Nom de Forum
Member
"Excuse me, but I must remind you the AR is a “rotating” design as it has a rotating bolt. It is certainly not “funky”."
Look at point #2. I said the barrel extension specifically has swept the world over in almost every design case, but the gas tube/key/carrier piston thing has not. The pressurizing of the bolt carrier is undeniably an uncommon (i.e. 'funky') characteristic when practically every other design that's been implemented for any length of time uses external force to drive the carrier back.
Yes, practically every other design that’s been implemented for any length of time uses external force to drive the carrier back and yet none are as successful at versatility in accomplishing many missions well as the AR rifle design.
"I challenge you to find one post-WWII service rifle design that has been developed to do as many things as well as the AR system. It will not be the M14, FAL, AK, G3, FAMAS, STG57, Enfield or AUG."
Example;
AK dual-lug rotating long/short stroke action. Aside from being the basis of the majority of service rifles for the last century, it has been applied to everything from pistols to belt fed heavy machine guns. Two large lugs require the barrel trunnion area be larger than can be obtained with a Stoner-type lug ring, but tolerances can be a bit looser and construction with machine tools easier. M1 Garand lands solidly here, as does the AR70/SIG550, and even the HK MP7 if you'll 'permit' me to include it by way of it's G36-esque gas system (but AR-style multilug bolt head). IIRC, even the M249 called in to do what the M4 can't uses this system (though is hardly the best execution of it)
BREN rear tilting bolt long stroke action. Again, applied to everything from rifles to heavy belt fed machine guns and anti-tank rifles, numerous variations for different roles, numerous nations arriving at the same solution (Goryunov, for example). Killed due to the need for beefed up long receivers to carry lug load from the rear of the bolt to the barrel trunnion. I suppose you could lump the FAL/FN49/SKS in this category if you look broadly enough.
G3 roller delay. Applied to everything from 9mm MP5s and the PSG1, to the belt fed Amile by CETME. Adopted/developed/stolen by many nations like Switzerland (STGW57, which turned out to be a very nice shooter today ). Killed by weight required to retard the bolt, even in spite of it being delayed, and by poor design choices by the trail blazing designers at CETME and H&K who made the design much more complicated and unmodifiable than it needed to be. I think history has also shown these designs were also less user friendly than they really needed to be (never get in a thumb wrestling match with a Franco-era Spaniard, German vet, or Swiss reservist)
VZ58 pivoting locking piece. Applied to the VZ58 rifle in x39 and the belt fed x54r UK59. Unique to Czech designs, despite being fixing entirely the shortcomings of a rear tilting bolt system when it comes to receiver complexity, size, and weight. The platforms it's been tried on used expensive machined receivers in Czech tradition rather than cheaper forged trunnions or barrel extensions, which probably is why it hasn't caught on (though the design itself does not require this production method). Alas, I think this action was doomed by bad timing; the late fifties being the time when post war Europe, USSR, and the US had already chosen their infantry arms for the foreseeable future and had no interest in novelty.
Degtyarov. My personal favorite at the moment . RPD (x39), DP28/DPM (x54r), DShK (12.7x108mm), and I think there's an even bigger 20mm or grenade launcher out there, too. I'm adapting it the opposite direction for a 7.62x25 carbine. It flares out two flaps on either side of the bolt into receiver recesses. Brilliantly simple, safe, reliable, and easy to make, but has the same receiver-design shortcomings as the tilt bolt setups with their heavy machined parts.
