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.
- 3433
MEMBERS - 198191
MESSAGES - 9
POSTS TODAY
Discussions
For Your Amusement General Army topics
From: stancrist
23-Aug
EmericD said:Hence my question, what is making an AR-15?
Direct Impingement doesn't seem to be a factor, because you can find "piston-driven" AR-15.
The bolt carrier retracting into a tube extension (acting as a stock) seems more positive, but some guys are relocating the recoil springs on the upper receiver to enable a folding stock, so that's not critical to the design...
The bolt carrier shape and multi-lug bolt?
I think that "What is making an AR-15?" is a question with a multitude of answers, depending upon who you ask.
My answer would be that basically, if it looks like an AR-15, it is an AR-15. Hence, both of these guns are AR-15s.
#hecklerandkoch #hk416 #ar1500:00 Intro00:13 Weight00:29 Controls00:46 Safety selector01:02 Buffertube & Stock01:43 Thread pitches01:53 Handguards02:24 Compa...
.
From: farmplinker2
25-Aug
Because Mk 262 (77-grain) needs less velocity to yaw, it will perform adequately in 10.5-14.5" barrels. In fact, a lot of SOF guys were stealing Mk 262 from their Squad Designated Marksman, and loading it in their entry carbines, much to the chagrin of the DMs.
It will have the same or more effective range in SBRs than M193 or M855, but I'm unsure how it compares to M855A1 or Mk. 318.
From: 17thfabn
27-Aug
stancrist
"In the preceding 60-year period, the Army fielded four different rifles and calibers (.30-03, .30-06, .30 Carbine, 7.62 NATO)."
.30-03 to .30-06 was more like a minor improvement versus a total caliber change.
.30 Carbine wasn't a replacement for .30-06. It was a parallel development for a specific application.
And of course we know the convoluted story of 7.62 mm. Would the US Army have switched to 7.62 mm if it hadn't been for the push for NATO standardization or stayed with 30-06 for the succeser rifle to the M-1?
From: stancrist
27-Aug
17thfabn said:.30-03 to .30-06 was more like a minor improvement versus a total caliber change.
Fully agree. Nevertheless, .30-03 is a different cartridge.
17thfabn said:.30 Carbine wasn't a replacement for .30-06.
I did not say it was. I said .30 Carbine was one of four different rifle cartridges used in that time period.
17thfabn said:Would the US Army have switched to 7.62 mm if it hadn't been for the push for NATO standardization or stayed with 30-06 for the succeser rifle to the M-1?
Most likely the US Army would have switched, even if NATO had never existed.
The development of what became 7.62 NATO began in 1944 or 1945 -- several years before NATO was formed -- partly in order to have a rifle cartridge which did not consume as much strategic metals as .30-06 did.
From: smg762
31-Aug
if you load 3006 to full power, ie. 3100 ft lbs, would it be too harsh on MG barrels?
From: stancrist
1-Sep
Best looking AK ever, IMO. 
This year Ian and Mike had a genius idea to run full powered battle rifles on Finnish Brutality 2023. I chose this nice looking Saiga MK-106 chambered in .30...
.
From: stancrist
1-Sep
@varusteleka @BlokeontheRange @PolenarTactical @AdministrativeResults @9HoleReviews@BlueJeanOperator
.