Wednesday, June 01, 2011

The nicest horse and buggy I've ever seen.

Les Jones got some video of me shooting the KRISS guns on Day Two of the shoot. The guys from KRISS were professional and enthusiastic and willing to answer questions; they practically dragged you to the line and pressed the guns into your hands.

The guns were extremely well made, and the controls were well-thought out and fell easily to hand. The semiauto pistol version was as silly as most weapons of that type are, but that hasn't stopped people from buying everything from TEC-9's to B&T TP9's to HK SP89's, not to mention every AK and AR "pistol" they can lay their hands on. Seriously, if you want a .45ACP pistol with a ~5" barrel that eats out of Glock 21 mags, why not just get a Glock 21? (Because it's not in Call of Duty: Modern Warfare, that's why. Duh!)

The semiauto carbine version, with its dummy can to bring the barrel out to the required 16" length, makes slightly more sense, at least if pistol caliber carbines are your thing; they're generally not my bag, baby. The fake can is dorky, but you could always spend the $200 with the BATFEIEIO and get the gun registered as an SBR and lose the "can". I'd probably go ahead and spend another $200 getting a real can, like the second gun in the video above.

The real reason for the existence of the KRISS system is, of course, the SMG version for law enforcement and .mil customers. As you can see in the video, it is unbelievably controllable for a buzzgun launching 230gr slugs at over 1,000 rounds a minute. I've got a fair amount of trigger time on various machine pistols, and the KRISS is like science fiction compared to most of them.

There's only one problem: Most of the people who used machine pistols have gone to rifle-caliber "shorty" carbines over the last few years; any agency still using the MP5 is probably going to replace them with M4s or shorty G36's or the like, rather than another pistol-caliber weapon. I felt like I was looking at the sleekest, most-advanced, CAD-CAM, carbon fiber and titanium... horse and buggy. I wish 'em all the best of luck, though, or maybe they can translate the system to something that fires a rifle round.


Anonymous said...

Would it be feasible to chamber it in one of the hip micro calibers like 5.7mm and beat the P90 price point?

For the SWAT team that wants to be fashionable but has a beer budget.

Shootin' Buddy

Mad Saint Jack said...

Is it just my imagination, or do you give the second gun a look that says "this needs more bullets"???

I could be projecting.

Tam said...


It could do .224 BOZ with a different barrel and breechface and not other alterations.

New Jovian Thunderbolt said...

If not for the Hughes Amendment, I'd have gotten one by now, happily.

For the most part I've been talked down off the ledge for the semi version, but you never know.

Robb Allen said...

Yeah, unfortunately I'm a sucker for the gun. I'd want the longer barrel AND a can, and I'd feel ok using it for a home defense rifle. That way I can impress the thug as I shoot him.

It's kind of odd because I'm one of those "Function over Form" kind of guys, but this damnable thing simply tweaks my want-gland.

If they made it in 10mm I'd die ;)

Captcha - frapt. The sound that it makes when you disgorge a full mag of .45 ACP.

Tam said...


It'd be a simple modification. A new barrel and bolt and you're eating out of G20 mags.

Turk Turon said...

Go, Tam! Awesome stuff.

Karl said...

I'm wondering if there's a worthwhile midpoint between SBRs and pistol-caliber subguns.

IIRC, the rarely seen in captivity (or in the wild, for that matter) 10MM magnum has (had?) the same case length as the .30 caliber M1 carbine (1.290"); a 140-155 grain projectile at a little under the speed of the 110 grain carbine (1900 fps) might be achievable from a barrel about the length of an SBR. What might make better sense would be a rimless version of Ruger's old .357 Remington Maximum (1.60" case length) with a 130-140 grain bullet - adequate power and more in the magazine. Either choice would, of course, require development of bullets to handle the velocity.

Either in a package with a 12-14" barreled rifle about the size of a .30 carbine, with a good folding stock, might make a better semi-auto "patrol rifle" than just slapping a 12" tube on an M4.

