Circular Direct Imprintment Gas System


PDA






zollen
May 26, 2011, 08:00 PM
http://img851.imageshack.us/img851/1386/effdis.png

The conceptual diagram is quite self-explanatory.

Advantage of this concept:

1. Utilize the same blow back gas for the entire reciprocating shell extraction and shell feeding cycle.
2. Require less materials to construct.
3. More simple design.
4. Majority of the gas vented through the exhaust port.

Is this concept workable? Do you think this concept is more efficient?

If you enjoyed reading about "Circular Direct Imprintment Gas System" here in TheHighRoad.org archive, you'll LOVE our community. Come join TheHighRoad.org today for the full version!
tyeo098
May 26, 2011, 08:36 PM
Its a complicated way of using a spring?

Also, youd have to cut a channel in the 'gas chamber' to allow it to connect to the BCG. You'll lose pressure through that.

kingpin008
May 26, 2011, 08:44 PM
I'll be the first to admit that I'm terrible at reading schematics, but it looks to me like depending on where the exhaust port is, the gun would vent gases right in front of the shooter's face.

Of course, I could be interpreting the drawing wrong. If not, though, that's definitely a problem in my opinion.

Lothar Allen
May 26, 2011, 08:45 PM
why is there a gas tube on the bolt, when the functional gas tube runs above it?

Also, it would be difficult to time the cycle duration as it is a directly related to multiple factors that would be difficult to control/change. (what about running a suppressor?)
1. diameter of the tube
2. angle and shape of the transitional period of the tube between the blocked off portion and the more open section
3. distance the gas has to travel around the loop.

other thoughts
1. it would be a PITA to clean the gas tube with the bolt and valves in the way
2. if you look at the length of an ar-15 action, and how much distance the bolt travels during cycling, i think the gas tube in your design would get in the way of creating a maneuverable rifle.

zollen
May 26, 2011, 09:02 PM
Its a complicated way of using a spring?

Also, youd have to cut a channel in the 'gas chamber' to allow it to connect to the BCG. You'll lose pressure through that.
The gas chamber is behind the BCG platform, so it does not get in the way of the BCG platform movement. I am trying to see if I could utilize the same gas for the entire cycle, I admit this concept is more complex than the conventional AR design. Let me think about this....

Zak Smith
May 27, 2011, 12:48 AM
You already have a piston and gas exhaust ports in the bolt carrier group in the schematic, IE, the AR-15 bolt carrier group. Instead of using that efficient and in-line piston to cause bolt carrier movement, you have some other less efficient gas path. The only thing that might work in the whole drawing is the short spring system, but this has been done before in various AR-15 conversions.

Apocalypse-Now
May 27, 2011, 03:57 AM
interesting, but i don't think it would work with the timing of the gas traveling around the bolt, and i don't think the gas pressure would be enough to complete the procedure. jmo of course :)

it's too dependent on gas pressure and timing.

LJ-MosinFreak-Buck
May 27, 2011, 07:49 AM
I think I can understand what he's getting at though, because on the upper half of the gas tube, you can see where the tube widens, and on top of the BCG, there's a flat plate there used to catch the gas, pushing the BCG backwards into the reciever.

However, like others stated, it wouldn't work because of the reliance of the gas (and who's to say that there'll be enough left over after the round leaves the barrel) and timing (it would be pretty difficult getting the gas pressure down right and tap [see gas problem] along with the mechanical timing of the firearm.)

In-line DI has been around for quite some time. Why change it now?

LJ-MosinFreak-Buck
May 27, 2011, 07:52 AM
And not only that, I don't see how the BCG can really move, after closer inspection of these valves you're talking about. Care to elaborate?

Teh Ringworm
May 27, 2011, 11:22 AM
This looks MORE complicated to me. Why mess with a proven design?

kingpin008
May 27, 2011, 12:36 PM
Why mess with a proven design?

Because that's how innovations happen. People take existing designs and tweak them, fiddle with them, and sometimes they discover a better (or completely new) way to do it.

Vern Humphrey
May 27, 2011, 02:43 PM
How does it lock?

