View Full Version : Bufferless?
Nightgunner
10-06-11, 21:07
I have been doing some reading and please let me know if I am understanding this. If I were to use a piston kit on an AR, with some work I could ditch the whole buffer, tube, and buffer spring assembly and use a side folding stock like a PDW? Similar to the piston/spring system on an AK or SKS.
DeltaSierra
10-06-11, 21:15
No.
Unless you redesign the bolt, and a buffer system, there ain't no way that you are putting a folding stock on an AR type weapon.
I really am not sure where you have been researching, but there is no way that what you describe is even remotely possible.
If you want a folding stock (still don't know why anyone would go out of their way to have a folding stock...) get a rifle that was designed with a folding stock in mind.
Attempting to retro-fit a folding stock on a weapon that was intended to have a buffer tube attached to the rear of the receiver will end in disaster...
Nightgunner
10-06-11, 21:36
No.
Unless you redesign the bolt, and a buffer system, there ain't no way that you are putting a folding stock on an AR type weapon.
I really am not sure where you have been researching, but there is no way that what you describe is even remotely possible.
If you want a folding stock (still don't know why anyone would go out of their way to have a folding stock...) get a rifle that was designed with a folding stock in mind.
Attempting to retro-fit a folding stock on a weapon that was intended to have a buffer tube attached to the rear of the receiver will end in disaster...
Actually I found what I remembered from a long time ago. Olympic Arms had the OA93 and another off shoot of that the name eludes me right now. Thanks to the Clinton AWB, the whole project pretty much got scrapped.
Now to see if I can find one of those old uppers and not spend a truck full of $$$.
Actually I found what I remembered from a long time ago. Olympic Arms had the OA93 and another off shoot of that the name eludes me right now. Thanks to the Clinton AWB, the whole project pretty much got scrapped.
Now to see if I can find one of those old uppers and not spend a truck full of $$$.
Why would you spend any money for an Olympic Arms rifle? Good advice has already been given. If you want a gun with a folding stock, buy a gun where the design allows for a folding stock (AK, SCAR, etc).
The Knuckle
10-07-11, 00:00
There are a lot of options for a colapsable stock in 556 now. PARA and RRA have some.
HK has a new PDW with a new stock that looks bufferless. I think they have been able to balance a short BCG and just a spring in a tiny buffer tube.
http://cdn5.thefirearmsblog.com/blog/wp-content/uploads/2009/09/dsei_2009_hkjpg-tfb-tm.jpg
http://cdn5.thefirearmsblog.com/blog/wp-content/uploads/2009/09/hk416c_02-tfb-tm.jpg
http://cdn5.thefirearmsblog.com/blog/wp-content/uploads/2009/09/hk416c_01-tfb-tm.jpg
http://cdn5.thefirearmsblog.com/blog/wp-content/uploads/2009/09/hk416c_03-tfb-tm.jpg
There is also another smaller company doing the same thing but I will have to do some searching.
As far as I know nothing you have cited is actually available for purchase and none of them are proven. By proven I don't mean someone went to the range one time and it worked for 300 rounds.
I mean proven as in the system has had thousands and thousands of rounds trhough it over time and all the kinks worked out.
As others have mentioned, if you want a folding system get something designed to use it.
There are a lot of options for a colapsable stock in 556 now. PARA and RRA have some.
HK has a new PDW with a new stock that looks bufferless. I think they have been able to balance a short BCG and just a spring in a tiny buffer tube.
http://cdn5.thefirearmsblog.com/blog/wp-content/uploads/2009/09/dsei_2009_hkjpg-tfb-tm.jpg
http://cdn5.thefirearmsblog.com/blog/wp-content/uploads/2009/09/hk416c_02-tfb-tm.jpg
http://cdn5.thefirearmsblog.com/blog/wp-content/uploads/2009/09/hk416c_01-tfb-tm.jpg
http://cdn5.thefirearmsblog.com/blog/wp-content/uploads/2009/09/hk416c_03-tfb-tm.jpg
There is also another smaller company doing the same thing but I will have to do some searching.
buckshot1220
10-07-11, 00:40
As appealing as an AR with a folding stock may seem, the chances of getting your hands on one that is actually going to be reliable is probably pretty slim, not to mention you will probably lose parts commonality/modularity. Like others have said, look towards some guns that were designed ground-up for a folding stock, not retro-fitted.
The SCAR comes to mind.
Dionysusigma
10-07-11, 00:50
Isn't the KAC PDW a bufferless design as well?
The Knuckle
10-07-11, 01:13
As far as I know nothing you have cited is actually available for purchase and none of them are proven. By proven I don't mean someone went to the range one time and it worked for 300 rounds.
I mean proven as in the system has had thousands and thousands of rounds trhough it over time and all the kinks worked out.
As others have mentioned, if you want a folding system get something designed to use it.
Ok, I guess I should have spent more time in wording what I stated.
I certainly don't claim to know it all. I just want to pass on what I have seen and read
IF I was buying a rifle to depend my life on, yes, it would be one with a LONG proven track record.
But, for a recreational shooter there are AR15 options from reputable manufactures.
As far as buying a HK 416 PDW, I can't say at the moment. I would imagine that you can, or in the near future, you could buy a HK. Since its HK you would need to be LE/Mil.
For info sake I will post the website/company with a system like HK. You would, however, need to be able to own a SBR.
For the OP I think this could be a great option. This one is made by RRA, a reputable company.
http://www.rockriverarms.com/images/products/rpds_car11.gif
Yes, and you still can't buy one. That's the whole point.
Isn't the KAC PDW a bufferless design as well?
416's are not available. The closest available in the U.S is the MR556 and I doubt we will be seeing any 416 PDW's.
RRA is not something most people here would consider reputable.
Ok, I guess I should have spent more time in wording what I stated.
I certainly don't claim to know it all. I just want to pass on what I have seen and read
IF I was buying a rifle to depend my life on, yes, it would be one with a LONG proven track record.
