User Panel
User Panel
User Panel
|
Posted: 2/11/2017 12:11:23 PM EDT
[#1]
Quote HistoryQuoted:
Maybe Aberdeen needs to have something happen like what resulted from the DragonSkin shitshow, where there is independent outside testing oversight beyond the bureaucrats. Kharn YES. I was involved with body and light vehicle armor R&D during that time period (2004-2008) The amount of bullshit that was flying around in that industry was ridiculous. Dragonskin was just one of many. Many groups were chasing those dollars with lies and dubious claims. The fact was that like small arms, light armor materials technology had largely plateaued. Anyone who said otherwise was selling a line of bullshit. My company was chasing very tiny incremental improvements in performance, and even those were only going to come as a tradeoff to something else. It wasn't a cost problem, it was a physics problem. The money and effort was there to dig deep into the problem, but physics is what it is. With very simple mechanical systems like firearms and armor, you quickly run into boundaries dictated by physics itself. A rifle is not an iPhone. As far as I am concerned, the way to fix the procurement system is to do an independent technical review of some of the obvious boondoggles and fire everyone involved with the really bad ones. Then blacklist the companies that made dubious claims. Dragonskin, HK, there are plenty more. It is not acceptable. If the government wants to create make work and industrial welfare programs, they can do it with stuff that doesn't put shitty equipment in the hands of our people. |
|
|
|
Posted: 2/11/2017 12:16:40 PM EDT
[#2]
Quote HistoryQuoted:
They are both gas systems that activate a piston because a "DI" bolt carrier group is a piston. Knowing that, why would you want all that shit exhaust in your chamber. It's the accepted terminology in this discussion. While both have pistons the Stoner design has the gas directly impinging on the carrier. There is no more "shit exhaust" in the chamber of a DI gun than an OP Rod gun. The DI gun does get more fouling on and in the carrier and upper. The reasons why DI is preferable for skilled shooters are many, here's a few. Lighter More accurate Smoother recoil impulse. Fewer moving parts. There are real sciencey reasons why an OP Rod Piston Gun is not competitive in High Power or 3 Gun. 
|
|
|
|
Posted: 2/11/2017 12:17:01 PM EDT
[#3]
It's just an RFI and will not go anywhere. Somebody at DoD is writing a research paper.
|
|
|
|
Posted: 2/11/2017 12:17:11 PM EDT
[#4]
Quote HistoryQuoted:
It's fair to take jabs at the companies, but the 416/417/IAR... It keeps winning all over the world and now here too because that gun just works. It wins because those other countries are even more corrupt than the US. HK has figured out how to buy the right people. The design of the rifle itself is garbage. |
|
|
|
Posted: 2/11/2017 12:18:38 PM EDT
[#5]
Quote HistoryQuoted:
YES. I was involved with body and light vehicle armor R&D during that time period (2004-2008) The amount of bullshit that was flying around in that industry was ridiculous. Dragonskin was just one of many. Many groups were chasing those dollars with lies and dubious claims. The fact was that like small arms, light armor materials technology had largely plateaued. Anyone who said otherwise was selling a line of bullshit. My company was chasing very tiny incremental improvements in performance, and even those were only going to come as a tradeoff to something else. It wasn't a cost problem, it was a physics problem. The money and effort was there to dig deep into the problem, but physics is what it is. With very simple mechanical systems like firearms and armor, you quickly run into boundaries dictated by physics itself. A rifle is not an iPhone. As far as I am concerned, the way to fix the procurement system is to do an independent technical review of some of the obvious boondoggles and fire everyone involved with the really bad ones. Then blacklist the companies that made dubious claims. Dragonskin, HK, there are plenty more. It is not acceptable. If the government wants to create make work and industrial welfare programs, they can do it with stuff that doesn't put shitty equipment in the hands of our people. Quote HistoryQuoted:
Quoted:
Maybe Aberdeen needs to have something happen like what resulted from the DragonSkin shitshow, where there is independent outside testing oversight beyond the bureaucrats. Kharn YES. I was involved with body and light vehicle armor R&D during that time period (2004-2008) The amount of bullshit that was flying around in that industry was ridiculous. Dragonskin was just one of many. Many groups were chasing those dollars with lies and dubious claims. The fact was that like small arms, light armor materials technology had largely plateaued. Anyone who said otherwise was selling a line of bullshit. My company was chasing very tiny incremental improvements in performance, and even those were only going to come as a tradeoff to something else. It wasn't a cost problem, it was a physics problem. The money and effort was there to dig deep into the problem, but physics is what it is. With very simple mechanical systems like firearms and armor, you quickly run into boundaries dictated by physics itself. A rifle is not an iPhone. As far as I am concerned, the way to fix the procurement system is to do an independent technical review of some of the obvious boondoggles and fire everyone involved with the really bad ones. Then blacklist the companies that made dubious claims. Dragonskin, HK, there are plenty more. It is not acceptable. If the government wants to create make work and industrial welfare programs, they can do it with stuff that doesn't put shitty equipment in the hands of our people. unclassified Naval Postgraduate School thesis Kharn |
|
|
|
Posted: 2/11/2017 12:27:58 PM EDT
[#6]
Quote HistoryQuoted:
It's the accepted terminology in this discussion. No, its not. Its wrong and it should be ridiculed as such. Common use by mouthbreathers doesn't create consensus. This isn't a democracy. The Stoner system uses a piston. It is not direct impingement. It places the piston in a superior location on the gun compared to prior art. It is superior to both direct impingement and piston on barrel designs for its intended use which is that of a light automatic rifle. The phrase "direct impingement" or even the word "impingement" are used exactly zero times in the description of the device in the patent. https://www.google.com/patents/US2951424 "It is a principal object of this invention to utilize the basic parts of an automatic rifle mechanism such as the bolt and bolt carrier to perform a double function. This double function consists of the bolts primary function to lock the breach against the pressure of firing, and secondarily, to act as a stationary piston to actuate the automatic rifle mechanism. The primary function of the bolt carrier is to lock and unlock the bolt by rotating it and to carry it back and forth in the receiver. The secondary function of the bolt carrier is to act as a movable cylinder to actuate the automatic rifle mechanism. By having the bolt carrier act as a movable cylinder and the bolt act as a stationary piston, the need for a conventional gas cylinder, piston and actuating rod assembly is eliminated." "It is another object of this invention to utilize the energy of the expanding gas developed by the firing of the weapon, for actuating the automatic rifle mechanism directly by use of a metered amount of the gas coming from the barrel. This invention is a true expanding gas system instead of the conventional impinging gas system. By utilization of a metered amount of gas from the barrel, the automatic rifle mechanism is less sensitive to different firing pressures caused by variations in the propelling charge. It is therefore still another object of this invention, to provide a rifle mechanism which is not affected by variations in the propelling charge." |
|
|
|
Posted: 2/11/2017 12:28:53 PM EDT
[#7]
Quote HistoryQuoted:
So then why are the Marine Corps seeing such a huge increase in reliability, durability and accuracy over the M4 with the M27? I still don't see any modern rail being adopted any time soon for the M4. The M27 is what got the Corp to switch to the more reliable PMAG Gen 3. 
