Got a Real-World Weapon or Armor Question? Mk. VI

[Matthew]

I think maybe this discussion got heated, but I did learn a few things I didn't know, and I'm happy that somebody broke out the physics and crunched some numbers.

I think the biggest bones of contention revolve around the fact that there really aren't standard bows or crossbows or good reliable tests, so we all tend to interpret the incomplete data in a way favourable to our own suppositions.

Exactly so. I think there is more agreement than disagreement, most of the latter coming down to misunderstandings of precise meanings.

[Galloglaich]

There are a lot of tests on longbows, a lot of good data, but nothing yet really with the crossbows and hopefully we will see more soon like I was saying.

There is a guy in the Uk who makes pretty strong prods (850 pounds or thereabouts) but he is assuming 50 gram bolts which I think is wrong and he still has to figure out some things about crossbow strings. They need to get a couple of antiques and make a close comparison in order to make a proper replica. Probably somebody like Royal Armouries at Leeds will do it.

There is a high level of expertise on this forum and I really learned a lot in this dicussion. My only point (I think perhaps validated somewhat) is that the Crossbow and the longbow, (and the recurve and the early firearms) filled certain distinct (environmental based or operational based) niches in combat, it wasn't really a matter of one being better than the other necessarily, at least until the mid 16th Century when guns clearly pulled ahead of all other missile weapons.

G.

[Mike_G]

There are a lot of tests on longbows, a lot of good data, but nothing yet really with the crossbows and hopefully we will see more soon like I was saying.

There is a guy in the Uk who makes pretty strong prods (850 pounds or thereabouts) but he is assuming 50 gram bolts which I think is wrong and he still has to figure out some things about crossbow strings. They need to get a couple of antiques and make a close comparison in order to make a proper replica. Probably somebody like Royal Armouries at Leeds will do it.

There is a high level of expertise on this forum and I really learned a lot in this dicussion. My only point (I think perhaps validated somewhat) is that the Crossbow and the longbow, (and the recurve and the early firearms) filled certain distinct (environmental based or operational based) niches in combat, it wasn't really a matter of one being better than the other necessarily, at least until the mid 16th Century when guns clearly pulled ahead of all other missile weapons.

G.

A friend of mine who designs guns for his day job builds crossbows on the side.

Here is his website.

I'm not saying these are actually comparable, since he mostly sells to SCA members for their archery tournaments, but the guy knows his ballistics and has done a lot of research. As a history buff, I've had him explain a lot of the fundamental formulae to me.

I agree with you more than I disagree, I just got my knickers in a twist about one or two points. I apologize if I wielded my opinion like a hatchet.

[Karoht]

On the note of Butted Mail VS Riveted:
When I first joined the organization I fight with, I was assured at the time that butted was authentic enough. I didn't look into it. I'm deeply regretting taking someone's word for granted now, regardless of what the facts say on the matter.
Oh well, flat ring riveted gets cheaper every day, it's lighter, tougher, and it looks tougher and meaner. Me likey. My butted shirt can be used for decoration later.

[Galloglaich]

Sorry to hear it man.

if it's any consolation Dan Howard says the cheap riveted mail from India is all wrong too.

I'd love to have some myself but I can never afford it, always too many other things in the way.

G.

[Karoht]

Well, anything machine made gets a bit of an inauthentic stamp, depending on which circles you hang out in.
I keep an eye on the quality of the stuff we get from India. For chain mail, the quality is high enough for what I'm doing. As long as the rivets aren't obviously the wrong kind (some kind of easy pop clip in style rivets), and as long as it is still 4-in-1 pattern, I'm cool.

A friend of mine made a vest out of butted titanium rings. Impossibly small (3/16ths) and strictly just for show and it was expensive to get the rings. It's stupidly light, and he's done a few tests on it, it did hold up to rebated combat. Almost makes me curious enough to go see the cost on riveted titanium now.

