Warning

 

Close

Confirm Action

Are you sure you wish to do this?

Confirm Cancel
Member Login
Site Notices
9/22/2017 12:11:25 AM
Arrow Left Previous Page
Page / 2
Posted: 7/23/2005 11:27:25 AM EDT
[Last Edit: 7/23/2005 11:39:49 AM EDT by Curare]
If I were tasked with designing a new upper to modernize the M4, it would have the following features:

Upper Receiver--An integrated, one piece receiver and long forend. Machined integral rails on 4 sides, and ventilation/lightening cuts. No complex, costly and heavy quick change barrel provisions with questionable ability to hold zero. The receiver would be designed to have a charging handle that would be accessible with the rifle on target.

Barrel--Free floated, light weight profile, chrome lined 14.5", polygonal bore. Mid-length gas system. The most important feature would be longitudinal, fine, machined heat sink fins which would be protected by the forend. The barrel would be press fit into the receiver assembly. A heavy, longer barrel would be available for designated marksman use. Gas block threaded for suppressor attachment.

Operation--short stroke gas piston.

Accessories--all current M4 compatible accessories would be utilized.

Caliber--6.8SPC or equivalent would be the goal to bridge the performance gap between 7.62 and 5.56. Initial versions would be chambered in 5.56.
Link Posted: 7/23/2005 12:46:18 PM EDT

Originally Posted By Curare:
If I were tasked with designing a new upper to modernize the M4, it would have the following features:

Upper Receiver--An integrated, one piece receiver and long forend. Machined integral rails on 4 sides, and ventilation/lightening cuts. No complex, costly and heavy quick change barrel provisions with questionable ability to hold zero. The receiver would be designed to have a charging handle that would be accessible with the rifle on target.

Barrel--Free floated, light weight profile, chrome lined 14.5", polygonal bore. Mid-length gas system. The most important feature would be longitudinal, fine, machined heat sink fins which would be protected by the forend. The barrel would be press fit into the receiver assembly. A heavy, longer barrel would be available for designated marksman use. Gas block threaded for suppressor attachment.

Operation--short stroke gas piston.

Accessories--all current M4 compatible accessories would be utilized.

Caliber--6.8SPC or equivalent would be the goal to bridge the performance gap between 7.62 and 5.56. Initial versions would be chambered in 5.56.



Why a mid length gas system and gas piston? Added weight and no benefit plus you cant use existing carbine barrels AND limit the minimum barrel length while adding weight. Your barrel is light and 6.8 and no QD so full auto fire is limited. This means civilians only and no govt contract. Carbon fiber barrels allow the light weight and heat retention while providing superior heat handling to your finned aluminum heat sink and superior rigidity. Being able to have a side charging upper means more room for crud to get into the gun. Press fit barrels means a huge pain in the ass to change barrels and major logistical problems. Civilians would not like having to send a barrel to a shop with teh equipment to press fit a barrel.

Existing designs already surpas your ideas.
Link Posted: 7/23/2005 1:35:41 PM EDT
[Last Edit: 7/23/2005 1:49:27 PM EDT by Curare]

Originally Posted By DevL:

Why a mid length gas system and gas piston? The benefits are well known. Added weight and no benefit plus you cant use existing carbine barrels AND limit the minimum barrel length while adding weight. Who said anything about using existing barrels--are you aware of a current barrel as I've described? Your barrel is light and 6.8 and no QD so full auto fire is limited. An item can be lighter and still excellent cooling properites--it's all about surface area. This means civilians only and no govt contract. Carbon fiber barrels allow the light weight and heat retention while providing superior heat handling to your finned aluminum heat sink and superior rigidity. Who said aluminum? Carbon fiber is insulative--and hence, a poor choice. Why are you advocating heat retention? The goal is to allow barrel cooling--not baking. Being able to have a side charging upper means more room for crud to get into the gun. Press fit barrels means a huge pain in the ass to change barrels and major logistical problems. How often are barrels changed currently? According to reports, the life of an upper in SOCOM hands is very short. Civilians would not like having to send a barrel to a shop with teh equipment to press fit a barrel. How often are you swapping barrel that that would be an issue. All those AK-47 shooters out there don't seem to be complaining.

