Hello all, here is today's article posted on TheArmoryLife.com. It is titled “Open Bolt vs. Closed Bolt” and can be found at https://www.thearmorylife.com/open-bolt-vs-closed-bolt/.
Open Bolt vs. Closed Bolt
- Thread starter Mike H.
- Start date
mikegc
Elite
I carried an M-3 during my time in South Vietnam with the First Infantry Division. It's size made it much easier to carry has I was a combat photographer with two or three cameras about my neck. It was ugly as a stump but was easy to use. Here's the only photo I have of myself carrying my M-3:
I was standing on an M-47 Patton tank just after a fracas in '69.
Mike
I was standing on an M-47 Patton tank just after a fracas in '69.
Mike
Looks like you had the A1 version. I had the original…problem was finding reliable mags. There were so many non-issue firearms in the Nam. I could have bought the M-1 version of the Thompson for $75. My grease gun was $50 and there were several Swedish Ks floating around our Corpsman carried one. The VC shot at Corpsmen, he figured he should be able to fire back.
Vegas Johnny Mac
Alpha
mikegc
Elite
Mine had the "crank" on it to retract the bolt. Originally, I'd purchased a Thompson but didn't like it because of the weight and rate of climb. I could hold the grease gun on target when firing. By the way, I sold the Thompson to a fellow who tried to sent it back home. He would remove parts from a small refrigeration, weigh them and gut it as needed. He was going to put the Thompson inside that sucker. I don't know if he succeeded.
Mike
CCJ
Elite
My uncle carried a BAR in WWII. He had some incredible stories to tell. He was in the motor pool because of his age (32) and the rest in his outfit called him pops. None of them were ever suppose to be in direct combat, but the battle of the bulge changed all that. He was sent to the front and remained there until... well, they sent his squad to blow up a bridge in early 45. Handed him a satchel explosive. As they approached the bridge there was a big explosion and he woke up 3 days later in the hospital. He never did know what caused the explosion. It was totally unexpected and sudden. They were going to send him back to the front and he told them "no, you can send me to jail, but I'm not going back". He had lost most of his friends from the motor pool (who were all classified and non-combatants for various reasons... poor eyesight, injuries, etc., but they were all sent to the front with him) and he was sick of the killing. They gave him a medal (for actions in a prior engagement) and sent him home.
Sold my M-3 when I picked up a M-2 carbine from an ARVN. Preferred it. My M-3 had to have the barrel elevated before the bolt would pick up a round.
I found this article. Interesting. Thank you for all the historical perspective. But I'm thinking more in terms of today. Or at least the last 50 years.
As someone who owned a class three MP5, that means I've shot more rounds accidentally than most people who write articles have done so on purpose. I understand that the MP5 has a cult following. But should that be enough?
Back in the day when we owned five or six class 3 weapons, we had some open bolt designs like the Uzi, and we had some closed bolt designs like MP5. While, I enjoyed owning a suppressed MP5, there were a number of drawbacks. First, it was finicky. If it got dirty it tended to malfunction. This is not a problem that the Uzi had, but it was less sophisticated. Back in the day we used to refer to our MP5 as a dead man's gun. When it ran out of ammo, the bolt remain closed. You didn't know you're out of ammo until you pulled the trigger and nothing happened. I saw this as a significant drawback in a weapon, that to be fair, was designed in the 1960s.
When the Springfield Kuna was first announced, I got excited, because AS Products out of Croatia made it. And they've built a number of fine weapons that Springfield sells. I saw it as the spiritual successor to the MP5. It solved two of biggest drawbacks on an MP5. Now I know there's a lot of fan boys out there that are going to be upset about this, but I can't help that. Experience teaches me otherwise.
The Kuna is a 21st century version of the MP5 in my mind. It takes all the best parts, a rotating bolt, and a closed bolt design. But after that, it modernizes things. The charging handle does not fly back-and-forth during operation, so you don't have to worry about where you put your thumb. In fact, you can put your hand on top of the receiver if you want to.
The second thing is when the weapon is empty, the bolt remains open. Drop the magazine, insert a fresh one, hit the bolt release (which is right next to your finger on either side), and you're right back in the fight. With an MP5, you have to pull the slide back, drop the mag, insert a new mag, and do the famous MP5 slap. How that became a cult phenomenon I will never understand.
I am well aware that there are fan boys that love the "MP5 slap" and all of that other nostalgic stuff. But I would invite any of them to fire a Springfield Kuna. Your life will change. Not only is it an MP5 that doesn't have any of the drawbacks from 1960, but it is an amazing weapon. I have thousands of rounds through mine and I haven't even bothered to clean it. Let's not forget that it's a weapon you can get for around $995, while an MP5 is closer to $3500. I love nostalgia as much as anyone, but this is the 21st-century and it's time to move to modern weapons like the Springfield Kuna.
As someone who owned a class three MP5, that means I've shot more rounds accidentally than most people who write articles have done so on purpose. I understand that the MP5 has a cult following. But should that be enough?
Back in the day when we owned five or six class 3 weapons, we had some open bolt designs like the Uzi, and we had some closed bolt designs like MP5. While, I enjoyed owning a suppressed MP5, there were a number of drawbacks. First, it was finicky. If it got dirty it tended to malfunction. This is not a problem that the Uzi had, but it was less sophisticated. Back in the day we used to refer to our MP5 as a dead man's gun. When it ran out of ammo, the bolt remain closed. You didn't know you're out of ammo until you pulled the trigger and nothing happened. I saw this as a significant drawback in a weapon, that to be fair, was designed in the 1960s.
When the Springfield Kuna was first announced, I got excited, because AS Products out of Croatia made it. And they've built a number of fine weapons that Springfield sells. I saw it as the spiritual successor to the MP5. It solved two of biggest drawbacks on an MP5. Now I know there's a lot of fan boys out there that are going to be upset about this, but I can't help that. Experience teaches me otherwise.
The Kuna is a 21st century version of the MP5 in my mind. It takes all the best parts, a rotating bolt, and a closed bolt design. But after that, it modernizes things. The charging handle does not fly back-and-forth during operation, so you don't have to worry about where you put your thumb. In fact, you can put your hand on top of the receiver if you want to.
The second thing is when the weapon is empty, the bolt remains open. Drop the magazine, insert a fresh one, hit the bolt release (which is right next to your finger on either side), and you're right back in the fight. With an MP5, you have to pull the slide back, drop the mag, insert a new mag, and do the famous MP5 slap. How that became a cult phenomenon I will never understand.
I am well aware that there are fan boys that love the "MP5 slap" and all of that other nostalgic stuff. But I would invite any of them to fire a Springfield Kuna. Your life will change. Not only is it an MP5 that doesn't have any of the drawbacks from 1960, but it is an amazing weapon. I have thousands of rounds through mine and I haven't even bothered to clean it. Let's not forget that it's a weapon you can get for around $995, while an MP5 is closer to $3500. I love nostalgia as much as anyone, but this is the 21st-century and it's time to move to modern weapons like the Springfield Kuna.