Page 2 of 4 FirstFirst 1234 LastLast
Results 11 to 20 of 36

Thread: Jim Sullivan / Armwest, LLC M-4 Improvement Program

  1. #11
    Join Date
    Apr 2009
    Location
    FL -Where it's summer 10.5 months out of the year
    Posts
    4,114
    Feedback Score
    17 (100%)
    Quote Originally Posted by sinlessorrow View Post
    I honestly do not see how they could add mugh weight to the carrier.

    The basic carrier already fills up the upper channel. Only way to increase mass much more is adding weights to the hollow channel in the carrier tail. The M321 avoided this by not using,the hammer to fire the firing pin, but a sliding mass in the carrier tail.

    I would have to see the internals, but all I really see is a reduced cyclic rate AR with standard lower pins that will be beat to death by catching the carrier. I just cannot believe it to be possible to double the weight of the carrier.
    I agree that the only place to add weight without changing the design is to use inserts like the Tubbs Carrier Weight System. However, shortening the hammer would allow the top of the carrier to be enclosed like a tube.

    Jim said he increased the weight of the bolt carrier by adding an anti-bounce weight (to reduce bolt bounce). He then stated that he "almost doubled the weight of the cycling components" (6:37). He didn't double the weight of the carrier....but the cycling components.
    "That thing looks about as enjoyable as a bowl of exploding dicks." - Magic_Salad0892

    "The body cannot go where the mind has not already been."

  2. #12
    Join Date
    Apr 2007
    Location
    Texas
    Posts
    10,904
    Feedback Score
    44 (100%)
    Very interesting to watch, thanks for posting the link.

  3. #13
    Join Date
    Sep 2007
    Posts
    2,951
    Feedback Score
    22 (100%)
    Quote Originally Posted by BufordTJustice View Post
    I agree that the only place to add weight without changing the design is to use inserts like the Tubbs Carrier Weight System. However, shortening the hammer would allow the top of the carrier to be enclosed like a tube.

    Jim said he increased the weight of the bolt carrier by adding an anti-bounce weight (to reduce bolt bounce). He then stated that he "almost doubled the weight of the cycling components" (6:37). He didn't double the weight of the carrier....but the cycling components.
    Correct. Looks like he increased the reciprocal weight of the carrier by adding a duel spring system in the carrier tail.


  4. #14
    Join Date
    Mar 2007
    Posts
    815
    Feedback Score
    0
    'That is one gentleman who has been blessed with a career that wasn't really a "job" per se as much as a genuine interest'

    I think I know someone else like that.....

  5. #15
    Join Date
    May 2011
    Posts
    3,095
    Feedback Score
    7 (89%)
    I just don't understand why that is needed. More parts to break and a H2 buffer removes all carrier bounce and is far more simplistic for removing carrier bounce.

    Maybe it has more uses than just countering bounce.
    Quote Originally Posted by C4IGrant View Post
    Colt builds War Horses, not show ponies.
    Quote Originally Posted by Iraqgunz View Post
    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?

  6. #16
    Join Date
    Jan 2008
    Location
    AZ-Waging jihad against crappy AR's.
    Posts
    24,902
    Feedback Score
    104 (100%)
    I won't comment on the first part, but the second part is pretty spot on in regards to the proliferation of the AK. They were practically given away in many places to supply rebels and insurgencies.

    One can also make a good argument that we actually didn't win in Iraq either time. We withdrew both times. Afghanistan is still ongoing and when we leave we won't have "won" that one, either.

    Quote Originally Posted by sinlessorrow View Post
    Have to watch it, but Jim Sullivan also said this.

    http://rawstory.com/news/2007/PBS_Gu...s_in_0924.html

    That AK-74 outhits the M-16 by two to one on full automatic," said Jim Sullivan, referring to the Russian-made assault rifle, now in its third generation. "And the reason there were 100 million AK's made wasn't to equip the Russian army - it was to give [to] our Third World opponents. The United States can't win ground wars anymore."



    Owner/Instructor at Semper Paratus Arms

    Facebook: https://www.facebook.com/SemperParatusArms/

    Semper Paratus Arms AR15 Armorer Course http://www.semperparatusarms.com/cou...-registration/

    M4C Misc. Training and Course Announcements- http://www.m4carbine.net/forumdisplay.php?f=141

    Master Armorer/R&D at SIONICS Weapon Systems- http://sionicsweaponsystems.com

  7. #17
    Join Date
    Sep 2007
    Posts
    2,951
    Feedback Score
    22 (100%)
    Quote Originally Posted by Iraqgunz View Post
    I won't comment on the first part, but the second part is pretty spot on in regards to the proliferation of the AK. They were practically given away in many places to supply rebels and insurgencies.

    One can also make a good argument that we actually didn't win in Iraq either time. We withdrew both times. Afghanistan is still ongoing and when we leave we won't have "won" that one, either.
    Perhaps he was talking about the AN-94 or the AEK with balanced recoil systems. I dont see the AK74 as anything more than a scaled down AKM with a muzzle brake. Those rifles I can actually see out hitting the M4 FOW 2-1, but from a reliability standpoint...

  8. #18
    Join Date
    Apr 2009
    Location
    FL -Where it's summer 10.5 months out of the year
    Posts
    4,114
    Feedback Score
    17 (100%)
    Quote Originally Posted by Larry Vickers View Post
    'That is one gentleman who has been blessed with a career that wasn't really a "job" per se as much as a genuine interest'

    I think I know someone else like that.....
    Reed Knight?
    "That thing looks about as enjoyable as a bowl of exploding dicks." - Magic_Salad0892

    "The body cannot go where the mind has not already been."

  9. #19
    Join Date
    Mar 2011
    Location
    Mid-West, USA
    Posts
    2,303
    Feedback Score
    55 (100%)
    n[QUOTE=sinlessorrow;2034293]
    That AK-74 outhits the M-16 by two to one on full automatic," said Jim Sullivan...

    How much of that is die to the muzzle brake?
    Last edited by opngrnd; 11-28-14 at 17:30. Reason: Grammar

  10. #20
    Join Date
    Oct 2007
    Posts
    262
    Feedback Score
    10 (100%)
    Quote Originally Posted by vicious_cb View Post
    Perhaps he was talking about the AN-94 or the AEK with balanced recoil systems. I dont see the AK74 as anything more than a scaled down AKM with a muzzle brake. Those rifles I can actually see out hitting the M4 FOW 2-1, but from a reliability standpoint...
    I feel there is less recoil in general with the AK-74, so I'm thinking part of that has to do with the 5.45x39 cartridge, as well as the excellent muzzle brake. I'm sure the mass of the weapon helps too.

Page 2 of 4 FirstFirst 1234 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
  •