Page 6 of 8 FirstFirst ... 45678 LastLast
Results 51 to 60 of 71

Thread: Cherry pick the TDP

  1. #51
    Join Date
    Nov 2008
    Posts
    333
    Feedback Score
    0
    Quote Originally Posted by variablebinary View Post
    I've had this conversation with the guys at Robarm couple of times, and the consensus was that nitriding would be cheaper for their operation.

    I do wonder, and this is just me thinking out loud, nitride makes the barrel surface harder and more corrosion resistant, but what about heat? Does nitride reduce friction between the projectile and rifling, or increase friction, which in turn would increase heat build up?
    The way I understand it, and i could be wrong, it increase surface lubericitiy (sp?). I would think that it would reduce surface friction which would reduce heat cause by the bullet travel down the barrel. But really think barrel temp would be about the same in the real world.


    The one question I would like to find the answer to is this: What would be the better steel to use stainless steel (LW50, 410, 416, 416R) or chromoly steel(4140/4150)
    Last edited by jbsmwd; 06-03-11 at 08:16.

  2. #52
    Join Date
    Jun 2006
    Location
    Colorado Springs
    Posts
    1,857
    Feedback Score
    0
    Quote Originally Posted by jbsmwd View Post
    The one question I would like to find the answer to is this: What would be the better steel to use stainless steel (LW50, 410, 416, 416R) or chromoly steel(4140/4150)
    Better in what way?

  3. #53
    Join Date
    Aug 2008
    Posts
    1,663
    Feedback Score
    6 (100%)
    Quote Originally Posted by Clint View Post
    Dave,
    Just so I'm tracking on this:
    Is the purpose to reduce breakages of the extractor itself?
    Or
    To get a wider bite on the case rim and allow more extraction force without deforming or ripping the rim off?
    Or
    To move the pivot point to allow more extractor tension without extra heavy springs?
    Pretty much all three (virtually the same extractor as the FN SCAR). Not so much extractor breakage as extractor wear, however.
    Dave Merrill
    Terrible Technical Writer. Awful Photographer. Lazy Instructor. Kind of a dick.
    Loves Tacos.

  4. #54
    Join Date
    Nov 2008
    Posts
    333
    Feedback Score
    0
    Quote Originally Posted by jmart View Post
    Better in what way?
    Better in throat erosion/leade, gas port erosion and longevity of the rifling.

  5. #55
    Join Date
    Aug 2007
    Location
    Khorasan
    Posts
    1,250
    Feedback Score
    0
    Quote Originally Posted by Dirtyboy333 View Post
    Particularily concerning to me was the long post with Pat Rodgers stating the standard is 4 MOA. Also noticed most of the people who mention good accuracy (2moa and under) are speaking of non chrome or stainless. I would not be happy 3-4Moa with M193
    Are you saying your combat accuracy is BETTER than 3-4 MOA???

    Until you or the typical end user can shoot better than that, spending more, or making modifications to get more accurate are wasted.

    Now, if nitriding is cheaper, and works as good as or better than CL, that is a valid point. Spend less on equivalence so you can spend more on something else.

  6. #56
    Join Date
    Sep 2010
    Location
    Pittsburgh
    Posts
    929
    Feedback Score
    2 (100%)
    That's all I'm saying. It really is a valid point.

    No, if you talking about a single senario where I'm standing and shooting I'm not a 3-4moa shooter. BUT with all do respect, and I hear the "if you can't shoot better than the gun it doesn't matter" line frequently but that logic is far from the truth.

    In fact, that logic strengthens my suggestion for better accuracy as I previously stated. Your rarely going to be aiming dead center so every inch in accuracy will count. Regardless of what my "combat MOA" is, I'm going to shoot more accurately with a more accurate gun. It's just common sense. The less accurate a carbine is translates into more randomness and randomness is completely contradictory to what the TDP stands for.

