ArmaLite Pistols: First Pictures!
- Thread starter Grayrider
- Start date
- Status
I don't even need to shoot the pistol to know its a piece of crap just like all of the other CZ clones. Yes, I am implying that CZ's are crap too... This is a very professional opinion of course.
Yup, we're on The High Road for sure now!!
Yup, we're on The High Road for sure now!!
Ash
Member
The truth is, there is nothing new. Come on, a new polymer, striker fired pistol with a rotating barrel. Nothing new there, either. Heck, rotating barrels have been used since before WWI, polymer for 30 years now.
We have reached that phase in handguns where there is nothing new, and will not be until new metallurgy or new manufacturing techniques evolve the pistol into something that cannot be imagine at the present, like perhaps a ceramic frame, caseless ammo, or some such thing.
You poly guys have to admit that the next polymer pistol will not, cannot, be anything new under the sun, any more than this AR is anything new. There is nothing left to be new under the sun. Any new product will be an iteration of something already established.
The same can be said for bolt-action rifles, which reached their zenith 60 years ago, with everything coming out being iterations of the same thing (except for failures like the e-tronics and the addition of plastic/composite stocks). The only room left in that industry for innovation is in sighting equipment, which isn't even the purview of rifle companies.
What new thing can be offered? Nothing. The AR does provide something interesting AND not seen very much these days. It may not be new, but when is the last time anyone here saw the introduction of a new pistol with a forged frame? A nice thing to see, especially with polymer being all the rage, as if anything stuck in a polymer frame is fresh and new.
Ash
We have reached that phase in handguns where there is nothing new, and will not be until new metallurgy or new manufacturing techniques evolve the pistol into something that cannot be imagine at the present, like perhaps a ceramic frame, caseless ammo, or some such thing.
You poly guys have to admit that the next polymer pistol will not, cannot, be anything new under the sun, any more than this AR is anything new. There is nothing left to be new under the sun. Any new product will be an iteration of something already established.
The same can be said for bolt-action rifles, which reached their zenith 60 years ago, with everything coming out being iterations of the same thing (except for failures like the e-tronics and the addition of plastic/composite stocks). The only room left in that industry for innovation is in sighting equipment, which isn't even the purview of rifle companies.
What new thing can be offered? Nothing. The AR does provide something interesting AND not seen very much these days. It may not be new, but when is the last time anyone here saw the introduction of a new pistol with a forged frame? A nice thing to see, especially with polymer being all the rage, as if anything stuck in a polymer frame is fresh and new.
Ash
4fingermick
Member
I don't mind it at all! The hammer looks cool! I've always had a soft spot for commander style hammers. The engraved ones look a lot classier than the garish CZ engraved shiny objects. Seems funny to have plastic grips on a top of the line engraved model.
solidpoint
Member
- Joined
- Apr 27, 2007
- Messages
- 10
Read between the lines
If you download CZ's 2007 catalog and read the comments on the CZ-75 SP01 you will note that the SP01 takes advantage of production improvements in making the NATO certified compact model.
Translation: Our quality was so poor until a few years ago, that Turkey, being a NATO country, couldn't even buy our guns for military use, even if they had wanted to. The AR-24 is made in an ISO-9000 certified facility, which according to Charlie Cutshaw's in-person due dilligence, is the best in the world save one - the state owned munitions factory in Singapore. That country makes almost every hard disk on earth and was founded by a double PhD from Stanford university so this doesn't surprise me. If Cutshaw is right, and you can contact him offline for the skinny if you like, then what the AR-24 represents is a Kimber version of an old government model 1911 relative to the CZ. The original is almost never the best. Get a clue.
If you download CZ's 2007 catalog and read the comments on the CZ-75 SP01 you will note that the SP01 takes advantage of production improvements in making the NATO certified compact model.
