View Full Version : What could be done to simplify the AR-15?
The Dumb Gun Collector
12-24-16, 13:53
To me, the AR seems remarkably simple. Most of the time we are spending time and money ADDING complexity to the rifle (BAD levers, twin ejector, twin extractor, etc, piston doodads, etc). What could be done to SIMPLIFY the AR-15 without significantly reducing capability? The things I can think of can be done by others.
1. Delete the mostly useless forward assist. This would also simplify the machining of the bolt carrier. It would also slightly reduce weight.
2. Integrate and enlarge the trigger guard. I doubt this saves any weight or really simplifies the gun in any meaningful way. But it does reduce parts count and machining operations (plus eliminates the possibility of breaking the lower installing a roll pin).
3. Monolithic rail. I am not sure this would really simplify the manufacture, but would probably reduce parts count.
Possibly bad ideas/last ditch volksturm
4. Ditch bolt cover. Colt and others did that with the Expanse. This seems like a bad idea to me. It is a cheap part and helps keep garbage out with no cost to the functionality of the design. True last ditch.
5. Integrate QD mounts into monolithic rail and rear of lower. I actually don't care for this because once you damage them you are basically screwed unless you know a machinist willing to do some serious custom work.
Can anybody think of anything that could be done to further simplify the basic design?
To me, the AR seems remarkably simple. Most of the time we are spending time and money ADDING complexity to the rifle (BAD levers, twin ejector, twin extractor, etc, piston doodads, etc). What could be done to SIMPLIFY the AR-15 without significantly reducing capability? The things I can think of can be done by others.
1. Delete the mostly useless forward assist. This would also simplify the machining of the bolt carrier. It would also slightly reduce weight.
2. Integrate and enlarge the trigger guard. I doubt this saves any weight or really simplifies the gun in any meaningful way. But it does reduce parts count and machining operations (plus eliminates the possibility of breaking the lower installing a roll pin).
3. Monolithic rail. I am not sure this would really simplify the manufacture, but would probably reduce parts count.
Possibly bad ideas....
4. Ditch bolt cover. Colt and others did that with the Expanse. This seems like a bad idea to me. It is a cheap part and helps keep garbage out with no cost to the functionality of the design. Heck, I would like to see an auto closing version.
5. Integrate QD mounts into monolithic rail and rear of lower. I actually don't care for this because once you damage them you are basically screwed unless you know a machinist willing to do some serious custom work.
Can anybody think of anything that could be done to further simplify the basic design?
I like some of the ideas but think the F/A should stay. Many times before leaving base both in Iraq and Afghanistan, and lots of times during my LEO career I've pulled the charging handle back just enough to see the loaded round and let it go forward, seating with a push of the F/A. Those are the only times I've ever used it but it was comforting to check when I did.
What about an industry standard barrel nut/rail/handguard interface? I mean we have a pretty much standard accessory mounting interface for the most part, plus a couple. Would make swapping rails easier for those who like to play rail of the month.
Singlestack Wonder
12-24-16, 14:44
The AR15 design is already simple, proven to run in the worst conditions, and has been going strong for 50+ years.
No reason to change anything unless one is a gun gamer and needs a kickstand to hold it up for ease of grabbing on an ipsc stage. For serious use, the design works fine.
The Dumb Gun Collector
12-24-16, 15:03
Single stack, that is exactly the opposite of what I am talking about. I want ideas to simplify. If you aren't interested this really isn't for you.
The Dumb Gun Collector
12-24-16, 15:13
Additional Bad idea
Alright , what about welding the receiver extension in place? Would allow you to ditch a few parts and weak points in the design. I don't know how you would replace the buffer detent pin if it ever weakened.
I guess you could also use a plastic lower with an integrated grip--but I suspect that would require metal sleeves for pins, etc which would be a step back.
I would like to see the fixed front sight base eliminated and replaced with a detachable unit with screws that can be secured in place with roll pins after the sight is attached. This could be easily done by cross drilling the screws every 90 degrees. That way some MK 1 Mod 0 Soldier/Sailor can't remove the front sight base and lose it if the weapon is set up for iron sights.
If a unit equips their rifles or carbine with optics, they can requisition carbines and rifles without the FSB. If a unit wanted to convert iron sight weapons, an armorer could drive out the roll pins, loosen the screws and eliminate the FSB without interfering with the gas system.
The Dumb Gun Collector
12-24-16, 15:19
That's a good idea.
Monolithic is insanely expensive to do right. Most monolithic set up are made from 6000 series alloy because you can't weld 7075. So to get a 7075 monolith, you have to machine the living shit out of a monster forging.
I do like the idea of the trigger guard in the forging, but then you're stuck with whatever design is in the forging. I don't like bowed out/large trigger guards at all. I like to be able to set my gun on the edge of the bench/table resting on the mag well. The gun falls over with big trigger guards.
I think the rear of the trigger guard should be integrated into the grip. That would make it easier to change the trigger guard should a unit or branch of military service want a different design. No more pounding out the roll pin on the receiver and risking breakage. You just take an allen wrench and swap out the grip/trigger guard assembly.
The Dumb Gun Collector
12-24-16, 15:36
"So to get a 7075 monolith, you have to machine the living shit out of a monster forging."
I am still laughing at this.
The Dumb Gun Collector
12-24-16, 15:41
I like the simple sights integrated into the rails on the SIG 550 series/steyr scout rifle. Just a flush flip up simple peep with a battle zero.
Additional Bad idea
Alright , what about welding the receiver extension in place? Would allow you to ditch a few parts and weak points in the design. I don't know how you would replace the buffer detent pin if it ever weakened.
I guess you could also use a plastic lower with an integrated grip--but I suspect that would require metal sleeves for pins, etc which would be a step back.
