Armory Sponsor
Posted: 6/29/2005 3:57:54 AM EDT
| Bet ya didn't know they made 'em! Well, they did and they were in the new G6A2 (current) design. they were manufactured for a friendly foreign power, along with a number for the HK G-3. I had to order some M240B Vortexes a little while ago and casually asked about Vortexes for other than US weapons and I was amazed to hear they actually had a few of for the metric FALS. I called back two days ago to order two of these for myself and they had ten left! Yikes. Just in time. Ron told me there would be no more unless there were foreign orders. Anyway, thought you all might want to know. |
They were going for like $70 correct? Why would I spend that when the Stoll flashider for $7 actually works better. Any comparison I have seen between a vortex and a mil spec flash hider, the mil spec flash hider always seem to hide more flash than the vortex. Now, if a Phantom were made for the FAL, I would be excited.
|
| Stoll works better than the Vortex? Really. the Stoll used short. straight flutes, which were abandoned in favor of the much improved and patented helical tines several years ago. BTW, the military units that ordered the Vortex had both Stolls and Belgie shorties. The OEM military units of any type do not obviate muzzle flash anywhere near as well as the Vortex models. Why do you think it's now being produced in volume for US military units and on the retail level, Brownell's keeps on ordering more? In short order the Vortex will be standard on a number of other US weapons. The testing at Bragg, APG and other locations is well along. Expect to see it shortly on all MK46/M249s, MK48/M240Bs and all upgraded M2HBs. Why do you think I have them on all our unit's M240's? It is now standard issue on the Canadian C6 and C-8. It is standard issue with DOE and DOI. The Phantom? Where does that sit with the Armed Forces. It doesn't. |
| I'm partial to the Hurricane. www.falfiles.com/forums/showthread.php?s=&threadid=142659 |
Good lord man, find yourself a little puntang and it's going to be allright 
|
============================ Not exactly the kind of response I would expect from anyone having with credibility in either (1) weapons development or (2) defense acquisition. Regardless, my suggestion would be that you check your basic load before entering combat. The facts regarding the market petetration and success of the Vortex in the defense arena speak for themselves. (SEE ABOVE) In a related sense, this is but one (more) reason why I generally prefer government and military only discussion boards that preclude such infantile replies. However, once in a while this forum has a thread worthy of note...but only once in a while. Moderator, take note. |
Note taken. It is unfortunate that we have failed you somehow. Most visitors to this board quickly learn that a little good-natured ribbing is far from unusual. The "smiley" at the end of the post to which you refer connotes just that: a little friendly jab. As far as the Vortex goes, I've used them (own several), as well as Phantoms and other FS units, depending on the make of the rifle. I even bought a Vortex for one of my Garands. Not made for some time, so you can see I go back a bit. FYI, we have had numerous pix of Vortex FS units vs. many others, including OEM and after-market units. I think it is safe to say that while the Vortex usually does the best flash suppression job, that is not always the case, depending on the application. Regardless of which FS happens to be best, the difference between best and second-best is usually minimal. FYI, the latest series of pix featured an M1A. Interestingly enough, the OEM FS unit was slightly superior to the Vortex. Just for laughs, read the book entitled "Misfire" by William H. Hallman for a look at the military small-arms procurement system. Believe it or not, the military does not get it right every time. |
|
Notes taken. I've read Misfire several times. I've worked in the defense acquisition arena for decades. As to the relative differences in FS effectiveness being marginal, I will vigorously refute that point. What is tested by civilians invariably lacks the military perspective. In other words, when a given FS is tested by say, "Guns & Ammo", SOF or SGN or for that matter, some guy on this board, that test regime pales in comparison to military testing, such as that now underway at APG, Fort Bragg and Crane-NSWC. In this particular round of testing at APG for example, the Vortex for the M4/16/SCAR and M249/Para/Monobloc has utterly eclipsed anything else on the planet -- period. Military test parameters cover requirements not rgenerally relevant to civilian consumers. Specifically, battlefield detectability both acoustically, visual spectrum, near and far IR,...at all battlefield ranges are typical states of nature