FIVETWOSEVEN
Member
- Joined
- Aug 28, 2009
- Messages
- 5,146
I was on vacation Ken, gosh, I'm a human too! Or maybe thats just a cover story and I'm really just one of those people concealing a G36 and a MK23 and duct taping armor plates to myself...
"Other than gas operation"
- Thread starter Trent
- Start date
- Status
BullfrogKen
Moderator Emeritus
hso said:
I could.
Or I could go out to his compound.
http://pittsburgh.craigslist.org/lss/2719337252.html
I'm a little old to be playing around with hand to hand combat and pressure point controls. My goal with long range shooting was not to get that close, anyway.
But I could make a trip out to see the facilities. I know of three 1,000 yard ranges in Pennsylvania. None of them are out in the Pittsburg area, though. Nice to see if there's one more.
Cool, you and Sam could pay him a visit and see what his school looks like.
bikerdoc
Moderator In Memoriam
Rangers dont brag.
Rangersnipersf:
Employment of proper grammar, punctuation, & paragraph format are conducive to being taken seriously when you write.
Regarding your claimed credentials...
After eleven years in SF, you don't seem to have kept pace with your peers. Most SF NCOs at 14 years of service are senior SFCs with their packets in front of the next E-8 board. Many of them are already Master Sergeants. All of them know how to properly write the rank abbreviation for an Army E-6. Yes, I read your Craigslist ad.
You are evidently the sole SF or Ranger user of the M4 Carbine to be found in either Regiment. A real Army of One.
I'm unaware of any tabbed individual in any Group or Batt who has had the time to put together 12,000 lifetime weapons...while deploying over the last 10 years and of the age to be an eleven year, E-6 SF veteran. I'm pretty familiar with who the serious gun-bunnies are in the community. You've surpassed the lifetime production and maintenance rate for any of our L3 contracted SF gunsmiths. Perhaps you should apply for their job? I guess you must have had a busy gunsmithing life during your teen years?
Since you live in PA, perhaps you commute to Bragg? Or is it Benning? Or is it HAAF? Or perhaps you are part of 20th or 19th? I know a lot of their folks...maybe we have mutual friends.
Ranger? SF? Do tell. To which Batt or Group are you assigned? For instance, I was a Ranger at 2/75, but now I'm just an E-9 assigned to 10th SFG(A). After 35 years of service in Army SOF, I happen to know a lot of people. In fact, I probably know your CSM (Guard or Active, Ranger or SF). Let's compare notes...
I don't normally flame folks who post on The High Road, but you've invited this by besmirching the good name of my unit and my friends. Friends who have in some cases died or been severely wounded so that you can continue to indulge your 1st Amendment rights. Not very High Road of you. This is a room full of adults...you might want to remember that.
If you're not getting what I'm saying, I'll be blunt:
YOU ARE NOT ARMY SPECIAL FORCES
YOU ARE NOT AN ARMY RANGER
You are an embarrassment to this board and the good name of the folks who actually work in the profession you claim.
P.S. - If by some chance, you actually are still serving in the Army...clean up your profile. It's jacked up. I shouldn't have to explain why.
Employment of proper grammar, punctuation, & paragraph format are conducive to being taken seriously when you write.
It's painful to even think about responding. I'll pass on the above quote and let someone else chew on the bone.
Regarding your claimed credentials...
After eleven years in SF, you don't seem to have kept pace with your peers. Most SF NCOs at 14 years of service are senior SFCs with their packets in front of the next E-8 board. Many of them are already Master Sergeants. All of them know how to properly write the rank abbreviation for an Army E-6. Yes, I read your Craigslist ad.
You are evidently the sole SF or Ranger user of the M4 Carbine to be found in either Regiment. A real Army of One.
I'm unaware of any tabbed individual in any Group or Batt who has had the time to put together 12,000 lifetime weapons...while deploying over the last 10 years and of the age to be an eleven year, E-6 SF veteran. I'm pretty familiar with who the serious gun-bunnies are in the community. You've surpassed the lifetime production and maintenance rate for any of our L3 contracted SF gunsmiths. Perhaps you should apply for their job? I guess you must have had a busy gunsmithing life during your teen years?
Since you live in PA, perhaps you commute to Bragg? Or is it Benning? Or is it HAAF? Or perhaps you are part of 20th or 19th? I know a lot of their folks...maybe we have mutual friends.
Ranger? SF? Do tell. To which Batt or Group are you assigned? For instance, I was a Ranger at 2/75, but now I'm just an E-9 assigned to 10th SFG(A). After 35 years of service in Army SOF, I happen to know a lot of people. In fact, I probably know your CSM (Guard or Active, Ranger or SF). Let's compare notes...
