Warning

 

Close

Confirm Action

Are you sure you wish to do this?

Confirm Cancel
Member Login
Site Notices
Arrow Left Previous Page
Page / 4
Posted: 10/1/2005 2:53:07 PM EDT
[Last Edit: 10/1/2005 2:56:04 PM EDT by RhinelandArms]
Here is a pic of our lastest project we are working on. This is a upper for any AR15 lower, it is in 5.7mm and uses the FN P90 50 round magazines. This has a true free float barrel and more.

This is just a prototype and there are a couple things we are going to change on it.

Link Posted: 10/1/2005 3:13:53 PM EDT
One step forward, three steps back.

Link Posted: 10/1/2005 4:08:45 PM EDT
tag
looks good
Link Posted: 10/1/2005 4:08:57 PM EDT
Oh My!
Link Posted: 10/1/2005 4:10:41 PM EDT
not sure why yet, but i like it and would prob buy it if i had the extra cash!
Link Posted: 10/1/2005 4:18:52 PM EDT
i'll buy one. i like it. it may be a "pipsqueak" cartridge, but i wouldn't want to get shot with it.
Link Posted: 10/1/2005 5:13:06 PM EDT
tagged.

Very cool idea.
Link Posted: 10/1/2005 5:42:46 PM EDT

Originally Posted By ian187:
One step forward, three steps back.




+1, 30 rounds of 5.56 beats 50 rounds of 5.7 in my book.
Link Posted: 10/1/2005 6:11:55 PM EDT
No kidding, what the hell are they thinking bringing a new option into the civilian market!

If you don't want one, don't buy one. If you ridicule small companies who bring new products to the market because you wouldn't buy one, then you are part of the problem.

I think it is an interesting idea and hope it turns out well.

Link Posted: 10/1/2005 6:15:14 PM EDT
[sarcasm]You will conform to only shooting 5.56x45mm NATO or 7.62x51mm NATO or go home. There will be nothing else discussed here. THE BORG HAS SPOKEN!!!![/sarcasm]

Nevermind you already have 3 .223 uppers, you aren't allowed to discuss anything but your most expensive $500 free float quad rail system, your $1500 "tactical" scope and your $300 stock.


All jabs aside, I like the idea and applaud your efforts! Keep us updated- In the AR variants board...
Link Posted: 10/1/2005 6:19:00 PM EDT
It is one think to debate the utility of a product after it has been released, but damn, why ridicule a company when they are trying to bring new options to the table.

Link Posted: 10/1/2005 6:26:20 PM EDT

Originally Posted By Zarathustra1:
It is one think to debate the utility of a product after it has been released, but damn, why ridicule a company when they are trying to bring new options to the table.




Because it doesn't seem to have any utiltity other than 'its different'.

Lots of 'new' calibers have been introduced that have been interesting and offer some new level of performance.

From the .458 vs .50 ARs to the 6.5 vs 6.8 options, we get new capabilities. The 5.7 offers more expensive - hard-to-find ammo, that has worse flight & terminal ballistics compared to the old standby .223.

Jeez at least the .22LR upper allows plinking with cheap ammo, as do the .221 Ghenghis uppers...
Link Posted: 10/1/2005 6:26:53 PM EDT
I'm a fan of more options. If you don't like it......Ok.
Link Posted: 10/1/2005 6:51:45 PM EDT

Originally Posted By Forest:

Originally Posted By Zarathustra1:
It is one think to debate the utility of a product after it has been released, but damn, why ridicule a company when they are trying to bring new options to the table.




Because it doesn't seem to have any utiltity other than 'its different'.

Lots of 'new' calibers have been introduced that have been interesting and offer some new level of performance.

From the .458 vs .50 ARs to the 6.5 vs 6.8 options, we get new capabilities. The 5.7 offers more expensive - hard-to-find ammo, that has worse flight & terminal ballistics compared to the old standby .223.