Existing designs already surpas your ideas.

Link Posted: 7/23/2005 1:40:10 PM EDT
Dude, your idea sucks. Sorry.
Link Posted: 7/23/2005 2:14:20 PM EDT

Originally Posted By Skyssx:
Dude, your idea sucks. Sorry.



Which aspect sucks, specifically?

The integral railed forend/receiver--like the SCAR, MRP, MRS?
Free float barrel--like the SCAR, MRP, MRS?
The midlength/longer than carbine gas system--like the SCAR, MRP, probably MRS?
Short stroke gas piston--like SCAR, HK416, LW set-ups.
The advanced barrel with cooling fins--similar to JP Enterprise heatsinks?
The press fit barrel--like many combat rifles?
Use of AR lowers?
Link Posted: 7/23/2005 2:45:25 PM EDT
The mid-length gas system, then the piston don't seem to make sense. The LW system supposedly bleeds off just enough to work the rod so mid-length vs std length make no difference. To my way of thinking, the mid-length makes snese if you are going to stay with direct impingement. Not sure how other piston systems work, maybe there is an advantage to pair a piston with a mid-length, but I'm not aware of it.
Link Posted: 7/23/2005 2:58:13 PM EDT
The fact that the AR15 system is based on modular parts that are all interchangeable. Every part of your system is proprietary.

The finned barrel is a good idea, but only if the fins were machined or cast into the barrel. Contact heatsinks wouldn't transfer shit on an AR barrel because the surfaces wouldn't match up close enough. It would be too expensive for the benefit.

Yes, the press fit barrel is a horrid idea.

Why would there be any reason to have a mid length gas system if all it is doing is working an op-rod?

Free floats and integral rails are always a good thing, but not if the barrel is damn near impossible to remove.
Link Posted: 7/23/2005 3:22:24 PM EDT

Originally Posted By Curare:
If I were tasked with designing a new upper to modernize the M4, it would have the following features:

Upper Receiver--An integrated, one piece receiver and long forend. Machined integral rails on 4 sides, and ventilation/lightening cuts. No complex, costly and heavy quick change barrel provisions with questionable ability to hold zero. The receiver would be designed to have a charging handle that would be accessible with the rifle on target.

Barrel--Free floated, light weight profile, chrome lined 14.5", polygonal bore. Mid-length gas system. The most important feature would be longitudinal, fine, machined heat sink fins which would be protected by the forend. The barrel would be press fit into the receiver assembly. A heavy, longer barrel would be available for designated marksman use. Gas block threaded for suppressor attachment.

Operation--short stroke gas piston.

Accessories--all current M4 compatible accessories would be utilized.

Caliber--6.8SPC or equivalent would be the goal to bridge the performance gap between 7.62 and 5.56. Initial versions would be chambered in 5.56.




why 14.5?

the 1.5" more adds so much more velocity
Link Posted: 7/23/2005 3:27:27 PM EDT
this would be my design

A2/Vortex/Troy Flash Suppressor
ABS 16.5" 1x7 HBAR Wylde Chamber M4 Cut
LW Gas Piston MRS Rifle Length 12"
LW Gas Piston BCG/CH
Troy FUFS/BUIS
Link Posted: 7/23/2005 3:42:42 PM EDT
[Last Edit: 7/23/2005 3:53:21 PM EDT by Curare]

Originally Posted By Skyssx:
The fact that the AR15 system is based on modular parts that are all interchangeable. Every part of your system is proprietary. Do you consider an integrated forend and upper receiver moving back--not forward? Evolved designs are often proprietary until they gain wide acceptance. The M4, for example has many propietary parts. "F" height FSBs, M4 barrels which require M4 receivers, etc.