All the mechanism seems to do is reciprocate the bolt -- which is not the problem with self-loading firearms. The key problem is locking and unlocking the bolt.

The bolt appears to be a knock-off of an AR 15 bolt, complete with gas impingement tube.

Sam Cade
May 28, 2011, 02:52 AM
I don't understand why we all keep taking this seriously. This is obviously just some kid playing with MS paint.

kozak6
May 28, 2011, 04:48 AM
I think it's good to think about new ideas. He's thinking, and learning, and I feel that's to be encouraged.

Where does the magazine go? Would it be a side feeder, like a Sten, or would the bottom of the gas tube angle or wrap around it?

Why is there a gas key on the bolt if it isn't used?

Where does it exhaust to? Under the handguard? Elsewhere?

Is the whole buffer assembly eliminated?

kingpin008
May 28, 2011, 07:37 AM
I don't understand why we all keep taking this seriously. This is obviously just some kid playing with MS paint.

So what? Because he's a novice we should ignore him and not offer our insights and advice? That makes absolutely zero sense. This site exists to offer help and share ideas and knowledge.

Deus Machina
May 28, 2011, 08:03 AM
I think it's good to think about new ideas. He's thinking, and learning, and I feel that's to be encouraged.

Where does the magazine go? Would it be a side feeder, like a Sten, or would the bottom of the gas tube angle or wrap around it?

Why is there a gas key on the bolt if it isn't used?

Where does it exhaust to? Under the handguard? Elsewhere?

Is the whole buffer assembly eliminated?

I doubt it really matters where the gas tube routes. It could come along the side, as long as it's stable.

As for the key, I'll bet he just cut-and-pasted a picture of an AR bolt for the demo, or copied it without checking its function first. Consider it dampening mass. :)

As with the routing, the venting doesn't matter. If it's not in your face, it can route anywhere else.

This demo appears to eliminate the buffer tube and use the rerouted gas as a delayed return for the bolt. It's an idea, but I propose reworking that spring system.

This is how innovations come along. Curiosity, thinking, and criticism. I just don't think using the gas to move the bolt both directions would work well, but it could be contained to eliminate the problem of crudding up the insides (if you subscribe to that) or in a pressure-controlled locking system.

68wj
May 28, 2011, 08:26 AM
I hope I'm not feeding a troll here and this is an honest attempt at discussion. I see what the OP is attempting; a Direct Impingement system that loops the "bad" gasses back out of the action. The main anti-DI argument is that it is hot and dirty.

I don't think this requirement could be met here. The designer's "BCG Platform" has a valve that pushes the carrier back to a relief point, at which the gas is diverted around the loop. Is there truly a way to restrain the gas inside the system with a moving valve attached to the BCG platform. I don't think there is, thus the heat and fouling from the current DI system is still present, just in a different place and in a more complicated mechanism. No benefit, less efficiency. That's just how I see it in its current configuration.

InkEd
May 28, 2011, 08:34 AM
I am FAR from anykind of engineer but it looks more complicated than a regular DI or piston system.

crossrhodes
May 28, 2011, 09:25 AM
Keep working on it and you may have something in the future. Let us know if you build it.

Sam Cade
May 28, 2011, 01:10 PM
So what? Because he's a novice we should ignore him and not offer our insights and advice?

Its advice that is mostly being ignored.

Kliegl
May 28, 2011, 01:55 PM
The reason it shouldn't be taken seriously is because this one, and the other one he posted make no engineering sense whatsoever. Most innovations come from people that are either truly genius (very few) or someone that has spent 20 years in the field, learning it.

If you don't have the background, you can't design. One of the first things you learn in a profession is how much you DON'T know. On the previous topic, Sam and I said to him, amongst others, that it was a bad design that made no sense and was inefficient.

Yet, here is another inefficient, circular design.

Also, the OP isn't being straightforward. Why is he set on a circular design? Why does he keep using AR parts in his "drawings"? I have a theory. He probably has a Bushmaster he wants to turn into a pistol by removing the buffer tube and most of the barrel.

kingpin008
May 28, 2011, 01:58 PM
Its advice that is mostly being ignored.

