question on automatic shotgun

Status
Not open for further replies.
B

bill2

Member
Joined
Mar 5, 2003
Messages
289
Location
bay area California
I was watching Future Weapons on the Discovery channel this week and they had a show on CQB weapons - the Criss sub mg, an auto shotgun and the AT-4 anti-armour rocket. The narrator, the ex-Seal guy, was saying that the automatic shotgun (I can't remember what the model name was) had very little recoil and was made of stainless steel and thus required next to no maintenance/cleaning/lubrication. It did look like it had very little recoil, but they didn't go into much detail about how that was done.

My questions are, one how is the shotgun made so that there is so little recoil; and two if it requires so little maintenance why aren't more weapons made of stainless steel? Is that because the gun would weigh too much? Has anyone fired this particular shotgun? It came with 32 round drums, and was pretty impressive.

Thanks
 
I'm not sure if it was the same model. the one I saw on Future Weapons was stainless steel (barrel, receiver) and so it looks different from the one on youtube.
 
was made of stainless steel and thus required next to no maintenance/cleaning/lubrication
Click to expand...

Any mechanism with moving parts, regardless of materials, requires maintenance, cleaning, and lubrication if it is to function properly. Some need more than others, but they all need them.

I have some stainless guns, and I've found out the hard way (with kitchenware) that stainless literally mean what it says -- it can stain, but it'll stain less than other metals.

Remember, they said the original M16 didn't need maintenance either, and look what happened...:evil:
 
Stainless on stainless galling is a very serious problem.

Methinks this SEAL is reading a script, other episodes have been rife with mistakes. Also, just because he is good at blowing things up doesn't mean he understands the design, mechanics or physics behind a weapon.
 
thus required next to no maintenance/cleaning/lubrication.
Click to expand...

Seems like I recall the same thing being said about the M16 back around 1965. I wonder how many good men died before they figured out the truth?
 
If the shotgun was the AA-12, part of the reason it has less recoil is the bolt doesn't smack the back of the receiver during cycling, it reaches the rearmost part of it's cycing under just the spring tension and then the spring pulls it back into battery. Some guns can have plastic buffers for the bolt to hit that soften the recoil, the AA-12 never even contacts the receiver, just uses a 2 stage recoil spring, they call it "constant recoil" or something.
It has a slow rate of fire, but seems to have very little recoil also.

I've heard of AA-12's that have never been cleaned, that the carbon buildup reaches an equilibrium point where it acts as a lube itself. I doubt those are in sandy environments though.
 
doubletap, you're correct - it was the AA-12. I thought it was pretty cool, couldn't decide if I liked the low recoil or the low maintenance part better.

But after hearing from all of you, I'm shocked that the navy seal guy was wrong! Oh well.
 
I'm shocked that the navy seal guy was wrong!
Click to expand...

"seals" perform at watershows.

a "SEAL" is a professional warrior of the US military.

Just because that guy proudly served his country does not mean he automatically understands every weapon put into his hands.

Just because something is on the TV (or internet) does not make it correct. He was reading a script.
 
That video of the AA-12 is troubling.

Looks like there was some sort of misfire / pre-ignition near the end of the video.

Also, reloading looks to clumsy to be reliable in combat. The magazine has some sort of rail it needs to engage.

I wouldn't want to have to depend on this thing when things get ugly.
 
"seals" perform at watershows.

a "SEAL" is a professional warrior of the US military.
Click to expand...

I don't understand what you are saying?? The capitalization error is what you are pointing out? He never said "seals"
 
That seal guy is definatley a marketing ploy for who ever gets on the show. He supported h&k's "improved" m16. Plus by the way he acts on the show I dont get the impression he has an intrest in firearms at all.
 
There are two sides to it.

Yes of course he's reading a script. Does that mean he's an idiot? Not really, he could personally think every word he read is stupid but he'll do it because his contract says he will.
 
The M-16 doesn't need to be cleaned. If it is shooting the proper load. But you substitute really crappy lowest bidder ball powder, and gunk the thing up, you'll have all kinds of sorrow.

And if I was in the sandbox, I'd probably run with minimal dry lubes, and figure on pitching the upper after a while.
 
"seals" perform at watershows.

a "SEAL" is a professional warrior of the US military.

Just because that guy proudly served his country does not mean he automatically understands every weapon put into his hands.

Just because something is on the TV (or internet) does not make it correct. He was reading a script.
____________________________________

CWL, I'm not knocking his time as a SEAL (I did say Navy seal) but this is not the first time that someone on this forum has pointed out mistakes in this show with that guy narrating. His time as a SEAL is meant to give credibility to the show; he should at least give some input on what he is being told to read. I assume also that the show wants his input, at least in some instances, because of his background.
 
I saw the show. IIRC he said it used different types of stainless steel so that it required very little maintenance and lubrication.
Actually, the AR15 does require very little lubrication (compared to say the Garand). Very little is not the same as none. Different types of stainless steel could be a reference to the galling issue (as it is similar metals which gall), or it could be coatings on the metal that allows them to need "less" lubrication; however, in the end a statement like "very little," says nothing as it is a comparative statement with nothing to compare it to (the ideal kind of thing to put on a TV show).
Personally, the host tries a bit too hard for my taste (although he seems like a good guy), but it is TV and it is promoting weapons, so I am not going to complain.
 
The most important line in the entire episode was,

"IF the government decides to buy it....." with the way things are going with Congress, they won't fund any "new" weapons, they're having trouble keeping the ones that they already have up and running. Depending on which politician gets in the White House in '08, chances are pretty slim for ANY "Futureweapons".

If you pay close attention to the show, the gun "fails to eject" at least twice, it might have been three times, but at least two.

Smitty
 
Status
Not open for further replies.

Similar threads

O
  • Locked
semi-automatic shotgun!?!
Replies
7
Views
1K
SASS#23149
SASS#23149
Milkmaster
  • Locked
shotgun "bullistics" question!
Replies
6
Views
481
Pete409
P
huntsman
  • Locked
Super Shotguns in Iraq
Replies
21
Views
3K
Correia
C
D
  • Locked
John W Winter and the Swatriplex-18 Shotgun
Replies
9
Views
1K
DMR
D
P
  • Locked
Shotgun buying questions
2
Replies
26
Views
2K
Gaucho Gringo
G
Back
Top