that factor into the overall data collected. Then there are the durability/sustainability issues. Same goes for environmental considerations. For example bet you didn't know that the muzzle blast from a 5.56mm weapon equipped with a G6A2 is three times less likely to be detected and pinpointed at ranges of 1000-1500 meters than the nearest competitor. Bet you also didn't know that the Vortex was the only muzzle device on the M249 to actually enhance accuracy. My best guess is that this empirical data will be releasable under FOIA by the end of the year. BTW, the miltary does get things right in the acquistiion arena -- on balance. The burgeoning adoption of the latest Vortex domestically and in foreign military units is evidence of that fact. |
I'm not going to combat anytime aoon, and either are you, admit it. If I were going to combat it wouldn't be with a FAL sporting a Vortex flash hider, it would be with an M16A2. I just watched a very interesting special on Ghengis Kahn, arguably one of the most prolific tactioners in the history of warfare. Ghengis didn't have a Vortex. PS, I shoot at a local indoor range with the lights completely off at times, pitch black. With an M4 carbine and a Phantom, there is no flash signature. Lighten up Frances. |
|
And for the record....just which foreign entity that has that kind of money to spend, spends it on a flash hider for a 50 year old weapon? If this un-named foreign entity were so financially suited, and was operating in a theater that required such discreet work, would they not uprgade to an M16 platform? Here's another wink for ya....I bet ya someone over at DSA and someone over at the Navy know more about this
|
|
A middle eastern country, actually has late model Para Imbels for their border command. No, not "discrete work" - very visible work, actually. You guys read too much SOF. And no, they have absolutely no interest in the anemic M16 and are quite happy with the proven FAL. Funny you mention the Navy knowing more about this subject. You have no idea how correct you are! Guess who uses the Vortex: the USN on the MK14 Mod O and soon on the MK46 LMG, MK48 LW GPMG and MK13 Md 1 sniper rifle. Truly informed and connected people here. Then there's 2ID, and certain SMU's. When TACOM/ARDEC's testing is complete, let's revisit this subject, okay? Oh, and by the way, I was on the DMZ in Korea -- in uniform two weeks ago, if you really want to know. In Iraq last year as well. Not exactly your (one way) indoor range, Frances. Outta here. |
I, as well as the shareholders of Smith enterprises, the company which makes the Vortex, look forward to receiving the results of such rigorous testing. Not having the funds and expertise of the military, we here must muddle through as best we can. It will be interesting to see if the end results obtained by military testing differ, and to what degree, from the comparitively informal testing posted here.
As said above, I eagerly anticipate the publishing of the results of such rigorous testing. Now, if you could tell me how such rigorous testing caused the adoption of the M-14 over the FAL, or for that matter, the adoption of the M-16, I would be obliged. 
|
Give 'em hell mach6! The stolle is no match for the vortex. I actually posted about this three months ago. www.jobrelatedstuff.com/forums/topic.html?b=6&f=7&t=182071 I have an FAL with the Vortex suppressor (bought it three months ago)--it increases accuracy--suppresses flash better than ANY suppressor. It cuts done on noise too? Damn that's great! |
============== Thunderstick, Congrats on getting one of those FAL Vortexes. My guess is that they're all gone by now. Ron is certainly busy cranking them out for the US issue weapons along with his "Crazy Horse" SASS. For civilians, these FAL units were rare birds in any event and the total FMS run was less than a thousand,...IIRC. I'm looking forward to a build with one when I get back home. You're quite correct on the Stolle v. Vortex. Staight tines were abandoned as obsolete by SEI quite a while back. They were still a marked improvement over any closed end units. Yes, accuracy does improve on many weapons equipped with the Vortex, but SEI does not guarantee that. For example, I have a new ARSR-700 Vortex (aka R-700) on my fairly radical SSG PII (don't ask what goat rope I had to go through to get the barrel threaded on that particular design). Accuracy shrank by a mean of .15". It will soon have the SEI M14DC can. However, I've got a bud with an ARSR-700 Vortex fitted on to his tricked out Rem 40X. German smith of very high reknown did the work. We played with both rifles out at Hohenfels a few months ago and in his case there was no difference. Go figure. However, the military typically gets phenomenal -- and to date not totally explainable accuracy increases with the Vortex