Mister McKinley's Navy.

Hi Tobius.

One question about your rifles. Is feasible to change the magazine feeding in posterior marks? In 1895 the Krag Jorgensen's type magazine will be quickly obsolete (if we compares with the Mannlicher, Mauser, Lee and Moisin Nagant ). Cheers.

Colosseum wrote:

Tobius wrote:

If you are familiar with the K-98, then you know that it is adjusted up down in increments. The range numbers are obscured by the ramp as it elevates, when you adjust for bullet drop at long range, as it is raised. In a vertical ladder sight (Many US and British rifles use this type.), the range bar is raised or lowered and you read the numbers from the ladder without having to dismount from the cheek rest weld. The Germans were satisfied with the "click method" and ramp to range band up and down. But they had to move the rifle to look at the sight if they wanted to do it by the numbers.

In mountain fighting, you do have to shift from near to far often, and that does necessitate adjustment for bullet drop in this type rifle. Additionally, the American soldiers will experience what the Marines actually did with the Navy Lee. Riflelite, the "smokeless" ballistics powder in use in this war was of uneven quality to such an extent, that the blunt nosed 6 x 60mm bullet could exhibit batch characteristics from one bullet stripper clip lot to the next in the same batch that required the Marine to range band up or down in mid fire fight to set his mark for the next round fired. Bullet ballistics were that chemically induced far off. One of the reasons the Navy abandoned the Lee for the Krag and later the Springfield, was this inconsistent propellant performance in the bullets they were supplied. Americans had not learned to make "hot" propellants with consistent quality.

Just some thoughts that went into it.

Now hold on a bit. Is this meant to be a ladder rear sight, or a slide-ramp? If it's a ladder rear sight then I think it might make a little more sense, but it's still rather poorly drawn and I don't think ladder sights show any "ramp" style angle at all. They usually fold down flat on the rifle (this is the case with the Springfield M1903, the Enfield No.4 with ladder sights, and the early Thompson submachineguns even). Either way this drawing needs some work. Take a look at the other Gunbucket rifles described above and copy their format.

I was quite clear, I thought,

Quote:

The range numbers are obscured by the ramp as it elevates... In a vertical ladder sight (Many US and British rifles use this type.), the range bar is raised or lowered and you read the numbers from the ladder without having to dismount from the cheek rest weld

https://youtu.be/JKq8zUkWHNs

That is a ramp site.

https://youtu.be/JTYsL_1P0Gc

Ladder sights. Note what he says about adjustments for different powders and different bullet masses?

I do think about these things. The drawing being wonky is certainly fair criticism, though some of the AK's I've seen drawn are ridiculous. (my opinion only.)

reytuerto wrote:

I don't know about that. This, [notional] rifle was deliberately drawn with some big errors to reflect US inexperience with modern (1890s) European military rifles (as are the fictional ships to reflect the inexperience with modern ships). These [Navy] guys went for the Lee straight pull and specified characteristics that should have worked, but which did not, because they did not know what they were doing. Too hot powders, a too small bore bullet (7 mm is about the limit for those days) wrong type of shell casing, and a wrong type of feed profile (semi-rimmed case extraction?) made the Lee obsolete the day it was designed.

This notional one would have to be re-designed so that the ejector port and the magazine well feed line up in a straight line instead of at an angle for example.

No, you did not make it clear, and it still isn't clear to me. What is represented? A ramp sight, or a ladder sight that flips up? If it's a ramp sight, as we originally discussed, why was the ladder sight even mentioned?

If it's a ramp sight, it's drawn incorrectly because it slides toward the rear for elevation. If it's a ladder sight, it should be drawn flat against the rear sight base.

Hi Tobius:
I understand your point. The straigth pull rifles (Lee, Ross) were a failure with exception of a swiss model, but the separate magazine feeding of the Lee was quite modern in 1878. May I supose that your 1895 rifle will be a short lived one (specially if it cannot be modernized)? Cheers.

Colosseum wrote:

It's a backwards ramp sight. Nothing optical or mechanical says the lifted notched blade end of the ramp has to be nearest the shooter's eye. Only that the sight line be non-occluded from notch to bead, blade or pin of the foresight.

A ladder sight would include the blade on the ladder with a click button or an adjustment wheel knob.

reytuerto wrote:

I do not change history that radically. Just as the Mauser (Springfield 1903 is a [Spanish] Mauser, [despite the window dressing nits] replaces the Krag.), so the Model 1895 will be replaced.

I think an AU Mannlicher style magazine feed bolt action rifle might be in the works.

I don't think the semi-rotating bolt and rocker ramp action straight pulls are conceptually lousy. One has to have some kind of lug locking at the breech to make bolt engagement work. Both tilt ramp and rotating bolt engagement designs work. And both can be either gas piston or barrel recoil driven. The trick is not to design a Ross-style action.

I've toyed with either operating concept, as the next art render. (See below, why this is historically difficult to justify prior to WW I.)

Historically, as I understand it mechanically, the Lee had some parts in the bolt carrier that were complex to make and small and easily lost. Also, over time, the hot gasses used in the Lee's ammunition burned and pitted the barrel lands, pitting and bubbling the same. The locking lugs could chip or wear down through the ramping action and that was a safety and [s]wear issue. The rifle just had too many design defects to be modified over time.

In the case of the Ross, (a semi-rotating cam action), the bolt came apart into (three?) pieces and could be reassembled incorrectly so that it could be reinserted into the carrier, so that it appeared to reseat properly. However the bolt could seat in travel and be too short in travel to engage the lugs by cam action. The recruit, Private Fumbles, would operate the cycle and the bolt could travel back in recoil and rip his cheek or break his jaw. Exploding Ross rifles are a myth, I believe. But being punched in the face by your rifle because it is smarter than you are, is not a recommended battle rifle solution.

A successful straight pull rifle (with a semi-rotating bolt cam action built into the bolt), might seem to be the straight line engineering path to a self loading rifle. Obviously it is not, because Mosin Nagant, Mauser, and Springfield users successfully arrived first, with Federov, Garand and Holek designs.

I still think Browning beat them all with a recoil operated split bolt carrier, rotating bolt design ~ 1900, that FN sold as the Model 1900. Why did the US not pick it up? Private Fumbles would somehow disassemble the complex expensive to make bolt, lose the two springs and not keep the action clean. Comparatively speaking, the design is virtually idiot-proof to assemble, unlike the Ross, but it is not idiot-proof in maintenance. And it will absolutely not take a bayonet. One, also, has to know (the simple) safety and cleaning protocols and follow those religiously or the rifle will fail to function.

WW I trench warfare candidate, it is not. Good for hunting Clyde Barrows though.

Tobius wrote:

Colosseum wrote:

Yes, this is correct. The sight would function (technically). Why you would choose to do it differently from every other service rifle ever made in history is beyond me, though.

Because engineers are conservative. Why do modern fire control systems use left hand rule? Because the British got there first. If you, as Mauser, solve a Mauser sight and build the thing the German slide ramp Mauser way, why would anyone who rips you off, (Yugoslavia, China) change what works for the Germans?

http://www.shopmilitarycollectiblesfors ... Sight.html

Because you are American.

Shipbucket

Who is online