[Cheesegear]

Can somebody please explain how a spear, or harpoon gun works?

And/or explain why conventional firearms wont work underwater? I'm pretty sure it has something to do with water resistance slowing down the bulltet. But, why doesn't that work on a Harpoon gun (or maybe it does?).

But, I figure someone from here might know.

[Crow]

Most spearguns use stretched bands to propel the spear. The spear is often hydrodynamic, which helps it glide through the water after it's been fired. Still, your range is usually only going to be around 30 feet or so, and it's often difficult to hit at that range.

As for the firearms underwater, I could tell you, but I'll wait to let someone who will give you a more detailed answer. ;)

[endoperez]

Can somebody please explain how a spear, or harpoon gun works?

And/or explain why conventional firearms wont work underwater? I'm pretty sure it has something to do with water resistance slowing down the bulltet. .

I know that there are some specially made guns that do work underwater. I only know that because I came across a site that had images of some Russian guns like that. The bullets are (sometimes? often? always?) shaped like needles.

Here's one
http://world.guns.ru/handguns/hg140-e.htm

And what the site says about its underwater properties:
"To be effective underwater, SPP-1 uses special proprietary ammunition, with rimmed bottlenecked cases 40mm long, sealed from water. Unusually long bullets are made from mild steel, and are drag-stabilized underwater; on air, bullets are not stabilized at all, so the effective range "above the air" is limited, but the "lethality range" is about 15 to 20 meters. When underwater, lethality range degrades with the increase of the depth: at 5 meters depth, the effective range is about 17 meters; at 20 meters depth, the effective range is only about 11 meters."

Google helps you to find more interesting stuff.

[HenryHankovitch]

Can somebody please explain how a spear, or harpoon gun works?

And/or explain why conventional firearms wont work underwater? I'm pretty sure it has something to do with water resistance slowing down the bulltet. But, why doesn't that work on a Harpoon gun (or maybe it does?).

But, I figure someone from here might know.

The problem comes from overpressure. Any firearm works by converting a physically small amount of propellant into a very large volume of gas. As the gas expands, it pushes the bullet down the barrel. Overpressure happens when you have too much pressure inside of the cartridge and chamber, either from a "hot load" with too much powder, or powder which "explodes" instead of burning smoothly, OR if something is blocking the bullet from going down the barrel.

Having a water-filled barrel doesn't usually prevent the round from firing (assuming the ammo hasn't been underwater long enough to allow water to seep inside the casing). But the overpressure in the chamber leads to a variety of failures. Either the slide doesn't lock back completely, thus not chambering the next round; or the round casing bulges from the overpressure and potentially jams the weapon, or some other similar problem. In theory the gun could explode--the metal of casing and breech failing structurally--but I don't know whether that's actually been demonstrated.

Additionally, because the bullets themselves are not designed to go through water efficiently, they lose energy very quickly, and can even deform or come apart as they go through the water.

[Psyx]

Can somebody please explain how a spear, or harpoon gun works?
And/or explain why conventional firearms wont work underwater? I'm pretty sure it has something to do with water resistance slowing down the bulltet. But, why doesn't that work on a Harpoon gun (or maybe it does?).
But, I figure someone from here might know.

Spearguns basically use a big rubber band to catapult the spear forwards. They aren't very accurate. You might kill someone at 10m; but you might be struggling to hit them at that range. 'Proper' spearfishers snorkel down, have to get as close as possible to a fish on a lung-full of air and shoot it. Some people pretend doing the same thing with SCUBA gear is sport... I digress...


Firearms work by exploding* a charge, and giving the force of the explosion only one way to easily escape: By pushing a bit of metal down the barrel, which also -by the joys of equal and opposite reaction - drives back the bolt and cycles the mechanism for the next shot. The only reason that you don't get a face-full of gun parts is because it's easier for the charge to propel the bullet than to blow bits of the breach everywhere.

