Experience in attracting foreign specialists for the design of automatic firearms in the Russian Empire in 1900–1901: the machine rifle of Baron A. Odkolek.

Timofeeva Rimma Aleksandrovna ORCID: 0000-0002-9051-0391 PhD in Art History Associate Professor; Department of History and Theory of Art; St. Petersburg State University of Industrial Technologies and Design 29 Politechnicheskaya str., building 2, sq. 32, Saint Petersburg, 194064, Russia rimma.a.timofeeva@gmail.com Other publications by this author

Chumak Ruslan Nikolaevich PhD in Technical Science Head of the Funds Department; Military Historical Museum of Artillery, Engineering and Communications Troops 7 Alexandrovsky Park str., Saint Petersburg, 197046, Russia rimmaa@gmail.com Other publications by this author

1. Introduction

The beginning of the 20th century in Russia is an important stage in the development of military engineering, the stage of automation of small arms, the history of this issue has been considered by us in previous publications ^{[1; 2]}. After the need for automatic weapons became a necessity recognized at the state level, the overall management of the process of choosing the most successful solution was carried out by the Military Department. The ways of the birth of a new type of weapon in our country, in general, repeated the previously tested scheme: from the desire to create redesign systems that, as a rule, were not viable, to the original constructive solution of automation.

The Russian Military Department paid close attention to information about automatic weapons coming from abroad, as well as proposals from domestic inventors. Interestingly, even the most fantastic projects submitted by various representatives of Russian society (including peasants) were considered at the level of the Main Artillery Directorate. Prior to the formation of a separate Commission to develop an automatic rifle model, the main work was carried out by the Artillery Committee (Armory department), which received numerous proposals from foreign and domestic inventors. If the development was outdated, irrelevant, or not feasible, a reasoned refusal was sent to the inventor. If there was any successful solution, even for a part of the structure, it was most often suggested either to provide additional information, drawings or a sample, which was subjected to a comprehensive study.

This meticulous approach has produced good results. Back in 1895 ^{[3, l. 828]}, Russia was one of the first countries in the world to adopt a heavy machine gun designed by H.S. Maxim and began purchasing it in the UK. But already at the end of the 19th century, a new trend appeared in automatic weapons that had just appeared to the world – light machine guns, which later in our country would be called "manual", and until the early 1920s they were called "machine guns". The advantages of such weapons were quite obvious – the ability to conduct powerful automatic fire with great mobility, inaccessible to heavy machine guns of those years, mounted on large and heavy carriages. Nothing had yet foreshadowed the era of major wars, but the expediency of having light machine guns in the Russian army was recognized as objective, and the Military Department began searching for a suitable type of weapon for adoption.

Russian Russian school of design of automatic weapons was absent as a phenomenon at the end of the 19th century, and the experience of buying Maxim machine guns in England showed the extremely costly nature of this process (a set of purchased machine guns cost the Russian treasury 2,900 rubles in gold) ^{[3, l. 732-732 vol.]}, it was decided to try to develop a sample of a light machine gun ("guns-machine gun") in Russia with the involvement of a foreign inventor. By the will of fate, this inventor was the Austrian Baron Odkolek von Augezd (Adolf Freiherr Odkolek von Újezd, Adolf Freiherr Odkolek von Augezd. 1854, Prague – 1917, Stockerau).

Baron Odkolek's work on the creation of a light machine gun in Russia is practically not covered in Russian historiography ^{[4, p. 1]}, and it has become a controversial phenomenon in Russian weapons history.

2. Inventor Baron Adolf Odkolek von Aug.

Baron Adolf Odkolek von Auger had no technical education, he graduated only from gymnasium ^[5] before joining the military in 1873 as a volunteer in the 6th Uhlan Regiment. After completing his military service, he made a regular career as a cavalry officer (1875 – lieutenant, 1880 – staff captain). Then, from 1882, he was almost constantly on leave for health reasons, and in 1896 he was forced to take early retirement with the rank of captain. Later, Odkolek worked on the teaching staff of the Reserve Cavalry Officers' School in Golich (Bohemia), engaged in inventive activities, mainly in the field of small arms. Being a self-taught inventor is a typical practice for a single–parent family. Adolf Odkolek's cousin, Jindřich Odkolek, was a famous Czech entrepreneur who built a special typewriter in his spare time, which is now on display at the Technical Museum in Prague. Adolf's uncle was the founder of the company "Fr. Odkolek", he converted the mill on the Camp in Prague into one of the first very complex "American" mills ^[6]. Well, Adolf Odkolek himself became interested in the ideas of creating automatic weapons and became one of the first inventors in the world.