Of course, M4s abound, .223/5.56 ammo is common,and half the planet is selling shorter barrels for them, not to mention the plethora of accessories for the platform, so trying to create a brand new purpose-built gun for a specific need would have a pretty darn steep development/adoption curve to fight.

The Kriss and MP5 may be today's buggy whips, but as long as someone has horses they'll need a few buggy whips, at least until there's a starship in most garages.

Oleg Volk said...

They have 50BMG and 308 variants in the works.

Anonymous said...

Seemed to me the videographer was focused very specifically on Tam's boobs. Not that there's anything wrong with that, but it seems she doesn't possess a head.

Tasso said...

I'm of the opinion that 5.56 out of a subgun is a mismatch. (Something about sound and fury signifying nothing, but I missed the rest of the speech due to my hearing damage, and did you see that fireball?)

Why not seize the ring, Tam, and recommend 9x25 Dillon? That's my vote for subgun caliber lady in waiting.

Lanius said...

Chambering it for 7.62x25 would make sense.

That is a pistol cartridge that penetrates very well indeed, and IMO makes more sense than Hampster und Koch 4.6mm micro round. Especially from the bang per buck POV.

There is probably hundreds of millions of rounds of surplus TT ammo, and a new AP round chambered for it could be even better.

Tam said...

"Chambering it for 7.62x25 would make sense."

No it wouldn't.

Mike W. said...

Why in the hell would anyone want to chamber it for 7.62 Tok, except for pure novelty?

Very cool gun though. I'm with Robb, I'd love it in 10MM.

Mikael said...

If you wanna chamber it in a "cool russian round" you may as well go straight to the 9x39 subsonic, and turn it into a rifle calibre subgun while you're at it. :p

RobertM said...

I kind of regret missing out on shooting these, but then again I feel the same as you when it comes to the semi autos. If the HA ever goes away I might have more than a passing interest. For now, I wouldn't mind having an M76. Ammo is cheaper anyway.

The Raving Prophet said...

It's really only living up to its true calling as a full auto subgun, which we peons can't own. As a full fledged 16" barreled carbine, you have something that already isn't going to recoil all that much and it's also the size and weight of something that can shoot an actual rifle round (not to mention the M4 isn't renowned for kicking all that much). As a pistol it's even sillier... for what one costs you're talking several actual pistols.

Sure, it's useful for the LEO market, but as you observe, they're going from pistol caliber subguns to actual assault rifles anyway.

And all this is assuming the KRISS system is reliable in the field (I haven't seen anything one way or the other, but then I haven't looked for it either).

Different strokes for different folks and all that, but I just get the feeling that the civilians buying them also have AK/AR pistols and Taurus Judges in their collection too.

Tam said...


"...and Taurus Judges in their collection too."

I wasn't gonna go there, but... ;)

Steve said...

I guess it really is a happy switch - the only time you cracked a smile was after you turned it on. :-)

Tam said...

This is my war face. :D

Les Jones said...

Anonymous: that's called "projection."

Bram said...

The semi-autos are for people like me - trained by Uncle Sam's Misguided Children to make tight little groups with any type of shoulder fired weapon. And not trained in the least with a handgun.

Bubblehead Les. said...

OMG! Screw the Projection! Tam's committed the Ultimate SIN! Did you see the pack of CIGARETTES in her pocket! How DARE you try to corrupt the Children with your Evil Bacon-Eating, Machine Gun Shooting SMOKING habits! And on YouTube for the Entire World to see! Boy, when Barry gets Re-Anointed to be President-for-Life in 2012, you are SOOO going to be sent to the Re-Education Camp (if they don't send in the Pima County SWAT Team first)!

Tam said...

Bubblehead Les,

I've seen video of the Pima County SWAT team shooting...

Drang said...

US Citizen let me shoot his semi-auto Kriss at Gun Blogger Rendezvous last fell, I somehow semi-broke it, loading it. :-( Fortunately, he was able to repair my fumble-fingeredness. It was fun, but if I was going to have a pistol-caliber carbine in .45 ACP, I'd probably try to find a Marlin Camp Rifle. If it had a happy-switch, I'd try and find a Thompson. ;-)

WV: holehy. No, actually, I usually shoot low...