    Now, that's not even considering shooting from a barracade or prone which will help out. I've noticed there is a very select few around here (not you) who place little to no weight on accuracy. I often wonder is this is a biproduct of the "war on terror" and the abundance of CQB operations. Chasing some underequipt ragheads down or kicking in a door and clearing out the room isn't the same as a WW2 type setting with a very equipt and trained enemy where accuracy has more value. Same with SHTF senarios.

    It was not my intention to start an accuracy debate but there's one thing that I think we can agree on and that is that better accuracy (w/o compromising other protection etc.) is a good thing. That's basically all that matters and is why I brought it up.

  7. #57
    Join Date
    Aug 2007
    Location
    Khorasan
    Posts
    1,250
    Feedback Score
    0
    Quote Originally Posted by Dirtyboy333 View Post
    That's all I'm saying. It really is a valid point.

    No, if you talking about a single senario where I'm standing and shooting I'm not a 3-4moa shooter. BUT with all do respect, and I hear the "if you can't shoot better than the gun it doesn't matter" line frequently but that logic is far from the truth.

    In fact, that logic strengthens my suggestion for better accuracy as I previously stated. Your rarely going to be aiming dead center so every inch in accuracy will count. Regardless of what my "combat MOA" is, I'm going to shoot more accurately with a more accurate gun. It's just common sense. The less accurate a carbine is translates into more randomness and randomness is completely contradictory to what the TDP stands for.

    Now, that's not even considering shooting from a barracade or prone which will help out. I've noticed there is a very select few around here (not you) who place little to no weight on accuracy. I often wonder is this is a biproduct of the "war on terror" and the abundance of CQB operations. Chasing some underequipt ragheads down or kicking in a door and clearing out the room isn't the same as a WW2 type setting with a very equipt and trained enemy where accuracy has more value. Same with SHTF senarios.

    It was not my intention to start an accuracy debate but there's one thing that I think we can agree on and that is that better accuracy (w/o compromising other protection etc.) is a good thing. That's basically all that matters and is why I brought it up.
    Your understanding of infantry rifle historical accuracy is not correct: The accuracy requirement for infantry rifles has not changed since the advent of smokeless powder, and the Krag-Jorgensen.

    In fact, the M16/M4 family of rifles/carbines exceed the accuracy requirement better than any previous family of US infantry rifles.

    MOA in a combat rifle is complete and utter bullshit, and attempting to get there is a waste of money, that can be spent better on other items, such as ergonomic concerns.

    Until, that is, the method of employment can be improved to make use of the kind of accuracy you speak of. 4 MOA rifles to a 2 MOA training standard equals kills up to 200 m on a reliable basis.

    Anything better than that, and you are better off working on crew-served and sniper employment issues with your lower level leadership.

  8. #58
    Join Date
    Jan 2008
    Location
    AZ-Waging jihad against crappy AR's.
    Posts
    24,902
    Feedback Score
    104 (100%)
    I am not an expert in metallurgy or any other discipline. Here are some things I would like to see.

    1. Ambidextrous lowers with appropriate controls. Possibly a flared magwell a la the DD lowers.

    2. A5 Vltor stock set up with a good solid stock (SOPMOD or even IMOD).

    3. Two uppers for all combat units (not M'fers sitting behind the desk). One would be an 18" SPR type and the other an 11.5" or even Mk18 type.

    4. A finish like the Glock Tenifer finish applied to exposed steel or even something like the black Ionbond. Anything that will help to reduce rust, etc... Possibly even some special coatings applied to the BCG as a whole.

    5. Suppressors for general use by combat troops and issued as part of a kit.

    6. Get rid of the ridiculous ass burst shit and go back to an auto trigger. Teach personnel how to use short bursts when needed.

    7. Two optics for all the above. Something like an ACOG or something for use at distances and then a red dot like the Aimpoint T-1.

    8. Better barrel life.

    9. BCM Gunfighter charging handle (medium).

    All of this could be issued to every person as part of a kit. Think large Pelican type box.



    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

  9. #59
    Join Date
    Mar 2010
    Location
    Maine
    Posts
    7,868
    Feedback Score
    0
    Quote Originally Posted by Iraqgunz View Post
    I am not an expert in metallurgy or any other discipline. Here are some things I would like to see.