In 1890-1893, he patented in several countries the design of an automatic weapon (machine gun) with an original locking system with a special warhead (lever) located in the rear of the bolt in the vertical plane (patents: Germany No. 65953 of 1890, Switzerland No. 4903 of 1892, USA No. 486938 of 1892, Denmark No. 686 1893). In 1894, he sold some of his patents to the French company Hotchkiss et Cie ^{[7, p. 188]}, whose employees L.V. Benet and H.A. Mercie used them in the locking mechanism of the 1897 Hotchkiss machine gun, the design of which was patented in 1896 under their own names ^[8]. This machine gun became one of the first mass-produced machine guns in the world, was in service with the armies of several countries and was used on the battlefields up to and including World War II. Even at the very beginning of his inventive work on automatic weapons, Baron A. Odkolek patented a cloth tape, the cartridges to which were attached with rope loops (German patent No. 65953 of 1890), which for almost two decades he would use in all developed models of machine guns.

3. The proposal of the "machine gun" to the Russian government: chronology of events

It is not yet known for certain how Baron Odkolek managed to "meet" Russian interests in terms of finding a designer for a light machine gun, but his proposal first appeared in Russia in early 1900. The description of the proposal stated that Russia is the first state to "propose the introduction of this new weapon, although German privileges have already been granted for this invention" ^[9]. This "¾ automatic" machine gun allowed 4 firing speeds: "like a rifle" (with rare aimed shots), faster (up to 50 rounds per minute), volleys (from 7 to 15 in 2 seconds), "like a mitre" (from 300 to 600 rounds per minute). "Its range is the same as a military rifle at 3,000 meters, but since it is heavier than an ordinary rifle with a refrigerator attached that sprays water inside the barrel, it has an appendage in the form of a bipod to support the muzzle during firing. Cartridges for it are used on a tape, with 50 cartridges each, although you can use tapes with a large number of cartridges, up to 200 pieces" ^{[10, L. 901, 901 vol., 916]}. On August 12, the baron's representative, S.F. Nevyarovsky, addressed the Art Committee's business manager, P.Z. Kostyrko reported that the machine gun, which had previously been in correspondence, had been delivered to St. Petersburg ^{[10, l. 797]}.

The Odkolek machine gun (more precisely, its firing model to demonstrate the principle) was tested at the Main Artillery Range on August 16, 1900 ^{[10, l. 765]}. During the tests, it was noted that for firing, the weapon is mounted with the muzzle on a special tripod, and its rear end rests against the shooter's right shoulder with the butt, while the shooter sits on the uncomfortable seat of a low tripod ^{[10, l. 906]}. The cartridges are fixed in the tape by two thread loops: one covers the muzzle of the sleeve, the second covers the sleeve along the groove for the extractor tooth on its bottom. As the belt with cartridges moves towards the bolt, the hinges are cut off by the sharp edges of a special bar guiding the tape. What was extremely unusual for the end of the 19th century, when the Maxim machine gun had already set the standard for the design and operational properties of automatic weapons and was important for the events described – the tape feed in the Odkolek machine gun was carried out manually by the shooter!

To load the machine gun, it was necessary to pull back the bolt ("slider") with the firing pin, stretch the tape and lower the bolt. Under the action of a spring, he returned forward and loaded the cartridge into the chamber. To fire single shots, it was necessary to pull the trigger under the box; for automatic shooting, a special trigger was used, mounted on the side of the box. During the tests, 200 shots were fired from the machine gun, and among other inconveniences, it was noted that when firing, the powder gases escape back from the loading hole and enter the shooter's eyes, while the leather eye protection case does not fulfill its purpose well ^{[10, l. 897]}. Just this one danger of the weapon for the shooter, not to mention the lack of automatic feed of the tape, was enough for the invention of the Same student to have no prospects.

However, ignoring the test results of his machine gun, Odkolek entered into communication with a number of high-ranking officials who petitioned for the promotion of the Odkolek machine gun to the Russian army. On September 11, 1900, a lengthy letter was sent to the Main Artillery Directorate in the "position of chamberlain" ^{[11, p. 101]} by Baron Sergei Sergeyevich Stamp, in which he noted that Baron Odkolek arrived in St. Petersburg in the absence of the Minister of War and demonstrated his rifle to "competent persons", including S.Y. Witte ^{[10, l. 903 vol.]}. Stamp sought assistance in obtaining the Highest permission to demonstrate the Odkolek machine gun in Livadia in the presence of the Emperor himself. The letter reached the Minister of War of the Russian Empire, General A.N. Kuropatkin, who superimposed a resolution on top of it stating that the information had been reported to the Emperor and the Highest command followed "to familiarize yourself in detail with this invention and determine as soon as possible whether it is suitable for us" ^{[10, l. 846]}. On September 13, 1900, a report was scheduled by Comrade Generalfeldzeichmeister M.E.(G), who was correcting matters. Altfather to the Minister of War for the details of the machine gun proposed by Odkolek with a written conclusion from the testing commission on the suitability of this weapon for the Russian army ^{[10, l. 806]}.

