Back to 7.62x51mm... is there a method to this madness?

If you feel you absolutely must talk about cars, morality, or anything else not related to the F-16, do it here.
  • Author
  • Message
Offline
User avatar

XanderCrews

Elite 3K

Elite 3K

  • Posts: 5169
  • Joined: 16 Oct 2012, 19:42

Unread post12 Aug 2017, 03:22

madrat wrote:http://gizmodo.com/that-aim-assisted-rifle-is-now-accurate-up-to-a-mile-1678303048

Let's worry about getting first round on target, then worry later WHAT TYPE. I'd rather get more hits before i worry about if that one or two hits actually did anything significantly more than X, Y, or Z. In fighters we worked on first look first to shoot. Let's do that for the soldier.



"Thrill killers"? What an odd tilt to that article
Choose Crews
Offline
User avatar

XanderCrews

Elite 3K

Elite 3K

  • Posts: 5169
  • Joined: 16 Oct 2012, 19:42

Unread post12 Aug 2017, 03:33

f-16adf wrote:DI AR's have made a comeback. BCM, DD, and FN (there are others) all make quality DI AR-15's. Piston AR's were all the rage about 7-10 years ago (HK, LWRC); me personally I would rather have a SCAR 16 if I was to go piston.



As LL Cool J said "Don't call it a 'comeback' I've been here for years" DI never left, the prediction that everyone would go piston, simply didn't happen. Most people don't justify the cost as most civilians aren't dragging their weapons through hell, especially not thousand dollar piston guns. Civilians also have much better options for cleaning and maintenance compared to the military, snazzy bolts, etc.. So DI dirtiness Is not As big a problem.
And it's not usually life and death urgency for reliability. A lot of weapons go from tailgate to range and back again as opposed to over a beach before the shooting starts.

I really think the 7.62 requirement is to avoid an auto selection to M-4. Whether any of this comes to fruition, and the army has it's hands full with the 9mm sidearm protests I have no idea, but i would bet heavily on it not happening. M-4 is sticking around I'm betting
Choose Crews
Online
User avatar

KamenRiderBlade

Elite 2K

Elite 2K

  • Posts: 2566
  • Joined: 24 Nov 2012, 02:20
  • Location: USA

Unread post12 Aug 2017, 05:35

XanderCrews wrote:The gas port on an m-27 is further out than an M-4 carbine already. It's closer to a mid-length AR actually. As for slowing the cycle you can use an A5 system. The fast cycle was of course a result of the carbine system, which the army went full on with when they adopted the M-4. It's just one of those trade offs you didn't have with the Rifle length.

Look I'm not a firearms expert, there are whole forums dedicated to these discussions with more knowledgeable and detail oriented people. I know the basics. I know the Marines want the M-27 in a big way and will probably get it, and it would not be bad if they did.

Most people compare guns on nice sanitized ranges individually, weapon vs weapon and there is a lot more to it. One of the reasons the marines Like M-27 over the M-249 for example is that the SAW is more distinct and prone to draw fire. That's not something a lot of people consider when they are pumping holes into paper targets. Not saying there are not a bunch of people who really really know their stuff but there are different considerations with military weapons.


The M-4A1 is a great weapon. It's basically impossible to beat. There probably aren't many better ways to hurl a 5.56 round. M-27 is one of the few. I don't know what a SOCOM M-4A1 costs but the price may not be that far away from an M-27. The last 10 percent of performance is 50 percent of the cost according to the old trope.

G-28s are expensive AF. No idea what the military rate is but the civilians who replicate then pay like 30K. The scope alone goes for 3k
The A-5 gas system probably wouldn't slow it down enough or have enough distance between the gas port and base of the receiver compared to the Arms Tech Ltd. Gas Trap which is literally mounted on the muzzle thread.
More Distance = More Time for Gas to Travel = More Time for Chamber Pressure to drop = More reliable extraction / Operation
You also don't have to worry about Gas Port erosion over time since there is no Gas Port punched into the barrel, that's why I'm a proponent of the ArmsTech Ltd Adiabetic Gas Trap system.