    1. Ambidextrous lowers with appropriate controls. Possibly a flared magwell a la the DD lowers.

    2. A5 Vltor stock set up with a good solid stock (SOPMOD or even IMOD).

    3. Two uppers for all combat units (not M'fers sitting behind the desk). One would be an 18" SPR type and the other an 11.5" or even Mk18 type.

    4. A finish like the Glock Tenifer finish applied to exposed steel or even something like the black Ionbond. Anything that will help to reduce rust, etc... Possibly even some special coatings applied to the BCG as a whole.

    5. Suppressors for general use by combat troops and issued as part of a kit.

    6. Get rid of the ridiculous ass burst shit and go back to an auto trigger. Teach personnel how to use short bursts when needed.

    7. Two optics for all the above. Something like an ACOG or something for use at distances and then a red dot like the Aimpoint T-1.

    8. Better barrel life.

    9. BCM Gunfighter charging handle (medium).

    All of this could be issued to every person as part of a kit. Think large Pelican type box.
    Agreed with most.

    However:

    Instead of two uppers, wouldn't one upper receiver with a variable sight be better, more universal, and more economic?

    Like 12.5'', and 14.5'', with a Elcan made by a company that doesn't suck, like Trijicon, or a Short Dot contract.

    Also: Scrap the A2 grip, and make Tango Downs the standard issue.
    We miss you, AC.
    We miss you, ToddG.

  10. #60
    Join Date
    Sep 2010
    Location
    Pittsburgh
    Posts
    929
    Feedback Score
    2 (100%)
    Quote Originally Posted by 120mm View Post
    Your understanding of infantry rifle historical accuracy is not correct: The accuracy requirement for infantry rifles has not changed since the advent of smokeless powder, and the Krag-Jorgensen.

    In fact, the M16/M4 family of rifles/carbines exceed the accuracy requirement better than any previous family of US infantry rifles.

    MOA in a combat rifle is complete and utter bullshit, and attempting to get there is a waste of money, that can be spent better on other items, such as ergonomic concerns.

    Until, that is, the method of employment can be improved to make use of the kind of accuracy you speak of. 4 MOA rifles to a 2 MOA training standard equals kills up to 200 m on a reliable basis.

    Anything better than that, and you are better off working on crew-served and sniper employment issues with your lower level leadership.

    I made no comment that has anything to do with my understanding of historical combat accuracy. Sorry if that was how it seems, it was not my intent. And yeah, I know the M16 family is a very accurate combat rifle. I have no complaints with it's accuracy when compared to other combat rifles. The only point I was trying to make is that by judging by the thread I linked it has great potential to be more consistent than it already is with nitriding. I mean, I would say that an AR is pretty damn reliable but people are still suggesting more lugs, coatings etc. and rightfully so.

    Improvement is what this threads about. I don't expect it to be an moa rifle. That is bullshit. BUT if it is reasonably easy to accomplish I would think/hope you would consider it an improvement.

    After re-reading my post where said "I wouldn't be happy with 4moa" I mean that since I know that Civi unlined 4140/4150 AR's shoot much better I would be disappointed to get 3-4 moa in perfect conditions with a new buy especially since nitriding offers the same if not better protection. I mistakenly applied that thought to military carbines and I apologize. I guess since I now will only buy AR'S that conform to the TDP (generally) I wasn't necessary thinking of strictly "combat accuracy".

    Im not saying at all that CL'd barrels are inaccurate bc that would be false. I'm also not trying to suggest or debate what good "combat accuracy" is.

    BOTTOM LINE: I think Nitriding would be a wise improvement to the TDP because the general consensus is that it protects as well if not better than CL and it does not flake off. It also may very well be a cheaper/easier process. Lastly, even though it might not be necessary for mil applications, judging from the linked thread and personal experience with non-chrome chromoly barrels, would increase accuracy.

    If that's not a reasonable suggestion then I give up. I will not mention the A word on this site again

Page 6 of 8 FirstFirst ... 45678 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
  •