Straight from Secret Squirrel and Morocco Mole...... - Page 2

AR-15 » AR Discussions

AR Sponsor:

Site Notices

[ARCHIVED THREAD] - Straight from Secret Squirrel and Morocco Mole...... (Page 2 of 3)

Posted: 2/9/2006 1:58:20 AM EDT

[#1]

Quoted:
They had to release a piston to compete with HK, I'm glad to see they did.

Me too...

Posted: 2/9/2006 7:56:12 AM EDT

[#2]

I don't think they are gonna be making them for production until late 2006.
I am looking forward to trying one out.

Posted: 2/9/2006 10:18:01 AM EDT

[#3]

Wicked! Must ......have.......one.....!

Posted: 2/9/2006 11:05:14 AM EDT

[#4]

Quoted:
too bad this is a dupe

professional dupers link to the dupe

Posted: 2/9/2006 11:16:47 AM EDT

[#5]

Quoted:
well, we know Colt's is not wasting their R/D dollars on those silly, slick, informative marketing materials

www.thefiringline.com/forums/attachment.php?attachmentid=17403&d=1139339562

Come on guys!

Well, probably because it's a fax jackass!

Posted: 2/9/2006 11:27:47 AM EDT

[#6]

HK? Or Colt one piece uppers? Or both?

Need to open a secret bank account behind my wife now.

Posted: 2/9/2006 11:30:54 AM EDT

[#7]

Quoted:
HK? Or Colt one piece uppers? Or both?

Need to open a secret bank account behind my wife now.

Both

Posted: 2/10/2006 3:37:17 AM EDT

[#8]

Quoted:
Quoted:
well, we know Colt's is not wasting their R/D dollars on those silly, slick, informative marketing materials

www.thefiringline.com/forums/attachment.php?attachmentid=17403&d=1139339562

Come on guys!

Well, probably because it's a fax jackass!

Jackass?

I realize the page is a fax. So what?

It is still a lame one- pager to launch a product that is to compete with other 'similar products' who have commited real money to introducing and launching theirs ......DUMBASS!

Posted: 2/10/2006 4:04:56 AM EDT

[#9]

From what I can see with that high-quality reproduction photo (j/k) it looks like that Colt gas system is more closely related to the POF than the L-W. It LOOKS like there is a removable or adjustable gas plug above the barrel, which would lead me to believe it has an FAL-like gas system. What say you guys?

Posted: 2/10/2006 5:45:47 AM EDT

[#10]

Chris Bartocci says he is did up an article on a Colt's piston operated rifle:

Quoted:

I would like to announce some articles I have in print right now that may interest some of you. I have a article coming out in SAR on the M4. One that addresses what it is and what it is not. Also a two part series on Colts SCAR program. The first part is their two direct gas entries and the second part is on their gas piston submission. I had an opportunity to spend a day at the factory and fire nearly 800 or so rounds through all three.

So seems to me that Colt's is getting ready to market their piston operated rifle. Colt's did bring it to the SHOT SHOW. Just hope that Mr Bartocci's write up is not a "infomercial" like we have seen lately from SAR.

Posted: 2/10/2006 5:50:27 AM EDT

[#11]

Quoted:
Quoted:
well, we know Colt's is not wasting their R/D dollars on those silly, slick, informative marketing materials

www.thefiringline.com/forums/attachment.php?attachmentid=17403&d=1139339562

Come on guys!

Well, probably because it's a fax jackass!

Perfect example of a

Posted: 2/11/2006 4:26:10 AM EDT

[#12]

Oh well, nice to see someone new in the piston game. Now if there was just ONE system and all the manufacturers copied it (like the DI system is currently a given)..........

Posted: 2/11/2006 6:10:03 AM EDT

[#13]

Quoted:
From what I can see with that high-quality reproduction photo (j/k) it looks like that Colt gas system is more closely related to the POF than the L-W. It LOOKS like there is a removable or adjustable gas plug above the barrel, which would lead me to believe it has an FAL-like gas system. What say you guys?

Yes... it is a FAL type systems (closer to POF than LW), that is a piston plug you see up front, it is removed by rotating it 90 degrees and then you can pull the piston out of the front. The plug is retained by a tiny little take down pin looking thing...

Other things you can not see... it is a solid monolithic upper and does not use standard barrels, the lower section of the handguard is removable to mount a 203. This is pretty much the gas piston entry from SCAR -- I only hope that they have made some changes, as it failed out of SCAR right quickly.

