Page 2 of 7 FirstFirst 1234 ... LastLast
Results 11 to 20 of 62

Thread: Military and the Middie

  1. #11
    Join Date
    Dec 2011
    Posts
    950
    Feedback Score
    0
    Quote Originally Posted by C4IGrant View Post
    I do not think that middy gassed guns run all that well on FA.
    Isn't it just a matter of getting the same amount of force (gas) on the carrier key as the carbine? I know, everything else equal, the cyclic rate would naturally be a little slower but not sure how that could be the deal breaker. Just curious on what went wrong (talking issues unsuppressed right?)

  2. #12
    Join Date
    Sep 2007
    Location
    AZ
    Posts
    27,214
    Feedback Score
    14 (100%)
    Middies run better on full auto in my experience. The standard M4 cycles so fast that it's harder to control.

    Suppressed full auto with a middy runs like an M4 unsuppressed.
    "You people have too much time on your hands." - scottryan

  3. #13
    Join Date
    Oct 2007
    Posts
    313
    Feedback Score
    0
    Quote Originally Posted by justin_247 View Post
    No. Especially with the budget being rolled back, personnel being cut, and Iraq deployments ending...
    This. No need to spend more money on a weapon system that does "good enough". If a few specialized units wanna run HK's or SCAR's or whatever...noones gonna care. But for wholesale issue to big Army, I doubt you will see anything differant than more of the same.

  4. #14
    Join Date
    May 2006
    Location
    VA/OH
    Posts
    29,630
    Feedback Score
    33 (100%)
    Quote Originally Posted by nml View Post
    Isn't it just a matter of getting the same amount of force (gas) on the carrier key as the carbine? I know, everything else equal, the cyclic rate would naturally be a little slower but not sure how that could be the deal breaker. Just curious on what went wrong (talking issues unsuppressed right?)
    I don't know exactly what the problem was, but my guess it was a combination of gas and the extra dwell time.


    C4

  5. #15
    Join Date
    Aug 2011
    Location
    Malmo, Sweden
    Posts
    678
    Feedback Score
    0
    So exactly who are these mil guys you speak of? AFAIK USMC, USA, and USAF never really saw eye to eye as to the M16/M4 platform, and now all of them are switching to piston - in unison?

  6. #16
    Join Date
    Dec 2011
    Location
    Fargo, ND
    Posts
    262
    Feedback Score
    0
    I think Red Jacket will take care of it.

  7. #17
    Join Date
    Jan 2012
    Posts
    54
    Feedback Score
    0
    Quote Originally Posted by p22shooter30 View Post
    I think Red Jacket will take care of it.
    vince left (harhar) and the "general" scooted off without a solid endorsement. that crap was all hollywood. did anyone actually think that was a legit eval???

    i mean didn't they just use adams arms retrofit parts and a hydro-buffer? all of us here could have a government contract if we can crank them out then...
    Last edited by gotoplanb; 01-30-12 at 12:16.

  8. #18
    Join Date
    Dec 2011
    Posts
    950
    Feedback Score
    0
    (A historian would be better) but my take is large-scale platform changes only happen alongside large-scale caliber changes, e.g. M14 and M16. We are not abandoning 5.56.

    Now if they're smart they'd have congress authorize to register and stamp the lowers for the civilian market. With the $ you could have brand new shit everywhere.

    Quote Originally Posted by C4IGrant View Post
    I don't know exactly what the problem was, but my guess it was a combination of gas and the extra dwell time.
    Roger. Yeah I know if you are talking about barrel after port consistent with a M4/M16, midlength would need 16.5".

  9. #19
    Join Date
    Dec 2011
    Location
    Fargo, ND
    Posts
    262
    Feedback Score
    0
    Quote Originally Posted by gotoplanb View Post
    vince left (harhar) and the "general" scooted off without a solid endorsement. that crap was all hollywood. did anyone actually think that was a legit eval???

    i mean didn't they just use adams arms retrofit parts and a hydro-buffer? all of us here could have a government contract if we can crank them out then...
    it only took two weeks to build it too.

  10. #20
    Join Date
    Dec 2011
    Posts
    950
    Feedback Score
    0
    Quote Originally Posted by markm View Post
    Middies run better on full auto in my experience. The standard M4 cycles so fast that it's harder to control.

    Suppressed full auto with a middy runs like an M4 unsuppressed.
    Cool yeah I certainly am out of my expertise but feel like if you can run a 10.3 on carbine gas, a 14.5 midlength should be like you described.

Page 2 of 7 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
  •