle after World War 2.
Notes: Most of
the design work for the AR-3 was actually done by the time that Gene Stoner
joined Armalite. He used the
signature light alloys, fiberglass, glass fiber, and plastic construction that
were so common in his works. The
original design was semiautomatic-only, and operated by the gas system that
would later become famous (or some say, infamous) in the AR-10 and AR-15. The
design looked very much like an enlarged M-1 Carbine, with a light alloy frame,
polymer fore-end, and a fiberglass/glass fiber stock.
The 22-inch barrel was tipped by a large flash suppressor.
Unfortunately,
Stoner and Armalite did not have the AR-3 ready in time for the competition, and
so never went beyond a few prototypes. However, design elements from the AR-3
would later appear Stoner and Armalite designs.
The AR-11 is the same
rifle, scaled down to fire a smaller caliber. It was designed for evaluation by
the Infantry General Staff, who were evaluating small-caliber rounds that had
high power. It was designed to fire a modified version of the .222 Remington,
hot-loaded and designed for high-performance.
Note that the AR-11 is not a Stoner design, though it is based on a
Stoner design, The AR-11 is sometimes called the Stopette, for reasons I have
not been able to discover in my research. It was also called the SCHV, for Small
Caliber High Velocity. The AR-11 used the direct gas impingement operation as
the AR-10, instead of the system that the AR-3 does.
Being a scaled-down AR-3, the form is virtually the same, with plenty of
light alloy and fiberglass.
Weapon |
Ammunition |
Weight |
Magazines |
Price |
AR-3 |
7.62mm NATO |
3.77 kg |
20 |
$1047 |
AR-11 |
5.56mm SCHV |
3.01 kg |
20 |
$600 |
Weapon |
ROF |
Damage |
Pen |
Bulk |
SS |
Burst |
Range |
AR-3 |
SA |
4 |
2-3-Nil |
8 |
4 |
Nil |
72 |
AR-11 |
SA |
3 |
1-Nil |
7 |
3 |
Nil |
66 |
Armalite AR-10: The
Prototypes
Country of
Origin: US
Appears in:
Competition for new service rifle in mid-1950s
Notes: The AR-10
that everyone knows today was the result of several prototypes and
modifications. The basic design was
still similar to the AR-10 familiar today, but was the result of several
prototypes. Stoner began work on
the AR-10 before he joined Armalite, and several features that would become
familiar later, such as the carrying handle, the straight-in-line design, and
the direct gas impingement system.
The AR-10, unfortunately did not win the competition, despite many testers
having judged it the best rifle in the competition.
The AR-10, however, has come back, in the guise of the SR-25 SASS.
The first AR-10
prototype fired .30-06 Springfield (it appeared that the new rifle would fire
.30-06 at the time). The barrel,
bolt, and recoiling mass were straight-in-line, reducing felt recoil.
The stock, however, did have a bit of a drop in it, behind the recoiling
mass. Despite the AR-10 prototype's
cutting edge design, some features of earlier rifles were used, such as the use
of BAR magazines, and the sights and bolt locking mechanism of the Johnson Light
Machinegun. The second prototype
was made when the competition was changed to what would become the 7.62mm NATO
cartridge. It was very similar to
the First Prototype, but used a completely straight-in-line stock.
The front sight remained a post on a triangular riser, but the rear sight
used was a ZF-41 optical sight as used on the some versions of the Kar-98k.
In both prototypes, there was a carrying handle incorporating the rear
sight and enclosing the charging handle. Barrels were 20.8 inches; this would
remain the same throughout the prototyping process.
Magazines were subcontracted out, but proprietary at the time. The
barrels for these two prototypes were light alloy, lined with stainless steel.
Another feature which would remain constant (though the parts differ between the
prototypes) are the large-scale use of polymer and light alloy.
The third
prototype, the AR-10 A (not to be confused with the modern-production AR-10A),
can be immediately spotted by its front sight assembly mounted on a
pepperpot-type muzzle brake, similar to the mounting on a Johnson LMG.
The handguards are short, leaving a long length of exposed barrel; this
was an immediate no-go among the testers. The pistol grip was less sharply
raked, and rather un-ergonomic. The
charging handle was attached to the exposed bolt on the right side. The AR-10A
used a lot of polymer, fiberglass, and light alloy, of course.