Posted: 2/11/2006 8:07:30 AM EDT

[#14]

Taken from ArfCom's Armory SHOT Show section.

Posted: 2/11/2006 10:42:21 AM EDT

[#15]

The piston does have a little POF look to it. Basically the same idea. Either way Im glad that Colt realized the future of the AR15.

You can never have enough piston op AR's.

Posted: 2/11/2006 11:59:51 AM EDT

[#16]

I cant wait for the professional photogrpahers to start putting their pictures up on the web.

These bigfoot walking through the trees rushed and blurry pictures are killing me.

Posted: 2/11/2006 12:14:27 PM EDT

[#17]

Quoted:
"....... This is pretty much the gas piston entry from SCAR -- I only hope that they have made some changes, as it failed out of SCAR right quickly.

Have you heard any rumors why this design failed?

Or just a testament to the strength of the FN design?

Posted: 2/11/2006 12:18:58 PM EDT

[#18]

Quoted:
Have you heard any rumors why this design failed?

No sorry... only facts.

Posted: 2/11/2006 12:23:17 PM EDT

[#19]

Tag for useful pictures.

Posted: 2/11/2006 12:26:16 PM EDT

[#20]

group law suite (by HK, LW, etc)!

Posted: 2/11/2006 12:33:41 PM EDT

[#21]

Quoted:
Quoted:
Have you heard any ~~rumors~~ facts on why this design failed?

No sorry... only facts.

So, was your reference to the piston the answer here?

Posted: 2/11/2006 1:11:31 PM EDT

[#22]

thats an ugly upper

Posted: 2/11/2006 4:57:33 PM EDT

[#23]

Quoted:
who the heck is that? this is Secret Squirrel...

images.google.com/images?q=tbn:cDNmsZn8Rr8J:www.serendipityartsales.com/images/owsley/Secret_Squirrel!__125.jpg

Bobby

That's Sooper Snooper and Blabber Mouse, the guys that found out that Colt invented Kool-Aid, not the AR... NOOB.

Posted: 2/11/2006 5:22:47 PM EDT

[#24]

No pics of the whole rifle???

Posted: 2/11/2006 9:54:06 PM EDT

[#25]

Found this.

Posted: 2/11/2006 9:57:13 PM EDT

[#26]

This really sucks.... I'm an HK fan and I love KoolAid too... Sounds like an expensive peroid here for my poor wallet

Posted: 2/11/2006 10:11:28 PM EDT

[#27]

Quoted:
Found this.

i28.photobucket.com/albums/c240/charnmike/17258-1020.jpg

Kudos to Colt for staying in the fight and innovating. If Colt can get it together this could be a huge product that just pounds the hell out of RRA, Bushy and Armalite.

If the .mil gives this thing attention it will become the standard overnight which would be dire for LW, POF and HK. There can only be one piston standard. The market will not allow conflicting piston designs to compete and survive off the same dollars

Posted: 2/12/2006 5:50:56 AM EDT

[#28]

Quoted:
for those that are know/concerned how would an HK upper effect the parts count of a regular ar15? would this be a non complience issue, or is this manufactured at the US plant that does not exist yet?

There is no parts-count issue on domestically manufactured rifles. AR-15 rifles are made here in the U.S., so they are not subject to 922(r).

On the other hand, if HK were to import complete HK416 rifles into the U.S. for civilian consumption, they would have to have enough US-made parts to be considered domestic.

Posted: 2/12/2006 6:21:49 AM EDT

[#29]

Quoted:
Quoted:
for those that are know/concerned how would an HK upper effect the parts count of a regular ar15? would this be a non complience issue, or is this manufactured at the US plant that does not exist yet?

There is no parts-count issue on domestically manufactured rifles. AR-15 rifles are made here in the U.S., so they are not subject to 922(r).

On the other hand, if HK were to import complete HK416 rifles into the U.S. for civilian consumption, they would have to have enough US-made parts to be considered domestic.

If you are were to use a HK upper, you still would have to be worried about 922r. It doesn't matter if the foreign gun is complete or not.

Posted: 2/12/2006 6:49:50 AM EDT

[#30]

18 USC Section 922(r) specifically was drawn up to prevent domestic assembly of non importable weapons, such as the HK416. Remember B West was building Chinese Type 56 rifles with US made receivers, that is what started the whole thing.

