|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
 Posted: Fri Jan 14, 2011 3:23 pm
 |
|
|
 |
Recon_Ninja_985 Valkyrie Hatter Pripyat Dawn Valkyrie Hatter I'm giving H&K credit for going "Hey you know what? We can put a short stroke in an AR" The design of short stroke I give credit to David Marshall Williams since it is in fact his patent. Speaking of which you speak of absolute reliability when we use M4s and M16s that rely on a primitive gas system that shortens their overall lifespan compared to weapons that use short or long stroke gas systems. Except that Eugene Stoner did even that before they did. The G36 is a gussied up version of the AR-18, which is a short-stroke and simplified version. So the HK416 is a retrofit of a Eugene Stoner design onto another Eugene Stoner design, with the HK name stamped onto the side of it, with an appropriate price markup while they screamed that they were the first to ever do it. Primitive? Direct impingement is the most modern of all gas systems, one which couldn't happen at all if we still used corrosive ammunition, which only really stopped, in the US, around WW2. I'd go very far to say it's the most advanced gas system out there. Does it have it's problems? Yes, as does short-stroke. Those pistons are prone to bending, which completely ruins the firearm to a level above armory. And when the lifespan is measured in decades- I carried an M4 that had been carried in the original Desert Storm- anyway, I don't think that serves a serious problem. DI is easier to clean because it's just a simple tube. I don't recall hearing about any SKS having bent pistons or AKs for that matter. Wow an M4 living past Desert Storm...Again big whoop. Plenty of them circulated through black markets after the war. You know why an AR-15 can last just as long as an AK can? Because it's made of ********' aluminum. You know why the military doesn't convert it to belt fed and make it a SAW? Because it's made of aluminum and it's a closed bolt not to mention the DI system just transfers heat back to the aluminum reciever. You know why the Russians made the AK into a SAW? Because it's made of steel and it's a long stroke. (And they're ******** lazy and don't bother replacing or deviating from a system with a great history of being reliable and idiot proof.) Two great factors that make it far more heat resistant. Just make the stampings thicker or mill them and put on a heavy barrel and you got a SAW. ((Why doesn't half this s**t occur to me when I first start posting?)) NEIN! it's the exact opposite, much harder to clean. you rarely even need to clean the tube with DI. you just have to clean the entire gun instead when there isnt a piston to block gasses and burnt powder the bolt carrier and all the parts inside the reciever get completely blasted with EVERYTHING regarding the "Russian SAW" there is no real wrong answer. theres either the RPD, RPK47 , RPK74 or the PKM. all of them are lighter than western light support MG's RPD is probably the closest communist MG comparable to a SAW,but they stopped using them in favor of the RPK series instead (kinda like you said) except they already had them first, they just said ******** em and did what was easier to do
Because it's American?
@Pripyat: AKs and SKS managed to kill millions of Americans during Vietnam when American M16s jammed, swelled and failed to fire when going up against Victor Charlie armed with them.
Those guerillas could probably still kick our asses with such aging technology.
A belt fed AR (10 and 15) that is reliable and well designed that can be counted on to lay down sustained fire without failing because of metallurgy and a primitive gas system could replace SAWs and quite possibly MAGs(Most likely this one because a steel AR-10 would be at least a few pounds heavier.) because they're so much lighter offering the same deal as a good GPMG and SAW. |
|
|
|
|
|
 |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Posted: Fri Jan 14, 2011 4:20 pm
|
|
|
|
Valkyrie Hatter Recon_Ninja_985 Valkyrie Hatter Pripyat Dawn Valkyrie Hatter I'm giving H&K credit for going "Hey you know what? We can put a short stroke in an AR" The design of short stroke I give credit to David Marshall Williams since it is in fact his patent. Speaking of which you speak of absolute reliability when we use M4s and M16s that rely on a primitive gas system that shortens their overall lifespan compared to weapons that use short or long stroke gas systems. Except that Eugene Stoner did even that before they did. The G36 is a gussied up version of the AR-18, which is a short-stroke and simplified version. So the HK416 is a retrofit of a Eugene Stoner design onto another Eugene Stoner design, with the HK name stamped onto the side of it, with an appropriate price markup while they screamed that they were the first to ever do it. Primitive? Direct impingement is the most modern of all gas systems, one which couldn't happen at all if we still used corrosive ammunition, which only really stopped, in the US, around WW2. I'd go very far to say it's the most advanced gas system out there. Does it have it's problems? Yes, as does short-stroke. Those pistons are prone to bending, which completely ruins the firearm to a level above armory. And when the lifespan is measured in decades- I carried an M4 that had been carried in the original Desert Storm- anyway, I don't think that serves a serious problem. DI is easier to clean because it's just a simple tube. I don't recall hearing about any SKS having bent pistons or AKs for that matter. Wow an M4 living past Desert Storm...Again big whoop. Plenty of them circulated through black markets after the war. You know why an AR-15 can last just as long as an AK can? Because it's made of ********' aluminum. You know why the military doesn't convert it to belt fed and make it a SAW? Because it's made of aluminum and it's a closed bolt not to mention the DI system just transfers heat back to the aluminum reciever. You know why the Russians made the AK into a SAW? Because it's made of steel and it's a long stroke. (And