Further, by order of Alfater ^{[10, l. 897]}, a single–wheel machine gun in two versions – manual and machine-was demonstrated to the Weapons Department of the Artillery Committee at the shooting range of the Officer's Rifle School. The test program scheduled for September 21, 1900, included marksmanship, due to the closure of the infantry chain, at emerging targets from 900 paces, at a distance of 2,156 paces (checking dispersion), firing a large number of shots (studying the heating of the barrel). The tests were attended by the head of the Sestroretsk Arms Factory, Major General S.I. Mosin, the head of the plant's admissions committee, Colonel N.K. Savisko, Colonel A.-G.E. Kern, Captain N.I. Yurlov, Captain A.P. Zalyubovsky, as well as Baron A. Odkolek himself and his representatives, S. Nevyarovsky and G. Kovanko. The results of ^{[10, l. 908-913]} of these tests are of great interest to researchers of the topic, since they describe in detail all the properties of the machine gun proposed by a single gun.

During a preliminary study of the Odkolek machine guns delivered to the landfill by the inventor himself, it was found that the weapon was designed for a 7.9mm German rifle cartridge in a sleeve without a rim with smokeless powder, its ballistic properties are the same as those of an ordinary rifle. The cartridges must be secured to the belts before firing. The weight of one belt without cartridges is 18.6 spools (79.4 grams), and together with 50 cartridges it is 3 5/6 pounds (2389 grams).

The Baron personally demonstrated the disassembly and assembly of the machine gun, the arrangement of the locking mechanism parts and gave other explanations about the design of his weapon. The testers noted that the machine gun weighs about 25 pounds (10.24 kg), that is, almost three times more than the Russian 3-line. It is a dragoon rifle and has a very long length – 2 yards 4 inches (1.6 m). To cool the barrel on the left side of the machine gun, there was a special device with a supply of water – the so-called "refrigerator". When carried, the machine gun fit into a leather half-shell with an asbestos gasket.

To fire, the machine gun had to be removed from its case, mounted with the barrel on a stand, raised the front sight, rested the butt of the receiver against the shooter's shoulder, pulled back the bolt, inserted the cartridge belt into the receiver window and closed the bolt with his hand, while the cartridge would be removed from the belt and sent into the chamber. The entire process of preparing the machine gun for firing took 1 minute and 50 seconds. When firing, after each shot, you had to pull the tape down with your left hand to feed the cartridges. The bolt was unlocked and opened, the spent cartridge was ejected, the cartridge was loaded into the chamber, the bolt was closed and the trigger was cocked automatically under the influence of the energy of the powder gases discharged from the bore into the piston system located under the barrel.

When considering the machine gun device, the inventor was asked to explain why he considers his weapon 3/4 automatic. Answering this question, Odkolek stated that in the currently accepted rifles, the bolt is opened and closed by the shooter, and the cartridges are supplied from the magazine automatically by springs, and therefore he considers these rifles semi-automatic. In his machine gun, the bolt is opened and closed, as well as the spent cartridge case is ejected and the cartridge is loaded into the chamber automatically.

However, according to the military, since the movement of the tape during firing must be carried out continuously by the shooter while firing, and it is inconvenient to do this (since you have to stretch your left arm) and requires almost the same effort as opening and closing the bolt, we can assume that the machine gun under study is more likely to be a type of semi-automatic weapon.

The testers also doubted the exhaust device of the machine gun regarding the method of cleaning the gas paths and the effect of their contamination by the combustion products of gunpowder on the action of the weapon mechanism. Odkolek said that he considered it possible to clean the tube channel with a ramrod, and to clean the side hole in the barrel, it was necessary to completely disassemble the machine gun. In his opinion, it is not necessary to clean the gas outlet when firing, since the powder gases coming out of the barrel themselves will clean it. The test commission did not agree with the inventor's argument, considering the diameter of the exhaust port too small for self-cleaning, and besides, disassembling the gas system of the machine gun was a rather complicated operation that only a gunsmith could perform. The barrel support was found to be imperfect – it was inconvenient, heavy, and difficult to connect to a machine gun ^{[10, l. 847 vol.]}.