Last time this subject came up I did a parts count on the HK416 upper on a US lower, and it is not even close, you could even use a imported mag and be OK. Plus 18 USC Section 922(r) is not enforced at the user level so moot point.

Posted: 2/12/2006 6:52:01 AM EDT

[#31]

Oh, and I find it hard to believe that any loser SCAR entry such as this is going to be a success, considering that the winner will be available in a year or so.

Posted: 2/12/2006 6:59:39 AM EDT

[#32]

Quoted:
Quoted:
Quoted:
for those that are know/concerned how would an HK upper effect the parts count of a regular ar15? would this be a non complience issue, or is this manufactured at the US plant that does not exist yet?

There is no parts-count issue on domestically manufactured rifles. AR-15 rifles are made here in the U.S., so they are not subject to 922(r).

On the other hand, if HK were to import complete HK416 rifles into the U.S. for civilian consumption, they would have to have enough US-made parts to be considered domestic.

If you are were to use a HK upper, you still would have to be worried about 922r. It doesn't matter if the foreign gun is complete or not.

Correct.

I misread his post and thought that he meant the HK-type upper made by Colt. As for using a genuine HK upper on an AR-15, the foreign parts cannot exceed 10.

For purposes of this section, the parts are:

1. Frames or receivers
2. Barrels
3. Barrel extensions
4. Mounting blocks (trunnions)
5. Muzzle attachments
6. Bolts
7. Bolt carriers
8. Operating rods
9. Gas pistons
10. Trigger housings
11. Triggers
12. Hammers
13. Sears
14. Disconnectors
15. Buttstocks
16. Pistol grips
17. Forearms, handguards
18. Magazine bodies
19. Followers
20. Floorplates

Would it be safe to assume that adding an HK upper would add 7 foreign parts, which is less than the 10 maximum?

Posted: 2/12/2006 7:06:50 AM EDT

[#33]

Quoted:
Oh, and I find it hard to believe that any loser SCAR entry such as this is going to be a success, considering that the winner will be available in a year or so.

+1

For all the sales-reps talking about the ease of training continuity with going for a new AR upper the military apparently dosn't seem to buy into the "improved" AR pitch as evident by the SCAR.

Posted: 2/12/2006 7:42:58 AM EDT

[#34]

That's because the SCAR is going to SOCOM, not Big Army, and those guys are by definition smarter than the rest of us.

I wonder if that means I can get a nice 6.8mm Recce as a hand-me-down from SOCOM then?

Posted: 2/12/2006 7:50:41 AM EDT

[#35]

So has anyone seen this at the SHOTshow???
I haven't seen much from Colt

Posted: 2/12/2006 7:55:46 AM EDT

[#36]

Quoted:
Quoted:
Quoted:
Quoted:
for those that are know/concerned how would an HK upper effect the parts count of a regular ar15? would this be a non complience issue, or is this manufactured at the US plant that does not exist yet?

There is no parts-count issue on domestically manufactured rifles. AR-15 rifles are made here in the U.S., so they are not subject to 922(r).

On the other hand, if HK were to import complete HK416 rifles into the U.S. for civilian consumption, they would have to have enough US-made parts to be considered domestic.

If you are were to use a HK upper, you still would have to be worried about 922r. It doesn't matter if the foreign gun is complete or not.

Correct.

I misread his post and thought that he meant the HK-type upper made by Colt. As for using a genuine HK upper on an AR-15, the foreign parts cannot exceed 10.

For purposes of this section, the parts are:

1. Frames or receivers
2. Barrels
3. Barrel extensions
4. Mounting blocks (trunnions)
5. Muzzle attachments
6. Bolts
7. Bolt carriers
8. Operating rods
9. Gas pistons
10. Trigger housings
11. Triggers
12. Hammers
13. Sears
14. Disconnectors
15. Buttstocks
16. Pistol grips
17. Forearms, handguards
18. Magazine bodies
19. Followers
20. Floorplates

Would it be safe to assume that adding an HK upper would add 7 foreign parts, which is less than the 10 maximum?

HK upper should only be a max of 8 foreign parts. Bbl, upper, forearm, piston, operating rod, bolt, carrier, and muzzle attachment (if you don't swap for a US one). Unless you were to pop an HK enhanced mag in there, in which case you suddenly are in trouble (makes 11). By swapping the FH for a US FH, you drop to seven, and then even using HK mags should still be safe.

