Warning

 

Close

Confirm Action

Are you sure you wish to do this?

Confirm Cancel
Member Login
Arrow Left Previous Page
Page / 2
Posted: 8/15/2005 4:40:41 PM EDT

Well, I just can't resist the cool factor. I'm going to do the paperwork and get a SBR.

It will be an entry gun for SWAT, so I need the best. I currently have a 16" M4. It is nice, but a little heavy and long for CQB.

I've basically narrowed it down to an 10.5" LMT upper or a POF 9" gas piston upper.

I'm hesitant to go with a new design, but the idea of a clean running M4 is enticing.


Any thoughts, experiences, or opinions welcome.

And no, I can't "get both"
Link Posted: 8/15/2005 4:47:46 PM EDT
[Last Edit: 8/15/2005 4:48:57 PM EDT by DevL]
Im doing a SBR next month and will do a LW piston unit. I dont want a higher than standard rail height nor the added weight of the POF unit. The 9" barrel makes it a no go for personal defense. My number one reson for the gas piston is use with a suppressor and removal of crap in my face/eyes for me. I say if it has to be between those 2 get the LMT and have it converted later to gas piston.
Link Posted: 8/16/2005 6:02:09 AM EDT
According to someone who is very familiar with your profession, the POF-USA is significantly heavier than the Leitner-Wise gas piston system. IM me and I'll give you his board name so you can speak with him directly.

I would take a look at the Leitner-Wise gas piston system. They have a forum in the industry section (click here) so feel free to ask any questions in there.

Regards,

Justin
Link Posted: 8/16/2005 6:59:30 AM EDT
[Last Edit: 8/16/2005 7:05:54 AM EDT by MP906]
I kind of steered away from LW b/c of that turd that was always on here trolling the gas piston threads. I guess I'll give them a look.

As far as ballistics, I realize the shortcomings. I will try to overcome these with 75gr. ammo.

5.56 is still bigger and faster out of a SBR than the 5.7x28 some of the other guys are using.

Link Posted: 8/16/2005 7:40:22 AM EDT
5.7 and 5.56 are totall different categories. 5.7 is supposed to compete with 9mm hard ball not 5.56 ammo.

Even with 75 grain ammo you get almost no fragmenting range at all with a 9" barrel. Depending on the actual barrel it may not have the velocity to fragment at the barrel. 68 and 69 grain ammo certainly wont.
Link Posted: 8/16/2005 7:54:36 AM EDT
Link Posted: 8/16/2005 7:55:44 AM EDT
You have to buy your own SWAT weapon?
Link Posted: 8/16/2005 7:57:21 AM EDT
[Last Edit: 8/16/2005 7:58:43 AM EDT by CitySlicker]

Originally Posted By DevL:
5.7 and 5.56 are totall different categories. 5.7 is supposed to compete with 9mm hard ball not 5.56 ammo.

Even with 75 grain ammo you get almost no fragmenting range at all with a 9" barrel. Depending on the actual barrel it may not have the velocity to fragment at the barrel. 68 and 69 grain ammo certainly wont.



That's not entirely true.

With a 10.5 10.3 inch barrel and an Enidine hydraulic buffer, he can get 2900+ FPS (minimum fragmentaion velocities are ariunf 2600-2700 FPS).

I will revisit this thread later on with some factual data to back that up.

In the mean time, I got to get back to work.

Regards,

Justin
Link Posted: 8/16/2005 8:36:31 AM EDT
[Last Edit: 8/16/2005 8:39:44 AM EDT by DevL]

Originally Posted By CitySlicker:

Originally Posted By DevL:
5.7 and 5.56 are totall different categories. 5.7 is supposed to compete with 9mm hard ball not 5.56 ammo.

Even with 75 grain ammo you get almost no fragmenting range at all with a 9" barrel. Depending on the actual barrel it may not have the velocity to fragment at the barrel. 68 and 69 grain ammo certainly wont.



That's not entirely true.

With a 10.5 10.3 inch barrel and an Enidine hydraulic buffer, he can get 2900+ FPS (minimum fragmentaion velocities are ariunf 2600-2700 FPS).

I will revisit this thread later on with some factual data to back that up.

In the mean time, I got to get back to work.

