Main Military Weapon of your Country: Pattern VIII (Read OP)

[Aqizithiuda]

Oh America, you so disappointing: http://www.thefirearmblog.com/blog/2013/04/02/us-servicemen-rifle-hands-1996/

On that note, why did the Steyr ACR never get adopted?

Because it couldn't double the performance of the M16. There were also issues with split cases, sabots bouncing around and presenting a hazard to the troops, hideous muzzle blast and the easy deflection of the 10gr flechettes and their poor barrier penetration.

[Bajireyn]

On that note, why did the Steyr ACR never get adopted?

Because it couldn't double the performance of the M16. There were also issues with split cases, sabots bouncing around and presenting a hazard to the troops, hideous muzzle blast and the easy deflection of the 10gr flechettes and their poor barrier penetration.

Oh.

Shame, it was a good looking rifle.

[Nua Corda]

I can't remember where I heard it but apperatly the US is switching to the SCAR platform.

Gods fuck you google. I liked my rounded options why you fuck that up?!

I heard that as well, also that they're switching BACK to the 7.62x51mm as a standard infantry cartridge.

God, NATO has to be sick of that by now.
US, 1960: "Hey, look at this shiny new cartridge!"
NATO: "OK!"
US, 1970: "Hey, look at THIS shiny new cartridge! And replace all yer other guns!"
NATO: "...fine."
US, now: "Now, I remember what I said, but...let's go back to that first one."
NATO: [expletives deleted]

This does not sound legit at all.

[Aqizithiuda]

Because it couldn't double the performance of the M16. There were also issues with split cases, sabots bouncing around and presenting a hazard to the troops, hideous muzzle blast and the easy deflection of the 10gr flechettes and their poor barrier penetration.

Oh.

Shame, it was a good looking rifle.

It just needs to be rechambered in a proper intermediate round it it'll be good.

[Black Hand]

Oh.

Shame, it was a good looking rifle.

It just needs to be rechambered in a proper intermediate round it it'll be good.

So let me get this straight you mean you want an Steyr ACR rechambered in an intermediate cartridge so in other words you want an AUG? the main difference was the Sights and the buttstock was different.

[Aqizithiuda]

It just needs to be rechambered in a proper intermediate round it it'll be good.

So let me get this straight you mean you want an Steyr ACR rechambered in an intermediate cartridge so in other words you want an AUG? the main difference was the Sights and the buttstock was different.

I think perhaps you should go vist the World Guns website and compare the two rifles .

[Black Hand]

So let me get this straight you mean you want an Steyr ACR rechambered in an intermediate cartridge so in other words you want an AUG? the main difference was the Sights and the buttstock was different.

I think perhaps you should go vist the World Guns website and compare the two rifles .

I see now but WTF Rising breech why? this seems like a rather unusual system and well in order for flechette to work they need to be hella dense like tungsten, DU or even possibly titanium cased osmium.( hey I can fantasize about ultimate AP it's NS)

[Aqizithiuda]

I think perhaps you should go vist the World Guns website and compare the two rifles .

I see now but WTF Rising breech why? this seems like a rather unusual system and well in order for flechette to work they need to be hella dense like tungsten, DU or even possibly titanium cased osmium.( hey I can fantasize about ultimate AP it's NS)

Because it's extremely simple and allows for a slightly higher rate of fire, along with lighter ammunition and easier extraction of cartridges.

Steel flechettes are fine, really. You just need to make them not tiny.

[Ulfr-Reich]

Gentlemen, another "Food for thought".


Picture a caseless FG-42 style of rifle firing caseless .280 British.

[Purpelia]

Gentlemen, another "Food for thought".


Picture a caseless FG-42 style of rifle firing caseless .280 British.

Won't work. Caseless ammo does not work with regular actions and thus needs special feeding and extracting as well as a generally completely different looking rifle.

[Benomia]

Is there any functional difference between a milled, machined, stamped, or 3D printed receiver (I know that last one is a stretch, but oh well)?