they're ******** lazy and don't bother replacing or deviating from a system with a great history of being reliable and idiot proof.) Two great factors that make it far more heat resistant. Just make the stampings thicker or mill them and put on a heavy barrel and you got a SAW. ((Why doesn't half this s**t occur to me when I first start posting?)) NEIN! it's the exact opposite, much harder to clean. you rarely even need to clean the tube with DI. you just have to clean the entire gun instead when there isnt a piston to block gasses and burnt powder the bolt carrier and all the parts inside the reciever get completely blasted with EVERYTHING regarding the "Russian SAW" there is no real wrong answer. theres either the RPD, RPK47 , RPK74 or the PKM. all of them are lighter than western light support MG's RPD is probably the closest communist MG comparable to a SAW,but they stopped using them in favor of the RPK series instead (kinda like you said) except they already had them first, they just said ******** em and did what was easier to do So...Why does America continue to use M4s again? Because it's American? @Pripyat: AKs and SKS managed to kill millions of Americans during Vietnam when American M16s jammed, swelled and failed to fire when going up against Victor Charlie armed with them. Those guerillas could probably still kick our asses with such aging technology. A belt fed AR (10 and 15) that is reliable and well designed that can be counted on to lay down sustained fire without failing because of metallurgy and a primitive gas system could replace SAWs and quite possibly MAGs(Most likely this one because a steel AR-10 would be at least a few pounds heavier.) because they're so much lighter offering the same deal as a good GPMG and SAW. |
 |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Posted: Fri Jan 14, 2011 6:18 pm
|
|
|
|
Fresnel Valkyrie Hatter Recon_Ninja_985 Valkyrie Hatter Pripyat Dawn Valkyrie Hatter I'm giving H&K credit for going "Hey you know what? We can put a short stroke in an AR" The design of short stroke I give credit to David Marshall Williams since it is in fact his patent. Speaking of which you speak of absolute reliability when we use M4s and M16s that rely on a primitive gas system that shortens their overall lifespan compared to weapons that use short or long stroke gas systems. Except that Eugene Stoner did even that before they did. The G36 is a gussied up version of the AR-18, which is a short-stroke and simplified version. So the HK416 is a retrofit of a Eugene Stoner design onto another Eugene Stoner design, with the HK name stamped onto the side of it, with an appropriate price markup while they screamed that they were the first to ever do it. Primitive? Direct impingement is the most modern of all gas systems, one which couldn't happen at all if we still used corrosive ammunition, which only really stopped, in the US, around WW2. I'd go very far to say it's the most advanced gas system out there. Does it have it's problems? Yes, as does short-stroke. Those pistons are prone to bending, which completely ruins the firearm to a level above armory. And when the lifespan is measured in decades- I carried an M4 that had been carried in the original Desert Storm- anyway, I don't think that serves a serious problem. DI is easier to clean because it's just a simple tube. I don't recall hearing about any SKS having bent pistons or AKs for that matter. Wow an M4 living past Desert Storm...Again big whoop. Plenty of them circulated through black markets after the war. You know why an AR-15 can last just as long as an AK can? Because it's made of ********' aluminum. You know why the military doesn't convert it to belt fed and make it a SAW? Because it's made of aluminum and it's a closed bolt not to mention the DI system just transfers heat back to the aluminum reciever. You know why the Russians made the AK into a SAW? Because it's made of steel and it's a long stroke. (And they're ******** lazy and don't bother replacing or deviating from a system with a great history of being reliable and idiot proof.) Two great factors that make it far more heat resistant. Just make the stampings thicker or mill them and put on a heavy barrel and you got a SAW. ((Why doesn't half this s**t occur to me when I first start posting?)) NEIN! it's the exact opposite, much harder to clean. you rarely even need to clean the tube with DI. you just have to clean the entire gun instead when there isnt a piston to block gasses and burnt powder the bolt carrier and all the parts inside the reciever get completely blasted with EVERYTHING regarding the "Russian SAW" there is no real wrong answer. theres either the RPD, RPK47 , RPK74 or the PKM. all of them are lighter than western light support MG's RPD is probably the closest communist MG comparable to a SAW,but they stopped using them in favor of the RPK series instead (kinda like you said) except they already had them first, they just said ******** em and did what was easier to do So...Why does America continue to use M4s again? Because it's American? @Pripyat: AKs and SKS managed to kill millions of Americans during Vietnam when American M16s jammed, swelled and failed to fire when going up against Victor Charlie armed with them. Those guerillas could probably still kick our asses with such aging technology. A belt fed AR (10 and 15) that is reliable and well designed that can be counted on to lay down sustained fire without failing because of metallurgy and a primitive gas system could replace SAWs and quite possibly MAGs(Most likely this one because a steel AR-10 would be at least a few pounds heavier.) because they're so much lighter offering the same deal as a good GPMG and SAW. The M16 is not the same weapon it was fifty years ago. It's been FIFTY YEARS. The M16A0 was made from substandard materials, and the GIs who were issued the rifles were not issued cleaning kits, and told the rifle never needed cleaning. Why a fifty-year-old logistics ******** that was solved forty-five years ago still haunts a perfectly good rifle to this day baffles me.
anyways I havent heard of an A0 before. I know of 3 types used in 'nam which are just "M16" which had no forward assist, the XM16E1, and the M16A1 |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Posted: Fri Jan 14, 2011 6:31 pm
|
|
|
|
Valkyrie Hatter Recon_Ninja_985 Valkyrie Hatter Pripyat Dawn Valkyrie Hatter I'm giving H&K credit for going "Hey you know what? We can put a short stroke in an AR" The design of short stroke I give credit to David Marshall Williams since it is in fact his patent. Speaking of which you speak of absolute reliability when we use M4s and M16s that rely on a primitive gas system that shortens their overall lifespan compared to weapons that use short or long stroke gas systems. Except that Eugene Stoner did even that before they did. The G36 is a gussied up version of the AR-18, which is a short-stroke and simplified version. So the HK416 is a retrofit of a Eugene Stoner design onto another Eugene Stoner design, with the HK name stamped onto the side of it, with an appropriate price markup while they screamed that they were the first to ever do it. Primitive? Direct impingement is the most modern of all gas systems, one which couldn't happen at all if we still used corrosive ammunition, which only really stopped, in the US, around WW2. I'd go very far to say it's the most advanced gas system out there. Does it have it's problems? Yes, as does short-stroke. Those pistons are prone to bending, which completely ruins the firearm to a level above armory. And when the lifespan is measured in decades- I carried an M4 that had been carried in the original Desert Storm- anyway, I don't think that serves a serious problem. DI is easier to clean because it's just a simple tube. I don't recall hearing about any SKS having bent pistons or AKs for that matter. Wow an M4 living past Desert Storm...Again big whoop. Plenty of them circulated through black markets after the war. You know why an AR-15 can last just as long as an AK can? Because it's made of ********' aluminum. You know why the military doesn't convert it to belt fed and make it a SAW? Because it's made of aluminum and it's a closed bolt not to mention the DI system just transfers heat back to the aluminum reciever. You know why the Russians made the AK into a SAW? Because it's made of steel and it's a long stroke. (And they're ******** lazy and don't bother replacing or deviating from a system with a great history of being reliable and idiot proof.) Two great factors that make it far more heat resistant. Just make the stampings thicker or mill them and put on a heavy barrel and you got a SAW. ((Why doesn't half this s**t occur to me when I first start posting?)) NEIN! it's the exact opposite, much harder to clean. you rarely even need to clean the tube with DI. you just have to clean the entire gun instead when there isnt a piston to block gasses and burnt powder the bolt carrier and all the parts inside the reciever get completely blasted with EVERYTHING regarding the "Russian SAW" there is no real wrong answer. theres either the RPD, RPK47 , RPK74 or the PKM. all of them are lighter than western light support MG's RPD is probably the closest communist MG comparable to a SAW,but they stopped using them in favor of the RPK series instead (kinda like you said) except they already had them first, they just said ******** em and did what was easier to do So...Why does America continue to use M4s again? Because it's American? @Pripyat: AKs and SKS managed to kill millions of Americans during Vietnam when American M16s jammed, swelled and failed to fire when going up against Victor Charlie armed with them. Those guerillas could probably still kick our asses with such aging technology. A belt fed AR (10 and 15) that is reliable and well designed that can be counted on to lay down sustained fire without failing because of metallurgy and a primitive gas system could replace SAWs and quite possibly MAGs(Most likely this one because a steel AR-10 would be at least a few pounds heavier.) because they're so much lighter offering the same deal as a good GPMG and SAW.
unless you were to make it out of steel and try to reinforce it more that is...
ar15/m16s are rifles, not support weapons. they got limits.
you dont go firing full auto with 200rd SAW pouches from these things.
it's the reason why we use the beltfeds we do now, they were built for the job.
hell,even eugene stoner himself used a different system than DI for the stoner 63. |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Posted: Fri Jan 14, 2011 8:58 pm
|
|
|
|
Recon_Ninja_985 Fresnel Valkyrie Hatter Recon_Ninja_985 Valkyrie Hatter DI is easier to clean because it's just a simple tube. I don't recall hearing about any SKS having bent pistons or AKs for that matter. Wow an M4 living past Desert Storm...Again big whoop. Plenty of them circulated through black markets after the war. You know why an AR-15 can last just as long as an AK can? Because it's made of ********' aluminum. You know why the military doesn't convert it to belt fed and make it a SAW? Because it's made of aluminum and it's a closed bolt not to mention the DI system just transfers heat back to the aluminum reciever. You know why the Russians made the AK into a SAW? Because it's made of steel and it's a long stroke. (And they're ******** lazy and don't bother replacing or deviating from a system with a great history of being reliable and idiot proof.) Two great factors that make it far more heat resistant. Just make the stampings thicker or mill them and put on a heavy barrel and you got a SAW. ((Why doesn't half this s**t occur to me when I first start posting?)) NEIN! it's the exact opposite, much harder to clean. you rarely even need to clean the tube with DI. you just have to clean the entire gun instead when there isnt a piston to block gasses and burnt powder the bolt carrier and all the parts inside the reciever get completely blasted with EVERYTHING regarding the "Russian SAW" there is no real wrong answer. theres either the RPD, RPK47 , RPK74 or the PKM. all of them are lighter than western light support MG's RPD is probably the closest communist MG comparable to a SAW,but they stopped using them in favor of the RPK series instead (kinda like you said) except they already had them first, they just said ******** em and did what was easier to do So...Why does America continue to use M4s again? Because it's American? @Pripyat: AKs and SKS managed to kill millions of Americans during Vietnam when American M16s jammed, swelled and failed to fire when going up against Victor Charlie armed with them. Those guerillas could probably still kick our asses with such aging technology. A belt fed AR (10 and 15) that is reliable and well designed that can be counted on to lay down sustained fire without failing because of metallurgy and a primitive gas system could replace SAWs and quite possibly MAGs(Most likely this one because a steel AR-10 would be at least a few pounds heavier.) because they're so much lighter offering the same deal as a good GPMG and SAW. The M16 is not the same weapon it was fifty years ago. It's been FIFTY YEARS. The M16A0 was made from substandard materials, and the GIs who were issued the rifles were not issued cleaning kits, and told the rifle never needed cleaning. Why a fifty-year-old logistics ******** that was solved forty-five years ago still haunts a perfectly good rifle to this day baffles me. it wasn't the rifles it was the ammo formula, it was probably filthier than the communist m43 that was being shot at the GI's. and im sure not cleaning them guaranteed failure. anyways I havent heard of an A0 before. I know of 3 types used in 'nam which are just "M16" which had no forward assist, the XM16E1, and the M16A1 |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Posted: Fri Jan 14, 2011 9:04 pm
|
|
|
|
