Warning

 

Close

Confirm Action

Are you sure you wish to do this?

Confirm Cancel
Member Login
Arrow Left Previous Page
Page / 2
Posted: 12/5/2005 3:54:21 PM EDT
comments, myths and even facts welcome.
Link Posted: 12/5/2005 3:56:37 PM EDT

Originally Posted By DAY51:
comments, myths and even facts welcome.



Why? They have optics now, and don't need the extra weight.
Link Posted: 12/5/2005 4:39:15 PM EDT
Arms Tech Recon Rifle is a Dissipator config. Majority of sales are FMS if I'm not mistaken. Not sure if any are in service with US forces.
Link Posted: 12/5/2005 4:48:55 PM EDT
I love my dissipator because I won't burn myself on a hot barrel
Link Posted: 12/5/2005 4:55:27 PM EDT

Originally Posted By DAY51:
comments, myths and even facts welcome.



It was a civilian rifle solving a civilian non existant problem.
Link Posted: 12/5/2005 4:58:54 PM EDT
Didn't the US Marines guarding the US Embassy in Paris (Bourne Identity) use them?

Oh, wait, you meant real life, not movies huh?
Link Posted: 12/5/2005 5:01:38 PM EDT

Originally Posted By Dace:

Originally Posted By DAY51:
comments, myths and even facts welcome.



It was a civilian rifle solving a civilian non existant problem.


Yeah... so, when someone burns their hand on their exposed barrel, something that helps to prevent that is fixing a non-existant problem?

The increased site radius is nice too... though, personally, I need smaller apertures for my rear site.
Link Posted: 12/5/2005 5:15:51 PM EDT
[Last Edit: 12/5/2005 5:16:26 PM EDT by davis9588]

Originally Posted By JustinOK34:
Didn't the US Marines guarding the US Embassy in Paris (Bourne Identity) use them?

Oh, wait, you meant real life, not movies huh?





SWITZERLAND... NOT PARIS!


Link Posted: 12/5/2005 5:17:17 PM EDT

Originally Posted By Dace:

Originally Posted By DAY51:
comments, myths and even facts welcome.



It was a civilian rifle solving a civilian non existant problem.



Link Posted: 12/5/2005 5:51:19 PM EDT
heavy would be my best bet.
Link Posted: 12/5/2005 5:55:25 PM EDT
Probably the fact that a dissipator is unable to accept a bayonet has a little to do with it.
Link Posted: 12/5/2005 5:57:59 PM EDT

Originally Posted By DAY51:
comments, myths and even facts welcome.




Yeah, why ask why?
Link Posted: 12/5/2005 6:04:12 PM EDT
Probably because the idea of a second non functional gas block is lame, as is spending all the extra money for an additional low profile gas block.

I love Dissy's, but unless you're free floating and building from scratch, I think they aren't that logical.
Link Posted: 12/5/2005 6:21:30 PM EDT
Link Posted: 12/5/2005 6:31:28 PM EDT

Originally Posted By olds442tyguy:
Probably because the idea of a second non functional gas block is lame, as is spending all the extra money for an additional low profile gas block.

I love Dissy's, but unless you're free floating and building from scratch, I think they aren't that logical.



DPMS has a version that elimanates the second, non fucntional gas block.

the down side to the design is that it is still a very heavy barrel.
Link Posted: 12/5/2005 6:36:49 PM EDT
Why would the mil want a 16" barreled "rifle"? Just lose bullet velocity over 20" and its heavier than a carbine.
Link Posted: 12/5/2005 7:04:42 PM EDT
+1

14.5 or 16? I think we would ALL choose the 14.5 if there were no legal difference.
Link Posted: 12/5/2005 7:24:25 PM EDT

Originally Posted By davis9588:

Originally Posted By JustinOK34:
Didn't the US Marines guarding the US Embassy in Paris (Bourne Identity) use them?

Oh, wait, you meant real life, not movies huh?





SWITZERLAND... NOT PARIS!





Haha yeah, you're right! I guess I need to watch it again!



Link Posted: 12/5/2005 7:43:37 PM EDT
You only need one gas block. When you have a rail (and I'm not gonna discuss why they use them AGAIN) you don't need a second gas block.
Link Posted: 12/5/2005 7:49:16 PM EDT

Originally Posted By SmegHead:
+1

14.5 or 16? I think we would ALL choose the 14.5 if there were no legal difference.