on the M249 but on the M16 only marginal if any increase. The single-point machining of the device on a CNC lath ensures concentricity of the threads in relation to the bore. Also, there are aspects of the heat treatment relative to the machining which facilitate the employment of the SEI suppressor. In sum, tolerances are held to .001-.002....something required for any truly effective suppressor interface. Then there is the issue of QA/QC....which is draconian at SEI, to say the least. DCMA can be very demanding, believe me. In fact, of every 100 Vortexes produced, five of these 8620 steel units (no cheap material by any means!) are cut and analysed for core and surface hardness, case depth, heat treatment and other properties. Heat certs naturally accompany all lots -- civilian or Military/LE/FMS. This is what you pay for and what the units above and mine have demanded. But for those casual, recreational shooters, just go ahead and get whatever floats your boat. SEI's business model is increasingly oriented towards the defense sector -- and to that I say, "Amen!" Frankly, that will make it a lot easier for us who actually need these items to get them on our IMPAC cards and with P2/Mission funds. We can't wait until Picantinny gets off their lard A$$ and finally makes their down select. Oh, and as to the noise differential, the perceived noise to the shooter does go down. ARL proved that a few years ago with their earlier G4 and G5 versions. Also, there is no sound (dB) attenuation, per se. However, the frequencies at the muzzle become higher (obviously depending on bbl length, caliber, propellant, climatology, etc.). This is where the "quieter" observations come into play. As a result, the Vortex equipped weapon is both visually and acoustically more difficult to detect, much less pinpoint pinpoint at extended battlefield ranges. For all these stated reasons, the testing results on their forthcoming M2HB QC Vortex should be quite intriguing. |
Firstly, I have about had it with your insults. You have zero idea who I am and where I have been. Secondly, please do tell which mid-east country has Imbel Paras for their border patrol. I'd very much like to know which country in the middle east that is actually allowed to purchase NATO calibered weapons chooses the Imbel Para? As far as I know, Libya and Israel are the only formally FAL adopted countries, perhaps you know more. Furtermore, why would one choose to chop the muzzle velocity of 7.62 x 51 if they were so absolutely concerned with the knock down power of .308? Wouldn't they use a 21" barrel? On top of that, if the work they do is so discreet, why would they need such a tecnologically amazing flash hider? The M16 is anemic huh? I don't think you are anyone that has any level of credibility or actual clearance. From the places I HAVE BEEN IN REALITY it is clear to me you are an angry individual whom would most likely not receive the clearance neccessary to obtain any information of validity. I don't think you'd pass a municipal LEO psych test to be honest. And actually, I could profile you to the letter, but I only beilieve that will make you even more aggitated, causing you to run your yap more. Those whom dub the M16 "anemic" and those whom still, after all these years question the lethality of the 5.56mm round...highlight the fact that they have never killed anything with it. You must have been sleeping in Iraq. The M16 is far from anemic. I love my FALs and always will. HOWEVER if you feel SS109 through a 1/7 barrel is "anemic" you have just blown any amount of weapons credibility you claim to have. You play with FALs and Vortex flash hiders, but IMHO, putting a SE Vortex on a FAL is like wearing designer jeans because they are more expensive. Now...seriously....like I said before, get yourself a woman and you will feel much, much better. Just out of curiosity...who were you with in Korea on the DMZ and/or Iraq? Just like to know. Carry on. |
|
Now, if you could tell me how such rigorous testing caused the adoption of the M-14 over the FAL, or for that matter, the adoption of the M-16, I would be obliged. Adopting the M14 must have been done by idiots like us. I can only assume the M16 was adopted by Humanitarians that were seeking an anemic non-lethal round. I respect you Raf, always have but I understand you PT me until I puke for my last un-constuctive post, before this one. Happy we kicked the Brits asses day!!! I'd invite Argentina over for a barbeque....but....um.....nevermind 
|
|
