BSA1
member
I have been studying the designs of WWI and WWII small arm weapons which has provoked a thought to me.
Why are modern long guns (both military and sporting) made with magazines that are loaded from the bottom of the receiver so common?
Before you answer consider the disadvantages of the detachable magazine that fits from the bottom of the receiver.
1. A magazine that extends past the bottom of the receiver (most typically more than 5 rounds) makes shooting from prone position difficult. The gun must be held high enough off of the ground because of the length of the magazine. For a soldier this exposes him to be being seen and to enemy fire. For the hunter an awkward prone position can mean a missed shot or wounded animal.
2. The magazine can accidentally fall out of the gun only be discovered when it is needed later. Soldiers carry extra mags so it will take them longer to get their weapon working. For the hunter though it could mean the end of the hunt unless they carry a extra magazine (which of course is always a good idea).
3. Magazine changes in long guns are more difficult than with a handgun. With practice changing magazines in a pistol can be made smoothly, naturally with little time taken from looking at the target. With rifles the magazine change is more difficult. The magazine release is not easily reached by the thumb and it is not a natural movement like with handgun where it is hand touching the other hand.
There are some interesting designs that feed from the top and side of the receiver. Of course the Garand rifle is the most successful American design for loading from the top and many bolt action hunting rifles are loaded from the top.
However one of the disadvantages of bolt action rifles that load from the top also have the magazine floorplate to be opened from the bottom for easy unloading. This means the floorplate can be opened accidentally with the resulting loss of ammunition.
So what about feeding from the side of the receiver? It doesn’t interfere with the sight picture, allows for a better prone position, is easier to see the magazine well for magazine changes. One of most successful military long guns that come to mind is the British Sten gun.
Or how about an angle feed from the top of the receiver? Off set at enough of angle to allow for normal sighting. Reloading will be super easy along with be able to tell at a instant if the magazine is still in place ready for action.
A top, side and angle feed could also have a non-detachable magazine and be fed with the stripper clip.
I am trying to recall but didn’t the Japanese have a side fed rifle or submachine in WWII? I do recall they had a crew served machine gun that fed from stripper clips for the side of the receiver.
I know the AR/M-4 isn’t going away anytime soon but is this a idea worth pursuing?
Why are modern long guns (both military and sporting) made with magazines that are loaded from the bottom of the receiver so common?
Before you answer consider the disadvantages of the detachable magazine that fits from the bottom of the receiver.
1. A magazine that extends past the bottom of the receiver (most typically more than 5 rounds) makes shooting from prone position difficult. The gun must be held high enough off of the ground because of the length of the magazine. For a soldier this exposes him to be being seen and to enemy fire. For the hunter an awkward prone position can mean a missed shot or wounded animal.
2. The magazine can accidentally fall out of the gun only be discovered when it is needed later. Soldiers carry extra mags so it will take them longer to get their weapon working. For the hunter though it could mean the end of the hunt unless they carry a extra magazine (which of course is always a good idea).
3. Magazine changes in long guns are more difficult than with a handgun. With practice changing magazines in a pistol can be made smoothly, naturally with little time taken from looking at the target. With rifles the magazine change is more difficult. The magazine release is not easily reached by the thumb and it is not a natural movement like with handgun where it is hand touching the other hand.
There are some interesting designs that feed from the top and side of the receiver. Of course the Garand rifle is the most successful American design for loading from the top and many bolt action hunting rifles are loaded from the top.
However one of the disadvantages of bolt action rifles that load from the top also have the magazine floorplate to be opened from the bottom for easy unloading. This means the floorplate can be opened accidentally with the resulting loss of ammunition.
So what about feeding from the side of the receiver? It doesn’t interfere with the sight picture, allows for a better prone position, is easier to see the magazine well for magazine changes. One of most successful military long guns that come to mind is the British Sten gun.
Or how about an angle feed from the top of the receiver? Off set at enough of angle to allow for normal sighting. Reloading will be super easy along with be able to tell at a instant if the magazine is still in place ready for action.
A top, side and angle feed could also have a non-detachable magazine and be fed with the stripper clip.
I am trying to recall but didn’t the Japanese have a side fed rifle or submachine in WWII? I do recall they had a crew served machine gun that fed from stripper clips for the side of the receiver.
I know the AR/M-4 isn’t going away anytime soon but is this a idea worth pursuing?