The finned barrel is a good idea, but only if the fins were machined or cast into the barrel. That's the only way I'd have it. The integral forend is unique in that it would provide a long length of protection for fine heatsink fins machined into the barrel. The goal is to give fantastic cooling capability in a lighter barrel. Contact heatsinks wouldn't transfer shit on an AR barrel because the surfaces wouldn't match up close enough. It would be too expensive for the benefit. Please, when we're talking lives--a few extra dollars worth of machining to have a lighter, handier carbine is a moot point.

Yes, the press fit barrel is a horrid idea. Not if the goal is to keep things simple. It would be very difficult to thread the barrel into the receiver if the barrel nut area is covered by the integral forend. How frequently do our troops swap out barrels with the current threaded system? Are you even aware of all the fantastic combat rifle designs which use press fit and pinned barrles?

Why would there be any reason to have a mid length gas system if all it is doing is working an op-rod? The midlength system would put the gas block toward the front of the railed forend. An FAL style gas adustment could be located there. Remember--you can always bleed off excess gas.

Free floats and integral rails are always a good thing, but not if the barrel is damn near impossible to remove. Again, are SF Operators gathering around their fox holes at night playing musical barrels?

Link Posted: 7/23/2005 3:57:45 PM EDT

Originally Posted By Kal-El:

why 14.5?

the 1.5" more adds so much more velocity



Well in that case, why not use a 20" barrel? Everything in war is a compromise, the 14.5" barrel is in wide use and offers a good balance of manueverability and effective range.
Link Posted: 7/23/2005 4:10:47 PM EDT
Link Posted: 7/23/2005 4:18:31 PM EDT
[Last Edit: 7/23/2005 8:31:04 PM EDT by avengeusa]
Link Posted: 7/23/2005 4:24:04 PM EDT
[Last Edit: 7/23/2005 4:25:38 PM EDT by Skyssx]
A one piece upper with a press fit barrel would be a step back from a standard upper, not to mention the perfectly reliable quick change barrel/reciever systems currently availible today. I can think up a few ways to use a threaded barrel in a unified reciever that would be easy to implement, but the fact remains that current and upcoming solutions more than solve the problem.

You could have the gas block anywhere along the tube, just have a hole machined in the hand grips to stick an allen key in to adjust gas if you want that feature.

How exactly are our current battle rifles failing in the barrel arena that we need heatsinks on them? Making a bolt on heatsink that would efficiently transfer heat would be damn near impossible. Have you ever worked with high end computer hardware? For maximum heat transfer both the heat generating device and the heat sink have to have perfectly mated surfaces, mirror polished is preferable. With computer heatsinks this is accomplished by lapping both surfaces against a hard, perfectly flat plane, like plate glass. With a barrel, you would have to make the outside edge PERFECTLY round and mirror polished. Then you would have to make the inside diameter of the heatsink match that barrel perfectly. We're not talking a few extra dollars to "save lives", we're talking hundreds of man hours of manual labor to get those surfaces perfect.

M4 barrels are not proprietary, the barrel extension is. A barrel extension is $25 and can be installed by any gunsmith if you can't afford a M4 upper.

MK262 ammo works fine in 14.5" barrels. Real units are supplied with it right now.
Link Posted: 7/23/2005 4:46:53 PM EDT
[Last Edit: 7/23/2005 4:52:38 PM EDT by Curare]

Originally Posted By Skyssx:
How exactly are our current battle rifles failing in the barrel arena that we need heatsinks on them? Making a bolt on heatsink that would efficiently transfer heat would be damn near impossible.



Once again, the fins are machined into the barrel (not bolted on). You stated that the fins were a good idea. Now you are against them? The purpose of the added surface area is to prevent a lighter barrel from overheating. Shaving weight off an infantry weapon while providing the same level of barrel cooling is an asset. The added cost of machining for this feature would clearly be worth it.
Link Posted: 7/23/2005 5:12:50 PM EDT
I think a better step than fins would be adoption of better alloys that provide greater life and can sustain the heat. 4150 is good, but there are other alloys out there.
Link Posted: 7/23/2005 5:27:37 PM EDT

Originally Posted By Skyssx:
Dude, your idea sucks. Sorry.