Lanius said...

No it wouldn't.

Care to elaborate? It is a cheap and rather high powered round(for it's size). Certainly cheaper than .357 magnum or certain other stuff like that silly Americans fire from rifle sized weapons.

Anonymous said...

"The real reason for the existence of the KRISS system is, of course, the SMG version for law enforcement and .mil customers."

It's not a big market but executive protection folks would love that gun, especially if it's in a caliber/ammo that can go through cars.


Kristopher said...

Lanius: Cheaper isn't better when your life is at stake.

I used to own a PPSH-41 in 7.62 Tok ... it was fun and cheap to shoot, yes.

But if I needed a rifle for a serious social purpose, I'd pull out my FAL, or one of the ARs, or maybe even my AK.

And I still keep a cheap-assed Mosin Nagant scout carbine in Suburban ...

Anonymous said...

Nice hardware, but that software...

Here I was anticipating some bad-ass-bikini-clad-machine-gun-momma action, but who's the old lady?

Ah well, what was it you said: "Maybe they'll come for the bod and stay for the brains"?

Joking of course. I've seen recent pics without the warface on (rather sexy in itself); still very much the Nordic Princess without, concealing the Nordic Warrior within...


Bubblehead Les. said...

Tam, I've seen the video also, and I'm sure you, Bobbie and the Cats could take out that bunch of Clowns armed only with a Hopkins and Allen Top Break. But when they send in the FDA Goons afterwords to snatch that pack of Menthols out of your hands, well.....

I do find it strange that I can carry a Firearm into more places (both OC and CCW) than I can light up a Marlboro Red (my Cancer Stick of Choice), yet I've never heard of any Bank being robbed by a pack of Camels!

Lanius said...

PPsh-71 is a pretty deadly weapon if WWII accounts are to be believed. Supposedly it's quite reliable, more controllable in full auto than say an AK, and possibly better in close quarters.

It's not the ideal military weapon, that's for sure..

Why FAL? Just a battle rifle. My dream rifle is the new semiautomatic sniper DoD is having built(M110?).

Scary old lady. The glasses make her look alien, and she looks overall like a grumpy middle aged woman you definitely don't want to fuck with wearing that expression.

But has a nice rack, that we all have to admit.
Like my mathematician/economist uncle says on older birds.. 'pretty shaggeable'.

atlharp said...

Menthols? Why not a nice cigar? :-D

I agree I just don't see the use for some pistol round out of fancy-smantzy sub-gun. I mean I would much rather have this than some HK thingy. I mean which would rather have?

tanksoldier said...

Well, there might still be a market in urban LE. A pistol caliber carbine still has more oomph than a handgun, but less over penetration and range than a rifle. Same niche as shotguns.

gbkeith said...

Stay classy Lanius

tanksoldier said...

@ Linus: WTF was that?

Anonymous said...

On the presumption that my inside humor at 2:53 inspired that outsider runt's latest clueless spittle, I would ask the hostess to delete the former. AT

Tam said...

The eagle does not hunt the fly. ;)

Anonymous said...

Ya'll comprende redneck Latin over there, musca? :b

perlhaqr said...

Oh, man. A 10mm KRISS subgun could be a very good way to spend a lot of money very fast. :D

Anonymous said...

It's hard to get that excited about something you own, even if you hit the lottery, twice.

Gewehr98 said...

I do believe I saw the faintest hint of a full-auto grin on Tam's face after those controlled bursts... :-)

Tam said...

Yes. Yes you did. :)

docjim505 said...

It has occured to me that a modern SMG in 45ACP would be useful for urban combat in places like Baghdad, especially given the various reports / rumors / stories about the lousy effects of the M-855 round fired from the M-4 carbine.

Or have I fallen victim to the mystique of the mighty 45ACP?