But, for a recreational shooter there are AR15 options from reputable manufactures.
As far as buying a HK 416 PDW, I can't say at the moment. I would imagine that you can, or in the near future, you could buy a HK. Since its HK you would need to be LE/Mil.
For info sake I will post the website/company with a system like HK. You would, however, need to be able to own a SBR.
For the OP I think this could be a great option. This one is made by RRA, a reputable company.
http://www.rockriverarms.com/images/products/rpds_car11.gif
justin_247
10-07-11, 04:25
A folding stock is nifty, but is it really that beneficial? Or is it just cool and people want it for that reason?
Seems like it would only be useful for vehicle ops.
As far as ARs are concerned, there are no systems out there from any reputable manufacturers. Magpul designed an ACR upper receiver that interfaced with a standard AR lower and would allow for a folding stock, but never did anything with it. HK considered something similar during the development of the 416, but decided that it would only have marginal benefits.
http://www.zmweapons.com/
http://zmweapons.com/LR_KITs.jpg
http://www.outdoorsunlimited.net/~chucksmy/guns/zm300-9.JPG[/IMG
[IMG]http://www.outdoorsunlimited.net/~chucksmy/guns/zm300-14.JPG
http://www.outdoorsunlimited.net/~chucksmy/guns/zm300-13.JPG
justin_247
10-07-11, 08:14
http://www.zmweapons.com/
http://zmweapons.com/LR_KITs.jpg
http://www.outdoorsunlimited.net/~chucksmy/guns/zm300-9.JPG[/IMG
[IMG]http://www.outdoorsunlimited.net/~chucksmy/guns/zm300-14.JPG
http://www.outdoorsunlimited.net/~chucksmy/guns/zm300-13.JPG
This is about as ghetto as it gets. A bolt carrier lopped in half with a Sawzall and a recoil system underneath the top rail that fails to function if a single tiny washer is lost. I can't believe that people would sacrifice so much just to get a folding stock.
^^^ do you have personal experience with the product from ZM? if so how extensive?
i personally have not used it but find it interesting please note i in no way intend to use this to defend my life with.
This is about as ghetto as it gets. A bolt carrier lopped in half with a Sawzall and a recoil system underneath the top rail that fails to function if a single tiny washer is lost. I can't believe that people would sacrifice so much just to get a folding stock.
Nor I, sir. With availability and knowledge here of SBR options, can't imagine why someone would need this. Much less want it.
^^^ do you have personal experience with the product from ZM? if so how extensive?
i personally have not used it but find it interesting please note i in no way intend to use this to defend my life with.
I don't know if any of the more seasoned on this board would forked've over hard earned money (ETA: holy fook. 2K plus?!), or their time, to gain said personal experience from that thing.
Educated eyes recognize a backwoods, incest-produced amalgamation when they see one.
CaptainDooley
10-07-11, 20:12
The only reason one would NEED a folding stock would be if some kind of mission requirement was that the gun fit into a very specific space. I am 100% sure that if this theoretical mission ever occurred, a robust, reliable, and fully tested solution would be what was asked for... not whatever monstrosity that thing is... Or RRA for that matter.
Nightgunner
10-07-11, 20:15
Hmmm..wondering whatever happened to wanting to build, create, or have something "Just Because". Folks have been defending themselves from anti gunners for so long they feel everything must be justifiable.
Pretty sad display.
DeltaSierra
10-07-11, 20:27
The issue here is that NONE of the folding-stock rifles mentioned are worth anything.
If you don't have a decently reliable rifle, what is the point of having it? Might as well have a pointy stick...
Nightgunner, you would be well advised to step back, and think about what this site is about. This site is NOT about buying "neat" guns that serve no practical purpose and are unreliable.
If you want YHM rifles, and weird unreliable weapons, by all means, buy to your hearts content, but don't come here and ask for advice on said weird and unreliable weapons....
If you want a rifle with a folding stock, look at an Arsenal AK. They are very reliable, proven rifles, and the price is unbeatable.
I don't think anyone here is saying that you shouldn't get a rifle with a folding stock (although that feature is of dubious value.) If that is what you want, there are quite a few good options out there that would provide you with a very serviceable weapon without sacrificing reliability.
It would only seem a step in evolution to remove the spring & buffer and make a smaller more compact self contained unit that will help the bolt reciprocate more efficiently.
Hmmm..wondering whatever happened to wanting to build, create, or have something "Just Because". Folks have been defending themselves from anti gunners for so long they feel everything must be justifiable.
Pretty sad display.
These are tools and are thus improved out of necessity. This isn't arts and crafts; companies don't get creativity points. :suicide2:
I guess a lot of people here have a hard time understanding why people keep trying turning the AR into something it’s not. If you want a folding stock piston driven rifle then just get a SCARS, or something like it. What is the point of cobbling together a bunch parts just to make the AR not an AR.
I came across the Para TTR (http://www.para-usa.com/new/product_rifle.php) in a magazine a few months ago. They had a good review on it, just as every magazine has on every product in it. I wouldn't buy one.
I came across the Para TTR (http://www.para-usa.com/new/product_rifle.php) in a magazine a few months ago. They had a good review on it, just as every magazine has on every product in it. I wouldn't buy one.
Para announced a few days ago that they no longer going to make it.
I came across the Para TTR (http://www.para-usa.com/new/product_rifle.php) in a magazine a few months ago. They had a good review on it, just as every magazine has on every product in it. I wouldn't buy one.
The para was the same design as the Z-M Weapons one. No clue who was making it for who.
I held the para a few years ago but didn't get to fire it. The stock felt very cheap from what I remember. I didn't like it. No clue how well the thing worked. The lack of an sbr upper was enough to not interest me. A 10.5 or 11.5 upper might have interested me although if you really want a short weapon you have some other options.
The lack of an sbr upper was enough to not interest me. A 10.5 or 11.5 upper might have interested me although if you really want a short weapon you have some other options.
