I was a design engineer for 30 years and have a bunch of patents but this design is so rich in features and function it boggles the mind :dancingbanana::dancingbanana::dancingbanana:Quote:
Originally Posted by jond41403
Printable View
I was a design engineer for 30 years and have a bunch of patents but this design is so rich in features and function it boggles the mind :dancingbanana::dancingbanana::dancingbanana:Quote:
Originally Posted by jond41403
That WWII vid really broke it down into layman's terms. John Browning and Nikola Tesla were both visionaries, in that they were able to completely visualize their masterpieces, debug them in their minds, and get it right first time out. Absolutely amazing all this was done 100+ years ago with no computing other than the human mind!
Russ
Just imagine all the things that were to come that they just didn't have the time to get to because of age. No question a mechanical genius to create something like this, it reminds me a lot of the intricate clocks from back in the day. One movement of one part constitutes movement for several others all in unison and harmony singing like a church choir. I had read somewhere another commenter had stated that the parts are probably prone to very little wear since everything either slides or cams. I would imagine the barrel is the only high wear part on the designQuote:
Originally Posted by RASelkirk
Thank-you for your videos Mark but my question remains unanswered.Quote:
Originally Posted by eb in oregon
Are we saying that the weapon is classed as unloaded because the top cover has been left open yet there are live rounds in the weapon? Would not the weapon be classed as "loaded" if there are live rounds in it,(as implied in post 4) regardless of whether the top cover is open or closed? We don't know who, if anyone, is directly down range, from looking at the photo, in the direction that the MG is pointing because the photo doesn't show this.
Quite clearly it is not possible for the MG to be classed as being both "loaded" and "unloaded" at exactly the same time.
The Browning design achieved the next level in MG design. Previous designed such as the Maxim required the operator to pull on the belt in order to feed the belt into gun while pulling on the charging handle. Browning eliminated that function in his design. Now once the belt is placed in the gun the belt is fed via the cocking of the charging handle. His design dropped the need for a separate feed block. Simpler and lighter in weight.
What is astounding is how everything fits together interacting with other components in very tight machined tolerances and cyclic timing it really is a marvel what the human brain can come up with and build is quite astonishing.Quote:
Originally Posted by Mark in Rochester
It has been already addressed I think in the video, but if the top cover isn't in place (not fully closed) the gun cannot fire. It will not cycle and without the top cover being in place I'm quite sure the bolt, even if released, will not strip a round from the belt. So, if the top cover isn't in place the gun is staged (ready to complete loading) with ammo but not capable of firing as with the cloth belt the round must be extracted from the belt and then positioned to feed and fire. That ain't happening without the top cover locked. At least to my thinking. And I'd bet money the bolt was forward and not charged.Quote:
Originally Posted by Flying10uk
You're right...the cover cam forces the extractor down to grasp the base of the cartridge, and so on...Quote:
Originally Posted by eb in oregon
Well no, the video doesn't explain your thinking.Quote:
Originally Posted by eb in oregon
Thank-you for your response and analysis.
Actually it does as the video explains and demonstrates the cover need be closed to load and fire and that the round is extracted from the belt to load and fire. Impossible if the cover is open when you think about it.Quote:
Originally Posted by Flying10uk