With regard to Lanius' suggestion of an SMG in 7.62x25mm, I believe that the Russians have such a variant of their Bizon SMG. Seems like a reasonable idea to get a little bit of an AP capability in an SMG as I have read that the zippy TT round is known as a "vest buster" in Eastern Europe. On the other hand, it seems to me that it would have even less stopping power than a 9x19mm.

Kristopher said...

Docjim: There are some tactical situations where an SMG is needed ... our own troops in Iraq were borrowing PPSH-41s from Saddam's old armories for such ( a much better move than buying H und Ks, IMO ).

But unless you are part of an entry team stacking up for CQB in an urban area, you are much better served with a rifle round. I'll leave that to the Gecko45's out there. I shoot pistol calibered carbines and such for fun only.

Besides, 7.62 NATO is God's caliber ( and .30-06 is the old testament round John Moses Browning (PBUH) chambered his BAR for ).

Lanius said...

Seems like a reasonable idea to get a little bit of an AP capability in an SMG as I have read that the zippy TT round is known as a "vest buste

Greately feared by our JBT's, because even simple FMJ goes through their helmets and most vests.

BTW..I'm fairly sure US cops have the same kind of respect. I doubt police body armor here and there is that different.

.. the new fritz helmet doesn't seem protect against TT ammo from close range. I wonder how it'd fare from a 100m away though. Even though it stops .357 SWC. I guess it would't stop FMJ.. but as I hear it, most .357 SD ammo is usually expanding or soft point, etc..

Regarding something I wrote last night... I can only put that BAC measuring thingy that prevents blog posting late at night if one's had too much. Besides, playing FPs drinking game is rather silly, especially since my winning strategy is mainly about logistics, not reflexes, which mean I keep winning until I'm kind of toasted*. At which point I should've gone to bed.. but the internets beckoned..


*not that I can't hold my liquor, in.. it's just that it kind of messes with my impulse control

Tam said...


"Or have I fallen victim to the mystique of the mighty 45ACP?"

Yes. I'd rather get shot with .45ACP than 5.56x45 any day of the week. Pistols are pistols and rifles are rifles.


"There are some tactical situations where an SMG is needed ... our own troops in Iraq were borrowing PPSH-41s from Saddam's old armories for such"

Pics or it didn't happen. I can't think of anything that a PPSh will do that an M4 won't do a hundred times better.

Lanius said...


Some people say hot loadings of TT are almost like carbine ammo. Ek is close to 800 J in the hotter loadings.

x71 that's 56 kj of whoopass, as you call it.

Easier to spray and pray with that than a .223 mousegun. And 30 rounds of SS109 is 54 Kjs..

Maybe you could hold like a trial.. get a good PPsh gunner with a tricked out subgun and a qualified M4 operator and how much lead they'd be able to put very quickly into various pop up targets..

And if I remember correctly, 5.56 ammo is often called too small. 7.62x25 is not a .40 caliber.. and sure, 5.56 probably makes bigger temporary cavities and that shit.

Tam said...


I'm very familiar with the cartridge and its performance, thank you. I have about a thousand rounds of the stuff in my house right now from various nationalities and manufacturers to feed my wz.48 and CZ-52.

Ask yourself why the cartridge hasn't been chambered in anew military or police firearm for fifty odd years.

If you want a range toy in the chambering, go right ahead, but it's dead as far as .mil/LE use goes.

Tam said...

"get a good PPsh gunner with a tricked out subgun and a qualified M4 operator and how much lead they'd be able to put very quickly into various pop up targets."

Having fired both, I'll tell you it's no contest: The M4 wins hands-down over a heavy, open-bolt buzzgun with a horrid trigger, which is why nobody is using the latter outside Call of Duty anymore.

Lanius said...

Trigger can be improved...muzzle brake installed.

I mean, the basic Mosin trigger is pretty horrid too, but a bit of shop work can improve it some, and a new modern made trigger can make it quite decent.

docjim505 said...

Tam and Kristopher,

Thank you for your comments. They make sense, though I don't say that I'm not still pining for a Thompson (among many, many other things!).

Sankey Photography said...

