GUN TALK: Doubletap

[Pax Nerdvana]

Just to test the reliability. I wonder how much a beltfed M16 could endure.

If you give me pieces for the weapon, id be happy to test it for you.

Wish I had some pre '86 M16 lowers.

[The Chuck]

Dibs on carrying the ammo can

No, git your own can, imma tryin' the Ironman Backpack.

Ah what a jerk

*goes back to hand linking .50 cal belts*

[Hurtful Thoughts]

If you give me pieces for the weapon, id be happy to test it for you.

Wish I had some pre '86 M16 lowers.

From someone else from "that other gun forum"

The ides of belt fed is for sustained automatic fire, as in for a "true" (military definition) machinegun. In sustained fire, there are issues with things like overheating barrels and cook-offs, so another desired feature would be a quick change barrel. Still a third would be open bolt operation. A M16 will reach cookoff temperature after 120 rounds of automatic fire at the cyclic rate with an air temp of 75 degrees F.

The whole concept of a belt fed closed bolt weapon with no quick change barrel ability makes no sense at all from where I'm sitting, and even less if it doesn't have full automatic capability.

Pretty much, if it was belt-fed, the US Army wanted to be sure they could dump 1500+ rds through it before changing the barrel... while AR-10/15 gas tubes tended to rupture at around 500 rds and cook-off were a problem back at 100+ rds (and this time you'll need to "break links" to stop it from running away).

[Krasny-Volny]

(Image)

The 1st NSG Regulars would take a couple dozen of these please.

1st NSG Regulars. There’s an idea.

[Chernoslavia]

The 1st NSG Regulars would take a couple dozen of these please.

1st NSG Regulars. There’s an idea.

I'm not the original founder though

[The Empire of Pretantia]

If you give me pieces for the weapon, id be happy to test it for you.

Wish I had some pre '86 M16 lowers.

I don't.

Instead I wish I had some modern automatic receivers that were affordable because the government wasn't regulating then into the ground.

[The Emerald Legion]

Wish I had some pre '86 M16 lowers.

I don't.

Instead I wish I had some modern automatic receivers that were affordable because the government wasn't regulating then into the ground.

Agreed.

[Pax Nerdvana]

Wish I had some pre '86 M16 lowers.

I don't.

Instead I wish I had some modern automatic receivers that were affordable because the government wasn't regulating then into the ground.

That would be ideal, yes.

The 1st NSG Regulars would take a couple dozen of these please.

1st NSG Regulars. There’s an idea.

I'm in!

Wish I had some pre '86 M16 lowers.

From someone else from "that other gun forum"

The ides of belt fed is for sustained automatic fire, as in for a "true" (military definition) machinegun. In sustained fire, there are issues with things like overheating barrels and cook-offs, so another desired feature would be a quick change barrel. Still a third would be open bolt operation. A M16 will reach cookoff temperature after 120 rounds of automatic fire at the cyclic rate with an air temp of 75 degrees F.

The whole concept of a belt fed closed bolt weapon with no quick change barrel ability makes no sense at all from where I'm sitting, and even less if it doesn't have full automatic capability.

Pretty much, if it was belt-fed, the US Army wanted to be sure they could dump 1500+ rds through it before changing the barrel... while AR-10/15 gas tubes tended to rupture at around 500 rds and cook-off were a problem back at 100+ rds (and this time you'll need to "break links" to stop it from running away).

That's true. But it'd be cool until it started cooking off.

[Grinning Dragon]

The estimated total number of firearms in civilian possession from 1986-2018 is 422.9 million

The National Shooting Sports Foundation, the firearms industry trade association, released the 2017 Firearms Production Report to members. The report compiles the most up to date information based on data sourced from the Bureau of Alcohol, Tobacco, Firearms and Explosives’ (ATF’s) Annual Firearms Manufacturing and Export Reports (AFMER).

The estimated total number of firearms in civilian possession from 1986-2018 is 422.9 million, according to data reported in the ATF’s Firearms Commerce Report in the United States 2019 report and including the preliminary 2018 Annual Firearms Manufacturing and Exportation Report (AFMER) figures.

