|
||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
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.
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.
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.
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.
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.
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.
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.
Bookmarks