While M4s handle the new ammo OK with legacy mags the M27 chokes without the PMAG. M4s being fed with PMAGs are so reliable it would impossible to significantly improve much less have a "huge increase". |
|
|
|
Posted: 2/11/2017 12:36:52 PM EDT
[#8]
Interesting development. It's an M4 with a piston. Good for the USMC if it works. I don't see it as a huge change honestly.
|
|
|
|
Posted: 2/11/2017 12:57:39 PM EDT
[#9]
Quote HistoryQuoted:
No, its not. Its wrong and it should be ridiculed as such. Common use by mouthbreathers doesn't create consensus. This isn't a democracy. The Stoner system uses a piston. It is not direct impingement. It places the piston in a superior location on the gun compared to prior art. It is superior to both direct impingement and piston on barrel designs for its intended use which is that of a light automatic rifle. The phrase "direct impingement" or even the word "impingement" are used exactly zero times in the description of the device in the patent. https://www.google.com/patents/US2951424 "It is a principal object of this invention to utilize the basic parts of an automatic rifle mechanism such as the bolt and bolt carrier to perform a double function. This double function consists of the bolts primary function to lock the breach against the pressure of firing, and secondarily, to act as a stationary piston to actuate the automatic rifle mechanism. The primary function of the bolt carrier is to lock and unlock the bolt by rotating it and to carry it back and forth in the receiver. The secondary function of the bolt carrier is to act as a movable cylinder to actuate the automatic rifle mechanism. By having the bolt carrier act as a movable cylinder and the bolt act as a stationary piston, the need for a conventional gas cylinder, piston and actuating rod assembly is eliminated." "It is another object of this invention to utilize the energy of the expanding gas developed by the firing of the weapon, for actuating the automatic rifle mechanism directly by use of a metered amount of the gas coming from the barrel. This invention is a true expanding gas system instead of the conventional impinging gas system. By utilization of a metered amount of gas from the barrel, the automatic rifle mechanism is less sensitive to different firing pressures caused by variations in the propelling charge. It is therefore still another object of this invention, to provide a rifle mechanism which is not affected by variations in the propelling charge." You need to read a Direct Impingement Book. In the Stoner system the gas DIRECTLY IMPINGES on the carrier. Science fact.
|
|
|
|
Posted: 2/11/2017 1:04:50 PM EDT
[#10]
I always figured it was a rifle super hornet.
|
|
|
|
Posted: 2/11/2017 1:23:37 PM EDT
[#11]
Quote HistoryQuoted:
You need to read a Direct Impingement Book. In the Stoner system the gas DIRECTLY IMPINGES on the carrier. Science fact. If I put the piston engine in your car in the trunk instead of under the hood does it magically turn it into a jet engine instead of a piston engine? No it doesn't. Relocating the piston in a rifle doesn't turn it into an impingement system either. Using improper nomenclature to describe a mechanical device is wrong and is fake news. In an impingement system, momentum transfer from the velocity of the fluid is a significant or even the primary means of imparting mechanical energy. In a piston, the momentum transfer from the fluid is negligible, the work is primarily done by expansion of the gas. In the Stoner system, which utilizes an expansion space and a piston, the gas can come into the piston chamber from any angle and do work, and indeed the early versions of the AR-10 family had a gas tube that entered from the side. The amount of work done via a piston is easier to control than the work done by fluid impingement as it is easier to bleed off excess energy via gas venting than it is to somehow limit the momentum of the incoming fluid. |
|
|
|
Posted: 2/11/2017 1:32:37 PM EDT
[#12]
Quote HistoryQuoted:
If I put the piston engine in your car in the trunk instead of under the hood does it magically turn it into a jet engine instead of a piston engine? No it doesn't. Relocating the piston in a rifle doesn't turn it into an impingement system either. Using improper nomenclature to describe a mechanical device is wrong and is fake news. In an impingement system, momentum transfer from the velocity of the fluid is a significant or even the primary means of imparting mechanical energy. In a piston, the momentum transfer from the fluid is negligible, the work is primarily done by expansion of the gas. In the Stoner system, which utilizes an expansion space and a piston, the gas can come into the piston chamber from any angle and do work, and indeed the early versions of the AR-10 family had a gas tube that entered from the side. The amount of work done via a piston is easier to control than the work done by fluid impingement as it is easier to bleed off excess energy via gas venting than it is to somehow limit the momentum of the incoming fluid. I would suggest you look up the definition of the words "Direct" and "Impinge".