17,740,000 Modern Sporting Rifles are in private ownership today.

More than half (54%) of all rifles produced in 2017 were modern sporting rifles.

In 2017, 7,901,218 total firearms were produced and imported. Of those, 4,411,923 were pistols and revolvers, 2,821,945 were rifles and 667,350 were shotguns.

An interim 2018 estimate showed a total 7,660,772 total firearms were produced and imported. Of those 4,277,971 were pistols and revolvers, 2,846,757 were rifles and 535,994 were shotguns.

Firearms-ammunition manufacturing accounted for nearly 12,000 employees producing over $4.1 billion in goods shipped in 2017. An estimated 8.1 billion rounds, of all calibers and gauges, were produced in 2018 for the U.S. market.

[Pax Nerdvana]

The estimated total number of firearms in civilian possession from 1986-2018 is 422.9 million

The National Shooting Sports Foundation, the firearms industry trade association, released the 2017 Firearms Production Report to members. The report compiles the most up to date information based on data sourced from the Bureau of Alcohol, Tobacco, Firearms and Explosives’ (ATF’s) Annual Firearms Manufacturing and Export Reports (AFMER).

The estimated total number of firearms in civilian possession from 1986-2018 is 422.9 million, according to data reported in the ATF’s Firearms Commerce Report in the United States 2019 report and including the preliminary 2018 Annual Firearms Manufacturing and Exportation Report (AFMER) figures.

17,740,000 Modern Sporting Rifles are in private ownership today.

More than half (54%) of all rifles produced in 2017 were modern sporting rifles.

In 2017, 7,901,218 total firearms were produced and imported. Of those, 4,411,923 were pistols and revolvers, 2,821,945 were rifles and 667,350 were shotguns.

An interim 2018 estimate showed a total 7,660,772 total firearms were produced and imported. Of those 4,277,971 were pistols and revolvers, 2,846,757 were rifles and 535,994 were shotguns.

Firearms-ammunition manufacturing accounted for nearly 12,000 employees producing over $4.1 billion in goods shipped in 2017. An estimated 8.1 billion rounds, of all calibers and gauges, were produced in 2018 for the U.S. market.

C'mon America! We can do better then that! Let's make it 600 million guns of all makes and models.

[Grinning Dragon]

The estimated total number of firearms in civilian possession from 1986-2018 is 422.9 million

C'mon America! We can do better then that! Let's make it 600 million guns of all makes and models.

IMO, I think the true number of firearms is north of 600million. The numbers from the article are what is known from 1986 to now.

[Pax Nerdvana]

C'mon America! We can do better then that! Let's make it 600 million guns of all makes and models.

IMO, I think the true number of firearms is north of 600million. The numbers from the article are what is known from 1986 to now.

Oh, that makes sense. Then it's gotta be higher then 600 million. Maybe even closer to 800 million.

[The Chuck]

The estimated total number of firearms in civilian possession from 1986-2018 is 422.9 million

That's a lot of modern freedom muskets.

[Pax Nerdvana]

Anybody know how much force it takes to detonate a modern primer? Just wondering...

[Telconi]

Anybody know how much force it takes to detonate a modern primer? Just wondering...

Not a lot, but it varies widely in the design of the primer.

Modern ammunition uses some sort of non-corrosive non-mercury compound (NCNM). But there are a few on the market.

So basically it depends on the actual impact sensitive compound, and what flame accelerators and oxidizers are used to create the fire, and rather a friction element is involved (often primers contain powdered glass to help reliability) and the actual thickness of the metal wall of the primer itself.

[Grinning Dragon]

Anybody know how much force it takes to detonate a modern primer? Just wondering...

Not a lot, but it varies widely in the design of the primer.

Modern ammunition uses some sort of non-corrosive non-mercury compound (NCNM). But there are a few on the market.

So basically it depends on the actual impact sensitive compound, and what flame accelerators and oxidizers are used to create the fire, and rather a friction element is involved (often primers contain powdered glass to help reliability) and the actual thickness of the metal wall of the primer itself.

