Jump to content
Sturgeon's House


Contributing Members
  • Content Count

  • Joined

  • Last visited

About BarnOwlLover

  • Rank
    Contributing Member

Recent Profile Visitors

The recent visitors block is disabled and is not being shown to other users.

  1. I'm just explaining what I've been told by others elsewhere. I'm ready and willing to learn as well. However, if that's not desired here, I'm ready and willing to leave. I've read the forum rules and requests, and I'm doing the best I can with what I know. If that's not good enough, all you have to do say please go pound sand.
  2. The thing that has to be remembered is that the SCAR was broken up into the L and H variants, or basically 5.56mm and 7.62mm NATO. The H has an upper that's nearly an inch longer than the L variant, let alone much wider. Also, considering that most of the caliber conversions (such as 7.62x39) have focused on the H variant, I've wondered and come to think that the L is optimized around 5.56mm. I actually can't remember there being any caliber conversions offered for the SCAR 16 aside from .300 Blackout. What has gotten me thinking about the 433 maybe being 7.62mm NATO compatible
  3. Measurements are in millimeters. Upper measurement is OAL, lower measurement is length of the rear of the front trunnion to approx end of mag well: The position of the TE of the rear turnnion was determined from this:
  4. I'm not going to rubbish the Minimi/M249 and stuff like it as weapons designed for a purpose, since they suit that purpose well. What I'm questioning is does an infantry rifle squad need a belt fed MG that actually doesn't weigh a ton less than a light weight 7.62mm/.30 cal belt fed like say a Mk48 or a PKM? It has to be remembered that the M249 and the MG4 and the like are belt fed in part to provide some sustained fire capability. I agree that at the squad level a SAW should fired the same rounds as the infantry rifle does, but I do think that a mag fed weapon, sort of a heavy
  5. This is one modern rifle that I'm insanely interested in, especially since there was a TFB article that hinted that there was a .308 Winchester/7.62mm NATO version being worked on that might use the same upper as the 5.56mm NATO version that HK has shown in several different versions since 2017. This is the latest (known) iteration of the 433, and if you've seen some of the POTD posts at TFB since May of last year, you've probably seen it a time or two. In short, the 433 is HK's answer to the FN SCAR and to try and one up it. IMO, the most interesting thing about the 433 is that
  6. Just commenting on what I read in this thread. One of the criticisms I read was how difficult the EM-2 would've been to mass produce with 1950's tech. Yes, we built nearly 6 million M1s in World War II, as well as numerous BARs, Browning 1917s and 1919s and Thompson SMGs that relied heavily on forgings for assembly. Also, Enfiled made the Bren LMG, which was made almost entirely out of forgings. But two things are worth remembering. One, for the Bren, until it was made in Canada, almost all Bren LMGs were made at Enfield, and there was a worry that if the factory was badly damaged enough
  7. Wonder if anyone would be interested in me posting at least links to HK433 patent images. I'm also open to discussing the rifle in an appropriate area given what me and Sturgeon have mentioned in the Ammo Discussion thread.
  8. I'm not going to bash the EM-2 as a concept, but in some ways it was flawed. Namely, as has been pointed out, in it's original for, the .280 round (like most non SCHV intermediate rounds) has issues with accuracy due to a fairly heavy bullet being propelled at fairly low velocity. Like Ian pointed out in his EM-2 and .280 FAL videos and Forgotten Weapons articles, .280, though designed mostly as a 600 yard round, tended to have a high arc between the muzzle and most of the longer ranges it was intended to be used in. If it was chambered in the 6.25mm/.280 (6.25x43mm round) or the intended 6
  9. On the HK Pro board, I've been discussing with others if the 433 was designed to take up to 7.62mm NATO/.308 rounds as far as width/OAL. As far as is known, only the 5.56mm versions have been shown publicly thus far, though they've said for sure that versions in 7.62x39mm and .300 Blackout will be out shortly after the 5.56mm version is released (if it gets adopted by the German Army), and from what I can tell, will likely be available for conversion though different bolts, lowers, barrels and mags. Also, again messing around with with a photo scaler/measurer, it does seems to be
  10. I was actually reading some stuff on ammo at TFB, and I have to admit that I'm not the biggest fan of being constrained to the 56mm-57.4mm OAL rounds that the AR-15 and AK-47/47 platforms have proliferated. However, I really like the .224 Vulcan and 6.86mm Romulan rounds that were hypothetically created. Both do things well in different ways. 6.86mm is basically a .276 Pedersen capitalistically (which I think .276 is an underrated round), while the .224 Vulcan is a .223 Remington/5.56mm NATO or .224 Valkyrie on roids. The 6.86 does punch a fairly big hole, while the .224 suits the SCHV wit
  • Create New...