I don't like the idea of welding the RE. but, if you want to try to away with the castle nut you could possibly try to do something that has the end plate with an extension, which inserts into the lower and is then pinned to the lower, however, I am not sure I'd want to pin something like that to my lower, and in all honesty you'd end with a zero sum gain regarding parts supposing you are still threading the RE to the lower. I could also see trying to intergrate a QD mount to the lower, to do away with the endplate but I don't like that since if you manage to wear out or damage the QD mount you SOL. In short though, I just am not seeing the need for it myself.
noonesshowmonkey
12-24-16, 18:07
Integrate ambidextrous controls into the basic design of the lower. The idea of a removable fsb is great. Integrate qd into the standard rail, reciever end plate, and stock. I'm for a trigger guard that is swappable. Integrated sights could be handy if they're done well, otherwise you're slaved to crappy buis. Enlarge the bolt hold open / release.
Essentially, these are quality of life changes that integrate into the base design a lot of what aftermarket does.
Serious Account
12-24-16, 18:25
Instead of permanently integrating the RE with the lower, I prefer a way to secure it in place without having to stake the castle nut. I know of the PWS's ratchet lock system but I wonder how well it holds up with hard use.
More robust bolt with fewer lugs (like 3 lugs)
Straight gas tube
Additional Bad idea
Alright , what about welding the receiver extension in place? Would allow you to ditch a few parts and weak points in the design. I don't know how you would replace the buffer detent pin if it ever weakened.
I guess you could also use a plastic lower with an integrated grip--but I suspect that would require metal sleeves for pins, etc which would be a step back.
You can't welt 7075 . . .
Simple is a loaded word. Simple to manufacture? Simple to use, or simple to assemble? Simple to fix?
Everything I've seen mentioned helps in one area, but takes away in another.
I think the current system is the best balance of simplicity in all areas while remaining modular.
I'd love to see a standardized supressor mount, but that's probably outside the scope of this thread.
Monolithic uppers are clown shoes. Bend the rail? Well screw you. I know one swat officer who destroyed an lmt upper his first time using it in a shoot house. So much for that idea.
"So to get a 7075 monolith, you have to machine the living shit out of a monster forging."
I am still laughing at this.
:) I think it's been done or tried. It's just a machine time/forge yield nightmare. It's the way to do it. But cost prohibitive as a mofo.
I vote for the FA to stay as well, and use an evolved FA so it won't snag on the user's fingernail or knuckle when he uses an ambi charging handle's right latch, as we did with the LDFA.
FA isn't used much anymore, so it can afford to be smaller, and evolve with other components, as they have evolved from the original design.
I don't want to use this thread to promote our product so I won't post links or pictures, y'all can look it up ;)
Everything mentioned above has been done by one company or another.
Trigger guard ears, those getting broken are directly related to the monkey behind the hammer.
There are guards that use screws to secure, for those that can't support the ears and not use an eight pound sledge.
There is a reason why it's one of the most modular and now versatile weapons in the world.
Eliminate the FA and give it a reciprocating side charger handle. It won't be as refined, but it will be simpler.
Develop the hand guard, hand guard mount and barrel nut into an integrated system. Time the threads so that when the right torque is reached, the top rail lines up. Make the hand guards out of carbon fiber or one of Magpul's miracle polymers.
Time the threads of the RE and lower for the same reason.
Use set screws to retain all those little springs that go flying when end plates and pistol grips are removed.
Make the gas key and carrier one piece. Yes, the whole unit will have to be replaced of the key gets damaged, but keys are rarely damaged.
Shorten the magwell do a constant curve thirty round mag can be used. Change it to use rock in mags. Might be a little slower, but locking is more positive and an ambi catch easier and simpler to design. The bolt catch will also be usable in more ways
Eliminate the FA and give it a reciprocating side charger handle. It won't be as refined, but it will be simpler.
I'd prefer not. More potential to snag things or malfunction.
Develop the hand guard, hand guard mount and barrel nut into an integrated system. Time the threads so that when the right torque is reached, the top rail lines up. Make the hand guards out of carbon fiber or one of Magpul's miracle polymers.
Already been done with carbon-fiber handguards, but if you've ever seen a CF arrow shatter...you wanna be holding that thing if an IED or Kaboom happens? HELL NO! As to timing the threads...that is a monumental PITA. Otherwise muzzle-devices would use that method.
Time the threads of the RE and lower for the same reason.
See above. Also "why"?
Use set screws to retain all those little springs that go flying when end plates and pistol grips are removed.
They don't go flying if you do things properly, and set screws would crush as many springs as they'd save from people who don't do things properly. Or people would lose the set screw too, lol Or it would get stuck. Or it would back out, then red loctite would happen, and then we would have threads about welding them in like the recent BUIS thread by Mr. Bell, lol
Make the gas key and carrier one piece. Yes, the whole unit will have to be replaced of the key gets damaged, but keys are rarely damaged.
They get primers and other things stuck in them, though, a plenty. Drop the BCG on concrete just once and the key is bye-bye. Properly torqued and staked is fine, and serviceable.
Shorten the magwell do a constant curve thirty round mag can be used. Change it to use rock in mags. Might be a little slower, but locking is more positive and an ambi catch easier and simpler to design. The bolt catch will also be usable in more ways
I disagree with most of the above and that is why. As to rocking mags in...then you need steel mags, thick tangs, etc. Opens a whole 'nuther can of weight-gaining complexity-adding worms.
The M4 type carbine really has reached design pinnacle pretty much. Now it's little things like a minimalist forward assist, an ambi-safety, etc. and material advances like Aeromet 100 bolts, QPQ carriers, etc.