Now: If you fill the barrel with water and THEN pull the trigger; things are different. The explosion has to move the bullet and a whole lot of water, too. There's a good possibility that the easiest way for the pressure to relieve itself is by blowing bits of the breach open. This is why you don't fire firearms with water in the barrel. Ever.

There are two rifles that I can immediately think of that are suitably over-engineered as to be supposed to be safe to fire with a barrel full of water: The AK-47 and the Steyr Aug. I still personally wouldn't want to try it, though.

If the firearm manages to function, and the bullet goes out the right way, then there are still issues:

The water adds a lot of drag to the action of the weapon, so it probably won't cycle properly. You'd probably have to re-charge the weapon after each discharge.

You aren't going to hit anything more than a few yards away, and you won't kill anything much further than that. Bullets are aerodynamic, and not designed to go through a much, much denser medium.

You're going to love cleaning it afterwards. If it's salt water it's also going to corrode your weapon. Many firearms today are gas operated, rather than blow-back. This will make them certain not to cycle, and even more of a chore to clean. I would not dip any firearm I cared about in salt water.

At significant depth, the water pressure will ensure that some finds its way into the ammunition, and then it won't work.

***

The only designated underwater firearms that I can think of are the H&K P11(http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Heckler_&_Koch_P11 and http://world.guns.ru/handguns/hg209-e.htm), and a couple of Soviet designs: The pistol that I assume has already been mentioned, and an AK-variant:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/ADS_amphibious_rifle

The best way of using a firearm underwater would probably be to put it in a good waterproof bag and figure out a way to operate the trigger and safety when the bad is compressed through pressure, put it against what you want to kill, and pull the trigger. Don't try to use it again! Or...use a knife or a speargun.


*I know it's not an explosive in there, just to cut of the pedantry.

[Storm Bringer]

a question of a idle mind:

the Minie ball came into usage in the 1840s (ish), but is thier any reason why, if it had been thought of, it could not have been invented eariler. from my understanding of the tech, the only thing that prevented it form being invented eariler was that no one had thought of it.

am i right, or am i missing something? is thier some critical element of the Minie ball or the rilfes of the time that prevented it form working any eariler?

[Eorran]

This is why you don't fire firearms with water in the barrel. Ever.

There are two rifles that I can immediately think of that are suitably over-engineered as to be supposed to be safe to fire with a barrel full of water: The AK-47 and the Steyr Aug. I still personally wouldn't want to try it, though.
...
You're going to love cleaning it afterwards. If it's salt water it's also going to corrode your weapon. Many firearms today are gas operated, rather than blow-back. This will make them certain not to cycle, and even more of a chore to clean. I would not dip any firearm I cared about in salt water.

Question - what do groups like Navy SEALs, Special Boat Service, etc. carry with them for firearms if they're insertion / extraction call for being in the water? Even if their guns don't work in the water, I imagine they'd want something that can be carried through the water and still be useful, no?

[HenryHankovitch]

Question - what do groups like Navy SEALs, Special Boat Service, etc. carry with them for firearms if they're insertion / extraction call for being in the water? Even if their guns don't work in the water, I imagine they'd want something that can be carried through the water and still be useful, no?

Depending on the group and the situation, I believe it's a combination of:

1) quick-removal covers and plugs of various sorts,
2) ruthless drilling in tipping water out of the barrel and clearing the action immediately upon leaving the water, and
3) weapons which have been tested/modified for such use, like the AUG mentioned above. You can probably find various manufacturer's promo videos floating around the YouTubes depicting their products being brought out of the water and immediately fired.

[fusilier]

a question of a idle mind:

the Minie ball came into usage in the 1840s (ish), but is thier any reason why, if it had been thought of, it could not have been invented eariler. from my understanding of the tech, the only thing that prevented it form being invented eariler was that no one had thought of it.

am i right, or am i missing something? is thier some critical element of the Minie ball or the rilfes of the time that prevented it form working any eariler?

