Page 9 of 12 FirstFirst ... 7891011 ... LastLast
Results 81 to 90 of 115

Thread: Hypothetical: What Still Needs Fixing?

  1. #81
    Join Date
    May 2011
    Posts
    3,095
    Feedback Score
    7 (89%)
    Quote Originally Posted by tom12.7 View Post
    If you are talking about a version of the Daewoo K1A, I would prefer a lots of others over these. What a blast from the past though, haven't even seen one these in 15+ years.
    Still in use with the Korean special forces.


    Stoner driven and allows for a folding stock.
    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?

  2. #82
    Join Date
    May 2011
    Posts
    2,114
    Feedback Score
    0
    I'm not informed of what developments evolved past the the early 90's in these. At the time they were not as reliable, and had control issues when compared to other platforms.

  3. #83
    Join Date
    Mar 2015
    Posts
    1,022
    Feedback Score
    0
    Quote Originally Posted by WS6 View Post
    Propellant. If we could make an advancement in propellant, then fouling, temperatures, and all sorts of nasty things could be decreased. Velocity could be increased, wear decreased, peak pressure decreased, etc. Get a cleaner propellant with more "pressure under the curve" and less peak, or who knows? Either way, I think ammunition (caseless) and propellant would be the largest changes possible. Everything else is incremental.
    Caseless ammo would necessitate a new weapon altogether....

  4. #84
    Join Date
    Mar 2015
    Posts
    1,022
    Feedback Score
    0
    Quote Originally Posted by Arctic1 View Post
    Based on what metric, and which setting?

    Why are the industry leaders in polymer accessories not building free float polymer AR handguards, if this issue is so serious as to pose a safety hazard to the user or the equipment?
    Are there properties provided by using a metal on that specific component, that can not be replicated by using polymer? I am thinking countering recoil forces on accessories, zero retention issues, mounting rigidity, altered cook off threshold etc.

    The three hottest areas on the gun are the chamber, the barrel and the gas block. The handguard will heat up through radiation, and all components lose heat through convection.

    I have not fired an M16A1 (or similar), so I don't know how hot the handguard got, but the G3 handguard could get plenty hot from shooting, and it is plastic.
    Price. polymers with the required stiffness for a free-float handguard are expensive. You also have to understand that 90% of the AR shooting, and free-float buying public are casual shooters that rarely get the barrel hot enough for metal handguards to be come uncomfortable. And the military is going to wait until the powered rail interface is standardized, or dropped, before they start spendiing lots of money on the "next great thing".

    No, handguards gain heat from convection, conduction and radiation and all parts lose heat through radiation as well as convection.

    With the radiation shields in the handgaurds, the M16A1 and A2 do a reasonable job of keeping the handguards fron becoming uncomfortable except under the most extreme rates of fire. At maximum continuous rate of fire you'll never have a problem.
    Last edited by lysander; 05-09-15 at 22:07.

  5. #85
    Join Date
    Mar 2015
    Posts
    1,022
    Feedback Score
    0
    Quote Originally Posted by turnburglar View Post
    Mistwolf- I definitely agree that polymer is better for the unclothed human to interact with than any metal alloy we have seen yet in FFR's. But is polymer capable of maintaining the precise attachment that is needed for things like lasers and optics? Some real end users do more than just Costa grip their rails and need a rail that will hold zero.
    a carbon-fiber tube is stiffer that a comparable size aluminum tube. So a properly designed and manufactured CFRP free-float is going to be better....as well as lighter.

  6. #86
    Join Date
    Mar 2015
    Posts
    1,022
    Feedback Score
    0
    Quote Originally Posted by Dionysusigma View Post
    You're developing a machine that... throws people out of windows?

    So far, this is what I'm getting: Materials development and ammunition (specifically propellant chemistry).

    What about the long tail of the bolt carrier, which requires the use of a long spring and receiver extension? There are a few buffer and carrier systems out there that greatly reduce this dimension, but still seem to be "relatively untested Boutique accessories." e.g. the Troy M7A1 PDW stock, MVB ARC stock, or NEA CCS stock; and the ARES Defense SCR.
    If you start doing that, you are making a new design....

    As I stated early in this thread, there isn't anything really wrong with the basic design. A few minor tweaks in the areas of accessory mounting (may as well wait for the STANAG powered rail to be standardized), but other than that, leave it alone.

    If you really fell the need for something "better" get a clean sheet of paper and design something better.

  7. #87
    Join Date
    May 2011
    Posts
    3,095
    Feedback Score
    7 (89%)
    Quote Originally Posted by lysander View Post
    Price. polymers with the required stiffness for a free-float handguard are expensive. You also have to understand that 90% of the AR shooting, and free-float buying public are casual shooters that rarely get the barrel hot enough for metal handguards to be come uncomfortable. And the military is going to wait until the powered rail interface is standardized, or dropped, before they start spendiing lots of money on the "next great thing".

    No, handguards gain heat from convection, conduction and radiation and all parts lose heat through radiation as well as convection.

    With the radiation shields in the handgaurds, the M16A1 and A2 do a reasonable job of keeping the handguards fron becoming uncomfortable except under the most extreme rates of fire. At maximum continuous rate of fire you'll never have a problem.
    And the M16A1 had 170 rounds before cookoff while the current M4A1 has something closer to 240 rounds before cookoff. Actually I believe with the M4 they went from 170 to 210 by just going to the RIS. So far the only argument for polymer rails is "I don't want to wear gloves" despite the numerous advantages of aluminum rails.

