User Panel
User Panel
User Panel
|
Posted: 1/19/2021 1:04:13 PM EDT
[#1]
Quote HistoryQuoted: The take down lever on ruger 22 pistols should have been made different. The Mk IV hinge should have been the case since the Mk II. |
|
|
|
Posted: 1/19/2021 1:04:44 PM EDT
[#2]
The AR charging handle is awkward as fuck.
|
|
|
|
Posted: 1/19/2021 1:05:25 PM EDT
[#3]
Lack of a bolt hold open on the AK47. The SKS had one, and Kalashnikov was acquainted both with this design and its designer, Simonov.
So why in the blue blazes couldn't MTK put two or three extra parts in the AK receiver and have a bolt hold open? |
|
|
|
Posted: 1/19/2021 1:08:59 PM EDT
[#4]
Quote HistoryQuoted: Chauchat open magazine. Nothing better than a pound of mud in your mag and action. https://collections.royalarmouries.org/media/emumedia/0/876/large_DI_2014_2893.jpg Iirc, that was so the magazine could be loaded. |
|
|
|
Posted: 1/19/2021 1:14:45 PM EDT
[#5]
Quote HistoryQuoted: FPNI, but also "pull trigger to release slide". Unless I'm sending a bullet dowrange or practicing same, I should not be pulling a trigger. Just last week I learned about the "Abadie" system for gate loading revolvers. Basically you put the hammer and half-cock and then repeatedly pull the trigger to advance the cylinder for loading and unloading. What could possibly go wrong?  |
|
|
|
Posted: 1/19/2021 1:15:49 PM EDT
[#6]
KEL-TEC PMR 30 feed raps and light bolt
|
|
|
|
Posted: 1/19/2021 1:17:00 PM EDT
[#7]
Quote HistoryQuoted: Because due to the design of the frame, and the width of the BHP's magazine, a 1911 style trigger linkage wouldn't fit.... Negative. JMB had to literally design around his own patents that he had sold to Colt... that's the reason for the Rube-Goldberg FC system on the HP. Making a wider trigger bow would have been very doable... why wouldn't it have been? |
|
|
|
Posted: 1/19/2021 1:21:12 PM EDT
[#8]
Quote HistoryQuoted: Chauchat open magazine. Nothing better than a pound of mud in your mag and action. https://collections.royalarmouries.org/media/emumedia/0/876/large_DI_2014_2893.jpg In their defense, this wasn't bad design, it was unforeseen conditions. The Chauchat was invented in 1907, right at the dawn of detachable magazines. When you're a pioneer sometimes you discover things. Those cutouts do have a purpose too, you use one hand to pull back spring tension when loading. Plenty of other weapons of the era struggled with mud, and ironically the fully enclosed magazine of the 30.06 Chauchat was far, far worse. I can't remember the exact details or which gun, but C&Rsenal had a rifle with some kind of barrel attachment(think a grenade launcher adapter) that helpfully could be put on either direction. This also meant you could put a rifle in both ends and there was no non-destructive way to release them. |
|
|
|
Posted: 1/19/2021 1:21:26 PM EDT
[#9]
Quote HistoryQuoted: Galil bottle opener They were thinking the troops needed a way to open their bottles easily. It worked marvelously. |
|
|
|
Posted: 1/19/2021 1:27:56 PM EDT
[#10]
Quote HistoryQuoted: They were thinking the troops needed a way to open their bottles easily. It worked marvelously. The "word on the street" is that troops were fucking up magazine feedlips using mags as bottle openers, so they designed an opener on the rifle itself. |
|
|
|
Posted: 1/19/2021 1:30:48 PM EDT
[#11]
Quote HistoryQuoted: I will humbly nominate the M16 forward assist. A non-solution to a non-problem. FA is useful when you forget the buffer spring |
|
|
|
Posted: 1/19/2021 1:34:35 PM EDT
[#12]