Recon_Ninja_985 Valkyrie Hatter Recon_Ninja_985 Valkyrie Hatter Pripyat Dawn Valkyrie Hatter I'm giving H&K credit for going "Hey you know what? We can put a short stroke in an AR" The design of short stroke I give credit to David Marshall Williams since it is in fact his patent. Speaking of which you speak of absolute reliability when we use M4s and M16s that rely on a primitive gas system that shortens their overall lifespan compared to weapons that use short or long stroke gas systems. Except that Eugene Stoner did even that before they did. The G36 is a gussied up version of the AR-18, which is a short-stroke and simplified version. So the HK416 is a retrofit of a Eugene Stoner design onto another Eugene Stoner design, with the HK name stamped onto the side of it, with an appropriate price markup while they screamed that they were the first to ever do it. Primitive? Direct impingement is the most modern of all gas systems, one which couldn't happen at all if we still used corrosive ammunition, which only really stopped, in the US, around WW2. I'd go very far to say it's the most advanced gas system out there. Does it have it's problems? Yes, as does short-stroke. Those pistons are prone to bending, which completely ruins the firearm to a level above armory. And when the lifespan is measured in decades- I carried an M4 that had been carried in the original Desert Storm- anyway, I don't think that serves a serious problem. DI is easier to clean because it's just a simple tube. I don't recall hearing about any SKS having bent pistons or AKs for that matter. Wow an M4 living past Desert Storm...Again big whoop. Plenty of them circulated through black markets after the war. You know why an AR-15 can last just as long as an AK can? Because it's made of ********' aluminum. You know why the military doesn't convert it to belt fed and make it a SAW? Because it's made of aluminum and it's a closed bolt not to mention the DI system just transfers heat back to the aluminum reciever. You know why the Russians made the AK into a SAW? Because it's made of steel and it's a long stroke. (And they're ******** lazy and don't bother replacing or deviating from a system with a great history of being reliable and idiot proof.) Two great factors that make it far more heat resistant. Just make the stampings thicker or mill them and put on a heavy barrel and you got a SAW. ((Why doesn't half this s**t occur to me when I first start posting?)) NEIN! it's the exact opposite, much harder to clean. you rarely even need to clean the tube with DI. you just have to clean the entire gun instead when there isnt a piston to block gasses and burnt powder the bolt carrier and all the parts inside the reciever get completely blasted with EVERYTHING regarding the "Russian SAW" there is no real wrong answer. theres either the RPD, RPK47 , RPK74 or the PKM. all of them are lighter than western light support MG's RPD is probably the closest communist MG comparable to a SAW,but they stopped using them in favor of the RPK series instead (kinda like you said) except they already had them first, they just said ******** em and did what was easier to do So...Why does America continue to use M4s again? Because it's American? @Pripyat: AKs and SKS managed to kill millions of Americans during Vietnam when American M16s jammed, swelled and failed to fire when going up against Victor Charlie armed with them. Those guerillas could probably still kick our asses with such aging technology. A belt fed AR (10 and 15) that is reliable and well designed that can be counted on to lay down sustained fire without failing because of metallurgy and a primitive gas system could replace SAWs and quite possibly MAGs(Most likely this one because a steel AR-10 would be at least a few pounds heavier.) because they're so much lighter offering the same deal as a good GPMG and SAW. the AR/m16 receivers have a tendency to shatter when there is a kaboom...if you belt feed a closed bolt DI youre asking the weapon to stress itself with all of the burning gasses and friction building up on the BCG and receiver. thats an extreme amount of heat. if it doesnt jam from that then you're risking a cook off. and when theres a kaboom in an AR receiver it blows up like a grenade unless you were to make it out of steel and try to reinforce it more that is... ar15/m16s are rifles, not support weapons. they got limits. you dont go firing full auto with 200rd SAW pouches from these things. it's the reason why we use the beltfeds we do now, they were built for the job. hell,even eugene stoner himself used a different system than DI for the stoner 63.
Also, I'd like to direct your attention to the Ares Shrike. It had jam problems, but no heat issues. Piston, though.
 |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Posted: Fri Jan 14, 2011 10:01 pm
|
|
|
|
Fresnel Recon_Ninja_985 Valkyrie Hatter Recon_Ninja_985 Valkyrie Hatter DI is easier to clean because it's just a simple tube. I don't recall hearing about any SKS having bent pistons or AKs for that matter. Wow an M4 living past Desert Storm...Again big whoop. Plenty of them circulated through black markets after the war. You know why an AR-15 can last just as long as an AK can? Because it's made of ********' aluminum. You know why the military doesn't convert it to belt fed and make it a SAW? Because it's made of aluminum and it's a closed bolt not to mention the DI system just transfers heat back to the aluminum reciever. You know why the Russians made the AK into a SAW? Because it's made of steel and it's a long stroke. (And they're ******** lazy and don't bother replacing or deviating from a system with a great history of being reliable and idiot proof.) Two great factors that make it far more heat resistant. Just make the stampings thicker or mill them and put on a heavy barrel and you got a SAW. ((Why doesn't half this s**t occur to me when I first start posting?)) NEIN! it's the exact opposite, much harder to clean. you rarely even need to clean the tube with DI. you just have to clean the entire gun instead when there isnt a piston to block gasses and burnt powder the bolt carrier and all the parts inside the reciever get completely blasted with EVERYTHING regarding the "Russian SAW" there is no real wrong answer. theres either the RPD, RPK47 , RPK74 or the PKM. all of them are lighter than western light support MG's RPD is probably the closest communist MG comparable to a SAW,but they stopped using them in favor of the RPK series instead (kinda like you said) except they already had them first, they just said ******** em and did what was easier to do So...Why does America continue to use M4s again? Because it's American? @Pripyat: AKs and SKS managed to kill millions of Americans during Vietnam when American M16s jammed, swelled and failed to fire when going up against Victor Charlie armed with them. Those guerillas could probably still kick our asses with such aging technology. A belt fed AR (10 and 15) that is reliable and well designed that can be counted on to lay down sustained fire without failing because of metallurgy and a primitive gas system could replace SAWs and quite possibly MAGs(Most likely this one because a steel AR-10 would be at least a few pounds heavier.) because they're so much lighter offering the same deal as a good GPMG and SAW. the AR/m16 receivers have a tendency to shatter when there is a kaboom...if you belt feed a closed bolt DI youre asking the weapon to stress itself with all of the burning gasses and friction building up on the BCG and receiver. thats an extreme amount of heat. if it doesnt jam from that then you're risking a cook off. and when theres a kaboom in an AR receiver it blows up like a grenade unless you were to make it out of steel and try to reinforce it more that is... ar15/m16s are rifles, not support weapons. they got limits. you dont go firing full auto with 200rd SAW pouches from these things. it's the reason why we use the beltfeds we do now, they were built for the job. hell,even eugene stoner himself used a different system than DI for the stoner 63. First of all, having witnessed several AR kB!'s firsthand, I can say they handle them extremely well. Not a one resulted in permanent damage to the barrel or receiver, as the thick chamber can handle the relatively low-powered .223 ammo quite well. Usually it was just bolt/BCG damage, and always a totaled magazine (because pushing an AR bolt clean through it at speed tends to do that). The sum total of all injuries I've seen from an AR kB!ing can be topped by burning yourself with a tray of fresh cookies. Also, I'd like to direct your attention to the Ares Shrike. It had jam problems, but no heat issues. Piston, though.
