Showoff

Status
Not open for further replies.

Nolo

Member
Joined
Jul 18, 2007
Messages
2,624
Location
Galveston, TX
Okay, so just to kinda showoff here:
TalonRiflePrinterVersionBetterTrigg.jpg
This is the Talon Marksman Assault Rifle.
I know I've come on here with a bunch of projects, some of which have drawn significant flak from certain individuals, appreciated constructive criticism from some and warming praise from still others.
But, even if you don't agree with the concept of this rifle (which is fine, since I'd be willing to bet you have more experience than me), I hope that you appreciate the effort that went into this design.
This design, unlike every other one I've done, was actually blueprinted. I don't know if any of you have ever tried to blueprint something on MS Paint, but it's freaking hard. The weapon was blueprinted to scale, with the actual barrel length being the real scalar length in the picture (the equivalency is 5px to 1mm). I then created an outline of the weapon, and tried to print it to do my normal shading transfer, but the lines were too faint (because of the huge scale I was using) for me to be able to do that. So I tripled the thickness of all the lines. That means that each line you see in this image is three pixels thick, which is pretty mad for Paint. All of this was done by hand, with pixels being hand-counted and measurements made painstakingly on my own. The weapon is largely based off of the AR-15 and AR-10, and uses a Direct Impingement system. The rifle is chambered in 6.5x42mm Diamondback which sends a 123-grain Lapua Scenar at 2750 f/s. All of the controls are identical on either side, even to the charging handles.
Anyway, tell me what you think!
 
how is this different than a standard free-floated AR-15? couldn't you just get a new upper for the new caliber?
 
It's different in the ambidextrous controls and the OAL, which is 60.6mm, instead of 57.5mm.
That and the fact that the tolerances are different, with this rifle having significant sand grooves and loose areas that help in reliability.
 
As a piece of honest advice with the best intentions.

Please do yourself a favor and either save up $100 for a copy of the current version of TurboCAD or $50 for an old version. Hell, download a free CAD program like AllyCAD or A9CAD or CADX11.

I've seen a lot of these threads, and no matter how well thought out anything is, nothing is "blueprinted" in MS Paint, even if it is to scale, and no one is going to take you seriously when your only drawings are from Paint.

While I am quite sure it was painful as hell to do, it's kind of like asking for respect because you used a brick to change a tire on your car. There are good tools that work, OK tools that work, and bad tools that work. Then there are tools that just can't do the job, period.
 
I know, I need CAD. :uhoh:
Hell, even Photoshop would be better, but I haven't gotten around to learning how to use that yet.
And, yeah, you can blueprint stuff in Paint (they used to blueprint stuff on paper all the time), and, while I admit that my blueprints aren't total enough for, say, a patent, they are there (no, this is not it, it's just an image. I've got the internals on another file).
I'm gonna get CAD here soon, but it'll be a while before I fully learn how to use it, so I guess you can expect more of the handmade stuff.
And don't diss changing a tire with a brick. When a brick is all you have, nothing beats it.
 
Alright, fine, I suppose if you want to do a proper job of drafting a drawing in Paint, you can call it "blueprinting." However, a scale drawing is not a blueprint.

What you have done is basically taken all the negatives of hand drafting and combined them with all the negatives of computer drafting and have missed out on basically all the advantages of either.
 
Alright, fine, I suppose if you want to do a proper job of drafting a drawing in Paint, you can call it "blueprinting." However, a scale drawing is not a blueprint.

What you have done is basically taken all the negatives of hand drafting and combined them with all the negatives of computer drafting and have missed out on basically all the advantages of either.
I didn't say this was a blueprint. As I said before, the blueprints are a different file entirely. Though they obviously don't use the blueprinting process. (As an aside, I actually call my schematics "redprints" because when I need a color distinction in MS Paint, such as when I'm overlaying something and need a clear contrast, I use red. No particular reason, just the way things are.)
I haven't "taken" anything but what I'm given. Which is MS Paint, so far. I'll get CAD, and I'll learn how to use it, eventually. But I'm rather strapped for cash right now (though those free ones sound rather nice... but I'm inclined not to trust anything free. TANSTAAFL.).
A friend is supposed to be getting me a bootlegged CAD copy, but I have yet to receive it.
Hey .... that's not an 'Assault Rifle'....it's a Sport Utility Rifle.
Call it what it is: an assault rifle. Sturmgewehr, if you prefer.
 
By this logic, you shouldn't trust Paint, either.
Incorrect, sir, I paid for this MS Paint application when I bought my laptop with my "free" Windows Vista (which was really included in the price of the laptop). Though, actually, my father bought me the laptop for college (which is still not free for me, because I have to "pay" by getting good grades in college).
See, TANSTAAFL? I know exactly where I'm getting shafted with MS Paint.
 
It is not an assault rifle if it is a marksman or sharpshooter rifle. Also assault rifles are select fire. If you are marketing it to civilians in the US it is a sporting rifle.
 