    Also with the M4A1+ requirement coming out I find your first part hold no water. The Army wants a FF rail, with addon rail panels, that offers enhanced zero rentention while also keeping weight of the rifle below 8lbs. Should be the perfect time to develop a super duper high tech polymer rail...I bet we see none entered.

    Also powered rail...*Snickers*. Nothing like having every ancillary item on your rifle go down at the exact same time due to the battery.
    Last edited by sinlessorrow; 05-09-15 at 22:35.
    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?

  8. #88
    Join Date
    Mar 2015
    Posts
    1,022
    Feedback Score
    0
    Quote Originally Posted by sinlessorrow View Post
    And the M16A1 had 170 rounds before cookoff while the current M4A1 has something closer to 240 rounds before cookoff. Actually I believe with the M4 they went from 170 to 210 by just going to the RIS. So far the only argument for polymer rails is "I don't want to wear gloves" despite the numerous advantages of aluminum rails.

    Also with the M4A1+ requirement coming out I find your first part hold no water. The Army wants a FF rail, with addon rail panels, that offers enhanced zero rentention while also keeping weight of the rifle below 8lbs. Should be the perfect time to develop a super duper high tech polymer rail...I bet we see none entered.

    Also powered rail...*Snickers*. Nothing like having every ancillary item on your rifle go down at the exact same time due to the battery.
    The cook-off numbers went up because of this:

    The M4 with the original barrel profile did not see any improvement, M4s have been re-barreled with the new profile, these have higher rounds-to-cook-off numbers.

    The M4A1+ is a non-developmental program, it's an "off-the shelf" buy. It is not the "next great thing", it's the place-holder until the "next great thing".....
    Unless you have insider information, nobody knows as the Army has yet to release who and what has been submitted.

    Nothing like having supply send you twelve AAs, when what you needed was two AA, six CR-123, and four CR2032s...

    You've dealt with the Army supply system, haven't you?
    Last edited by lysander; 05-10-15 at 01:20.

  9. #89
    Join Date
    May 2011
    Posts
    3,095
    Feedback Score
    7 (89%)
    Quote Originally Posted by lysander View Post
    The cook-off numbers went up because of this:


    The M4A1+ is a non-developmental program, it's an "off-the shelf" buy. It is not the "next great thing", it's the place-holder until the "next great thing".....
    Unless you have insider information, nobody knows as the Army has yet to release who and what has been submitted.

    Nothing like having supply send you twelve AAs, when what you needed was two AA, six CR-123, and four CR2032s...

    You've dealt with the Army supply system, haven't you?
    Barrel diameter does not account for why the M4 went from 170 rounds before cookoff to 210 after the KAC RIS was adopted.

    So you would rather have a battery in the stock of your rifle that powers your NV, Laser, Light, Optic? Than individual powered items? By going to a powered rail system you would greatly reduce the battery life of say the M68-CCO due to the power drain of NV, lights, and lasers. All of which require significant power to keep running.

    Me and Arctic1 don't usually agree on anything, but he was spot on in what he posted earlier. Frankly Metal rails just do things polymer ones do not.
    Last edited by sinlessorrow; 05-10-15 at 01:22.
    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?

  10. #90
    Join Date
    Mar 2015
    Posts
    1,022
    Feedback Score
    0
    Quote Originally Posted by sinlessorrow View Post
    Barrel diameter does not account for why the M4 went from 170 rounds before cookoff to 210 after the KAC RIS was adopted.

    So you would rather have a battery in the stock of your rifle that powers your NV, Laser, Light, Optic? Than individual powered items? By going to a powered rail system you would greatly reduce the battery life of say the M68-CCO due to the power drain of NV, lights, and lasers. All of which require significant power to keep running.

    Me and Arctic1 don't usually agree on anything, but he was spot on in what he posted earlier. Frankly Metal rails just do things polymer ones do not.
    Show me where it did, and by how much.

    I would rather the the supply system is always stocked with the type of batteries I need, and I don't care if it is in the stock, pistol grip or magically sends power to my accessories from my pocket. And, a single battery in a single easy to access battery well can be replaced more easily than three or or four separate batteries here and there on the weapon. An Aimpoint lasts 8 years on a single AA, that's not a high drain item that is almost incidental to the system, the average NVS gets about 40 hours to a battery, if you are only powering those two, you will still only get about 40 hours. The big drain is the PEQ, and that should have a new battery after every operation that requires it.

    Advantages:
    1) simpler supply system, only need one battery.
    2) simpler operator maintenance, only need to replace one battery, and only need one type of battery
    3) improved storage requirements, no batteries in the individual items
    4) overall saving in weight.
    5) removing components removes drain from the battery

    Disadvantages:
    1) If you're not smart, everything fails at once. Of course, if you're in the dark and your PVS battery goes dead that fully powered red-dot is not of much use...

    People used to say the same thing about polymer pistol frames....
    Last edited by lysander; 05-10-15 at 01:57.

Page 9 of 12 FirstFirst ... 7891011 ... 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
  •