............Shorten the magwell do a constant curve thirty round mag can be used. Change it to use rock in mags. Might be a little slower, but locking is more positive and an ambi catch easier and simpler to design. The bolt catch will also be usable in more ways
I would like to hear the opinions from people with a lot of trigger time in the field about this. I prefer a magazine release similar to that on the AK-47 and M-14. It is a little slower, but can be easily manipulated from both sides of the weapon. I believe a company like Magpul should be able to develop a good magazine to work with the system. I would like to hear the pros and cons of that type of magazine catch/release from people who have been on deployments with the current AR system.
I would also like to see an ambidextrous bolt release at the rear of the bottom of the magazine well.
Sure, the AR is a great weapon, but anything can be improved upon with input from knowledgeable people who have extensive experience using the weapon system in the field.
KAC mod 2 gas system. System uses straight gas tube
KAC mod 2 hand guard/ URX 4. Integrated hand guard barrel nut. Genius.
The receiver extension and castle nut on carbines could be simplified. There are a few examples of companies that have done this, but the "standard" is still the legacy Carbine version.
Has the snagging of AK, M14 or Garand charging handle actually been that much of a problem? I know they aren't the ideal, but they are simpler.
If you don't like carbon fiber, makes the hand guards out of one the Magpul Miracle Polymers, like I mentioned earlier.
All it takes is a moment of inattention removing a pistol grip or an end plate and sproing! You've got a spring gone missing. While I've removed and replaced grips and REs, I've never had the need to remove the set screw holding the rear pin in place. Having a set screw to hold the selector supporting in place would go a long way to keep it from bending the spring. It's not often that I need to remove the selector.
You make a good point about the gas key.
There are composite mags for the AK that are durable and reliable. The Ace has simplified the AK mag lock system without being heavy. But I do see that the lower would probably need a steel block at the front of the magwell.
Timing the threads isn't really all that difficult.
The changes I suggested make the AR simpler, not necessarily better. Of the changes I suggested, I would actually only implement four. A simpler way to mount hand guards, replacing aluminum hand guards with polymer, set screw for the detent pin & spring and a shallower magwell to allow the use of a constant curve mag. I'd also like to see a folding, non reciprocating side charging handle
MOLON AABE
12-24-16, 22:38
Standardize:
KAC URX 4 MLOK Hand guard.
An integrated flash hider and folding front sight combination.
Pinned low profile gas block.
5 lug bolt.
Velocitas, Opprimere,
Violentia Operandi
5 lug bolt means the bolt had to have more rotation for locking and unlocking
I've always indulged the pipe dream of incorporating the RE into the upper receiver, with design allowances to facilitate removing the BCG, buffer and spring from a twist on cap at the end of the RE, like batteries from a flashlight. That would also allow for plastic lowers, if your were so inclined.
ETA: Realizing the CH would become a problem... maybe a pin-like side-handle like the SCAR. Pop the handle out and the whole BCG/buffer assembly will drop from of the RE.
I would like to see the fixed front sight base eliminated and replaced with a detachable unit with screws that can be secured in place with roll pins after the sight is attached.
The location of the hole for a pin could be specified like the HK416, instead of put together and drilled in a semi random location like an AR FSB.
Standardize the gas block screw spacing and drill the gas port to allow setting the block against the barrel shoulder verses measuring to see if it was machined for an endcap. While it would involve machining, cut splines into the barrel and blocks to allow simple fitment without worries of cant and utilize a roll pin or stay with the set screw. If using a FSB, would virtually eliminate canted ones!(but one would have to gave a barrel cut differently than the idea above)
If possible, short travel bolt carriers to allow folding stocks and still permit operation-more than one shot. This would allow folders such as the MCX, etc.
I like the ideas of integrated trigger guards and omitting the FA.
Standardize the gas block screw spacing and drill the gas port to allow setting the block against the barrel shoulder verses measuring to see if it was machined for an endcap. While it would involve machining, cut splines into the barrel and blocks to allow simple fitment without worries of cant and utilize a roll pin or stay with the set screw. If using a FSB, would virtually eliminate canted ones!(but one would have to gave a barrel cut differently than the idea above)
If possible, short travel bolt carriers to allow folding stocks and still permit operation-more than one shot. This would allow folders such as the MCX, etc.
I like the ideas of integrated trigger guards and omitting the FA.
You need the action spring in front of the piston, then, otherwise I don't see how it will work.
Integrated trigger guards seem to be a standard at this point on any non mil-spec lower.
KAC's MOD 2 gas system is pretty tits.
Standardize the gas block screw spacing and drill the gas port to allow setting the block against the barrel shoulder verses measuring to see if it was machined for an endcap. While it would involve machining, cut splines into the barrel and blocks to allow simple fitment without worries of cant and utilize a roll pin or stay with the set screw. If using a FSB, would virtually eliminate canted ones!(but one would have to gave a barrel cut differently than the idea above)
If possible, short travel bolt carriers to allow folding stocks and still permit operation-more than one shot. This would allow folders such as the MCX, etc.
I like the ideas of integrated trigger guards and omitting the FA.
That is a solid point on gas blocks.
You need the action spring in front of the piston, then, otherwise I don't see how it will work.
Integrated trigger guards seem to be a standard at this point on any non mil-spec lower.
KAC's MOD 2 gas system is pretty tits.
Modified upper than would work?
Modified upper than would work?
It's not a very elegant solution, IMO, and removes the genius that Stoner designed into a system which has very little off-axis forces.
The reciprocating ch on an ak is a giant pita.
The rocking mags are a terrible design. The ar mags just need to be pushed until they are in. Problem solved.
It's not a very elegant solution, IMO, and removes the genius that Stoner designed into a system which has very little off-axis forces.
I'm not an engineer, but it seems there has been other designs that would allow this. I think one could be made that wouldn't have associated issues as the AR has had with a "piston" One would just have to design it and break from the traditional upper as we know it.
