Quoted: Quoted: Anyhow, Colt's entry is still a loser, and FN looks to be available in the next year.  I see it an uphill battle for Colt's fancy Carbine, unless the SCAR program hit a snag (and I would not be surprised) or Big Army goes a different direction then SOCOM. I completely agree, but it failed due to the specific requirements of one very specialized end user and not due to any failings of the Colt gas piston system. These specific requirements have very little to do with typical military, LEO, or civilian carbine use. I'm also hearing from SHOT that civilian versions of the FN SCAR are at least two years away. Allot can happen in two years.

Ok, hydrostatic locking, NSW, SEALs, all three of us are talking about the same thing.  

Which bring up something, just because SOCOM comes up with a do all weapon does not mean it will be greeted with enthusiasm or even success.  Remember SOCOM has their own do all be all pistol too.  Am I wrong or did that not exactly work out (not a pistol guy)?

Quoted: Quoted: Anyhow, Colt's entry is still a loser, and FN looks to be available in the next year.  I see it an uphill battle for Colt's fancy Carbine, unless the SCAR program hit a snag (and I would not be surprised) or Big Army goes a different direction then SOCOM. I completely agree, but it failed due to the specific requirements of one very specialized end user and not due to any failings of the Colt gas piston system. These specific requirements have very little to do with typical military, LEO, or civilian carbine use. I'm also hearing from SHOT that civilian versions of the FN SCAR are at least two years away. Allot can happen in two years.

Yeah, quite a bit can happen in two years.  Think I follow your here, as in for example the LE community is not too worried about "hydrostatic lock".  As you know my interest is the military angle only, so don't tend think of such things.

Quoted: Quoted: Quoted: I see a few specs that rule out a conventional AR-15. Here are the specs I caught in a quick overview, I paraphrased them: 3.2.1.8.3 Be able to charge the weapon while maintaining sight picture 3.2.3.1.1 Must be to fire weapon with a bore obstruction with out it blowing into pieces. 3.2.4.3.1 and .2 Be able to get water out of the bore without opening the bolt. I really don't see how these last two can be possible with any firearm. I'm curious to know how FN got around these requirements myself. I assume it has something to do with how the FN gas piston design vents excess gas. This might allow for water to escape, but it's just an uneducated guess on my part.

As you may remember Ezell covered the "rain in bore" issue in TBR.  Showed up during trials.  It is an issue with the .224 bore, and not so much with the M14, or .30 cal. bore.  So the problem is pretty much .224 bore specific.

And there are weapons that can fire with a bore obstruction without blowing into chunks.  For example we had a guy show up on a now defunct gunboard several years ago with a problem with his Bulgarian milled receiver AK-47 variant.  He had fired a round with no powder, bullet lodged in bore, hand cycled the action and fired again.  The AK-47 did not dismantle itself.

So it is possible that the FN rifle can be fired with a bore obstruction, but I doubt it.

Quoted: I have no idea if the gas piston really improves thing long run or whether it is an unnecessary tactical addition, and doubt I ever will.  Stoner removed the gas piston, but whether that was to reduce cost and training, or increase reliability is something I have never read up on conclusively.  If someone has links or data on Stoner's rationale I'd really appreciate being able to read it.

Take a look at twl's post here:

ar15.com/forums/topic.html?b=3&f=118&t=257136&page=14

Missed this thread, but it had potential:

ar15.com/forums/topic.html?b=3&f=12&t=262147

Quoted: Quoted: Quoted: Quoted: I see a few specs that rule out a conventional AR-15. Here are the specs I caught in a quick overview, I paraphrased them: 3.2.1.8.3 Be able to charge the weapon while maintaining sight picture 3.2.3.1.1 Must be to fire weapon with a bore obstruction with out it blowing into pieces. 3.2.4.3.1 and .2 Be able to get water out of the bore without opening the bolt. I really don't see how these last two can be possible with any firearm. I'm curious to know how FN got around these requirements myself. I assume it has something to do with how the FN gas piston design vents excess gas. This might allow for water to escape, but it's just an uneducated guess on my part. As you may remember Ezell covered the "rain in bore" issue in TBR.  Showed up during trials.  It is an issue with the .224 bore, and not so much with the M14, or .30 cal. bore.  So the problem is pretty much .224 bore specific. And there are weapons that can fire with a bore obstruction without blowing into junks.  For example we had a guy show up on a now defunct gunboard several years ago with a problem with his Bulgarian milled receiver AK-47 variant.  He had fired a round with no powder, bullet lodged in bore, hand cycled the action and fired again.  The AK-47 did not dismantle itself. So it is possible that the FN rifle can be fired with a bore obstruction, but I doubt it.

Thats easy to explain.  A smaller bore would have surface tension and the weight of the water would not be able to overcome this surface tension and drain out the muzzle.  A larger bore would have more water, thus more weight to overcome the surface tension.

Quoted: Thats easy to explain.  A smaller bore would have surface tension and the weight of the water would not be able to overcome this surface tension and drain out the muzzle.  A larger bore would have more water, thus more weight to overcome the surface tension.

This is known as the "pipette effect," and it is indeed as scotty describes.  The chamber is fairly well sealed with a round in it so if you get the muzzle deep enough in the water (just breaking the surface doesn't do it, but much deeper will) the surface tension of the water will literally climb up the bore.  The critical diameter is something just over 0.25 inches; below that, surface tension is high enough to do the job, above it it's not.

are you guys really discussing the parts count on an H&K upper?  It's not a firearm and isn't subject to the parts count issue...

wtf?