RC Tank Warfare community hobby forum

Eastern Front wrote:Barry,

Awesome!

You can do the rifling by taking very thin styrene rods or strips and laying them into a styrene tube. Do you have a styrene tube that will fit inside the green part of the barrel? The thing I do not like about the Barrel is that the Heng Long barrel thickness is not scale, its too thin, guess its because of the airsoft, so this will work for you. Use Tenax or simliar to attach the styrene, it will flow out nicely and the rod should melt down (fuse) just a bit enough to appear to be part of the barrel and not glued in..

Cheers!

Good suggestion, Thanks!

Barry

BarryC wrote:

kintaroukinji wrote:You did a great job! I can't believe making such a detailed muzzle model. I'm really surprised. How did you make it?

Thank you!

It is a combination of parts from Heng Long (green piece) and Trumpeter M1A1 kit (gray pieces) along with a piece of brass tubing and some styrene. The hardware is from Scale Hardware (bolts) and RB Motion (caps head bolts).

Now to figure out how the add the rifling land and groves.

Cheers,
Barry

Silly question (I hope not) but surely there's no rifling in a smoothbore?

https://images.app.goo.gl/pdcmPtGkvPtAb44d8

Well that's my "Dumb A$$" question for the day!
You are 100% correct.
Thank you for snapping me back to reality.

Duh!
Barry

BarryC wrote:Well that's my "Dumb A$$" question for the day!
You are 100% correct.
Thank you for snapping me back to reality.

Duh!
Barry

Still a fantastically detailed build - looking forward to seeing the end result mate! Another inspirational work of art

NB SMOOOOTHbore

Yeah, it's the challenger that has rifling, not the Abrams, why you think the challenger 1 has the kill distance record

Mr Front, isn't rifling grooves in the barrel surface

Sorry Barry, I can't hold back any longer. I know from your other work it's can't be a mistake, there just has to be a logical reason for it, but please put me out of my misery. Why is the MRS wonky?

Son of a gun-ner wrote:Yeah, it's the challenger that has rifling, not the Abrahams, why you think the challenger 1 has the kill distance record

Mr Front, isn't rifling grooves in the barrel surface

Sorry Barry, I can't hold back any longer. I know from your other work it's can't be a mistake, there just has to be a logical reason for it, but please put me out of my misery. Why is the MRS wonky?

Mick,

I will assume you are asking why it is not inline with the bore and skewed to one side. It is pointed at the Gunner's aiming window which is off center to the tanks right. This is so he can see where the barrel is actually pointed with reference to where his sight is looking and can adjust if required.


Barry

BarryC wrote:

Son of a gun-ner wrote:Yeah, it's the challenger that has rifling, not the Abrahams, why you think the challenger 1 has the kill distance record

Mr Front, isn't rifling grooves in the barrel surface

Sorry Barry, I can't hold back any longer. I know from your other work it's can't be a mistake, there just has to be a logical reason for it, but please put me out of my misery. Why is the MRS wonky?

Mick,

I will assume you are asking why it is not inline with the bore and skewed to one side. It is pointed at the Gunner's aiming window which is off center to the tanks right. This is so he can see where the barrel is actually pointed with reference to where his sight is looking and can adjust if required.


Barry

I never knew that!

Thank you Barry, I've been putting off asking since you posted the first pictures because I felt awkward asking lol.

And now I know, and I'm sure a few others now know who were afraid to ask

Again. Thank you Barry

It looks excellent

Well, I'm sure the 105mm Abrams didn't have a sleeve for its rifling, isn't Barry lucky he's not doing that one lol.

Here are some of the reasons it's a smoothbore gun:

The US decided to develop armour-piercing penetrators like APDS, and eventually APDSFS. These penetrators effectively use their momentum to break through armour extremely easily and then destroy important parts inside of a target like ammunition storages, engine parts, or the crew.

At the same time, gun/launchers were developed to fire rockets from the same barrel as tank shells.

These necessitated a smoothbore gun to allow both shells and rockets to be effectively used. The US did give up on the idea of rockets, but the smoothbore guns were already in use and were perfectly effective, so they stuck.

On the other hand, the UK developed HEAT and HESH to allow for a single shell type for both anti-tank and infantry support, favouring HESH rounds in the long run.

HESH, unlike HEAT shells, don’t need to penetrate armour to cause damage; the squash-head literally squashes up against armour and sends a shockwave that shatters the underside, flinging pieces into the fighting compartment like shrapnel. Penetration just means more forceful (and plentiful) shrapnel, as well as the explosion acting in an enclosed space.

So there you have it. Had the Americans chosen HESH over APFSDS, the Abrams might have been equipped with a rifled gun like the Challenger.