AR Sponsor
Posted: 2/25/2016 11:16:33 PM EDT
|
So the M16A2E1 is coming along nicely, and I am starting to move forward on the Colt A.C.R as well. The A2E1 will be arriving as soon as we get some issues straightened out with the post office, and I'll try to grab some pictures.
Beyond that, I'm drafting up a list of the multitude of project pieces needed to do a true ACR. So far, I have the stock and receiver extension locked in, and may be able to find grip and maybe handguards. This leaves the upper, barrel, hydraulic buffer, selector, and the front sight. First, any help with tracking down pieces would be appreciated. Second, does anyone have any photos of the ACR hydraulic buffer? I'm not sure if it's similar to the LMG buffer or it's own unique design. I'll try to post pictures as the projects progress. In all honesty, I have a LOT of photos I have to post....LOL....since I'm going to be finishing up most of the 602 as well. Third, what was the approximate production numbers of the ACR? I know it was at least 20, but cannot find any detailed info regarding these statistics. v/r, Jon |
|
So the updates I got from a collector friend advised that the hydraulic buffers were indeed the same for the LMG and ACR projects, which is great. That'll be one more piece down on arguably the most insane project that I have ever tried to do.....lol. Remaining questions stand.
v/r, Jon |
|
Great video, thx for sharing Never realized how little it moved when fired. Interesting to see the smoke come out the bbl just forward of the FSB. Makes me wish I picked up a demil kit in the late 90's :( |
|
Quoted:
Great video, thx for sharing Never realized how little it moved when fired. Interesting to see the smoke come out the bbl just forward of the FSB. Makes me wish I picked up a demil kit in the late 90's :( Quoted:
Great video, thx for sharing Never realized how little it moved when fired. Interesting to see the smoke come out the bbl just forward of the FSB. Makes me wish I picked up a demil kit in the late 90's :( This. I'm also interested in how that duplex ammo performed. |
| I recall that the bottom line was that none of the ACR's tested achieved a better hit probability in the hands of a Soldier than a standard M16 rifle. This "failure" led to their quest for "bursting munitions" fired by individual Soldiers to make up for "aiming errors." |
|
Quoted:
This. I'm also interested in how that duplex ammo performed. Quoted:
This. I'm also interested in how that duplex ammo performed. The duplex ammo increased the hit probability, but DRAMATICALLY decreased accuracy beyond around 200-250 meters. As such, the documentation I've found so far through the books and videos and talks with folks said that the ACR would have required to have been issued with both M855 ball ammo *AND* the duplex ammo due to this failure. Essentially, with the use of the A2 ammo, then you are buying a really fancy M16A2 that does not significantly improve performance beyond the existing capacities. Quoted:
I recall that the bottom line was that none of the ACR's tested achieved a better hit probability in the hands of a Soldier than a standard M16 rifle. This "failure" led to their quest for "bursting munitions" fired by individual Soldiers to make up for "aiming errors." Correct. The other thing is that they found that the 3rd burst did not have any significant benefit, and thus the ACR actually was returned to a Safe-Semi-Auto fire control group. Funny how we keep going back and forth on these things isn't it? LOL. v/r, Jon |
| Yea, funny. One would think a 3-round burst firing 6 actual projectiles would possess some element of hit probability if the sights were actually aligned to the target at the moment of firing...so I am guessing the test Soldiers were simply poorly trained and the testing managed haphazardly.... |
|
Quoted:
Yea, funny. One would think a 3-round burst firing 6 actual projectiles would possess some element of hit probability if the sights were actually aligned to the target at the moment of firing...so I am guessing the test Soldiers were simply poorly trained and the testing managed haphazardly.... My only guess (aside from the poor training) is that perhaps the decreased powder load/increased mass of the two bullets decreased the muzzle velocity and increased the spread based on interference from outside sources such as the wind and drop, since these effects weren't noticed as heavily within that 200-250 meter range. Colt also said it was likely the result of poor training.....but these are the only things. I've never seen something identifying exiting muzzle velocities, but I would imagine it to be substantially lower owing to the second bullet. v/r, Jon |
|
Quoted:
My only guess (aside from the poor training) is that perhaps the decreased powder load/increased mass of the two bullets decreased the muzzle velocity and increased the spread based on interference from outside sources such as the wind and drop, since these effects weren't noticed as heavily within that 200-250 meter range. Colt also said it was likely the result of poor training.....but these are the only things. I've never seen something identifying exiting muzzle velocities, but I would imagine it to be substantially lower owing to the second bullet. v/r, Jon Quoted:
Quoted:
Yea, funny. One would think a 3-round burst firing 6 actual projectiles would possess some element of hit probability if the sights were actually aligned to the target at the moment of firing...so I am guessing the test Soldiers were simply poorly trained and the testing managed haphazardly.... My only guess (aside from the poor training) is that perhaps the decreased powder load/increased mass of the two bullets decreased the muzzle velocity and increased the spread based on interference from outside sources such as the wind and drop, since these effects weren't noticed as heavily within that 200-250 meter range. Colt also said it was likely the result of poor training.....but these are the only things. I've never seen something identifying exiting muzzle velocities, but I would imagine it to be substantially lower owing to the second bullet. v/r, Jon You very well may be right, less powder, twice (assuming 55gr X 2) bullets = short range only. I would have loved to see them look into a Sabot type load. Hyper fast titanium bullets perhaps? |
|
Quoted:
You very well may be right, less powder, twice (assuming 55gr X 2) bullets = short range only. I would have loved to see them look into a Sabot type load. Hyper fast titanium bullets perhaps? There were 2 or 3 times that the rounds were looked into. There was a flechette/sabot round looked into in the 1960s, and I think the designator that was considered later was the XM110 Flechette round. These were considered at the same time as the SPIW project. The ACR featured several different types of test rounds, but the final round had a 35 grain (front) and 33 grain (rear) projectile set. Exiting muzzle velocity was actually at 2900 fps, but I cannot find out exactly what the rear velocity was, since it will never be the exact same.... Had to do a bit of googling to find out on the ACR projectiles....I know from the 7.62 duplex tests there was an 800 FPS drop at the exiting muzzle velocity and the spread at 200yds was 5-10 inches with the 7.62 variant.... v/r, Jon |
AR Sponsor