I don't normally flame folks who post on The High Road, but you've invited this by besmirching the good name of my unit and my friends. Friends who have in some cases died or been severely wounded so that you can continue to indulge your 1st Amendment rights. Not very High Road of you. This is a room full of adults...you might want to remember that.
If you're not getting what I'm saying, I'll be blunt:
YOU ARE NOT ARMY SPECIAL FORCES
YOU ARE NOT AN ARMY RANGER
You are an embarrassment to this board and the good name of the folks who actually work in the profession you claim.
P.S. - If by some chance, you actually are still serving in the Army...clean up your profile. It's jacked up. I shouldn't have to explain why.
Last edited:
Tim the student
Member
^^ LOL that the 18Z found this thread, and this guy.
Cosmoline
Member
Re. the OP--wouldn't it be a heck of a lot easier to just shut off the gas system and operate your AR as a straight pull. I believe this is actually done in some nations which disallow semis entirely. I'm not sure about the mechanical issues involved but I believe they're not terribly complicated. Just make an upper with a barrel that hasn't had the gas port drilled yet. Am I missing anything here?
Chindo - your first post made me laugh. Hard. Thank you, both for serving and for handling that in such a professional manner.
Second post, the weapon would fire from a locked bolt, but there WOULD still be a recoil impulse from the fired round moving AND from gas exiting the barrel, pushing back. (Every action has an equal and opposite reaction). The weapon's action would not cycle until the N2 release was triggered.
Everyone seems to have focused on the accuracy side of things. But increased accuracy is only part of the solution. At short range - as one previous poster mentioned - AR15's (and bigger brethren, AR10's) would group very well. It takes a 1,000 feet per second difference (from 3,000 fps to 2,000 fps) in velocity to make a 5" vertical deviation in your shot trajectory at 100 yards. Obviously, we're not talking about THAT large of a gap with the inconsistency of a gas operated weapon.
Now, factor in an M855 with a ballistic coefficient of .304. It takes a 100 fps difference in muzzle velocity to change the trajectory 5" at 500 yards. Or, taken another way, at +/- 50 fps it is enough to throw a shot out of a "kill zone". 100 FPS won't make a hill of beans difference at 100 yards but at 500, the slower moving projectiles will not only be affected by gravity longer before striking, but wind will have longer to work on them, and bullet twist (spin drift) will interact with wind that much more. (Solving wind problems with spin drift accounted for are rather complex to do ... without the added uncertainties caused by inconsistency in time of flight)
Factory ammo, on it's own, is enough to account for a substantial part of a velocity deviation sufficient for that amount of deviation - maybe 20-30% (depends on chamber, barrel, fitting of the gas tube in the gas block, etc). By the time the gas operation comes in to effect, you've amplified whatever deviation the ammunition already had that much further.
Meanwhile, while the gas operates to serve the bolt, it deposits a healthy amount of fouling, directly in the action of the weapon. This is a secondary consideration that is largely solved by modern alternatives - in FN SCAR, F2000, P90, and other newer weapons, fouling is damn near nonexistant and short range accuracy is great.
Regarding cosmoline's post - yes, you could just get rid of the gas system entirely, but the whole point is to have fast follow up shots. By triggering (mechanically or electrically) the cycling of the weapon via N2 charge on the release of the trigger, there is rapid reloading of the weapon without manually pulling a bolt.
I was thinking the AR15/AR10 chassis would be a great proofing platform because it already has a nice place to hook up a charge line (the gas tube). Any other weapon would require substantial machining or re-engineering to fit this idea to.
The ultimate application would be a larger caliber action with an action purpose built specifically to accommodate this. In the minds eye, it would have a quick-exchangable N2 tank in the stock, with a mechanical (not electric) trigger-release activation. I'm fond of big cartridges - 300 Win Mag, 338 Lapua, etc, and semi-auto actions are rare and expensive in these calibers. With this system I wouldn't have to port or do any engineering to determine where / how large to put a gas port in a large bore, be concerned with regulating large volumes of gas pressures, etc, as the bore would be clean.
What I'd like to have in the end, is a purpose built long range rifle with auto loading capability and bolt-gun levels of accuracy.
The AR15 would be a great platform to test on, IMO, as initial fitting and testing would be substantially easier than a ground-up receiver / action design, making actual data easier to obtain.
(As far as blocking the gas system off on the AR, I was planning on machining a gas block with no port to press on to the barrel in lieu of the front sight/gas block. I have 11 barrels left, I could test with, of various lengths / types, but all are drilled. This would let me use what I have on hand without having a special barrel made.)
Second post, the weapon would fire from a locked bolt, but there WOULD still be a recoil impulse from the fired round moving AND from gas exiting the barrel, pushing back. (Every action has an equal and opposite reaction). The weapon's action would not cycle until the N2 release was triggered.