The AR-10 B
(again, not to be confused with the modern-production AR-10B) incorporated a
number of changes desired or suggested by the military testers. Minor changes
included the gas block moved to the top of the barrel, and a linking stainless
steel gas tube leading to the gas port in the lower receiver.
The charging handle was placed at the rear of the frame, a feature
familiar to AR-15 and M-16 users.
The forward side had a narrow riser, and was positioned between the handguards
and the muzzle device (which was a more beefy muzzle brake than that of the
AR-10 A).The barrel was, again, light alloy with a bore liner of stainless
steel, but it had more stainless steel thickness than previous AR-10 design. New
handguards were designed; they looked very FAL-like, and increased the rate of
cooling. The light alloy receiver
and some internal parts were made of steel or reinforced with steel frames; the
barrel also used a steel armature to bed the barrel. The butt and pistol grip
were made of molded plastic strengthened with fiberglass; the stock, for
example, was hardened fiberglass and filled with glass fiber.
The US Army also found deficiencies in the AR-10 B; their primary concern
was the temperature the barrel reached, up to 600 degrees on occasion. Armalite
chose not to attempt another entry in the competition. Stoner and Armalite
decided instead to sell semiautomatic version to civilians, and let it be
license-produced in small numbers in the Netherlands. Series production of the
AR-10 only resulted in slightly over 9000 copies.
The version built by the Dutch differed from the AR-10 B in having a
long, open, birdcage-type flash suppressor, and in being much lighter due to
heavier use of advanced (for the time) light alloys and lighter fiberglass in
the stock.
Weapon |
Ammunition |
Weight |
Magazines |
Price |
AR-10 (1st Prototype) |
.30-06 Springfield |
4.05 kg |
20 |
$1235 |
AR-10 (2nd Prototype) |
7.62mm NATO |
3.76 kg |
20 |
$1046 |
AR-10 A |
7.62mm NATO |
3.87 kg |
20 |
$1084 |
AR-10 B |
7.62mm NATO |
5.42 kg |
20 |
$1234 |
AR-10 (Dutch) |
7.62mm NATO |
3.29 kg |
20 |
$1046 |
Weapon |
ROF |
Damage |
Pen |
Bulk |
SS |
Burst |
Range |
AR-10 (1st Prototype) |
5 |
4 |
2-3-Nil |
8 |
4 |
9 |
57 |
AR-10 (2nd Prototype) |
5 |
4 |
2-3-Nil |
8 |
4 |
9 |
66 |
AR-10 A |
5 |
4 |
2-3-Nil |
7 |
3 |
8 |
66 |
AR-10 B |
5 |
4 |
2-3-Nil |
7 |
2 |
6 |
66 |
AR-10 (Dutch) |
5 |
4 |
2-3-Nil |
8 |
4 |
10 |
66 |
Armalite AR-16
Country of
Origin: US
Appears in: Gene
Stoner’s attempt to produce a heavier-caliber rifle to compliment the AR-15.
Notes: The
resemblance between this rifle and the AR-18 is more than passing; the AR-16, in
fact, appears to be an AR-18 chambered for a larger caliber.
It was designed in the hopes of producing a rifle for nations (especially
NATO) who were currently using 7.62mm NATO weapons they weren’t happy about, and
to supplement the M-16 series with an official issue heavier-caliber rifle.
In the end, it turned into another “also-ran.”
It could not go against the political winds, especially in countries that
didn’t appreciate being saddled with the 7.62mm NATO cartridge in the first
place.
And that’s too
bad, because the AR-16 was an advanced, lightweight, well-balanced rifle that
was relatively easy to strip and maintain.
Starting up a production line would have a real-life cost one-quarter
most other NATO 7.62mm rifles. The
rifles themselves, in real-life terms, would be three-quarters to one-half most
NATO 7.62mm weapons of the period. (Of course, that’s Armalite-supplied data,
who were trying to sell their rifle to skeptical prospective customers…)
The AR-16 comes
in rifle and carbine versions; both have match-quality floating barrels (20
inches for the rifle, and 16 inches for the carbine) giving them sniper-rifle
like accuracy (though most of the time through iron sights).The design was
unusual for Gene Stoner – it was a gas piston system, devoid of small parts and
with parts hardened to dramatically increase endurance and reduce wear, as well
as an increase in reliability. The
rear sight is a flipping peep sight, similar to that of the M-16A2 and
adjustable for windage and elevation (using dials); the front sight is a post.