Quote HistoryQuoted: Browning didn't own the patent, Colt did. He had to design around it. Quote HistoryQuoted: Browning didn't own the patent, Colt did. He had to design around it. Quoted: Negative. JMB had to literally design around his own patents that he had sold to Colt... that's the reason for the Rube-Goldberg FC system on the HP. Making a wider trigger bow would have been very doable... why wouldn't it have been? I guess someone should have told FN (and JMB) that they couldn't use the same stirrup-style trigger bar setup in their Model 1900, 1903, 1910, and 1922 pistols then  The 1897 patent, and the fact Browning licensed production of pistols using the locking system outlined in it to Colt, had nothing to do with it. Read Blake Stephens book on the GP35, as well as Ezells development history of the BHP. They elected to use a different design for 2 reasons.....space limitations, and, to quote Dieudonne Saive, "We elected to to abandon the trigger stirrup used in the other handguns in favor of a connecting bar for the sear and trigger., which was mounted in the slide. In all other positions of the breech slide, the forward end of the lever is removed from its operative relation with the trigger pawl, thus the arm cannot be fired, even if the trigger is pulled back, until the breech slide and barrel are fully locked, and the breech closed" Originally the BHP was designed as a striker fired pistol .....and the trigger bar system was remarkably similar to that used in the worlds only other double-stack pistol that held the mag in the grip....the 1907/1915 Savage This is already off track ..... but referring to the design as "what were they thinking" because it didn't incorporate a feature that wouldnt appear on most handguns for another 40 or 50 years is a bit nonsensical...... I mean what was Hugo Schmeisser thinking in 1918 making an open bolt, blowback submachinegun out of machined steel and wood.... he could have just designed a closed bolt, roller locked, delayed blowback gun with simple stamped/welded construction.... |
|
|
|
Posted: 1/19/2021 1:59:21 PM EDT
[#13]
The Rem model 14 bolt release is a pretty crappy design. It works, but it sucks to use when it's really cold out, and almost impossible to use with gloves on.
My dad has an old single shot shotgun that the break lever is a loop directly in front of the trigger. You pull it like a trigger to open the gun. |
|
|
|
Posted: 1/19/2021 2:57:49 PM EDT
[#14]
Quote HistoryQuoted: Everyone, not just the Germans, thought the next war would be another form up in firing lines and shoot at each other for a couple of hours affair. They wanted sights for maximum possible range and with large point blank zones which they got. Starting the thread of with an example of something that made sense for the design goals but the poster doesn't understand those design goals isn't a good way to set the tone for the thread... And, btw, at the same time Germany was adopting a service rifle with a 400yd min sight, we had a 300yd min sight on ours. |
|
|
|
Posted: 1/19/2021 3:06:16 PM EDT
[#15]
SCAR reciprocating charging handle
|
|
|
|
Posted: 1/19/2021 3:09:16 PM EDT
[#16]
Quote HistoryQuoted: The design goals were stupid. 400m is a ridiculous distance for the first setting. You have to put things in historical context a bit. For all of human history, combat had largely taken place at the longest possible range engagement of the primary infantry weapon. From the rock to the spear to the musket.... however far away you could hit the enemy with your weapon, that was the range at which you tried to fight. Now all of the sudden the infantry was armed with weapons that could hit stuff at a thousand yards or more... who would have foreseen that combat at shorter ranges than 400 yards would ever happen again? History said it wouldn’t. Of course, history (and damn near everyone’s ordnance departments) was very wrong about how combat in the smokeless powder age would happen, but that’s a whole ‘nuther thread. |
|
|
|
Posted: 1/19/2021 3:10:36 PM EDT
[#17]
Quote HistoryQuoted: Just last week I learned about the "Abadie" system for gate loading revolvers. Basically you put the hammer and half-cock and then repeatedly pull the trigger to advance the cylinder for loading and unloading. What could possibly go wrong? It disconnected the trigger and the hammer. Faster than manually indexing, not as fast as a top break or a swing-out cylinder. |
|
|
|
Posted: 1/19/2021 3:12:33 PM EDT
[#18]
Reciprocating charging handles.