The DI Stoner system uses gas "Directly Impinging" on the carrier to move the carrier linearly. This is the characteristic that differentiates DI from an Op Rod system in which the gas never "Directly Impinges" on the carrier. I would agree that the Stoner DI is best DI.
|
|
|
|
Posted: 2/11/2017 1:39:14 PM EDT
[#13]
Quote HistoryQuoted:
I would suggest you look up the definition of the words "Direct" and "Impinge".
The DI Stoner system uses gas "Directly Impinging" on the carrier to move the carrier linearly. This is the characteristic that differentiates DI from an Op Rod system in which the gas never "Directly Impinges" on the carrier. I would agree that the Stoner DI is best DI. im·pinge im'pinj/Submit verb have an effect or impact, especially a negative one. "Nora was determined that the tragedy would impinge as little as possible on Constance's life" synonyms:affect, have an effect on, touch, have a bearing on, influence, have/make an impact on, leave a mark on "these issues impinge on all of us" advance over an area belonging to someone or something else; encroach. "the site impinges on a greenbelt area" synonyms:encroach on, intrude on, infringe (on), invade, trespass on, obtrude, cut through, interfere with; More PHYSICS strike. "the gases impinge on the surface of the liquid" di·rect d?'rekt,di'rekt/ adjective 1. extending or moving from one place to another by the shortest way without changing direction or stopping. "there was no direct flight that day" synonyms:straight, undeviating, unswerving; More 2. without intervening factors or intermediaries. "the complications are a direct result of bacteria spreading" synonyms:face to face, personal, immediate, firsthand "direct contact with the president" adverb 1. with no one or nothing in between. "buy direct and save" verb 1. control the operations of; manage or govern. "an economic elite directed the nation's affairs" synonyms:manage, govern, run, administer, control, conduct, handle, be in charge/control of, preside over, lead, head, rule, be at the helm of; More 2. aim (something) in a particular direction or at a particular person. "heating ducts to direct warm air to rear-seat passengers" synonyms:aim at, target at, address to, intend for, mean for, design for "was that remark directed at me?" Important parts in red. According to the physics definition of impingement the Stoner system is not Impingement, since the gases do not strike the carrier. It's kind of like how so many call use a democratic nation, when we're really a democratic republic, which is vastly different. |
|
|
|
Posted: 2/11/2017 1:40:38 PM EDT
[#14]
Quote HistoryQuoted:
The idea of making the gas tube stronger is a horrible idea. The gas tube is a safety device. It's SUPPOSED to melt before the barrel bursts. It's safer for the gas tube to melt first, and it's also cheaper. It also keeps the weapon operational. Even if it's only a straight pull. That is true on a pencil barrel carbine, not a heavy barreled LMG. If you look at the Colt Automatic Rifle with the heavy barrel, it has a much larger gas tube that takes sustained fire. The Marines aren't using the IAR for mag dumps though, but controlled bursts for certain things. If you start talking the guns, you have very restricted rates of fire before barrel replacement is necessary, something the IAR is incapable of. Before we can have an intelligent discussion on any of this, there needs to be a basic packet of homework that people need to study before chiming in, otherwise the time is spent trying to explain how things work from a materials science perspective through operational unit tactics, techniques, and procedures. Instead, the GD mentality of a debutante kicks in and takes over, with the gun counter attitudes and misunderstanding of how the weapons mix is employed at the Squad and Platoon levels. No matter how much you try to lead people to the facts, they still pipe in with the same, tired old falsehoods and irrelevant statements that show absolutely no willingness to learn new information from people who have relevant experience. |
|
|
|
Posted: 2/11/2017 1:44:16 PM EDT
[#15]
I guess the IAR build craze is about to hit here, are any aftermarket quality parts available, I know HK hates us so we can't count on many parts/guns from them making it into daylight.
|
|
|
|
Posted: 2/11/2017 1:51:22 PM EDT
[#16]
Quote HistoryQuoted:
Can't recall if it was company or Bn level. Either way it's at the unit level. Plus, I mean... who REALLY want's a SAW? All they are is gimped 240's. A lighter rifle that just kills people with accuracy instead of weight (literally, throwing out bullets on a hedge of hit percentage in a cone of fire/ beaten zone) at least to me sounds like a lot better deal. If it's worth shooting at with a beltfed, its' worth at least waxing with a 240. Plus, I don't know if it's changed, or if things really ever change... or maybe it was just my Bn and the line companies I saw, but how often is it the senior guy with a ton of SAW experience humping the gun, vs the biggest boot, or kid no one likes? So I mean what would you really need a SAW for except for things like... guard duty. Or a tasking to do squad rushes against an enemy in a trench-line head on, or a few other roles where saws belching out ammo would be useful, but not in situations where 240's would be better? Can't sustain the fight like you can with 5.56 due to weight and volume. A dismounted patrol that ends up needing to continue mission is able to do so after heavy contact, whereas when saddled with linked 7.62 NATO, you need resupply unless you prevented the guns from firing. Then when you look at a possible overrun scenario, which is what insurgents looking for video of American heads being lopped off would just love, 7.62 NATO sets you up for that more due to limitations of ammunition carrying capacity. Another reason why the USMC should be joining the LSAT project and provide a solution that blows away any of the metallic rifle cartridge systems from the last Century, while gaining an even more reliable and long-lasting system that doesn't suffer from the problems of metallic cartridge feeding and extraction. |
|
|
|
Posted: 2/11/2017 2:04:52 PM EDT
[#17]
Quote HistoryQuoted:
According to the physics definition of impingement the Stoner system is not Impingement, since the gases do not strike the carrier. You might want to reconsider.