Any word from the KRISS owners about reliability? I came really close last year to buying one, but I wanted to try it out first... I rented the one my local dealer/range had, and I had 5 ftf's in two mags. I even had them observe me to make sure I hadn't done anything wrong/stupid.

Not trying to fling mud; I love the concept and would still entertain a purchase if the kinks are worked out...

Rob Reed said...


There are a series of photos of a U.S. soldier supposedly "house clearing" with a PPsh.

I couldn't find a link to them with a 2 min google search, but they are out there.

I'm in the camp that believes they were posed for fun though. If nothign else, when you see the photos, they have that staged look you see in old Army Signal Corps photos.

You know, the ones where you realize there is no way in Hell the photographer would stand in the open to get the photo if the people in the photo were really doing what it looks like they were doing.

Anonymous said...

I was given to understand that the awful trigger on open-bolt SMGs is more or less insoluble because the sear is holding back a 1-2 lb mass on a fairly tight spring, rather than a few ounces of hammer or striker. There's only so much you can polish it up before the thing starts firing when you drop it, and many do anyway!

Tam said...


You're not going to fix the fact that it's an open-bolt tube gun.

And I understand you've just rec'd your first Mosin and are all hyped about them. You should know that I currently own five (a wartime 91/30, a Hungarian M44, and three Finns: A 91, a 28, and a 39) and have fired probably a hundred more; I have handled and sold thousands. I'm all schooled up on Mosins, thanks.

As I've said elsewhere, there are grownups talking here. This is not theoretical pondering derived from spec sheets and video games.

theirritablearchitect said...

That vid needs more Tam, speaking Tamarese!

Lanius said...

I'm all schooled up on Mosins

Hey, have I ever questioned your gun credentials?

A mosin is, to me, nothing more than a basic bolt action rifle, that can be improved. Collecting guns is fine, but I'm not interested in that.

There's nothing cheaper than a Mosin, and it can be customised pretty well, and it does the job of a bolt action rifle. Meaning it's a reasonably accurate, slow firing rifle.

That's all that interestes me at this point.

Anyway.. I give up. Not gonna argue anymore.

Though... as someone said, short barreled rifles are too much noise and too much flash. Gunpowder wasted on pyrotechnics.

Why don't they make lower powered loads that'd completely burn up in the shorter barrels for the various smaller 5,56 guns?

Tam said...

"Why don't they make lower powered loads that'd completely burn up..."

Because it doesn't make sense. "Amateurs talk about strategy, dilettantes talk about tactics, and professionals talk about logistics."

A Mk.262 5.56 round is going to perform as well out of a 12" tube at five yards as it will out of a 24" tube at five hundred.

Anonymous said...

I see where KRISS is working on a .50 cal machine gun platform utilizing their recoil reduction technology in conjunction with the US ARDEC Picatinny arsenal. Claims are a 90% reduction in recoil and 40% to 50% reduction in weight. It would be very interesting to see one of those in action too.


Lanius said...

A Mk.262 5.56 round is going to perform as well out of a 12" tube at five yards as it will out of a 24" tube at five hundred

I get that. But in CQB situations where traditionally SMG's were used, does it make sense to use very loud guns with huge muzzle flashes caused by excessively powerful loads that don't burn up?

Wouldn't it make more sense to use sturdier cases and rifles, faster burning powder to produce the same kind of effect out of a short barrel?

Most likely, you could make CQB guns for 5.56 and faster burning ammo. They could use normal ammo too, but would also be able to use the faster burning ammo. Wouldn't complicate logistics that much IMO.

One additional kind of ammo, that'd have to be visibly color marked as it'd be dangerous for idiots who'd try firing it out of regular 5.56 guns.

BTW, I like the quote. I mostly win at FPS games because of my superior logistical strategy (collecting everything the second it appears). When you have twice the armor and twice the firepower of the other guy, you can afford brutal tactics which are pretty effective. Ramming that rocket launcher up his ass kind of thing. Can't miss and the rocker up close is pretty deadly.

Lanius said...