This should make the 416 importable, so I still don't understand why they don't take advantage of the civilian market by just selling "enhanced uppers". Incremental returns on investment (R&D costs and tooling) are better than no returns.

I have no idea if the gas piston really improves thing long run or whether it is an unnecessary tactical addition, and doubt I ever will. Stoner removed the gas piston, but whether that was to reduce cost and training, or increase reliability is something I have never read up on conclusively. If someone has links or data on Stoner's rationale I'd really appreciate being able to read it.

Posted: 2/12/2006 8:25:02 AM EDT

[#37]

Quoted:
If someone has links or data on Stoner's rationale I'd really appreciate being able to read it.

there actually was a guy on here that did work with Stoner in the past, he posted some info about piston uppers in one of the L-W threads and was torn apart by the the self appointed experts on arfcom -- one guy that was "correcting" him actually admitted to me in IM that he does not own an AR, but is learning about them from people on here so he can make an "informed choice" when he buys (most likely, when he is old enough to get one really).

Anyway... the point is if someone where to post the info you want, it would be burried so quickly in a LoTF "follow the leader" chant that it would go un-noticed or dismissed as BS.

Posted: 2/12/2006 12:11:57 PM EDT

[#38]

Quoted:
Quoted:
Quoted:
Quoted:
Quoted:
for those that are know/concerned how would an HK upper effect the parts count of a regular ar15? would this be a non complience issue, or is this manufactured at the US plant that does not exist yet?

There is no parts-count issue on domestically manufactured rifles. AR-15 rifles are made here in the U.S., so they are not subject to 922(r).

On the other hand, if HK were to import complete HK416 rifles into the U.S. for civilian consumption, they would have to have enough US-made parts to be considered domestic.

If you are were to use a HK upper, you still would have to be worried about 922r. It doesn't matter if the foreign gun is complete or not.

Correct.

I misread his post and thought that he meant the HK-type upper made by Colt. As for using a genuine HK upper on an AR-15, the foreign parts cannot exceed 10.

For purposes of this section, the parts are:

1. Frames or receivers
2. Barrels
3. Barrel extensions
4. Mounting blocks (trunnions)
5. Muzzle attachments
6. Bolts
7. Bolt carriers
8. Operating rods
9. Gas pistons
10. Trigger housings
11. Triggers
12. Hammers
13. Sears
14. Disconnectors
15. Buttstocks
16. Pistol grips
17. Forearms, handguards
18. Magazine bodies
19. Followers
20. Floorplates

Would it be safe to assume that adding an HK upper would add 7 foreign parts, which is less than the 10 maximum?

HK upper should only be a max of 8 foreign parts. Bbl, upper, forearm, piston, operating rod, bolt, carrier, and muzzle attachment (if you don't swap for a US one). Unless you were to pop an HK enhanced mag in there, in which case you suddenly are in trouble (makes 11). By swapping the FH for a US FH, you drop to seven, and then even using HK mags should still be safe.

This should make the 416 importable, so I still don't understand why they don't take advantage of the civilian market by just selling "enhanced uppers". Incremental returns on investment (R&D costs and tooling) are better than no returns.

I have no idea if the gas piston really improves thing long run or whether it is an unnecessary tactical addition, and doubt I ever will. Stoner removed the gas piston, but whether that was to reduce cost and training, or increase reliability is something I have never read up on conclusively. If someone has links or data on Stoner's rationale I'd really appreciate being able to read it.

"Barrel Extension" might also be possible, that would make the parts count 9. I brought this up in another thread as well, but it's an uphill battle trying to make the AR crowd understand that 922(r) does apply to them.

Posted: 2/13/2006 5:26:00 AM EDT

[#39]

Quoted:
Quoted:
If someone has links or data on Stoner's rationale I'd really appreciate being able to read it.

there actually was a guy on here that did work with Stoner in the past, he posted some info about piston uppers in one of the L-W threads and was torn apart by the the self appointed experts on arfcom -- one guy that was "correcting" him actually admitted to me in IM that he does not own an AR, but is learning about them from people on here so he can make an "informed choice" when he buys (most likely, when he is old enough to get one really).

Anyway... the point is if someone where to post the info you want, it would be burried so quickly in a LoTF "follow the leader" chant that it would go un-noticed or dismissed as BS.

Sullivan?

Posted: 2/13/2006 5:58:39 AM EDT

[#40]

Quoted:
Quoted:
"....... This is pretty much the gas piston entry from SCAR -- I only hope that they have made some changes, as it failed out of SCAR right quickly.