Regards,

Justin



Because ONE guy got a reading on his chrono and noone else has does not make that true. Also what does that ONE reading have to do with the POF 9" barrel? That weapon has no Enidine buffer nor 10.25" barrel nor a LW gas system etc. So saying HE can getwhatever velocity is pretty much a misstatement and wild supposition at best or an outright lie at worst. So please sir, point out what is "not entirely true" in my post. The fact 5.7 and 5.56 are not direct competitiors? That 68 and 69 grain ammo wont fragemnt from a 9" barrel? Or that the POF with 9" barrel is running velocities so low its at or near 75 grain fragmentation threshold?
Link Posted: 8/16/2005 8:52:21 AM EDT
2900 fps, 2300 fps, or even 1000 fps- I don't want to be hit by any bullet at any of those speeds. I don't know that fragmentation velocity if critical when you're being shot in CQB situations. Fragmentation certainly isn't the ONLY thing that incapacitates people. Even at 2000fps, a 5.56 round will easily penetrate the skull. That seems to incapacitate people.

Link Posted: 8/16/2005 9:16:22 AM EDT
[Last Edit: 8/16/2005 9:18:57 AM EDT by CitySlicker]

Originally Posted By DevL:

Originally Posted By CitySlicker:

Originally Posted By DevL:
5.7 and 5.56 are totall different categories. 5.7 is supposed to compete with 9mm hard ball not 5.56 ammo.

Even with 75 grain ammo you get almost no fragmenting range at all with a 9" barrel. Depending on the actual barrel it may not have the velocity to fragment at the barrel. 68 and 69 grain ammo certainly wont.



That's not entirely true.

With a 10.5 10.3 inch barrel and an Enidine hydraulic buffer, he can get 2900+ FPS (minimum fragmentaion velocities are ariunf 2600-2700 FPS).

I will revisit this thread later on with some factual data to back that up.

In the mean time, I got to get back to work.

Regards,

Justin



Because ONE guy got a reading on his chrono and noone else has does not make that true. Also what does that ONE reading have to do with the POF 9" barrel? That weapon has no Enidine buffer nor 10.25" barrel nor a LW gas system etc. So saying HE can getwhatever velocity is pretty much a misstatement and wild supposition at best or an outright lie at worst. So please sir, point out what is "not entirely true" in my post. The fact 5.7 and 5.56 are not direct competitiors? That 68 and 69 grain ammo wont fragemnt from a 9" barrel? Or that the POF with 9" barrel is running velocities so low its at or near 75 grain fragmentation threshold?




This part:


Even with 75 grain ammo you get almost no fragmenting range at all with a 9" barrel.


The way you phrased that made it seem as if a nine inch barrel is utterly useless. That may be true for extended ranges, but that is not the case for the CQC distances that the author intends to use it for.

The author already has an AR-15 with a 16 inch barrel, he doesn't need another one. And for the record, reports from the sandbox indicate that a 10.5 inch barrel combined with the BH Mk262 Mod 0/Mod 1 ammunition is a very potent combination, even at relatively long distances.

As far as the velocities attained with the 10.3 inch barrel and Enidine buffer ar concerned, this data has been confirmed and repeated by AZ_Larry (the one who reported it originally) and Leitner-Wise Rifle Co. has decided to conduct an official, scientific trial to verify or refute these claims.

The only logical explanation for this uncanny velocity increase is that the Leitner-Wise Gas piston system only uses 5% of the gas to cycle the action.

I agree with twl's assessment, a vertical foregrip may be helpful when using a gas piston rifle.

Regards,

Justin


Edited to correct spelling errors.
Link Posted: 8/16/2005 2:32:14 PM EDT

I don't want to start a ballistics debate here. Like I said, it is either 5.56 or 5.7.

We get issued P90s, but they suck.

Everybody is switching to M4s and I want to be the first kid on the block w/ a pimpin 10" rig.

I was more concerned with reliability in a SBR, thinking maybe the piston would make a difference more in a SBR than a regular 16" M4.

Are gas tube 10.5" M4s really stinking dirty?

Thx.

Link Posted: 8/16/2005 4:24:12 PM EDT
You would probably be happy with either SBR's. LMT is top notch. You can make a direct gas 10'' AR run quite well with the right buffer , buffer spring, PRI fatboy gas tube, and the right port hole in the barrel. (.091 comes to mind). With that setup we cannot get this thing to jam!!! Even with good ole dirty Wolf!
On the other hand, the POF would kick Ass in a CQB role. Stone reliable, short, runs clean ( a hell of alot cleaner than the direct gas one will) and the pimp factor with your SWAT buddy's would be priceless!
DOnt let people fool you into thinking that the POF is so heavy. Its not that much heavier than the direct gas type. Yes its heavier but not by much!
The LW piston is looking to be very nice also. I wouldnt mind trying one of these out. No experience with them though...........
Good luck with your choice!
Link Posted: 8/16/2005 4:26:56 PM EDT
Link Posted: 8/16/2005 6:31:14 PM EDT
MP906,
Got a question for you, why do p90's suck? I only ask because I have though about investing in the 5-7/p90 system. It would be nice to get some feedback from someone who has actually used one.
Link Posted: 8/16/2005 8:50:07 PM EDT
[Last Edit: 8/17/2005 8:29:43 AM EDT by Ridge]

Originally Posted By SRTM4:
DOnt let people fool you into thinking that the POF is so heavy. Its not that much heavier than the direct gas type. Yes its heavier but not by much!



