OnlySlightlyCrazy

I promised I would provide feedback at some point, but my brain is slow and timid. My chief thoughts are as follows. 1. The arrangement of the bolt is one of the most peculiar aspects of the weapon. Your design certainly appears supported by sound technical reasoning regarding interplay with the rounds in the magazine. My concern is that a reduction in the number of bolt lugs will correspondingly degrade the precision of the weapon. Of course, this is in the context of military ammunition, and yet more worrisome, military shooters. Further, it is certainly reasonable to accept some loss of precision to gain increase reliability of the weapon during feeding, given your starting premise. I would, in short, like to see the data. 2. The retention of the AR-15 FCG components is an interesting move. I always thought it odd that fewer companies exploited reusing existing components in this fashion. If I'm understanding correctly, it would also be easy to move towards a "cassette" style of trigger pack, which is of growing popularity with the AR-15 market. 3. Your decision to devise your own magazine is admirable, and you certainly seem to have succeeded. My friend is curious if you can handle longer ogive, possibly ~66gr range EPR style 5.56 projectiles in the magazines. I'm not sold on drums, as their weight and bulk are disconcerting, but the ability to have them is never a bad thing. 4. I have no idea how you're going to solve the action-spring issue. I'm eager to see to what degree you can balance the forces acting on the bolt. Given you're trying to be unique, I wonder to what degree you'll end up matching the SCAR or other AR-18 descendants. Given the shape of the space you're working with, I do have my predicitions. (They mostly involve it being real goose hours, so I shan't share.)

It's worth noting that many manufacturers, even some well regarded, choose to include M-Lok only on those surfaces and angles they deem most useful, using other (presumably cheaper or stronger) cutouts in other locations. Imo, this artificially limits the modularity of the rifle, which is one of the AR-15's many claims to fame. From what little I know, the ability of the rail to hold zero is - for aluminum or steel rails - determined mostly by the length and rigidity of the barrel nut. Flex of the rail itself is, if memory serves, less of a concern. That said, post 2005 any new rifle design does need to bear in mind that the laser, not the optic, is the primary aiming device for 50% of the life of the weapon, if not more, so paying additional attention or accepting additional weight in service of that fact is wise.

What would you say was the minimum necessary amount of additional weight to soldier-proof the M16A1? Is it mostly the furniture, or were additional steps such as the new lower receiver and the accursed barrel truly needed?

Sturgeon wanted me to share some files for him since he's on mobile, figured I'd get off my lazy bum and actually do it. Exterior Ballistics Charts Prepared by Coxe and Beugless. PPC Case Design and Development including work done by Palmisano and Pawlak. Let me know if these can't be viewed.

Freshman outing here, I go by James elsewhere. I stole the entirety of Sturgeon's library last night, so I figured it would be kind of me to reciprocate. PDF warning for all of these. Sensitivity Study of Rifle Gas Systems Comparison of a Theoretical and Experimental Study of the Gas System in the M16A1 Rifle The Gas Flow in Gas Operated Weapons Enjoy!