|
|
|
|
Posted: 1/19/2021 3:13:05 PM EDT
[#19]
They get a pass for making the most beautiful(in some cases) SMGs ever
But yeah the 600 yard sight for them is a bit optimistic for a 9mm |
|
|
|
Posted: 1/19/2021 3:17:26 PM EDT
[#20]
Quote HistoryQuoted: The design goals were stupid. 400m is a ridiculous distance for the first setting. In the Boer war, which provided much of the "rethinking" of infantry tactics prior to WW1, the average engagement distance was 500 yards. The Boers were known for beginning engagement with small arms at 900-1000 yds. From 1904: " ‘Effective’ rifle range was determined as being between 600 and 1,400 yards, while less than 600 yards was considered ‘decisive’. " If no part of your doctrine involved letting the enemy get closer than 400-600 yards, why have a 100yd sight setting???? |
|
|
|
Posted: 1/19/2021 3:19:24 PM EDT
[#21]
Quote HistoryQuoted: You have to put things in historical context a bit. For all of human history, combat had largely taken place at the longest possible range engagement of the primary infantry weapon. From the rock to the spear to the musket.... however far away you could hit the enemy with your weapon, that was the range at which you tried to fight. Now all of the sudden the infantry was armed with weapons that could hit stuff at a thousand yards or more... who would have foreseen that combat at shorter ranges than 400 yards would ever happen again? History said it wouldn't. Of course, history (and damn near everyone's ordnance departments) was very wrong about how combat in the smokeless powder age would happen, but that's a whole 'nuther thread. Had smokeless, smallbore, magazine rifles been the only advancement in armament between 1885 and 1914, war may have looked very much the way commanders of the times predicted. The clean-burning, smokeless, high-velocity, smallbore, self-contained metallic cartridge (along with advancements in industrial sciences to make the production possible, and logistics in order to make their deployment in MASSIVE quantity possible) opened doors to technological innovation that would've been sci-fi in 1860. Of course, those same advancements in industrial production and logistics made things like rapid-fire heavy artillery possible as well. |
|
|
|
Posted: 1/19/2021 3:27:48 PM EDT
[#22]
Quote HistoryQuoted: Everyone, not just the G...... an example of something that made sense for the design goals but the poster doesn't understand those design goals isn't a good way to set the tone for the thread... And, btw, at the same time Germany was adopting a service rifle with a 400yd min sight, we had a 300yd min sight on ours. Holy shit! He set the wrong tone for the thread guys! The nerve! |
|
|
|
Posted: 1/19/2021 3:29:51 PM EDT
[#23]
|
|
|
|
Posted: 1/19/2021 4:02:41 PM EDT
[#24]
I'm the first to mention the M14 auto sear? Yay me.
The complex system if clockwork tomfuckery that constitutes the Browning BLR. Any gun that the factory tells you not to disassemble it is a bad design. |
|
|
|
Posted: 1/19/2021 4:30:49 PM EDT
[#25]
No extractor? check
No way to grasp/manually retract slide? check Useless loop at bottom of mag for extra round of ammo? check 1928 Le Francais ...... It's like the French would go out of their way to avoid practical features ..... 
|
|
|
|
Posted: 1/19/2021 4:41:24 PM EDT
[#26]
Quote HistoryQuoted: The AR charging handle is awkward as fuck. Agree Has to be better way, not sure it’s been discovered or implemented yet. Downright goofy compared to other non reciprocating designs. |
|
|
|
Posted: 1/19/2021 4:48:32 PM EDT
[#27]
Quote HistoryQuoted: GREAT QUESTION. I understood that reference! |
|
|
|
Posted: 1/19/2021 5:19:06 PM EDT
[#28]
Quote HistoryQuoted: Came across one of these a few weeks ago. Glad I didn't try and load it! Quote HistoryQuoted: Came across one of these a few weeks ago. Glad I didn't try and load it! ^ I believe you were supposed to let the 'significant' other load it..