Basically you are correct. Interestingly a lot of the earlier "minie guns" actually used the tige system. There was a spike at the bottom of the barrel, and the bullet was "hammered" over it and expanded. There was also a slightly earlier system where there were only two grooves in the rifle barrel, and the ball had a lip around it that fit the grooves. However, all these systems are roughly concurrent with each other. There seems to be have been a concerted effort in the first half of the 19th century to make faster muzzle-loading rifles. (Another slightly later system would be the whitworth system).


There is another issue though: manufacturing tolerances. At this time bullets were made by machine (I believe the process is swaging), although molds for hand casting were issued for emergency purposes. I was informed by a knowledgeable fellow reenactor, that at the beginning of the American Civil War 1-in-5 minie bullets would not fit down the barrel of the gun they were intended for (they were too big), by the end of the war the ratio had improved to 1-in-10. If you look at the ordnance manual, a .58 caliber musket fired a minie ball that measured .575" in diameter. Whereas a .69 caliber smoothbore musket fired a .65(!) caliber ball. So the tolerances on a smoothbore were huge (this is probably why you may hear stories of people getting surprising accuracy out of a replica smoothbore weapon, they're not firing a military load with crazy amounts of windage).

There is actually a lot of thought that went into the minie ball. First of all, people had started thinking of using something that wasn't actually a ball. Elongated, pointed, and rounded shapes. This isn't trivial, even if you did think of such a shape, it would have been mercilessly pounded out of shape during loading without a countersunk ramrod head. Then the idea of a hollow base to allow for expansion. And it's not obvious that a hollow base will expand, the British used a wooden plug, and the French used a metal cup to force the expansion of the base -- but both were unnecessary. Finally, even the physics behind the expansion is a bit confusing. Apparently the force of the propellant filling the base of the bullet, is not what causes it to expand. My understanding is a bit hazy, but what I think is happening is that the hollow base allows some compression along the barrel axis of the bullet, which is compensated by the lead swelling outward and increasing the diameter of the bullet. It has something to do with the nature of lead, and not simply an expansive force filling the cavity.

[Norsesmithy]

Depending on the group and the situation, I believe it's a combination of:

1) quick-removal covers and plugs of various sorts,
2) ruthless drilling in tipping water out of the barrel and clearing the action immediately upon leaving the water, and
3) weapons which have been tested/modified for such use, like the AUG mentioned above. You can probably find various manufacturer's promo videos floating around the YouTubes depicting their products being brought out of the water and immediately fired.

Most weapons will fire fine completely submerged, though bullets have a pathetic range underwater, often less than 10 feet, slower bullets actually going father, of course, if it only goes 10 feet before stopping, it isn't dangerous the whole way, most rifles would be better used as platforms for bayonets underwater, instead of being fired. It's when you've got a gun half full of water out in the air that things break.

With most modern weapons, it's pretty easy to quickly drain the barrel and other pieces subject to intense force, but some older designs (M14, M1 Garand, SKS, etc) are hard to drain, and not suitable for frogman style amphibious maneuvers (which is why the SEALS used the G3 extensively before they adopted the M16 and carbine variants).

With AK, CETME, and M16 pattern weapons, you just have to point the muzzle down, and open the bolt a touch. Much quieter and faster than completely clearing the action.

If you've got the right plugs, you can fire without removing them, and that way is the fastest, but it also is a single use type situation, and so it's probably better to train to drain it every time, and reduce the chance of forgetting that you've already shot out your plugs.

[Yora]

"Dear Diary: It has been an entire day without crossbows. After nine days, they seem to be gone now. I hope we will not see them again for a long time."

[Aroka]

"Dear Diary: It has been an entire day without crossbows. After nine days, they seem to be gone now. I hope we will not see them again for a long time."

Are crossbows better than longbows... underwater!?

[Karoht]

"Dear Diary: It has been an entire day without crossbows. After nine days, they seem to be gone now. I hope we will not see them again for a long time."