After studying the machine gun, it was followed by a shooting test. Due to Odkolek's statement that the machine gun was brought to normal combat only at 300 meters and was intended only to demonstrate the principle of automation, the firing program was not fully implemented, but it was still possible to find out something. The inventor was given the opportunity to fire from any of the two machine guns presented to him and at any speed, but it was necessary to release as many cartridges as possible to determine the degree of heating of the barrel after firing. Odkolek fired a new model of machine gun and fired only two belts of cartridges in 2 minutes and 5 seconds. At the same time, the barrel got so hot that when Odkolek let water from the "refrigerator" into it, it boiled.

During the shooting, significant operational shortcomings of the machine gun were revealed. For example, as noted earlier based on the results of the August tests at the Main Artillery Range, for the safety of the shooter, the weapon mechanisms should be covered with a special leather case, since gases escaping through the side opening of the receiver along with the sleeve could get into the eyes. It was noted that the cartridge belt was inconvenient and slow to replace, when the shooter had to grope for a hole to thread it in the receiver, pass the end of the tape through it, and then carefully make sure that the tape did not warp when firing, as otherwise the cartridge would jam and stop firing. To remove the jammed cartridge, the help of the second number of the machine gun crew was required.

According to the test results, it was noted that the Odkolek machine gun is simple in design, but incomplete. And most importantly, it is "not completely automatic", as manual feeding of cartridges is required! In 1 minute and 23 seconds, only 53 rounds were fired, and only 11 hit the target (400 steps, 10 figures) ^{[10, L. 847]}. Thus, it was impossible to conduct "multiple launch" fire (firing in bursts – auth.) from this machine gun, and the type of shooting shown by the inventor looked more like frequent single shots. The testers found that, as presented, the machine gun does not replace not only 25 shooters, as Odkolek initially indicated, but even 6. In addition, it is very difficult to fire a machine gun – "almost impossible" – since for the convenience of manually stretching the cartridge belt, it is necessary to keep the middle part of the weapon constantly raised to a horizontal position.

The conclusion made by the commission based on the results of tests of the Odkolek machine gun, reflected in the report of the head of the Officer Rifle School, Major General L.V. Gaponov, read: the machine gun "in its present state has such imperfections that it cannot represent anything interesting for shooting" ^{[10, l. 913]}. According to the Art Committee, as recorded in magazine No. 586 dated October 23, 1900, the Single-track machine gun could not have been suitable for our army in this form ^{[10, l. 920]}.

This decision was communicated to the representative of the Same school ^{[10, l. 926]}. Nevertheless, in the same autumn, he managed to organize a demonstration of his machine gun in Mishor in the presence of the Minister of War, Adjutant General A.N. Kuropatkin, Commander of the Odessa Military District, Adjutant General Count A.I. Musin-Pushkin and the head of the Main Engineering Department, Lieutenant General A.P. Vernander. Emperor Nicholas II was not present at the shooting, he was seriously ill during this period. The results of the firing of the Odkolek machine gun in the presence of the highest military officials of the Russian Empire completely contradicted what military experts noted during previous tests of the machine gun and convinced the high military officials present of the value of Odkolek's invention

- free

- t

- a repons

- mate

- pro

- pro

- t

- for tper ^{[10, l. 1048-1048 vol.As a result, on October 31, 1900, while in Yalta, the baron wrote a statement addressed to Kuropatkin, in which he set out his terms of work in Russia on designing a machine gun for the Russian army, the essence of which was as follows: - free use of a separate small room at a state-owned factory near St. Petersburg; - the exclusive right to direct the process without the interference of unauthorized persons; - a responsible person to monitor the correct execution of the baron's instructions; - materials, machines, labor forces for the careful and accurate execution of machine gun parts according to the drawings and instructions of a colleague; - providing an opportunity to work with your own mechanic and, if necessary, an engineer; - provision of housing in the immediate vicinity of the factory for own mechanic and his family; - the required number of cartridges and a place for aiming and testing the machine gun; - for the manufacture of three machine gun samples, to conclude a new agreement "concerning the terms of purchase" of the invention for Russia; guaranteed monthly maintenance payment of 8000 rubles for six months in advance. For comparison, an ordinary lieutenant colonel serving in the specified period on the SOZ had a salary of 1,500 rubles per year, 1,500 rubles for table money and 750 rubles for apartment money [12, L. 1]}, for a total of 3,750 rubles. In turn, Odkolek promised to prepare the necessary drawings within a month and a half, and the model itself in 4-6 months ^{[10, l. 960, 960 vol., 970, 970 vol.]}.