[Nua Corda]

Is there any functional difference between a milled, machined, stamped, or 3D printed receiver (I know that last one is a stretch, but oh well)?

Yes.

Milled: Tends to be stronger and often lends more accuracy, but more expensive and tighter tolerances. Also heavier.

Machined: Like milled, but crappier.

Stamped: light, cheap and easy to mass-produce. Looser tolerances can mean less accuracy, but more reliability.

3D-printed: Like milled, but lighter and flimsier.

[Aqizithiuda]

Gentlemen, another "Food for thought".


Picture a caseless FG-42 style of rifle firing caseless .280 British.

Won't work. Caseless ammo does not work with regular actions and thus needs special feeding and extracting as well as a generally completely different looking rifle.

I'm sure it's possible to design a caseless rifle that looks similar to the FG-42.

[Amastol]

Nua Corda: I respectfully disagree,

Machining is the general term for a number of processes taking raw materials and by means of reduction; shaping it material to form a final piece. Milling is one of those processes like turning, lapping, tapping, and reaming. So it can't really be better than any other form of machining since a firearm will require multiple forms of machining to reach a final product. Unless you mean to compare traditional Machining to Computer Numerical Control (CNC) Machined pieces, I really dont have the data to compare but since the actual machinery is the same (rotary millers, lathes and drills) I fail to see how the improved precision and lubricant control would hurt the parts.

Stamping is a means of taking a flat extruded sheet and through prosure shaping it into final form, its much cheaper per part and easier to mass produce. It is also lighter per part but much less durable to impacts than machined parts. Precision is also tougher but even in WWII there were some impressive pieces of precision design from stamped weapons... not that they were pretty though.

3d printing isn't in my opinion really viable yet for actual scale production of firearms. Yes it doable (as it they have printed lower receivers and magazines) but this is more of a publicity stunt/proof of concept than any true validation. Now if you are referring to things like Advanced MIM (Metal Injection Molding) well Id say there are quite a few who dislike MIM due to their somewhat increased brittleness but I'll admit its been a long time since I've looked at MIM, though I think SIG produces a lot of their smaller pieces ( mag releases, safety levers, etc) via MIM. I know its not 3d printing but it is a form of sintering which does relate to metal rapid prototyping.

[Nua Corda]

Nua Corda: I respectfully disagree,

Machining is the general term for a number of processes taking raw materials and by means of reduction; shaping it material to form a final piece. Milling is one of those processes like turning, lapping, tapping, and reaming. So it can't really be better than any other form of machining since a firearm will require multiple forms of machining to reach a final product. Unless you mean to compare traditional Machining to Computer Numerical Control (CNC) Machined pieces, I really dont have the data to compare but since the actual machinery is the same (rotary millers, lathes and drills) I fail to see how the improved precision and lubricant control would hurt the parts.

Stamping is a means of taking a flat extruded sheet and through prosure shaping it into final form, its much cheaper per part and easier to mass produce. It is also lighter per part but much less durable to impacts than machined parts. Precision is also tougher but even in WWII there were some impressive pieces of precision design from stamped weapons... not that they were pretty though.

3d printing isn't in my opinion really viable yet for actual scale production of firearms. Yes it doable (as it they have printed lower receivers and magazines) but this is more of a publicity stunt/proof of concept than any true validation. Now if you are referring to things like Advanced MIM (Metal Injection Molding) well Id say there are quite a few who dislike MIM due to their somewhat increased brittleness but I'll admit its been a long time since I've looked at MIM, though I think SIG produces a lot of their smaller pieces ( mag releases, safety levers, etc) via MIM. I know its not 3d printing but it is a form of sintering which does relate to metal rapid prototyping.

My mistake. I've just heard "machined" receiver used to refer to crappy milled pieces previously.

Pretty much what I said.

Well, there is additive manufacturing with metal dust. But I'm not sure of its merits as pertains weapons design.