|
|
|
|
Posted: 2/11/2017 2:07:20 PM EDT
[#18]
Quote HistoryQuoted:
Can't sustain the fight like you can with 5.56 due to weight and volume. A dismounted patrol that ends up needing to continue mission is able to do so after heavy contact, whereas when saddled with linked 7.62 NATO, you need resupply unless you prevented the guns from firing. Then when you look at a possible overrun scenario, which is what insurgents looking for video of American heads being lopped off would just love, 7.62 NATO sets you up for that more due to limitations of ammunition carrying capacity. Another reason why the USMC should be joining the LSAT project and provide a solution that blows away any of the metallic rifle cartridge systems from the last Century, while gaining an even more reliable and long-lasting system that doesn't suffer from the problems of metallic cartridge feeding and extraction. Quote HistoryQuoted:
Quoted:
Can't recall if it was company or Bn level. Either way it's at the unit level. Plus, I mean... who REALLY want's a SAW? All they are is gimped 240's. A lighter rifle that just kills people with accuracy instead of weight (literally, throwing out bullets on a hedge of hit percentage in a cone of fire/ beaten zone) at least to me sounds like a lot better deal. If it's worth shooting at with a beltfed, its' worth at least waxing with a 240. Plus, I don't know if it's changed, or if things really ever change... or maybe it was just my Bn and the line companies I saw, but how often is it the senior guy with a ton of SAW experience humping the gun, vs the biggest boot, or kid no one likes? So I mean what would you really need a SAW for except for things like... guard duty. Or a tasking to do squad rushes against an enemy in a trench-line head on, or a few other roles where saws belching out ammo would be useful, but not in situations where 240's would be better? Can't sustain the fight like you can with 5.56 due to weight and volume. A dismounted patrol that ends up needing to continue mission is able to do so after heavy contact, whereas when saddled with linked 7.62 NATO, you need resupply unless you prevented the guns from firing. Then when you look at a possible overrun scenario, which is what insurgents looking for video of American heads being lopped off would just love, 7.62 NATO sets you up for that more due to limitations of ammunition carrying capacity. Another reason why the USMC should be joining the LSAT project and provide a solution that blows away any of the metallic rifle cartridge systems from the last Century, while gaining an even more reliable and long-lasting system that doesn't suffer from the problems of metallic cartridge feeding and extraction. Good think the IAR was adopted. Then. |
|
|
|
Posted: 2/11/2017 2:08:21 PM EDT
[#19]
And the thread devolves into arguments about DI versus Stoner's own description of his internal expansion system, which doesn't have anything really to do with the big picture of the thread.
Nice one GD! But hey, gotta sound relevant. |
|
|
|
Posted: 2/11/2017 2:09:56 PM EDT
[#20]
Quote HistoryQuoted:
Sounds like a good reason to carry 5.56 rifles that are very accurate but can still provide automatic fire instead of heavier belt fed 5.56 rifles that require more ammo for less hits. Good think the IAR was adopted. Then. Quote HistoryQuoted:
Quoted:
Quoted:
Can't recall if it was company or Bn level. Either way it's at the unit level. Plus, I mean... who REALLY want's a SAW? All they are is gimped 240's. A lighter rifle that just kills people with accuracy instead of weight (literally, throwing out bullets on a hedge of hit percentage in a cone of fire/ beaten zone) at least to me sounds like a lot better deal. If it's worth shooting at with a beltfed, its' worth at least waxing with a 240. Plus, I don't know if it's changed, or if things really ever change... or maybe it was just my Bn and the line companies I saw, but how often is it the senior guy with a ton of SAW experience humping the gun, vs the biggest boot, or kid no one likes? So I mean what would you really need a SAW for except for things like... guard duty. Or a tasking to do squad rushes against an enemy in a trench-line head on, or a few other roles where saws belching out ammo would be useful, but not in situations where 240's would be better? Can't sustain the fight like you can with 5.56 due to weight and volume. A dismounted patrol that ends up needing to continue mission is able to do so after heavy contact, whereas when saddled with linked 7.62 NATO, you need resupply unless you prevented the guns from firing. Then when you look at a possible overrun scenario, which is what insurgents looking for video of American heads being lopped off would just love, 7.62 NATO sets you up for that more due to limitations of ammunition carrying capacity. Another reason why the USMC should be joining the LSAT project and provide a solution that blows away any of the metallic rifle cartridge systems from the last Century, while gaining an even more reliable and long-lasting system that doesn't suffer from the problems of metallic cartridge feeding and extraction. Good think the IAR was adopted. Then. Or adopt an even lighter belt-fed LMG with better reliability, and more ammunition carrying capacity, that over-matches PKM/SVD effective range, with constant-recoil operating principle. |
|
|
|
Posted: 2/11/2017 2:12:27 PM EDT
[#21]
LSAT has to be the future. As I said earlier, they need to keep throwing cash at R&D, and be direct about what is wanted. Get the upgraded FCG/barrel/FF systems to the carbines already out there, and replace worn parts. We shouldn't be throwing stupid amounts of cash at designs that are going to be outdated once LSAT becomes 'real' and available.
