View Full Version : 16 inch milsurp barrels for sale
Suwannee Tim
03-24-11, 16:23
Get 'em while you can.
Milsurp barrels (http://www.govliquidation.com/auction/view?auctionId=4229536)
Sure those look nice and all, but I'm only in the market for 14.5" w. pinned muzzle device:sarcastic:
Those things are badass...any back story on where they came from?
pilotguyo540
03-24-11, 16:47
237,175 lbs ea???:blink:
I work in heave equipment, this thing weighs as much as 4 of my grinders! 49" O.D. for a 15" bore! must be one hell of a charge.
pilotguyo540
03-24-11, 16:50
Sure those look nice and all, but I'm only in the market for 14.5" w. pinned muzzle device:sarcastic:
Those things are badass...any back story on where they came from?
US naval gun factory W.N.Y.
16 inch gun mark 7 Mod No.358
1944
Those things are badass...any back story on where they came from?
Battleships?
You gotta wonder what other old/weird replacement parts the military has sitting in all the warehouse space they have.
I think it's funny that it has to be demilled prior to sale. Where the Hell are you gonna find ammo for a massive naval gun like that?
:rolleyes:
US naval gun factory W.N.Y.
16 inch gun mark 7 Mod No.358
1944
Thanks, I couldn't read what it said in the pics, I needed it to be exactly re copied.
on a side note I wonder if anyone knows any kinda back story on these "US naval gun factory W.N.Y. 16 inch gun mark 7 Mod No.358's"....as in were they used on a battleship, if so during a time of conflict, etc.
on a side note I wonder if anyone knows any kinda back story on these "US naval gun factory W.N.Y. 16 inch gun mark 7 Mod No.358's"....as in were they used on a battleship, if so during a time of conflict, etc.
Do you mean if those barrels were actually ever fired in anger or are just replacements that sat in a warehouse for decades?
Suwannee Tim
03-24-11, 20:15
I'm pretty sure they are new, whether they were spares or for new ships, good question.
That'd make a mean sbr....
That'd make a mean sbr....
:laugh: That made me Bust up ,the wife is looking at me strange
Suwannee Tim
03-25-11, 17:47
Here's an idea! Line them up, end to end and you have an indoor 326 yard shooting range!
crusader377
03-25-11, 19:13
Thanks, I couldn't read what it said in the pics, I needed it to be exactly re copied.
on a side note I wonder if anyone knows any kinda back story on these "US naval gun factory W.N.Y. 16 inch gun mark 7 Mod No.358's"....as in were they used on a battleship, if so during a time of conflict, etc.
Those naval guns were used on the Iowa class battleships and are possibly the finest naval guns ever built. They could have been spare barrels for one of the four Iowa battleships built or they could have been barrels for the two Iowa battleships that were cancelled prior to completion. The specs on these guns are pretty impressive.
http://www.navweaps.com/Weapons/WNUS_16-50_mk7.htm
BOOM!
http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/thumb/e/ea/BB61_USS_Iowa_BB61_broadside_USN.jpg/300px-BB61_USS_Iowa_BB61_broadside_USN.jpg
headshot.
Those naval guns were used on the Iowa class battleships and are possibly the finest naval guns ever built. They could have been spare barrels for one of the four Iowa battleships built or they could have been barrels for the two Iowa battleships that were cancelled prior to completion. The specs on these guns are pretty impressive.
http://www.navweaps.com/Weapons/WNUS_16-50_mk7.htm
Excellent details, exactly what I was asking about:)
BOOM!
No....
BOOM!
http://www.navweaps.com/Weapons/WNUS_16-50_mk7_Iowa_pic.jpg
'Tis a shame they're scrapping them. A lot of work went into making those tubes. They're not just monolithic cylinders, but rather a series of tubes and hoops that were forged together to build up the barrel.
Check out this diagram. Really intricate construction inside.
http://www.gwpda.org/naval/images/hb4_inch_01.jpg
interesting, kartoffel. that must have been some forge...
war sure has been the cause of some pretty amazing engineering feats. WWII, especially, saw engineering on steroids... amazes me how those guys were able to come up with never-thought-of ideas, build prototypes, test them, and have a functioning finished product on the battlefield killing natsees in the span of a few months.
I would give one opposable thumb for just that marked section. Talk about a conversation piece... :eek:
crusader377
03-26-11, 21:56
interesting, kartoffel. that must have been some forge...
war sure has been the cause of some pretty amazing engineering feats. WWII, especially, saw engineering on steroids... amazes me how those guys were able to come up with never-thought-of ideas, build prototypes, test them, and have a functioning finished product on the battlefield killing natsees in the span of a few months.
WWII probably saw our engineering at its finest. The P-51 for example went from initial specification to first flight in under 4 months.
The 4 ships of the Iowa class battleships which used the 16 inch guns discussed in post were all commissioned in under 2 years. Our shipyards also built 24 Essex class fleet carriers in under 3 years and over 175 Fletcher class destroyers in 3 years.
In contrast, now days our defense contractors for the most part can't deliver anything on time and within budget. Even something as simple as improved magazines for the M16/M4 took years to develop while an off the shelf item PMAGs were readily available. Large programs like the F-35 will take over 20 years to develop and likely 25 years to deploy from initial specifications. LM gives the excuse that the F-35 is 3 or 4 times more capable than the F-16 or F-18s that it is replacing but that is not confirmed and still not much of an accomplishment in 25 years considering the 25 years from 1935-1960, the U.S. went from flying biplanes to F-4 phantoms.
You know your stuff crusader...however this is one the sexiest pieces of machinery the U.S. has ever built imho:)
http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/thumb/4/46/Lockheed_Martin_F-22A_Raptor_JSOH.jpg/800px-Lockheed_Martin_F-22A_Raptor_JSOH.jpg
Large programs like the F-35 will take over 20 years to develop and likely 25 years to deploy from initial specifications. LM gives the excuse that the F-35 is 3 or 4 times more capable than the F-16 or F-18s that it is replacing but that is not confirmed and still not much of an accomplishment in 25 years considering the 25 years from 1935-1960, the U.S. went from flying biplanes to F-4 phantoms.
...and potential 3-4 times the performance for a guaranteed 9.5 times the cost.
'Tis a shame they're scrapping them. A lot of work went into making those tubes. They're not just monolithic cylinders, but rather a series of tubes and hoops that were forged together to build up the barrel.
Check out this diagram. Really intricate construction inside.
http://www.gwpda.org/naval/images/hb4_inch_01.jpg
And that is only a 4 inch gun. Imagine what the 16 inch guns were like!
Amazing stuff.
No....
BOOM!
[/IMG]
Rommel reported that near misses were flipping his tanks over! Big BOOM on both ends.
...and potential 3-4 times the performance for a guaranteed 9.5 times the cost.
And that's not even touching on the fact that the F-35 is a jack of all trades, master of none platform.
If you look back at air combat history, the US has repeatedly made the mistake of developing and transferring to general purpose combat aircraft under the assumption that specialized air superiority fighters would no longer be needed as we (the US) then had an edge in technology. We'd win an air war by developing fighters that would meet the mission requirements and out-perform the enemies' aircraft. After winning, we'd come to the conclusion that all we needed one was do-it-all type of fighter and that our specialized fighters were a waste of resources. When the next war came about, we'd get wiped to the floor in air combat, only to develop a fighter that would be viable and the whole cycle started over again.
This happened in post-WWII, post-Korea, post-Vietnam, and post-Cold War. The only saving grace is that we haven't fought a major superpower since Vietnam, so we haven't been forced to find out if our current fleet is up to the task in true combat.
In the Korean War and Vietnam, we made the assumption that we wouldn't need guns because our missiles were so advanced... so we took them off fighters altogether. What happened? Missiles would miss their targets and rudimentary stealth technology and tactics were developed, rendering them useless. We ended up attaching external gun pods to aircraft, but only after several aircraft and pilots had lost their lives because someone thought that technology was more important than skill and ingenuity.
We're making the same mistake by developing the F35 as a do-it-all platform instead of maintaining a fleet of many specialized-purpose aircraft. And that's still not even going into the fact that the F35 is a joint platform, meaning that we're screwed if we actually go to war with any countries sharing the platform.
Air combat is unique in that it's entirely about exploiting the differences in aircraft - you WANT difference, you don't want clones of fighters that all have the same capabilities. The F-35 is the antithesis of what we've learned in ACM and dogfighting over the years. It's a flying lego set, great at combat adaptation in general but not amazing at any one thing, which makes it second-class to fourth-generation air superiority fighters and straight out-classed by other fifth-generation fighters. We should simply maintain the fleet of F-18 hornets and F-16's supplemented by F-22's. The F35 program is nothing but number-crunchers and PC bullcrap.
crusader377
03-27-11, 15:03
And that's not even touching on the fact that the F-35 is a jack of all trades, master of none platform.
If you look back at air combat history, the US has repeatedly made the mistake of developing and transferring to general purpose combat aircraft under the assumption that specialized air superiority fighters would no longer be needed as we (the US) then had an edge in technology.
In the Korean War and Vietnam, we made the assumption that we wouldn't need guns because our missiles were so advanced... so we took them off fighters altogether. What happened? Missiles would miss their targets and rudimentary stealth technology and tactics were developed, rendering them useless. We ended up attaching external gun pods to aircraft, but only after several aircraft and pilots had lost their lives because someone thought that technology was more important than skill and ingenuity.
We're making the same mistake by developing the F35 as a do-it-all platform instead of maintaining a fleet of many specialized-purpose aircraft.
And that's still not even going into the fact that the F35 is a joint platform, meaning that we're screwed if we actually go to war with any countries sharing the platform.
It's lose, lose, lose. We should simply maintain the fleet of F-18 hornets and F-16's supplemented by F-22's. The F35 program is nothing but number-crunchers and PC bullcrap.
Skyyr,
You seem to have alot of interest like myself in military aviation. You should check out the story of the F-111 which was also initially billed as the ultimate multi-role fighter. It was an utter failure in the Air to Air role and as a career fighter. It ended up being a decent long range strike aircraft. I see the F-35 going the same direction like the F-111 except the F-35 isn't particularly good at anything and our current senior officers in the military are largely composed of yes men and I doubt anyone will have the courage to speak up against it like Admiral Connelly during the F-111 congressional hearings in 1968.
Here is some background information
http://www.airspacemag.com/military-aviation/tomcattribute.html
sandman99and9
03-27-11, 15:12
And that is only a 4 inch gun. Imagine what the 16 inch guns were like!
Amazing stuff.
The engineering that went on those guns is amazing !! The 16in guns we put on the Iowa class were just as effective and had about the same range as the larger Japanese 18 in guns on the Yamato and Musashi. Both of those being destroyed by airpower from our carriers:D
S.M.
US naval gun factory W.N.Y.
16 inch gun mark 7 Mod No.358
1944
that's some good steel... WWII era. :cool:
Powered by vBulletin® Version 4.2.5 Copyright © 2024 vBulletin Solutions, Inc. All rights reserved.