On the other hand, the logistical attitude of US high command towards tanks has resulted in the infamous
M4 Ronson tank. Lights up every time, on the first try.

Even these days, if you wear a T-shirt with the phrase Tommy Cooker and a silhouette picture of an M4, that gets a lot of sniggers out of older german pensioners.

One military history guy in Prague had it, I have heard, and certain German WWII panzer veterans have said Shermans were the best kind of target to shoot at..

Doesn't work as good as my kanji 'hairy southern barbarian' t-shirt works on Japanese tourists though. Dangerous to wear around Chinese, as the same Kanji in shangai chinese mean 'Chinese are hairy monkeys'.

Kristopher said...

"Pics or it didn't happen."

Here ya go.

Kristopher said...

And yes, It could have been staged.

tanksoldier said...

On the other hand, the logistical attitude of US high command towards tanks has resulted in the infamous
M4 Ronson tank. Lights up every time, on the first try.

Your understanding of logistics is amateurish at best.

The M4 tank was capable of being produced and shipped overseas in quantities which made it, collectively, superior to the products of our opponents.

One M4 was not the equivalent of one Tiger II, but 3 M4s were and it was easier to produce and maintain 3 M4s than one Tiger II. Also, 3 M4s could be in 3 different places whereas the Tiger could only be in one. Overall win for us.

Militaries don't buy specialized weapons for general use. The modern Soldier may have to fight in the city today and the fields tomorrow. He needs a weapon that works well enough in both. The M4 carbine is that, the PPSh or KISS is not.

The humor in the entire situation is that you image you have some unique insight whereas the professionals who's business it is to fight and win wars are apparently less enlightened.

Tam said...


Those comments about the Sherman mark one as a dilettante on the topic of armored warfare, as much as quoting Karl Mauldin's line about diesel v. gasoline engines in Patton...

And regarding the following:

"But in CQB situations where traditionally SMG's were used, does it make sense to use..."

This is a war, not a golf tournament. You don't get to say "Johnson, it looks like we're up for some CQB. Pass me the #3 rifle and the yellow mags..."

Lanius said...


So you think they did not blow up and catch fire more easily than other tanks?

Didn't they have something like a radial, aircraft derived engine? Weren't they nicknamed Ronson by US tank crews?

I know there were a few models where diesel engines were used, but that was not the norm. And these days no one uses gasoline engines in AFV's for some reason.

But yeah, it's kind of sad how prevalent is the myth that it was engines. On the other hand, the fact that the ammo was stored like it was stored in the pre 1944 models is hardly excusable.

I've heard of unsuccessful* arson cases that involved diesel fuel, but I've never heard of someone failing to set gasoline on fire.

Does it matter whether it was improper ammo storage or gasoline engine, if the tank did catch on fire more easily than other tanks?

*say the police find a basement full of spilled diesel fuels, and a whole box of burned out matches thrown randomly around


The problem with Germans was that they
a) did not start with 3-shift production until fairly late in the war
b) were bad organizers, and their industrial operations and almost everything else were mismanaged, because of Hitler's leadership style( roughly divide and conquer)

They didn't really get into the business of real mass production until 1944, by which it was too late.

Also, had US copied and improved the T-34(finest tank in the world, and that was German opinion), the resulting tank would've been equally transportable, likely a bit faster and with superior cross country capabilities compared to the Sherman.

The fact that the US won because of massive material superiority is widely known, and I haven't disputed that.

As to logistics.. what I find most ironic is that you brag about them while the DoD at first didn't think the German jerrycan was a noticeable improvement on what they had(thin walled shit with caps that had to be wrenched open), and it took the Brits and 30% fuel losses due to bad cans to make them see the light.

As to blunders, the one I love most is how back in 1950's, US pooh-poohed the British idea of an intermediate power cartridge (.280 ) only to find out 50 years later that 6.8 SPC is a good idea..after first giving badly trained troops .308 and then the sometimes scorned 5.56. Like someone said, humans only behave rationally as the last resort.