The review was actually for an SBR version. It was in Guns & Weapons for Law Enforcement if I remember correctly? I think it had a 10.5" barrel. It was less than a month ago that I saw the article while perusing the magazines at the local Walmart.
The stock does look cheap, it bothers me for some reason, too blocky maybe. I don't think they had any pictures of the internals. I'll definitely pass pass on it. As was mentioned, pick up a SCAR if you want a folding stock. Or maybe even an ACR...
Personally I could care less if someone wants to build a new AR out of horsehit. But, if they try to push that new idea as something it's not then I have an issue.
Why does anyone think that Para is dropping that weapon from their production? It's not because of great sales.
The bottom line is that the AR has received a bad wrap for many years partially because people give birth to ARbortions that should never have seen the light of day and then they tell everyone it is crap.
Or people continue to perpetuate old myths that should have died years ago. Trying to turn the AR into something it isn't is silly. Especially when there are other products on the market.
A while back I asked Ken Elmore why he won't sell his lower receivers on the market for people to build from. He stated pretty simply- "because I don't want to some unskilled moron building an AR with the SAW name and logo that doesn't run and then my company name gets a bad wrap".
Having seen some of the stuff that I have I completely agree.
Hmmm..wondering whatever happened to wanting to build, create, or have something "Just Because". Folks have been defending themselves from anti gunners for so long they feel everything must be justifiable.
Pretty sad display.
maybe this is a derail, maybe it isn't... but what's everyone's favorite folder platform?
The only value I see in a side folder is in vehicles or in some other environment where space is limited. My AK74s fits nicely behind my truck seat and much nicer in my backpack. The AR, not so much, the extra 8" or so does make a difference in that respect, but is more accurate, and other than those two scenarios I like the AR platform better.
Having a side folder AR with universal mags and ammo would fill a niche quite nicely. So would having a side folding ak that took AR mags and ammo which seems much more do-able. If Arsenal did that I would be all over it.
I guess a lot of people here have a hard time understanding why people keep trying turning the AR into something it’s not. If you want a folding stock piston driven rifle then just get a SCARS, or something like it. What is the point of cobbling together a bunch parts just to make the AR not an AR.
+1. I think innovation got us to this point, but don't take the spots off a leopard and tell me it's a dog.
An ar was configured that way. When you try to"cobble" a rifle into somthing it's not, good things are not going happen. Been there, screwed that up.
Suwannee Tim
10-09-11, 09:34
I am utterly puzzled by folks who argue that you shouldn't attempt to innovate or adapt the AR. To the man that tries, even if he fails, I give a big kudos. It takes a lot of cash and time to build something like the Para side folder, it takes a lot of nerve to risk that much cash and time. Innovation, adaptation and risk-taking are powerful forces that advance the state of the art. To folks who have never done any of these things I suppose it is obvious you shouldn't do these things. I am grateful to and admiring of risk-takers and innovators.
Sure I could try to design an engine that runs on cow farts too. Does the market want it? No. But you should applaud me because I'm creative? I don't think so. The days are long gone when I get scratch and sniff stickers on my work just because I had a creative idea.
Is it needed is the question? Our family and business are very active in the entrepreneurial scene in our area; there are plenty of broke guys out there that think just because they're creative, they'll make money. If the market is saturated and there is no need for 're-inventing the wheel', people aren't going to buy your product just because you're creative. Especially at that price point.
buckshot1220
10-09-11, 11:41
I am utterly puzzled by folks who argue that you shouldn't attempt to innovate or adapt the AR. To the man that tries, even if he fails, I give a big kudos. It takes a lot of cash and time to build something like the Para side folder, it takes a lot of nerve to risk that much cash and time. Innovation, adaptation and risk-taking are powerful forces that advance the state of the art. To folks who have never done any of these things I suppose it is obvious you shouldn't do these things. I am grateful to and admiring of risk-takers and innovators.
The point isn't that we are resisting adaptation or innovation. We have to realize that there is only a certain amount of adaptation that can be done when you are using the same receiver that has been around for +/- half a century and still achieve results similar too, or better than, something that is designed ground-up for a piston, folding stock, bluetooth automatic garage door opener etc.
As for the Para, ZM, RRA and so on, I really don't regard these as innovation. They use a receiver block similar to what ACE has produced for the AR and other rifles for some time now and hacked the BCG in half to cobble together a recoil system that will fit and hopefully work in adverse conditions. When they fail to sell and go by the wayside, like the Para, what are the owners going to do for parts?
Suwannee Tim
10-09-11, 12:55
I have been shooting for almost a half a century and I have witnessed a lot of controversies in that time. Optics on service rifles, the flat top AR, the M4, the AR10/M16/AR15 design itself were, in their youth, harshly and widely criticized. If, over the millennia, the innovators had listened to the naysayers we wouldn't be shooting our Aimpoint sighted M4s, we'd be sitting around the campfire in a loincloth and a bone in our nose. I've observed that there are always an abundance of reasons for the risk-taker to not take risks and for the innovator to not innovate and never a shortage of people to point out these reasons.
Hmmm..wondering whatever happened to wanting to build, create, or have something "Just Because". Folks have been defending themselves from anti gunners for so long they feel everything must be justifiable.
Pretty sad display.
a "Sign of the times"...sad but true...:agree::(
as has been said in earlier reply's there are many other good, reliable, accurate, available rifles to apply the folding stock to...the Ruger Mini 14/30 being one of them.
I'd like to say that i had a Mini-14 years ago and purchased a folding stock for it...i was NOT satisfied with it at all! i did not like the feel, operation and steadiness of it at all!
in fact, later down the line, i changed my M4 to a fixed A2 buttstock and like it MUCH better...JMO
CaptainDooley
10-09-11, 13:08
I have been shooting for almost a half a century and I have witnessed a lot of controversies in that time. Optics on service rifles, the flat top AR, the M4, the AR10/M16/AR15 design itself were, in their youth, harshly and widely criticized. If, over the millennia, the innovators had listened to the naysayers we wouldn't be shooting our Aimpoint sighted M4s, we'd be sitting around the campfire in a loincloth and a bone in our nose. I've observed that there are always an abundance of reasons for the risk-taker to not take risks and for the innovator to not innovate and never a shortage of people to point out these reasons.