So how much heavier is it, do you know?

I believe the 9" complete gun is 6.5lbs that is about 1lb (edit: this might be closer to .5lbs considering a RAS forend)more than a comparable direct gas gun.

I keep asking what the added wieght of the system is but have never got an answer.

As far as I can tell by guesstimation it adds about 0.5-1lb and that is substantial.

Please someone post some ######s.
Link Posted: 8/16/2005 11:21:11 PM EDT
Personal observation. 100 rounds rapid fire with a Chicom SKS had the handguards almost too hot to hold. 7 sticks mixed semi and FA got the LW AR to get quite warm round the gas block but nothing uncomfortable. Went on shooting......

Link Posted: 8/17/2005 3:32:53 AM EDT

Originally Posted By Ridge:

Originally Posted By SRTM4:
DOnt let people fool you into thinking that the POF is so heavy. Its not that much heavier than the direct gas type. Yes its heavier but not by much!



So how much heavier is it, do you know?

I believe the 9" complete gun is 6.5lbs that is about 1lb more than a comparable direct gas gun.

I keep asking what the added wieght of the system is but have never got an answer.

As far as I can tell by guesstimation it adds about a pound and that is substantial.

Please someone post some ######s.



And just to clearify, the Leitner-Wise gas piston AR-15 maintains the same weight as the direct impingement cariant, if I recall correctly.

Justin
Link Posted: 8/17/2005 8:13:15 AM EDT
Link Posted: 8/17/2005 8:16:37 AM EDT
[Last Edit: 8/17/2005 8:28:24 AM EDT by CitySlicker]

Originally Posted By twl:
Justin,
Yes, that is correct, according to what I've read on these forums about the LW system.
Even thought the LW piston system DOES WEIGH MORE than the gas tube, LW compensates for that added weight by lightening the weight of the bolt carrier, and thus the weights of the complete guns ends up about the same.

There are photos of this lightened bolt carrier profile somewhere in the search files, because that is where I found it.

Please correct me if I'm wrong. I don't think that I am.



Tom,

Even if you are corrct (and I am not doubting that as it seems like a logical expnantion), how does that [decreasing the weight of the bolt carrier] detract from the Leitner-Wise gas piston system's merit? If anything, it enhances it, in my opinion.

-Justin


Edited for clearification and spelling errors.
Link Posted: 8/17/2005 8:21:38 AM EDT
Link Posted: 8/17/2005 8:26:16 AM EDT
My last post might have been slightly innaccuate (if we had the actual numbers it would make it easier). The weight difference might be closer to .5lbs which is still a lot.

6.5lbs for POF and lets conservatively say 6.0 for an AR with a RAS.

I love to here the facts though if anyone can post some actual weights.
Link Posted: 8/17/2005 8:26:55 AM EDT

Originally Posted By twl:
Justin,
I'm not saying that it necesarily detracts from the system.

It's just that when I started hearing that the LW didn't weigh more than the direct impingement system, it just didn't add up upon initial inspection, since anyone can see that the piston parts would have to weigh more than a thin hollow gas tube.

So, I looked around for the information about how it could be the same weight, and came across the explanation with a photo of the bolt carrier.

That's all. Weight overall is the same, but distribution of mass is different.

Simply an observation.



Tom,

I understand. Frankly, I was intrigued myself.

If I came off a little hostile, I apologize as that was not my intention. I just interpreted your explanation as saying that "although the Leitner-Wise gas piston system AR-15 is identical in weight to its direct impingement counterpart, the tradeoff is that Leitner-Wise Rifle Co. shaved off weight from the bolt carrier."

I guess I just jumped the gun, pun intended.

Justin
Link Posted: 8/17/2005 8:57:25 AM EDT

I just don't care for the P90. The ergonomics are horrible for one. There is no good place to safely put your trigger finger because the "trigger guard" is so huge. A lot of guys end up putting their weak-hand thumb inside the "trigger guard" when they are gripping the weapon because there is nowhere else to get a good grip really. The selector switch is also too akward, small, and in a bad location. I don't really cares for the top loaded mag design. I'm not thrilled with 5.7mm, either ballistically or $$$ factor. Actually, the only good thing about the P90 is the rate of fire in full auto is awesome. But, that is just me.

Honestly, the POF 9" deal that is the same size as an MP5 is really calling to me. The price, with the railand BUIS included, is hardly any more than a gas tube. The only thing I don't care for so much is the taller rail height.