Translation: Our quality was so poor until a few years ago, that Turkey, being a NATO country, couldn't even buy our guns for military use, even if they had wanted to. The AR-24 is made in an ISO-9000 certified facility, which according to Charlie Cutshaw's in-person due dilligence, is the best in the world save one - the state owned munitions factory in Singapore. That country makes almost every hard disk on earth and was founded by a double PhD from Stanford university so this doesn't surprise me. If Cutshaw is right, and you can contact him offline for the skinny if you like, then what the AR-24 represents is a Kimber version of an old government model 1911 relative to the CZ. The original is almost never the best. Get a clue.
solidpoint
Member
- Joined
- Apr 27, 2007
- Messages
- 10
Ash,
Hey, nice to see a familiar face!
I recognized the sig line! I've always like that sig line BTW.
Hey, nice to see a familiar face!
I recognized the sig line! I've always like that sig line BTW.Why is it the older guns are relished for their fit, finish, accuracy and workmanship . . . Surely today's technology allows better and more exact manufacturing processes.
Given that until we get handheld lasers with killing power, plasma energy guns or whatever will replace gunpowder propelled projectiles, there's not much ground not already covered in gun design and materials.
So why can't Colt build a 1911 like Bill Wilson can? Why do S&W revolvers get worse in quality each year. Why do we have to pay a fortune for a gun that's just made as well as our forefathers took for granted?
Sounds like a business opportunity to me. If Armalite can take the best autoloader design in the world today (IMHO) and improve on an already good gun AND SELL IT FOR THE SAME COST, then more power to 'em. If they're just going to throw dollars at a good design sure the result will be better, but who's gonna pay $1,200 for a "perfect" CZ instead of getting a really good one from CZ for about $400?
Given that until we get handheld lasers with killing power, plasma energy guns or whatever will replace gunpowder propelled projectiles, there's not much ground not already covered in gun design and materials.
So why can't Colt build a 1911 like Bill Wilson can? Why do S&W revolvers get worse in quality each year. Why do we have to pay a fortune for a gun that's just made as well as our forefathers took for granted?
Sounds like a business opportunity to me. If Armalite can take the best autoloader design in the world today (IMHO) and improve on an already good gun AND SELL IT FOR THE SAME COST, then more power to 'em. If they're just going to throw dollars at a good design sure the result will be better, but who's gonna pay $1,200 for a "perfect" CZ instead of getting a really good one from CZ for about $400?
I think CZ's are $700 guns for $400. If the Armalite is that much better, it'll be like getting a $1,200 gun for $550. Interesting they chose the CZ platform to build on rather than the 1911 like everyone else.
If anything's more accurate, reliable and comfortable to shoot than my CZ75 BD, I'm in!
If anything's more accurate, reliable and comfortable to shoot than my CZ75 BD, I'm in!
solidpoint
Member
- Joined
- Apr 27, 2007
- Messages
- 10
Impressions of the K100 Grand Power
AltBlis,
I like rotating barrel locking mechanisms a lot. I think it makes the gun more accurate by design. We are at the point in handgun development where only small things separate the good from the great, so details now matter.
The first thing that jumped out at me about the K100, is there is no locking block. The barrel extension implements the interface between the barrel and the frame. This could be considered a feature of elegant design, as simplicity is usually better. However, an emerging notion of engineering is to purposely design in a weak point/failure mode so you know what will fail first. This has been very important in helicopter design, where random failure has very bad results. The Beretta design uses what should be considered a disposable locking block which is made with a softer steel. They choose which part should wear, the locking block and not the barrel extension. The K100 people like to go on about how everything is harder than everything else, but this is not a feature, it is a flaw. Good design chooses which wear surface or feature is intended to fail, and which should never fail. In Beretta's case the part that fails, as is usually the case in good design, is very easy to replace, cheap and should therefore be considered a consumable.
The 2nd thing that I noticed about the K100 is the very large area of the barrel extension that implements the "cam" and interfaces with the cross-pin. This is an invitation to grit and sand since that interface needs to be oiled or greased. If you think about it further you realized that only the edges of that very wide, flat ribbon are going to bear force when turning. In time this means its edges will wear and will wear groves into the cross-pin. Actually, the design could be improved a lot by just cutting a 2-3mm deep groove/channel out of the middle of the cam ribbon and leaving only the edges. This would act like rain grooves in a tire and give grit and debris a way to get out from between the cross-pin interface.