If someone wants to innovate in firearm design they should - but they should develop a system from the ground up to support their innovations - not hack up a known good system into something it can't reliably support for the sake of their ideas. Look at Magpul's rifle and the SCAR... Those are two companies that know ARs and recognized there were limitations they couldn't overcome to do what they felt needed to be done in the realm of innovation...
In fact, no one here has said "DON'T INNOVATE!" What they said was - this particular innovation is ill-conceived and doesn't really work ON AN AR, nor it is 100% necessary - so they don't see the need when someone else already built said "better mousetrap" in more modern rifles.
DeltaSierra
10-09-11, 13:10
I have been shooting for almost a half a century and I have witnessed a lot of controversies in that time. Optics on service rifles, the flat top AR, the M4, the AR10/M16/AR15 design itself were, in their youth, harshly and widely criticized. If, over the millennia, the innovators had listened to the naysayers we wouldn't be shooting our Aimpoint sighted M4s, we'd be sitting around the campfire in a loincloth and a bone in our nose. I've observed that there are always an abundance of reasons for the risk-taker to not take risks and for the innovator to not innovate and never a shortage of people to point out these reasons.
So, if I take a Ford Escort and chop off the rear part of the cabin and replace it with a wood truck bed, should I have people pat me on the back for such a wonderful innovation even though what I did was completely useless?
My new innovation cannot function as it was originally designed, and it cannot function well in its new redesigned configuration either.
-------------------------------
The point here is that the Para/ZM/RRA/OA-93 weapons are NOT well designed, and the idiot that came up with the brilliant idea that an AR type rifle needs a folding stock shouldn't be praised for chopping a bolt carrier in half, and welding a piston on where the carrier key should be...
If you want a useless hacked-up weapon, by all means, go for the Para/ZM "design".
Suwannee Tim
10-09-11, 14:37
I'll tell you one more thing about innovation. It's impossible to know up front which innovations will work and which will fail. I have worked in electronics manufacturing for decades where rapid advance is a way of life. I have personally had too many ideas I thought were sure bets and seen them go sour and seen too many seemingly bad ideas succeed to join the ever present crowd hurling slings and arrows at the innovators.
All you guys hurtling the slings and arrows, Eugene Stoner had to endure the same sort of naysayers. John Moses Browning, Richard Gatling, Georg Luger, Paul Mauser, every one of them had the same insults hurled at their inventions. It's something anyone and everyone who wants to depart from the status quo has to cope.
It's the easiest thing in the world to sit on the sidelines and yell at the quarterback that he's doing it wrong. He's heard it all before.
DeltaSierra
10-09-11, 14:55
I totally support departing from the the status quo, as you put it.
What I think is entirely stupid is to take a chop saw to a workable design of known performance, and calling that innovation.
You are free to think whatever you want, but this particular "design" is not a design, but rather, it is a poorly assembled collection of half-baked bubba-style modifications.
If you are going to market a weapon, at least redesign the bolt carrier, rather than chopping up the existing design....
Suwannee Tim
10-09-11, 19:04
.......this particular "design" is not a design, but rather, it is a poorly assembled collection of half-baked bubba-style modifications.....
Are we talking about the same gun? The Para TTR? The 2010 Shooting Illustrated Magazine's Golden Bullseye Award for Rifle of the Year. That gun?
buckshot1220
10-09-11, 19:26
Are we talking about the same gun? The Para TTR? The 2010 Shooting Illustrated Magazine's Golden Bullseye Award for Rifle of the Year. That gun?
Yes, I believe we are. Almost every gun reviewed by a gun mag gets stellar reviews. Seriously, when was the last time you saw a negative review? It also happens to be the same gun that is now discontinued, FYI.
Do you own one? Do you have first hand experience you'd like to share (positive or negative)?
The Evolution of the AR seems to be moving in the direction of the SCW--that is, a shortened buffer tube, some method of shortening the reciprocating mass, and adding a shorter collapsible stock. We see the HK doing that on page 1, we've heard of the SCW in a recent M4C post, and I know LWRC is also offering a short receiver extension (aka buffer tube) PSD carbine.
I'd imagine a combination of shortened buffer tubes, flatter springs, and shorter bolt carriers all help this innovation.
FWIW: I like folding stocks. I sometimes keep a long arm in my back seat and the folding stock makes the weapon a lot wieldier inside a vehicle.
http://www.defensereview.com/wp-content/uploads/2009/04/AUSA_Colt_Defense_SCW_3_large.jpg
I'll stop ranting now.
justin_247
10-09-11, 21:28
I'll tell you one more thing about innovation. It's impossible to know up front which innovations will work and which will fail. I have worked in electronics manufacturing for decades where rapid advance is a way of life. I have personally had too many ideas I thought were sure bets and seen them go sour and seen too many seemingly bad ideas succeed to join the ever present crowd hurling slings and arrows at the innovators.
All you guys hurtling the slings and arrows, Eugene Stoner had to endure the same sort of naysayers. John Moses Browning, Richard Gatling, Georg Luger, Paul Mauser, every one of them had the same insults hurled at their inventions. It's something anyone and everyone who wants to depart from the status quo has to cope.
It's the easiest thing in the world to sit on the sidelines and yell at the quarterback that he's doing it wrong. He's heard it all before.
You need to get off your high horse and cease your baseless ad-hominem attacks against us.
The idea that we're somehow against innovation on the AR platform is ridiculous. There's good innovations and bad innovations, and this definitely falls into the latter category.
Eugene Stoner designed an entire weapons system from the ground up. He didn't go and take an existing weapons system that works fine, use a hacksaw to cut the bolt carrier in half, replace the carrier key with a metal rod, throw in a spring on top of the barrel that's held into place by a washer that's had a piece cut out of it with a pair of diagonal cutters, and then call it a new, revolutionary design.