LW is just not selling me. I haven't seen any great pictures of their stuff like POF. Plus, they look a lot more expensive. I really like the look of the POF 9" rig with the long rail and Troy Ind. flip up sights. LW's 10" gun has the standard FSB.

Are the reliability mods to a 10.5" LMT really neccesary? I mean, aren't these shipping overseas with no mods?

Link Posted: 8/17/2005 9:48:53 AM EDT

Originally Posted By MP906:
I just don't care for the P90. The ergonomics are horrible for one. There is no good place to safely put your trigger finger because the "trigger guard" is so huge. A lot of guys end up putting their weak-hand thumb inside the "trigger guard" when they are gripping the weapon because there is nowhere else to get a good grip really. The selector switch is also too akward, small, and in a bad location. I don't really cares for the top loaded mag design. I'm not thrilled with 5.7mm, either ballistically or $$$ factor. Actually, the only good thing about the P90 is the rate of fire in full auto is awesome. But, that is just me.

Honestly, the POF 9" deal that is the same size as an MP5 is really calling to me. The price, with the railand BUIS included, is hardly any more than a gas tube. The only thing I don't care for so much is the taller rail height.

LW is just not selling me. I haven't seen any great pictures of their stuff like POF. Plus, they look a lot more expensive. I really like the look of the POF 9" rig with the long rail and Troy Ind. flip up sights. LW's 10" gun has the standard FSB.

Are the reliability mods to a 10.5" LMT really neccesary? I mean, aren't these shipping overseas with no mods?




To each his own.

Whatever you choose, be sure to mount a Noveske Krink flash hider ($85.00), unless your department plans on equipping you with a suppressor.

Regards,

Justin
Link Posted: 8/17/2005 9:55:34 AM EDT

Ya, I've seen pics of that thing. It looks ridiculous. I'm assuming it tames the fireball though?

Are the Phantom or Vortex not effective enough out of an SBR?

thx.
Link Posted: 8/17/2005 10:16:08 AM EDT
[Last Edit: 8/17/2005 10:20:11 AM EDT by DevL]

Originally Posted By bolster:
2900 fps, 2300 fps, or even 1000 fps- I don't want to be hit by any bullet at any of those speeds. I don't know that fragmentation velocity if critical when you're being shot in CQB situations. Fragmentation certainly isn't the ONLY thing that incapacitates people. Even at 2000fps, a 5.56 round will easily penetrate the skull. That seems to incapacitate people.




With that kind of logic you should use .22lr to increase the speed of follow up shots and those will penetrate skulls and incapacitate that way too. Imagine the ammo you could carry. Point is you get 3X the wound channel with the same ammo by adding an inch to the barrel. That is the point.
Link Posted: 8/17/2005 11:01:29 AM EDT

Originally Posted By MP906:
Ya, I've seen pics of that thing. It looks ridiculous. I'm assuming it tames the fireball though?

Are the Phantom or Vortex not effective enough out of an SBR?

thx.




The main purpose behind the Noveske flash hider is to redirect (yes, I said redirect) the sound in front of the shooter. It's able to do this quite effectively due to its concave design (think bullhorn). The Phantom/Vortex flash hiders have no such capability; it is unique to the Noveske design.

Coincidentally, it also happens to be a relatively effective flash hider, and the difference between the Noveske flash hider and the Phantom/Vortex flash hiders is reported to be negligible.

The Noveske flash hider is reccomended for the confined positions of CQC, as it is an inexpensive alternative (an alternative, not a replacement) to a suppressor for dynamic situations.

As a side note, the Noveske flash hider is endorsed by the 10-8 crew (Tim Lau, David Pennington, Pat Rogers, etc...), so don't just take my word for it.

Regards,

Justin
Link Posted: 8/17/2005 2:08:59 PM EDT

Interesting. I guess if it saves your ears, it is worth it!


Back to the gas tube side of the house....

Are people generally having good luck with stock LMT 10.5" uppers, or are the mods pretty much needed? I would not mind changing out the gas tube or buffer, but I'm not to keen on drilling out the gas port!