In addition, the receiver is grooved and tapped for a variety of scope
mounts. In both cases, this is done by dials.
The magazine has been moved in front and above the trigger guard on the
right side, and actuated by depressing with the trigger finger. Construction is
largely from steel and aluminum stampings and pressings. The stock, pistol grip,
and handguards are of wood, however.
The AR-12 is the
direct antecedent of the AR-16. The
primary difference is the use of a gas piston system instead of direct gas
impingement.
Weapon |
Ammunition |
Weight |
Magazines |
Price |
AR-16 Rifle |
7.62mm NATO |
3.97 kg |
5, 10, 20 |
$1018 |
AR-16 Carbine |
7.62mm NATO |
3.56 kg |
5, 10, 20 |
$1006 |
Weapon |
ROF |
Damage |
Pen |
Bulk |
SS |
Burst |
Range |
AR-16 Rifle |
5 |
4 |
2-3-Nil |
7 |
4 |
9 |
67 |
AR-16 Carbine |
5 |
4 |
2-3-Nil |
5/6 |
4 |
9 |
48 |
B-20
Country of
Origin: Czechoslovakia (and later Czech Republic).
Appears in:
Literature of the mid-1990s to early 2000s (and it is still being offered for
sale, with no takers).
Notes: This
Czech battle rifle looks like a reworked AK, but in fact uses a form of delayed
blowback instead of the gas operation of the AK series.
It also uses a larger caliber.
The B-20 is the variant of the B-10/20/30/40 series that seems to be the
least in demand, though sales of the entire series is very low.
Twilight 2000
Notes: The B-20 was often used in the Twilight War by Czech special forces
operating behind enemy lines, since it could use captured enemy ammunition.
In the Twilight 2000 World, a version of the B-20 was also designed to
use 7.62mm Nagant ammunition. It
was otherwise in very limited issue.
Weapon |
Ammunition |
Weight |
Magazines |
Price |
B-20 |
7.62mm NATO |
3.9 kg |
10, 20 |
$1018 |
B-20 |
7.62mm Nagant |
3.9 kg |
10, 20 |
$1068 |
Weapon |
ROF |
Damage |
Pen |
Bulk |
SS |
Burst |
Range |
B-20 (7.62mm NATO |
5 |
4 |
2-3-Nil |
5/6 |
4 |
9 |
46 |
B-20 (7.62mm Nagant) |
5 |
4 |
2-3-Nil |
5/6 |
4 |
9 |
46 |
Birdman Weapon
Systems M-82B1K-PDW
Country of
Origin: US (Sort-of)
Appears in: This
weapon is an internet hoax, but I have included it as a "what-if."
The site for “Birdman Weapon Systems” used to could be seen at
http://www.birdman.org.
Notes: The
M-82B1K-PDW is a drastically chopped version of the Barrett M-82 heavy sniper
rifle, with a barrel about 1/10th the length of the standard Barrett
M-82A1, a shortened, sliding stock, an M-16A2-style pistol grip front and back,
and a different muzzle brake. It received some acceptance from special
operations communities, who value it for its ability as a close assault weapon
able to shoot through walls, doors, and armor, but most buyers were exotic
weapons collectors and heavy-caliber firearm enthusiasts.
Ammunition |
Weight |
Magazines |
Price |
|
M-82B1K-PDW |
.50 Browning Machinegun |
9.73 kg |
5,10 |
$8657 |
Weapon |
ROF |
Damage |
Pen |
Bulk |
SS |
Burst |
Range |
M-82B1K-PDW |
SA |
7 |
2-3-4 |
5/6 |
4 |
Nil |
15 |
Charlton Machinegun
Country of
Origin: New Zealand
Appears in: A
perceived need for large amounts for automatic weapons rather than bolt-action
rifles.
Notes: This odd
weapon was the result of a need to arm New Zealand’s World War 2 Home Guard with
automatic weapons in a hurry, while allowing more modern weapons to be put into
the hands of the actual New Zealander troops.
After the Japanese takeover of Singapore and the attack on Pearl Harbor,
it was felt that it was only a matter of time before the Japanese went after
Australia and New Zealand, and New Zealand had an acute shortage of small arms
of all kinds.
Philip Charlton
actually began his work before World War 2; he had seen the engineering drawings
of the work of GT Buckham and AT Dawson in England for their conversion of
Lee-Enfield-type rifles to semiautomatic, and decided to improve on their work
and come up with semiautomatic conversion of his own.
