one for you gunsmiths and inventors out there

Status
Not open for further replies.
Don't concern yourself with high tech material selection, finished weight, scab-on accessories and modularity.

Use a steel barrel and stressed parts; aluminum low stress, and maybe fibreglas for the plastic areas. Stuff you can get plenty of cheap and modify as you develop and debug the design. You can convert to the good stuff when you have a design that shoots.

It should be ambidextrous, at least to the point of not throwing empties in your face. Even a righthander can sometimes benefit from shooting lefthanded, and the world is about 11% southpaw anyhow.

I think you were right to start with, it should use AR magazines, at least optionally. And be in .223, no point reinventing the wheel.
 
only problem i see with the darkick is it needs special triagular shaped rounds, or am i mistaken?
Click to expand...

Yes, the rotating breech needs the trounds to seal properly.

Applied to high rate of fire aircraft cannons it could have some merit.
 
how about a p90 style magazine with a straight down ejection?
Click to expand...

If you're willing to put up with a 2.something inch wide weapon, sure.

And if the 5.56x45 round will feed from a straight magazine that long.
 
Im sure there is another way you could incorporate a vertical bren style magazine in a manner that isn't quite as obnoxious, and have the shells drop out just in front of your shoulder.
I'll start drawing pictures and see what comes up.
 
Porshe had it right BTW about public disclosure (which this is) the clock is ticking. But you have allready lost your rights to file this application in countries outside the US. You cannot get protection in the UK, Canada, Germany or anywhere else. This is going to make it very hard to control the license of your design to a manufactor.

And while the thought of a patent is good- the post where it said $50 dollars is not even close- Try 10-20K per application in the US. And it is unlikley that you will have only one patent in this design. Meaning the Patent office will insist that there is multiple ideas contaned in the design, thus multiple applications needed. I would be supprised if there is not allready some prior art out there that will block your idea, thus making it unfeasible for licensing to the US Govt.

Might be nice for personal use, but licensing is going to be tough. Sorry about that
 
Aluminium/plastic/caseless trounds in a P-90 style magazine. It need not necessarily be as long as 45mm if it adopted the 'caseless' envelope of the HK G11.
g11round1.jpg

One of the drawbacks of the G11 was that with no brass casing, a significant amount of heat was not ejected from the chamber (the hot brass casing being the method of taking out that heat).

Rotate the rounds similar to the P90, but instead of pushing the cartrige into a chamber, insert it into the three-part chamber of the Dardick design. Automatically, you now have three chambers to absorb heat instead of one.

To make it ambidextrous, you could have a simple switch that controlled the cylinder's rotation, clockwise, or counter-clockwise.
 
You can't patent an idea. You guys are acting like sharks that are threatening to snap up a amalgamation of random interests and idea that has not even hinted at being put into form, or even blueprint. so.....
You can probably chill out with the "date of public disclosure" because as far as I see, no actual devices have been disclosed, only little improvements that may or may not hold actual value on things that already exist. And you can't patent that.

I still thing straight down ejection would be cool.
 
Straight down ejection is definitely not cool -- and I have a scar to prove it.

I was shooting my uncle's down-ejecting Remington .22 (similar to the Browning automatic) and it ejected a hot case down my boot top.

I broke the world's record for taking off a boot, but not soon enough to prevent a huge blister.:p
 
another reason that boots and shorts are for hiking trips!

how about down and back. invert the sks' up and back.

I've never seen a down ejecting .22. did it just have a bias to the down position, or does it really have a hole in the stock that shells pout out of?
that sounds neat.
 
It ejects straight down. The tublar magazine is in the buttstock, and there is a "tab" in front of the trigger guard, which acts as the bolt handle. That "tab" reciprocates as the gun extracts, ejects and feeds.

It's identical to the Browning Automatic .22.
 
I'm mostly with the O.P.

Use a Kriss V recoil-reducing styled bolt (when their patent expires or under license), but on a larger scale.

Make it a bullpup, incorporating (if possible) a FS2000 / RFB style forward ejection tube.

Chambering should be 6.5 grendel or maybe 6.8 SPC. Or even make it bigger in .260 rem and/or .308 win.

I don't think it's possible to *DO* down ejection with an upward-inserted detachable mag, is it?
 
foreward ejection is a good idea, but you now have no ejection port, to open up and rip out jammed rounds
(unless its simmilar to the f2000, it has a small trapdoor cover, that can be opened giving you acess to the chamber.

i just want this rifle to be as short, light weight, reliable and rugged as possible
 
maybee caseless rounds is too fat fetched...

how about a bullet of larger caliber, say 7mm.

the bullet would be about 2 or 3'' long, and mostly hollow except the tip of the round would have a lead core like conventional rounds.

the rest of the hollow portion can be filled with some type of compressed propellant, and the base of the round will ocntain a priming compound.

of corse velocity wont be as high, maybe around 2200-2500 fps but this round will have good "stopping power" because of its weight.

this solves the caseless problems, because the bullet itself contains the power, so it would be protected from heat, and from being crushed from loading/reloading

try to get a drawing of what im talking about

im just throwing out another idea...
 
btw, CALICO made a downward ejecting carbines and handguns.

those hectical feed magazines seem just too expensive to mass produce though.

any gamers out there played KILLZONE? there is a weapon there that uses 50 round hectical magazines too. interesting idea...
 
5.56x45mm
Click to expand...

The design is not all that important. The key to the platform is the CARTRIDGE. The 5.56 isn't as bad as some say, but it's very far from ideal. A 6.8 SPC or 6.5 Gren. will allow use of better bullets in that "magic" ballistic zone between 6.5 and 7mm, with the mix of high SD, high BC, and low recoil. I'd suggest the "perfect" modern war rifle would be DESIGNED AROUND just such an improved cartridge, with the proper weight and balance.
 
I'm not sure helical magazines can be made as wide as the one in that picture icebones. Existing helical magazines seem to be more like a twisting box magazine, so only a staggered column of rounds doing loops. I have no idea how the follower works!

If you're willing not to use the (mediocre) AR-15 magazines, perhaps four column "coffin" magazines like those in the Spectre M4 and... some Finnish SMG or another would fit the bill? 50-60 rounds would probably be reasonable for the sorts of cartridges you're looking at.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.

Similar threads

S
  • Locked
Why isn't every rifle a bullpup design?
2 3 4 5 6 7
Replies
154
Views
9K
22-rimfire
2
J
  • Locked
rack an pinion recoil system.. anyone done this?
Replies
9
Views
898
briansmithwins
B
S
  • Locked
A practical take on the Bullpup vs. Conventional argument.
2 3
Replies
57
Views
11K
Maverick223
Maverick223
S
  • Locked
7mm NATO and the EM2 Bullpup...
Replies
21
Views
2K
Famaldehide Face
F
P
  • Locked
Can someone make a kit for this in the US?
Replies
6
Views
874
DMK
DMK
Back
Top