Link Posted: 8/17/2005 2:28:54 PM EDT
LMT 10.5" are considered abou the most reliable stock 10.5" out there. Just dont use their enhanced bolt.
Link Posted: 8/17/2005 4:40:48 PM EDT
Yeah my point about makiing 10'' shortys run reliable was not referred to the LMT. I hear that they run great right out of the box. The one that I had my hands on was a Model1 sales upper with a bushmaster lower.
As far as the POF adding a pound or whatever, I really have no accurate way of weighing it compared to my direct gas weapons. 1/2 a pound does sound about right. That is including the beefier rail that I prefer ( others may disagree) , and the heavy Young Mfg. Bolt carrier. To me having the heavy bolt carrier just adds to the reliability and smoothness of the rifle.
1/2 a pound is nothing to me when I know that my weapon is going to fire everytime and still be A LOT cleaner than a direct gas rifle after Im done shooting it.
Some people have different priorities with which they need in their particular weapon. A little added weight isnt going to hurt me for what Im getting back!
Link Posted: 8/17/2005 10:16:29 PM EDT

Originally Posted By SRTM4:
As far as the POF adding a pound or whatever, I really have no accurate way of weighing it compared to my direct gas weapons. 1/2 a pound does sound about right. That is including the beefier rail that I prefer ( others may disagree) , and the heavy Young Mfg. Bolt carrier. To me having the heavy bolt carrier just adds to the reliability and smoothness of the rifle.
1/2 a pound is nothing to me when I know that my weapon is going to fire everytime and still be A LOT cleaner than a direct gas rifle after Im done shooting it.
Some people have different priorities with which they need in their particular weapon. A little added weight isnt going to hurt me for what Im getting back!



That's cool.

I'm very weight conscious. Hate the idea of ending up with 300 lbs of lightweight gear.

Link Posted: 8/18/2005 1:36:25 AM EDT

Originally Posted By DevL:
With that kind of logic you should use .22lr to increase the speed of follow up shots and those will penetrate skulls and incapacitate that way too. Imagine the ammo you could carry. Point is you get 3X the wound channel with the same ammo by adding an inch to the barrel. That is the point.



Or not, as per below. I might be reading you wrong, but you seem to come across slightly hostile in your responses. Is there a difference between a 9" bbl and a 10.5"? Yes. In CQB? Probably not enough to matter. That was my point, no offense intended.


Originally Posted By CitySlicker:


This part:


Even with 75 grain ammo you get almost no fragmenting range at all with a 9" barrel.


The way you phrased that made it seem as if a nine inch barrel is utterly useless. That may be true for extended ranges, but that is not the case for the CQC distances that the author intends to use it for.

The author already has an AR-15 with a 16 inch barrel, he doesn't need another one. And for the record, reports from the sandbox indicate that a 10.5 inch barrel combined with the BH Mk262 Mod 0/Mod 1 ammunition is a very potent combination, even at relatively long distances.

As far as the velocities attained with the 10.3 inch barrel and Enidine buffer ar concerned, this data has been confirmed and repeated by AZ_Larry (the one who reported it originally) and Leitner-Wise Rifle Co. has decided to conduct an official, scientific trial to verify or refute these claims.

The only logical explanation for this uncanny velocity increase is that the Leitner-Wise Gas piston system only uses 5% of the gas to cycle the action.

I agree with twl's assessment, a vertical foregrip may be helpful when using a gas piston rifle.

Regards,

Justin


Edited to correct spelling errors.



Link Posted: 8/18/2005 5:29:49 AM EDT
The results have not been repeated by anyone including LW initial testing and anyone else using the Endine buffer. I know for a fact fragmenting ammo has 3X the wound channel of non fragmenting ammo. I know for a fact the short 7.5" barrels will not fragment at any range. I know for a fact that the 10.3" barrels fragment to 40 yards which is acceptable for CQB. 9" barrel? Very strong possibility of zero fragmentation range. This means for CQB (IF THATS THE CASE) you would cut your wound channel at CQB distances in 1/3 to gain and extra 1.25" OAL reduction. This does not make ANY sense no matter how you look at it or try to rationalise it.

I dont like being told I am wrong when I am not wrong. If I seemed hostile thats why.
Link Posted: 8/18/2005 7:46:31 AM EDT
Does that mean you walk downrange and change your targets when your buddy is shooting his 7.5" SBR because you're positive you won't have a significant wound channel to worry about at the hospital?

So if two SWAT guys, one with a 9"bbl and one with a 10.5" enter a room and shoot two twin brothers the same height and weight, each 5 times, they'll both be dead and one will have larger wound channels.

I'm not saying you're wrong either, just that the point is basically moot. The wound channel will likely be larger, but to no significant end, since dead is dead. To say a longer barrel doesn't help is not right, but I never said that either.

Link Posted: 8/18/2005 8:56:05 AM EDT
[Last Edit: 8/18/2005 8:58:59 AM EDT by Ridge]

Originally Posted By bolster:
Does that mean you walk downrange and change your targets when your buddy is shooting his 7.5" SBR because you're positive you won't have a significant wound channel to worry about at the hospital?

So if two SWAT guys, one with a 9"bbl and one with a 10.5" enter a room and shoot two twin brothers the same height and weight, each 5 times, they'll both be dead and one will have larger wound channels.