So? Sometimes it takes awhile for the lightbulb to click on. Also, we don't know what he's working on or thinking about - maybe our advice and explanations are sinking in, but he's trying to go a different direction.

I just don't see why it bothers you so much. If you think he's just wasting time, with all due respect the answer is pretty simple - stop following the thread.

kingpin008
May 28, 2011, 02:09 PM
If you don't have the background, you can't design.

Wow, elitist much? Yes, having a background in engineering would help, but what's the point of shooting someone down just because they've got their training wheels on?

Also, the OP isn't being straightforward. Why is he set on a circular design?

Why not? Maybe he likes the thought of it, and is trying to see if it would work. He's posted a few different designs because that's how the brain understands things - by looking at it from different angles and sussing out the flaws.


I just don't understand the animosity that's coming out in this thread. If you don't like it, report it to a Mod and let them deal with it if they think he's trolling. Otherwise, why not give the dude the benefit of the doubt? He's obviously interested in firearms, even if he is slightly hard-headed when it comes to accepting advice.

Sam Cade
May 28, 2011, 02:35 PM
If you don't have the background, you can't design.


The OP started insulting me when I asked what his background was. Mods cleaned it up thankfully.



I have a theory. He probably has a Bushmaster he wants to turn into a pistol by removing the buffer tube and most of the barrel.

The OP is Canadian and can't own such things.
Back in April he was asking about a opinions on a Shorty AR....which he can't legally own.
http://www.thehighroad.org/showthread.php?t=584993

http://www.thehighroad.org/showthread.php?t=586939

One month later he is "fixing" the flaws of DI.

I really think its some kid wanting his ego stroked.

PavePusher
May 28, 2011, 02:44 PM
Kleigl wrote:

If you don't have the background, you can't design.

By Ghu, you're right! Ronnie Barrett should immediately withdraw all his products from the market and retire into obscurity as a complete and utter fraud.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ronnie_Barrett

Or something....

PavePusher
May 28, 2011, 02:46 PM
Sam Cade wrote:
The OP is Canadian and can't own such things.
Back in April he was asking about a opinions on a Shorty AR....which he can't legally own.

Huh? Difficult and tedious, yes, impossible, no:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/AR-15#Canada

Sam Cade
May 28, 2011, 02:53 PM
By Ghu, you're right! Ronnie Barrett should immediately withdraw all his products from the market and retire into obscurity as a complete and utter fraud.


Bob Mitchell.

Know that name?

Its the machinist that actually got Mr.Barretts ideas into reality.

In any case the M82 doesn't break any new ground, its short recoil operated.

PavePusher
May 28, 2011, 02:59 PM
Right, and in this case, this board is operating as Mr. Mitchell to the O.P.

In other words, Barrett had the concept (O.P.), Mitchell brought the refinement (this board).

But he should probably cease and desist anyway, for some reason. Or maybe I'm being overly sarcastic. Mea Culpa....

Kliegl
May 28, 2011, 03:43 PM
Partial quoting of someone's post in order to make a retort is bad rhetoric.

You all will kindly note that I also said the following: "Most innovations come from people that are either truly genius (very few) or someone that has spent 20 years in the field, learning it."

Mr. Barrett, to me, qualifies as the former.

Bad engineering can kill people. As the joke goes, the difference between a Doctor and an Engineer is that the doctor only kills one person when he screws up. I don't know about you all, but when I need medical care, I go to the best doctor I can find, education and experience wise. I don't go to someone who thinks my heart would run better plumbed backwards.

Elitist? No. Fully aware of the difficulties and high stakes of engineering design when there is an EXPLOSION an INCH in front of your FACE? Absolutely.

I have an engineering degree, I'm working on another, and I work in the engineering field, but I do not consider myself an engineer yet, because until you take that PE test, get your seal, and you legally put your chop on a design that people will trust their lives to, you're just playing.

Sorry to rant, but the common man does not respect engineering like he respects medicine.