Have you heard any rumors why this design failed?

Or just a testament to the strength of the FN design?

Its "Failure" in the SCAR trials might have more to do with its retention of the standard AR buffer tube. It fills with water during water insertions, while the FN lacks a buffer tube completely. NSW understandably has allot of input into the SCAR rifle and obviously a reliable platform for water insertions would be high on their wish list for the SCAR. I cannot see how this would effect any of our buying decisions. How many of us do water insertions?

Posted: 2/13/2006 6:05:12 AM EDT

[#41]

Quoted:
there actually was a guy on here that did work with Stoner in the past, he posted some info about piston uppers in one of the L-W threads and was torn apart by the the self appointed experts on arfcom -- one guy that was "correcting" him actually admitted to me in IM that he does not own an AR, but is learning about them from people on here so he can make an "informed choice" when he buys (most likely, when he is old enough to get one really).

I have the funny suspicion I could guess who the "one guy" is.

He has stepped on his dick more than a few times. I also got him to admit he does not even own an AR.

Posted: 2/13/2006 6:26:55 AM EDT

[#42]

Quoted:
Its "Failure" in the SCAR trials might have more to do with its retention of the standard AR buffer tube. It fills with water during water insertions, while the FN lacks a buffer tube completely. NSW understandably has allot of input into the SCAR rifle and obviously a reliable platform for water insertions would be high on their wish list for the SCAR. I cannot see how this would effect any of our buying decisions. How many of us do water insertions?

I can think of some additional reasons an AR-15 was not the best choice to bring to the SCAR trials:

Quoted:

I see a few specs that rule out a conventional AR-15. Here are the specs I caught in a quick overview, I paraphrased them:

3.2.1.8.3 Be able to charge the weapon while maintaining sight picture

3.2.3.1.1 Must be to fire weapon with a bore obstruction with out it blowing into pieces.

3.2.4.3.1 and .2 Be able to get water out of the bore without opening the bolt.

archive.ar15.com/forums/topic.html?b=3&f=12&t=169546

Posted: 2/13/2006 6:34:46 AM EDT

[#43]

Quoted:
Quoted:
Its "Failure" in the SCAR trials might have more to do with its retention of the standard AR buffer tube. It fills with water during water insertions, while the FN lacks a buffer tube completely. NSW understandably has allot of input into the SCAR rifle and obviously a reliable platform for water insertions would be high on their wish list for the SCAR. I cannot see how this would effect any of our buying decisions. How many of us do water insertions?

I can think of some additional reasons an AR-15 was not the best choice to bring to the SCAR trials:

Quoted:

I see a few specs that rule out a conventional AR-15. Here are the specs I caught in a quick overview, I paraphrased them:

3.2.1.8.3 Be able to charge the weapon while maintaining sight picture

3.2.3.1.1 Must be to fire weapon with a bore obstruction with out it blowing into pieces.

3.2.4.3.1 and .2 Be able to get water out of the bore without opening the bolt.

archive.ar15.com/forums/topic.html?b=3&f=12&t=169546

Exactly.

Posted: 2/13/2006 6:40:46 AM EDT

[#44]

Quoted:
Quoted:
Quoted:
for those that are know/concerned how would an HK upper effect the parts count of a regular ar15? would this be a non complience issue, or is this manufactured at the US plant that does not exist yet?

There is no parts-count issue on domestically manufactured rifles. AR-15 rifles are made here in the U.S., so they are not subject to 922(r).

On the other hand, if HK were to import complete HK416 rifles into the U.S. for civilian consumption, they would have to have enough US-made parts to be considered domestic.

If you are were to use a HK upper, you still would have to be worried about 922r. It doesn't matter if the foreign gun is complete or not.

This is a complete non-issue. The parts count does not even come close to warrant the discussion. It’s about the same as worrying that you tore off the “Do not remove tags” from your mattress.

On a side note, can anybody name even one case of somebody getting into trouble for parts count issues in the first place?

Posted: 2/13/2006 6:51:26 AM EDT

[#45]

Quoted:
Quoted:
Quoted:
Its "Failure" in the SCAR trials might have more to do with its retention of the standard AR buffer tube. It fills with water during water insertions, while the FN lacks a buffer tube completely. NSW understandably has allot of input into the SCAR rifle and obviously a reliable platform for water insertions would be high on their wish list for the SCAR. I cannot see how this would effect any of our buying decisions. How many of us do water insertions?