Then he took it one step further, converting the Lee-Enfield into a
selective-fire weapon. The
resulting Charlton Machinegun was actually an incredible piece of engineering;
the even more incredible part was that the conversion not only worked, it worked
quite well. The Lee-Enfield was
converted from a bolt-action rifle to a gas-operated selective fire weapon (with
an extremely low automatic cyclic rate of only 250 rpm), though it took until
1941 before Charlton was ready for full-scale conversion work.
He expected to be able to convert 200 Lee-Enfields per month; the actual
rate of conversion was considerably lower, however.
Only 1500 such conversions were actually accomplished by the end of World
War 2; this was mostly because Charlton was also tasked with the production of
the higher-priority Owen submachinegun.
Other changes
went into the stock, which was given a pistol grip as well as a foregrip, in
addition, the buttstock was modified slightly (the stock had to be lowered to
clear the modified action), the rear third of the barrel was given cooling fins,
sights were modified, and the magazine well was changed to take a modified Bren
magazine was well as being still able to use a Lee-Enfield magazine.
The fore-end was also shortened to allow more cooling of the barrel and
fit the gas operation, with the foregrip being attached to the gas tube shroud.
Barrel length was also slightly modified, and the barrel was also tipped
with a muzzle brake. The Charlton
Machinegun could not take a bayonet, but a clip-on bipod could be added.
After World War
2, the Charlton Machineguns were stored in a New Zealand military armory,
without any of them having seen any actual combat.
In the late 1940s, that armory burned to the ground, with less than 200
of the Charlton Machineguns surviving the fire.
These were used for some years for training purposes, and then most of
them were destroyed. Today, very few of
them are still around, and most of those are in museums.
Twilight 2000
Notes (sort of): The Charlton Machinegun illustrates what sort of expedient
weapons could be made during the Twilight War; it also shows that virtually any
sort of small arm can be made over into an automatic or selective-fire weapon,
given enough work. This is the sort
of “Frankenweapon” I would imagine would crop up all over the world in the
Twilight 2000 timeline.
Ammunition |
Weight |
Magazines |
Price |
|
Charlton Machinegun |
.303 British |
7.03 kg |
10, 30 |
$2090 |
Weapon |
ROF |
Damage |
Pen |
Bulk |
SS |
Burst |
Range |
Charlton Machinegun |
3 |
4 |
2-3-Nil |
8 |
3 |
4 |
86 |
Garand T-31
Country of
Origin: US
Appears in:
Experiments to replace standard military rifle after World War II.
Notes: John
Browning's entry into the US Battle Rifle competition as well as his last
attempt at full weapons design was the T-28, a bullpup rifle that most rejected
out of hand as being "too weird." It is sort of a mix between an M-14 and a
British EM-2, in its ideas of functioning. The rifle, other than it's
"weirdness," suffered from a problematic gas piston system that took much time
and effort to troubleshoot (not before some spectacular gas block and barrel
burstings, unfortunately). The
design was well done out, with a straight in line recoil line between the muzzle
and shoulder. The weapon also
looked delicate, though it was surprisingly strong.
The 24-inch barrel was tipped by a muzzle brake (the bursting problems
genesis were the interacting between the muzzle brake and gas block). The T-31
also had a problem all early bullpups faced -- the ejection port was close to
the shooter's face and the rifle was very much right-handed only.
However, center of gravity and therefore balance were excellent.
Weapon |
Ammunition |
Weight |
Magazines |
Price |
T-31 |
7.62mm NATO |
3.95 kg |
10, 20 |
$1089 |
Weapon |
ROF |
Damage |
Pen |
Bulk |
SS |
Burst |
Range |
T-31 |
5 |
4 |
2-3-Nil |
6 |
3 |
8 |
73 |
ISA Rail Gun Rifle
Country or
Origin: US (originally a private venture).
Appears in:
Several of the later Dale Brown books, including
Warrior Class.
Fictional Notes:
This weapon, probably developed by Dr. Jon Masters’ company of Sky Masters, is a
radical departure and advance over present-day firearms.
Those who are familiar with the original
Traveller RPG will recognize it
immediately as an early version of the Gauss Rifle, a firearm that does not use
chemical propellants to fire its rounds, but instead uses a charge of
electromagnetism, similar to the manner in which a mag-lev train moves.