The demands made by the Russian Ministry of Defense and all its authorities were unique in terms of the size of the requested capabilities and payment for services, and at the same time uniquely irresponsible towards the customer. It should be noted that such comfortable conditions for carrying out experimental work have never been provided to Russian gunsmiths. But the Austrian baron achieved his goal – on November 1, the Highest permission was received for the report of the Minister of War with these conditions ^{[10, l. 972]}. And on November 2, 1900, by order of A.N. Kuropatkin, taking into account "the special significance of Baron Odkolek's proposal and in order not to let his invention of a machine gun out of our hands," Odkolek was given 8000 rubles in advance from a reserve loan, an appropriate room was allocated at the Sestroretsk Arms Factory for his own workshop, and an "experienced and an energetic officer" ^{[10, l. 959]} – Captain M.E. Neklyudov's guard.

This decision of the Minister of War caused confusion among the representatives of the Art Committee (report by P.Z. Kostyrko to comrade Field Marshal on November 9, 1900) ^{[10, l. 975-976 vol.]}. The military assumed that Odkolek would sign certain conditions that would guarantee the payment of significant amounts to him ^{[10, l. 1015]}. But the baron refused these "conditions", referring to his statement, approved by Kuropatkin. Thus, Baron Odkolek was given the full opportunity to manufacture three model copies of his Russian 3-line machine gun at the Sestroretsk Arms Factory. The patron. With a unique set of opportunities and pay levels provided to the Student, the only obligation he assumed to the Military Department was to submit monthly reports on the work performed ^{[13, l. 10]}. Since 1901, these reports have reflected the changes that the Same Student needed in comparison with the initial conditions – orders for parts abroad (barrels and boxes), additional financing, and changes in product availability.

4. The results of the work on the "machine gun" and the reasons for the refusal of their further continuation

Despite the fact that Odkolek's work on POPS continued throughout 1901, and the inventor spent large government funds, there was no useful result from his activities ^{[14, l. 249]}. The machine gun was made for a Russian cartridge, but its main technical properties turned out to be no better than the firing model originally presented. Nevertheless, on April 4, 1902, the Baron's confidant S.F. Nevyarovsky, addressing the Minister of War, noted that the task assigned to the baron was "brilliantly accomplished." The machine gun fired about 6,000 rounds in the presence of officers and many other people employed at the Sestroretsk Arms Factory. But by this time, something had broken down in the mechanism of support for the Same person inside the Russian military department, and it was decided to put an end to this rare disgrace. Simultaneously with the report of Baron Odkolek's confidant, the Artillery Committee received an order from the Main Artillery Directorate to stop all work on Odkolek's project at the Sestroretsk Arms Factory. On July 20, 1902, the GAU dated the return of the baron's property to the representative of the Same school, including "one set of a rifle model" ^{[13, l. 19]}.

Considering the reasons for the cessation of work on a machine gun in Russia in 1902, it is necessary to pay attention to a number of reasons. The first is the obviously technically disastrous and very costly essence of the baron's proposal, which will be discussed in the next part of the article. The second is the fact that at the end of 1901, on the instructions of Minister of War V.G.O. Madsen, experimental design work began in Denmark to create an improved model of the J.A.N. Rasmussen automatic rifle of the 1893 model. At the beginning of the following year, 1902, based on the main design solutions of this rifle, the first prototype of a machine gun with magazine power and water cooling was designed at the Copenhagen Arsenal. In March 1902, successful tests of this machine gun took place, and at the end of the year its air-cooled model appeared ^{[15, p. 386]}. Undoubtedly, the Russian Military Department learned about the creation in Denmark of a light machine gun model, the technical and combat characteristics of which were incomparably higher than the Baron Odkolek model, and judging by the subsequent course of events, it made its choice in favor of acquiring weapons of this type for the army. Negotiations on the purchase of Madsen light machine guns began in February 1904, and at the end of that year the first batches of machine guns went to Russia, where they took part in the Russian-Japanese War. Despite the considerable technological complexity and cost of the Madsen machine gun, it was a modern and fairly reliable weapon that showed good combat effectiveness in combat.