heard of the shrike. anything not designed right can ******** up. the vast majority of beltfeds use some sort of piston and most of them work as intended.
just like most AR's work as intended. but when something goes wrong, blowing apart is something they should not do.
it should be made so that you can be 100 percent sure that this thing's integrity will hold up to ALL kabooms and not just some.
like FALs
Galil's and AK's receiver covers just pop off and magazines get damaged like any other rifle that experiences a kb. no problem, just put it back on and get another mag |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Posted: Fri Jan 14, 2011 10:10 pm
|
|
|
|
Fresnel Recon_Ninja_985 Fresnel Valkyrie Hatter Recon_Ninja_985 Valkyrie Hatter DI is easier to clean because it's just a simple tube. I don't recall hearing about any SKS having bent pistons or AKs for that matter. Wow an M4 living past Desert Storm...Again big whoop. Plenty of them circulated through black markets after the war. You know why an AR-15 can last just as long as an AK can? Because it's made of ********' aluminum. You know why the military doesn't convert it to belt fed and make it a SAW? Because it's made of aluminum and it's a closed bolt not to mention the DI system just transfers heat back to the aluminum reciever. You know why the Russians made the AK into a SAW? Because it's made of steel and it's a long stroke. (And they're ******** lazy and don't bother replacing or deviating from a system with a great history of being reliable and idiot proof.) Two great factors that make it far more heat resistant. Just make the stampings thicker or mill them and put on a heavy barrel and you got a SAW. ((Why doesn't half this s**t occur to me when I first start posting?)) NEIN! it's the exact opposite, much harder to clean. you rarely even need to clean the tube with DI. you just have to clean the entire gun instead when there isnt a piston to block gasses and burnt powder the bolt carrier and all the parts inside the reciever get completely blasted with EVERYTHING regarding the "Russian SAW" there is no real wrong answer. theres either the RPD, RPK47 , RPK74 or the PKM. all of them are lighter than western light support MG's RPD is probably the closest communist MG comparable to a SAW,but they stopped using them in favor of the RPK series instead (kinda like you said) except they already had them first, they just said ******** em and did what was easier to do So...Why does America continue to use M4s again? Because it's American? @Pripyat: AKs and SKS managed to kill millions of Americans during Vietnam when American M16s jammed, swelled and failed to fire when going up against Victor Charlie armed with them. Those guerillas could probably still kick our asses with such aging technology. A belt fed AR (10 and 15) that is reliable and well designed that can be counted on to lay down sustained fire without failing because of metallurgy and a primitive gas system could replace SAWs and quite possibly MAGs(Most likely this one because a steel AR-10 would be at least a few pounds heavier.) because they're so much lighter offering the same deal as a good GPMG and SAW. The M16 is not the same weapon it was fifty years ago. It's been FIFTY YEARS. The M16A0 was made from substandard materials, and the GIs who were issued the rifles were not issued cleaning kits, and told the rifle never needed cleaning. Why a fifty-year-old logistics ******** that was solved forty-five years ago still haunts a perfectly good rifle to this day baffles me. it wasn't the rifles it was the ammo formula, it was probably filthier than the communist m43 that was being shot at the GI's. and im sure not cleaning them guaranteed failure. anyways I havent heard of an A0 before. I know of 3 types used in 'nam which are just "M16" which had no forward assist, the XM16E1, and the M16A1 It's the M16, but because "M16" refers to the entire series of rifles, I just put A0 on the end to show its pre-A1-ness. |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Posted: Fri Jan 14, 2011 10:15 pm
|
|
|
|
Recon_Ninja_985 Fresnel Recon_Ninja_985 Fresnel Valkyrie Hatter So...Why does America continue to use M4s again? Because it's American? @Pripyat: AKs and SKS managed to kill millions of Americans during Vietnam when American M16s jammed, swelled and failed to fire when going up against Victor Charlie armed with them. Those guerillas could probably still kick our asses with such aging technology. A belt fed AR (10 and 15) that is reliable and well designed that can be counted on to lay down sustained fire without failing because of metallurgy and a primitive gas system could replace SAWs and quite possibly MAGs(Most likely this one because a steel AR-10 would be at least a few pounds heavier.) because they're so much lighter offering the same deal as a good GPMG and SAW. The M16 is not the same weapon it was fifty years ago. It's been FIFTY YEARS. The M16A0 was made from substandard materials, and the GIs who were issued the rifles were not issued cleaning kits, and told the rifle never needed cleaning. Why a fifty-year-old logistics ******** that was solved forty-five years ago still haunts a perfectly good rifle to this day baffles me. it wasn't the rifles it was the ammo formula, it was probably filthier than the communist m43 that was being shot at the GI's. and im sure not cleaning them guaranteed failure. anyways I havent heard of an A0 before. I know of 3 types used in 'nam which are just "M16" which had no forward assist, the XM16E1, and the M16A1 It's the M16, but because "M16" refers to the entire series of rifles, I just put A0 on the end to show its pre-A1-ness. because zero is the loneliest number you'll ever do.... ninja |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Posted: Sat Jan 15, 2011 1:57 pm