You need Solidworks plain and simple. Decent concept, but honestly you need better than that to play with the big guys (Bushy, Colt, and FN). I would love to see a cost per unit for manufacture.
The weapon is largely based off of the AR-15 and AR-10, and uses a Direct Impingement system.
And why would I want one instead of getting a piston upper in this diamondback cartridge of yours? Oh, and it needs a fluted chamber fo sho cuz dats wat my HK buddez sayz. Not too shabby for a teen with paint though. Look into mechanical engineering.
 
We can argue all day about whether MS Paint is free or a part of the cost of Windows. I suppose technically we should say it should be a part of the cost of Windows, but it is such a small part it probably adds up to less than $0.01.

A more pressing matter: you can't trust anything on the internet. TCP/IP is a free standard.
 
That and the fact that the tolerances are different, with this rifle having significant sand grooves and loose areas that help in reliability.

Do you have all these changes blueprinted, or just the external receiver dimensions?
 
i think its a good concept. your just a little to late. thought the magpul masada, now bushmaster ACR:barf: (masada sounds better.) anyways, the masada has all thouse features, plus more, with a short stroke piston setup instead of Gi system. and a quick change barrel system. only differeance is yours has a bit longer magwell. which is something that they should have done from the beggining on the masada project.... why not, right?? i mean, 5.56/.223 will still fit in a longer mag, and still function fine. and if it were a little longer, we could have have mag loaded 90 grn 5.56 rounds, and even some BR compotition rounds. but thats another topic of discusion.

all in all, i think that you have a good concept there. keep up the good work. maybe someone will think about making a prototype for ya. could be the next best thing. you'll never know until you try.

brian
 
Yeah, all the changes are blueprinted.
It is not an assault rifle if it is a marksman or sharpshooter rifle. Also assault rifles are select fire. If you are marketing it to civilians in the US it is a sporting rifle.
Who said it was marketed for civvies? I mean, I wish we all had full-autos, too, but almost all my designs have a happy switch.
You need Solidworks plain and simple. Decent concept, but honestly you need better than that to play with the big guys (Bushy, Colt, and FN). I would love to see a cost per unit for manufacture.
Yeah, well I wouldn't expect a seventeen-year-old kid to be able to compete with them, anyway.
Maybe in a few years... Ah, how one can dream...
And why would I want one instead of getting a piston upper in this diamondback cartridge of yours? Oh, and it needs a fluted chamber fo sho cuz dats wat my HK buddez sayz. Not too shabby for a teen with paint though. Look into mechanical engineering.
I'm already gonna be an ME, I'm going to Texas A&M next year for it.
There seems to be a fallacy that piston guns are somehow more reliable than DI guns. The reason why the AR-15/M16/M4s are so temperamental is not the DI system (several other weapons use the DI system and even have earned laurels for reliability); it's the match tolerances that the weapons are built with.
There are two major (perceived) reasons for a design like this:
Reliability and the cartridge.
The cartridge is the 6.5x42mm Diamondback. It has an OAL of 60.6mm and a base of 10.0mm. It fires a 123-grain Lapua Scenar or Sierra Matchking at 2750 f/s from a 20-inch barrel. This is using slower-burning powders to increase velocity. The cartridge has a very long range, thanks to its high speed and high ballistic coefficient. This cartridge is the basis for the weapons system.
The rifle increases reliability by decreasing the tightness of the tolerances between the parts in select areas, giving grime and crap a place to go and allowing the action to function even averse conditions. There are also sandtraps in the action, like the FAL and Sterling.
The weapon also has fully ambidextrous controls, with identical mag releases, selectors and charging handles on either side.

Oh, and this rifle also has a quick-change barrel. Just unlock and unscrew.
 
This is using slower-burning powders to increase velocity.
Barrel length is only 20"?
There seems to be a fallacy that piston guns are somehow more reliable than DI guns.
I'm afraid it's a fact that a mechanical linkage is going to be more reliable in that environment. Note history lesson on stick powder and ball powder in the 1960s and such having to do with m16 as a fun research project. HK snobbyness or not a fluted chamber really helps with extracting.
The reason why the AR-15/M16/M4s are so temperamental is not the DI system (several other weapons use the DI system and even have earned laurels for reliability); it's the match tolerances that the weapons are built with.
And you are designing a long range weapon so I'm assuming your going to need match tolerances for accuracy at that range. I think it's a cool thing what you are doing, just think it out a little bit more. Oh, and please name the DI weapon that is so reliable. I really want to know<---- no sarcasm involved.
 
FAL-15 ?

I think it's cool what you are doing. Be sure to apply to all the right schools to take this hobby/passion of yours to the next level.

I'm already gonna be an ME, I'm going to Texas A&M next year for it.

