kcmarine
Member
Long story short... why not put the gas key in an isolated "box" (if you will) above the space for the bolt carrier?
Direct Impingment Improvement.
- Thread starter kcmarine
- Start date
- Status
rhubarb
Member
'Cause the parts wouldn't interchange with 40 years' worth of rifles.
To me, the improvements are all fine and dandy, including the AK'd piston uppers, but my AR has internals like 99% of those in existence.
And it works.
To me, the improvements are all fine and dandy, including the AK'd piston uppers, but my AR has internals like 99% of those in existence.
And it works.
Bartholomew Roberts
Member
Wouldn't change much anyway since all the gas key does is channel gas into the bolt carrier to unlock the bolt - so the bolt would still be receiving hot gas from the gas key.
At best, the solution you describe would add more complexity and would only reduce fouling outside the bolt carrier in the upper receiver, which really isn't a problem from a function standpoint.
At best, the solution you describe would add more complexity and would only reduce fouling outside the bolt carrier in the upper receiver, which really isn't a problem from a function standpoint.
jpwilly
Member
Everyone keeps trying to solve a problem that doesn't exist...My AR's been reliable I even let it get dirty and shot Wolf to the tune of 800rnds without cleaning no problems. The only issue I had was once I got the rifle really hot and one of those steel cases stuck in my chamber 9 30rnds mags in less than 10 min brass cases woudn't have done that...Otherwise I've had no rifle related issues! On the other hand I've had more jams in my AK due to "finding the right mags" Of course now that I have good mags it's 100%
PS don't ever buy PROMAGS!
PS don't ever buy PROMAGS!
rangerruck
Member
that is not the problem; according to one of the origional designers , in the latest issue of Small Arms Revue, the two prevailing probs, that congress has not addressed in 40 yrs is this-
powder. It was origionally designed to work with extruded imr powder, which runs it better, cleaner, not as hot, not as fast.
gas regulator. a bit more complicated to explain, but when parts are first cut and installed for the gas tube, everywhere there is a cut , or sharp corner, gas expansion and movement does not like sharp corners, and so it does not enter these new areas too fast. As you fire the rifle, the corners become rounded off, and the gas flows much faster, creating more havoc to the action area.
they also had a much cooler buffer designed to run this, with seperated steel washers, between seperated buffering material, but it doesn't seem like they went to this either.
anyway, the dude talks about a simple fix they came up with years ago, to put in a little regulator, non adjustable, down in the gas tube area, that no matter how rounded off the parts became , the regulator would not let the gas flow any harder or faster past it's point. This wasn't adopted either.
he even talks about the stoner 63, which came out after the ar, which was supposedly a near perfect design small arm; it had one issue in very cold weather, which they fixed real easy. The Marines tested it out in V.N. in 65, and said, it's perfect, makes these few ergonomic changes. Then they ordered something like 30,000 of them. The Army went to Congress and said, they should have to use what we use, and that was the end of that.
oh yeah, he said another improvement the stoner 63 had over the ar was the cam unlock, it had a longer dwell time, with a longer straight section to travel; he said no matter how hot and fast they ran it, that no probs ever occurred with the extension/bolt lock-unlock timing because of this.
So now I will throw in my opinion; the vast mil/industrial/govt.complex, plenty of peeps have hi paying jobs, things are the way the are, everyone's happy. To make changes may cost some folks some perks, some cutbacks, maybe some heads roll, and A@#$sses chopped.
The army knows there are 3 weapons out there right now, that are better than the ar, the 416 by hk being one of them. But to go to that would mean the Death of Colt. Even the AWG guys, who have been using the 416's for a few years now , have been told to get rid of them, and go back to m4's, which they don't want to do , and purposely bought the 416's with their own money , I think, or the unit's alloted money, to buy anything they thought would serve their purposes best.
powder. It was origionally designed to work with extruded imr powder, which runs it better, cleaner, not as hot, not as fast.
gas regulator. a bit more complicated to explain, but when parts are first cut and installed for the gas tube, everywhere there is a cut , or sharp corner, gas expansion and movement does not like sharp corners, and so it does not enter these new areas too fast. As you fire the rifle, the corners become rounded off, and the gas flows much faster, creating more havoc to the action area.
