User Panel
User Panel
User Panel
|
Posted: 12/17/2017 2:39:59 PM EDT
[#1]
Quote HistoryQuoted: Have you ever hitched a ride in an MT-LB while carrying a G3? It was horrible.  I have actually done dry runs through my house with it and my other rifles and it is far, far, far easier to maneuver through doorways than the other 7.62 NATO fenceposts. That is truly the biggest advantage it has over the standard FAL and M-14 and yet you never mention it. |
|
|
|
Posted: 12/17/2017 2:40:03 PM EDT
[#2]
Quote HistoryQuoted: How about my service? I played CoD MW and Arma2 last night!!!! |
|
|
|
Posted: 12/17/2017 2:40:56 PM EDT
[#3]
Quote HistoryQuoted: In the absence of useful TTPs and lecturing on how combat really is, I'm afraid your service isn't of much value. |
|
|
|
Posted: 12/17/2017 2:41:53 PM EDT
[#4]
Quote HistoryQuoted:
I'm thinking of the Colt barrel tests where they shot an M4 and M4A1 barrel to destruction. The M4 barrel popped.  https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=P9uny8aCoLcQuote HistoryQuoted:
Quoted:
If your thinking of IG88's video, he popped a barrel because it was a lighter weight profile made from stainless steel. A 4150 barrel probably wouldn't have popped. A heavier barrel wouldn't have blown. The danger zone for bursting a barrel is probably 4+ combat loads fired without a break. I'll take a slightly improved gas tube and not worry about the barrel. https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=P9uny8aCoLc |
|
|
|
Posted: 12/17/2017 2:42:19 PM EDT
[#5]
Quote HistoryQuoted:
Your G3 is actually shorter than an M16A2. The barrel is 18 inches VS 20. I have actually done dry runs through my house with it and my other rifles and it is far, far, far easier to maneuver through doorways than the other 7.62 NATO fenceposts. That is truly the biggest advantage it has over the standard FAL and M-14 and yet you never mention it. Quote HistoryQuoted:
Quoted: Have you ever hitched a ride in an MT-LB while carrying a G3? It was horrible. I have actually done dry runs through my house with it and my other rifles and it is far, far, far easier to maneuver through doorways than the other 7.62 NATO fenceposts. That is truly the biggest advantage it has over the standard FAL and M-14 and yet you never mention it. |
|
|
|
Posted: 12/17/2017 2:43:52 PM EDT
[#6]
Quote HistoryQuoted:
I’m pretty sure I’ve mentioned it. 
|
|
|
|
Posted: 12/17/2017 2:46:43 PM EDT
[#7]
Quote HistoryQuoted: I'm thinking of the Colt barrel tests where they shot an M4 and M4A1 barrel to destruction. The M4 barrel popped. https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=P9uny8aCoLc |
|
|
|
Posted: 12/17/2017 2:48:02 PM EDT
[#8]
Quote HistoryQuoted:
Of course, 18 inch FAL FTW! Quote HistoryQuoted:
Quoted:
I’m pretty sure I’ve mentioned it. The G3 is still superior though. |
|
|
|
Posted: 12/17/2017 2:50:47 PM EDT
[#9]
Quote HistoryQuoted:
The M4 barrel ruptured because the thin/pencil profile before the gas block wasn't designed to handle sustained automatic fire. How does that effect what I said about it being better for the gas tube to fail first? I'm advocating for a heavier barrel, and the same gas tube. I believe this to be safer than other available configurations. |
|
|
|
Posted: 12/17/2017 2:51:10 PM EDT
[#10]
Quote HistoryQuoted:
I've never tried any of the short barrelled FALs. I'm thinking a 16" barrel would be tits. The G3 is still superior though. Quote HistoryQuoted:
Quoted:
Quoted:
I'm pretty sure I've mentioned it. The G3 is still superior though. |
|
|
|
Posted: 12/17/2017 2:52:09 PM EDT
[#11]
Quote HistoryQuoted:
Yeah, 2.5 combat loads for the old barrel and 4+ before the gas tube goes on the M4A1. I would like to see retesting done with the M4A1 barrel and D60 drums. Do it once each with a standard, Inconel and nitride tube. I would be curious to see how an Inconel and a nitride tube would do. |
|
|
|
Posted: 12/17/2017 2:52:54 PM EDT
[#12]
Quote HistoryQuoted:
... Yeah. Am I missing something? How does that effect what I said about it being better for the gas tube to fail first? I'm advocating for a heavier barrel, and the same gas tube. I believe this to be safer than other available configurations. Quote HistoryQuoted:
Quoted:
The M4 barrel ruptured because the thin/pencil profile before the gas block wasn't designed to handle sustained automatic fire. How does that effect what I said about it being better for the gas tube to fail first? I'm advocating for a heavier barrel, and the same gas tube. I believe this to be safer than other available configurations. |
|
|
|
Posted: 12/17/2017 2:53:35 PM EDT
[#13]
Quote HistoryQuoted:
G3 is superior for anchoring of small boat. Quote HistoryQuoted:
Quoted:
Quoted:
Quoted:
I'm pretty sure I've mentioned it. The G3 is still superior though. |
|
|
|
Posted: 12/17/2017 2:56:11 PM EDT
[#14]
Quote HistoryQuoted: Of course, 18 inch FAL FTW! |
|
|
|
Posted: 12/17/2017 2:56:17 PM EDT
[#15]
Quote HistoryQuoted:
You are arguing to fix a problem that doesn't exist. 
|
|
|
|
Posted: 12/17/2017 2:57:51 PM EDT
[#16]
Quote HistoryQuoted: I think that testing with D60 drums would give us better context, and better data, but I still think the principle of "gas tube should melt before barrel detonates" is a valid one. I would be curious to see how an Inconel and a nitride tube would do. |
|
|
|
Posted: 12/17/2017 3:00:10 PM EDT
[#17]
Quote HistoryQuoted:
I like the idea of reducing barrel weight and increasing gas tube strength/design until your gas tube fuse is just shorter than your barrel rupture. I also prefer a tapered barrel and I'm not opposed to heatsinks or using the aluminum rail as a heat sink. The M4A1 SOCOM profile barrel solves that issue. I do think that both a tapered barrel is a good thing. Shift that weight towards the chamber, and the throat where the largest amount of heat build up is. (For the record, I like tapered bores too, and I think that CHF helps with the problem of gas port erosion.) With regard to heat sinks, the Geissele rail and barrel nut seem to do that well. |
|
|
|
Posted: 12/17/2017 3:00:57 PM EDT
[#18]
Quote HistoryQuoted: Then why did SOCOM move to the M4A1 barrel if the M4 barrels weren't bursting? As logical as wanting to go off roading with a Ford Focus |
|
|
|
Posted: 12/17/2017 3:01:05 PM EDT
[#19]
Quote HistoryQuoted:
Then why did SOCOM move to the M4A1 barrel if the M4 barrels weren't bursting? Quote HistoryQuoted:
Quoted:
You are arguing to fix a problem that doesn't exist. ETA: And it's very unlikely you'd be treating a carbine as a SAW anyways. |
|
|
|
Posted: 12/17/2017 3:01:45 PM EDT
[#20]
Quote HistoryQuoted:
I’ve never tried any of the short barrelled FALs. I’m thinking a 16” barrel would be tits. The G3 is still superior though. |
|
|
|
Posted: 12/17/2017 3:02:15 PM EDT
[#21]
Quote HistoryQuoted: Then why did SOCOM move to the M4A1 barrel if the M4 barrels weren't bursting? It wasn't burst M4 barrels that prompted the switch |
|
|
|
Posted: 12/17/2017 3:04:25 PM EDT
[#22]
Quote HistoryQuoted:
I think he's referring to the fact that a barrel bursting, on an HBAR profile, likely wouldn't be a problem, since you would likely need 800+ rounds of sustained automatic fire in a single session. Long term, I'm not so sure if the barrel would burst or that the throat erosion would be so severe that you'd have keyholing and need a barrel replacement anyways. ETA: And it's very unlikely you'd be treating a carbine as a SAW anyways. Does anybody even know what round count an M4A1 barrel will burst at? |
|
|
|
Posted: 12/17/2017 3:04:31 PM EDT
[#23]
Quote HistoryQuoted:
... Yeah. Am I missing something? How does that effect what I said about it being better for the gas tube to fail first? I'm advocating for a heavier barrel, and the same gas tube. I believe this to be safer than other available configurations. Quote HistoryQuoted:
Quoted:
The M4 barrel ruptured because the thin/pencil profile before the gas block wasn't designed to handle sustained automatic fire. How does that effect what I said about it being better for the gas tube to fail first? I'm advocating for a heavier barrel, and the same gas tube. I believe this to be safer than other available configurations. I guess that depends who and what else is still left around yoh in that situation. But id rather my weapon could handle more rounds before catastrophic failure than a safety blanket of blowing a gas tube instead of a barrel. Especially if its something as simple as an inconel gas tube, who's only real con is the barrel may go before it. |
|
|
|
Posted: 12/17/2017 3:05:56 PM EDT
[#24]
Quote HistoryQuoted: Because we do stupid things. Government profile is retarded. M4A1 is less retarded. But still too heavy for what it is. a lot of folks in the wanat AAR wanted to blame weapons instead of their own incompetence for failures and those lies prompted us to look for solutions to problems that weren't real. It wasn't burst M4 barrels that prompted the switch A few authors have mentioned that. I may be out of my element here, and I trust your experience and such, but that's what I've read/heard from a guy who worked for Colt. |
|
|
|
Posted: 12/17/2017 3:07:18 PM EDT
[#25]
Quote HistoryQuoted: Its definitely safer for the gas tube to go first, but since we are talking in extremes, another thing to consider is a situation like the Ranch House incident. Is it safer to blow your gas tube and not take barrel shrapnel to the face, or to be able to put an extra who knows how many rounds downrange while you're getting overtaken, until the barrel goes? I guess that depends who and what else is still left around yoh in that situation. But id rather my weapon could handle more rounds before catastrophic failure than a safety blanket of blowing a gas tube instead of a barrel. Especially if its something as simple as an inconel gas tube, who's only real con is the barrel may go before it. Popped barrel results in possible operator injury, and no gun at all. But you're right; we're talking in extremes. |
|
|
|
Posted: 12/17/2017 3:07:43 PM EDT
[#26]
Quote HistoryQuoted: Reducing barrel weight, but increasing gas tube strength would accomplish the exact opposite of this, as demonstrated by the video I posted. The M4A1 SOCOM profile barrel solves that issue. I do think that both a tapered barrel is a good thing. Shift that weight towards the chamber, and the throat where the largest amount of heat build up is. (For the record, I like tapered bores too, and I think that CHF helps with the problem of gas port erosion.) With regard to heat sinks, the Geissele rail and barrel nut seem to do that well. |
|
|
|
Posted: 12/17/2017 3:09:18 PM EDT
[#27]
Quote HistoryQuoted:
Right, but I think the current barrel would keep going for quite awhile if the current gas tube hadn't popped. IE, it's heavier than needed now. Realistically, the gas tube is probably fine, but it might turn out differently with drums. Nitride solves the corrosion issue that happens with traditional gas tubes from being ran red hot. The SS looses quite a bit of it's corrosion resistance after a beta mag. I believe you, but I would like to see some specifics if that information is available. |
|
|
|
Posted: 12/17/2017 3:10:13 PM EDT
[#28]
Quote HistoryQuoted: According to Chris Bartocci, SOCOM moved to the M4A1 profile because their abusive firing schedule was popping barrels. I don't know if that was full auto or what. A few authors have mentioned that. I may be out of my element here, and I trust your experience and such, but that's what I've read/heard from a guy who worked for Colt. I ain't cool enough to shoot 2K rounds a day or whatever their schedules are. |
|
|
|
Posted: 12/17/2017 3:11:23 PM EDT
[#29]
Quote HistoryQuoted: I am not SOCOM so they may have been busting barrels, but if they were, it was just over shooting during training. IN poguey mcpogueland it wasn't. I ain't cool enough to shoot 2K rounds a day or whatever their schedules are. Suppose we're talking about a DI IAR. |
|
|
|
Posted: 12/17/2017 3:12:14 PM EDT
[#30]
Quote HistoryQuoted: That's interesting. I was unaware of the rust issue, but that makes sense. Do you have any pictures or data on that or anything? I believe you, but I would like to see some specifics if that information is available.