Direct gas impingement. AG-42/Hakim/Rasheed, AR15, MAS49/56 (I think). And I think the AR is unique among them about pressuring the interior of the bolt (I'm honestly not that familiar with these obscure guns, though). Aside from the American development, which had the whole weight of our military complex thrown behind it for 50 straight years, didn't become particularly popular until quite recently when the Euros made their last equipment upgrade (late 80's/90's through the present). A lot of it's increased stature internationally can be explained by the fact it was front and center in two large scale wars for a decade straight, and performed well, which helped increase its market share independent of its excellent record. More though, it is explained by the M4 variant which was demonstrably smaller/lighter than competing platforms at the time. Now that the merits and deficiencies of the M4 are better understood, newer designs seek to capitalize on the compact size and lightweight modularity, while not sacrificing sustained firepower capabilities and (supposedly) increased maintenance (though that's what they back in the 60's about the AR itself )
That is a very nice summary of action design in various weapon types you provided above but that is not relevant to the point I am making. The point is about the flexibility and versatility of the of the rifle design. Not one of the weapons you mentioned that uses the various action designs you summarized has demonstrated the versatility of one AR-15. One AR-15 receiver can be transformed into numerous configurations of caliber, barrel length, stock length, and mission type (SMG to PDW to Infantry Rifle to Grenadiers Rifle to Sniper Rifle to LMG) with ease and do all those missions better than anyone of the weapons you mentioned could. AK sniper rifle = I hope than is what the sniper that is shooting at me is using. M1 Garand SMG = not happening. HK MP7 Infantry Rifle = not possible. M249 Infantry Rifle = too big, too heavy, too unwieldy. AR70/SIG550 = not beating any AR-15 set-up for sniper level accuracy or making as good a SMG or PDW. FAL/FN49/SKS all with very little versatility and headed to the scrap-pile as soon as most of their users could find something better. An MP5 SMG is not a G3 Rifle in 9mm caliber, but an AR-15 in 9mm with a 10” barrel is a SMG. A PSG-1 is an accurized G3 Rifle that is an inferior sniper rifle to an accurized AR. All the other weapons you mentioned are all fine for a limited mission but none is going to be improved or modified to match what the AR can do. Remember we are talking about rifle design not action design.
I ain't talkin' smack about your, or any, ARs. This is merely my observation from learning about the operational details of a ton of different platforms both successful and unsuccessful throughout history. Similar to how a roller-locked recoil operated pistol is fairly uncommon in history, so is a rifle which unlocks the bolt via internal pressure. And if the latest crop of designs being pitched is any indication, it will not become increasingly popular in from-scratch design efforts. That was the entirety of my statement.
Yeah you are kinda talkin’ smack about ARs, even if it is unintentional. Which I am not taking personally. I am talking about a single weapon system’s versatility to do many things well and you are primarily talking about many different types of components enabling multiple weapon types to do a single thing well.
"Most of the post-WWII designs have been replaced or reached a development and modification point of diminishing returns."
I wouldn't argue the AR design is evolving by 'leaps and bounds' these days either, but then again, no one is . I also don't happen to see the AR as being nearly as modular as many make it out to be, which may color my perception of its ongoing 'development' differently (i.e. a 50cal, 5.7x28, pistol blowback, or piston upper are not outgrowths of the AR design in my eyes, but rather independent ideas shoehorned to fit an existing form for better marketing)
That is just the point, evolution often does occur in leaps and bounds between periods of little change. Ask any biologist, zoologist, etc. Not much happened in the evolution of the AR system during the 1970s but the same is not true after 1980. Who is to say there will not be another period of evolutionary leaps and bounds. What you refer to as “independent ideas shoehorned to fit an existing form for better marketing” I refer to as ingenious exploration and exploitation of a serendipitously versatile design.
TCB
*"The only other military machine I can immediately think of that has demonstrated a design that has outstanding inherent ability for improvement and modification to do so many things well is the Supermarine Spitfire."
I'm afraid you'll have to elaborate (if you care to). I know they stopped making them with the more efficient elliptical wings early on due to production difficulties, but that's the extent of my Spitfire configuration history knowledge
Actually, what you know about the Spitfire wing just isn’t so. Sorry, you have misunderstood or been misinformed by your source. The elliptical wing was used in almost all the various “Marks” right to the end. For the most part all the changes to the elliptical wing from adoption in 1936 into the 1950s were minor in comparison to the few Marks where an entirely different airfoil design was used. My point tying the AR to the Spitfire is this: Like the AR, modifications to the basic design of the Spitfire permitted it to perform many very different missions well, over a period of decades, that its contemporaries rarely could match. The difference between the AR-15 of the Vietnam Era and that of today is similar to the design evolution and versatility of the Spitfire. Today’s AR only resembles the original AR, just like the last Spitfires with twice the horsepower, many times the firepower, and many mission configurations only resemble the original Spitfire Mark 1. Few weapons systems can come close to matching the AR and Spitfire design flexibility and mission capabilities. If you are interested in learning more about the design flexibility and mission versatility of the Spitfire, I recommend Spitfire: The History by Morgan and Shacklady. It is considered the most respected and definitive book on the subject.
Last edited: