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
Posted: 7/4/2002 2:43:03 PM EDT
[Last Edit: 7/4/2002 2:47:31 PM EDT by M4-AK]
What do you think of my idea???

A rifle with the mid length handguards, 18" barrel and that tactical upper thats part sights, part flat top.

Call it the Swat? I wonder if there would be any interest for RRA to make them.

M4-AK



Link Posted: 7/4/2002 7:06:33 PM EDT
I'll say this for your idea. You have the barrel length correct - 18". That's about the minimum length to keep the "HV" in SCHV.

(ArmaLite figured this out in 1963 with the advent of the AR-18.)
Link Posted: 7/4/2002 7:18:39 PM EDT

Originally Posted By 5subslr5:
I'll say this for your idea. You have the barrel length correct - 18". That's about the minimum length to keep the "HV" in SCHV.

(ArmaLite figured this out in 1963 with the advent of the AR-18.)

You stole my thought, you...you....oh, well, just you.

They have also re-introduced the idea with the 180B.
Link Posted: 7/5/2002 4:39:07 AM EDT
I have always wondered about the 18" question.

You see 7.5,11,14.5,16,20,24 inch barrels but no 18 inch.

Looks like there's a new market waiting to be tapped.

Oh yeah, I'll take one in 13 and 17 inch to round it out.
Link Posted: 7/5/2002 4:57:05 AM EDT

Originally Posted By LARRYG:

They have also re-introduced the idea with the 180B.



YEP !!

(At least one company has learned from the lessons of the past.)
Link Posted: 7/5/2002 5:15:23 AM EDT
[Last Edit: 7/5/2002 5:16:44 AM EDT by 5subslr5]

Originally Posted By PVFD304:
I have always wondered about the 18" question.

You see 7.5,11,14.5,16,20,24 inch barrels but no 18 inch.



304,
we have operators in the Afghan using the M4 config and the velocity is so low that there is little knock-down capacity even at 100 yards. Some guys claim the effective range, with the power to stopem quickly, is only about 60 yards !! There are also problems with the low velocity round's ability to penetrate. (Same problems showed up in Somalia but were, of course, ignored.)

Part of the problem is light bullet weight - too light. Some of these guys have had 70-80 grn bullets shipped in by friends and relatives.

If you're going to war with a small caliber round then you've got to have SPEED for the bullet to perform. To a dumb-ass like me it seems that we must either use a larger caliber, with a heavier bullet, or get velocity back to above 3,000 fps and the easiest way to accomplish this little chore is with a barrel of at least 18". (All other things being equal.)

When it comes to barrel length, you can have either shorter and cool or longer and more effective.
Link Posted: 7/5/2002 5:45:58 AM EDT
Just make sure to put the front sight the right distance from the muzzle so you can mount a bayo on the preban version. I'm still shaking my head that they came out with the mid length for the 16" and did not consider that.
Link Posted: 7/7/2002 4:34:11 PM EDT
Yep, an 18" would be GREAT!!!!! But you will pay for a small , short weapon in performance. My 300WM bolt gun has a 26" bull barrel and weighs 16 lb. It can throw a 180 gr @ 3280fps. My AR is a 20" fluted HBAR and throws a 55gr @ 3250 fps & a 64gr @ 3025 fps. You want killing power, you need velocity.
Link Posted: 7/7/2002 4:38:19 PM EDT
Almost forgot, neighbor who was in the 1st Special Forces for 12 years as an Officer (now a Major in Reserves) says not to get a 16", too short. Unless you are going to fight house to house , get a rifle , not a carbine!
Link Posted: 7/7/2002 5:18:24 PM EDT
HK G3 (and HK91) has a barrel length of 17.71"
Link Posted: 7/8/2002 11:48:44 PM EDT

Originally Posted By 5subslr5:

Originally Posted By PVFD304:
I have always wondered about the 18" question.

You see 7.5,11,14.5,16,20,24 inch barrels but no 18 inch.



304,
we have operators in the Afghan using the M4 config and the velocity is so low that there is little knock-down capacity even at 100 yards. Some guys claim the effective range, with the power to stopem quickly, is only about 60 yards !! There are also problems with the low velocity round's ability to penetrate. (Same problems showed up in Somalia but were, of course, ignored.)

Part of the problem is light bullet weight - too light. Some of these guys have had 70-80 grn bullets shipped in by friends and relatives.

If you're going to war with a small caliber round then you've got to have SPEED for the bullet to perform. To a dumb-ass like me it seems that we must either use a larger caliber, with a heavier bullet, or get velocity back to above 3,000 fps and the easiest way to accomplish this little chore is with a barrel of at least 18". (All other things being equal.)

When it comes to barrel length, you can have either shorter and cool or longer and more effective.



Why the heavier bullets? Heavier = LOWER velocity = less reliable fragmentation.

????
Link Posted: 7/9/2002 6:04:50 AM EDT
[Last Edit: 7/9/2002 6:11:48 AM EDT by fastang50]
tate-
I guess if what you're starting with is moving so slow that it won't fragment, you might as well hit 'em with something heavy and slow instead of light and slow. Right? Bricks hurt more than tennis balls.

(edited to add)
I think the 18" idea is pretty neat. I'd buy one.
Link Posted: 7/9/2002 6:20:22 AM EDT
Tate,

Force = Mass * Acceleration.

With a .308, you have about a 2200 fps speed, instead of the ballpark 3200 fps from a .223

BUT,.... It weighs three times MORE!!!

NOTE: I am using ballpark numbers!!!

Mugzilla
Top Top