|
|
|
|
Recon_Ninja_985 Valkyrie Hatter Recon_Ninja_985 Valkyrie Hatter Pripyat Dawn Valkyrie Hatter I'm giving H&K credit for going "Hey you know what? We can put a short stroke in an AR" The design of short stroke I give credit to David Marshall Williams since it is in fact his patent. Speaking of which you speak of absolute reliability when we use M4s and M16s that rely on a primitive gas system that shortens their overall lifespan compared to weapons that use short or long stroke gas systems. Except that Eugene Stoner did even that before they did. The G36 is a gussied up version of the AR-18, which is a short-stroke and simplified version. So the HK416 is a retrofit of a Eugene Stoner design onto another Eugene Stoner design, with the HK name stamped onto the side of it, with an appropriate price markup while they screamed that they were the first to ever do it. Primitive? Direct impingement is the most modern of all gas systems, one which couldn't happen at all if we still used corrosive ammunition, which only really stopped, in the US, around WW2. I'd go very far to say it's the most advanced gas system out there. Does it have it's problems? Yes, as does short-stroke. Those pistons are prone to bending, which completely ruins the firearm to a level above armory. And when the lifespan is measured in decades- I carried an M4 that had been carried in the original Desert Storm- anyway, I don't think that serves a serious problem. DI is easier to clean because it's just a simple tube. I don't recall hearing about any SKS having bent pistons or AKs for that matter. Wow an M4 living past Desert Storm...Again big whoop. Plenty of them circulated through black markets after the war. You know why an AR-15 can last just as long as an AK can? Because it's made of ********' aluminum. You know why the military doesn't convert it to belt fed and make it a SAW? Because it's made of aluminum and it's a closed bolt not to mention the DI system just transfers heat back to the aluminum reciever. You know why the Russians made the AK into a SAW? Because it's made of steel and it's a long stroke. (And they're ******** lazy and don't bother replacing or deviating from a system with a great history of being reliable and idiot proof.) Two great factors that make it far more heat resistant. Just make the stampings thicker or mill them and put on a heavy barrel and you got a SAW. ((Why doesn't half this s**t occur to me when I first start posting?)) NEIN! it's the exact opposite, much harder to clean. you rarely even need to clean the tube with DI. you just have to clean the entire gun instead when there isnt a piston to block gasses and burnt powder the bolt carrier and all the parts inside the reciever get completely blasted with EVERYTHING regarding the "Russian SAW" there is no real wrong answer. theres either the RPD, RPK47 , RPK74 or the PKM. all of them are lighter than western light support MG's RPD is probably the closest communist MG comparable to a SAW,but they stopped using them in favor of the RPK series instead (kinda like you said) except they already had them first, they just said ******** em and did what was easier to do So...Why does America continue to use M4s again? Because it's American? @Pripyat: AKs and SKS managed to kill millions of Americans during Vietnam when American M16s jammed, swelled and failed to fire when going up against Victor Charlie armed with them. Those guerillas could probably still kick our asses with such aging technology. A belt fed AR (10 and 15) that is reliable and well designed that can be counted on to lay down sustained fire without failing because of metallurgy and a primitive gas system could replace SAWs and quite possibly MAGs(Most likely this one because a steel AR-10 would be at least a few pounds heavier.) because they're so much lighter offering the same deal as a good GPMG and SAW. the AR/m16 receivers have a tendency to shatter when there is a kaboom...if you belt feed a closed bolt DI youre asking the weapon to stress itself with all of the burning gasses and friction building up on the BCG and receiver. thats an extreme amount of heat. if it doesnt jam from that then you're risking a cook off. and when theres a kaboom in an AR receiver it blows up like a grenade unless you were to make it out of steel and try to reinforce it more that is... ar15/m16s are rifles, not support weapons. they got limits. you dont go firing full auto with 200rd SAW pouches from these things. it's the reason why we use the beltfeds we do now, they were built for the job. hell,even eugene stoner himself used a different system than DI for the stoner 63.
All ARs are ******** aluminum which contributes to kaboom!