I'm not an engineer, but it seems there has been other designs that would allow this. I think one could be made that wouldn't have associated issues as the AR has had with a "piston" One would just have to design it and break from the traditional upper as we know it.
Well, you need an action spring large enough to be powerful enough and durable enough to return the weapon to battery, as well as prevent it from beating itself up. It's going to take up space, and it's going to have to go SOMEWHERE. I cannot think of a good solution that does not harm ergonomics, or axial loading/increased recoil.
The beauty of the M4 platform is that nearly all the forces are linear, and they are all 100% in-line with the bore of the weapon, which is also in-line with the shoulder.
Eugene Stoner was a damn genius, and every time people try to color too far out of the lines with his system, they find out just how much he really DID think it through, and we always end up returning to it, or trying as hard as we human can, to do so. Enter things like the Vltor A5. Always trying to get back to what Stoner had in mind...
The reciprocating ch on an ak is a giant pita.
The rocking mags are a terrible design. The ar mags just need to be pushed until they are in. Problem solved.
...and that's why folks talk about downloading AR mags by two rounds, because they are so easy to "just push in until they lock"
contax_shooter
12-25-16, 11:20
I sort of-kind of want a set screw instead of a roll pin on the bolt catch/release but it's one of those set and forget things, so my input is irrelevant.
Well, you need an action spring large enough to be powerful enough and durable enough to return the weapon to battery, as well as prevent it from beating itself up. It's going to take up space, and it's going to have to go SOMEWHERE. I cannot think of a good solution that does not harm ergonomics, or axial loading/increased recoil.
The beauty of the M4 platform is that nearly all the forces are linear, and they are all 100% in-line with the bore of the weapon, which is also in-line with the shoulder.
Eugene Stoner was a damn genius, and every time people try to color too far out of the lines with his system, they find out just how much he really DID think it through, and we always end up returning to it, or trying as hard as we human can, to do so. Enter things like the Vltor A5. Always trying to get back to what Stoner had in mind...
I guess the idea involves a different design altogether.
The Dumb Gun Collector
12-25-16, 11:53
I see a lot more people fumbling straight reloads on empty aks than people having at seating issues--especially under pressure. You can solve the problem by downloading the mags slightly and the problem, as limited as it is, goes away. Frankly, most ars are going to be empty with the bolt back when they are loaded anyway.There is no fix for the missed mag rock On an AK other than slowing down and starting over. To me switching to ak magwell would be a huge step back. Not to mention even removing the mag on the ak is slow unless you use various workarounds like slapping the mag lever with your other mag which also works great until it doesn't.
The reciprocating ch on an ak is a giant pita.
The rocking mags are a terrible design. The ar mags just need to be pushed until they are in. Problem solved.
As someone who used the M14 in the service and has a lot of time on HK's, and Mini-14's before the AR become the patrol rifle choice, I disagree. You want solid seating, that is the design. Plus ambi mag release.
Folks use these weapons when they are stressed, cold, and at the limits of endurance - the AK/M-14 system gets them seated.
I see a lot more people fumbling straight reloads on empty aks than people having at seating issues--especially under pressure. You can solve the problem by downloading the mags slightly and the problem, as limited as it is, goes away. Frankly, most ars are going to be empty with the bolt back when they are loaded anyway.There is no fix for the missed mag rock On an AK other than slowing down and starting over. To me switching to ak magwell would be a huge step back. Not to mention even removing the mag on the ask is slow unless you use various workarounds like slapping the mag lever with your other mag which also works great until it doesn't.
I get the need for speed, but lets be realistic, if you need to do it fast, you need to be doing on the move or behind cover. Doing it high noon, main street style, is just going to get you killed. At some point it becomes about tactics and sureness, rather than how fast you can do the kata on youtube or stationary on a line at a class.
Not going to trade-in my AR's, but the AK system would better meet real world usage IMO.
Let's hear from an 18B on this, any around?
Moonlight Again
12-25-16, 12:45
I am very much in the "read much and comment little" crowd, but I wanted to make two points.
First: excellent thread, and this is exactly the kind of thing that pulls me back here time and again. Different opinions advanced and discussed by people who know what they're talking about.
Second: I'd like to offer forward the GWACS polymer lower as a potential advance, or model for an advance. I don't know anything about them myself, but the idea seems sound.
http://www.gwacsarmory.com/
The Dumb Gun Collector
12-25-16, 12:49
"I get the need for speed, but lets be realistic, if you need to do it fast, you need to be doing on the move or behind cover. Doing it high noon, main street style, is just going to get you killed. At some point it becomes about tactics and sureness, rather than how fast you can do the kata on youtube or stationary on a line at a class."
True, but if time isn't an issue you can just lazily insert your mag until it clicks and tug on it to be sure.
I guess if you did swap to the ak mag catch you could eliminate the bolt release. That would simplify the system a bit.
The Dumb Gun Collector
12-25-16, 12:53
The poly lowers will probably be the answer long term. I do worry about the stability of the bolt catch, trigger pins, etc. Are they using metal inserts or just going straight plastic? I guess it works with the SCAR and other plastic lowers.
Moonlight Again
12-25-16, 13:09
The poly lowers will probably be the answer long term. I do worry about the stability of the bolt catch, trigger pins, etc. Are they using metal inserts or just going straight plastic? I guess it works with the SCAR and other plastic lowers.
Once more, no firsthand familiarity, but Tennessee Arms does a more traditional poly lower with machined brass inserts. From the reading I have done it seems like they're more a work in progress than an accomplished fact, but it also seems that they've been doing a good job of keeping early adopters up on the ongoing improvements.
http://www.tnarmsco.com/
The Dumb Gun Collector
12-25-16, 13:23
I might order one just to play with it. The price is sane. I guess for our thought experiment it would be best to mold an a1 stock and grip into it.