Finally, you need to quit calling into question whether or not people have tried the weapon or not. That's irrelevant. I don't need to try Stalinism to know that it sucks. I don't need to buy a Yugo to learn that it's extremely maintenance intensive. And I don't need to touch two different kinds of aluminum to know that 7075-T6 has a higher tensile strength than 6061-T6.
At the rate you're going, I'm sure you're going to start going around the forum calling people out by saying, "You've never owned a DPMS! How can you say your Colt is better if you've never tried it!?"
It's too bad all of those years of electronics manufacturing never taught you anything about logic.
justin_247
10-09-11, 21:43
Here's an interesting video that shows how they compressed the recoil system on the Colt SCW:
http://vimeo.com/3585730
They completely redesigned the BCG so that the buffer screws onto the backside of a shortened carrier and reduced the buffer's length. Combined with a shortened spring that fits along the outside of the carrier, they were able to significantly reduce the length of the receiver extension.
Admittedly, I'm still not very impressed, but it's a decent compromise that still retains about 50% of the original system, which will certainly cut down on production costs while keeping some parts commonality. The result will probably be much cheaper than FN's and HK's offerings, companies who are still trying to make up for all of the development and tooling money they threw into entirely new weapons systems like the SCAR and 416.
DeltaSierra
10-09-11, 21:56
Here's an interesting video that shows how they compressed the recoil system on the Colt SCW:
http://vimeo.com/3585730
They completely redesigned the BCG so that the buffer screws onto the backside of a shortened carrier and reduced the buffer's length. Combined with a shortened spring that fits along the outside of the carrier, they were able to significantly reduce the length of the receiver extension.
Admittedly, I'm still not very impressed, but it's a decent compromise that still retains about 50% of the original system, which will certainly cut down on production costs while keeping some parts commonality. The result will probably be much cheaper than FN's and HK's offerings, companies who are still trying to make up for all of the development and tooling money they threw into entirely new weapons systems like the SCAR and 416.
Thanks for posting that video.
I was curious as to how Colt managed that neat trick...
I am going to be keeping an eye on the SCW to see how it performs out in the field, as I really like the concept behind that new receiver extension.
I have high hopes for the SCW, and since Colt is going to be putting it on the market, I am pretty sure that they have done their homework on this one...
justin_247
10-09-11, 23:39
I am going to be keeping an eye on the SCW to see how it performs out in the field, as I really like the concept behind that new receiver extension.
I have high hopes for the SCW, and since Colt is going to be putting it on the market, I am pretty sure that they have done their homework on this one...
It'll probably work fine. The carbine recoil system is still intact, just streamlined a little more.
When somebody develops an upper receiver group that uses an HK G36 or FN SCAR style bolt carrier and recoil system, that's when things will get very, very interesting for the AR platform.
TriviaMonster
10-10-11, 00:56
If you really want a short weapon for a vehicle or other confined spaces a ps90 sbr sounds like a good bet if you don't mind the price tag, pricey ammo(compared to 5.56), and a weaker round. No folding stock, but a good all around performer for its size. Secret service uses the p90 variant still, I'm sure, mainly for its compact size and relative performance capabilities. Food for thought. But indeed a small rifle in sbr format.
-Chris-
Magic_Salad0892
10-10-11, 02:10
Here's an interesting video that shows how they compressed the recoil system on the Colt SCW:
http://vimeo.com/3585730
They completely redesigned the BCG so that the buffer screws onto the backside of a shortened carrier and reduced the buffer's length. Combined with a shortened spring that fits along the outside of the carrier, they were able to significantly reduce the length of the receiver extension.
Admittedly, I'm still not very impressed, but it's a decent compromise that still retains about 50% of the original system, which will certainly cut down on production costs while keeping some parts commonality. The result will probably be much cheaper than FN's and HK's offerings, companies who are still trying to make up for all of the development and tooling money they threw into entirely new weapons systems like the SCAR and 416.
The Colt SCW is awesome. It's on my short list of must have guns, that actually fill a niche for me.
http://www.defensereview.com/colt-sub-compact-weapon-scw-folding-stock-tactical-556-sbr-photos/
This is my favorite article on it, and I'd love to see some of the things on this gun.
Like the ''upgraded'' gas impingement system, with gas regulator. That's awesome.
Suwannee Tim
10-10-11, 04:55
Yes, I believe we are. Almost every gun reviewed by a gun mag gets stellar reviews. Seriously, when was the last time you saw a negative review? It also happens to be the same gun that is now discontinued, FYI.
Do you own one? Do you have first hand experience you'd like to share (positive or negative)?
I do know the gun riters lie, I've bitched about that as much as anyone on this forum. It's a pretty sharp contrast, the piece of garbage you describe versus the "Rifle of the Year" according to Shooting Illustrated.
Never actually seen one. From the propaganda video it seems like a credible rifle. They do a good job of covering up the chop saw marks.
Suwannee Tim
10-10-11, 05:06
You need to get off your high horse and cease your baseless ad-hominem attacks against us.....
I have made no such attack. Please quote said attack if I'm wrong.
.....Finally, you need to quit calling into question whether or not people have tried the weapon or not......
I have not done so. Please correct me, providing a quote if I'm wrong.
.....Eugene Stoner designed an entire weapons system from the ground up.....
My point about Stoner and was that he faced furious criticism.
....It's too bad all of those years of electronics manufacturing never taught you anything about logic.
This is an example of an ad hominem attack.
Suwannee Tim
10-10-11, 05:38
If someone wants to innovate in firearm design they should - but they should develop a system from the ground up to support their innovations......
Given this reasoning we would not have the M4 which is an adaptation. By the way, the M4 was furiously criticized.
Stoner's design was revolutionary unlike the vast, vast majority of technical progress which is evolutionary. If you could forbid evolutionary progress you would halt almost all progress.
How much do you think current State and Federal regulations have affected the use of AR lowers for "novel" designs?