It's fully compatible with any existing DI AR-15 system, could probably be modifed to work with a Short stroke Gas Piston by re-directing the gas pipe to the piston portion.

I completely agree with you on making the M-27 look as close to an AR as possible.

If you can't tell what gun somebody is carrying through a set of Optics at range, then you don't know which one to shoot first.

HK G-28's are very expensive and unnecessary for arming the entire USMC.

Yeah, you're correct on the last 10 percent of performance being 50 percent of the cost, but that's almost always the case with high performance anything.
Offline

f-16adf

Senior member

Senior member

  • Posts: 308
  • Joined: 19 Dec 2016, 17:46

Unread post12 Aug 2017, 19:19

Everything HK is generally TOO expensive. I have a HK pistol for carry, and have just replaced it with a $550 Glock. Nothing against HK, but I will never purchase another of their products. And I would never buy their MR556 (it's a beautiful carbine), or LWRC piston AR. If I am going to spend upwards of $2500 I will just purchase a SCAR. With a SCAR I can do away with the buffer tube for an adjustable folding stock.

I personally think the US military cannot afford any HK/LWRC or whatever that is in that price range at the present time. I believe the M4A1 is good enough for the job, and it is far cheaper. FN and Colt still make pretty good products.



I really do not like bullpups, but if the US military does eventually adopt (or design) one; they certainly can do better than Tavor or FN F2000.
Offline
User avatar

XanderCrews

Elite 3K

Elite 3K

  • Posts: 5169
  • Joined: 16 Oct 2012, 19:42

Unread post12 Aug 2017, 19:53

KamenRiderBlade wrote:[The A-5 gas system probably wouldn't slow it down enough .



How slow do you need it?

The whole point of the A5 system is to give a carbine a rifle -like buffer that thus replicates a rifle length cycling, and thus slow it down. I get that you are in love with that method you mention, but the nice thing about the A5 system is it's much less complicated to install and pretty much eliminates the over gassing issue without screwing with port size, gas tubes, barrels, etc.

You seem to have decided there is just one way to solve this. People have been tackling this issue for years. How do you get rifle length features from a carbine?
Last edited by XanderCrews on 12 Aug 2017, 20:16, edited 1 time in total.
Choose Crews
Offline
User avatar

XanderCrews

Elite 3K

Elite 3K

  • Posts: 5169
  • Joined: 16 Oct 2012, 19:42

Unread post12 Aug 2017, 20:13

f-16adf wrote:Everything HK is generally TOO expensive. I have a HK pistol for carry, and have just replaced it with a $550 Glock. Nothing against HK, but I will never purchase another of their products. And I would never buy their MR556 (it's a beautiful carbine), or LWRC piston AR. If I am going to spend upwards of $2500 I will just purchase a SCAR. With a SCAR I can do away with the buffer tube for an adjustable folding stock.

I personally think the US military cannot afford any HK/LWRC or whatever that is in that price range at the present time. I believe the M4A1 is good enough for the job, and it is far cheaper. FN and Colt still make pretty good products.



I really do not like bullpups, but if the US military does eventually adopt (or design) one; they certainly can do better than Tavor or FN F2000.


Your welcome to your opinion, the military has different standards and requirements. And they can absolutely afford it, it just costs more.

http://usatoday30.usatoday.com/news/was ... 4092_x.htm

There is also the savings on not having to buy and maintain SAWs. Which in my experiences are absolute POSs.


As for bull pups some nations are HK including some of the bullpuppers. France for example. Curious to see how many bull pups we will see developed.

I don't mean to sound mean, but hearing someone complain about the cost of an HK M-27, and how they wouldn't spend that much is like listenimg to the Cessna 172 pilot tell me about how he would never buy an Apache Attack helicopter. Neato. Totally different jobs and standards and requirements. And the individual decision is fine and up to the individual, but i don't think the individual should expand that notion to the military.