This causes the round to move at extremely high velocity, and be very
destructive. This also means that
the entire round can be fired out of the barrel, with no cases remaining and
allowing for a larger bullet. And
the bullets fired by the rail gun rifle are huge – about as large as a
modest-sized cigar. The rail gun
rifle is large (over six feet long) and heavy, and one really needs the
augmentation of a BERP suit (more on this, one of these days…) to handle it in a
fluid combat situation, but it also makes a really good antimaterial rifle or
sniper’s weapon. The magazines themselves weigh 2.45 kilograms, and include a
battery pack to power the rifle’s electromagnets; a single round weighs 26.5
grams. The weapon normally uses the
sensors in the helmet of the BERP suit, but a special electronic sight may also
be added, similar to that on an OICW.
These guns were
originally designed for use by the US ISA (Intelligence
Ammunition |
Weight |
Magazines |
Price |
|
Rail Gun Rifle |
15x75mm ISA-Masters |
38.2 kg |
10 |
$39,460 |
Weapon |
ROF |
Damage |
Pen |
Bulk |
SS |
Burst |
Range |
Rail Gun Rifle |
SA |
21 |
2-2-2* |
14 |
4 |
Nil |
507 |
Rail Gun Rifle (Bipod) |
SA |
21 |
2-2-2* |
14 |
2 |
Nil |
658 |
*Penetration against
vehicles (armored or otherwise) or other structures is 10/9/7/5.
Madsen LAR m/62
Country of
Origin: Denmark
Appears in: An
attempt by Madsen to produce a battle/assault rifle for domestic use and export,
in the late 1950s.
Notes:
After World War 2, the firm of Madsen tried to enter the NATO rifle
competition with the m/62 (also known as the LAR, Light Automatic Rifle, or
Madsen A-Carbine). The m/62 was a
very high-quality weapon with gas operation similar to that of the FN FAL
(though developed independently) and a rotating bolt.
The original versions had no muzzle device except for being shaped to
allow the use of the rifle grenades of the period.
The receiver was of advanced construction for the period, being made from
high-strength aluminum alloy. The
bore, chamber, and part of the gas system were chrome-plated.
The 20.6-inch barrel was free-floating, something quite unusual in a
rifle meant for general use. The
pistol grip handguard were made from wood, while the barrel shroud was of
ventilated sheet steel. The m/62
was originally designed with a folding steel-strut stock with a folding
buttplate which folded to the side; versions were also designed with fixed wood
stocks, sliding steel stocks, and fixed tubular metal stocks.
The m/62 could accept standard Danish bayonets of the period as well as a
new bayonet designed for it, and also had a detachable bayonet which clipped to
the bayonet scabbard when not in use.
Sights are simple aperture and post sights, with the rear aperture sight
being adjustable and able to be flipped up or down.
The front sight post was protected by a ring.
The m/62 had a straight-line configuration, which made high-mounted
sights necessary, but reduced felt recoil.
A muzzle brake was also designed for the m/62 for testing purposes, but
Madsen decided it wouldn’t be used on future production weapons since the brake
made it impossible to use the rifle grenades of the period.
The m/62 was
originally designed to fire the new (at the time) 7.62mm NATO round, using a
proprietary 20-round magazine.
However, in an effort to attract Finnish customers (who were looking for a new
infantry weapon at the time), they designed a version firing 7.62mm Kalashnikov
ammunition and able to accept standard AK-47, AKM and RPK-type magazines.
The muzzle was re-designed to accept the types of rifle grenades the
Finns used at the time. (None were
supplied with muzzle brakes.) The
Finns actually seriously considered adopting the m/62, and a version with the
side-folding stock went through operational testing in small numbers in Finland
in 1960. In the end, however, they
elected to go with their own version of the AKM.
Unfortunately,
the m/62 was essentially a victim of the market forces of its time – first
prototypes appeared in 1957, and Madsen did not consider the m/62 market-ready
until 1962. By this time, it faced
fierce competition from other NATO 7.62mm weapons – especially from the FAL,
G-3, and CETME all of which had already been on the international market for
several years. Madsen realized the
m/62 was never going to turn a profit.
Despite rumors of its use by some special operations and mercenary units,
it was never officially used anywhere.
Despite this, reports of its use surfaced here and there in the world for
several decades, always in very small numbers.
Despite the high quality, uncomplicated design, and reliability of the
m/62, it never got a toehold in the international marketplace, and Madsen
abandoned sales attempts in 1965.
