this post was submitted on 15 Feb 2026
19 points (100.0% liked)

guns

2677 readers
17 users here now

“Under no pretext"

Rules (Under review):

founded 5 years ago
MODERATORS
 
you are viewing a single comment's thread
view the rest of the comments
[–] Tervell@hexbear.net 3 points 6 days ago* (last edited 6 days ago) (1 children)

The receiver and barrel look like they're machined out of one solid tube

I assume you mean barrel shroud, but that's not such an atypical design choice - the PPSh-41 & PPS-43 both have an upper receiver and barrel shroud which are made as a single stamped component (with some extra bending in the PPSh-41's case to "close" the shroud, while the PPS-43 just leaves it open at the bottom)

Notably, the PPS-42 actually did have the shroud as a separate component - merging it with the receiver was exactly one of the optimizations made in the transition to the proper production PPS-43

Those guns do at least have a more proper lower receiver though, rather than just a small rectangle for the trigger group and some more bits around the magazine, but there are other guns which are similarly "minimal", like the Chinese Type 85 or Italian TZ-45, or even the British Sterling which is relatively nice as far as subguns of this period go (and the Sterling is also another example of a single-piece receiver and barrel shroud)

And technically, there are even modern guns which apply a similar principle, just with aluminum extrusion rather than steel stamping, like the FN SCAR

[–] axont@hexbear.net 2 points 6 days ago

I always appreciate how much you know about this stuff. I've actually fired a British sterling at a range and can attest that they're pretty nice to shoot, given that it was an 80 year old gun. Thank you! I didn't know how common it was to have a singular stamped piece of metal for the receiver and barrel shroud.