I'm not saying you're wrong either, just that the point is basically moot. The wound channel will likely be larger, but to no significant end, since dead is dead. To say a longer barrel doesn't help is not right, but I never said that either.




Please, this has been hashed and rehashed. You want to choose the weapon that will incapacitate the fastest considering the platform you need.

If the 10.5 with an increased wounding potential can incapacitate seconds before a BG can take a shot that it is worth it. It's not about killing it's about stopping the threat as quickly as possible.

Also with a weapon with an increased wounding potential it will require fewer rounds and less time to stop the threat, providing more time to engage multiple targets.

Whether or not there will be that much difference between a 10.5 and 9 inch barrel is something I cannot comment on because I have not seen the data. However, if the 10.5 will provide reliable fragmentation and the 9 will not, than the choice is would be obvious for me. I do know that my 11.5 will fragment dramatically using 68gr OTM in water at 50yds.
Link Posted: 8/18/2005 9:43:22 AM EDT
[Last Edit: 8/18/2005 9:48:51 AM EDT by bolster]

Originally Posted By Ridge:

Originally Posted By bolster:
Does that mean you walk downrange and change your targets when your buddy is shooting his 7.5" SBR because you're positive you won't have a significant wound channel to worry about at the hospital?

So if two SWAT guys, one with a 9"bbl and one with a 10.5" enter a room and shoot two twin brothers the same height and weight, each 5 times, they'll both be dead and one will have larger wound channels.

I'm not saying you're wrong either, just that the point is basically moot. The wound channel will likely be larger, but to no significant end, since dead is dead. To say a longer barrel doesn't help is not right, but I never said that either.




Please, this has been hashed and rehashed. You want to choose the weapon that will incapacitate the fastest considering the platform you need.

If the 10.5 with an increased wounding potential can incapacitate seconds before a BG can take a shot that it is worth it. It's not about killing it's about stopping the threat as quickly as possible.

Also with a weapon with an increased wounding potential it will require fewer rounds and less time to stop the threat, providing more time to engage multiple targets.

Whether or not there will be that much difference between a 10.5 and 9 inch barrel is something I cannot comment on because I have not seen the data. However, if the 10.5 will provide reliable fragmentation and the 9 will not, than the choice is would be obvious for me. I do know that my 11.5 will fragment dramatically using 68gr OTM in water at 50yds.



And I am not denying any of what you said in any way.

If you ask me, I'd say go with the 10.5" barrel and the LW piston drive system because it doesn't require a higher rail. At the same time, I don't consider a 9" barrelled AR to be significantly less likely to incapacitate or kill someone at CQB distances.

And to show that I don't need to satisfy my ego via the internet, and that I don't have to be right, I'll admit that I might be wrong. So MP906- take what I say with a grain of salt. I'm not about to claim I'm absolutely right, and I'm not going to throw a trantrum to prove it. Sorry for the threadjack, since this was originally about piston drive versus gas, not a barrel length and incapacitation discussion.
Link Posted: 8/18/2005 11:01:09 AM EDT

Originally Posted By bolster:

Originally Posted By Ridge:

Originally Posted By bolster:
Does that mean you walk downrange and change your targets when your buddy is shooting his 7.5" SBR because you're positive you won't have a significant wound channel to worry about at the hospital?

So if two SWAT guys, one with a 9"bbl and one with a 10.5" enter a room and shoot two twin brothers the same height and weight, each 5 times, they'll both be dead and one will have larger wound channels.

I'm not saying you're wrong either, just that the point is basically moot. The wound channel will likely be larger, but to no significant end, since dead is dead. To say a longer barrel doesn't help is not right, but I never said that either.




Please, this has been hashed and rehashed. You want to choose the weapon that will incapacitate the fastest considering the platform you need.

If the 10.5 with an increased wounding potential can incapacitate seconds before a BG can take a shot that it is worth it. It's not about killing it's about stopping the threat as quickly as possible.

Also with a weapon with an increased wounding potential it will require fewer rounds and less time to stop the threat, providing more time to engage multiple targets.

Whether or not there will be that much difference between a 10.5 and 9 inch barrel is something I cannot comment on because I have not seen the data. However, if the 10.5 will provide reliable fragmentation and the 9 will not, than the choice is would be obvious for me. I do know that my 11.5 will fragment dramatically using 68gr OTM in water at 50yds.



And I am not denying any of what you said in any way.

If you ask me, I'd say go with the 10.5" barrel and the LW piston drive system because it doesn't require a higher rail. At the same time, I don't consider a 9" barrelled AR to be significantly less likely to incapacitate or kill someone at CQB distances.