I can think of some additional reasons an AR-15 was not the best choice to bring to the SCAR trials:

Quoted:

I see a few specs that rule out a conventional AR-15. Here are the specs I caught in a quick overview, I paraphrased them:

3.2.1.8.3 Be able to charge the weapon while maintaining sight picture

3.2.3.1.1 Must be to fire weapon with a bore obstruction with out it blowing into pieces.

3.2.4.3.1 and .2 Be able to get water out of the bore without opening the bolt.

archive.ar15.com/forums/topic.html?b=3&f=12&t=169546

Exactly.

Right, no way an AR can do all those things. Sounds like those particular requirement came from the SEALs, and they don't like M4A1's performance coming out of the water (A huge factor in Iraq and Stan I am sure). I see that the FN rifle can be charged from the shoulder, but I doubt it can be fired with a bore obstruction and not blow a gasket. Also, don't think it is possible to drain a 5.56 bore with the bolt closed.

Anyhow, Colt's entry is still a loser, and FN looks to be available in the next year. I see it an uphill battle for Colt's fancy Carbine, unless the SCAR program hit a snag (and I would not be surprised) or Big Army goes a different direction then SOCOM.

Just the same, bet Colt's could sell every one of those Carbine they made, in that their non military production is seriously limited these days.

Posted: 2/13/2006 6:54:08 AM EDT

[#46]

Quoted:
This is a complete non-issue. The parts count does not even come close to warrant the discussion. It’s about the same as worrying that you tore off the “Do not remove tags” from your mattress.

On a side note, can anybody name even one case of somebody getting into trouble for parts count issues in the first place?

Not as far as a successful prosecution of a end user, there is a fatal flaw with 18 USC Section 922(r) that keeps it out of the courts. 18 USC section 922(r) is enforced through intimidation of licence holders and writing scary "info" and letters to the end users.

Posted: 2/13/2006 7:48:09 AM EDT

[#47]

Quoted:
Anyhow, Colt's entry is still a loser, and FN looks to be available in the next year. I see it an uphill battle for Colt's fancy Carbine, unless the SCAR program hit a snag (and I would not be surprised) or Big Army goes a different direction then SOCOM.

I completely agree, but it failed due to the specific requirements of one very specialized end user and not due to any failings of the Colt gas piston system. These specific requirements have very little to do with typical military, LEO, or civilian carbine use. I'm also hearing from SHOT that civilian versions of the FN SCAR are at least two years away. Allot can happen in two years.

Posted: 2/13/2006 7:57:56 AM EDT

[#48]

Colt failed the trials mostly due to hydrostatic locking... still not sure why most manufacturers do not incorperate the rather simple fix for this when thy build a gun?

SCAR is ramping up and production for the military should start soon, I have no idea on what the numbers are, but this will be a factor in how far down the road the civie version is -- some rumors have the prodcution numbers pretty high... others look like the "buy out" that went down with SASS.

Posted: 2/13/2006 8:05:45 AM EDT

[#49]

Quoted:

I see a few specs that rule out a conventional AR-15. Here are the specs I caught in a quick overview, I paraphrased them:

3.2.1.8.3 Be able to charge the weapon while maintaining sight picture

3.2.3.1.1 Must be to fire weapon with a bore obstruction with out it blowing into pieces.

3.2.4.3.1 and .2 Be able to get water out of the bore without opening the bolt.

I really don't see how these last two can be possible with any firearm.

Posted: 2/13/2006 8:13:09 AM EDT

[#50]

Quoted:

Quoted:

I see a few specs that rule out a conventional AR-15. Here are the specs I caught in a quick overview, I paraphrased them:

3.2.1.8.3 Be able to charge the weapon while maintaining sight picture

3.2.3.1.1 Must be to fire weapon with a bore obstruction with out it blowing into pieces.

3.2.4.3.1 and .2 Be able to get water out of the bore without opening the bolt.

I really don't see how these last two can be possible with any firearm.

I'm curious to know how FN got around these requirements myself. I assume it has something to do with how the FN gas piston design vents excess gas. This might allow for water to escape, but it's just an uneducated guess on my part.

[ARCHIVED THREAD] - Straight from Secret Squirrel and Morocco Mole...... (Page 2 of 3)

AR-15 » AR Discussions

AR Sponsor:

Warning

Confirm Action

About AR15.COM

Stay Connected

Newsletter

Contact Us