5. Description of the Odkolek machine gun and design analysis

Of great interest to the national history of weapons are the design features of the Russian model of the Odkolek machine gun, which led to such a sad end to the project of its creation, as well as the fate of the experimental sample. Being manufactured at Russian expense, the machine gun remained in Russia at the Sestroretsk Arms Factory, which is documented – in a report to the head of the factory from his assistant, dated March 22, 1904, an order was requested "to transfer the Odkolek machine gun located in the factory archive to the museum at the model workshop, since it is rusting and it deteriorates" ^{[13, l. 195]}. Further traces of this machine gun have been lost for more than a century, and only recently it was revealed in the collection of the Military Historical Museum of Artillery, Engineering and Communications Troops (Inv. No. 58/18), where all these years it was kept as an unknown experimental weapon. The authors conducted a detailed study of the design of the Odkolek machine gun, which gave the most interesting results.

In the course of the study, the authors used a standard method for such cases – disassembling weapons, studying their design and functioning, photographing the main parts and mechanisms, and compiling design characteristics. The result of the study is shown in Table 1.

Table 1. Design characteristics of a single-track machine gun

The Odkolek machine gun consists of the following main parts and mechanisms:

- receiver with a sleeve deflection mechanism and a piston exhaust system;

- receiver cover with sight block and aiming frame;

- a barrel with a gas pipeline, a folding front sight on the base and two protrusions for connection to the machine;

- bolt with locking mechanism, firing mechanism and ejector of spent cartridges;

- reciprocating mainspring;

- trigger mechanism;

- shutter release mechanism;

- removable back plate with shoulder pad.

The barrel of a machine gun is a cylindrical part with a rifled bore and a chamber inside. A longitudinal protrusion is made on the upper surface of the barrel, inside of which there is a gas pipeline that runs from the exhaust unit to the plug with an inclined channel in the receiver. The gas discharge unit from the trunk is made together with the front of the gas pipeline and is a device with two gas outlet openings with a diameter of about 2.5 mm (front) and 5 mm (rear), overlapped by screws, obviously performing the function of gas control devices. There is a square protrusion on the right side of the breech, the purpose of which will be discussed below. The front sight base and front sight on a pivoting base with a spring are made on the muzzle of the barrel. A flat-head screw is screwed into the side surface of the front sight, fixing the front sight in the folded position at the base.

The receiver is a rectangular steel tube with a curved longitudinal channel for the passage of the bolt and the side wings of its locking insert and recoil spring. The support surfaces for the bolt stops are milled outside the box and closed with steel shutters. A spring-loaded reflector is mounted in the right wall of the box, and the receiving neck of the cartridge belt is mounted on its outside. In the lower part of the receiver, there is an open groove and lateral longitudinal grooves for the passage of parts of the cocking mechanism, as well as a slot for placing a sear. Windows are made in the side walls of the receiver for the passage of the cartridge belt, and a roller with teeth is installed on the left wall of the box to direct the discharge of the tape and avoid its misalignment. In the upper front part of the receiver there is a vertical cylindrical channel, into which a plug with an inclined exhaust duct is screwed, for supplying powder gas discharged from the bore to the nozzle of the piston system, which is equipped with a gas piston. A longitudinal semicircular recess for the spring of the gas piston is made in the upper part of the piston. A horizontal insert with cutouts is installed inside the box, designed to cut off the thread loops that attach the cartridges to the tape. Two protrusions are made in the back of the box, which form part of the bread joint securing the back plate. In front of the receiver, there is a cylindrical channel for the breech of the barrel.

The shutter consists of a housing, a locking insert, a firing pin and a firing pin. Shaped grooves are made in the side walls of the shutter body for the passage of the support arms of the locking insert, and a window is made in its upper part for the passage of the firing pin protrusion interacting with the pusher of the exhaust motor. A cup is made in front of the shutter body to accommodate the bottom of the sleeve. A spring-loaded extractor is installed on the right side of the shutter body. A through-shaped window is made in the drummer body, which controls the rotation of the locking insert, and in its rear part there is a platform for stopping the working end of the firing pin and cocking the bolt.

The trigger mechanism consists of a sear (with a spring) mounted in the receiver socket, and a trigger with sear drive levers and an interpreter.

The bolt release mechanism is a steel plate with a weapon control handle mounted on it with two wooden pads, a protrusion for interaction with the bolt firing pin and a spring-loaded swinging latch that locks the mechanism in the forward position after the bolt is released.