Moonlight Again
12-25-16, 13:57
For me one of the most attractive aspects of the GWACS stock is the integral buttstock. The sliding buttstock on the Colt carbines (from the XM177 through today's poppers) has always seemed like a half-ass solution to me. I have no objection to the buffer system on the AR, but I've never liked hanging a moving piece off it. Cover that thing up, protect it as much as possible. Ideally I'd like a fixed buttstock, integral with the lower receiver, set up for a short length of pull, with spacers to lengthen out to at least A1 length. (Kind of a riff off the way the Brits had long, medium and short buttstocks for the SMLE.)
Obviously, the system we've got now does actually work, but as long as we're spitballing here . . .
I guess the idea involves a different design altogether.
HK G3/91A3 manages even 7.62 NATO recoil, quite well, as did an old 5.56 carbine called the Leader. HK has Heavier bolt/BCG equiv mass though. I'll have to compare a 93 bolt assembly weight with the M4 BCG plus H2 buffer
Would for sure require a different design
...and that's why folks talk about downloading AR mags by two rounds, because they are so easy to "just push in until they lock"
Because choices. I use pmags, and the 2 usgi mags i do use seat just fine with 30.
At the end of the day, its a Mag design issue, not an ar design issue.
The rocking mag catch can lock the gun up if done wrong, so it's not a perfect system.
Imo the benefits of the ar design outweigh any negatives. Even ambi, I find the ar to be faster more reliable left handed than the aks.
I see a lot more people fumbling straight reloads on empty aks than people having at seating issues--especially under pressure. You can solve the problem by downloading the mags slightly and the problem, as limited as it is, goes away. Frankly, most ars are going to be empty with the bolt back when they are loaded anyway.There is no fix for the missed mag rock On an AK other than slowing down and starting over. To me switching to ak magwell would be a huge step back. Not to mention even removing the mag on the ak is slow unless you use various workarounds like slapping the mag lever with your other mag which also works great until it doesn't.
The FAL uses a rock in mag and the mags fall free, least in my FALs. The mag release can easily be reached with the trigger finger, or with the thumb when grasping the mag to rock out out. It's not a perfect system, but it's not a terrible system either. I don't think the AR mag system is terrible, in fact I like it. But it's annoying when the mag doesn't lock in.
If you want to simplify th AR design, a rock in mag system would do that. It would eliminate the need for ambidextrous magazine controls and rocking in the mag gives the shooter more leverage to lock in the mags.
Remember, the goal of this thread is to discuss simplifying the design. Not how to make it better
That 28 rounds in the mag is parroted more than anything I know. I wonder how many people never even tried to load 30 to see if THEIR MAGS WORK in THEIR GUN.
Simplify?
- Eliminate the detents and springs for the take down and pivot pin, go with split two piece pins (as in the MG-42).
- Permanently fix a ball detent and spring in the lever of the safety and capture plate on the inside (as in the FAL).
- Eliminate the "J" spring in the hammer and lock it in place with the same capture plate as the safety (FAL).
- Rock-in magazine has been mentioned.
- Reciprocating charging handle has been mentioned.
- Eliminate the castellations on the barrel nut entirely,
- If you keep the A2 type read sight, use a fixed front sight post.
Remember: simplify, not necessarily better.
I only have one thing for "better": find some other place to put the main-spring, you can shave 7 inches off the length that way...
That 28 rounds in the mag is parroted more than anything I know. I wonder how many people never even tried to load 30 to see if THEIR MAGS WORK in THEIR GUN.
When I deployed the first time to Iraq they issued me 28 rounds per mag. In 1999 when I first started on the SWAT team the old timers told me, only load 28. Even before that, reading old gun mags growing up they all said that! Not a big deal but to me 20's always got 20, 30's only got 28. I'm too old to change it up now!
I might order one just to play with it. The price is sane. I guess for our thought experiment it would be best to mold an a1 stock and grip into it.
I had an old CAV Arms lower and it ran well for a long time, but was fugly so I traded it somewhere along the line. If I remember correctly they all had an A1 length stock.
Well, you need an action spring large enough to be powerful enough and durable enough to return the weapon to battery, as well as prevent it from beating itself up. It's going to take up space, and it's going to have to go SOMEWHERE. I cannot think of a good solution that does not harm ergonomics, or axial loading/increased recoil.
Axial loading and recoil will not be altered by moving the mainspring, provided the spring rate and initial loading remain the same. It would have a very slight impact on kinematics, as there would be a small mass moving off the central axis, which would affect the rotational moments, These could be for the better or for the worse, depending on where and how far the spring is placed off the barrel axis.
And the spring doesn't have to be all that big, its just a two-and-a-half pound spring with a 7 inch working length, there are quite a few ways to skin that cat.
MOLON AABE
12-25-16, 20:02
5 lug bolt means the bolt had to have more rotation for locking and unlocking
As a math dunce I'm assuming the fewer the lugs the greater the rotation? I guess I'm not seeing how this works?
Velocitas, Opprimere,
Violentia Operandi
As a math dunce I'm assuming the fewer the lugs the greater the rotation? I guess I'm not seeing how this works?
Velocitas, Opprimere,
Violentia Operandi
You should be looking at the width of the lugs. When rotating to lock or unlock, the bolt must spin a distance slightly greater than the width of the lug. If you have fewer lugs (which would naturally be wider then) the bolt will have to spin a greater distance for the lugs to clear the star chamber.
Moonlight Again
12-25-16, 21:23
I had an old CAV Arms lower and it ran well for a long time, but was fugly so I traded it somewhere along the line. If I remember correctly they all had an A1 length stock.
Per their website, yup, they quote 5/8" shorter than an A2 (i.e., A1 length), 13" LOP.
friendlyfireisnt
12-25-16, 22:38
Thoughts from a simpleton:
I think the idea depends on who we are simplifying it for? The end user? The armorer? Or the Manufacturer?