Kliegl
May 28, 2011, 03:45 PM
As an addendum, in the last thread, I urged him to take engineering classes if he wanted to design guns, which is heads and shoulders above the best advice given in either thread, so there.

Owen
May 28, 2011, 08:09 PM
Kliegl, I've been working in the gun business for a while now. A large number of the designers have no degree at all. A larger number of them, and to be honest, the best ones are usually machinists (non-degreed) or have degrees in industrial design. BTW, industrial design is an artsy-fartsy degree, not an an engineering degree.

I propose that its just about impossible to learn how to design skillfully in a college or university. The best experience is OTJ. It's not like we're talking about high-tech here. Most of these technologies are over a hundred years old.

Climb down out of your ivory tower, and realize there are an awful lot of people out there that are plenty smart, and don't have to pay an institution to learn.

OP...the devil is in the details. Figure out how that valve is going to work without venting all your working pressure, and figure out how you are going to get the the BCG to dwell long enough for the rounds in the mag to catch up. Also remember that after .004 seconds or so, you won't have any more pressure feeding from the gas port, its going to be pouring out the muzzle.

kingpin008
May 28, 2011, 10:02 PM
Climb down out of your ivory tower, and realize there are an awful lot of people out there that are plenty smart, and don't have to pay an institution to learn.

Well said sir.

Even if some of you don't subscribe to the idea that "anyone can design", there's no reason to label the guy a troll. He's obviously trying to learn. Maybe not as quick to take a hint as some of you'd like, but that's hardly reason to dismiss him out of hand.

zollen
May 29, 2011, 01:08 AM
I could improve the concept with the following:

1. Re-position the upper valve much closer to the gas tube. This would help the entire BCG + BCP get pushed backward sooner.
2. Re-position the lower valve much closer to the returning gas. This would help pushing the BCG + BCP forward sooner.
3. Shorten the path require for the gas to travel through the entire gas channel.

This should help improve the condition once the bullet leave the barrel and the pressure begin to drop.

As the diagram #3 illustrated, the upper valve should remain open until the lower valve returns at the original position.

With the above improvements, would you all think there would be enough gas pressure to push the lower valve (BCG + BCP) return to the original position?

Kliegl
May 29, 2011, 01:33 AM
Kliegl, I've been working in the gun business for a while now. A large number of the designers have no degree at all. A larger number of them, and to be honest, the best ones are usually machinists (non-degreed) or have degrees in industrial design. BTW, industrial design is an artsy-fartsy degree, not an an engineering degree.

I propose that its just about impossible to learn how to design skillfully in a college or university. The best experience is OTJ. It's not like we're talking about high-tech here. Most of these technologies are over a hundred years old.

Climb down out of your ivory tower, and realize there are an awful lot of people out there that are plenty smart, and don't have to pay an institution to learn.

OP...the devil is in the details. Figure out how that valve is going to work without venting all your working pressure, and figure out how you are going to get the the BCG to dwell long enough for the rounds in the mag to catch up. Also remember that after .004 seconds or so, you won't have any more pressure feeding from the gas port, its going to be pouring out the muzzle.

Climb down out of my ivory tower? That's rude, sir, and inappropriate of a moderator of this forum. Perhaps you are one of those who regrets not getting any formal education while he could, and belittles those that had the foresight to do so?

The best training is a solid, 4 year degree in a good engineering discipline, followed by years of experience in the field. I challenge you to find in my posts where I have said differently, else I do believe you owe me an apology.

Zak Smith
May 29, 2011, 01:47 AM
Ivory tower connotes an academic background that has little connection to reality. The way I read it, that's not what Kliegl is emphasizing. His comments have been much more focused on real professional experience than academic education. So I think a criticism of "ivory tower" does not apply very well to his case.

IMO, Kliegl is spot on that professional experience is necessary (not specifically in gun design, but the experience of building things and verifying that they work). Owen is correct that a university education does not qualify someone to do good design work. I would argue that an ability to analyze things based on the relevant underlying theories is one capability of an excellent engineer, and that ability most often comes from a university education. But so is experience, and a host of other factors. There is a big difference between an engineer with a freshly minted BSME or BSEE and one who has worked on a variety of real projects in industry for 10 years.