|
|
|
|
Posted: 2/11/2017 2:14:26 PM EDT
[#22]
Quote HistoryQuoted:
Or adopt an even lighter belt-fed LMG with better reliability, and more ammunition carrying capacity, that over-matches PKM/SVD effective range, with constant-recoil operating principle. Quote HistoryQuoted:
Quoted:
Good think the IAR was adopted. Then. Or adopt an even lighter belt-fed LMG with better reliability, and more ammunition carrying capacity, that over-matches PKM/SVD effective range, with constant-recoil operating principle. If you can't, it's all talk. |
|
|
|
Posted: 2/11/2017 2:17:04 PM EDT
[#23]
Quote HistoryQuoted:
LSAT has to be the future. As I said earlier, they need to keep throwing cash at R&D, and be direct about what is wanted. Get the upgraded FCG/barrel/FF systems to the carbines already out there, and replace worn parts. We shouldn't be throwing stupid amounts of cash at designs that are going to be outdated once LSAT becomes 'real' and available. The IAR is, what it is, because it has to be that way. |
|
|
|
Posted: 2/11/2017 2:22:42 PM EDT
[#24]
Quote HistoryQuoted:
Call your congressmen and tell them to fix the procurement systems. The IAR is, what it is, because it has to be that way. Quote HistoryQuoted:
Quoted:
LSAT has to be the future. As I said earlier, they need to keep throwing cash at R&D, and be direct about what is wanted. Get the upgraded FCG/barrel/FF systems to the carbines already out there, and replace worn parts. We shouldn't be throwing stupid amounts of cash at designs that are going to be outdated once LSAT becomes 'real' and available. The IAR is, what it is, because it has to be that way. Fair enough, obviously you're correct. That's the logical process, though. |
|
|
|
Posted: 2/11/2017 2:22:52 PM EDT
[#25]
Quote HistoryQuoted:
That is true on a pencil barrel carbine, not a heavy barreled LMG. If you look at the Colt Automatic Rifle with the heavy barrel, it has a much larger gas tube that takes sustained fire. The Marines aren't using the IAR for mag dumps though, but controlled bursts for certain things. My last CO was a Staff Sergeant in Ranger Battalion. If you were in the assault element and using controlled bursts, he'd tell you to cut that out. He wanted the SAW gunners to be shooting almost like the mad minute or long strings of automatic fire, to suppress the bad guys on the O-B-J. Guy knew his shit, and I definitely subscribe to that philosophy. And the best way of doing that, is with a belt fed, not a 30 round magazine fed rifle. OR Issue guys with those weapons, drum magazines. But 30 fucking rounds is not going to cut it. |
|
|
|
Posted: 2/11/2017 2:25:48 PM EDT
[#26]
Quote HistoryQuoted:
The DI Stoner system uses gas "Directly Impinging" on the carrier to move the carrier linearly. No. The Stoner system uses gas pressure to push the bolt forward relative to the carrier. The direction of action of the piston is opposite of the direction of the incoming gas. If nothing was in front of the bolt for it to react against, the bolt/carrier assembly would go nowhere. This is the beauty of the system. It eliminates the need to transfer momentum via an operating rod. The momentum transfer occurs internally and over a very short distance. The only stressed region is the bolt and barrel lugs themselves, and the forces used to move the bolt carrier are subtracted from the bolt load instead of added like in all other designs. |
|
|
|
Posted: 2/11/2017 2:28:50 PM EDT
[#27]
Quote HistoryQuoted:
Can't sustain the fight like you can with 5.56 due to weight and volume. A dismounted patrol that ends up needing to continue mission is able to do so after heavy contact, whereas when saddled with linked 7.62 NATO, you need resupply unless you prevented the guns from firing. Then when you look at a possible overrun scenario, which is what insurgents looking for video of American heads being lopped off would just love, 7.62 NATO sets you up for that more due to limitations of ammunition carrying capacity. Another reason why the USMC should be joining the LSAT project and provide a solution that blows away any of the metallic rifle cartridge systems from the last Century, while gaining an even more reliable and long-lasting system that doesn't suffer from the problems of metallic cartridge feeding and extraction. I agree. The IAR should be a stopgap only. |
|
|
|
Posted: 2/11/2017 2:29:59 PM EDT
[#28]
Quote HistoryQuoted:
Fair enough, obviously you're correct. That's the logical process, though. Quote HistoryQuoted:
Quoted:
Quoted:
LSAT has to be the future. As I said earlier, they need to keep throwing cash at R&D, and be direct about what is wanted. Get the upgraded FCG/barrel/FF systems to the carbines already out there, and replace worn parts. We shouldn't be throwing stupid amounts of cash at designs that are going to be outdated once LSAT becomes 'real' and available. The IAR is, what it is, because it has to be that way. Fair enough, obviously you're correct. That's the logical process, though. |
|
|
|
Posted: 2/11/2017 2:31:56 PM EDT
[#29]
My only concern about LSAT is that the 6.5 solution they seem to be leaning towards is full battle rifle powerful and am afraid it will compromise what makes the LSAT so handy.
I think they should be looking for a Grendel-level 6.5 solution. |
|
|
|
Posted: 2/11/2017 2:35:17 PM EDT
[#30]
Quote HistoryQuoted:
My only concern about LSAT is that the 6.5 solution they seem to be leaning towards is full battle rifle powerful and am afraid it will compromise what makes the LSAT so handy. I think they should be looking for a Grendel-level 6.5 solution. This. The Grendel has adequate ballistics. Any more than that would be unnecessary for a LMG. |
|
|
|
Posted: 2/11/2017 2:36:17 PM EDT
[#31]
Quote HistoryQuoted:
No. The Stoner system uses gas pressure to push the bolt forward relative to the carrier. The direction of action of the piston is opposite of the direction of the incoming gas. If nothing was in front of the bolt for it to react against, the bolt/carrier assembly would go nowhere. This is the beauty of the system. It eliminates the need to transfer momentum via an operating rod. The momentum transfer occurs internally and over a very short distance. The only stressed region is the bolt and barrel lugs themselves, and the forces used to move the bolt carrier are subtracted from the bolt load instead of added like in all other designs. Bolt does not move. Carrier moves. But we are not supposed to talk about this.