|
|
|
|
Posted: 12/17/2017 3:12:39 PM EDT
[#31]
Quote HistoryQuoted:
*click* Quote HistoryQuoted:
Quoted:
Quoted:
Quoted:
Quoted:
I'm pretty sure I've mentioned it. The G3 is still superior though. And also: G3>FAL>M14
Fact  |
|
|
|
Posted: 12/17/2017 3:14:03 PM EDT
[#32]
Quote HistoryQuoted: According to Chris Bartocci, SOCOM moved to the M4A1 profile because their abusive firing schedule was popping barrels. I don't know if that was full auto or what. A few authors have mentioned that. I may be out of my element here, and I trust your experience and such, but that's what I've read/heard from a guy who worked for Colt. I know SF is smart, they treat their carbines and rifles like they were intended to use. They very rarely train with FA. So I'm guessing the dumbass SEALs is at fault, but that's a guess. It's why SOCOM got that stupid FN SCAR. But yeah, you are correct with the source. |
|
|
|
Posted: 12/17/2017 3:15:32 PM EDT
[#33]
Quote HistoryQuoted:
Just a personal experience V7 makes one that's commercially available. |
|
|
|
Posted: 12/17/2017 3:15:40 PM EDT
[#34]
Quote HistoryQuoted:
The FAL has better erg and a smoother recoil impulse. I am not a fan of shorter than 18 inch in a 7.62 NATO. Quote HistoryQuoted:
Quoted:
I’ve never tried any of the short barrelled FALs. I’m thinking a 16” barrel would be tits. The G3 is still superior though. |
|
|
|
Posted: 12/17/2017 3:16:31 PM EDT
[#35]
 Failed To Load Title This is my source for the SOCOM issues, in case anybody is curious. |
|
|
|
Posted: 12/17/2017 3:18:26 PM EDT
[#36]
Quote HistoryQuoted:
Elements of SOCOM were going far beyond the design parameters. And then said the gun sucked, while conventional forces had zero issues. One of those rare cases where Big Army outsmarted their SOCOM counter parts. I know SF is smart, they treat their carbines and rifles like they were intended to use. They very rarely train with FA. So I'm guessing the dumbass SEALs is at fault, but that's a guess. It's why SOCOM got that stupid FN SCAR. But yeah, you are correct with the source. |
|
|
|
Posted: 12/17/2017 3:18:55 PM EDT
[#37]
Quote HistoryQuoted:
Elements of SOCOM were going far beyond the design parameters. And then said the gun sucked, while conventional forces had zero issues. One of those rare cases where Big Army outsmarted their SOCOM counter parts. I know SF is smart, they treat their carbines and rifles like they were intended to use. They very rarely train with FA. So I'm guessing the dumbass SEALs is at fault, but that's a guess. It's why SOCOM got that stupid FN SCAR. But yeah, you are correct with the source. But the context of this discussion is the IAR, which DOES involve using the M4 platform like a machine gun, which makes this relevant for big Army. A poster before mentioned what they'd view as the ideal IAR, which omits the external piston and uses DI. He mentioned a stronger gas tube, and I disagree(d) with that. |
|
|
|
Posted: 12/17/2017 3:19:05 PM EDT
[#38]
Quote HistoryQuoted:
Recoil is good, it makes you strong like a proper Teutonic übermensch. Quote HistoryQuoted:
Quoted:
Quoted:
I’ve never tried any of the short barrelled FALs. I’m thinking a 16” barrel would be tits. The G3 is still superior though. |
|
|
|
Posted: 12/17/2017 3:23:04 PM EDT
[#39]
Quote HistoryQuoted:
But in the IAR context, wouldn't this issue be introduced to regular infantry guys? Suppose we're talking about a DI IAR. Quote HistoryQuoted:
Quoted: I am not SOCOM so they may have been busting barrels, but if they were, it was just over shooting during training. IN poguey mcpogueland it wasn't. I ain't cool enough to shoot 2K rounds a day or whatever their schedules are. Suppose we're talking about a DI IAR. |
|
|
|
Posted: 12/17/2017 3:25:27 PM EDT
[#40]
Quote HistoryI use Spikes melonited tubes on all my pseudo auto uppers now. I had corrosion issues on a regular tube after doing a beta dump on a friends M16 lower. Since then I pretty much use melonited tubes all the time.