No kidding.
Link Posted: 7/23/2005 5:33:42 PM EDT
[Last Edit: 7/23/2005 5:34:06 PM EDT by Teknic]
Link Posted: 7/23/2005 6:00:36 PM EDT

Originally Posted By Curare:

Once again, the fins are machined into the barrel (not bolted on). You stated that the fins were a good idea. Now you are against them? The purpose of the added surface area is to prevent a lighter barrel from overheating. Shaving weight off an infantry weapon while providing the same level of barrel cooling is an asset. The added cost of machining for this feature would clearly be worth it.



Fins in theory are a good idea, difficult in execution.
Link Posted: 7/23/2005 6:31:35 PM EDT
[Last Edit: 7/23/2005 6:32:40 PM EDT by Corey]
How about this? It's all available now.

MRP (rifle length)
16" ABS carbon wrapped match SS barrel lined with MGI's new coating (well, this last part they're still testing)
LW short stroke gas piston (maybe in midlength?)

I can't see getting much better than this.

But YMMV.

Corey

EDITED to add that soon we might have the LW MRS and MGI's SCAR upper to add into this mix.
Link Posted: 7/23/2005 6:46:50 PM EDT
Link Posted: 7/23/2005 6:51:48 PM EDT
Why would you go to such lengths to create a monolithic upper receiver only to use a piston gas system?


Link Posted: 7/23/2005 6:57:36 PM EDT

Originally Posted By ian187:
Why would you go to such lengths to create a monolithic upper receiver only to use a piston gas system?




Because the AK has a gas system.
An AK will always run.
So, it must be because of the gas system.
Link Posted: 7/23/2005 7:17:47 PM EDT

Originally Posted By Stryfe:

Originally Posted By ian187:
Why would you go to such lengths to create a monolithic upper receiver only to use a piston gas system?




Because the AK has a gas system.
An AK will always run.
So, it must be because of the gas system.



I wonder if the poster knows that a gas piston negates free floating a barrel?

Link Posted: 7/23/2005 7:24:34 PM EDT

Originally Posted By ian187:

Originally Posted By Stryfe:

Originally Posted By ian187:
Why would you go to such lengths to create a monolithic upper receiver only to use a piston gas system?




Because the AK has a gas system.
An AK will always run.
So, it must be because of the gas system.



I wonder if the poster knows that a gas piston negates free floating a barrel?



The benefits are well known.
Link Posted: 7/23/2005 7:49:57 PM EDT

Originally Posted By ian187:
I wonder if the poster knows that a gas piston negates free floating a barrel?



It's as "free floated" as a any gas impingement system. The gas rod and the gas tube may both contact the receiver, so neither are truly, technically free floated. The integral forend of the MRP and MRS eliminate pressure from the handguards in a traditional M4 upper.
Link Posted: 7/23/2005 7:50:24 PM EDT
[Last Edit: 7/23/2005 7:51:09 PM EDT by NYPatriot]

Originally Posted By avengeusa:
crack...

it's whats for breakfast..



Link Posted: 7/23/2005 7:53:56 PM EDT

Originally Posted By ian187:
Why would you go to such lengths to create a monolithic upper receiver only to use a piston gas system?



I suppose you could ask LW and LMT when their gas piston systems are released for their MRS and MRP, respectively.
Link Posted: 7/23/2005 7:58:22 PM EDT

Originally Posted By Curare:

Originally Posted By ian187:
Why would you go to such lengths to create a monolithic upper receiver only to use a piston gas system?



I suppose you could ask LW and LMT when their gas piston systems are released for their MRS and MRP, respectively.



LMT did not develop the MRP to work with a piston. LW has not released the MRS but it has been said by LW that it does not work with a piston either. The real point though is that free floating a piston gas system is pointless.