There wouldn't be a 16" barrel if there was no legal difference.
Link Posted: 12/5/2005 8:00:48 PM EDT
why isn't a blonde called a brunette?
Link Posted: 12/5/2005 8:30:33 PM EDT
How many licks does it take to get to the center of a tootsie pop.....the world may never know.
Link Posted: 12/5/2005 8:39:15 PM EDT
Why all the hang up with heavy barrels? Who says you can't have a lightweight/Gov't profile undernear. And if it were a mass produced item, it wouldn't be an issue to enlarge the gasport to be able to use a rifle length gas system. Maybe I'm missing something.
Link Posted: 12/5/2005 10:08:52 PM EDT

Yeah... so, when someone burns their hand on their exposed barrel, something that helps to prevent that is fixing a non-existant problem?


You've got the right idea but believe it or not, its not really that big of an issue...not enough for the government to start pouring cash into fixing it. I've been doing the soldier thing for quite a while now and the only thing that ever burned me(besides the occasional jack-ass leader) was a Gortex jacket sleeve full of hot brass and links from my SAW while doing a convoy live-fire exersise.

Link Posted: 12/5/2005 10:53:14 PM EDT
[Last Edit: 12/5/2005 11:10:53 PM EDT by Hired_Gun]

Originally Posted By DAY51:
comments, myths and even facts welcome.



It isnt a military weapon. It's like saying why arent there any Beretta storm carbines in service. Dissy guns where made for an altogether different market
Link Posted: 12/5/2005 11:40:49 PM EDT

Originally Posted By scottryan:

Originally Posted By SmegHead:
+1

14.5 or 16? I think we would ALL choose the 14.5 if there were no legal difference.



There wouldn't be a 16" barrel if there was no legal difference.



Thats not entirely true.

NSW choose a 16" barrel for it's RECCE rifle.
Link Posted: 12/6/2005 4:31:24 AM EDT

Originally Posted By Gimme_A_Carbine:
Why all the hang up with heavy barrels? Who says you can't have a lightweight/Gov't profile undernear. And if it were a mass produced item, it wouldn't be an issue to enlarge the gasport to be able to use a rifle length gas system. Maybe I'm missing something.




I don't know who says you can't but who ever does is wrong, because I have a dissy with a Gov't profile barrel.
Link Posted: 12/6/2005 4:55:15 AM EDT

Originally Posted By Va_Dinger:

Originally Posted By scottryan:

Originally Posted By SmegHead:
+1

14.5 or 16? I think we would ALL choose the 14.5 if there were no legal difference.



There wouldn't be a 16" barrel if there was no legal difference.



Thats not entirely true.

NSW choose a 16" barrel for it's RECCE rifle.



The Diemaco SFW in use by the SAS has a 16" barrel. This is the carbine that beat both the SIG 550 and HK G36 in the 2000 trials.

Also IIRC, KevinB is big exponent of 16" barrels for use on general purpose combat carbines.

Link Posted: 12/6/2005 6:09:51 AM EDT

Originally Posted By LoadedDrum:

Originally Posted By Gimme_A_Carbine:
Why all the hang up with heavy barrels? Who says you can't have a lightweight/Gov't profile undernear. And if it were a mass produced item, it wouldn't be an issue to enlarge the gasport to be able to use a rifle length gas system. Maybe I'm missing something.




I don't know who says you can't but who ever does is wrong, because I have a dissy with a Gov't profile barrel.



Me too. Rifle length gas system, gov't profile barrel.

I LOVE it.
Link Posted: 12/6/2005 6:30:49 AM EDT
[Last Edit: 12/22/2005 12:03:51 PM EDT by Gunzilla]
removed
Link Posted: 12/6/2005 6:41:06 AM EDT
[Last Edit: 12/6/2005 11:52:53 AM EDT by DAY51]
I didn't throw the question out with a pro or con perspective, just wondering, however I KNOW this:
I can shoot more accurately with the longer sight radius (and you can too).
I prefer a shorter stick for handiness sake (and you do too).

Well many of you, I'd bet.



It's like saying why arent there any Beretta storm carbines in service.

Not really. Unlike apples, oranges make your hands sticky.


Link Posted: 12/6/2005 6:48:41 AM EDT

Originally Posted By Gunzilla:
16" barrels are getting a lot of attention really, with the mid-length gas system they are an excellent choice for a service rifle -- Also, the rifle length gas system on a 16" barrel has been looked at and is not reliable enough for a service rifle, this has been beat to death on here, but time does not alter the truth.



works pretty damn good if the gas port is opened up. i have one and hasn't malf'd yet.
Link Posted: 12/6/2005 7:43:09 AM EDT
I think a more logical question would be "Why no mid lengths seen in service".