Everyone seems to have focused on the accuracy side of things. But increased accuracy is only part of the solution. At short range - as one previous poster mentioned - AR15's (and bigger brethren, AR10's) would group very well. It takes a 1,000 feet per second difference (from 3,000 fps to 2,000 fps) in velocity to make a 5" vertical deviation in your shot trajectory at 100 yards. Obviously, we're not talking about THAT large of a gap with the inconsistency of a gas operated weapon.
Now, factor in an M855 with a ballistic coefficient of .304. It takes a 100 fps difference in muzzle velocity to change the trajectory 5" at 500 yards. Or, taken another way, at +/- 50 fps it is enough to throw a shot out of a "kill zone". 100 FPS won't make a hill of beans difference at 100 yards but at 500, the slower moving projectiles will not only be affected by gravity longer before striking, but wind will have longer to work on them, and bullet twist (spin drift) will interact with wind that much more. (Solving wind problems with spin drift accounted for are rather complex to do ... without the added uncertainties caused by inconsistency in time of flight)
Factory ammo, on it's own, is enough to account for a substantial part of a velocity deviation sufficient for that amount of deviation - maybe 20-30% (depends on chamber, barrel, fitting of the gas tube in the gas block, etc). By the time the gas operation comes in to effect, you've amplified whatever deviation the ammunition already had that much further.
Meanwhile, while the gas operates to serve the bolt, it deposits a healthy amount of fouling, directly in the action of the weapon. This is a secondary consideration that is largely solved by modern alternatives - in FN SCAR, F2000, P90, and other newer weapons, fouling is damn near nonexistant and short range accuracy is great.
Regarding cosmoline's post - yes, you could just get rid of the gas system entirely, but the whole point is to have fast follow up shots. By triggering (mechanically or electrically) the cycling of the weapon via N2 charge on the release of the trigger, there is rapid reloading of the weapon without manually pulling a bolt.
I was thinking the AR15/AR10 chassis would be a great proofing platform because it already has a nice place to hook up a charge line (the gas tube). Any other weapon would require substantial machining or re-engineering to fit this idea to.
The ultimate application would be a larger caliber action with an action purpose built specifically to accommodate this. In the minds eye, it would have a quick-exchangable N2 tank in the stock, with a mechanical (not electric) trigger-release activation. I'm fond of big cartridges - 300 Win Mag, 338 Lapua, etc, and semi-auto actions are rare and expensive in these calibers. With this system I wouldn't have to port or do any engineering to determine where / how large to put a gas port in a large bore, be concerned with regulating large volumes of gas pressures, etc, as the bore would be clean.
What I'd like to have in the end, is a purpose built long range rifle with auto loading capability and bolt-gun levels of accuracy.
The AR15 would be a great platform to test on, IMO, as initial fitting and testing would be substantially easier than a ground-up receiver / action design, making actual data easier to obtain.
(As far as blocking the gas system off on the AR, I was planning on machining a gas block with no port to press on to the barrel in lieu of the front sight/gas block. I have 11 barrels left, I could test with, of various lengths / types, but all are drilled. This would let me use what I have on hand without having a special barrel made.)
Trent,
I will admit that I really didn't understand a lot of this, but it looks very interesting and while it may not be adopted en mass in the real world I think it is a heck of an idea that would at least provide form some good tinkering and problem solving.
I will admit that I really didn't understand a lot of this, but it looks very interesting and while it may not be adopted en mass in the real world I think it is a heck of an idea that would at least provide form some good tinkering and problem solving.
Gus, I don't understand a lot either.
The reason I posted this here on THR is becomes there's some very knowledgeable folks on this forum, and I wanted to find out if anything like this has been tried previously. (No reason to reinvent the wheel, so to speak).
Doesn't really matter if it's commercially viable, or applicable to any specific purpose. The big experiment would be if an automatic loading, highly accurate firearm can be manufactured without relying on the gas from the discharged cartridge as an actuator, and to find out if such a firearm would offer any cleanliness / accuracy / reliability benefits.
Making a perfectly clean shooting, highly accurate, and extremely reliable weapon, isn't that something akin to the holy grail of gunsmithing?
The reason I posted this here on THR is becomes there's some very knowledgeable folks on this forum, and I wanted to find out if anything like this has been tried previously. (No reason to reinvent the wheel, so to speak).
Doesn't really matter if it's commercially viable, or applicable to any specific purpose. The big experiment would be if an automatic loading, highly accurate firearm can be manufactured without relying on the gas from the discharged cartridge as an actuator, and to find out if such a firearm would offer any cleanliness / accuracy / reliability benefits.
Making a perfectly clean shooting, highly accurate, and extremely reliable weapon, isn't that something akin to the holy grail of gunsmithing?