they also had a much cooler buffer designed to run this, with seperated steel washers, between seperated buffering material, but it doesn't seem like they went to this either.
anyway, the dude talks about a simple fix they came up with years ago, to put in a little regulator, non adjustable, down in the gas tube area, that no matter how rounded off the parts became , the regulator would not let the gas flow any harder or faster past it's point. This wasn't adopted either.
he even talks about the stoner 63, which came out after the ar, which was supposedly a near perfect design small arm; it had one issue in very cold weather, which they fixed real easy. The Marines tested it out in V.N. in 65, and said, it's perfect, makes these few ergonomic changes. Then they ordered something like 30,000 of them. The Army went to Congress and said, they should have to use what we use, and that was the end of that.
oh yeah, he said another improvement the stoner 63 had over the ar was the cam unlock, it had a longer dwell time, with a longer straight section to travel; he said no matter how hot and fast they ran it, that no probs ever occurred with the extension/bolt lock-unlock timing because of this.
So now I will throw in my opinion; the vast mil/industrial/govt.complex, plenty of peeps have hi paying jobs, things are the way the are, everyone's happy. To make changes may cost some folks some perks, some cutbacks, maybe some heads roll, and A@#$sses chopped.
The army knows there are 3 weapons out there right now, that are better than the ar, the 416 by hk being one of them. But to go to that would mean the Death of Colt. Even the AWG guys, who have been using the 416's for a few years now , have been told to get rid of them, and go back to m4's, which they don't want to do , and purposely bought the 416's with their own money , I think, or the unit's alloted money, to buy anything they thought would serve their purposes best.
I checked the Smalls Arms Review web site, and they don’t have your article posted. But I will debate this point.
My sources are
The Black Rifle: M16 Retrospective By R. Blake Stevens and Edward C. Ezell
Great Rifle Controversy: Edward Clinton Ezell
The M16 problems were not due to “design” as much as from not undergoing full scale development. This rifle was sold to the US military as a fully developed weapon: it was not.
Armalite/Colt built the rifle on a shoe string budget. They did not test the rifle with a bunch of different powder types, they did not even measure port pressure. They did not have the money. These Corporations got the thing to work with one type of powder and went out selling the rifle to the press and on Capital Hill. After a M14 defamation campaign, an AR15 promotion campaign and a number of watermelon shoots, this rifle was purchased as a fully developed “off the shelf” weapon.
If you read the sections in the “The Black Rifle”, the IMR powders could not be “qualified”. You could not go to Dupont and buy the powder in bulk. Dupont (and I assume it was Dupont) could not maintain the process so that all lots would met spec. It was beyond state of the art. Instead they were producing powders lots, testing the lots, and hand picking the ones that would work. When the Government told them to “qualify the powder or else”, they told the Government to pound sand, right as the Vietnam war was escalating!!
And that’s when the "fun" with ball powder started.
And there were a lot of other problems that were solved only after sufficient GI's died to surface the issue.
You will find traces of the AR15 promotion campaign/M14 defamation campaign in the 1965 Gun Digest. There is an article that starts off “The much maligned M14….”. This article, written by a shill gunwriter, extols the AR15, in all its attributes. In fact it promotes the incredible lethality of the high velocity round, stating that “complete decapitations” have occurred!!
Does anyone today believe a 55 FMJ blows heads clean off?!!! This is advertizing, not truth.
In the main, you are right about the military industrial complex part of your post. Corporations have incredible lobbying power. They buy public opinion, they buy gunwriters, and they buy Congress.
All Defense procurements balance three basic behaviors: 1) Maximize the cash flow to the Contractor, 2) Minimize scandal, 3) take the path of least resistance.
rangerruck
Member
I am going to argue with you a bit here; according to the article , Mr. sullivan points out that they had allready worked on several diff types of rifles that were all forerunners to the ar, the stopette being the last of them, and they new the good points/bad points to the weapon. they moved the gas tube, changed the bbl extension, and did other things they knew to do. This is the same guy that built us chain guns, the ruger mini's , and the ruger 77, by the way, so even though I don't think he is God, i would submit he knew a hell of a lot of what he was doing. they did test port pressure, they did use diff powder types, this is how they found out about the 'rounding off' of corners in the whole of the gas tube/ port complex, to use diff buffers, to put in a regulator of some type, to move the gas tube, etc.