For a 30 cal primer, primer detonation force is in the range of 12 in./oz. for "no fire" to the upper scale of 60 in./oz. for "all fire." and I think for a .45 it's 12 in./oz for a "no fire" and 36 in./oz for "all fire"
Just to give a couple of examples.

[Pax Nerdvana]

Anybody know how much force it takes to detonate a modern primer? Just wondering...

Not a lot, but it varies widely in the design of the primer.

Modern ammunition uses some sort of non-corrosive non-mercury compound (NCNM). But there are a few on the market.

So basically it depends on the actual impact sensitive compound, and what flame accelerators and oxidizers are used to create the fire, and rather a friction element is involved (often primers contain powdered glass to help reliability) and the actual thickness of the metal wall of the primer itself.

Thanks! It makes sense that there would be differences due to the priming compound used. Would "not a lot" be a few pounds of force?

[Telconi]

Not a lot, but it varies widely in the design of the primer.

Modern ammunition uses some sort of non-corrosive non-mercury compound (NCNM). But there are a few on the market.

So basically it depends on the actual impact sensitive compound, and what flame accelerators and oxidizers are used to create the fire, and rather a friction element is involved (often primers contain powdered glass to help reliability) and the actual thickness of the metal wall of the primer itself.

Thanks! It makes sense that there would be differences due to the priming compound used. Would "not a lot" be a few pounds of force?

Yeah, probably a half a dozen ft/lbs would be excessive for all small arms. Percussion primed artillery pieces probably require more energy.

Generally speaking, the larger the primer the more energy required.

[Telconi]

Thanks! It makes sense that there would be differences due to the priming compound used. Would "not a lot" be a few pounds of force?

Yeah, probably a half a dozen ft/lbs would be excessive for all small arms. Percussion primed artillery pieces probably require more energy.

Generally speaking, the larger the primer the more energy required.

Reading numbers that GD provided, I over-estimated even at that, his numbers show 60 inch-ounces as "all fire" for rifles.

60 inch-ounces is just under a third of a foot-pound.

[Pax Nerdvana]

Yeah, probably a half a dozen ft/lbs would be excessive for all small arms. Percussion primed artillery pieces probably require more energy.

Generally speaking, the larger the primer the more energy required.

Reading numbers that GD provided, I over-estimated even at that, his numbers show 60 inch-ounces as "all fire" for rifles.

60 inch-ounces is just under a third of a foot-pound.

Wow! That's a lot lower then I would have expected. Thanks for the info!

[Telconi]

Reading numbers that GD provided, I over-estimated even at that, his numbers show 60 inch-ounces as "all fire" for rifles.

60 inch-ounces is just under a third of a foot-pound.

Wow! That's a lot lower then I would have expected. Thanks for the info!

I mean, imagine a revolver with an exposed hammer, that hammer is less than an inch long, and we cock it with our thumb.

[Pax Nerdvana]

Wow! That's a lot lower then I would have expected. Thanks for the info!

I mean, imagine a revolver with an exposed hammer, that hammer is less than an inch long, and we cock it with our thumb.

That's true. With a stronger spring, it'd be almost impossible to pull the hammer back.

[Telconi]

I mean, imagine a revolver with an exposed hammer, that hammer is less than an inch long, and we cock it with our thumb.

That's true. With a stronger spring, it'd be almost impossible to pull the hammer back.

Yeah, but when we think about it that's the force o. The primer, what you can exert with your thumb.

[Pax Nerdvana]

That's true. With a stronger spring, it'd be almost impossible to pull the hammer back.

Yeah, but when we think about it that's the force o. The primer, what you can exert with your thumb.

Makes sense. It's still kind of surprising.

[Fartsniffage]

Thanks! It makes sense that there would be differences due to the priming compound used. Would "not a lot" be a few pounds of force?

Yeah, probably a half a dozen ft/lbs would be excessive for all small arms. Percussion primed artillery pieces probably require more energy.

Generally speaking, the larger the primer the more energy required.

The primer in a 105mm shell is essentially a .30 blank cartridge so I'm imagine the energy needed is less than you'd think.