Would it fire from a cartridge like a normal rifle or use the gass to propel a single projectile?
Devonai
Member
Thank you for saying what needed to be said, Sergeant Major.
SRA Kantrowitz, 2T2X1, formerly SPC Kantrowitz, 11B1O, Weekend Warrior with zero rifle builds.
Gus,
It would fire a conventional cartridge (primer, smokeless powder, brass casing, projectile all remain unchanged).
But instead of using gas pressure from the fired cartridge to cycle the firearm, it would use an external source of high pressure nitrogen tank (regularly used in paintball) to cycle the firearm action (to extract, eject, and chamber the next round).
Thus no fouling from gas deposits (anywhere), no loss of precision from "some" of the gas being diverted, and more reliability (ability to cycle a cartridge that does not fire, etc).
As people have mentioned above the "accuracy" part is really splitting hairs as it wouldn't be noticeable until you're shooting at very long range, and modern firearms are far more accurate than those produced 15 or 30 years ago.
It would fire a conventional cartridge (primer, smokeless powder, brass casing, projectile all remain unchanged).
But instead of using gas pressure from the fired cartridge to cycle the firearm, it would use an external source of high pressure nitrogen tank (regularly used in paintball) to cycle the firearm action (to extract, eject, and chamber the next round).
Thus no fouling from gas deposits (anywhere), no loss of precision from "some" of the gas being diverted, and more reliability (ability to cycle a cartridge that does not fire, etc).
As people have mentioned above the "accuracy" part is really splitting hairs as it wouldn't be noticeable until you're shooting at very long range, and modern firearms are far more accurate than those produced 15 or 30 years ago.
I should better qualify that previous post.
"SOME" modern firearms are far more accurate than "MOST" firearms that were produced...
I know someone will blast me over that generalization I made as 15 or 30 years ago there were some wonderfully accurate firearms in production, and there are many specimens of "pretty crappy" firearms being put together today.
You get my meaning though. Overall there's more accurate guns being produced now, than there used to be.
"SOME" modern firearms are far more accurate than "MOST" firearms that were produced...
I know someone will blast me over that generalization I made as 15 or 30 years ago there were some wonderfully accurate firearms in production, and there are many specimens of "pretty crappy" firearms being put together today.
You get my meaning though. Overall there's more accurate guns being produced now, than there used to be.
Jim Watson
Member
Velocity variation of 100fps due to gas operation?
I don't think so. I am not the best loader around, I see extreme spreads of 40 fps in my lesser attempts at making an AR a Long Range rifle and serious shooters do a lot better than that. Further, most reports of long range groups show more horizontal due to wind than vertical due to velocity variation.
But if you want to ride the hobby horse, it is time to start bending metal. You can only hash stuff out on the internet productively for so long.
I don't think so. I am not the best loader around, I see extreme spreads of 40 fps in my lesser attempts at making an AR a Long Range rifle and serious shooters do a lot better than that. Further, most reports of long range groups show more horizontal due to wind than vertical due to velocity variation.
But if you want to ride the hobby horse, it is time to start bending metal. You can only hash stuff out on the internet productively for so long.
The barrel would still have fouling from burning powder and copper. Not trying to be argumentative just trying to wrap my poor public school mind around it.
PercyShelley
Member
- Joined
- Feb 15, 2007
- Messages
- 1,075
RE: the OP
I have heard of pneumatically driven autoloaders for very large cannon (~75mm), but not for anything smaller than that. The idea seems sound enough, legal concerns aside. Dunno if it would be as compact or reliable as a conventional self-powered system, but it does at least sound workable.
Alternatively, what's the weight of the springs used in airsoft guns? An electrically-powered autoloading system seems plausible too.
I also vaguely recall some sort of revolver grenade launcher where the spin of the cylinder was assisted by some sort of wind-up spring. The striker maybe?
So yeah, externally-powered systems are common in the 25mm+ range. Not sure how well they scale down, but it would probably work.
I have heard of pneumatically driven autoloaders for very large cannon (~75mm), but not for anything smaller than that. The idea seems sound enough, legal concerns aside. Dunno if it would be as compact or reliable as a conventional self-powered system, but it does at least sound workable.
Alternatively, what's the weight of the springs used in airsoft guns? An electrically-powered autoloading system seems plausible too.
I also vaguely recall some sort of revolver grenade launcher where the spin of the cylinder was assisted by some sort of wind-up spring. The striker maybe?
So yeah, externally-powered systems are common in the 25mm+ range. Not sure how well they scale down, but it would probably work.
Sorry to continue being slightly off topic, but could this(http://www.westview.com/wwwv.html) Sean V. Hein, be the same as our "Ranger".
- Status