The 3rd thing I noticed is that to work the barrel has to be held down onto the cross-pin. SO what is holding the barrel down? It has to be the slide. This puts a vertical force vector on the slide that must be borne by the slide rails and frame's rail interface. That is a force vector that is entirely unnecessary, and is non-existent in the Beretta designs, which use a cam and "pin" (the pin is not round, as if it were there would be very little surface area between the round pin and barrel extension's cam slot. By making it "square" and angling it correctly they get the same interface area that would require a pin over an inch in around.) The pin stands up from the barrel extension and is flanked by barrel interfaces fore and aft which have small debris wiper slots cut in them. This means the pin and cam are, to some degree, self-cleaning. The bearing load is also quite high between the pin and cam, so it will aggressively remove debris from the interface. (I am using Krytox pure Teflon grease on this because of the high bearing loads) My take is the lock is pretty much unstoppable and should prove to be extremely reliable. The tests done by the new Canadian border guard seem to have proved this. In general, I think the K100 is still suffering from the influence of Soviet "bigger is always better" mindset and is therefore big when smart would serve its interests better.
The Beretta also harnesses the rifling torque to help unlock the action. The rifling is 6 right, which imparts a counter-clockwise torque on the barrel, and if you inspect the cam slot it turns counter-clockwise when unlocking. Pretty clever! I can't determine from photos if the K100 does this or not. It could certainly change the rifling or cam twist to do so if it doesn't currently, but until I know I give the advantage to Beretta.
The recoil spring on the K100 is not captured, and does not extend all the way to the mag well like the PX4. This makes it a harder recoiling gun. You may think that having a recoil spring that is completely captured by its guide, and seated an inch into the transfer block at one end and slide hole at the other is a small matter, but imagine you are trying to field strip and fix a gun in conditions like those during the sandstorms of OIF, where vis is about a foot and if you drop something it will disappear into brown talc-like sand. In fact, it is not possible to assemble the PX4 improperly from a field-stripped level take-down. That is a very nice feature if you are issuing the weapon to thousands of people with who knows what skill levels.
Finally, the K100 is bragging about the K100 having been tested to 150,000 rounds. Well, as a competition shooter I might find that of interest, but even then a $25 locking block easily solves the problem and can be done at the range in 90 seconds. I should also note that this was not independent testing that was done, and testing done by the mfg is about worthless as an indicator of anything.
What I do like about it is the squared off trigger guard, general slide shape, and weight. If you just can't carry another 10-12 oz around all day then by all means keep your bladder empty, don't render your PDW ineffective by removing weight critical for the control of the weapon. In short, if the K100 underwent testing by the US DOD or some such agency, then I would be more receptive. I think it is an interesting design, one I could easily improve on as suggested here, but I still think Beretta did a better job considering all the requirements. I don't hate the gun, and think it is interesting and likely better than an M9, but I still think a Cougar/PX4 is a better design - especially if they would just make an M9 length barrel for it like the .45 ACP version.
AltBlis,
I like rotating barrel locking mechanisms a lot. I think it makes the gun more accurate by design. We are at the point in handgun development where only small things separate the good from the great, so details now matter.
The first thing that jumped out at me about the K100, is there is no locking block. The barrel extension implements the interface between the barrel and the frame. This could be considered a feature of elegant design, as simplicity is usually better. However, an emerging notion of engineering is to purposely design in a weak point/failure mode so you know what will fail first. This has been very important in helicopter design, where random failure has very bad results. The Beretta design uses what should be considered a disposable locking block which is made with a softer steel. They choose which part should wear, the locking block and not the barrel extension. The K100 people like to go on about how everything is harder than everything else, but this is not a feature, it is a flaw. Good design chooses which wear surface or feature is intended to fail, and which should never fail. In Beretta's case the part that fails, as is usually the case in good design, is very easy to replace, cheap and should therefore be considered a consumable.