The design features of the machine gun revealed during its research:

- the machine gun parts are not chemically colored.;

- inside the receiver, in the area of the chamber entrance, a significant number of grains of unburned gunpowder or gunpowder that fell out of cartridges damaged during refilling were found.;

- cocking a mobile system to put it on a combat platoon requires a huge effort (30.4 kg); for which you have to act with two hands;

- the descent is long and very heavy (19.9 kg);

- the rolling motion of the bolt when it is released from the combat platoon is very energetic;

- the gas outlet device (a long gas pipeline and a gas outlet unit from the trunk) is extremely difficult to manufacture and contains strange adjusting devices in the form of 4 screws crossing the gas paths;

- a machine gun is dangerous to handle. If the cocking handle of the movable system is not fully returned to its original (frontmost) position and the trigger is pulled, the shutter is released, which at the end of its stroke hits the handle and pushes it forward until it stops in the trigger body. If the shooter's fingers are between the handle and the trigger at this moment, they will be severely injured. The same thing will happen if you vigorously return the handle to its place, if you do not remove your fingers from it.;

- there is no device for water cooling of the barrel ("refrigerator") on the machine gun, but a square protrusion is made under it on the right side of the breech of the barrel.;

- the sight does not have a mechanism for adjusting the position of the rear sight in height and marking in range. The rear sight is rigidly fixed on the aiming frame in a position corresponding to the same firing range.;

- complete disassembly of a machine gun is difficult, requires the use of tools, thorough knowledge of the device of weapons and serious skills. Incorrect assembly is possible;

It is interesting to compare the design of the Odkolek machine gun, which he brought to Russia in 1900 for demonstration purposes, and the machine gun he developed at the Sestroretsk Arms Factory in 1901, and a general analysis of the design of this machine gun. The results of the analysis can give an idea of Baron Odkolek's creative potential as a gunsmith designer and his ability to critically evaluate the main properties of the machine gun being developed in terms of their compliance with the world level of development of automatic small arms.

During the analysis, we used an image of the Odkolek machine gun model 1900, stored in the collection of the Military Historical Institute of the Army of the Czech Republic (Prague), as well as text and graphic information from his patents dating back to 1900-1903.

The overall layout, the exhaust principle of the automation, and the design of the locking mechanism for both models of machine guns are the same, as is the absence of a mechanical drive for feeding the cartridge belt – it had to be pulled manually in both machine guns during firing. The design of the tape with the cartridges attached to it by thread loops has also not changed. At the same time, there are significant differences in the design of machine guns. In the "Russian type" machine gun, Odkolek abandoned the use of the piston system of the exhaust automation engine located under the barrel in favor of a long gas pipeline located above the barrel, which drains the powder gas from the barrel bore directly into the receiver, where it acted on a short-stroke piston that actuates a movable automation system (shutter). Also, the layout of the belt-feeding mechanism has undergone a major change in the "Russian type" machine gun. In the model 1900 machine gun, this mechanism was located on the left side of the receiver, while the tape was fed to the receiving window in the direction first from the bottom up, after which, being thrown through the upper section of the receiver cover, it descended to the bolt and did not go inside the receiver. In the "Russian type" machine gun of 1901, the tape was brought to the bolt from right to left and passed through the receiver. Other differences between the models of machine guns are of an unprincipled nature.

As you can see, the main changes introduced by Odkolek into the design of the Russian-model machine gun concerned the design of the drive of the mobile automation system and the mechanism for passing the tape through the weapon. These changes made it possible to make the barrel and receiver more compact and, obviously, lighter, but did not eliminate any of the fundamental disadvantages of the machine gun that prevent its use in the army. The exhaust engine does not exhaust spent powder gas – it could only come out after returning back to the barrel. All this together contributed to the contamination of the weapon's mechanisms with gunpowder deposits and, as a result, malfunctions in the automation.

In addition to a general study of the design of the 1901 Russian–type single-shot machine gun, the authors decided to investigate its most unusual property - a cloth band in which cartridges were attached with thread rings and its function in weapons when loading. To do this, based on the images in the patents of the Same compartment and the configuration of the duct for the passage of the tape in the receiver, a mock-up of the tape with training cartridges was made and the loading of a machine gun with it and the functioning of the thread ring cutting mechanism during the loading of cartridges were tested. During this part of the study, the following was established:

- passing the tape through the receiver is very difficult, the gap of its passage in the receiver is very narrow (about 3 mm);

- fastening cartridges in the tape with thread rings is unreliable due to the absence of a groove on the sleeve of the Russian rifle cartridge, into which the thread can enter and fix the cartridge in a certain position. The lack of a specific position of the cartridge relative to the rings contributes to its displacement in the sockets when carrying and firing and stopping the tape in the receiver.;

- in the process of loading the cartridge from the tape, the thread rings break off. To reload the belt with cartridges, the rings need to be restored, and such an operation can only be performed in stationary conditions and with great accuracy, since if there is an error in the size of the rings, the cartridges will not fit into them or will fall out when carrying and firing. In fact, the tape of the type proposed by Odkolek is disposable;

- the thread rings are affected by humidity, and when the tape gets wet/dry, the size of the thread rings will change, which will cause the cartridges to fall out of the tape. The damp will cause the ring threads to deteriorate and tear.