And to show that I don't need to satisfy my ego via the internet, and that I don't have to be right, I'll admit that I might be wrong. So MP906- take what I say with a grain of salt. I'm not about to claim I'm absolutely right, and I'm not going to throw a trantrum to prove it. Sorry for the threadjack, since this was originally about piston drive versus gas, not a barrel length and incapacitation discussion.



No, I think we are right on topic, MP906 is trying to decide between a 10.5 and 9 in barrel weapon.

I have to say, it would be really hard to determine if there is any substantial difference between the 10.5 inch barrel and the 9.25 (that is the POF length I believe), until I saw some hard data.

I was mainly trying to point out that there is a substantial difference between a fragmenting and nonfragmenting round in CQB. In reference to DevL's comment on the 9 in upper being a nonfragmenting round, if that it's true.

Personnally I wouldn't risk it for 1.25-1.5 inches. Like you, I'd go for the 10.5.
Link Posted: 8/18/2005 3:07:22 PM EDT

Originally Posted By DevL:
The results have not been repeated by anyone including LW initial testing and anyone else using the Endine buffer. I know for a fact fragmenting ammo has 3X the wound channel of non fragmenting ammo. I know for a fact the short 7.5" barrels will not fragment at any range. I know for a fact that the 10.3" barrels fragment to 40 yards which is acceptable for CQB. 9" barrel? Very strong possibility of zero fragmentation range. This means for CQB (IF THATS THE CASE) you would cut your wound channel at CQB distances in 1/3 to gain and extra 1.25" OAL reduction. This does not make ANY sense no matter how you look at it or try to rationalise it.

I dont like being told I am wrong when I am not wrong. If I seemed hostile thats why.



I wasn't disagreeing with you.

I merely wished to clearify that a nine inch barrel can be legitimately applied in CQC, with fair results.

Personally, I would choose a 10.3 inch barrel, but to each his own. The author of this thread was considering a nine inch barrel and I felt it was necessary that he be aware of its capabilities, just as you felt he should be aware of its limitations.

Justin
Link Posted: 8/18/2005 3:10:23 PM EDT

Originally Posted By Ridge:

Originally Posted By bolster:
Does that mean you walk downrange and change your targets when your buddy is shooting his 7.5" SBR because you're positive you won't have a significant wound channel to worry about at the hospital?

So if two SWAT guys, one with a 9"bbl and one with a 10.5" enter a room and shoot two twin brothers the same height and weight, each 5 times, they'll both be dead and one will have larger wound channels.

I'm not saying you're wrong either, just that the point is basically moot. The wound channel will likely be larger, but to no significant end, since dead is dead. To say a longer barrel doesn't help is not right, but I never said that either.




Please, this has been hashed and rehashed. You want to choose the weapon that will incapacitate the fastest considering the platform you need.

If the 10.5 with an increased wounding potential can incapacitate seconds before a BG can take a shot that it is worth it. It's not about killing it's about stopping the threat as quickly as possible.

Also with a weapon with an increased wounding potential it will require fewer rounds and less time to stop the threat, providing more time to engage multiple targets.

Whether or not there will be that much difference between a 10.5 and 9 inch barrel is something I cannot comment on because I have not seen the data. However, if the 10.5 will provide reliable fragmentation and the 9 will not, than the choice is would be obvious for me. I do know that my 11.5 will fragment dramatically using 68gr OTM in water at 50yds.



Water is not an accepted ballistic medium. 10% ballistic gelatin is considered the 'industry standard', so to speak.
Link Posted: 8/18/2005 7:26:50 PM EDT

Originally Posted By CitySlicker:
Water is not an accepted ballistic medium. 10% ballistic gelatin is considered the 'industry standard', so to speak.



10% ballistic gelatin is the standard for measuring penetration and expansion/fragmentation. Water is pretty good medium for testing fragmentation, but NOT penetration. Myself and many others have done tests on this, fragmentation of a round in water is very similary to fragmentation in jello, but penetration is much more in water.

Search the archives.....
Link Posted: 8/19/2005 6:29:27 AM EDT

Originally Posted By Ridge:

Originally Posted By CitySlicker:
Water is not an accepted ballistic medium. 10% ballistic gelatin is considered the 'industry standard', so to speak.



10% ballistic gelatin is the standard for measuring penetration and expansion/fragmentation. Water is pretty good medium for testing fragmentation, but NOT penetration. Myself and many others have done tests on this, fragmentation of a round in water is very similary to fragmentation in jello, but penetration is much more in water.

Search the archives.....



Under your user name as the search criteria?

I'm interested.
Link Posted: 8/19/2005 7:34:44 AM EDT
[Last Edit: 8/19/2005 7:36:33 AM EDT by Ridge]

Originally Posted By CitySlicker:

Originally Posted By Ridge:

Originally Posted By CitySlicker:
Water is not an accepted ballistic medium. 10% ballistic gelatin is considered the 'industry standard', so to speak.