A milled steel AR is MG material! |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Posted: Sat Jan 15, 2011 5:40 pm
|
|
|
|
Valkyrie Hatter Recon_Ninja_985 Valkyrie Hatter Recon_Ninja_985 Valkyrie Hatter DI is easier to clean because it's just a simple tube. I don't recall hearing about any SKS having bent pistons or AKs for that matter. Wow an M4 living past Desert Storm...Again big whoop. Plenty of them circulated through black markets after the war. You know why an AR-15 can last just as long as an AK can? Because it's made of ********' aluminum. You know why the military doesn't convert it to belt fed and make it a SAW? Because it's made of aluminum and it's a closed bolt not to mention the DI system just transfers heat back to the aluminum reciever. You know why the Russians made the AK into a SAW? Because it's made of steel and it's a long stroke. (And they're ******** lazy and don't bother replacing or deviating from a system with a great history of being reliable and idiot proof.) Two great factors that make it far more heat resistant. Just make the stampings thicker or mill them and put on a heavy barrel and you got a SAW. ((Why doesn't half this s**t occur to me when I first start posting?)) NEIN! it's the exact opposite, much harder to clean. you rarely even need to clean the tube with DI. you just have to clean the entire gun instead when there isnt a piston to block gasses and burnt powder the bolt carrier and all the parts inside the reciever get completely blasted with EVERYTHING regarding the "Russian SAW" there is no real wrong answer. theres either the RPD, RPK47 , RPK74 or the PKM. all of them are lighter than western light support MG's RPD is probably the closest communist MG comparable to a SAW,but they stopped using them in favor of the RPK series instead (kinda like you said) except they already had them first, they just said ******** em and did what was easier to do So...Why does America continue to use M4s again? Because it's American? @Pripyat: AKs and SKS managed to kill millions of Americans during Vietnam when American M16s jammed, swelled and failed to fire when going up against Victor Charlie armed with them. Those guerillas could probably still kick our asses with such aging technology. A belt fed AR (10 and 15) that is reliable and well designed that can be counted on to lay down sustained fire without failing because of metallurgy and a primitive gas system could replace SAWs and quite possibly MAGs(Most likely this one because a steel AR-10 would be at least a few pounds heavier.) because they're so much lighter offering the same deal as a good GPMG and SAW. the AR/m16 receivers have a tendency to shatter when there is a kaboom...if you belt feed a closed bolt DI youre asking the weapon to stress itself with all of the burning gasses and friction building up on the BCG and receiver. thats an extreme amount of heat. if it doesnt jam from that then you're risking a cook off. and when theres a kaboom in an AR receiver it blows up like a grenade unless you were to make it out of steel and try to reinforce it more that is... ar15/m16s are rifles, not support weapons. they got limits. you dont go firing full auto with 200rd SAW pouches from these things. it's the reason why we use the beltfeds we do now, they were built for the job. hell,even eugene stoner himself used a different system than DI for the stoner 63. Which part of steel and short stroke didn't you catch? All ARs are ******** aluminum which contributes to kaboom! A milled steel AR is MG material! |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Posted: Sat Jan 15, 2011 7:02 pm
|
|
|
|
Valkyrie Hatter Recon_Ninja_985 Valkyrie Hatter Recon_Ninja_985 Valkyrie Hatter DI is easier to clean because it's just a simple tube. I don't recall hearing about any SKS having bent pistons or AKs for that matter. Wow an M4 living past Desert Storm...Again big whoop. Plenty of them circulated through black markets after the war. You know why an AR-15 can last just as long as an AK can? Because it's made of ********' aluminum. You know why the military doesn't convert it to belt fed and make it a SAW? Because it's made of aluminum and it's a closed bolt not to mention the DI system just transfers heat back to the aluminum reciever. You know why the Russians made the AK into a SAW? Because it's made of steel and it's a long stroke. (And they're ******** lazy and don't bother replacing or deviating from a system with a great history of being reliable and idiot proof.) Two great factors that make it far more heat resistant. Just make the stampings thicker or mill them and put on a heavy barrel and you got a SAW. ((Why doesn't half this s**t occur to me when I first start posting?)) NEIN! it's the exact opposite, much harder to clean. you rarely even need to clean the tube with DI. you just have to clean the entire gun instead when there isnt a piston to block gasses and burnt powder the bolt carrier and all the parts inside the reciever get completely blasted with EVERYTHING regarding the "Russian SAW" there is no real wrong answer. theres either the RPD, RPK47 , RPK74 or the PKM. all of them are lighter than western light support MG's RPD is probably the closest communist MG comparable to a SAW,but they stopped using them in favor of the RPK series instead (kinda like you said) except they already had them first, they just said ******** em and did what was easier to do So...Why does America continue to use M4s again? Because it's American? @Pripyat: AKs and SKS managed to kill millions of Americans during Vietnam when American M16s jammed, swelled and failed to fire when going up against Victor Charlie armed with them. Those guerillas could probably still kick our asses with such aging technology. A belt fed AR (10 and 15) that is reliable and well designed that can be counted on to lay down sustained fire without failing because of metallurgy and a primitive gas system could replace SAWs and quite possibly MAGs(Most likely this one because a steel AR-10 would be at least a few pounds heavier.) because they're so much lighter offering the same deal as a good GPMG and SAW. the AR/m16 receivers have a tendency to shatter when there is a kaboom...if you belt feed a closed bolt DI youre asking the weapon to stress itself with all of the burning gasses and friction building up on the BCG and receiver. thats an extreme amount of heat. if it doesnt jam from that then you're risking a cook off. and when theres a kaboom in an AR receiver it blows up like a grenade unless you were to make it out of steel and try to reinforce it more that is... ar15/m16s are rifles, not support weapons. they got limits. you dont go firing full auto with 200rd SAW pouches from these things. it's the reason why we use the beltfeds we do now, they were built for the job. hell,even eugene stoner himself used a different system than DI for the stoner 63. Which part of steel and short stroke didn't you catch? All ARs are ******** aluminum which contributes to kaboom! A milled steel AR is MG material!
simplifies design to exactly how a standard AR works, just all steel.
apparently theyre reported to be super reliable.