Want a modern FA rifle like an XCR, SCAR, or ACR? Sorry, can't, 922(o).
Solution? Put similar features into an AR upper slap it on a RR or a DIAS
Live in CA, NY, NJ, etc... and want a new rifle that doesn't require neutering? Sorry, can't.
Solution? Put similar features into an AR upper slap it on a pre-ban lower.
Want to build a new rifle but can't afford the hassle of setting up a manufacturing FFL?
Want to utilize common parts (esp trigger groups) that already have a massive industry behind it?
Using the AR as a common receiver is not a bad idea. Considering I could turn my AR into a SAW, I don't think there are many limitations on what one can do with it. It's the refinement, and goal of the tool, that becomes the issue.
Oh, and for all this board's clamoring on how "guns are tools", that doesn't hold for everyone. Some people like odd guns and designs, some people like historical items, and some like guns for the sake of novelty. Example: I have a 9mm AR built on a Cav-Arms lower with an ASA sidecharging upper. Battle worthy? Not on your life. Fun as hell? Yup.:D
I like fighting guns, and that's where most of my current technical attention lies, but that doesn't hold true for everyone.
Suwannee Tim
10-10-11, 17:09
Joe, you are absolutely correct. Wonderful thing that the lower is serial numbered ain't it? Damn shame Robinson serial numbered their XCR upper. And people do buy guns for a variety of reasons. I'm a sucker for something different, different as in .204 Ruger, .450 Bushmaster, different as in Robinson XCR. I have been trying to decide what to get next and I have to thank DeltaSierra for inspiring me to buy a Para TTR. If it makes the fanboys crazy, then I want one!:D That's why I got a SIG 556. It makes 'em foam at the mouth!:D:D
The Knuckle
10-27-11, 13:32
I mentioned in my earlier post, that I would add a link to another company doing something similar to the HK AR15 PDW. Sorry it took so long, but I just had surgery.
Spex Defense
http://www.spexdefense.com/Pics/556PDW1.jpg
And in some recent news AAC Honey Badger, which by the way will be available to civilians.
http://img835.imageshack.us/img835/470/honeybadgersmall.jpg
totenkopf_u64
10-27-11, 21:19
You need to get off your high horse and cease your baseless ad-hominem attacks against us.....I have made no such attack. Please quote said attack if I'm wrong.
Ironically, later in the same post, argumentum ad hominem.
....It's too bad all of those years of electronics manufacturing never taught you anything about logic
This is an example of an ad hominem attack.
Suwannee Tim
10-30-11, 20:29
Yeah. I learned logic at Columbia University. In fact, I took a class entitled "Logic" to partially meet my Philosophy requirement.
It's getting thick in here.... :eek:
justin_247
11-05-11, 16:51
The standards of what is considered "innovation" in this thread are very, very low. Take a hack saw to your weapon and mix it with some parts from Ace Hardware and you'll be praised as a radical innovator. Better yet, get it published in some gun rag and brand your own hacksaw blades.
https://www.m4carbine.net/picture.php?albumid=443&pictureid=2240
https://www.m4carbine.net/picture.php?albumid=443&pictureid=2232
This is what South Korea innovated out of our M16 in 1983...folding stock, gas piston and M16 like receiver...
http://www.zmweapons.com/
http://zmweapons.com/LR_KITs.jpg
http://www.outdoorsunlimited.net/~chucksmy/guns/zm300-9.JPG[/IMG
[IMG]http://www.outdoorsunlimited.net/~chucksmy/guns/zm300-14.JPG
http://www.outdoorsunlimited.net/~chucksmy/guns/zm300-13.JPG
I definitely see this as a viable option in the next evolution in the AR design when properly tested and designed for a specific mission that requires a folding stock...........but jsut copping the bcg is pretty sloppy.
I have shot one of the ZMs. Admittedly not very many rounds. The gun belonged to Rob Leatham and he had many, many, rounds through it. As you can imagine he shoots a lot. He was impressed with it. I did not get a chance to disassemble it or talk to him about any maintenance or repairs he has had to do to it.
Shortly after I shot the gun, 6 months to a year, ZM sold the design to Para.
ZM uppers were expensive. I remember them in them in the Brownell's catalog. I think their cost was one of their downfalls. I don't have any need for a folding stock AR. I do own one, an AR 180, but I do not use it very often either.
sinlessorrow
11-08-11, 12:57
What exactly is it about foldin stocks that makes people wan them?
To me it seems like they have minimal use and i honestly wouldnt be to excited about having to use an AR without a stock, seems uncomfortable and pointless to me
It's interesting how 'it looks sloppy' or 'it looks half-assed' is the argument against, not 'it doesn't work'. Is it the Surefire magazine thread where people say 'it looks too complicated' and get the beat-down because 'it works, and fills a niche'?
If it were made by Colt/Surefire/Magpul, or any company with legions of fan-boys, this post would look way different. The first machine gun John Browning made was from lever action Winchester. Talk about half-assed.
What exactly is it about foldin stocks that makes people wan them?
To me it seems like they have minimal use and i honestly wouldnt be to excited about having to use an AR without a stock, seems uncomfortable and pointless to me
With a sbr and a folding stock you can pretty much throw the complete gun in a backpack if you wanted assembled. I see the advantage to the folding stock. Most would be extending the stock for firing.
sinlessorrow
11-08-11, 15:30
With a sbr and a folding stock you can pretty much throw the complete gun in a backpack if you wanted assembled. I see the advantage to the folding stock. Most would be extending the stock for firing.
I figured you would, and thats fine for a casual shooter but what about a fighting gun? Seems like one more step before you can engage atarget
Thomas M-4
11-08-11, 17:02
It's interesting how 'it looks sloppy' or 'it looks half-assed' is the argument against, not 'it doesn't work'. Is it the Surefire magazine thread where people say 'it looks too complicated' and get the beat-down because 'it works, and fills a niche'?