In the case of this thread, the designs under question are really specified at much too coarse or general a level to tell if they will "work" or not. As drawn, not even close. Think about the difference between an AR-15 that works great 100% of the time, and one that malfunctions every magazine. On paper, they might look the same. In an MS Paint diagram, they are indistinguishable. The devil is in the details.

pikid89
May 29, 2011, 02:15 AM
im gonna have to go with kingpin on this one

to say that in order to design something big or important you NEED to have formal education and/or years of experience is pretty much a slap in the face to every person that is a self taught mechanic/machinist/builder or whatever...people have flashes of brilliance now and then...
...to shut someone down and dismiss their ideas as nonsense because they dont have a degree like yours or have worked on big projects like you is not fair and imo not really high road

starting in MS paint or google sketch up and using a pre drawn AR bolt is akin to someone drawing their idea on a napkin, which i guarantee has been the beginnings of many many designs...not everyone with a great idea knows how to use AutoCAD

yall need to relax a bit...even JMB had to start somewhere...for all you guys know he very well could be the next browning

Owen
May 29, 2011, 10:18 AM
zollen,

I think you don't have a good handle on how fast the gas pressure is gone. On an M4, the pressure is completely lost before the bolt even unlocks. I think you are envisioning this as some sort of smooth hydraulic action, when it reality, its more like an air hammer. In the current M4/M16 bolt carrier gets hit, hard, and everything else from there is inertia and springs.

The way I see see it you have two major issues: your valves need to be worked out, and you need to find a way to store energy to close the bolt if you insist on using gas to do it. Maybe a reservoir or something?

Try building a mockup of your valves, even if its just pieces of paper that you can move around on a desk.

BTW

John Browning - No formal education
Gene Stoner - No engineering education
Kalashnikov - Doctorate of Engineering...in 1973, decades after his best known work
John Garand - textile machinery mechanic, no engineering education
Sam Colt - self taught by reading and tinkering
Gatling - Medical Doctor
Hiram S. Maxim - self educated

I guarantee each and every one of those guys had stacks of sketches of things that could never work. Its how they taught themselves. Zoller's MS Paint sketch is zoller teaching himself.

zollen
May 29, 2011, 10:35 AM
zollen,

I think you don't have a good handle on how fast the gas pressure is gone. On an M4, the pressure is completely lost before the bolt even unlocks. I think you are envisioning this as some sort of smooth hydraulic action, when it reality, its more like an air hammer. In the current M4/M16 bolt carrier gets hit, hard, and everything else from there is inertia and springs.

The way I see see it you have two major issues: your valves need to be worked out, and you need to find a way to store energy to close the bolt if you insist on using gas to do it. Maybe a reservoir or something?

Try building a mockup of your valves, even if its just pieces of paper that you can move around on a desk.

I agree with your assessment. The air hammer hits hard and fast. There is just not enough impulse to push the assembly to return to its original position. Once again, this is a dead end for me. Clearly the time proven AR design has already matured and have evolved into a optimal system. Let me look for other problems to solve.

I have been thinking an alternative method of storing the returning energy, without the use of buffer tube + spring in a standard AR platform, methods such as using circular disc, torsion spring, metal deformation placed at the strategical spots in a upper receiver. Perhaps I should have focus on attacking one component at a time and not an overall AR design, then I would have better results.

zollen
May 29, 2011, 01:21 PM
Now I rethink the whole concept, the air hammer scenario is certainly possible, but I want to point out there is no way to know this is really a show stopper until someone actually build a simulation and test it.

kwelz
May 29, 2011, 09:50 PM
This guy was called out on another board. Here is what we know about him.
He is Canadian, does not own and never has owned an AR, and he has no understanding of the workings of a firearm.

So far he has posted this on just about every major Firearms board. A few have banned him more than once for his BS.

kingpin008
May 29, 2011, 10:04 PM
What BS? Since when is trying to understand firearms and make some new developments such a terrible crime?

