This is intended for people interested in the subject of military guns and their ammunition, with emphasis on automatic weapons.
Latest 12:56 by EmericD
Latest 22-Jan by stancrist
Latest 22-Jan by Farmplinker
Latest 22-Jan by Mr. T (MrT4)
Latest 21-Jan by mpopenker
Latest 19-Jan by Alpen25
Latest 19-Jan by gatnerd
Latest 16-Jan by gatnerd
Latest 16-Jan by smg762
Latest 16-Jan by BruhMomento
Latest 14-Jan by David Finkel(ish) (mahjong54)
Latest 11-Jan by gatnerd
Latest 10-Jan by mpopenker
Latest 5-Jan by stancrist
Latest 31-Dec by smg762
Latest 27-Dec by bradys555
Latest 26-Dec by smg762
Latest 25-Dec by poliorcetes
Latest 25-Dec by autogun
Latest 24-Dec by gatnerd
...the good designs they screwed us out of...
Which good designs?
In terms of protectig from hard impacts, a CT could be good, but what about just havig an extremely long neck, and cramming the whole bullet inside it.
Gettig a high BC is fairly easy because you can use a smaller caliber like 4.7mm and just make the bullet heavy ish. Like 48grains.
This is an obvious argument for velocity over bullet quality
Ok before i sign off heres my last bizzarre idea...how about a .22 (AR2 or FABRL shape)
with 4 slight fins or extensions on the bearing surface. This brings the caliber up to 6mm or 6.5mm allowing for extreme energies.
Again these fins are just as long as the bearing surface so they support the entire bullet in the barrel.
Obviously you need a wad behind it to seal the gas. And i dont know how these bore-riding fins would interact with the rifling
FAL or AR-10. FN MAG, which we finally adopted..... after the problems with the M-60 were mostly fixed. That's just the 1950s.
Yeah, but in the 1950s, the Army was looking for a lightweight rifle and machine gun.
The FAL weighs as much as the M1, and the MAG is almost as heavy as the M1919A6.
Sure, the FAL and MAG were better than the M14 and M60 in some respects, but how did Springfield "screw us out" of them?
As for the AR-10, certainly it was basically a much better design than both M14 and FAL, but ArmaLite screwed itself with that.
Sure, the FAL and MAG were better than the M14 and M60 in some respects
Stan, I believe that you misspelled "nearly all" as "some."
I realized that Textron / HK rifle is needlessly extended backwards. As there isn't backward extraction, backwards movement only needs to reach the base of the fresh cartridge.
Just look at Steyr ACR. Before I could see the internals, I wondered (during the 80s and 90s) how the magazine was so close to the buttstock. And here you are.
Recovery spring can also work against recoil and thus it needs a sizeable working lenght. But it could be placed elsewhere and save some lenght to the weapon, even permitting an innovation as novel and groundbreaking as a folding stock
I realized that Textron / HK rifle is needlessly extended backwards.
A lot of bolt travel equals less bolt velocity before hitting the buffer and less "felt recoil".
The soviet prototype AK used this too...i think it was called the TKB022...
am i rigt in thinking they both use the same rising chamber mechanism..
Also, any thoughts on that 'finned bearing surface' in terms of feasibility?
Seems like a way to get a .22 up to 762 nato energies - without a sabot