I'm a mid length Dissy fan, and I'll probably never own a carbine or rifle length gas system on a 16" barrel.
Link Posted: 12/6/2005 7:50:38 AM EDT
Link Posted: 12/6/2005 7:56:16 AM EDT
Now just think if the XM8 was successful.
Link Posted: 12/6/2005 8:50:35 AM EDT
SmegHead,

U said:

>14.5 or 16? I think we would ALL choose the 14.5 if there were no legal difference.


Nope, I can put whatever size I want legally on an M16 and I find
the 16" is the sweet spot in terms of length. Of course YMMV.
Link Posted: 12/6/2005 9:56:00 AM EDT
[Last Edit: 12/6/2005 9:57:45 AM EDT by scottryan]

Originally Posted By Yojimbo:

Originally Posted By Va_Dinger:

Originally Posted By scottryan:

Originally Posted By SmegHead:
+1

14.5 or 16? I think we would ALL choose the 14.5 if there were no legal difference.



There wouldn't be a 16" barrel if there was no legal difference.



Thats not entirely true.

NSW choose a 16" barrel for it's RECCE rifle.



The Diemaco SFW in use by the SAS has a 16" barrel. This is the carbine that beat both the SIG 550 and HK G36 in the 2000 trials.

Also IIRC, KevinB is big exponent of 16" barrels for use on general purpose combat carbines.




What I am trying to say is the 16" bbl wouldn't be nowhere near as popular if there wasn't the NFA.

The reason why 16" is choosen is because there has been 30 years of study and use on it. If there wasn't the NFA, Colt would have never came out with a 16" bbl SP1 carbine, it would have had a 14.5" bbl like the Colt 653 carbine. Every Colt carbine would have a 14.5" bbl. Nobody would know what a 16" carbine barrel is.

Link Posted: 12/6/2005 11:18:56 AM EDT

Originally Posted By scottryan:

Originally Posted By Yojimbo:

Originally Posted By Va_Dinger:

Originally Posted By scottryan:

Originally Posted By SmegHead:
+1

14.5 or 16? I think we would ALL choose the 14.5 if there were no legal difference.



There wouldn't be a 16" barrel if there was no legal difference.



Thats not entirely true.

NSW choose a 16" barrel for it's RECCE rifle.



The Diemaco SFW in use by the SAS has a 16" barrel. This is the carbine that beat both the SIG 550 and HK G36 in the 2000 trials.

Also IIRC, KevinB is big exponent of 16" barrels for use on general purpose combat carbines.




What I am trying to say is the 16" bbl wouldn't be nowhere near as popular if there wasn't the NFA.

The reason why 16" is choosen is because there has been 30 years of study and use on it. If there wasn't the NFA, Colt would have never came out with a 16" bbl SP1 carbine, it would have had a 14.5" bbl like the Colt 653 carbine. Every Colt carbine would have a 14.5" bbl. Nobody would know what a 16" carbine barrel is.




Your rational is flawed. You are assuming a lot by making this statement. Lets assume there was no NFA law. A 20 inch barrel allows the M855 round to fragment as desired. However the 14.5 inch (arguably) does not, or at least not as well.

You really think in 30 years no one would have tried to solve this by increasing the length of the 14.5 barrel but not as long as the 20 inch barrel?

I think innovation would have come along and you would have had an intermediate barrel. I mean you even have 18 inch barrels now because its between a 16 and a 20 and that has nothing to do with the NFA laws.
Link Posted: 12/6/2005 11:24:12 AM EDT
They should make an 10 inch barrel with the full length hand guard for the extra "special" shooters who keep burning themselves!
Link Posted: 12/6/2005 12:51:53 PM EDT

Originally Posted By David_Hineline:
I believe it's against the Geneva Convention to induce such heavy laughing into the enemy that it distracts them from fighting, the sight of such ugly rifles in US troups hands would induce such laughing.



For all the times I have disagreed with one of your posts over the past three years, this one makes up for most of them.

+1,000,000


BTW... but I gotta agree with the poster who mentions longer sight radius as a big plus. People get hung-up on the possible accuracy and/or velocity differences between 16" and 20" barrels, but the extra sight-radius would make much more of a difference than those 4" of barrel to most shooters (obviously, if optics weren't considered).
Link Posted: 12/6/2005 1:31:31 PM EDT

Originally Posted By markm:
They should make an 10 inch barrel with the full length hand guard for the extra "special" shooters who keep burning themselves!