People need to lighten up. He's not insulting anyone, starting fights, or stirring the pot. If you think it's such a problem that he's here, talk to a Mod.

zollen
May 29, 2011, 10:08 PM
This guy was called out on another board. Here is what we know about him.
He is Canadian, does not own and never has owned an AR, and he has no understanding of the workings of a firearm.

So far he has posted this on just about every major Firearms board. A few have banned him more than once for his BS.
What have I ever done to deserve such a hate? What BS? I am not even remotely a forum troll. Yes. I have been banned permanently by M4C forum without any logically reason if I might say so. All I have ever done is to post my ideas on that forum.

Sam Cade
May 29, 2011, 10:10 PM
People need to lighten up. He's not insulting anyone,

Incorrect. He has been but the mods cleaned it up.

zollen
May 29, 2011, 10:18 PM
Ok.. Sammy, am I deserve to be hated? YES or NO?

kingpin008
May 29, 2011, 10:21 PM
Incorrect. He has been but the mods cleaned it up.

You're right, he did. But it got taken care of, and he hasn't done it again. Everyone slips up. If it still bothers you, why not PM him and work it out, instead of dragging it into public and derailing the thread?

I don't mean to come off as defending anyone - my interest is in keeping this forum as drama-free as possible so we can focus on guns. Unfortunately, this thread has been veering towards the drama side of things and it's more than a little silly, IMHO.

Owen
May 29, 2011, 10:37 PM
This guy was called out on another board. Here is what we know about him.
He is Canadian, does not own and never has owned an AR, and he has no understanding of the workings of a firearm.

So?

Robert
May 29, 2011, 10:42 PM
my interest is in keeping this forum as drama-free as possible so we can focus on guns. Unfortunately, this thread has been veering towards the drama side of things and it's more than a little silly, IMHO.
I agree. His having been banned at another site is of little concern to me. I am not a moderator. Leave the moderating to the moderators, that is what they get paid for. If there is information that they need to know send one a pm and talk to them about it.

Personally I find the idea, in this form, to be thin and a bit silly. I do not see a problem with the current DI system in the AR that would warrant a redesign of this nature. But it is from silly ideas and failed attempts that we learn how to make something better. And the OP has every right to discuss his idea without fear of being jumped on. If he has ulterior motives they will be borne out.

Edit:
The Moderators do not get paid at all for their work here.

zollen
May 29, 2011, 10:43 PM
Am I being discriminated?

Sam Cade
May 29, 2011, 11:12 PM
Am I being discriminated?

You are spamming.

http://www.google.com/search?q=Circular+Direct+Imprintment+Gas+System&ie=utf-8&oe=utf-8&aq=t&rls=org.mozilla:en-US:official&client=firefox-a



If you walked into a speed shop specializing in high performance engines and starting telling the experts how its done, and you have never so much as looked under the valve covers they would show you to the door.

Yes. I have been banned permanently by M4C forum without any logically reason if I might say so

Banned TWICE by the mods over there.

N003k
May 29, 2011, 11:18 PM
Just gonna chip in this tidbit...Zollen, if you want to learn this type of stuff, keep it up. You might have a ton of failed ideas, maybe even 99% of them wont be logical in the end, or work. However that 1% that does, might be a great idea that might revolutionize gun design. As far as not knowing how guns work, well, what better way to learn than to get ones hands dirty?

I've been looking at this thread and the other to just watch, and think it's interesting that someone can just post a concept like this and try to refine it and get help. If someone doesn't like it, it's kinda simple really, just don't look. It interests me, so I look, even though I have no idea of any of the real engineering side of it. It's not like this thread's getting posted 5 times a day and spamming the front page...so, let him be, let him learn, and maybe someday you'll be shooting one of his designs.

I say keep it up Zollen. Wish I could help you refine your ideas more, but, I can't. I'll keep watching though, and maybe I'll see you get that one new idea that works great too.

