Page 15 of 17 FirstFirst ... 51314151617 LastLast
Results 141 to 150 of 167

Thread: Why do mfgs still make carbine length gas systems?

  1. #141
    Join Date
    Dec 2009
    Location
    Utah
    Posts
    8,420
    Feedback Score
    3 (100%)
    Quote Originally Posted by Dead Man View Post
    ...The question was: which is greater?...
    The reason I was trying to explain there is a difference between energy generation and energy transfer is because it will answer your question. You can never transfer more energy than was generated. That's why the BCG & buffer can cause impact force but do not generate impact force.

    The reciprocating mass does not add to recoil, it changes how it feels to the shooter. If the reciprocating mass is allowed to merely thrash about with sudden acceleration and deceleration, recoil will feel sharp and uncomfortable. If acceleration/deceleration of the reciprocating mass takes more time, recoil will feel softer. Same energy, different feel
    INSIDE PLAN OF BOX
    1. ROAD-RUNNER LIFTS GLASS OF WATER- PULLING UP MATCH
    2. MATCH SCRATCHES ON MATCH-BOX
    3. MATCH LIGHTS FUSE TO TNT
    4. BOOM!
    5. HA-HA!!

    -WILE E. COYOTE, AUTHOR OF "EVERYTHING I NEEDED TO KNOW IN LIFE, I LEARNED FROM GOLDBERG & MURPHY"

    http://i115.photobucket.com/albums/n289/SgtSongDog/AR%20Carbine/DSC_0114.jpg
    I am American

  2. #142
    Join Date
    Oct 2009
    Posts
    1,438
    Feedback Score
    12 (100%)
    Quote Originally Posted by Dead Man View Post
    But it does generate impact force.
    Did I say somewhere that it didn't?

  3. #143
    Join Date
    Aug 2013
    Location
    Duat
    Posts
    730
    Feedback Score
    2 (100%)
    Quote Originally Posted by MistWolf View Post
    The reason I was trying to explain there is a difference between energy generation and energy transfer is because it will answer your question. You can never transfer more energy than was generated. That's why the BCG & buffer can cause impact force but do not generate impact force.

    The reciprocating mass does not add to recoil, it changes how it feels to the shooter. If the reciprocating mass is allowed to merely thrash about with sudden acceleration and deceleration, recoil will feel sharp and uncomfortable. If acceleration/deceleration of the reciprocating mass takes more time, recoil will feel softer. Same energy, different feel
    It's not just "feel," it's less impact force. The same amount of energy can create more or less impact force, depending on variables- velocity of the mass, and how fast the mass decelerates- the density and springiness of the objects colliding.

    For instance: climbers deal with impact force in the form of fall factors. The higher the fall factor, the greater the impact force on the equipment, the higher the likelihood of failure and injury. Same exact amount of energy- a 150lbs body falling 10 feet before the system is engaged. If one falls the full distance of all rope currently paid out, the factor is 1. If the person falls twice the distance of all rope paid out, the factor is 2, and even though the energy is exactly the same, the impact force is significantly higher.

    In fact, you can increase the energy by magnitudes and still generate significantly less impact force- taking a 40' "whipper" lead-fall- falling 20' to the last piece, and continuing an additional 20' below (the length of rope between you and the piece) generates an enormous amount of energy. But if there is 200' of rope paid out by your belayer, all of that energy is arrested very slowly... it's only a fall factor of 0.2, a relatively tame fall/impact force. But if you take a shorter fall, say 10', and only 20' of rope is paid out, generating a factor of 2, you generate less fall energy, but almost all of that energy must be absorbed in that distance- a broken body and a broken anchor will likely result. Impact force is extremely high.

    Mental exercise - Picture an AR15 with no bolt lugs, with the gas siphoned off to a weapon with no buffer or action spring. Which weapon would generate more impact force?
    Last edited by Dead Man; 10-20-13 at 02:37.

  4. #144
    Join Date
    Dec 2009
    Location
    Utah
    Posts
    8,420
    Feedback Score
    3 (100%)
    All of the impact force comes from the firing of the cartridge. Some gets transferred to the reciprocating mass, the BCG and the buffer.

    So, if I understand your question, you'd like to know how much impact force is transferred to the reciprocating mass? Is it greater than or less than the impact force transferred to the shooter through the non-reciprocating mass of the rifle?

    Considering the ratio of the mass of the BCG & buffer and it's rate of acceleration, my guess is that the majority of the impact force comes through the non-reciprocating part of the AR. But that just a guess.