Respectively.
Link Posted: 7/23/2005 8:17:30 PM EDT
[Last Edit: 7/23/2005 8:42:49 PM EDT by Curare]

Originally Posted By ian187:
The real point though is that free floating a piston gas system is pointless.



Are you implying that any means to reduce stesses on the barrel, i.e. a free float tube, are pointless? Take a look at Mellonics: 3-4 feet off target at 300yds. due to sling/bipod stresses on the barrel. Any effort to free float the barrel as much as possible, regardless of the operating system, is well worth the effort.

Further, the bullet has long left the barrel before the piston starts to move--hence any stress the short stroke gas piston has on the barrel at that point is irrelevant. So how is making an effort to free float as gas piston system pointless? Does the gas piston apply pressure to the barrel differently with every shot such as with a bipod or hand forces on a non free floated forend?

As far as the gas piston not running in the MRS--stay tuned. The gas piston in the MRS is one of its strong selling points. Have a little more confidence in the folks at LW, they'll get it right.
Link Posted: 7/23/2005 8:32:49 PM EDT
Link Posted: 7/23/2005 8:59:02 PM EDT
[Last Edit: 7/24/2005 8:12:23 AM EDT by ian187]

Originally Posted By Curare:

Originally Posted By ian187:
The real point though is that free floating a piston gas system is pointless.



Are you implying that any means to reduce stesses on the barrel, i.e. a free float tube, are pointless? Take a look at Mellonics: 3-4 feet off target at 300yds. due to sling/bipod stresses on the barrel. Any effort to free float the barrel as much as possible, regardless of the operating system, is well worth the effort.

Further, the bullet has long left the barrel before the piston starts to move--hence any stress the short stroke gas piston has on the barrel at that point is irrelevant. So how is making an effort to free float as gas piston system pointless? Does the gas piston apply pressure to the barrel differently with every shot such as with a bipod or hand forces on a non free floated forend?

As far as the gas piston not running in the MRS--stay tuned. The gas piston in the MRS is one of its strong selling points. Have a little more confidence in the folks at LW, they'll get it right.



As of right now the MRS is vapor wear and any argument based upon second hand speculation is worthless.

Concerning free floating a gas piston system, the barrel will never be free floated. The piston will always apply pressure to the barrel no matter if it is stroking or not.
Link Posted: 7/24/2005 12:00:02 AM EDT

Originally Posted By Curare:

Further, the bullet has long left the barrel before the piston starts to move...



You might as well stop with that statement, because you are dead wrong................
Link Posted: 7/24/2005 10:07:38 AM EDT


Further, the bullet has long left the barrel before the piston starts to move.


How is that? Is this magical bullet somehow moving faster than the gas that is forcing it down the barrel?


Your physics are questionable. You should stop and evaluate your idea before your next post; you need more evidence than the expiriences of various "SF Operators".

Just because someone like H&K or whoever designs a new gas system for the M16/M4 platform doesn't mean that it's a good idea. It's just a way to make unknowing beauracrats buy new guns. IT IS A MARKETING PLOY.


Anyway, you should stop to read everyone's posts and reconsider your idea.



Link Posted: 7/24/2005 10:22:42 AM EDT
Link Posted: 7/24/2005 10:27:40 AM EDT

Originally Posted By Curare:

Originally Posted By DevL:

Why a mid length gas system and gas piston? The benefits are well known. Added weight and no benefit plus you cant use existing carbine barrels AND limit the minimum barrel length while adding weight. Who said anything about using existing barrels--are you aware of a current barrel as I've described? Your barrel is light and 6.8 and no QD so full auto fire is limited. An item can be lighter and still excellent cooling properites--it's all about surface area. This means civilians only and no govt contract. Carbon fiber barrels allow the light weight and heat retention while providing superior heat handling to your finned aluminum heat sink and superior rigidity. Who said aluminum? Carbon fiber is insulative--and hence, a poor choice. Why are you advocating heat retention? The goal is to allow barrel cooling--not baking. Being able to have a side charging upper means more room for crud to get into the gun. Press fit barrels means a huge pain in the ass to change barrels and major logistical problems. How often are barrels changed currently? According to reports, the life of an upper in SOCOM hands is very short. Civilians would not like having to send a barrel to a shop with teh equipment to press fit a barrel. How often are you swapping barrel that that would be an issue. All those AK-47 shooters out there don't seem to be complaining.