I was talking about police, civilian use in CQB. Also depends on how much heavier would such a weapon be. Quite possible that due to better materials technology today, the gun that could safely fire hotter ammo wouldn't be much heavier. So you'd give these to combat troops, and other units would have older weapons and older ammo.

Lanius said...

Also, if M4 were such a great tank from a logistical standpoint, how do you explain M1A2?

It's a ridiculous fuel hog, it's very expensive, you don't expect to fight any countries, and it's job could easily be done by a more modern, smaller, more automated tank.

If US bought T-90's from Russia and instead used those, you'd probably be better off from the bang per buck standpoint and the logistical standpoint. If it were possible to install all the electronics Abrams has into a T-90. Considering how small today's electronics are.. maybe.

Something that's 21st century, has an autoloader*, and weighs 45, not 70 tons and uses a diesel engine instead of a turbine, which is supposedly so powerful troops cannot take cover behind an Abrams with a running engine.

*like it's impossible to make a reliable one. If the Soviets managed that, why can't Americans?

For bonus points, the whole thing could be designed to be stealthy and use a low power fuel cell for these times when speed is not essential, but IR signature is.

And supposedly, Abrams lacks medium armament. Building a small automated trailer with 60mm mortar that could be controlled by armored infantry by remote and hitching that behind a tank could work. After all, flame tanks used trailers in WWII. Israelis already have 60mm mortars in Merkavas.

Dr. StrangeGun said...

Tam *was* speaking Tamarese, in my humble (studied) opinion.

Looking the instructor dead in the face with effort (note when he starts to instruct into the weapon/table/floor) so as to avoid missing something critical

The probably by now reflexive chamber check flip stating "No bang, next action:"

And, of course, the full auto grin cracking through what was likely a controlled burn from what appeared to be very, very basic instructing geared towards newish shooters.

Yeah, I may have disappeared from the biz for longer than anticipated, but all the memories are still fresh.

Tam said...


"Something that's 21st century, has an autoloader* ... *like it's impossible to make a reliable one. If the Soviets managed that, why can't Americans?"

Keep proving your ignorance. ;)

1) All production MBT autoloaders thus far need to return to 0* elevation between shots to function, even if the can operate through all 360* of azimuth. No autoloader (especially clunky Russian ones that use separate shot and charge) is as fast as the strong right arm of a trained nineteen-year-old. And the US military uses trained 19-year-olds, not the one-or-two-year conscripts of the Izzies or Russkies.

2) The autoloader eliminates a crew position on the tank. This is great if you're trying to man a lot of tanks to make Kremlin bureaucrats happy. This is not so great if you're trying to actually fight a tank in war. Most of tank warfare consists of unsexy stuff like maintenance, pulling guard duty, and remounting thrown tracks, all of which are easier to do with four guys instead of three.

The U.S. military developed very effective autoloaders fifty years ago, and has consistently rejected them as being detrimental to the efficiency of armored units.

That they are right can be simply and easily proven by looking at the combat record of the Abrams, which has yet to be destroyed in the field by an enemy tank.

I'm not even going to bother discussing the M4 issue, as there is simply too much background to cover in a 1-paragraph blog comment.

Lanius said...

1) All production MBT autoloaders thus far need to return to 0* elevation between shots to function, even if the can operate through all 360* of azimuth. No autoloader (especially clunky Russian ones that use separate shot and charge) is as fast as the strong right arm of a trained nineteen-year-old. And the US military uses trained 19-year-olds, not the one-or-two-year conscripts of the Izzies or Russkies.

You have the M.I.fucking T.

I bet you a thousand dollars that they'd give DARPA a working prototype in two years if somoene gave their mechanical engineers some funding.
That they are right can be simply and easily proven by looking at the combat record of the Abrams, which has yet to be destroyed in the field by an enemy tank.
You never fought a real army with them. And Iraqis have destroyed some in Desert Storm.

Also.. why bother with a fucking gun at all?

Wouldn't it be possible to do away with the whole cannon thingy on tanks... put a mix of very, very fast guided kinetic missiles on the tank for long range shooting, and HEAT missiles for close in engagmenets?