Robert
May 29, 2011, 11:24 PM
Banned TWICE by the mods over there.
Again, so? If he does something to break the rules here then by all means bring it to the attention of the Moderators here, on THR. We do not know the reasons for that ban and frankly it does not matter. You are not a Moderator, please leave that job to them. If you think something is not being handled correctly the best thing you can do is pm them or hit the report button to bring the matter to their attention. If they believe he is spamming then they can deal with him.

kwelz
May 29, 2011, 11:31 PM
So?

I have never owned an F1 car, have no understanding of how they work and no schooling behind the principles involved. I am going to build one better than all the others.

Pretty ridiculous statement wouldn't you say?

Robert
May 29, 2011, 11:54 PM
And yet most of the major innovations in firearms were made by men who were for the most part tinkerers with out vast formal training or education... Good thing they did not have the internet to set them straight.

kingpin008
May 29, 2011, 11:54 PM
I have never owned an F1 car, have no understanding of how they work and no schooling behind the principles involved. I am going to build one better than all the others.

Pretty ridiculous statement wouldn't you say?

You say ridiculous, I say ambitious.

In either case, you seem to have missed the point - it's not up to you what deserves to be posted here. If you have a problem with the content of this thread or the OP, contact a freakin' Mod and let them take care of it. Otherwise, be a big boy and just ignore it.

One begins to wonder who the trolls really are here.

Zollen - please don't give up on these threads, and this forum. Regardless of what the vocal few here may have you think, many of us (myself included) are enjoying your threads. You may not have a fantastic grasp of the mechanics yet, but you have a keen interest and the drive to keep plugging away at the idea and trying to make it work. That's to be commended. Nothing good ever comes easy, and redesigning firearms isn't easy.

kwelz
May 30, 2011, 12:30 AM
Nobody ever said he didn't deserve to be able to post. But lately this site seems to be taking the "everyone is a winner" Approach to things. Sometimes ideas are just stupid or make no sense. The OP comes off as a kid who thinks he knows more than he does. Especially with his constant "why is everyone ganging up on me posts and PMs.

We can talk about old school gun manufactures who made great strides and all that. But there is a big different between the relatively simplistic designs of those days and a high pressure system like the AR that relies on Dwell time. And even then these people had an understanding of what they were doing.

I applaud anyone who want to try to improve on the system. But you need to have at least a basic understanding of said system before you try.

kingpin008
May 30, 2011, 12:38 AM
The way I look at it is like this: far off-base or not, Zollen is trying. He's actively participating in the community, in a way that is 100% within the community rules. So you're right, he is a winner. People (including mods) have seen his threads worthy enough to comment on and participate in. A small (but unfortunately quite vocal) minority are crowing about how foolish the ideas are and how little right he has to be playing around with things he doesn't understand.

And the funny (and by "funny" I really mean sad) thing is, it's that vocal minority who are dragging things down. They are contributing nothing but noise when we need signal, and cannot take the hint that if Zollen is out of line, he'd be dealt with by Mods.

Bottom line, it seems, is this - the Mods have been made aware of this thread hours ago, and have seen fit to keep it open. They have also come out and more or less supported the OP. That might be a cue to cut your losses and just ignore his threads from now on if you're really bothered by them.

Art Eatman
May 30, 2011, 10:03 AM
Nowhere is it written that there is a high moral imperative to offer snarky posts.

As long as a member follows THR rules for behavior, we can live with the concept of "...it stays in Vegas." "Elsewhere" is irrelevant.

Justin
May 30, 2011, 01:05 PM
I have no problem with a kid who shows up and wants to bounce some ideas around. My hat is off to those of you with the technical background to explain why something will or won't work.

However, Zollen, if you well and truly are interested in pursuing this, you should start pursuing an understanding of how mechanical design works. Get your parents to enroll you in a CADD class, or see if you can find an internship of some sort at a machine shop where you can get hands on experience.

Ultimately, as much fun as you're having coming up with these ideas and using MS Paint, it doesn't change the fact that if you really want to get into the game, you need experience and knowledge.

If you enjoyed reading about "Circular Direct Imprintment Gas System" here in TheHighRoad.org archive, you'll LOVE our community. Come join TheHighRoad.org today for the full version!