The 2nd thing that I noticed about the K100 is the very large area of the barrel extension that implements the "cam" and interfaces with the cross-pin. This is an invitation to grit and sand since that interface needs to be oiled or greased. If you think about it further you realized that only the edges of that very wide, flat ribbon are going to bear force when turning. In time this means its edges will wear and will wear groves into the cross-pin. Actually, the design could be improved a lot by just cutting a 2-3mm deep groove/channel out of the middle of the cam ribbon and leaving only the edges. This would act like rain grooves in a tire and give grit and debris a way to get out from between the cross-pin interface.
The 3rd thing I noticed is that to work the barrel has to be held down onto the cross-pin. SO what is holding the barrel down? It has to be the slide. This puts a vertical force vector on the slide that must be borne by the slide rails and frame's rail interface. That is a force vector that is entirely unnecessary, and is non-existent in the Beretta designs, which use a cam and "pin" (the pin is not round, as if it were there would be very little surface area between the round pin and barrel extension's cam slot. By making it "square" and angling it correctly they get the same interface area that would require a pin over an inch in around.) The pin stands up from the barrel extension and is flanked by barrel interfaces fore and aft which have small debris wiper slots cut in them. This means the pin and cam are, to some degree, self-cleaning. The bearing load is also quite high between the pin and cam, so it will aggressively remove debris from the interface. (I am using Krytox pure Teflon grease on this because of the high bearing loads) My take is the lock is pretty much unstoppable and should prove to be extremely reliable. The tests done by the new Canadian border guard seem to have proved this. In general, I think the K100 is still suffering from the influence of Soviet "bigger is always better" mindset and is therefore big when smart would serve its interests better.
The Beretta also harnesses the rifling torque to help unlock the action. The rifling is 6 right, which imparts a counter-clockwise torque on the barrel, and if you inspect the cam slot it turns counter-clockwise when unlocking. Pretty clever! I can't determine from photos if the K100 does this or not. It could certainly change the rifling or cam twist to do so if it doesn't currently, but until I know I give the advantage to Beretta.
The recoil spring on the K100 is not captured, and does not extend all the way to the mag well like the PX4. This makes it a harder recoiling gun. You may think that having a recoil spring that is completely captured by its guide, and seated an inch into the transfer block at one end and slide hole at the other is a small matter, but imagine you are trying to field strip and fix a gun in conditions like those during the sandstorms of OIF, where vis is about a foot and if you drop something it will disappear into brown talc-like sand. In fact, it is not possible to assemble the PX4 improperly from a field-stripped level take-down. That is a very nice feature if you are issuing the weapon to thousands of people with who knows what skill levels.
Finally, the K100 is bragging about the K100 having been tested to 150,000 rounds. Well, as a competition shooter I might find that of interest, but even then a $25 locking block easily solves the problem and can be done at the range in 90 seconds. I should also note that this was not independent testing that was done, and testing done by the mfg is about worthless as an indicator of anything.
What I do like about it is the squared off trigger guard, general slide shape, and weight. If you just can't carry another 10-12 oz around all day then by all means keep your bladder empty, don't render your PDW ineffective by removing weight critical for the control of the weapon. In short, if the K100 underwent testing by the US DOD or some such agency, then I would be more receptive. I think it is an interesting design, one I could easily improve on as suggested here, but I still think Beretta did a better job considering all the requirements. I don't hate the gun, and think it is interesting and likely better than an M9, but I still think a Cougar/PX4 is a better design - especially if they would just make an M9 length barrel for it like the .45 ACP version.
Last edited:
Ash
Member
Groovy...
Ash
Ash
atblis
Member
Ok
You must be in Canada. I am still trying to get my paws on one. I keep emailing everybody and...
EDIT: Off topic, talking about the K100.
You must be in Canada. I am still trying to get my paws on one. I keep emailing everybody and...
EDIT: Off topic, talking about the K100.
Last edited:
Johnny Guest
Moderator In Memoriam
This thread's pretty well worn out.
I think everyone has had their say.
Please remember, friends: Grandiose and far reaching advertising claims are nothing new. There's no reason to become excited and thin skinned over this matter.
Closed.
Johnny
I think everyone has had their say.
Please remember, friends: Grandiose and far reaching advertising claims are nothing new. There's no reason to become excited and thin skinned over this matter.
Closed.
Johnny
- Status
