Dear visitor, welcome to WesWorld. If this is your first visit here, please read the Help. It explains in detail how this page works. To use all features of this page, you should consider registering. Please use the registration form, to register here or read more information about the registration process. If you are already registered, please login here.
You mean to tell me that you cannot see the "(6.5x55 mm Mori SA)" bit on the image? That's odd as it should be there...
Quoted
Not with the small-sized preview, which is all I could see until I clicked for full-size. As a rule, I don't open the full-sized images at work, particularly if they lead to photobucket.
Quoted
6.5x55 is definitely on the heavy side for an assault rifle. The magazine also looks a little short for it, though not by that much.
Quoted
first, the sights need to be raised substantially. Because of the inline buttstock, the shooter is going to have trouble getting a good sighting picture, since the current sights are mounted low.
Quoted
The second recommendation is that I don't see a magazine release catch. It might, of course, be on the left side of the rifle, but most tend to have their catches situated ambidextrously.
Quoted
Uh, as an afterthought... is that the charging handle right there at the top of the receiver, directly above the trigger?
Quoted
Double-post to add: I actually really like the look of it. I think it's a little too modern for the 1940s, but it could definitely pull off a 1950s look. Nice work.
The charging handle is on the left hand side like on the FAL so it won't be visible when looking at the right side of the weapon. If you are looking at what I think you are looking, then you are looking at the Anti-aircraft sights which I took from the Type 99 rifle picture. Probably completely useless on the gun, but I kinda like it and it helps making the weapon a little bit different. :)
As for the magazine's width... Well the round fits much, much better than the image of the 7.62x51mm round (which I took from another image) fits in the magazines of the FAL and AR-10 images (and I think I took a look at it and the 7.62mm round seemed to have the correct dimensions). Probably should try and see if I can find a proper loaded magazine image to see how much space there should be fore and aft of the round. Right now if I were to put the round right in the middle, I would have about 2.5mm on each side.
Quoted
For the magazine release catch, I think most FALs actually have it in the gap between the trigger guard and the magazine.
Quoted
Actually, the thought of that makes me realize... do you know how the FAL breaks down? The little round circle between the magazine well and the trigger guard is actually a hinge, which you use to sorta 'fold' the rear half of the receiver and the front half of the receiver. This allows the bolt to be removed out the back. Thus, the lengthened magazine well on the Type 8 will probably get folded into the trigger guard before you get the rifle open for disassembly. Ergo - I'd suggest shortening the magazine well.
Quoted
That's probably a little tight - I'd guess you'd want at least 5-8mm on both sides.
Quoted
I don't know how much you know about firearms and cartridge design
Quoted
I'll try to keep my comments simple. There's actually an existing 6.5x55 round (6.5mm Swedish Mauser). It'd be classified as a "full-power" rifle round. That's actually a very good rifle round... for a bolt action rifle. For a semiauto rifle, it's okay. And for a fully-auto battle rifle like the Type 8, it'd be overly powerful - to the point where it'd be very difficult to control it on fully automatic mode.
You mention a 6.5x45 round, which I think would actually be a very nice round for a full-auto battle rifle. The Wesworld French have actually fiddled with a 6.5x47mm round which could be very similar; but having an already established round, there's not a lot of interest in picking that round up.
Quoted
Actually, the thought of that makes me realize... do you know how the FAL breaks down? The little round circle between the magazine well and the trigger guard is actually a hinge, which you use to sorta 'fold' the rear half of the receiver and the front half of the receiver. This allows the bolt to be removed out the back. Thus, the lengthened magazine well on the Type 8 will probably get folded into the trigger guard before you get the rifle open for disassembly. Ergo - I'd suggest shortening the magazine well.
Originally I had used the AR-10 trigger section which is fixed to the magazine well so there would have been a different way to access the bolt. However I actually started to like the idea of how the FAL opens up so I changed the trigger section to that of the FAL, realized that the magazine well is in the way and then made it shorter by moving the left side a bit more to the right (which is also the main reason why the bullets have so little space right now). I actually separated the top part of the weapon from the bottom part and then used Paint Shop Pro to rotate the top part and stuck it back to the bottom part to see if it opens up far enough...
Looking at a few photos, the Type 8 actually looks to have more clearance than from what I can see with the FAL as the rear sight bit is part of the bottom section of the FAL while on the Type 8 it is part of the top part of the weapon so it is not in the way of the bolt when you slide it out.
(note that the above image is still the old one and uses the colors I previously used for it)
Quoted
I don't know how much you know about firearms and cartridge design
I would probably know much, much more about it if it weren't for these stupid laws here.
Quoted
I'll try to keep my comments simple. There's actually an existing 6.5x55 round (6.5mm Swedish Mauser). It'd be classified as a "full-power" rifle round. That's actually a very good rifle round... for a bolt action rifle. For a semiauto rifle, it's okay. And for a fully-auto battle rifle like the Type 8, it'd be overly powerful - to the point where it'd be very difficult to control it on fully automatic mode.
You mention a 6.5x45 round, which I think would actually be a very nice round for a full-auto battle rifle. The Wesworld French have actually fiddled with a 6.5x47mm round which could be very similar; but having an already established round, there's not a lot of interest in picking that round up.
Okay, good to know. Thinking about it, maybe we should have made the French designers happy by picking up that particular round...
... but I doubt that the French government would be willing to allow that to happen. :)
Quoted
As for the FAL rear sight being on the back part... yanno, it's weird that I don't remember that from the last time I disassembled mine. When I first read that, I was certain it was wrong, but now I'm not so sure.
Quoted
But do you actually want or need a fully-automatic weapon? In most cases, I feel the answer is a pretty resounding NO.
Quoted
I've never had the opportunity to fire a full-auto battle rifle, but I've heard people who describe the three settings (Safe - Single - Auto) as 'Safe', 'Bleep You', and 'Bleep you, bleep me, bleep everything!' They say that their entire attention narrows down to the need: "Control Recoil." Target ran away? Nope, sorry, tell me later - I'm controlling recoil. Someone's shooting back at you? Screw that, I'm controlling recoil!
Quoted
FN FAL and its generational cousins (CETME / G3 and the M14) mostly have to be used for aimed fire. Any decently useful full-auto work requires shooting prone from a bipod. (I note your Type 8 has the little wire monopod, which is a cool little feature.)
Quoted
...I hope that's all informative and not just mindless rambling.
Forum Software: Burning Board® Lite 2.1.2 pl 1, developed by WoltLab® GmbH