Existing designs already surpas your ideas.




I'm with DevL on this, the current system is already better than what you are proposing. Part of the beauty of the AR is the fact taht I can seperate my upper and lower and change the comlete upper in under 30seconds for a completly different set up for various uses. WHat you propose just makes that a PITA to do.
Link Posted: 7/24/2005 10:46:27 AM EDT
[Last Edit: 7/24/2005 10:49:18 AM EDT by guardian855]
We need that scene in OfficeSpace where that guy told his co workers about his idea for a Jump to Conclusions mat.

That's just terrible!
Link Posted: 7/24/2005 2:21:00 PM EDT

Originally Posted By photoman:
I'm with DevL on this, the current system is already better than what you are proposing. Part of the beauty of the AR is the fact taht I can seperate my upper and lower and change the comlete upper in under 30seconds for a completly different set up for various uses. WHat you propose just makes that a PITA to do.



How's that? It's still a separte upper that would mount on any AR lower. It may take more than 30 seconds when you stop to marvel at how light it is!

Link Posted: 7/24/2005 5:44:49 PM EDT
With a monolithic upper, damage the rails and the entire upper is junk.

With the present design, just install a new handguard.


0 for 7
Link Posted: 7/24/2005 7:26:04 PM EDT
[Last Edit: 7/24/2005 7:27:19 PM EDT by Stryfe]

Originally Posted By Curare:

Originally Posted By photoman:
I'm with DevL on this, the current system is already better than what you are proposing. Part of the beauty of the AR is the fact taht I can seperate my upper and lower and change the comlete upper in under 30seconds for a completly different set up for various uses. WHat you propose just makes that a PITA to do.



How's that? It's still a separte upper that would mount on any AR lower. It may take more than 30 seconds when you stop to marvel at how light it is!



How light is it?
Gas piston is heavier than the current gas tube.
Finned bbl is heavier than the current profile.
Built in rail system, heavier than the current system.

How do you add the items you propose, and drop the weight?

Your proposal defies logic because it adds all of the features that the original design was intended to avoid.

They didn't just invent a gas piston. It was in use long before the M16. The M16 was designed to be lightweight, inexpensive, and simple. That's what the gas impingment system does. One thin little tube instead of a larger tube, piston, and associated hardware.

The lightweight profile of the bbl, again done to save weight.

Why does everybody want to turn the nice little efficient assault rifle into a bloody great ponderous main battle rifle?

If you want a battle rifle, buy a FAL. If you want a lightweight combat rifle stick to the M16 and quit borrowing trouble.

edit:speeling.
Link Posted: 7/25/2005 5:06:10 AM EDT
Bullet leaves the barrel before LW gas piston moves. Confirmed by testing done by LW.
Carbn fiber barrel has superior heat transfer. Testing done by MGI.
FF barrel removes handguard stress induced POI shift and negates add/removal of equipment to the rail even if you have a gas piston set up.
MRS is not vapor wear go look in the LW section.
MRS designed to work with gas piston. Go read in the LW Industry section.
LW gas piston does not add weight, as per LW.
LW gas piston does not hurt accuracy as per testing done by LW.

Some of you need to get some better information before posting untruths to back up your position. I have never read a thread with so much bad information in my whole life.
Link Posted: 7/25/2005 5:07:22 AM EDT

Originally Posted By ian187:

Originally Posted By Curare:

Originally Posted By ian187:
Why would you go to such lengths to create a monolithic upper receiver only to use a piston gas system?



I suppose you could ask LW and LMT when their gas piston systems are released for their MRS and MRP, respectively.