|
|
|
|
Posted: 1/19/2021 5:20:46 PM EDT
[#29]
Quote HistoryQuoted: Chauchat open magazine. Nothing better than a pound of mud in your mag and action. https://collections.royalarmouries.org/media/emumedia/0/876/large_DI_2014_2893.jpg ^ Air Force guy wonders what you are talking about - lol |
|
|
|
Posted: 1/19/2021 6:01:29 PM EDT
[#30]
Quote HistoryQuoted: It disconnected the trigger and the hammer. Faster than manually indexing, not as fast as a top break or a swing-out cylinder. It also ingrains the habit of pulling the trigger when you DON'T want a bullet to come out, which is a bad idea. |
|
|
|
Posted: 1/19/2021 6:44:56 PM EDT
[#31]
Quote HistoryQuoted: The Rem model 14 bolt release is a pretty crappy design. It works, but it sucks to use when it's really cold out, and almost impossible to use with gloves on. My dad has an old single shot shotgun that the break lever is a loop directly in front of the trigger. You pull it like a trigger to open the gun. The Ruger 10/22 bolt release is shitty too. |
|
|
|
Posted: 1/19/2021 6:52:45 PM EDT
[#32]
Type 94 Nambu pistol for a whole host of reasons.
|
|
|
|
Posted: 1/19/2021 6:56:44 PM EDT
[#33]
Pulling the trigger for anything besides sending a bullet
Glock grip shapes and angles 10/22 bolt release Ars using DI and not having a way to fold the stock in a reasonable manner 357sig |
|
|
|
Posted: 1/19/2021 7:03:58 PM EDT
[#34]
Quote HistoryQuoted: You have to put things in historical context a bit. For all of human history, combat had largely taken place at the longest possible range engagement of the primary infantry weapon. From the rock to the spear to the musket.... however far away you could hit the enemy with your weapon, that was the range at which you tried to fight. Now all of the sudden the infantry was armed with weapons that could hit stuff at a thousand yards or more... who would have foreseen that combat at shorter ranges than 400 yards would ever happen again? History said it wouldn’t. Of course, history (and damn near everyone’s ordnance departments) was very wrong about how combat in the smokeless powder age would happen, but that’s a whole ‘nuther thread. The problem is that your argument falls apart when you remember that these 400m minimum range rifles were being issued with bayonets for hand to hand fighting, and that European infantry tactics still revolved around shock action after softening the enemy formation with rifle fire. What exactly were they expecting to happen between 400m and 0m where the bayonet came into play? |
|
|
|
Posted: 1/19/2021 7:05:21 PM EDT
[#35]
Quote HistoryQuoted: In their defense, this wasn't bad design, it was unforeseen conditions. The Chauchat was invented in 1907, right at the dawn of detachable magazines. When you're a pioneer sometimes you discover things. Those cutouts do have a purpose too, you use one hand to pull back spring tension when loading. Plenty of other weapons of the era struggled with mud, and ironically the fully enclosed magazine of the 30.06 Chauchat was far, far worse. I can't remember the exact details or which gun, but C&Rsenal had a rifle with some kind of barrel attachment(think a grenade launcher adapter) that helpfully could be put on either direction. This also meant you could put a rifle in both ends and there was no non-destructive way to release them. MAS-36 bayonet. The bayonet has latches on both ends. You could attach two rifles together using one bayonet and they'd be stuck that way. They fixed it later on. |
|
|
|
Posted: 1/19/2021 7:10:46 PM EDT
[#36]