When you get the mag and read the article , you will in no way feel that they didn't have enough time , money , or expertise to figure out how to make it run right, and how to fix the problems. As far as money or shoestring budgets go, from my opinion, the article didn't feel that way either, Armalite , a part of this division, a part of Fairchild Engine, got sold off, To some Texas boys for one reason or another( I don't know why) and the Gas impingement system was sold to Colt.
Now then, who is imparting more truth Jim Sullivan, or the Dudes who wrote your noted books? Is sullivan looking for an axe to grind, do your guys have a bent they are trying to
put forward? We don't know, But Jim Sullivan sounds pretty open and truthful in this article, and i doubt he could be a totally bitter, and joke of an old dude, since he appears to be married to the same woman for about 45 years now!!!! Anyway, get the mag, read between the lines, and see what you think> I do not pretend to be an ar historical expert in any way, but am repeating what I read from this man, who built many and much of the stuff we like to shoot today, Ar's of various types, rugers, bolties, semis, and other goodies floating around out there.
When you get the mag and read the article , you will in no way feel that they didn't have enough time , money , or expertise to figure out how to make it run right, and how to fix the problems. As far as money or shoestring budgets go, from my opinion, the article didn't feel that way either, Armalite , a part of this division, a part of Fairchild Engine, got sold off, To some Texas boys for one reason or another( I don't know why) and the Gas impingement system was sold to Colt.
Now then, who is imparting more truth Jim Sullivan, or the Dudes who wrote your noted books? Is sullivan looking for an axe to grind, do your guys have a bent they are trying to
put forward? We don't know, But Jim Sullivan sounds pretty open and truthful in this article, and i doubt he could be a totally bitter, and joke of an old dude, since he appears to be married to the same woman for about 45 years now!!!! Anyway, get the mag, read between the lines, and see what you think> I do not pretend to be an ar historical expert in any way, but am repeating what I read from this man, who built many and much of the stuff we like to shoot today, Ar's of various types, rugers, bolties, semis, and other goodies floating around out there.
strangelittleman
Member
Yeah, the "complete decapitations" were exaggerations, but were based on the significant wounding of the early 1 turn in 14" rifled barrels that did make the projectiles very unstable upon contact w/ human tgts, sometimes resulting in near-complete traumatic amputation to limbs (lower arm and lower leg) on the small statured oppo ( approx 5'2" @ 120lbs) at close range, but the downside was unsatisfactory accuracy at ranges beyond 150m or thereabouts, so the change to 1 turn in 12" was made, in order to more adequately stabilize the 55gr. projectile out to 300m and beyond.
I saw the Armalite budget in one of those books. It was peanuts compared to a normal development program, and budget dust compared to the cost the Army had to pay to fix the problems.
However I suffer the disadvantage of not having read the same article as you, and hopefully I can rectify that. I always enjoy reading materials from real designers.
Absolutely the Ordnance Department liked their rifle. Remember, they did pick it over the FN. Both of those rifles went through full scale development and neither had any problems of the magnitude that had to be worked out in the M16. And even in the twilight of its career, the M14 is still fighting evil, while the M16 chokes on dust.
FN suffered a disadvantage of not having a corporate office or manufacturing facilities in the US. Colt had and was able to use their lobbyists and Congressman to maximum effectiveness.
It is a good thing that the Dept of Defense got out of the design business. No branch of the Government can long defend an inhouse design against that of a Corporation. DoD budgets do not contain line items for Blondes, Bribes, Nepotism, and Campaign contributions.
As an example of a fair fight, look at what is going on between Boeing and Airbus over the Tanker Aircraft. There is a minimum of $35 Billion on the line. If you take into account spare parts, Contractor maintenance, foreign military sales, the future value is at least a factor of ten higher.
And now, it is simply Contractor Titan against Contractor Titan. One expending huge Corporate resources to get the money flowing, the other expending equally large resources to prevent the cash flow. Boeing knows that once the taxpayer money flows, they will not be able to match dollar for dollar the political influence that Airbus will be able to buy.