If I'm going to war I want an M-27-- not a SAW whatsoever--. If I'm killing paper at the range my crappy low end DPMS AR-15 with cheap scope is fine (Love that carbine! It's just fun), but i recognize the differences in situations and context.especially if I'm going to be in the dirt and in the ocean and in the field for weeks on end. I really don't think you can pay too much for reliability.

My USP shoots like a laser, best pistol ove ever fired and ive shot some snazzy pistols. I don't think it's over priced. Shoots better than A $1k+ 1911. G3 is overpriced for me. It's relative. I like glocks but glocks don't like me. I don't think they are over priced, I think they are overhyped tho. And I still don't know where I can get my Glock AR...

To me the bottom line is, that's it's refreshing to have the bosses willing to pay more to get something better.
Choose Crews
Offline

f-16adf

Senior member

Senior member

  • Posts: 308
  • Joined: 19 Dec 2016, 17:46

Unread post13 Aug 2017, 00:32

Yes, everyone has their own opinion. Fine, we live in a free country.


For the record, I never mentioned the SAW or its replacement.

I have a HK P2000, HK45C, and a Glock 30S. From my experience, HK runs great if they are always kept clean. A little grime and no tetra grease on the slide and be ready for malfunctions. The just Glock seems to run better. I use to think Glocks were garbage, but since buying one and comparing them, I have changed my mind. Same for some FN pistols. As I said, I probably will never buy any HK product again. My friend carries the G19, which I do not like. If you have better luck with HK, that's awesome. I just do not believe that everything Heckler & Koch makes is the best just because it is Heckler & Koch (and I use to think that way).


The Glock was $300-400 cheaper than HK's. Yes, it is not as pretty as them, but my Glock is a total tank.



As far as the HK416; if the US armed forces want to buy it, fine with me. But, there are other rifles that are just as good as it. I prefer the FN SCAR over it (civilian MR556) or any LWRC. If you are going piston, then just be rid of the buffer tube.
Last edited by f-16adf on 13 Aug 2017, 01:17, edited 2 times in total.
Offline

f-16adf

Senior member

Senior member

  • Posts: 308
  • Joined: 19 Dec 2016, 17:46

Unread post13 Aug 2017, 01:05

The SAW is made by FN, and that is one example of theirs that many seem not to like. I have heard that the F2000 is a lemon. I have never fired either. I do like some of their AR and striker fired (FN9c) firearms though.
Offline
User avatar

XanderCrews

Elite 3K

Elite 3K

  • Posts: 5169
  • Joined: 16 Oct 2012, 19:42

Unread post13 Aug 2017, 01:28

f-16adf wrote:Yes, everyone has their own opinion. Fine, we live in a free country.


For the record, I never mentioned the SAW or its replacement.

I have a HK P2000, HK45C, and a Glock 30S. From my experience, HK runs great if they are always kept clean. A little grime and no tetra grease on the slide and be ready for malfunctions. The just Glock seems to run better. I use to think Glocks were garbage, but since buying one and comparing them, I have changed my mind. Same for some FN pistols. As I said, I probably will never buy any HK product again. My friend carries the G19, which I do not like. If you have better luck with HK, that's awesome. I just do not believe that everything Heckler & Koch makes is the best just because it is Heckler & Koch (and I use to think that way).


The Glock was $300-400 cheaper than HK's. Yes, it is not as pretty as them, but my Glock is a total tank.



As far as the HK416; if the US armed forces want to buy it, fine with me. But, there are other rifles that are just as good as it. I prefer the FN SCAR over it (civilian MR556) or any LWRC. If you are going piston, then just be rid of the buffer tube.


It's kind of funny that SCAR just kind of went off like a dud and was bought in limited numbers, and the 416/M-27 just swept in like a storm. I'm not making a judgement just an observation. The Scar was supposed to assume the throne.
Choose Crews
Online
User avatar

KamenRiderBlade

Elite 2K

Elite 2K

  • Posts: 2566
  • Joined: 24 Nov 2012, 02:20
  • Location: USA

Unread post13 Aug 2017, 04:27

XanderCrews wrote:How slow do you need it?
Slower than what is currently the furthest away Gas Port length allows.