|
|
|
|
Posted: 2/11/2017 2:36:39 PM EDT
[#32]
Quote HistoryQuoted:
As they say in the Marines, shit me one right now then. If you can't, it's all talk. Quote HistoryQuoted:
Quoted:
Quoted:
Good think the IAR was adopted. Then. Or adopt an even lighter belt-fed LMG with better reliability, and more ammunition carrying capacity, that over-matches PKM/SVD effective range, with constant-recoil operating principle. If you can't, it's all talk. It isn't just talk. The prototypes work, and they work well, according to Portable Gorilla. They could probably roll those out in under 2 years as a general issue LMG if the brass really wanted it and Trump does what he promised for the DOD budget. As is, fielding the M27 is a terrible idea when the LSAT is so close. Why spend so much money for such an incremental increase in capabilities when you can have those same capabilities for much less by upgrading the standard-issue rifle? That way you can save money for when the major upgrade is made available. We're just waiting on the Army to get off its ass and make the LSAT program a serious priority in regards to a rifle/carbine. Once that happens, we'll see the future of US Army small arms. |
|
|
|
Posted: 2/11/2017 2:41:16 PM EDT
[#33]
Quote HistoryQuoted:
How can the USMC afford this? R0N said himself that the USMC's point of view was the M4 offered almost just as many benefits, and at 1/3rd the cost of the IAR. Really fucking dumb, IMO. And I'm not even sure if the article is accurate. I dont think the Article is accurate, since just the other day FN and Colt just received hundreds of millions to supply them with M4's |
|
|
|
Posted: 2/11/2017 2:53:30 PM EDT
[#34]
Quote HistoryQuoted:
My only concern about LSAT is that the 6.5 solution they seem to be leaning towards is full battle rifle powerful and am afraid it will compromise what makes the LSAT so handy. I think they should be looking for a Grendel-level 6.5 solution. I don't think we should goto any new, bigger cartrdige. If you goto a 6.5 or whatever, you increase the soldiers weight and you decrease his combat load. The idea here, is to have a large combat load. Decreasing the combat load by taking on a larger caliber could hurt our infantry's fighting ability by giving up a extra ammo and conceding the enemies using 5.45 and such to have a larger combat load thatn our units. Seems like it's playing with fire. |
|
|
|
Posted: 2/11/2017 2:55:21 PM EDT
[#35]
Quote HistoryQuoted:
It isn't just talk. The prototypes work, and they work well, according to Portable Gorilla. They could probably roll those out in under 2 years as a general issue LMG if the brass really wanted it and Trump does what he promised for the DOD budget. As is, fielding the M27 is a terrible idea when the LSAT is so close. Why spend so much money for such an incremental increase in capabilities when you can have those same capabilities for much less by upgrading the standard-issue rifle? That way you can save money for when the major upgrade is made available. We're just waiting on the Army to get off its ass and make the LSAT program a serious priority in regards to a rifle/carbine. Once that happens, we'll see the future of US Army small arms. Quote HistoryQuoted:
Quoted: It isn't just talk. The prototypes work, and they work well, according to Portable Gorilla. They could probably roll those out in under 2 years as a general issue LMG if the brass really wanted it and Trump does what he promised for the DOD budget. As is, fielding the M27 is a terrible idea when the LSAT is so close. Why spend so much money for such an incremental increase in capabilities when you can have those same capabilities for much less by upgrading the standard-issue rifle? That way you can save money for when the major upgrade is made available. We're just waiting on the Army to get off its ass and make the LSAT program a serious priority in regards to a rifle/carbine. Once that happens, we'll see the future of US Army small arms. |
|
|
|
Posted: 2/11/2017 2:56:16 PM EDT
[#36]
Quote HistoryQuoted:
This. The Grendel has adequate ballistics. Any more than that would be unnecessary for a LMG. Quote HistoryQuoted:
Quoted:
My only concern about LSAT is that the 6.5 solution they seem to be leaning towards is full battle rifle powerful and am afraid it will compromise what makes the LSAT so handy. I think they should be looking for a Grendel-level 6.5 solution. This. The Grendel has adequate ballistics. Any more than that would be unnecessary for a LMG. The 5.56 LSAT kicks like a kitten. I can tell you from seeing it fired offhand, the recoil is ridiculously low. With the more powerful 6.5 variant, you have an effective range that is superior to Russian and Chinese equivalent LMG's, and the LSAT system should bring the heavier recoil in line with that of current M249's. But I'll let Portable Gorilla be the one to confirm that. Where the 6.5 cased/caseless telescoping ammo shines is in regards to the standard-issue rifle. Recoil and weight equal to or less than the SCAR 17, while having an even greater effective range, a smaller weapon, lighter ammunition, and a greater magazine capacity. Even so, 6.5 at grendel or creedmore levels, both are ballistically superior to 5.56. |
|
|
|
Posted: 2/11/2017 2:56:29 PM EDT
[#37]
Quote HistoryQuoted:
I don't think we should goto any new, bigger cartrdige. If you goto a 6.5 or whatever, you increase the soldiers weight and you decrease his combat load. The idea here, is to have a large combat load. Decreasing the combat load by taking on a larger caliber could hurt our infantry's fighting ability by giving up a extra ammo and conceding the enemies using 5.45 and such to have a larger combat load thatn our units. Seems like it's playing with fire. Quote HistoryQuoted:
Quoted:
My only concern about LSAT is that the 6.5 solution they seem to be leaning towards is full battle rifle powerful and am afraid it will compromise what makes the LSAT so handy. I think they should be looking for a Grendel-level 6.5 solution. I don't think we should goto any new, bigger cartrdige. If you goto a 6.5 or whatever, you increase the soldiers weight and you decrease his combat load. The idea here, is to have a large combat load. Decreasing the combat load by taking on a larger caliber could hurt our infantry's fighting ability by giving up a extra ammo and conceding the enemies using 5.45 and such to have a larger combat load thatn our units. Seems like it's playing with fire. It depends on the rounds they end up with. 5.56 are ~42% lighter than our current M855's, I'd be interested in seeing if a 6.5 load is still lighter than what is currently carried. If they can get it lower, with the same number of rounds, I think it's worth pursuing. |
|
|
|
Posted: 2/11/2017 2:58:43 PM EDT
[#38]
Quote HistoryQuoted:
It isn't just talk. The prototypes work, and they work well, according to Portable Gorilla. They could probably roll those out in under 2 years as a general issue LMG if the brass really wanted it and Trump does what he promised for the DOD budget. As is, fielding the M27 is a terrible idea when the LSAT is so close. Why spend so much money for such an incremental increase in capabilities when you can have those same capabilities for much less by upgrading the standard-issue rifle? That way you can save money for when the major upgrade is made available. We're just waiting on the Army to get off its ass and make the LSAT program a serious priority in regards to a rifle/carbine. Once that happens, we'll see the future of US Army small arms. I don't know. I believe PG's account of how well the LSAT went, but I think the Army just doubled down on a big M4 contract recently, IIRC. Which seemed kind of odd with the LSAT supposedly being right around the corner. |
|
|
|
Posted: 2/11/2017 3:03:25 PM EDT
[#39]
Quote HistoryQuoted:
It depends on the rounds they end up with. 5.56 are ~42% lighter than our current M855's, I'd be interested in seeing if a 6.5 load is still lighter than what is currently carried. If they can get it lower, with the same number of rounds, I think it's worth pursuing. More boolits > Bullet diameter That's that facts right there. Most ammunition that is expended hits within a 3 meter radius of the target or something, in combat. That was a study the USMC did, and R0N referenced before. So MOST of the ammo is "wasted" or used to suppress. So the argument that we should have bigger rounds, well then we're decreasing the odds of killing enemies on the battlefield. By giving each soldier less ammo to shoot. You'll shoot less and you'll have even fewer rounds that will strike enemy troops. |
|
|
|
Posted: 2/11/2017 3:04:46 PM EDT
[#40]
Quote HistoryQuoted:
USMC. Making Germany Great Again.  Quote HistoryQuoted:
Quoted:
I wonder if the Trump administration will weigh in due to Made in Germany? USMC. Making Germany Great Again. More like MCGA, Making Columbus Great Again. |
|
|
|
Posted: 2/11/2017 3:04:58 PM EDT
[#41]
Quote HistoryQuoted:
Or adopt an even lighter belt-fed LMG with better reliability, and more ammunition carrying capacity, that over-matches PKM/SVD effective range, with constant-recoil operating principle. What's your thoughts on 5.56/7.62 vs 6.5 LSAT? From what I have seen by going to 6.5 LSAT you lose all the advantages the 5.56 LSAT offers. The 6.5 LSAT uses the same case and LMG as the 7.62, and the carbine was quoted as 10lbs with a 20 round capacity. However the 5.56 LSAT LMG was at 10 lbs. Personally the 5.56 LSAT firing M855A1 and 7.62 LSAT firing M80A1 seem to be the perfect mix. |
|
|
|
Posted: 2/11/2017 3:06:21 PM EDT
[#42]
I think a Grendel powered solution would be a good compromise. Increased range and power for only a slight increase in load and recoil.
But what they are talking now is like a Creedmore on steroids. I can't see how that is going to play well on barrel longevity just for starters. |
|
|
|
Posted: 2/11/2017 3:09:44 PM EDT
[#43]
Quote HistoryQuoted:
I think a Grendel powered solution would be a good compromise. Increased range and power for only a slight increase in load and recoil. But what they are talking now is like a Creedmore on steroids. I can't see how that is going to play well on barrel longevity just for starters. I take issue with the benefits of increased range. The M4 and M16 family have effective ranges of 500 meters. But troops in most combat situations don't shoot until the enemy is within 100 meters. So a bigger, heavier, longer range round, doesn't help all that much. It's like buying a 300WM rifle with a really expensive scope, but you'll only ever goto a range that is 200 meters at it's farthest. Other than the fact, that you just gave up an advantage or at least parity with the enemy who will now have a larger combat load. |
|
|
|
Posted: 2/11/2017 3:12:41 PM EDT
[#44]
How about a 6.8 equivalent?
The ammo is going to have to be changed regardless. Might as well get more benefits out of it, in my mind. |
|
|
|
Posted: 2/11/2017 3:14:34 PM EDT
[#45]
Quote HistoryQuoted:
How about a 6.8 equivalent? The ammo is going to have to be changed regardless. Might as well get more benefits out of it, in my mind. I'm talking about traditional cartridges vs traditional cartridges. I think LSAT 6.5 is lighter than 5.56 cartridges. So I'm all in favor of that. I'm talking about HERE AND NOW, if someone wants to switch from 5.56 to 6.5 Grendel. |
|
|
|
Posted: 2/11/2017 3:15:07 PM EDT
[#46]
I agree the creedmore on steroids is overkill.