LMT did not develop the MRP to work with a piston. LW has not released the MRS but it has been said by LW that it does not work with a piston either. The real point though is that free floating a piston gas system is pointless.

Respectively.



LW converts the MRP to gas piston with a special gas block. MRS is designed to work with gas piston.
Link Posted: 7/25/2005 5:11:28 AM EDT
[Last Edit: 7/25/2005 5:15:21 AM EDT by DevL]

Originally Posted By Curare:

Originally Posted By Skyssx:
How exactly are our current battle rifles failing in the barrel arena that we need heatsinks on them? Making a bolt on heatsink that would efficiently transfer heat would be damn near impossible.



Once again, the fins are machined into the barrel (not bolted on). You stated that the fins were a good idea. Now you are against them? The purpose of the added surface area is to prevent a lighter barrel from overheating. Shaving weight off an infantry weapon while providing the same level of barrel cooling is an asset. The added cost of machining for this feature would clearly be worth it.



And CF barrels remove weight while offer superior cooling to your idea... plus it has already been done (finned heat sink on AR)... noone was interested.
Link Posted: 7/25/2005 5:43:26 AM EDT
I like the current M4 configuration. It works so keep it that way.

Colt_SBR
Link Posted: 7/25/2005 6:33:25 AM EDT
[Last Edit: 7/25/2005 6:58:15 AM EDT by ian187]

Originally Posted By DevL:
MRS is not vapor wear go look in the LW section.
MRS designed to work with gas piston. Go read in the LW Industry section.



It is not vapor wear? Please post a link to where it is for sale or where someone is buying it(anyone).
Link Posted: 7/25/2005 8:50:59 AM EDT

Originally Posted By ian187:

Originally Posted By DevL:
MRS is not vapor wear go look in the LW section.
MRS designed to work with gas piston. Go read in the LW Industry section.



It is not vapor wear? Please post a link to where it is for sale or where someone is buying it(anyone).



Well there is a pic of the functioning prototype (which can be purchased if you wna to use it for proofing barrels and swapping quickly right now) and there is a waiting list to get the weapon upper which is mere weeks away from being released and shipped. Vaporware is equipment that does not exist. This is equpiment that DOES exist. People said the gas piston conversion was vaporware too. Pretty ignorant if you ask me.
Link Posted: 7/25/2005 10:07:32 AM EDT
There are pics of the LW dedicated .22 uppers from 1998 too. Yet you don't see too many available for sale. I wish LW lots of luck on the MRS; but so far all I've seen is a pic of a very rough prototype and the pics of the plastic model from SHOT SHOW 2005.
Link Posted: 7/25/2005 5:32:55 PM EDT

Originally Posted By Colt_SBR:
I like the current M4 configuration. It works so keep it that way.

Colt_SBR





Thank you!
Link Posted: 7/25/2005 6:00:19 PM EDT
+1 on why make an AR a FAL?

If you want a FAL, just buy one. A lot cheaper than converting a design that works with one concept into basically another rifle.
Link Posted: 7/25/2005 7:46:32 PM EDT
[Last Edit: 7/25/2005 11:32:37 PM EDT by POF-USA]
Link Posted: 7/25/2005 10:08:55 PM EDT

Originally Posted By DevL:

Originally Posted By ian187:

Originally Posted By DevL:
MRS is not vapor wear go look in the LW section.
MRS designed to work with gas piston. Go read in the LW Industry section.



It is not vapor wear? Please post a link to where it is for sale or where someone is buying it(anyone).



Well there is a pic of the functioning prototype (which can be purchased if you wna to use it for proofing barrels and swapping quickly right now) and there is a waiting list to get the weapon upper which is mere weeks away from being released and shipped. Vaporware is equipment that does not exist. This is equpiment that DOES exist. People said the gas piston conversion was vaporware too. Pretty ignorant if you ask me.



Three Shrikes have been delivered too.

Arrow Left Previous Page
Page / 2
Top Top