Toxn Posted January 19, 2016 Report Share Posted January 19, 2016 From the tilted charging handle 6.5mm gerpersherr rifle INC. Circa 1946 of course. 5.56x45 was technically possible in 1900, yo. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Collimatrix Posted January 19, 2016 Report Share Posted January 19, 2016 Another gussied-up AK. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Sturgeon Posted January 20, 2016 Report Share Posted January 20, 2016 Every time someone tries to modernize an AK, they make it very heavy in the process. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
EnsignExpendable Posted January 20, 2016 Report Share Posted January 20, 2016 Cavalry sure has changed http://i.imgur.com/7t8UjRK.webm Khand-e 1 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Tied Posted January 20, 2016 Report Share Posted January 20, 2016 Every time someone tries to modernize an AK, they make it very heavy in the process. Looks like its for the ten gallon crowd Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Tied Posted January 20, 2016 Report Share Posted January 20, 2016 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Tied Posted January 20, 2016 Report Share Posted January 20, 2016 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Sturgeon Posted January 20, 2016 Report Share Posted January 20, 2016 My impressions of the HMG Sturmgewehr: Now you can buy Hill & Mac Gunworks' tooling costs, and get a complementary $400 rifle that looks vaguely like a Sturmgewehr and weighs almost 12 pounds! I'm being mean, but the SHOT Show prototype looked very rough. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Donward Posted January 20, 2016 Report Share Posted January 20, 2016 Every time someone tries to modernize an AK, they make it very heavy in the process. This is the MO for "modernizing" any older rifle. Fer fucks sake, how do the make M14s HEAVIER? Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Toxn Posted January 20, 2016 Report Share Posted January 20, 2016 My impressions of the HMG Sturmgewehr: Now you can buy Hill & Mac Gunworks' tooling costs, and get a complementary $400 rifle that looks vaguely like a Sturmgewehr and weighs almost 12 pounds! I'm being mean, but the SHOT Show prototype looked very rough. How on earth did they manage to make something rougher and heavier than a gun which is composed mainly out of mild steel stampings? This is the MO for "modernizing" any older rifle. Fer fucks sake, how do the make M14s HEAVIER? I've mentioned this to Sturg, but I have a suspicion that plastic components just aren't any lighter than wood in practice. This is, of course, ignoring the tendency to then also put chunks of aluminium all over the place when modernizing. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Sturgeon Posted January 20, 2016 Report Share Posted January 20, 2016 How on earth did they manage to make something rougher and heavier than a gun which is composed mainly out of mild steel stampings? I've mentioned this to Sturg, but I have a suspicion that plastic components just aren't any lighter than wood in practice. This is, of course, ignoring the tendency to then also put chunks of aluminium all over the place when modernizing. Plastic is lighter, it's just that people can't design shit. I mean, the HMG guns were very early, very rushed prototypes, so there were a lot of hasty welds file marks, unpolished temper colors and other such details that come along with that. What was most remarkable to me is that the metal stamping and finishing didn't look very good. The features in the stampings looked a bit off, and the finish was an extremely dull parking job that looked like it was done just over bare metal with no intermediate finish work. They have a long way to go before they have a product that will attract all but the least observant customers. I hope they get there, but I almost wonder if it wouldn't have been better for them to leave the guns at home. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Sturgeon Posted January 20, 2016 Report Share Posted January 20, 2016 me being much nicer about it: http://www.thefirearmblog.com/blog/2016/01/19/shot-2016-hmg-sturmgewehr-arrived/ Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Toxn Posted January 20, 2016 Report Share Posted January 20, 2016 Plastic is lighter, it's just that people can't design shit. I mean, the HMG guns were very early, very rushed prototypes, so there were a lot of hasty welds file marks, unpolished temper colors and other such details that come along with that. What was most remarkable to me is that the metal stamping and finishing didn't look very good. The features in the stampings looked a bit off, and the finish was an extremely dull parking job that looked like it was done just over bare metal with no intermediate finish work. They have a long way to go before they have a product that will attract all but the least observant customers. I hope they get there, but I almost wonder if it wouldn't have been better for them to leave the guns at home. No, it's less dense*. This doesn't mean shit if you end up having to use so much more of it that you end up overweight anyway. For a gun you want something that is light, heat resistant, has good stiffness, has at least average mechanical properties otherwise, doesn't change shape once formed and is easy to form. Here, plastics are mediocre, bad, bad, good, excellent and excellent. Woods are good, good, good, bad and bad. Edit: fibreglass: great, great, great, great, great, good. I have no clue why more guns don't use fibreglass furniture. * Than metals. Most plastics are significantly more dense than woods. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Belesarius Posted January 20, 2016 Report Share Posted January 20, 2016 http://www.thestar.com/news/crime/2016/01/19/toronto-police-purchase-51-military-style-rifles.html Toronto Police Services is getting 51 C8 Carbines. These are probably going in the Senior SGTs car in each division, along with a shotgun loaded with less lethal rounds. Tho I think at $2000-3000 for a carbine, they are overpaying. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Sturgeon Posted January 20, 2016 Report Share Posted January 20, 2016 No, it's less dense*. This doesn't mean shit if you end up having to use so much more of it that you end up overweight anyway. For a gun you want something that is light, heat resistant, has good stiffness, has at least average mechanical properties otherwise, doesn't change shape once formed and is easy to form. Here, plastics are mediocre, bad, bad, good, excellent and excellent. Woods are good, good, good, bad and bad. Edit: fibreglass: great, great, great, great, great, good. I have no clue why more guns don't use fibreglass furniture. * Than metals. Most plastics are significantly more dense than woods. You can drop the condescension, I was saying that when you replace wood stocks with plastic ones of equivalent strength, guns typically get lighter. This is all dependent on which woods and plastics we're talking about, mind you. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Collimatrix Posted January 20, 2016 Report Share Posted January 20, 2016 Edit: fibreglass: great, great, great, great, great, good. I have no clue why more guns don't use fibreglass furniture. Most gun plastics are pretty damn close to being fiberglass. Most gun plastics are nylon 66 with up to 50% glass fiber fill. Fiberglass proper, as in a layup of alternating very long glass fibers set in resin would not lend itself to mass production the way that a glass reinforced thermoplastic does. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Bronezhilet Posted January 20, 2016 Report Share Posted January 20, 2016 Most gun plastics are pretty damn close to being fiberglass. Most gun plastics are nylon 66 with up to 50% glass fiber fill. Fiberglass proper, as in a layup of alternating very long glass fibers set in resin would not lend itself to mass production the way that a glass reinforced thermoplastic does. Which, as a plastic, is amazingly strong. I've seen glass fiber filled PA tensile test sample break a 1+ cm aluminium clamp in two. Turns out you can't use clamps intended for normal plastics when testing glass fiber filled plastics. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Toxn Posted January 20, 2016 Report Share Posted January 20, 2016 You can drop the condescension, I was saying that when you replace wood stocks with plastic ones of equivalent strength, guns typically get lighter. This is all dependent on which woods and plastics we're talking about, mind you. See, I'm not sure that that is the case at all. Your average wood clocks in at 0.7g/cm3, while raw nylon is around 1.1g/cm3. Reinforced plastics are even heavier. No condescension either, I'm just explaining things carefully and not assuming that the audience all has the same material science knowledge as myself. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Collimatrix Posted January 20, 2016 Report Share Posted January 20, 2016 Ad made by Polenar Tactical for some SIG clone maker. Includes graphic scenes of hammer forging and robotic dimensional consistency checks. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Toxn Posted January 20, 2016 Report Share Posted January 20, 2016 Most gun plastics are pretty damn close to being fiberglass. Most gun plastics are nylon 66 with up to 50% glass fiber fill. Fiberglass proper, as in a layup of alternating very long glass fibers set in resin would not lend itself to mass production the way that a glass reinforced thermoplastic does. Agreed that fibreglass is harder to mould, although I'd quibble about it being an insurmountable problem. Extruding fibre reinforced thermoplastic is, after all, a gigantic pain in the ass on its own account. My take is that plastics get more love primarily because of cost, dimensional stability and ease of manufacture. Material properties are a distant fourth. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Donward Posted January 20, 2016 Report Share Posted January 20, 2016 Agreed that fibreglass is harder to mould, although I'd quibble about it being an insurmountable problem. Extruding fibre reinforced thermoplastic is, after all, a gigantic pain in the ass on its own account. My take is that plastics get more love primarily because of cost, dimensional stability and ease of manufacture. Material properties are a distant fourth. Yep. Cost cutting is certainly the prime factor for the majority of gunmakers and their new plastic wunderwaffe. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Collimatrix Posted January 20, 2016 Report Share Posted January 20, 2016 You can reaction injection mold fiberglass, but the cycle times are slower than thermoplastic injection molding due to cure times. Cycle times go down further if you want a proper fiber layup. From what I understand, fiber-filled plastics aren't a huge PITA compared to regular plastics. You do need to dial in the cycle time, temps, etc, for ideal dimensional consistency, but that's the case with un-reinforced plastics too. The biggest issue is the abrasiveness of the glass fiber on that very expensive mold. Do you have some materials property data sheets for fiberglass to compare with fiber-filled plastic? Just how much better are these things supposed to be? Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Khand-e Posted January 20, 2016 Author Report Share Posted January 20, 2016 Aluminum, Polymer, with light amounts of Steel where needed guns >>>>> Ancient relic of the past heavy Steel brick and Wood guns. Also, striker fired > hammer fired. Collimatrix 1 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Donward Posted January 20, 2016 Report Share Posted January 20, 2016 *grumblegrumblegrumblegrumble* Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Collimatrix Posted January 20, 2016 Report Share Posted January 20, 2016 Aluminum, Polymer, with light amounts of Steel where needed guns >>>>> Ancient relic of the past heavy Steel brick and Wood guns. They would be, if people could design worth a damn. Per it's manual, the EM-2 was a mere 7.5 pounds, and made of good old fashioned machined steel and wood. That's with an optic and a 24.5" barrel, and firing a cartridge that's somewhat stouter than 7.62x39mm (early versions of the EM-2's 7mm cartridge were practically ballistic clones of 7.62x39mm, but the later iterations were much more powerful). About half of the new rifle designs in 5.56x45mm are heavier than that empty with 16" barrels and sixty years of materials science advances, experience in automatic weapons design, and fancy diagnostic and design tools like high-speed photography and CAD/CAM becoming not merely available, but bog standard. So what the hell? Donward 1 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Join the conversation
You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.