From a user stand point, a one piece BCG simplifies it a bit. From the stand point of the armorer, it would be a god-send. From a manufacturer's stand point, it would make things way more complicated.
From my stand point, I would love to see a one piece BCG, I would love to get rid of the F/A. I love larger trigger guards, and wish they were all built in. I prefer having a barrel nut that doesn't need to be timed, or can be timed via shims (like the ALG setup) rather than a large torque range that really just corresponds to trying to line up a tooth with the gas tube.
I would love to see a standardized gas port diameter for specific barrel lengths that match up to a specific buffer/BCG weight. Mfg's seem all over the map with that. I have a barrel from one "high end" manufacturer that ejects perfectly at 3-4 oclock with a carbine buffer (18" carbine), but another barrel from the same manufacturer that ejects to the 1 oclock position consistently with an H2 buffer with the same ammo. I would love for all my rifles to use the same buffer, without the need for an adjustable gas block.
I like modular attachments for their simplicity. I prefer M-lok to Keymod, even though it takes a bit longer to attach. It's not simpler in my opinion, but better.
Axial loading and recoil will not be altered by moving the mainspring, provided the spring rate and initial loading remain the same. It would have a very slight impact on kinematics, as there would be a small mass moving off the central axis, which would affect the rotational moments, These could be for the better or for the worse, depending on where and how far the spring is placed off the barrel axis.
And the spring doesn't have to be all that big, its just a two-and-a-half pound spring with a 7 inch working length, there are quite a few ways to skin that cat.
I'm thinking an action spring setup as used by the FAL para might work to eliminate the need for the action spring to be in the RE
On the forward assist, Stoner originally designed the AR without it. The M16 used by the Air Force did not have it. It was the Army that insisted on it and it was added in the M16A1. Stoner himself thought that the assist could make a minor problem into a major one by thoroughly jamming a case in the chamber so that you need a rod to pound it out. He felt that simply pulling back on the charging handle to extract and eject and then releasing it to chamber a new round was sufficient. If that didn't work then you needed to troubleshoot the problem. Otherwise the risk of a well and truly jammed case was too great.
Personally I have never had the need for a forward assist and tend to agree with Stoner, but I have never been in combat. My experience has been in ROTC basic in 1970 and range/target since then. I would be interested in any thoughts from combat veterans.
Stoner himself thought that the assist could make a minor problem into a major one by thoroughly jamming a case in the chamber so that you need a rod to pound it out. He felt that simply pulling back on the charging handle to extract and eject and then releasing it to chamber a new round was sufficient. If that didn't work then you needed to troubleshoot the problem. Otherwise the risk of a well and truly jammed case was too great.
The problem was that Stoner's design was made for use with IMR4475 extruded/stick powder and (short story) WC846 ball powder ended up being used.
Gene Stoner was approached by Frank Vee of the OSD Comptrollers office after the package (powder) was approved and asked what he (Gene Stoner) thought of the use of Ball powder. Stoner asked, “Why are you asking me now?” Vee said, “I would have felt better if you would have approved the package.” Stoner replied, “Well, now we both don’t feel so good.”
Ball powder leaves significantly more fouling in the chamber and bolt assembly. Gene Stoner also pointed out the rifle had gone through more than 22 changes from his original design and neither Colt nor the Department of Defense consulted him on how some changes would impact his design. (Ichord Committee testimony)
The Army made a statement on July 27, 1967: “From the vantage point of retrospect, it has sometimes been suggested that the particular behavior of Ball propellant should have been predicted … Had the Army anticipated these developments, it is most unlikely that the course chosen in January, 1964, would have been the same. A decision to reduce the velocity requirement, and continue loading IMR4475 propellant would probably have been made instead, and development of alternate propellants could have been pursued more deliberately.” (Ichord Committee data)
Additionally, neither the bore nor chamber were chrome lined: To solve the chamber corrosion and failure-to-extract issues, all future production rifle barrels would be chrome-lined. Even though chrome-lining barrels is a military specification, Ordinance failed to require this basic requirement on the AR-15/M16 rifle system. (Ichord Committee data)
Didn't know if you knew the history. The Black Rifle is a good reference and a good read IMO.
ETA: I'm a lefty so I don't like the forward assist - it isn't needed and it has resulted in me making changes in my manual of arms to run the AR effectively. I also am a lefty who learned on the M16A1 and never felt a need for a brass deflector.
ruckusjuice
12-26-16, 12:09
The only thing I ever use a forward assist for is to fully lock the bolt after a press check since it often doesn't lock under the spring pressure alone. This can be accomplished by simply pushing on the side of the bolt through the ejection port. I haven't heard of any other uses for the forward assist that made sense to me. Getting rid of it would definitely simplify the rifle.
Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk
Thoughts from a simpleton:
I think the idea depends on who we are simplifying it for? The end user? The armorer? Or the Manufacturer?
From a user stand point, a one piece BCG simplifies it a bit. From the stand point of the armorer, it would be a god-send. From a manufacturer's stand point, it would make things way more complicated.
From my stand point, I would love to see a one piece BCG, I would love to get rid of the F/A. I love larger trigger guards, and wish they were all built in. I prefer having a barrel nut that doesn't need to be timed, or can be timed via shims (like the ALG setup) rather than a large torque range that really just corresponds to trying to line up a tooth with the gas tube.
I would love to see a standardized gas port diameter for specific barrel lengths that match up to a specific buffer/BCG weight. Mfg's seem all over the map with that. I have a barrel from one "high end" manufacturer that ejects perfectly at 3-4 oclock with a carbine buffer (18" carbine), but another barrel from the same manufacturer that ejects to the 1 oclock position consistently with an H2 buffer with the same ammo. I would love for all my rifles to use the same buffer, without the need for an adjustable gas block.