|
|
|
|
Posted: 12/17/2017 3:29:27 PM EDT
[#41]
Quote HistoryQuoted: Yes, but why have everyone have an IAR capable barrel when the majority of the people aren't ARs? |
|
|
|
Posted: 12/17/2017 3:35:38 PM EDT
[#42]
Quote HistoryQuote HistoryQuoted:
Quoted:
Just a personal experience V7 makes one that's commercially available. Let's say the standard gas tube was designed to fail just before the barrel. This would be on the original M16 and M16A1, right? What about on the M16A2, M16A3, M16A4, 607, XM177, XM177E1, XM177E2, 653, 723, 727, 733, M4, M4A1, CQBR, etc.? These barrels have the exact same design of gas tube yet have different barrel profiles, lengths, gas port diameters, and gas port lengths. It surely isn't optimal for all of those, right? |
|
|
|
Posted: 12/17/2017 3:37:23 PM EDT
[#43]
Quote HistoryQuoted: That's what I use. Let's say the standard gas tube was designed to fail just before the barrel. This would be on the original M16 and M16A1, right? What about on the M16A2, M16A3, M16A4, 607, XM177, XM177E1, XM177E2, 653, 723, 727, 733, M4, M4A1, CQBR, etc.? These barrels have the exact same design of gas tube yet have different barrel profiles, lengths, gas port diameters, and gas port lengths. It surely isn't optimal for all of those, right? I'm mostly arguing for the principle of the gas tube being a safety device. |
|
|
|
Posted: 12/17/2017 3:43:54 PM EDT
[#44]
I'd really like to see apples to apples comparisons between different barrel profiles. All the same barrel material, barrel length, and gas port length, same manufacturer, and chrome lined (preferably FN CHF barrels). All the same upper, BCG, gas tube, and rail.
Something like 30 round mag full auto, 10 seconds to change mag, repeat until failure. After that, I'd redo it with an Inconel gas tube. I don't have a full auto lower and can't afford to do this testing myself, but am willing to donate to the cause. |
|
|
|
Posted: 12/17/2017 3:54:13 PM EDT
[#45]
Quote HistoryQuoted:
Because we do stupid things. Government profile is retarded. M4A1 is less retarded. But still too heavy for what it is. a lot of folks in the wanat AAR wanted to blame weapons instead of their own incompetence for failures and those lies prompted us to look for solutions to problems that weren't real. It wasn't burst M4 barrels that prompted the switch Quote HistoryQuoted:
Quoted: Then why did SOCOM move to the M4A1 barrel if the M4 barrels weren't bursting? It wasn't burst M4 barrels that prompted the switch We talked about Wanat and location of the OP was the major problem. He was the only guy I ever knew who got a LOR and a Silver Star. He beat the LOR |
|
|
|
Posted: 12/17/2017 4:59:18 PM EDT
[#46]
Quote HistoryQuoted: I don't think the M27 will ever be in service to all. POGs don't count... erbody know dat |
|
|
|
Posted: 12/17/2017 6:26:46 PM EDT
[#47]
Quote HistoryQuoted:
I'm not sold on the Surefire/Armwest solution as opposed to the LMT solution. Theirs has more components, proprietary components, and doesn't modify unlocking at all from what I've seen. They also didn't do anything about the bolt either. I'd rather see the LMT solution. Quote HistoryQuoted:
Quoted:
Something missing from the IAR discussion, is whether the M27 is actually good as a full auto weapon. From the Marine's own video with Gunner Wade, at 80m off the bipod, the M27 is shooting off target by the 3rd round: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=18kXkuoA014 This is not exactly inspiring performance, especially when you compare it to a dedicated IAR like the Ultimax 100 and it's constant recoil system: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=R1zQuWpsYZY Ideally, we should upgrade the M4A1's to M4A3 (the URG-1 improvements + the Armwest/Surefire developed reduced rate of fire bolt design to drop ROF to 600rpm) and then issue either the KAC LMG or Ultimax 100 to replace the M249. I'd rather see the LMT solution. The SF bolt drops ROF from 850rpm to 580rpm - below the 600rpm found in the French study to offer optimal controllability - as well as greatly improving firing time in full auto for a given mag capacity. In the Marine's study, full auto has a 50% improvement in hit rate against moving targets vs semi auto - which is why full auto optimization is important: "Well, about a year ago, the United States Marine Corps (USMC) gunner community approached Bill Geissele about a selector switch issue they were having on their guns (M4 Carbines). Basically, they’ve been getting a 40% hit rate in the semi-auto-fire mode on moving targets exposed for 2.2 seconds while moving at 10 mph at a distance of 50-150 yards, and it was taking too long to flip the happy switch over to full-auto, where they can get 60% hits, which is a whopping 50% improvement." http://www.defensereview.com/geissele-automatics-high-speed-selector-drop-in-spring-loaded-45-degree-instant-onoff-ambi-ambidextrous-full-auto-ar-selector-switch-and-super-select-fire-ssf-full-auto-trigger-kit-for-more-hits/ |
|
|
|
Posted: 12/17/2017 6:30:26 PM EDT
[#48]
You really want 500RPM for an assault MG. That is the sweat spot, IMO.
|
|
|
|
Posted: 12/17/2017 6:40:42 PM EDT
[#49]
Quote HistoryQuoted: The LMT is a superb bolt, but it does not reduce the rate of fire, which is of central importance. The SF bolt drops ROF from 850rpm to 580rpm - below the 600rpm found in the French study to offer optimal controllability - as well as greatly improving firing time in full auto for a given mag capacity. In the Marine's study, full auto has a 50% improvement in hit rate against moving targets vs semi auto - which is why full auto optimization is important: "Well, about a year ago, the United States Marine Corps (USMC) gunner community approached Bill Geissele about a selector switch issue they were having on their guns (M4 Carbines). Basically, they’ve been getting a 40% hit rate in the semi-auto-fire mode on moving targets exposed for 2.2 seconds while moving at 10 mph at a distance of 50-150 yards, and it was taking too long to flip the happy switch over to full-auto, where they can get 60% hits, which is a whopping 50% improvement." http://www.defensereview.com/geissele-automatics-high-speed-selector-drop-in-spring-loaded-45-degree-instant-onoff-ambi-ambidextrous-full-auto-ar-selector-switch-and-super-select-fire-ssf-full-auto-trigger-kit-for-more-hits/ The longer cam track, and better gas venting absolutely has an effect on cyclic rate. I'm not talking about controllability on full auto. I'm talking about durability, and reliability, primarily. |
|
|
|
Posted: 12/17/2017 7:08:58 PM EDT
[#50]
Quote HistoryQuoted:
MAJ Myers was my neighbor and boss. We talked about Wanat and location of the OP was the major problem. He was the only guy I ever knew who got a LOR and a Silver Star. He beat the LOR LP/OP is 2-3 men and designed to die to save the main body. He wanted his LP/OP to be able to survive. All he did was get more men killed. Compassion in lieu of tactical soundness. Of course, the whole concept of the tethered goat COPs in the middle of a fucking valley is its own problem. When you have to earn a SS to unfuck the tactical situation you find yourself in, thats a problem. You don't get a medal when everything goes right anymore. The more you fail, the more heroism you have to exhibit to get yourself out of the situation you find yourself in. |
|
|
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.