Crossbows, Kangaroos, Wallabys, oye oye oye!!!
*cookie for anyone naming the reference*

Anything is possible when your thread smells like old spice and doesn't talk about crossbows. I'm on a horse.

Truth be told I was interested in the conversation and it eventually came to it's natural end. And now we discuss firing guns underwater. Ah, the cycle of thread topics.

[Psyx]

Question - what do groups like Navy SEALs, Special Boat Service, etc. carry with them for firearms if they're insertion / extraction call for being in the water?

I imagine that unless they are likely to be needed straight from the water that they put them in waterproof containers, too.

To be fair; Firing automatic weapons which might still have water in the barrel is one of the least dangerous things these people do.

I believe I saw a mythbusters recently where a few handguns were fired submerged under a foot or so of water. They weren't very good, and of course at those depths the rounds wouldn't be leaking in any water.

[Theodoric]

The Dutch Commando Corps has switched to HK416's and specially modified Glock 17 pistols, so the can immediatly (or much sooner than previously, at least) use their weapons after coming out of water, a substance of which we have a lot of here. Us Dutch don't let water tell us what to do.

[Yora]

I've seen some promotional demo videos about firing weapons submerged in water. The M16 just exploded, but I think it was an HK that performed very well. Could have been a 416.

[Stephen_E]

A interesting point on weapons that were techically feasible weel before there time.

The Sten gun.
It was used for a time travel book plot with a pro-confedarate person taking back a model and plans to just before the ACW.
Essentailly the Sten gun was such a simple weapon that it was capable of been manafactured with pre-ACW technolgy. At least that was the claim, and from the limited knowledge I have of the weapon it seems reasonable.


Stephen E

[Galloglaich]

Are crossbows better than longbows... underwater!?

Only for indirect fire... or is it direct? I can't remember!?!?!?!??!!

G.

[valadil]

The thread got a little heated so I took a break from it. Just wanted to get my thoughts in before we all forgot about bows and crossbows.

Unless your projectile is ignoring gravity it is always going to arc. However the distance that it arcs is not always appreciable. My definition of shooting straight or flat is shooting at a distance where the arc affects the projectile but, not enough to matter.

I spent a lot of time shooting a 30lbs recurve bow, usually at 20 meters. I didn't have to change my aim at 10 meters. The drop from gravity was not appreciable. Or at least it wasn't at my skill level. If all my arrows are in a 2 inch radius group, dropping them half an inch from gravity doesn't really make a noticeable difference. (Note: I haven't done any math to see if a half an inch is actually how far they'd drop. If anyone does want to model this, I was firing at 214 f/s) For my purposes I was shooting flat at those distances.

At 30 meters though the arrow did drop more and I had to hold my arm up higher than I was used to. This should come as a surprise to nobody.

Anyway, I would believe that a heavier bow could shoot effectively flatter for a longer distance than my 30lbs bow. Maybe you could ignore gravity up till 50m, maybe 100. Well, 100m is probably optimistic. But I do believe that there is some distance where the drop due to gravity is insignificant enough that the person launching the projectile can safely ignore it.

--

Regarding balance. I've been taking classes on using the longsword in the Lichtenauer tradition (https://sites.google.com/site/kunstbruder/). I haven't been doing it for very long, but they've already taught balance. They have us put all our weight on the front foot. That leaves the rear foot free to move anywhere. If I need to back up, I shift my weight back and pull my body over the back foot. The front foot is treated like a loaded spring.

I'm not going to insinuate that this is the only way to do things. But it seems to work pretty well for my instructor.

[Jacob_Gallagher]

The Sten gun.
It was used for a time travel book plot with a pro-confedarate person taking back a model and plans to just before the ACW.
Essentailly the Sten gun was such a simple weapon that it was capable of been manafactured with pre-ACW technolgy. At least that was the claim, and from the limited knowledge I have of the weapon it seems reasonable.