One of the problems is most people think that they need that niche filled and 99% don't and the manufactures know this. But hey they are out to make money even if it is only in the short term before people realize they don't need it or they find out its crap.
If it were made by Colt/Surefire/Magpul, or any company with legions of fan-boys, this post would look way different. The first machine gun John Browning made was from lever action Winchester. Talk about half-assed.
The difference is that responsible companies tend to care about there names in the long run and usually try to identified genuine need for some thing and then invest the needed resources and time to properly develop it. Unfortunately it does not always work that way, even the companies you mentioned have had there failings but they do have a good track record over the long term.
I put the folding stock Idea in the same category has the piston AR.
If you have to have it you better be looking for something that has a design that allows for it with out bastardizing the operating system.
Heavy Metal
11-08-11, 17:30
My concern is the fact it has far less recoiling mass. Half the carrier and all the buffer is missing.
How does it work when really dirty?
buckshot1220
11-08-11, 17:44
I'm not against the idea of a folding stock. I'd imagine it would be especially useful for LEO/MIL/Etc. getting in and out of vehicles on missions and such.
The problem is finding a way to put a folding stock on an AR without compromising the action and recoil system. Take a look at all the buffer/gas system/buffer spring/gas port size/gas port location/ejection pattern and on and on threads we have here. Do we really think that this hacked up set-up has "fixed" all of that and doesn't have side effects?
Suwannee Tim
11-10-11, 05:32
The fundamental trouble here is the perfection of the AR. It is the only perfect rifle, given to us by the Angel Eugene Stoner. This perfection evokes a strong spiritual response from many owners. These owners regard any adaptation or innovation as a sacrilege.
Suwannee Tim
11-10-11, 05:52
The standards of what is considered "innovation" in this thread are very, very low. Take a hack saw to your weapon and mix it with some parts from Ace Hardware and you'll be praised as a radical innovator. Better yet, get it published in some gun rag and brand your own hacksaw blades.
This is slander plain and simple. You are besmirching the reputations of the presumably good folks at Para. You should be ashamed. You are entitled to your opinion but you are not entitled to lie.
It seems that ZM will restart production of the rifle:
However, the production and marketing of new rifles using the DIGS operating system will be resumed by Al Zitta, the original developer of the rifle.
Para Press Release (http://www.para-usa.com/new/news_releases.php)
Yes, I believe we are. Almost every gun reviewed by a gun mag gets stellar reviews. Seriously, when was the last time you saw a negative review? It also happens to be the same gun that is now discontinued, FYI.
Do you own one? Do you have first hand experience you'd like to share (positive or negative)?
DeltaSierra
11-10-11, 20:07
This is slander plain and simple. You are besmirching the reputations of the presumably good folks at Para. You should be ashamed. You are entitled to your opinion but you are not entitled to lie.
Wait! I want to get on board with the other slandering naysayers...
The presumably good folks at Para decided that this thing was junk, and that they would go back to producing a less-than-stellar line of handguns...
Tim, I think that you are waaaay to concerned with this... If you don't want to discuss this hacked ARbortion, just step away from this discussion.
I really don't understand your overly emotional attachment to this so-called rifle. You have NOT yet given ONE good reason why this should be lauded as a wonderful invention...
To be a good invention, an item needs to bring some drastic improvement over the old system to be considered worthy of praise.
This ZM/Para brings no improvement, and actually increases the risk of your weapon failing you.
If you like weird designs, just say so, but the mindless defense if this undeniably ridiculous "invention" is bordering on the insane.
The ZM system has some legitimate design innovations. Most of the complaints around here seem to be more a reaction to the ugly fit and finish of the system rather then it's performance. The mounting of a folding stock on an AR is an innovation and is desired by some. Anyone ever read an AR vs. AK thread? There is a legitimate if limited desire for shorter length ARs, specifically in the Mech Infantry dismount role. The long operating rod attached to the bolt carrier is another innovation. As far as I can recollect, this was the first application of this system in an AR and the current fad piston guns could take it as a lesson. The attached rod system basically eliminates the problems with carrier tilt. The light weight carrier system is another innovation. Lighter reciprocating mass means less upset to the rifle and less felt recoil. The system is basically a gas cylinder design, and the long overlapping gas key creates a large gas chamber that can more smoothly push the light carrier for longer period of time. Gas is then vented out the hand guard. Less gas and heat in the upper receiver? Anyone consider that an innovation? The system allows the elimination of the buffer weight and spring, saving half a pound.
These all represent legitimate innovations of design.
The real question should be "DOES IT WORK?" not "I don't like the looks"
To my eye there are some unanswered questions about this design.
#1 Is there enough mass to prevent bolt bounce?
#2 If bolt bounce is not an issue, then is there enough energy in this system to feed under "dust box" type conditions?
What do we know about the rifle?
Rob Leatham has one. That's not exactly a point against the rifle. Todd Jarrett as Para spokeshooter has numerous videos out there extolling and demonstrating the advantages of this rifle. Take that for what it's worth. He's paid to shoot Para, but he needs to have a competitive rifle to win.
Para bought the design from ZM for use primarily as a practical shooting competition rifle, and I think they failed with this rifle commercially for two reasons. First they really didn't go after the tacticool market. If your rifle fails in a USPSA stage you don't die, but you don't win either. Show some ninjas crawling through the sand shooting 10,000 rounds without rest and we would be having Gas Cylinder vs. Gas Piston flame wars. Para instead went after the game crowd, which is a much smaller group, and is will to pay only if you have quality. Which leads to the second reason why this gun is not commercially successful. At $2400 retail, it is literally the most expensive AR made. A custom JP starts at only $2000, and they are quality rifles. Para pistols are crap. No way would I risk that much with a company that produces such low quality pieces.
Finally, I love reliability, durability, and simplicity, and as such I only shoot BCM and Glock. I have no love for Para or ZM, and I have not shot or even seen the Para TTR or the the ZM LR-300, however, I think they have some very REAL if UNPROVEN design advantages certainly more then the fad piston guns being made today. Also, I would appreciate any critique of my thoughts on this design.