    If your question is, which rifle would have more impact force as defined by the examples of the falling climbers (assuming I understand your example correctly) the AR with no action spring would have greater impact force than a properly functioning AR. Recoil energy would be the same between the two, but the springless AR would have sharper recoil from the BCG & buffer being slammed back at a higher velocity and would hit the receiver extension like a car hitting a brick wall with no brakes
    Last edited by MistWolf; 10-20-13 at 03:20.
    INSIDE PLAN OF BOX
    1. ROAD-RUNNER LIFTS GLASS OF WATER- PULLING UP MATCH
    2. MATCH SCRATCHES ON MATCH-BOX
    3. MATCH LIGHTS FUSE TO TNT
    4. BOOM!
    5. HA-HA!!

    -WILE E. COYOTE, AUTHOR OF "EVERYTHING I NEEDED TO KNOW IN LIFE, I LEARNED FROM GOLDBERG & MURPHY"

    http://i115.photobucket.com/albums/n289/SgtSongDog/AR%20Carbine/DSC_0114.jpg
    I am American

  5. #145
    Join Date
    Sep 2008
    Posts
    142
    Feedback Score
    5 (100%)
    Quote Originally Posted by MistWolf View Post
    Actually, the carbine length gas system is less forgiving and that's why they are more likely to be over-gassed than a middy or rifle length system. The rifle length system will work with a wider variety of ammo because it taps the gas at a more ideal pressure and volume point which makes it much easier to tune

    The only reason your carbine will kick harder than your middy will be if it's lighter. Two rifles of the same weight shooting the same ammo at the same velocity will generate the same amount of recoil regardless of action type. One may have softer or harsher recoil than the other, but the amount of recoil will be the same
    Gotcha, I always thought the shorter gas system being "over gassed" meant it worked the action more forcefully which was why people tried to tame it with heavier buffers and stiffer springs. And that was also the reason why carbines eat bolts at a higher rate than rifles. You learn something new everyday.

    I guess I should've rephrased harder kick as harsher recoil. For whatever reason my carbine feels jumpy compared to my middy, and stuff that won't cycle in my middy cycles in my carbine. Weight between the two are very similar, both have pencil barrels and and are setup to be lightweight. I even thought there was something wrong with my middy because it would choke with .223 https://www.m4carbine.net/showthread.php?t=122455. In the end my middy seems to have broken in some more and now cycles almost anything but still doesn't like certain .223 that my carbine will cycle.

  6. #146
    Join Date
    Dec 2009
    Location
    Utah
    Posts
    8,420
    Feedback Score
    3 (100%)
    Quote Originally Posted by thatpanda View Post
    Gotcha, I always thought the shorter gas system being "over gassed" meant it worked the action more forcefully which was why people tried to tame it with heavier buffers and stiffer springs. And that was also the reason why carbines eat bolts at a higher rate than rifles. You learn something new everyday...
    Yes, over-gassing results in higher bolt speeds and works the action more forcefully, regardless of the system length. The difference is that the margin between the system not receiving enough gas and receiving too much is smaller with the carbine system compared to the middy or rifle because the pressure is so much higher. That means small changes in port size have a larger affect on the flow of gas to the action of the rifle than they would in a longer system where the pressure has had a chance to drop
    INSIDE PLAN OF BOX
    1. ROAD-RUNNER LIFTS GLASS OF WATER- PULLING UP MATCH
    2. MATCH SCRATCHES ON MATCH-BOX
    3. MATCH LIGHTS FUSE TO TNT
    4. BOOM!
    5. HA-HA!!

    -WILE E. COYOTE, AUTHOR OF "EVERYTHING I NEEDED TO KNOW IN LIFE, I LEARNED FROM GOLDBERG & MURPHY"

    http://i115.photobucket.com/albums/n289/SgtSongDog/AR%20Carbine/DSC_0114.jpg
    I am American

  7. #147
    Join Date
    Aug 2013
    Location
    Duat
    Posts
    730
    Feedback Score
    2 (100%)
    Quote Originally Posted by MistWolf View Post
    All of the impact force comes from the firing of the cartridge. Some gets transferred to the reciprocating mass, the BCG and the buffer.
    All of the energy comes from the cartridge, yes... but since impact force doesn't just translate over from energy, I can't think about it in the above context. Impact force comes from a mass in motion colliding with another mass- it doesn't come from firing cartridges. The cartridge firing sets everything in motion, and the entire system cannot possibly create more energy than that released by the initial detonation, but the impact forces at play are not a direct translation of that energy.