Pretty much a handwave, unfortunately. The Sten worked because it was built in factories designed to mass-produce machinery. There was no real equivalent in the mid-1800s. Gunsmiths built weapons individually, and in any case the ammunition would be hard to replicate as both the Union and Confederacy seriously did not like brass-cased ammunition, preferring to stay with the archaic paper cartridges.

Not to mention that the South didn't have nearly enough industrialization to produce advanced firearms from that era (they relied on old smoothbore muskets while the Union was experimenting with breechloaders and Henry Rifles), let alone firearms from eighty years in the future.

[Stephen_E]

Pretty much a handwave, unfortunately. The Sten worked because it was built in factories designed to mass-produce machinery. There was no real equivalent in the mid-1800s. Gunsmiths built weapons individually, and in any case the ammunition would be hard to replicate as both the Union and Confederacy seriously did not like brass-cased ammunition, preferring to stay with the archaic paper cartridges.

Not to mention that the South didn't have nearly enough industrialization to produce advanced firearms from that era (they relied on old smoothbore muskets while the Union was experimenting with breechloaders and Henry Rifles), let alone firearms from eighty years in the future.

Gunsmiths indivudally made guns because the guns required it.

---------- From Wiki
The Sten required a minimum amount of machining and manufacturing effort by using simple stamped metal components and minor welding. Much of the production could be performed by small workshops and the firearms assembled at the Enfield site. Over the period of manufacture the Sten design was further simplified: the most basic model, the Mark III, could be produced from five man-hours work. Some of the cheapest versions were made from only 47 different parts. It was distinctive for its bare appearance (just a pipe with a metal loop for a stock), and its horizontal magazine. The Mark I was a more finely finished weapon with a wooden foregrip and handle; later versions were generally more spartan, although the final version, the Mark V, which was produced after the threat of invasion had died down, was produced to a notably higher standard.
-------------

The Southern USA did have a manafacturing base, although considerably smaller than the North, and the point about the Sten is that it's construction wasn't advance, it was the idea that was advanced.

As the excert from Wiki points out, most of the production was done it workshops, not big mass-production factories.
The dislike for brass ammo is indeed a valid point, but much of the dislike was based on not enough gain for the additional cost.
Given the advantages of a submachinegun in ACW style warfare, I think the equation would shift enough that it might indeed be sellable to the appropriate people.

I don't know enough to say that it definitely could be done, but I think you are overly dismissive to pass it off as "a handwave".

Stephen

[Norsesmithy]

I don't doubt that the sten gun is eminently manufacture-able with 1860s tech and industrial base. I just don't see a source for sufficient quantities of uniform enough brass cartridges needed to supply units armed with Sten Guns.

Not in the Union, and especially not in the south.

[Subotei]

Anyway, I would believe that a heavier bow could shoot effectively flatter for a longer distance than my 30lbs bow. Maybe you could ignore gravity up till 50m, maybe 100. Well, 100m is probably optimistic. But I do believe that there is some distance where the drop due to gravity is insignificant enough that the person launching the projectile can safely ignore it.

Wikipedia gives some info on point blank ranges (essentially the range where you can ignore gravity - where if you point, you hit) and some simple maths to work it out. Assuming the arrow/bolt is let go at 1.5 m off the ground horizontally at 45 m/s, point blank is 20 m. At 100 m/s it is around 50 m. In reality this will be a little lower as the simple maths ignores air resistance. If you're aiming at a man size target and dont really care where you hit, you would in effect extend this somewhat.

[Telonius]

Got an interesting one for the experts here.

Suppose you're a bandit living somewhere in the Turkish or Persian highland areas, somewhere around 1800-1600 BCE. What are some weapons that you'd reasonably be expected to have? I'm particularly interested in something you'd use in close-quarters combat or something like a duel. Short-range would work too - maybe something a sneaky jerk would use in a duel dishonorably.