Quote HistoryQuoted: The problem is that your argument falls apart when you remember that these 400m minimum range rifles were being issued with bayonets for hand to hand fighting, and that European infantry tactics still revolved around shock action after softening the enemy formation with rifle fire. What exactly were they expecting to happen between 400m and 0m where the bayonet came into play? Quote HistoryQuoted: Quoted: You have to put things in historical context a bit. For all of human history, combat had largely taken place at the longest possible range engagement of the primary infantry weapon. From the rock to the spear to the musket.... however far away you could hit the enemy with your weapon, that was the range at which you tried to fight. Now all of the sudden the infantry was armed with weapons that could hit stuff at a thousand yards or more... who would have foreseen that combat at shorter ranges than 400 yards would ever happen again? History said it wouldn’t. Of course, history (and damn near everyone’s ordnance departments) was very wrong about how combat in the smokeless powder age would happen, but that’s a whole ‘nuther thread. The problem is that your argument falls apart when you remember that these 400m minimum range rifles were being issued with bayonets for hand to hand fighting, and that European infantry tactics still revolved around shock action after softening the enemy formation with rifle fire. What exactly were they expecting to happen between 400m and 0m where the bayonet came into play? This. I understand having a battle zero at whatever range. But why can't you also have range settings for 100 through all the realistic distances? |
|
|
|
Posted: 1/19/2021 7:14:06 PM EDT
[#37]
Quote HistoryQuoted: The problem is that your argument falls apart when you remember that these 400m minimum range rifles were being issued with bayonets for hand to hand fighting, and that European infantry tactics still revolved around shock action after softening the enemy formation with rifle fire. What exactly were they expecting to happen between 400m and 0m where the bayonet came into play? For whom? Who would be pausing during the middle of your bayonet charge to take aimed fire? Walking fire, maybe (the Germans were doing something kinda similar in the Franco/Prussian War with their breechloading Needleguns) but your infantryman was supposed to stay in order until the final charge, then cover the intervening ground as quickly as possible. Keep in mind as well that the 400m sight marking came about as a result of the spitzer cartridge introduced in 1903. With the M88 loading, the sight had a standard-for-the-time 200m setting. |
|
|
|
Posted: 1/19/2021 7:41:04 PM EDT
[#38]
The Nambu Type 94 with the external sear.
The Jap MG that fed from stripper clips. The Breda MG. The Remington R51 without a reinforced shoulder in the frame for the bolt. The experimental Copper casings for the Trapdoor Springfield. The unusual Ammo for the Burnside carbine. The Dreyese needlegun mechanism vis a vis the ignition. |
|
|
|
Posted: 1/19/2021 7:55:18 PM EDT
[#39]
Gyro jet or the Dardic with its trounds.
|
|
|
|
Posted: 1/19/2021 7:56:03 PM EDT
[#40]
B.A.D. lever
|
|
|
|
Posted: 1/19/2021 8:44:01 PM EDT
[#41]
Remington Etronx rifle
 |
|
|
|
Posted: 1/19/2021 8:49:50 PM EDT
[#42]
STI BLS 9
Separate barrel ramp and the slide and plunger tube are 2 pieces.        Shoots really well and completely reliable with extra power mag springs or Tripp mags. |
|
|
|
Posted: 1/19/2021 8:52:48 PM EDT
[#43]
Quote HistoryQuoted: FPNI, but also "pull trigger to release slide". Unless I'm sending a bullet dowrange or practicing same, I should not be pulling a trigger. If you mean the UK legal semi-semi auto designs no need to worry - they've been made illegal here |
|
|
|
Posted: 1/19/2021 8:58:33 PM EDT
[#44]
Quote HistoryQuoted: Everyone, not just the Germans, thought the next war would be another form up in firing lines and shoot at each other for a couple of hours affair. They wanted sights for maximum possible range and with large point blank zones which they got. Starting the thread of with an example of something that made sense for the design goals but the poster doesn't understand those design goals isn't a good way to set the tone for the thread... And, btw, at the same time Germany was adopting a service rifle with a 400yd min sight, we had a 300yd min sight on ours. WE found out in the Boer War (the 2nd of them) that standing in rows, or even standing in the open, was not going to be a winning strategy in modern warfare SMLE min. sight setting was what again? |
