gatnerd

Military Guns and Ammunition

Hosted by gatnerd

This is intended for people interested in the subject of military guns and their ammunition, with emphasis on automatic weapons.

  • 3360
    MEMBERS
  • 191213
    MESSAGES
  • 4
    POSTS TODAY

Discussions

FN SCAR Mk 2 and Evolys   Small Arms <20mm

Started 14/4/22 by Guardsman26; 8340 views.
roguetechie

From: roguetechie

17/4/22

Yes a steel ball falling onto a steel plate does reach a velocity of zero, right before gaining back some of the velocity it just imparted to the steel plate from an inelastic collision (or is this technically an elastic collision? I'm not an engineer i just play one on tv) and the restitution rate of the two materials in question.

It actually can gain back a fairly substantial amount of the energy it just dumped into whatever it hit depending on the restitution rates of the two materials in question as well as other relevant factors which I poorly understand other than knowing in an abstract way that they exist.

If we're talking about the AK and pkm as they currently exist, both designs do in fact impart extra energy to the return stroke from their collision with the rear trunnion. Whether another design would do so or not and to what degree would heavily depend upon the specifics of that design, however in these two cases Max is entirely correct.

roguetechie

From: roguetechie

17/4/22

This is one of the stealth advantages of the pkm operating mechanism with it's pull out then push forward belt feed mechanism. It actually lets you shorten the receiver quite substantially without compromising reserve power.

The chicoms make 308 non disintegrating belt pkm clones that still pull then push feed using the signature pkm claw as it is and it's not totally impossible to make a disintegrating link belt for a pull then push feed gun.

When you consider that it will probably be easier to make lightweight polymer pull out disintegrating links it's not entirely out of the realm of possibility that true next generation belt feds could use pull out links.

stancrist

From: stancrist

17/4/22

roguetechie said:

If we're talking about the AK and pkm as they currently exist, both designs do in fact impart extra energy to the return stroke from their collision with the rear trunnion. Whether another design would do so or not and to what degree would heavily depend upon the specifics of that design, however in these two cases Max is entirely correct.

No, Max is entirely incorrect.  Max said that the bolt starts with "some initial velocity."  

Even the PKM bolt starts with zero initial velocity.  https://youtu.be/01mrTVUJ_Bo?t=45

In reply toRe: msg 18
gatnerd

From: gatnerd

17/4/22

Shot 1 of all open bolt weapons begins with just the forward spring power of the weapons spring. 

Shots 2-200 may or may not have additional power exerted on the forward stroke

EmericD

From: EmericD

17/4/22

roguetechie said:

When you consider that it will probably be easier to make lightweight polymer pull out disintegrating links it's not entirely out of the realm of possibility that true next generation belt feds could use pull out links.

An important part would also be to limit the belt acceleration. The Evolys belt movement starts during the feed phase, just after pushing the round out of the link, and this seems to dramatically reduce the belt peak acceleration.

stancrist

From: stancrist

17/4/22

Shot #1 or shot #200, does not matter.  Initial velocity of the bolt is zero.

Shot #1 starts with the bolt held in place by the sear:  Bolt velocity = zero.

Shots #2-200 start with bolt rearward motion stopped by the receiver, at which point bolt velocity = zero.

Unless "initial velocity" is being defined as velocity of the bolt at some point other than the point where the bolt's forward movement is initiated?

DavidPawley

From: DavidPawley

17/4/22

Elastic.

Inelastic collisions are where the objects stick together in a lump.

gatnerd

From: gatnerd

17/4/22

stancrist said:

Unless "initial velocity" is being defined as velocity of the bolt at some point other than the point where the bolt's forward movement is initiated?

Id define what Max is talking about as "Spring +" power. 

Shot 1 = bolt traveling forward operating purely on spring power

Shot 2-200 = bolt traveling forward operating on spring power + energy of the bolt 'bouncing' off the back of the receiver 

Personally I think designing the weapon to rely purely on Spring Power, and minimizing bolt impact to improve controllability/reduce shot dispersion is the way to go. But it;s entirely believable that this "Spring +" effect of the bolt bouncing off the receiver does allow for more power for stripping rounds off the links. 

  • Edited 17 April 2022 23:58  by  gatnerd
DavidPawley

From: DavidPawley

18/4/22

Redefining zero as positive doesn’t make it a valid claim.

Relying on the shear strength of the rear of the receiver to stop bolt travel also seems like bad design.

If your feed design requires the residual energy of the bolt after collision with the receiver to chamber a round, how will it ever fire the first shot to get some residual energy?

Your rationalisation of an incorrect claim is spurious and is decreasing the s/n ratio in this thread.

stancrist

From: stancrist

18/4/22

gatnerd said:

Id define what Max is talking about as "Spring +" power.

I dunno.  He very clearly talked about "velocity" in post #12.

mpopenker said:

...initial velocity of 3-4 m/s...

TOP