http://www.defensereview.com/dr-exclusive-surefire-60-shot-and-100-shot-ar-ar-15m16-5-56mm-nato-box-magazines-for-infantry-combat-and-tactical-engagements-meet-the-surefire-mag5-60-and-mag5-100-high-capacity-magazines-hcms/
the 100 rounders look too huge but the 60 rounders are just right for the job |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Posted: Sat Jan 15, 2011 7:24 pm
|
|
|
|
Recon_Ninja_985 Valkyrie Hatter Recon_Ninja_985 Valkyrie Hatter Recon_Ninja_985 Valkyrie Hatter DI is easier to clean because it's just a simple tube. I don't recall hearing about any SKS having bent pistons or AKs for that matter. Wow an M4 living past Desert Storm...Again big whoop. Plenty of them circulated through black markets after the war. You know why an AR-15 can last just as long as an AK can? Because it's made of ********' aluminum. You know why the military doesn't convert it to belt fed and make it a SAW? Because it's made of aluminum and it's a closed bolt not to mention the DI system just transfers heat back to the aluminum reciever. You know why the Russians made the AK into a SAW? Because it's made of steel and it's a long stroke. (And they're ******** lazy and don't bother replacing or deviating from a system with a great history of being reliable and idiot proof.) Two great factors that make it far more heat resistant. Just make the stampings thicker or mill them and put on a heavy barrel and you got a SAW. ((Why doesn't half this s**t occur to me when I first start posting?)) NEIN! it's the exact opposite, much harder to clean. you rarely even need to clean the tube with DI. you just have to clean the entire gun instead when there isnt a piston to block gasses and burnt powder the bolt carrier and all the parts inside the reciever get completely blasted with EVERYTHING regarding the "Russian SAW" there is no real wrong answer. theres either the RPD, RPK47 , RPK74 or the PKM. all of them are lighter than western light support MG's RPD is probably the closest communist MG comparable to a SAW,but they stopped using them in favor of the RPK series instead (kinda like you said) except they already had them first, they just said ******** em and did what was easier to do So...Why does America continue to use M4s again? Because it's American? @Pripyat: AKs and SKS managed to kill millions of Americans during Vietnam when American M16s jammed, swelled and failed to fire when going up against Victor Charlie armed with them. Those guerillas could probably still kick our asses with such aging technology. A belt fed AR (10 and 15) that is reliable and well designed that can be counted on to lay down sustained fire without failing because of metallurgy and a primitive gas system could replace SAWs and quite possibly MAGs(Most likely this one because a steel AR-10 would be at least a few pounds heavier.) because they're so much lighter offering the same deal as a good GPMG and SAW. the AR/m16 receivers have a tendency to shatter when there is a kaboom...if you belt feed a closed bolt DI youre asking the weapon to stress itself with all of the burning gasses and friction building up on the BCG and receiver. thats an extreme amount of heat. if it doesnt jam from that then you're risking a cook off. and when theres a kaboom in an AR receiver it blows up like a grenade unless you were to make it out of steel and try to reinforce it more that is... ar15/m16s are rifles, not support weapons. they got limits. you dont go firing full auto with 200rd SAW pouches from these things. it's the reason why we use the beltfeds we do now, they were built for the job. hell,even eugene stoner himself used a different system than DI for the stoner 63. Which part of steel and short stroke didn't you catch? All ARs are ******** aluminum which contributes to kaboom! A milled steel AR is MG material! I think I like the idea of a steel milled AR that feeds from surefire quadstack mags better than belt fed simplifies design to exactly how a standard AR works, just all steel. apparently theyre reported to be super reliable. http://www.defensereview.com/dr-exclusive-surefire-60-shot-and-100-shot-ar-ar-15m16-5-56mm-nato-box-magazines-for-infantry-combat-and-tactical-engagements-meet-the-surefire-mag5-60-and-mag5-100-high-capacity-magazines-hcms/ the 100 rounders look too huge but the 60 rounders are just right for the job
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Posted: Sat Jan 15, 2011 7:46 pm
|
|
|
|
Fresnel Recon_Ninja_985 Valkyrie Hatter Recon_Ninja_985 Valkyrie Hatter So...Why does America continue to use M4s again? Because it's American? @Pripyat: AKs and SKS managed to kill millions of Americans during Vietnam when American M16s jammed, swelled and failed to fire when going up against Victor Charlie armed with them. Those guerillas could probably still kick our asses with such aging technology. A belt fed AR (10 and 15) that is reliable and well designed that can be counted on to lay down sustained fire without failing because of metallurgy and a primitive gas system could replace SAWs and quite possibly MAGs(Most likely this one because a steel AR-10 would be at least a few pounds heavier.) because they're so much lighter offering the same deal as a good GPMG and SAW. the AR/m16 receivers have a tendency to shatter when there is a kaboom...if you belt feed a closed bolt DI youre asking the weapon to stress itself with all of the burning gasses and friction building up on the BCG and receiver. thats an extreme amount of heat. if it doesnt jam from that then you're risking a cook off. and when theres a kaboom in an AR receiver it blows up like a grenade unless you were to make it out of steel and try to reinforce it more that is... ar15/m16s are rifles, not support weapons. they got limits. you dont go firing full auto with 200rd SAW pouches from these things. it's the reason why we use the beltfeds we do now, they were built for the job. hell,even eugene stoner himself used a different system than DI for the stoner 63. Which part of steel and short stroke didn't you catch? All ARs are ******** aluminum which contributes to kaboom! A milled steel AR is MG material! I think I like the idea of a steel milled AR that feeds from surefire quadstack mags better than belt fed simplifies design to exactly how a standard AR works, just all steel. apparently theyre reported to be super reliable. http://www.defensereview.com/dr-exclusive-surefire-60-shot-and-100-shot-ar-ar-15m16-5-56mm-nato-box-magazines-for-infantry-combat-and-tactical-engagements-meet-the-surefire-mag5-60-and-mag5-100-high-capacity-magazines-hcms/ the 100 rounders look too huge but the 60 rounders are just right for the job Armatac SAWMAG. 150-round drum.
might be able to carry 2 or 3 150 rounders on a vest
I can see a gunner using just one of them as a mag that stays in the gun until initial contact where you can sling out lots of rounds and the 60 rounders for the rest of their ammo simply for ease of carry.
how much is the saw mag anyway? I want one. |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