I like modular attachments for their simplicity. I prefer M-lok to Keymod, even though it takes a bit longer to attach. It's not simpler in my opinion, but better.
Port diameters have to be matched to the bolt carrier/buffer mass.
Since there are so many different carries available in the market, as well as buffers, all with different masses, standardized ports is pretty much impossible. You have low mass carriers with standard buffers, low mass with H1 buffers, H2 and H3, standard carriers with all four buffer weights, "semi-auto" cut carriers, etc....
Not to mention one company's "low mass" carrier is different from another companies "low mass" carrier...
For the most part, if you run standard parts (consistent from one manufacturer), everything works fine. You run into problems when you use Brand X low mass carrier with Brand Y barrel, and similar.
I'm thinking an action spring setup as used by the FAL para might work to eliminate the need for the action spring to be in the RE
Yes, that would be a good place to put it, but the down side is you would most likely need a compound spring, just like the para-FAL.
Does the Army still teach tapping on the FA after a shooter loads and reloads? The forward assist can be misused, but that alone doesn't make it a candidate for deletion, that few have found a use for it may not be reason enough either for the Army to ask for its removal. I know the big green machine moves slowly, but over the last 20 years we've seen quite a few components and new ideas adopted, and a few things omitted, and yet the forward assist has stayed. I don't know if it can be attributed to the abstinence of the organization alone, it's likely deemed important enough to be kept.
Of the folks I've spoken to, most of them have no use for it and have rarely, if ever, used it. A smaller percentage of them won't buy an upper without a forward assist. Then there are folks like me that don't use it all the time, but would prefer to have it though we may not need it, than to need it and not have it.
carbine357
12-26-16, 13:23
I like some of the ideas but think the F/A should stay. Many times before leaving base both in Iraq and Afghanistan, and lots of times during my LEO career I've pulled the charging handle back just enough to see the loaded round and let it go forward, seating with a push of the F/A. Those are the only times I've ever used it but it was comforting to check when I did.
I have never needed a f/a except in admin functions and I still think any part that allows u more ways to check the weapon are good and should be kept
no 1 I know in the real world ever wants to take it off
#2 I take the door off my work guns the day I am ready to carry for real
carbine 357
bowman57_2
12-26-16, 13:29
They only time they told me to use it was if I had a malfunction but I always hit it when I load my first mag or do a press check. I still prefer uppers that don't have an FA though.
I use the FA when loading an AR for bedside duty. I ease the charging handle forward, then use the FA to press the BCG the rest of the way home and lock the bolt
The mag catch discussion got me thinking...
If the mag caught had a lip that caught the mag catch and the mag catch was 1 shaft with a button on either side, it would be easier to manufacrure, and could be actuated from either side (button on both sides).
The mag catch discussion got me thinking...
If the mag caught had a lip that caught the mag catch and the mag catch was 1 shaft with a button on either side, it would be easier to manufacrure, and could be actuated from either side (button on both sides).
I considered this possibility and thought it would make the design more complicated than having an AK style magazine catch/release.
Simplification at the expense of speed and intuitive control manipulation doesn't seem like a good trade to me. AK mag change can be fast, but AR mag change is faster without much training.
Remember when most European handguns had heel mag release, and 1911 style mag release was "American" style? European ways aren't always the best.
AR18/180 design got ambi mag release and magazine thing figured out decades ago without resorting to mags that that have to be rocked into place. With the Norgon Ambi-Catch (it has an NSN), and other 3rd party solutions, the mag can stay the same. It's not simplified, but it retains one of the great features of the AR system.
I use the FA when loading an AR for bedside duty. I ease the charging handle forward, then use the FA to press the BCG the rest of the way home and lock the bolt
Why would you ease the bolt forward?
Why would you ease the bolt forward?
So the people outside or in another apartment dont hear me chambering.
Why give your opponent a heads up
MSparks909
12-26-16, 19:31
So the people outside or in another apartment dont hear me chambering.
Why give your opponent a heads up
... :rolleyes:
... :rolleyes:
[emoji6] [emoji6]
I am lefty though so charging and press checking is easy as pull the ch and pushing the fa with my thumb.
Imho i dont get the point of removing a feature that has a use.
Do you really think the weight difference is that much. The ar is aluminum. This aint an m1a.
In regards to machining time You will save what $5 to $10 at most. Thats what a meal at mc donalds
Sent from my SM-G900P using Tapatalk
The Dumb Gun Collector
12-26-16, 21:34
This is just a thought experiment. I was just wondering what could be done to simplify the AR-15 a bit without really interfering with functionality.
Why would you ease the bolt forward?
Why not? It's easier on the ammo when loading the AR after dry firing or unloading for safe handling. No dents in the primer and the bullet doesn't creep forward from being chambered more than once
This is just a thought experiment. I was just wondering what could be done to simplify the AR-15 a bit without really interfering with functionality.
It's a good one. It makes it clear just how refined the AR is
I learned something I think. Easing the bolt forward and then using the FA to finish the load sequence seems like a very useful manual of arms. Easing wear and tear on both the ammo and rifle. It seems like something to do whenever an administrative load is called for. Am I off on this?
I learned something I think. Easing the bolt forward and then using the FA to finish the load sequence seems like a very useful manual of arms. Easing wear and tear on both the ammo and rifle. It seems like something to do whenever an administrative load is called for. Am I off on this?
Funnily enough, I met a young Marine at a Christmas party. We got to talking guns, and I mentioned my disdain for the forward assist. He talked about using it just as you described. I might finally have a reason to use it!
Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk
Why not? It's easier on the ammo when loading the AR after dry firing or unloading for safe handling. No dents in the primer and the bullet doesn't creep forward from being chambered more than once
It's a good one. It makes it clear just how refined the AR is
I don't press check and if I need to worry about ammo damage or dents when loading my rifle I am either using the wrong ammo or have no business with the rifle.
I just take a look at what round is on top in the mag, left or right, then chamber one. I then drop the mag and if the opposite round is now on top I know I am good to go without needlessly taking it out of battery, which I have seen cause innumerable malfunctions.
I do like the FA and would not get rid of it.
I don't worry about the dents in the primers unless I know the round is going to be loaded in the chamber a few times. I keep an AR in the house loaded for defense. It gets dry fired. So, it needs to be unloaded to be dry fired safely. If you chamber the round in the normal fashion, the firing pin slams forward and leave a little dent in the primer. Chambering the same round over and over again could damage the primer enough to cause erratic ignition. It can also cause the bullet to start slipping forward. I'm not so rich that I can afford to set aside a round after each time the AR is loaded and I need my ammo to be reliable. Thus, I learned to ease down the carrier and press it home when loading the AR for bedside duty. The technique suits my specific need.
I don't like removing a mag after I've locked it in. That seems like one more opportunity to NOT lock the mag. Also, I can never remember which side the top round is supposed to be on. It will be on one side with some brands and on the other side with others. Then there is the question of how many rounds did I load this time? Was it an even number? Or odd? Will an odd number be on the left side of the tan follower? Or the right? Or does this mag have a Magpull follower? Much easier to pull the carrier back a bit and press the FA to lock the bolt in place. Not a perfect system, but it works
The FWD assist is great for QUIETLY chambering a cartridge. I have used the .308 and 6.8 for hunting,...I find it very useful.
I'm all for deleting features that don't serve a purpose anymore, whose usefulness isn't justified by the changes in environment or advance in technology/design.
Winter trigger guard may be one of them, barrel mounted sling adapter is the other I can think of. As infrequently as I use my iron sights and FA, I don't want to lose them.
Some say the scalloped out portion of the bolt carrier can be used to quietly push the BCG forward, while this is true, I don't think that's the intended purpose. If it were, it'd be serrated, not left smooth.
I would like to see a redesign that incorporates the recoil system inside the area of the receiver with the bolt carrier group. I don't think it out of the realm of possibility to design a shorter BCG to make some room in the receiver for the recoil system. If the system required making the receiver 1/2" longer and a little larger in diameter around the BCG, that would be offset by simplifying buttstock design for the service rifle. It would also allow endless possibilities for buttstock type and design for special applications.
Doc Safari
12-27-16, 17:40
1. Design a bolt and carrier where the bolt body rides underneath the carrier like an AK, thus deleting the need for a cam pin and a gaping hole in the bolt.
2. Retain the firing pin inside the bolt itself instead of having it ride in the bolt carrier behind the bolt.
3. Redesign the extractor and spring for stronger retention making the silicon insert unnecessary.
4. Have a receiver-mounted ejector like the Daewoo K-2.
5. Redesign the geometry of the bolt lugs for longer life without cracking.
I don't know how well these changes work from an engineering standpoint, but I can visualize them in operation.
1. Design a bolt and carrier where the bolt body rides underneath the carrier like an AK, thus deleting the need for a cam pin and a gaping hole in the bolt.
2. Retain the firing pin inside the bolt itself instead of having it ride in the bolt carrier behind the bolt.
3. Redesign the extractor and spring for stronger retention making the silicon insert unnecessary.
4. Have a receiver-mounted ejector like the Daewoo K-2.
5. Redesign the geometry of the bolt lugs for longer life without cracking.
I don't know how well these changes work from an engineering standpoint, but I can visualize them in operation.
1 & 2 - These two changes would just make the bolt and carriers more difficult to machine. The M16 bolt and carrier are actually simple items to machine as they are right now. I know you think these changes will eliminate cracking in the thin web around the cam-pin hole, but I think all they will do is move where the cracks start, unless you make the bolt and carrier much bigger. Reducing the cam pin diameter would accomplish the same end and keep the simple machine work at the expense of increased cam pin stress.
3 & 4 - The extractor spring is the weakest part of the whole design, and a beefier extractor spring would help. As to the ejector, the only reason to eliminate the spring ejector would be to make more room for a bigger extractor spring, it wouldn't help or hurt the functioning.
http://i1242.photobucket.com/albums/gg538/lysanderx/Bolt%20Carrier%20Assy%202_zpsdyqwm2x2.jpg
http://i1242.photobucket.com/albums/gg538/lysanderx/Bolt%20Carrier%20Assy%203_zpshgxoyhyv.jpg
http://i1242.photobucket.com/albums/gg538/lysanderx/Bolt%20Carrier%20Assy%206_zpsdcuothml.jpg
5 - It's been done, there are bolts that fit standard extensions with improve geometry.
I too would like to see a one piece RE/Lower with a qd socket incorporated. This is the one modification we do most at our shop. QD endplates.
Alliance96
01-07-17, 11:12
I have heard of hunters that ease the bolt forward then utilize the FA to finish seating the round
Doc Safari
01-09-17, 10:06
I have heard of hunters that ease the bolt forward then utilize the FA to finish seating the round
I actually have done this too.
Also, with a brand new weapon, it's sometimes necessary to use the FA to seat the BCG when reinstalling it in the rifle if you don't want to let it slam home. This goes away quickly as the rifle is used.
ODgreenpizza
01-15-17, 23:48
Thread gas block journal for a thread on gas block.
Machine flash hider into barrel a-la Ruger SR556C.
Integrate gas key, buffer, and bolt carrier into one unit.
Use a drop in trigger unit.
Powered by vBulletin® Version 4.2.5 Copyright © 2024 vBulletin Solutions, Inc. All rights reserved.