[Amastol]

There is no denying there are some crappy machined/milled receivers out there, I just feel that has more to do with the overall QA/Design of the manufacturer/weapon itself than the process.

[Lolzieristan]

I heard that as well, also that they're switching BACK to the 7.62x51mm as a standard infantry cartridge.

God, NATO has to be sick of that by now.
US, 1960: "Hey, look at this shiny new cartridge!"
NATO: "OK!"
US, 1970: "Hey, look at THIS shiny new cartridge! And replace all yer other guns!"
NATO: "...fine."
US, now: "Now, I remember what I said, but...let's go back to that first one."
NATO: [expletives deleted]

This does not sound legit at all.

What, in reference to the re-adoption of the 7.62?

I can see where the mistake might have come from, since I heard it from a friend who's not...as crazy as us in terms of this stuff. He could have read something about the SCAR, thought "SCAR-H" instead of "SCAR-L", and told me 7.62.

But I can also see how it might be a side effect of the "preparing for the previous war" syndrome in military R&D. Afghanistan has much longer engagement ranges than the >300yds of conventional wisdom. Thus the M14 and it's children are re-emerging on the field.

But I doubt another switch will occur, unless it's to something drastic like caseless.

[Nua Corda]

There is no denying there are some crappy machined/milled receivers out there, I just feel that has more to do with the overall QA/Design of the manufacturer/weapon itself than the process.

Of course.

This does not sound legit at all.

What, in reference to the re-adoption of the 7.62?

I can see where the mistake might have come from, since I heard it from a friend who's not...as crazy as us in terms of this stuff. He could have read something about the SCAR, thought "SCAR-H" instead of "SCAR-L", and told me 7.62.

But I can also see how it might be a side effect of the "preparing for the previous war" syndrome in military R&D. Afghanistan has much longer engagement ranges than the >300yds of conventional wisdom. Thus the M14 and it's children are re-emerging on the field.

But I doubt another switch will occur, unless it's to something drastic like caseless.

Supposedly M855A1 will make the M16 series more effective in afghanistan.

[Yes Im Biop]

There is no denying there are some crappy machined/milled receivers out there, I just feel that has more to do with the overall QA/Design of the manufacturer/weapon itself than the process.

Of course.

What, in reference to the re-adoption of the 7.62?

I can see where the mistake might have come from, since I heard it from a friend who's not...as crazy as us in terms of this stuff. He could have read something about the SCAR, thought "SCAR-H" instead of "SCAR-L", and told me 7.62.

But I can also see how it might be a side effect of the "preparing for the previous war" syndrome in military R&D. Afghanistan has much longer engagement ranges than the >300yds of conventional wisdom. Thus the M14 and it's children are re-emerging on the field.

But I doubt another switch will occur, unless it's to something drastic like caseless.

Supposedly M855A1 will make the M16 series more effective in afghanistan.

I keep thinking that's a Cannon round. What is it?

[Nua Corda]

Of course.



Supposedly M855A1 will make the M16 series more effective in afghanistan.

I keep thinking that's a Cannon round. What is it?

Improved 5.56.

[Yes Im Biop]

I keep thinking that's a Cannon round. What is it?

Improved 5.56.

SO a 7.62 round? XD

[Aqizithiuda]

Improved 5.56.

SO a 7.62 round? XD

No.

[Yes Im Biop]

SO a 7.62 round? XD

No.

Then it's still a .22 with more powder.

[San-Silvacian]

Improved 5.56.

SO a 7.62 round? XD

M885 Ball is the standard ammunition round used right now.

Naturally, M885A1 is an evolution of the the M885.

Got it? Not everything can be solved with bwattle wifles wulwulwulwul

[Yes Im Biop]

SO a 7.62 round? XD

M885 Ball is the standard ammunition round used right now.

Naturally, M885A1 is an evolution of the the M885.

Got it? Not everything can be solved with bwattle wifles wulwulwulwul

Like what?