    What if the carrier was 300lbs? The energy would be almost entirely absorbed... probably no measurable impact force to the shooter. Likewise, if there was no buffering system installed, the impact force would be destructively high.

    Your point is that regardless of what system is used, it's the same amount of energy expended... and that's entirely true, but it's actually irrelevant in the context of recoil imparted to the shooter- because impact force is so variable, independent from energy.

    "Perceived recoil," "felt recoil," or just "recoil"- we're talking about how much of a wallop the shooter gets in his shoulder. If the weapon is designed to absorb or dissipate impact force, the shooter gets less wallop. If not, the shooter gets it all in one sharp punch. Very big difference, regardless of the initial energy level offered. Just like taking a lead fall onto rope.
    Last edited by Dead Man; 10-20-13 at 14:14.

  8. #148
    Join Date
    Jul 2011
    Posts
    1,503
    Feedback Score
    8 (100%)
    I've kept reading this thread and quite honestly one question of mine keeps me coming back and maybe someone can answer it.

    If the midlength and carbine systems are designed to place "X" force into the bolt carrier and both "X" forces are the same result through gas tube and gas length & diameter. What real difference exists between the two systems if both configurations are placing the same force applied to the bolt carrier but through different means? Is the end state of simple cycling of the action the same result?
    Originally Posted by Iraqgunz
    This is 2012. The world is going to end this December and people are still trying to debate the merits of piece of shit, cost cutting crap AR's. Really?

  9. #149
    Join Date
    Aug 2013
    Location
    Duat
    Posts
    730
    Feedback Score
    2 (100%)
    Quote Originally Posted by Javelin View Post
    I've kept reading this thread and quite honestly one question of mine keeps me coming back and maybe someone can answer it.

    If the midlength and carbine systems are designed to place "X" force into the bolt carrier and both "X" forces are the same result through gas tube and gas length & diameter. What real difference exists between the two systems if both configurations are placing the same force applied to the bolt carrier but through different means? Is the end state of simple cycling of the action the same result?
    Your question is at the heart of this debate Mist and I have been having. He and I are approaching the question from two different points of view. His point is that it is the exact same amount of energy imparted either way, and that the system is not physically capable of generating additional energy, therefor recoil remains the same either way.

    My point is that "recoil," as we're using the term (describing the punch delivered), is impact force, which is different than force, and energy, and is highly variable, regardless of energy source and level, and that the way we construct a recoil-management system will greatly effect impact force on the shoulder of the shooter. I think Mistwolf is failing to take into account the fact that impact force is different from energy, and how serious a roll it plays in recoil.

    The difference the midlength system makes is that is lengthens the time of the impact- it's like putting more stretch in a climber's rope. Stretching out the blow over time creates less impact force. Same energy, yes- but less impact force, which translates to less recoil.

  10. #150
    Join Date
    Jul 2011
    Posts
    1,503
    Feedback Score
    8 (100%)
    Quote Originally Posted by Dead Man View Post
    Your question is at the heart of this debate Mist and I have been having. He and I are approaching the question from two different points of view. His point is that it is the exact same amount of energy imparted either way, and that the system is not physically capable of generating additional energy, therefor recoil remains the same either way.

    My point is that "recoil," as we're using the term (describing the punch delivered), is impact force, which is different than force, and energy, and is highly variable, regardless of energy source and level, and that the way we construct a recoil-management system will greatly effect impact force on the shoulder of the shooter. I think Mistwolf is failing to take into account the fact that impact force is different from energy, and how serious a roll it plays in recoil.

    The difference the midlength system makes is that is lengthens the time of the impact- it's like putting more stretch in a climber's rope. Stretching out the blow over time creates less impact force. Same energy, yes- but less impact force, which translates to less recoil.
    I can see the logic in your arguement and analogy. I would really like to see mythbusters take on this to see if it is a perceived difference or an actual measurable one at the point of the shooter's shoulder.


    Edit: I guess one can also calculate the cyclical rate of both weapon systems to see the benchmark. Should the longer gas system create a real delay in felt recoil it would also delay the force applied to the BCG and result in a delayed cycle time. But would this result in perceived or actual reduction on felt recoil would still need to be verified. This probably has already been covered though.
    Last edited by Javelin; 10-20-13 at 17:09.
    Originally Posted by Iraqgunz
    This is 2012. The world is going to end this December and people are still trying to debate the merits of piece of shit, cost cutting crap AR's. Really?

Page 15 of 17 FirstFirst ... 51314151617 LastLast

Bookmarks

Posting Permissions

  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts
  •