Thomas M-4
11-11-11, 09:28
The ZM system has some legitimate design innovations. Most of the complaints around here seem to be more a reaction to the ugly fit and finish of the system rather then it's performance. The mounting of a folding stock on an AR is an innovation and is desired by some. Anyone ever read an AR vs. AK thread? There is a legitimate if limited desire for shorter length ARs, specifically in the Mech Infantry dismount role. The long operating rod attached to the bolt carrier is another innovation. As far as I can recollect, this was the first application of this system in an AR and the current fad piston guns could take it as a lesson. The attached rod system basically eliminates the problems with carrier tilt. The light weight carrier system is another innovation. Lighter reciprocating mass means less upset to the rifle and less felt recoil. The system is basically a gas cylinder design, and the long overlapping gas key creates a large gas chamber that can more smoothly push the light carrier for longer period of time. Gas is then vented out the hand guard. Less gas and heat in the upper receiver? Anyone consider that an innovation? The system allows the elimination of the buffer weight and spring, saving half a pound.
These all represent legitimate innovations of design.
The real question should be "DOES IT WORK?" not "I don't like the looks"
To my eye there are some unanswered questions about this design.
#1 Is there enough mass to prevent bolt bounce?
#2 If bolt bounce is not an issue, then is there enough energy in this system to feed under "dust box" type conditions?
What do we know about the rifle?
Rob Leatham has one. That's not exactly a point against the rifle. Todd Jarrett as Para spokeshooter has numerous videos out there extolling and demonstrating the advantages of this rifle. Take that for what it's worth. He's paid to shoot Para, but he needs to have a competitive rifle to win.
Para bought the design from ZM for use primarily as a practical shooting competition rifle, and I think they failed with this rifle commercially for two reasons. First they really didn't go after the tacticool market. If your rifle fails in a USPSA stage you don't die, but you don't win either. Show some ninjas crawling through the sand shooting 10,000 rounds without rest and we would be having Gas Cylinder vs. Gas Piston flame wars. Para instead went after the game crowd, which is a much smaller group, and is will to pay only if you have quality. Which leads to the second reason why this gun is not commercially successful. At $2400 retail, it is literally the most expensive AR made. A custom JP starts at only $2000, and they are quality rifles. Para pistols are crap. No way would I risk that much with a company that produces such low quality pieces.
Finally, I love reliability, durability, and simplicity, and as such I only shoot BCM and Glock. I have no love for Para or ZM, and I have not shot or even seen the Para TTR or the the ZM LR-300, however, I think they have some very REAL if UNPROVEN design advantages certainly more then the fad piston guns being made today. Also, I would appreciate any critique of my thoughts on this design.
Underlined part^
If you like reliability and durability the ZM is not it.
Just a few thoughts off the top of my head. From watching this video of one being disassembled http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=0fmY13xYUkc&feature=related
The addition of more small parts that can get lost in the field notice the clip holding the recoil spring.
I have more concern's over the recoil spring and its arrangement.
1st is the very long gas key the short GI version is known to get bent if dropped and lands on the wrong spot. The very long ZM version would have a greater chance of this happening.
2nd and 3rd concern would be the recoil spring they have replaced the nice large dia buffer spring with that narrow dia recoil-spring And they wrapped it around the hottest part of the entire rifle the gas system. Both of these conditions would make for a unhappy spring.
I would also be interested in how or even if they deal with bolt bounce with out a buffer. I have a few other small quibbles but those are the ones that stand out the most to me at this time.
Suwannee Tim
11-11-11, 17:14
....I really don't understand your overly emotional attachment to this so-called rifle. You have NOT yet given ONE good reason why this should be lauded as a wonderful invention.......
I don't have a bit of emotional attachment to the Para or any other firearm. My only emotional involvement is mild irritation with folks making plainly false, juvenile and over the top remarks on a forum that aspires to serious discussion. I would suggest you and Justin take the nonsense to TOS but I know you won't so I won't.
Suwannee Tim, over and out.
justin_247
11-12-11, 10:46
My concern is the fact it has far less recoiling mass. Half the carrier and all the buffer is missing.
How does it work when really dirty?
The lack of a buffer and the missing weight from the carrier is made up by the fact that there's a pretty strong spring attached to the op-rod under the handguard.
The fundamental trouble here is the perfection of the AR. It is the only perfect rifle, given to us by the Angel Eugene Stoner. This perfection evokes a strong spiritual response from many owners. These owners regard any adaptation or innovation as a sacrilege.
The AR is far from perfect, but it is an excellent platform nonetheless.
This is slander plain and simple. You are besmirching the reputations of the presumably good folks at Para. You should be ashamed. You are entitled to your opinion but you are not entitled to lie.
Good lord, dude. What have I said that's a "lie?"
FACT: the bolt carrier is not custom designed - it's sawed in half.
FACT: it had a tiny little ring on the recoil system that, if damaged, causes the entire system to fail.
If you think this abortion is so great, why don't you go buy one and fire a few thousand documented rounds through it to prove us all wrong?
Alan had a decent design that isn't exactly a booming seller yes, if Knights had made it like many of their one offs then the attitude would be different. It is a novel design. Failure of weapons is usually tied to manufacturing when you are this close to the AR. If you have some thing in your head telling you something is "inherently" wrong with the carrier or other parts of the design, you should look at more weapons than your AR15. Bufferless guns do very well with reliability, they usually have more reliable round stripping energy because a mass isn't floating somewhere within a buffer and its reciprocating mass is driving directly into a round to chamber. AR18, ARX160, G36,XM8, you don't need a 1" in diameter spring to get amazing stored power.
For some reason things take time for design acceptance for many reasons, but if a big company with a million fanboys had made this the whole story would be different.
If you had a long stroke piston on this, it would be pretty sweet. (then it would have more reciprocating mass and make you feel better)
Powered by vBulletin® Version 4.2.5 Copyright © 2024 vBulletin Solutions, Inc. All rights reserved.