Aggie! Arrgghhhhhh ;)



Keep at it :)

How many Aggies does it take to screw in a light bulb?
One, but he gets 3 hours credit.
:evil:
 
I'm afraid it's a fact that a mechanical linkage is going to be more reliable in that environment. Note history lesson on stick powder and ball powder in the 1960s and such having to do with m16 as a fun research project. HK snobbyness or not a fluted chamber really helps with extracting.
Yeah, but it increases manufacturing costs, and I'm not sure it's really necessary in a non-delayed blowback rifle.
And you are designing a long range weapon so I'm assuming your going to need match tolerances for accuracy at that range. I think it's a cool thing what you are doing, just think it out a little bit more. Oh, and please name the DI weapon that is so reliable. I really want to know<---- no sarcasm involved.
It is a weapon designed to give the warfighter everything he needs to be capable on the battlefield. It's designed to perform expertly at what it is expected to do--put bullets in the target. And there are tight tolerances in the weapon, but only where they're needed.
The DI weapon that is reliable is the MAS 49, which got an excellent reputation in the jungles of Vietnam--exactly where the M16 got its bad reputation. The Ljungmann also uses the DI system, but I don't know its track record. In any case, the weapon can be retrofitted for a simple piston merely by exchanging the bolt. Parts count increase: zero.
Aggie! Arrgghhhhhh
Keep at it
Please, I've already got one UT guy on my back all the time.
So what is it? Is it AR15 or AR10 sized?
Well, neither, really. I mean, it's based on them, as in the layout and such. But it's the size of an AR-15, but a tad longer in the receiver.
Why is this better than the 6.5x47 or the 6.5 Creedmoor?
Wayyy smaller than the Lapua. Don't know a whole lot about the Creedmoor, though.
Also wayyyy smaller than the Creedmoor. The 6.5 Diamondback is actually a 7.62x51mm NATO scaled down to 6.5mm, with a shorter neck and a 123-grain bullet. More modern powders give it equal velocity to the 7.62 NATO.
 
The SVT has a fluted chamber and it is not delayed blowback. It is a steel case extracting problem solver. On the MAS 49 "the bolt carrier operates the tilting bolt, which is cammed down to lock into the slot in the receiver floor."(info thanks goes to Max) I place the reliability more on that than the DI. It's more or less a DI SKS with a tilting bolt. The Ljungmann also has "a barrel that is locked by tipping the rear part of the bolt down into the recess in the receiver, very similar to Russian SVT-40 or Belgian FN FAL rifles." Once again all info is Max from the forum and his awesome site http://world.guns.ru/about/AB00-E.HTM . I think they are reliable because of the tilting bolt which has nothing to do with the DI system. In fact the DI system may need a tilting bolt to be so reliable. Might as well have a tilting bolt on the new gun of yours.
 
you need to read the last 3 copies of Small Arms Revue; it proves without a doubt the problems of the direct imp. system. Now then, they could be fixed, but do you honestly think the mil is going to retrofit all ar's in inventory? no way. The gas is the problem, it causes rounding of 90 degree corners, which cannot be helped, this is a prob. with sustained , quick fire, or full auto, the gas tube gets up over 800 degrees IIRW, which is the first part of catastrophic failure, which means, cannot be fixed in the field, cannot be fixed without an armorer. the piston drive measured against the m4 , fired 11 beta c mags, all on full auto, without one failure. the m4 variants they used, lasted about 250 or so rounds, before catastrophic failure, same test.
The hottest part of the piston drive, was the piston chamber, which got up to about 400 degrees, plus with it's large chamber, bled off heat extremely fast.
the chamber area of the cartridge itself never got even close to cookoff temps.
Also , the cartridge if marketed for the military , is too heavy.
The 6x45, shooting a 90 grain bullet, is a better idea.

Lastly, the 3 articles have had an extensive interview with james sullivan
who has been with armalite from the beginning of the stoner 62/63 concept, and worked on the ar's, along with several other weapon systems.
He goes into detail of the problems of the ar, that have not been changed in 40 years, and he pretty much says that there are better combat infantry weapons out there, namely the ak-74 and the russian 94, with its counter recoil system. plus he states the 5.45 is a better cart than the 556 by far.
That being said, I do like your weapon, and it could find civilian use,
once you get your degree, you should try to hook up with Mr. sullivan himself.
He says they are allways looking for new designers, there is no school for small arms design, and they try to work outside the system as much as possible, even though it is tough, since our gov. doesn't let you work in another country, and design weapons for u.s., without heavy restriction.
 
I don't think so. Doesn't a tilting bolt kill accuracy a little bit, which is the little bit that I was trying to save with the DI system?
My point is that you can have a DI system that is reliable. It's not the DI system that makes an M16 eff up. It's the tight tolerances and crappy mags.
There's really not a reliability benefit from a tilting-block action as far as I know, either.
And, yeah, I knew the MAS was TB. Almost all the '50s battle rifles were.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top