10% ballistic gelatin is the standard for measuring penetration and expansion/fragmentation. Water is pretty good medium for testing fragmentation, but NOT penetration. Myself and many others have done tests on this, fragmentation of a round in water is very similary to fragmentation in jello, but penetration is much more in water.

Search the archives.....



Under your user name as the search criteria?

I'm interested.



I would search for something like water fragmentation. I have a few posted, and I think Forrest posted a good article a while back, and Zhukov I think did some cool stuff with Silver Bear shooting into a garbage can or something like that . If it helps they were all in the ammunition forum, I believe.

Edit: Sorry MP906, went a little off topic.
Link Posted: 8/19/2005 7:55:41 AM EDT

Originally Posted By Ridge:

Originally Posted By CitySlicker:

Originally Posted By Ridge:

Originally Posted By CitySlicker:
Water is not an accepted ballistic medium. 10% ballistic gelatin is considered the 'industry standard', so to speak.



10% ballistic gelatin is the standard for measuring penetration and expansion/fragmentation. Water is pretty good medium for testing fragmentation, but NOT penetration. Myself and many others have done tests on this, fragmentation of a round in water is very similary to fragmentation in jello, but penetration is much more in water.

Search the archives.....



Under your user name as the search criteria?

I'm interested.



I would search for something like water fragmentation. I have a few posted, and I think Forrest posted a good article a while back, and Zhukov I think did some cool stuff with Silver Bear shooting into a garbage can or something like that . If it helps they were all in the ammunition forum, I believe.

Edit: Sorry MP906, went a little off topic.



Thanks. Will do.
Link Posted: 8/19/2005 9:28:34 AM EDT
[Last Edit: 8/19/2005 9:29:14 AM EDT by nugentgl]

The main purpose behind the Noveske flash hider is to redirect (yes, I said redirect) the sound in front of the shooter. It's able to do this quite effectively due to its concave design (think bullhorn). The Phantom/Vortex flash hiders have no such capability; it is unique to the Noveske design.


You mean unique to the Bulgarian design, right? Seeing as how it was desinged by the Bulgarian's for their short barreled AK's.
Link Posted: 8/19/2005 10:02:24 AM EDT

Originally Posted By nugentgl:

The main purpose behind the Noveske flash hider is to redirect (yes, I said redirect) the sound in front of the shooter. It's able to do this quite effectively due to its concave design (think bullhorn). The Phantom/Vortex flash hiders have no such capability; it is unique to the Noveske design.


You mean unique to the Bulgarian design, right? Seeing as how it was desinged by the Bulgarian's for their short barreled AK's.



I knew someone would say that.

The reason I acredit John Noveske with the design is because he refined it and adapted it for the AR-10/AR-15 platform.

Justin
Link Posted: 8/19/2005 11:08:52 AM EDT

How quiet does it make the rifle for the shooter? No earplugs?

So I guess if the bad guy doesn't die of his wounds, the soundwave might kill him?
Link Posted: 8/19/2005 11:17:51 AM EDT
[Last Edit: 8/19/2005 11:18:48 AM EDT by Ridge]

Originally Posted By MP906:
How quiet does it make the rifle for the shooter? No earplugs?

So I guess if the bad guy doesn't die of his wounds, the soundwave might kill him?



I have one on an 11.5, I was in a fairly confined area, surrounded by trees. After I worked up the courage I lifted the muff off of my right ear (remember this is a short barrel with one shot would cause my ears to ring for 3 days).

I fired one shot, it's hard to describe, my ear almost started ringing but did not. I would say the preceived noise is definately less than than a 20 inch. I no longer worry about having to fire the weapon when before I always wondered if my ears would start bleeding.

The downside, it kind of sucks to clean.

This is coming from a weight weeny, and I feel this is .5lbs worth adding to my barrel, I won't be removing it any time soon.
Link Posted: 8/19/2005 11:27:16 AM EDT

I knew someone would say that.

The reason I acredit John Noveske with the design is because he refined it and adapted it for the AR-10/AR-15 platform.



OK, I just wanted to make sure that you didn't think that John Noveske invented the flash hider.
Link Posted: 8/19/2005 6:06:36 PM EDT
Link Posted: 8/19/2005 9:30:29 PM EDT
[Last Edit: 8/19/2005 9:31:35 PM EDT by DevL]
Is it normal to see that kind of velocity loss on a Krink flash hider? Is the Black Hills 77 grain the SAAMI pressure or NATO pressure?
Arrow Left Previous Page
Page / 2
Top Top