Note that on the
combat portion of the tables below, the 7.62mm NATO versions with folding and
sliding stocks are identical for game purposes, and the versions with fixed
wooden and metal stocks are identical for game purposes.
Weapon |
Ammunition |
Weight |
Magazines |
Price |
m/62 (Folding Stock) |
7.62mm NATO |
4.64 kg |
20 |
$1555 |
m/62 (Folding Stock,
w/Brake) |
7.62mm NATO7 |
4.84 kg |
20 |
$1605 |
m/62 (Sliding Stock) |
7.62mm NATO |
4.54 kg |
20 |
$1539 |
m/62 (Sliding Stock,
w/Brake) |
7.62mm NATO |
4.74 kg |
20 |
$1589 |
m/62 (Fixed Wooden
Stock) |
7.62mm NATO |
4.83 kg |
20 |
$1530 |
m/62 (Fixed Wooden
Stock, w/Brake) |
7.62mm NATO |
5.03 kg |
20 |
$1580 |
m/62 (Fixed Metal
Stock) |
7.62mm NATO |
4.74 kg |
20 |
$1543 |
m/62 (Fixed Metal
Stock, w/Brake) |
7.62mm NATO |
4.94 kg |
20 |
$1593 |
m/62 |
7.62mm Kalashnikov |
4.33 kg |
30, 75 Drum |
$1373 |
Weapon |
ROF |
Damage |
Pen |
Bulk |
SS |
Burst |
Range |
m/62 (Folding) |
5 |
4 |
2-3-Nil |
5/7 |
3 |
9 |
67 |
With Bipod |
5 |
4 |
2-3-Nil |
5/7 |
2 |
4 |
88 |
m/62 (Folding, Brake) |
5 |
4 |
2-3-Nil |
6/7 |
3 |
8 |
67 |
With Bipod |
5 |
4 |
2-3-Nil |
6/7 |
2 |
4 |
88 |
m/62 (Fixed) |
5 |
4 |
2-3-Nil |
7 |
3 |
9 |
67 |
With Bipod |
5 |
4 |
2-3-Nil |
7 |
2 |
4 |
88 |
m/62 (Fixed, Brake) |
5 |
4 |
2-3-Nil |
7 |
3 |
8 |
67 |
With Bipod |
5 |
4 |
2-3-Nil |
7 |
2 |
4 |
88 |
m/62 (7.62mm Kalashnikov) |
5 |
4 |
2-3-Nil |
5/7 |
4 |
9 |
64 |
With Bipod |
5 |
4 |
2-3-Nil |
5/7 |
2 |
4 |
83 |
Rukavishnikov
SVR-38
Country of
Origin: Soviet Union
Appears in:
Attempts by the Soviet Union to increase their troops’ firepower by producing a
semiautomatic or automatic battle rifle.
Notes: This was
a competitor to rifles like the AVS-36 and SVT-38/40.
The rifle developed by Rukavishnikov was well-made, with machined steel
parts, a pistol grip stock, a wooden handguard, and sheet-steel protectors over
the gas system. The testing
authorities criticized the SVR-38 as unwieldy and cumbersome; however, the real
strike against the rifle seems to have been the cost and time it took to
manufacture, despite the quality of the weapon.
As a result, the SVR-38 was rejected after only 5 rifles were built.
It remains an interesting rifle, though.
Ammunition |
Weight |
Magazines |
Price |
|
SVR-38 |
7.62mm Nagant |
4.45 kg |
15, 20 |
$1098 |
Weapon |
ROF |
Damage |
Pen |
Bulk |
SS |
Burst |
Range |
SVR-38 |
SA |
4 |
2-3-Nil |
7 |
4 |
Nil |
79 |
Springfield T-20E2 Garand
Country of
Origin: US (But see below).
Appears in:
Experiment by Springfield to produce a shorter M-1 Garand (but see below).
Notes: The
T-20E2 was to be a selective-fire variant of the M-1 Garand battle rifle.
The genesis of the T-20E2 began in September of 1944; at that time,
preparations were being made for an invasion of Japan (and the Manhattan Project
was still a well-kept secret).
Springfield Armory first responded with the T-20 (with the modifications
designed by John Garand himself), but it was essentially a technical mess that
had mechanical problems as well as excessive recoil, extreme heating of the
barrel (which was uncomfortable for the shooter during sustained fire even
through the wooden handguard), and later, a muzzle brake which prevented the use
of a bayonet or rifle grenade launcher attachment.