|
|
|
Posted: 1/19/2021 9:11:01 PM EDT
[#45]
The cross bolt safety
|
|
|
|
Posted: 1/19/2021 9:14:35 PM EDT
[#46]
Quote HistoryQuoted: WE found out in the Boer War (the 2nd of them) that standing in rows, or even standing in the open, was not going to be a winning strategy in modern warfare SMLE min. sight setting was what again? And you learned that lesson a year after the Gew 98 was adopted, and you learned it carrying a rifle every bit as long as the Gew 98. Then you shortened the rifle and issued a massive bayonet so the overall length of short rifle + bayonet was the same as the long rifle + bayonet. |
|
|
|
Posted: 1/19/2021 9:25:15 PM EDT
[#47]
That barrel harmonics fix, the Browning BOSS system
Mannlicher rifle loading clips The Blish Lock was a bit of a feature which failed to live up to its promise too |
|
|
|
Posted: 1/19/2021 9:31:51 PM EDT
[#48]
Lasers with the button on the trigger itself
|
|
|
|
Posted: 1/19/2021 9:40:19 PM EDT
[#49]
Quote HistoryQuoted: This. I understand having a battle zero at whatever range. But why can't you also have range settings for 100 through all the realistic distances? Quote HistoryQuoted: Quoted: Quoted: You have to put things in historical context a bit. For all of human history, combat had largely taken place at the longest possible range engagement of the primary infantry weapon. From the rock to the spear to the musket.... however far away you could hit the enemy with your weapon, that was the range at which you tried to fight. Now all of the sudden the infantry was armed with weapons that could hit stuff at a thousand yards or more... who would have foreseen that combat at shorter ranges than 400 yards would ever happen again? History said it wouldn’t. Of course, history (and damn near everyone’s ordnance departments) was very wrong about how combat in the smokeless powder age would happen, but that’s a whole ‘nuther thread. The problem is that your argument falls apart when you remember that these 400m minimum range rifles were being issued with bayonets for hand to hand fighting, and that European infantry tactics still revolved around shock action after softening the enemy formation with rifle fire. What exactly were they expecting to happen between 400m and 0m where the bayonet came into play? This. I understand having a battle zero at whatever range. But why can't you also have range settings for 100 through all the realistic distances? Dude, we discuss zeroing our ARs between 25yards and 50 meters so we don't have to adjust our point of aim at 300. The rifles we're talking about are using heavier bullets and larger cartidge cases. 400 for a battlesight zero is perfectly fine. |
|
|
|
Posted: 1/19/2021 9:51:26 PM EDT
[#50]
Quote HistoryQuoted: Dude, we discuss zeroing our ARs between 25yards and 50 meters so we don't have to adjust our point of aim at 300. The rifles we're talking about are using heavier bullets and larger cartidge cases. 400 for a battlesight zero is perfectly fine. |
|
|
Win a FREE Membership!
Sign up for the ARFCOM weekly newsletter and be entered to win a free ARFCOM membership. One new winner* is announced every week!
You will receive an email every Friday morning featuring the latest chatter from the hottest topics, breaking news surrounding legislation, as well as exclusive deals only available to ARFCOM email subscribers.
AR15.COM is the world's largest firearm community and is a gathering place for firearm enthusiasts of all types.
From hunters and military members, to competition shooters and general firearm enthusiasts, we welcome anyone who values and respects the way of the firearm.
Subscribe to our monthly Newsletter to receive firearm news, product discounts from your favorite Industry Partners, and more.
Copyright © 1996-2024 AR15.COM LLC. All Rights Reserved.
Any use of this content without express written consent is prohibited.
AR15.Com reserves the right to overwrite or replace any affiliate, commercial, or monetizable links, posted by users, with our own.
Attached File