Nolo
Member
This rifle is really not built for sustained fire, anyway, It's a marksman rifle. However, one could certainly want to use it for sustained fire roles. I don't see why the DI is any hotter, if anything it should be cooler, considering the gas has more room to expand (greater volume=less temperature). And we're not talking about an M4. We're talking about the Talon. Completely different weapon. The M4 has tighter tolerances. The cartridge is not too heavy for the role it is assigned. Though you also assume that it is the only load this weapon will fire. I've kept a 108-grainer in the back of my head for a while, and I think it would do fine at about 2850 f/s.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.
How in the world is 5.45 a better cartridge? The only advantage I see that round having is ballistic coefficient. The round goes about 200 f/s slower than the M193 (which is the round that I admire, the M855 is a bad European compromise), has a fatter case and a lighter bullet weight. How is that any better?