Needless to say, it was not accepted by the War Department, but it did
serve to teach Springfield some valuable lessons of how
not to go about the conversion.
Remington was
also asked by the War Department to submit its own modified M-1 Garand, which
was designated the T-22, T-23, and T-24.
The T-23 and T-24 were essentially meant to prove that the idea of
converting the M-1 to selective fire was possible; the T-22 was the version that
Remington actually carried to (nearly) full development.
Like the T-20, it was fed by a modified BAR magazine, and it also
encountered the same feed problems as the T-20 (later traced to the
modifications made to the BAR magazines).
The T-22 was actually a reasonably-viable design; with a little more
work, it could have been the needed selective-fire version of the M-1.
Remington’s biggest problem was actually with the War Department; they
essentially wanted an unrealistically light weapon with unrealistically low felt
recoil and unrealistically few modifications of the standard M-1 (to make
production easier and allow rebuilding of existing M-1s); the War Department’s
expectations essentially made Remington’s task impossible.
(Ironically, a few months later, with the projected invasion of Japan
looming ever larger, the T-22 would probably have been accepted.)
Springfield’s
work on the T-20, along with shared experience from Remington gained from their
T-22, led them to the T-20E1. The
operating system was vastly simplified, yet still quite similar to that of the
standard M-1 Garand. Springfield
also solved (for the most part) the barrel heat problem with a pair of simple
heat flow arresting grooves cut into the barrel at the chamber, allowing heat to
disperse far more evenly. Though at
first the T-20E1 used the same modified BAR magazine, new purpose-designed
magazines were eventually used instead, once the feed problems had been traced
to the modified BAR magazine. A
folding bipod (not designed for removal in the field) was added at the gas
cylinder. The T-20E1 was almost
right; Aberdeen Proving Grounds and Springfield suggested several changes, which
would lead to the definitive T-20E2 version.
The T-20E2
version differed primarily in the use of a slightly-modified receiver, an
improved feeding and extraction mechanism, a muzzle brake which also allowed the
attachment of a rifle grenade launcher and a bayonet, drilling and tapping for a
telescopic sight, a modified bipod (still not field-detachable), a more
ergonomic magazine release, and a few other small changes.
The only problem the War Department had with the T-20E2 had was the
weight of a fully-loaded T-20E2, and they decided to ignore that.
The T-20E2 was therefore deemed ready for limited production in May 1945.
Unfortunately,
by the time tooling-up was completed, it was literally days before the atomic
bombing Hiroshima. Suddenly, the
T-20E2 was no longer considered such a priority, and funds to produce the T-20E2
basically dried up and blew away.
Almost no T-20E2s were built in their final form, and apart from about 5 of
those and the prototypes, no other T-20E2s were built.
All that work
proved not to be in vain, however.
Springfield continued tinkering with the T-20E2, even developing a prototype
chambered for the 7.62mm T-65 cartridge (which later became the 7.62mm NATO
cartridge). Most of this work
helped or directly led to the M-14 battle rifle, which the US military adopted
in 1957.
Ammunition |
Weight |
Magazines |
Price |
|
T-20E2 |
.30-06 Springfield |
4.37 kg |
20 |
$1842 |
Weapon |
ROF |
Damage |
Pen |
Bulk |
SS |
Burst |
Range |
T-20E2 |
5 |
4 |
2-3-Nil |
8 |
3 |
8 |
70 |
With Bipod |
5 |
4 |
2-3-Nil |
8 |
2 |
4 |
90 |
Springfield T-26 “Tanker” Garand
Notes: The first
thing I want to say in this entry is
there is no such thing as a Tanker Garand.
Now that I’ve probably
confused you, considering the title of this section, let’s get to the meat.
The T-26 was in fact never called the “Tanker” Garand, and was never
intended to arm tank crews or any sort of vehicle crews.
The “Tanker” appellation was a marketing ploy that was used much later
(more on that below). I used the
name in the title of this entry simply because it is the name that this
variation of the Garand is best known by, even though it is inaccurate.
The T-26 was
originally the result of two ideas that gelled together: a smaller, carbine
version of the M-1 Garand for use by airborne troops, and a shorter, easier to
handle Garand for use by US Marines and Army troops in the thick jungles of the
Pacific. The test rifles were modified from existing M-1 Garands, and most
sources say that only three such conversions were made.