Patriot73, I have to establish my bona fides with you? I don't have to justify anything. That's a pointless exercise on the net in any case. I gave you enough details on who is using and now testing the Vortex, period. Yeah, an ME country has the Para model, actually brand-spankin' new ones. Made a few years ago and unissued. Odd rear sights on them, too -- not your normal para sight and not the Holland sight (I digress) Anyway, this is called trade offset and it's part of a much larger FMS deal, if you really must know. Any more details are not happening as they are looking to increase the offset. Sorry, DSA, you're out of this one. And the Navy (i.e. Crane) ...they're not involved...this was/is an Army/State-sponsored program. Who was I stationed with -- as if that matters? Korea: 8th Army & 2ID. Iraq: 3ID. That's all you get. And frankly, where you've been matters not in the least to me, espcially in this forum. the M16-series is anemic and more to the point, 5.56mm NATO ammo as currently configured is absolutely the problem...with the current threat! I've seen too many take a less than CNS hit and keep coming at you over there. SS109 was designed for the Cold War thread with soft body armor. Skinny guys in t-shirts are simply not being stopped by this round quickly enough. In fairness, change the ammo characteristcs and that will help. I'll grant you that. the MK262/264 have helped in that regard...somewhat. Why do think the 6.8mm SPC is slowly making inroads through USASOC and USSOCOM...despite logjams from Picatinny and from certain toads-in-the-road within the Commands themselves? M14 adoption over the FAL...who cares in 2005? And as for the M-14, why do you think Commanders everywhere are scrambling to acquire them from RIA and get upgrades as they can afford them? If you're trying to draw a correlation over defense acquisition policy in 1953 and 2005 to use any tenous threads to question any and all acquisition decisions today, that's specious and sophomoric at best. I could quote paragraph and verse in the DFARS to prove otherwise. Major implementing DOD regulation changes, and legislation in 1966, 1968, 1973, 1988 and 1999 also limit such actions in the future. Angry? Not hardly, just amazed at the ignorance and slightly amused. Your ad hominum attacks speak volumes. Responses here are actually too humorous not share with my other acquisition buds. The test and acquisition data stands on it's it's own merits and the decisions have been made. Oh and "access"...now that's funny! Oh, and on those test results, do your FOIA search after the new FY and you'll get whatever you want. Or better yet, just keep an eye on FBO. I'm wasting my time here...truly, this thread has devolved into something pathetic. Off for the weekend and a little TDY. Gotta see how bubbafried this thread really gets in a few days. Later. Ya'll have a great Fourth of July weekend! |
This accords with my information as well.
I mention this as a past instance of a less-than-ideal acquisition regime back than. I suspect that human nature being what it is, the current regime has a few quirks also. You have our past President, Bill Clinton to thank for giving away/destroying millions of M-14s. Perhaps the scramble would not be quite so hard if he had not done so.
I'm certain that the process has been refined over the years. But as I said above, I rather doubt that it has become perfect. If that were so, then you would not be railing about Picatinny and various other "toads in the road". My point is not to argue with you simply for its own sake. I'm just a wee bit more skeptical of the system than you appear to be.
I want any and all personal attacks to stop now. |
| RAF -- Glad to see the silliness has stopped. Thanks. As to objectivity in the acquisition process, without belaboring the point or getting too far Off Topic, I am actually quite objective about the system by and large. Remember, I said the cited changes to the DFARs, and in Congressional legislation had limited -- not prevented meddling and incompetance. "Perfection" in any complex human endeavour -- especially one as complex as defense acquisition, force modernization or force development is simply not attainable. Thus, problems still abound and in today's world, the biggest problems in the acquisition arena are largely political -- both in service, intraservice and with members of Congress. That, unfortunately, will never change. The in-service proponent (i.e. PM, PEO, et al) incompetancies and blatant political abuses are thankfully kept to a minimum. The advent of the Office of the Program Ombudsman at each PM shop and overall transparency during the RDT&E cycle are the key factors contributing to this blessed relief. |
================= Thanks, guys like you make this site enjoyable. And FWIW, acquisition weenies like me, as well as Commanders and Force Developers/Force Modernizers (and let's not forget our industry partners) haunt this site often to get great insight from the civilian sector. The civilian consumer often has a most refreshing perspective that we take into strong consideration. Keep it up! Mach 6 |
Armory Sponsor