The .338 CT will cover that ground. But my thinking with the Grendel level solution is more toward giving the SAW replacement more legs than the rifleman. Remember, we ar elooknig to combine the current 7.62 and 5.56 calibers and have one compromise cartridge to rule them all. Get a logistics simplification along with this transition. I agree the 5.56 is sufficient for the rifleman but I am looking to eliminate a caliber and it also give a bit more payload to future-proof the round against advances in body armor. |
|
|
|
Posted: 2/11/2017 3:15:09 PM EDT
[#47]
Quote HistoryQuoted:
I'm talking about traditional cartridges vs traditional cartridges. I think LSAT 6.5 is lighter than 5.56 cartridges. So I'm all in favor of that. I'm talking about HERE AND NOW, if someone wants to switch from 5.56 to 6.5 Grendel. Quote HistoryQuoted:
Quoted:
How about a 6.8 equivalent? The ammo is going to have to be changed regardless. Might as well get more benefits out of it, in my mind. I'm talking about traditional cartridges vs traditional cartridges. I think LSAT 6.5 is lighter than 5.56 cartridges. So I'm all in favor of that. I'm talking about HERE AND NOW, if someone wants to switch from 5.56 to 6.5 Grendel. Ah, my mistake. No, that'd be dumb. ETA: I think you're the only one talking "here and now" on the ammo aspect of this, TBH. |
|
|
|
Posted: 2/11/2017 3:18:12 PM EDT
[#48]
Quote HistoryQuoted:
My only concern about LSAT is that the 6.5 solution they seem to be leaning towards is full battle rifle powerful and am afraid it will compromise what makes the LSAT so handy. I think they should be looking for a Grendel-level 6.5 solution. They could exceed it if they wanted and still use a similar case to the 5.56 LSAT, or just load an even higher BC 6mm projectile in that case. The BC on the M855A1 projectile is better than M855, and the are pushing it faster currently. M855A1-type 6.5mm projectiles already exist. If history is a guide, impatience will rule the day of procurement since so many programs have been denied from moving forward that once an organization sees inertia on one that is late to the party of capabilities, they will double-down on that one and make it go through, ending in more money wasted, with no real performance advantages compared to the emerging technology. That's what happened with the M14 and AR15, and the AR15 is still cutting-edge in 2017. Nobody has found a way to eliminate more moving parts on self-loading firearms, until the LSAT. That is an ingenious way to get rid of the problems associated with feeding and extraction of metallic cartridges, with none of their penalties anymore, while reducing cost on ammunition production, and introducing heat sink into the case. Longevity of those systems will be revolutionary in terms of costs saved, training life, and ease of maintenance by the organizations that adopt them. If we don't do it now, our enemies are certainly looking at skipping us generationally and beating us to the punchline if they can. I hope it doesn't take that kind of move to get the Army and Marines to decide on LSAT. This IAR garbage is a side-show though that focuses back on metallic cartridge technology, and all the penalties that come with it, which the USMC bears the brunt of more than other organizations because of the budget, which has been erratic over the last 15 years. |
|
|
|
Posted: 2/11/2017 3:18:19 PM EDT
[#49]
Quote HistoryQuoted:
I'm talking about traditional cartridges vs traditional cartridges. I think LSAT 6.5 is lighter than 5.56 cartridges. So I'm all in favor of that. I'm talking about HERE AND NOW, if someone wants to switch from 5.56 to 6.5 Grendel. I am talking about the CT rounds in my hypothetical, a Grendel level performance round. Right now, they are talking a Creedmore on steroids solution for everything. I think that is a bad move on the CT front. We are only going to get one chance to get this right and then we will be stuck with it for a generation. We can't afford to fuck this up. |
|
|
|
Posted: 2/11/2017 3:19:00 PM EDT
[#50]
Quote HistoryQuoted:
Because the Marine want the increased lethality now, and they can't upgrade the existing rifles. Don't know why that hasn't really clicked yet, it's been said and explained a few times. Quote HistoryQuoted:
Quoted:
Quoted: It isn't just talk. The prototypes work, and they work well, according to Portable Gorilla. They could probably roll those out in under 2 years as a general issue LMG if the brass really wanted it and Trump does what he promised for the DOD budget. As is, fielding the M27 is a terrible idea when the LSAT is so close. Why spend so much money for such an incremental increase in capabilities when you can have those same capabilities for much less by upgrading the standard-issue rifle? That way you can save money for when the major upgrade is made available. We're just waiting on the Army to get off its ass and make the LSAT program a serious priority in regards to a rifle/carbine. Once that happens, we'll see the future of US Army small arms. They won't get it "NOW," it will still take months to go through, and a few more months to get the rifles delivered, and they will pay out the nose for it later. I promise you that. It isn't that they can't upgrade current rifles, because it isn't a matter of funding or time or research or testing or parts. It's the jackasses in key positions that don't want to put in the fucking effort. All it takes is kicking out those shitbirds and getting one motivated individual into a position with the authority to get the job done. Give me ten months, $40 million and a fifth of Jack, and I will refit every M4 in the Corps to PIP specs, and I'll get it done with money leftover. |
|
|
Win a FREE Membership!
Sign up for the ARFCOM weekly newsletter and be entered to win a free ARFCOM membership. One new winner* is announced every week!
You will receive an email every Friday morning featuring the latest chatter from the hottest topics, breaking news surrounding legislation, as well as exclusive deals only available to ARFCOM email subscribers.
AR15.COM is the world's largest firearm community and is a gathering place for firearm enthusiasts of all types.
From hunters and military members, to competition shooters and general firearm enthusiasts, we welcome anyone who values and respects the way of the firearm.
Subscribe to our monthly Newsletter to receive firearm news, product discounts from your favorite Industry Partners, and more.
Copyright © 1996-2024 AR15.COM LLC. All Rights Reserved.
Any use of this content without express written consent is prohibited.
AR15.Com reserves the right to overwrite or replace any affiliate, commercial, or monetizable links, posted by users, with our own.