Such a tank, if the missiles were smart enough could launch all of them in just a few seconds, destroy several platoons worth of enemy equipment and quickly get behind a hill..

And afaik, air to air missiles can get to several machs.

Also, such missile could be made two stage. The tank could launch them up into the air, to two kilometers, over hills, and they'd look down and then accelerate rapidly towards anything with a major infra red signature.. such as one had by a tank engine.

Lanius said...

Also, how about making a robotic autoloader with arms?

Japanese and Germans can make pretty good industrial robots. Creating a humanoid, mechanical autoloader that'd pick the complete shell, place it into the gun and do so more reliably than a human is IMHO, very, very possible.

I mean.. if your average US high school graduate can do it..

Lanius said...


You don't need a fourth crew member...

One of the DoD contractos is now developing an exoskeleton. You could easily strap one or two cable-powered foldable exoskeletons to the back of the tank. If the crew would need to do heavy lifting involving the tank, they'd just step in into the exoskeleton and then have lots of power to use..

Lanius said...

Also, Russians have developed a better autoloader.

Basically, it's something like a large rifle clip, outside of the crew armored compartement. Once it's empty, an ammo carrier vehicle for the tank unit takes the whole thing out and replaces it with a new 30 round magazine.

Firehand said...

From what I've read, a bunch of Russian tankers have expressed dislike for the autoloader system precisely because of the time it takes to load. AND because it gets rid of that one crewman.

Guy, we don't HAVE exoskeletons, it's a project they're working on. We have tanks NOW, and they work very well with that loader sitting there. And, by the way, strapping the exos outside will get them shot up in a fight; then what?

Check a book King of the Killing Field, about the development of the Abrams. They did consider missiles; past history and the drawbacks of them convinced them to stick with a direct-fire cannon. Someday, maybe, but someday we may have those blowers and powerguns too.

And, I may be mistaken but I believe every tank lost to damage in Iraq was due to mines, I don't remember hearing of any taken out by Iraqi tank fire. Our guys had better guns, better fire control and better night vision; add all that to the difference in armor...

Anonymous said...

Horse & buggy really????? His alternative is a rifle round M4. I guess he doesn't care about collateral damage. So lets send in SWAT teams or Police with M4s in your neighbor hood, or an apartment complex. Just how much collateral damage do you think will happen? If a SWAT team was to go into the house next to you, would you want them with M4s or a Kriss? If M4 then enjoy all the bullet holes in your house & God for forbid any human other than the actual intended target. Also, at close quarter, the .45 acp will expand not just blow right threw a target. The .45acp will also start expanding once it hits drywall & only travels 800-900fps as M4/ AR 5.56 travels at 3000fps & does not expand. You know my favorite is a AK in full auto with a 100 round drum, but do you really think that is wise over a Kriss in urban style living? The Kriss is like a golf club, you use it for certain situations. Sure you could try & use a different golf club, but you will get a different result.
He only had two alternates, a rifle round M4 or a Glock 36. I answered the M4, & as for a Glock 36, try attaching a light with 300+ lumen, suppressor, a barrel that comes threaded from the factor, a full top & bottom picatinny rail, foregrip, 30 round magazine, & an optic that allows you to shoot with both eyes open (you will have pay for a special rail milled on the Glock) & see what that feels like? Oh, I forgot, you will need back up co witness sights also since the Vector comes with them. No thanks is my answer, I will just take a Kriss that has a butt stock & much better ergonomics. Lets also not forget the recoil is much better via Kriss & my follow up shots will be much better with a Vector especially if dealing with multiple targets. Again, they too utterly failed to change my mind. At least in their review they had what they thought was alternatives & something to compare too, but their comparison sucks.

Tam said...

Shut up, you ignorant fucking Counterstrike kiddie.

Grownups are talking here, and specifically grownups who know something about terminal ballistics.

"The .45acp will also start expanding once it hits drywall..."

What?!? Get off my internet, you ignorant fuckstick. Go back to your video games.