Can't wait to see how it turns out, but unfortunately, time is what it will take.
blackhawk2000
member
Proof?
SnakeEater
Member
What is replacing the M14 in it's very limited role? Yep, an M16, the SPR. The M14 was obsolete the day it was fielded. I love how the M14 fanboys claim it was a conspiracy that brought in the M16, yet deny the true shenanigans that led to the M14's adoption over the FAL.
rangerruck
Member
on the three other weapons, there have been two publicly circulating articles released by a couple of Defense type fish wraps, plus I think the latest issue of Blackwater Tactical weekly goes over these as well. Lemme check...
I remember reading one of the articles, that said , these three other weapons systems absolutely smoked the m4 in the most critical sand/dust test.
one more thing, Airbus did win that contract, and there are a ton of dudes crying fowl up on the Hill right now...
here is one,http://www.armytimes.com/news/2007/12/army_carbine_dusttest_071217/
http://www.armytimes.com/news/2007/12/army_carbine_dusttest_071217/
http://www.defensetech.org/archives/003908.html
I remember reading one of the articles, that said , these three other weapons systems absolutely smoked the m4 in the most critical sand/dust test.
one more thing, Airbus did win that contract, and there are a ton of dudes crying fowl up on the Hill right now...
here is one,http://www.armytimes.com/news/2007/12/army_carbine_dusttest_071217/
http://www.armytimes.com/news/2007/12/army_carbine_dusttest_071217/
http://www.defensetech.org/archives/003908.html
Last edited:
Evil Monkey
member
- Joined
- Jun 26, 2006
- Messages
- 1,486
Not again, NOT AGAIN!
Didn't we leave all this DI vs piston, M14 vs m16 non sense in 2007? Can we move on?
In one ear, out the other.....
In any case, I predict that this will turn into a 223 vs 308 issue, and/or H20 MAN will come in here and post a pic of his M14 variants.
Didn't we leave all this DI vs piston, M14 vs m16 non sense in 2007? Can we move on?
In one ear, out the other.....
In any case, I predict that this will turn into a 223 vs 308 issue, and/or H20 MAN will come in here and post a pic of his M14 variants.
Perhaps this belongs in another area, but just look how having good lobbyists, money, and a couple of Senatorial friends can change evaluation criteria in your favor:
http://www.military.com/NewsContent/0,13319,163799,00.html
The United States had filed a complaint with the World Trade Organization alleging that Airbus unfairly benefits from European subsidies. Airbus in turn argued that Boeing also receives government support, mostly as tax breaks.
Under the Air Force proposal, bidders would have been required to explain how financial penalties or other sanctions stemming from the subsidy dispute might affect their ability to execute the contract. Airbus objected to the provision and asked the Pentagon to drop it in June 2006.
McCain, in his letter to Gates on Dec. 1, 2006, said the proposed bid request "may risk eliminating competition before bids are submitted." The Air Force changed the criteria four days later.
kcmarine
Member
Uh... on topic please? Srsly...
Evil Monkey
member
- Joined
- Jun 26, 2006
- Messages
- 1,486
AWW DRAT! I was close but he didn't post a pic.
About DI, all I know today is that there is nothing wrong with that particular system, Direct Impingement. The problem is the ar15 design in which everything must fit so tightly it seems. That leaves little room for inevitable debris.
His Holyness, Excellence, and Greatness Mr. Kalashnikov said other weapon engineers explained a weapons tolerances and clearances should be so tight that dirt would never enter. Kalashnikov instead thought that while the action should be tight, the action should use as little surface area as possible and everything around the action should be spacious.
BTW, can somebody post a picture of an ar15's upper receiver with the bolt in place?
About DI, all I know today is that there is nothing wrong with that particular system, Direct Impingement. The problem is the ar15 design in which everything must fit so tightly it seems. That leaves little room for inevitable debris.
His Holyness, Excellence, and Greatness Mr. Kalashnikov said other weapon engineers explained a weapons tolerances and clearances should be so tight that dirt would never enter. Kalashnikov instead thought that while the action should be tight, the action should use as little surface area as possible and everything around the action should be spacious.
BTW, can somebody post a picture of an ar15's upper receiver with the bolt in place?
- Status