One is in the Springfield Armory’s museum, one was re-made into a
standard M-1 Garand and issued back out to some unknown soldier, and the other
was reportedly destroyed during testing at Aberdeen Proving Grounds.
The modified rifles had shortened 18-inch barrels and a gas system
modified for the shorter barrel length.
The results were unsatisfactory: a muzzle that spouted a blinding gout
flame two feet long, markedly greater recoil, and of course, less accuracy.
That said, it is
relatively easy to find a “Tanker Garand” for sale these days.
And they’re all fakes.
(The “Tanker” name was coined in the 1950s by some arms dealer that
thought it would improve sales – and it did.)
Some are stocked, some have pistol grips, some have folding stocks – but
they’re all fake, every one of them.
If you’ve ever bought a “genuine Tanker Garand” or something like that,
you’ve been taken, and you go to the gun dealer who sold it to you and give him
a solid butt stroke to the chin with butt of that fake Tanker Garand.
The only genuine T-26 is in Springfield’s museum, it’s priceless, and
they’re not giving it up.
A related
version of the T-26 is the M-1E5; this one almost made to production.
This is a standard-length Garand, but the stock behind the receiver is
replaced by a simple tubular metal folding stock.
This was designed for use by paratroopers and vehicle crews in
anticipation of the Operation Overload landings.
The mechanism, as is virtually the entire forward version of the rifle,
is basically a T-26. After testing
at Aberdeen Proving ground it was deemed unnecessary, something protested by the
Airborne and Glider units. Again, there are only a few, and they have never been
sold to anyone.
Weapon |
Ammunition |
Weight |
Magazines |
Price |
T-26 |
.30-06 Springfield |
4.13 kg |
8 Clip |
$1182 |
M-1E5 |
.30-06 Springfield |
3.63 kg |
8 Clip |
$1207 |
Weapon |
ROF |
Damage |
Pen |
Bulk |
SS |
Burst |
Range |
T-26 |
SA |
4 |
2-3-Nil |
7 |
5 |
Nil |
46 |
M-1E5 |
SA |
4 |
2-3-Nil |
5/7 |
5 |
Nil |
46 |
Winchester Machine Rifle
Country of
Origin: US
Appears in: An
experimental World War 1-era weapon.
Notes: This
weapon, at first designed for use by aircraft crews to destroy the
hydrogen-filled balloons of the First World War, has been described by some as
the “first true assault rifle” and the “BAR before the BAR.”
It was developed in 1917 by Frank Burton, who went on to develop the BAR
automatic rifle with John Browning.
A ground version was quickly designed to accompany the aircraft version.
The aircraft and
ground versions differed little from each other, with the primary difference
being that the aircraft version fired and was optimized for incendiary
ammunition. The design was
innovative, with a wooden stock virtually in a straight line from the shoulder,
a pistol grip trigger group with an enlarged trigger guard for use with a gloved
hand. The magazine is above the
receiver and angled off from the receiver at 60 degrees; the magazine well
actually allowed for two magazines, with one feeding at a time – after the first
is empty, it slides out of place and the second one feeds the weapon.
The safety switch is a simple “second trigger” below the trigger guard.
This second trigger must be pulled at the same time as the trigger within
the trigger guard. Operation was
also novel for the time, being by straight blowback and from an open bolt.
The charging handle is below the receiver.
The recoil spring is long and extends all the way into the stock.
The fore-end has finger grooves and a ring to mount on an airplane; the
25-inch barrel is finned for half its length for cooling.
Ejection is downwards. To
top off the innovative features of the Winchester Machine Rifle, the weapon
fires the .345 Winchester Self-Loading Rifle cartridge – a true intermediate
cartridge made by necking down and shortening the .351 Winchester Self-Loading
Rifle cartridge. The Winchester
Machine Rifle was apparently extensively tested as the Springfield Armory but
records of the testing have been lost and the reasons for its not being adopted
are not known.
Weapon |
Ammunition |
Weight |
Magazines |
Price |
Winchester Machine
Rifle |
.345 Winchester
Self-Loading Rifle |
4.54 kg |
40 (x2) |
Weapon |
ROF |
Damage |
Pen |
Bulk |
SS |
Burst |
Range |
Winchester Machine Rifle |
5 |
4 |
2-3-Nil |
8 |
3 |
8 |
73 |