This means 550-600 rpm instead of the 700–950 rpm that is standard on a M4A1

The whole point of the A5 system is to give a carbine a rifle -like buffer that thus replicates a rifle length cycling, and thus slow it down. I get that you are in love with that method you mention, but the nice thing about the A5 system is it's much less complicated to install and pretty much eliminates the over gassing issue without screwing with port size, gas tubes, barrels, etc.

You seem to have decided there is just one way to solve this. People have been tackling this issue for years. How do you get rifle length features from a carbine?
http://www.armstechltd.com/products.php?id=reconrifle

http://www.armstechltd.com/faq.php
You can't get simpler than the ArmsTech Ltd Adiabetic Gas Trap.
During the Barrel Manufacturing Stage, you literally skip drilling in the gas port Step.

You're most likely going to make a muzzle Thread that is of standard type, so that hasn't changed.

You literally screw on the Adiabetic Gas Trap and install the longer Gas Pipe into the Gas Trap
Then the rest of the steps is literally the same as if you would assemble a regular AR.

It's a even simpler method then what is currently done while being even more reliable.
Offline

charlielima223

Forum Veteran

Forum Veteran

  • Posts: 787
  • Joined: 12 Jan 2014, 19:26

Unread post13 Aug 2017, 08:15

Okay lets rein this back in. The thing about the USMC's M27 and the M4 is a whole different issue... (though personally I don't agree with it)

That said...

People here have mentioned "medium" calibers like 6.8 or 6.5 as well as Cased Telescopic ammo for the LSAT. What is interesting about this issue is that this purposed 7.62 rifle is considered to be interim. Does this mean there is a new caliber in development? Within the US Army, most notably the US Army Marksmanship Unit has designed some rather plausible medium caliber designs. One such round they created is the .264 USA. In terms of the cased telescopic ammo used for the LSAT program, the last I checked it was declared to be at level 7 of technology readiness according to DoD.
Offline
User avatar

XanderCrews

Elite 3K

Elite 3K

  • Posts: 5169
  • Joined: 16 Oct 2012, 19:42

Unread post21 Sep 2017, 14:27

http://www.thefirearmblog.com/blog/2017 ... d-icsr-no/

Canceled

Remember when I said i doubt it would happen?
Choose Crews
Offline

southernphantom

Forum Veteran

Forum Veteran

  • Posts: 962
  • Joined: 06 Aug 2011, 17:18
  • Location: Somewhere in Dixie

Unread post23 Sep 2017, 05:05

XanderCrews wrote:http://www.thefirearmblog.com/blog/2017/09/20/breaking-army-7-62mm-rifle-program-cancelled-icsr-no/

Canceled

Remember when I said i doubt it would happen?


This is my surprised face :D

Another stupid idea buried for the time being. Good riddance to bad rubbish.

Hold out for LSAT. The M4/M855A1 combination is plenty sufficient, especially if using Gen3 PMAGs for proper feed angle to avoid excess wear caused by the hardened steel penetrator dragging inside the upper.
Offline
User avatar

count_to_10

Elite 3K

Elite 3K

  • Posts: 3156
  • Joined: 10 Mar 2012, 15:38

Unread post23 Sep 2017, 13:52

The gun makers must feel like Charlie Brown at this point. How many times has the Army yanked this football out from underneath them?
Einstein got it backward: one cannot prevent a war without preparing for it.

Uncertainty: Learn it, love it, live it.
Offline

f-16adf

Senior member

Senior member

  • Posts: 308
  • Joined: 19 Dec 2016, 17:46

Unread post23 Sep 2017, 15:09

As a civilian, I personally enjoy the 5.56/AR-15 combo. But if the Army is going to replace it (5.56), wouldn't the most logical choice be with 6.5 Grendel? Couldn't they still save the M-4 lowers and mags, but just replace the uppers (BCG/Barrel)?
Last edited by f-16adf on 23 Sep 2017, 19:21, edited 1 time in total.
PreviousNext

Return to Off-topic

Who is online

Users browsing this forum: No registered users and 1 guest