I try to keep my handguards longer than the barrel.


cuts down on muzzle rise.
Link Posted: 12/6/2005 1:45:16 PM EDT

Originally Posted By eklikwhoa:
heavy would be my best bet.



Depends on which barrel you use. Reliability would be my first issue with the type I like, which is a rifle length barrel chopped. My last one ran 99% on 99% of the ammo fed to it. That 1% is huge in certain circles, but I was happy with it, it being my first chopped barrel project.
Link Posted: 12/6/2005 5:21:00 PM EDT
[Last Edit: 12/22/2005 12:04:09 PM EDT by Gunzilla]
removed
Link Posted: 12/6/2005 5:40:59 PM EDT

Originally Posted By mongo001:

Originally Posted By eklikwhoa:
heavy would be my best bet.



Depends on which barrel you use. Reliability would be my first issue with the type I like, which is a rifle length barrel chopped. My last one ran 99% on 99% of the ammo fed to it. That 1% is huge in certain circles, but I was happy with it, it being my first chopped barrel project.



Not that you've worried about it Mongo, but the chopped barrel upper I bought from you is still batting 1.000 after about 800 rds.

I did have a few feeding problems when trying to use a piece of crap USA mag, but it has since been disposed of. (translation~shot with aforementioned dissy upper)
Link Posted: 12/6/2005 6:20:55 PM EDT

Originally Posted By Zardoz:
Probably the fact that a dissipator is unable to accept a bayonet has a little to do with it.





wrong
Link Posted: 12/6/2005 6:23:42 PM EDT
[Last Edit: 12/6/2005 6:24:28 PM EDT by Thatguy96]


This is the only picture I've ever seen, and no one's ever been able to give me any concrete info on it besides it being French Special Forces in Ivory Coast
Link Posted: 12/6/2005 6:27:58 PM EDT

Originally Posted By Thatguy96:
media.militaryphotos.net/photos/albums/Ivory_Coast_conflict/ivory92.jpg

This is the only picture I've ever seen, and no one's ever been able to give me any concrete info on it besides it being French Special Forces in Ivory Coast


Crazy airsofters!
Link Posted: 12/6/2005 6:44:59 PM EDT

Originally Posted By Gunzilla:

Originally Posted By rob78:

Originally Posted By Gunzilla:
16" barrels are getting a lot of attention really, with the mid-length gas system they are an excellent choice for a service rifle -- Also, the rifle length gas system on a 16" barrel has been looked at and is not reliable enough for a service rifle, this has been beat to death on here, but time does not alter the truth.



works pretty damn good if the gas port is opened up. i have one and hasn't malf'd yet.



I know with the ones that we made back in the late 80s, we had to open the gas ports to get them to run. But during filed testing they were determined to be not reliable enough for a serice rifle. I am sure that it works fine for what you are doing, but for a military rifle the reliability is an issue.

Also, as I have said many times, opening the gas port is a solution for the port being in the wrong place -- treating the symptom, not the problem.

Maybe try taking it to someplace really cold and see how it works? All the desing work we do is tested at 10 deg(f) and you would be surprised what a difference that makes...



Same problem that CQB-R's have. A suppressor would be the only help, short of moving the gas port.
Link Posted: 12/6/2005 6:52:14 PM EDT
[Last Edit: 12/6/2005 8:16:53 PM EDT by RockyMtnM4]

Originally Posted By Thatguy96:
media.militaryphotos.net/photos/albums/Ivory_Coast_conflict/ivory92.jpg

This is the only picture I've ever seen, and no one's ever been able to give me any concrete info on it besides it being French Special Forces in Ivory Coast

Did you notice the sling isn't over his shoulder? This is one sharp cookie, so he must be "special".

It's plain to see how this unslung mode of carry can avoid a tragic situation. For example, just when you think you've dropped your weapon and raised your arms in the French salute, the weapon didn't really drop. There's nothing worse for a Frog than giving up and being mistaken for someone willing to fight.
Link Posted: 12/6/2005 7:19:34 PM EDT
Link Posted: 12/6/2005 8:12:33 PM EDT

Originally Posted By MlTCHELL:

Originally Posted By Thatguy96:
media.militaryphotos.net/photos/albums/Ivory_Coast_conflict/ivory92.jpg

This is the only picture I've ever seen, and no one's ever been able to give me any concrete info on it besides it being French Special Forces in Ivory Coast


Crazy airsofters!


What airsofter would impersonate the French Army? Regardless of my own personal opinions about the French Army, I don't think any wannabe would be a wannabe French soldier.
Arrow Left Previous Page
Page / 2
Top Top