The only unit that can be considered well-designed and promising in a One-man machine gun is the bolt. It is very compact, has a small mass, locking the insert by skewing on two combat stops is quite reliable and requires little energy consumption of the leading link (striker), the ratio of the mass of the locking element (striker assembly) to the mass of the locking insert is high – 5.21:1, which is quite sufficient for the functioning of the bolt even with heavy contamination of the weapon. In terms of the principle of the kinematic drive scheme of the locking element, this bolt is a profound reinterpretation of the locking mechanism design developed by Odkolek in the late 1880s and subsequently sold by him to Hotchkiss et Cie and used in the locking mechanism of the Hotchkiss machine gun model 1897. The only disadvantages of the design of this shutter are the wedging of the locking insert when rolling and the non-centered location of the locking surfaces relative to the longitudinal axis of the barrel bore. Both of these disadvantages are not critical for use in automatic weapons and, in principle, can be eliminated. The long gas line of the exhaust engine in combination with a short-stroke gas piston is also a promising solution that promised, with proper design, a significant simplification of the design of the weapon and a reduction in its weight.

6. Conclusions

From the standpoint of modern knowledge about the design of automatic weapons, it can be concluded that based on the bolt and exhaust motor of the One-wheel automatic, implemented in the Russian machine gun model of 1901, it was possible to create a compact and lightweight light machine gun with any type of power supply, the best in the world in its class as of the beginning of the twentieth century. However, with regard to the developed machine gun, it turned out that the advanced and promising solution of the main automation units turned out to be embedded in an extremely unhealthy, one might say, "dead" shell.

A prominent Russian and Soviet gunsmith, V.G. Fedorov, in one of the documents of his correspondence called Odkolek a "crook" ^{[16, l. 8]} and pointed out that about 70,000 rubles were spent on his work ^{[16, L. 4]} – a huge sum at that time. Is it possible to join Fedorov's opinion and consider Baron Odkolek a crook and a fraudster who purposefully deceived the Russian Military Department in order to obtain undeserved financial benefits? The answer may not seem quite obvious. Evaluating the result of his colleague's work on creating a light machine gun from the perspective of modern knowledge, we can conclude that this project simply turned out to be "beyond his ability." My friend managed to create a complete weapon design, but lacked the technical vision or skill to arrange it in a modern way.

The main problem with Baron Odkolek's work in Russia was the contradiction between the absolutely fair negative assessment given by the GAU specialists to the prototype of his machine gun during demonstration tests in August 1900, which excluded any further development of relations between Odkolek and Russia, and the permission to carry out work accompanied by huge preferences given to him by those top dignitaries of the Russian Federation. empires that were only indirectly familiar with automatic weapons.

Russians Russian gunsmiths could take advantage of the main successful solutions from the design of the Odkolek machine gun, designed with Russian money, and independently develop a modern machine gun? One can be sure that such a development was impossible at that time, for several reasons. At the very beginning of the twentieth century, there were still no gunsmiths in Russia capable of creating fully functional automatic weapons such as a light machine gun – even if Baron Odkolek had been able to negotiate the acquisition of a patent for its locking mechanism. At that time, work on the creation of automatic rifles was just beginning in Russia, and the level of perfection of their first samples was very low and it was not possible to quickly increase it. In the 1900s and 1910s, due to the lack of specialized design bureaus in Russia, factories became centers for the creation of new types of small arms, in particular, the Sestroretsk Arms Factory, to which inventors were seconded with their projects. Work on the new weapon was supervised by the GAU, but only in a very general way, and the level of perfection of the created sample depended only on the talent of the inventor. There was no methodological base or qualified expert center that could effectively direct the inventor's thought to improve the weapons being developed in the right direction and needed by the army at that time in Russia. Russian gunsmiths had to learn how to create automatic weapons by going through their own trial and error. And in this sense, the experience of developing the Odkolek machine gun in Russia with the participation of specialists from the Sestroretsk Arms Factory was quite likely to have a positive impact on the development of their own engineering staff of gunsmiths.