Jeez at least the .22LR upper allows plinking with cheap ammo, as do the .221 Ghenghis uppers...



Well, I can't say that I know that much about the stats of the 5.7mm round, but you are saying that FN purposely introduced a round that has no beneficial qualities at all?
Link Posted: 10/1/2005 6:53:58 PM EDT
One other interesting point.

All uppers I've ever seen that feed the ammo (i.e. hold the magazine or belt) are regulated items (like the lower).

There are 8mm beltfed uppers for the AR-15 that you must purchase like a firearm because the BATF has indicated THOSE uppers count as the 'firearm'. The lower just becomes a 'trigger pack' like HKs - even though lowers are also considered a 'firearm'. The same concept is used with FAL upper receivers (holds the barrel AND the magazine).

Would not this upper fall into the same situation as the magazine feeds into the upper? Meaning you can't just order over the internet like 99.9% of the other uppers on the market.
Link Posted: 10/1/2005 6:57:11 PM EDT

Originally Posted By Forest:
One other interesting point.

All uppers I've ever seen that feed the ammo (i.e. hold the magazine or belt) are regulated items (like the lower).

There are 8mm beltfed uppers for the AR-15 that you must purchase like a firearm because the BATF has indicated THOSE uppers count as the 'firearm'. The lower just becomes a 'trigger pack' like HKs - even though lowers are also considered a 'firearm'. The same concept is used with FAL upper receivers (holds the barrel AND the magazine).

Would not this upper fall into the same situation as the magazine feeds into the upper? Meaning you can't just order over the internet like 99.9% of the other uppers on the market.



That is true. I had not thought of that. I'm sure Rhineland will chime in.
Link Posted: 10/1/2005 8:01:12 PM EDT

Originally Posted By Forest:
Would not this upper fall into the same situation as the magazine feeds into the upper?


Very good and interesting point, considering the magazine is no longer fed into the lower, but into the upper. I'm wondering what the ruling will be, but even if considered a firearm- Those that want it will buy it and just have another "gun" in the collection.
Link Posted: 10/1/2005 8:07:53 PM EDT
This is something that actualy began life as a testbed for another rifle, not for commercial sales. We decided to move this one to production though. It has a free float barrel and bottom ejection. Its purpose was to test the action and the round against a free float barrel for accuracy, as the P90 does not have a rigid or free float barrel.

The ammuntion has actualy been around far longer than most of the other rounds mentioned and it is not going to be obsolete anytime soon. The price is going to be around $15 per box by November and sometime next year will be around $10 or less. The Secret Service and some others use it as do many Nato groups and its use is now growing pretty fast. Maybe they have some data to warrant that, I realy would not know. Even the Chinese have a version of it now.

Yes, it is still expensive and specialized, it is only meant for low volume production. It is a serialized item.
Link Posted: 10/1/2005 8:44:48 PM EDT

Originally Posted By Forest:
One other interesting point.

All uppers I've ever seen that feed the ammo (i.e. hold the magazine or belt) are regulated items (like the lower).

There are 8mm beltfed uppers for the AR-15 that you must purchase like a firearm because the BATF has indicated THOSE uppers count as the 'firearm'. The lower just becomes a 'trigger pack' like HKs - even though lowers are also considered a 'firearm'. The same concept is used with FAL upper receivers (holds the barrel AND the magazine).

Would not this upper fall into the same situation as the magazine feeds into the upper? Meaning you can't just order over the internet like 99.9% of the other uppers on the market.



I don't remember hearing any of these concerns over the SHRIKE or the LM7 belt fed uppers for ARs. Not saying it isn't the case, just asking the question...
Link Posted: 10/1/2005 8:53:42 PM EDT
Tag for ingenuity.
Link Posted: 10/1/2005 9:57:15 PM EDT
Tag in case the P90 falls through.
Link Posted: 10/1/2005 10:11:22 PM EDT
I think it's a pretty sweet idea, other than the fact that it'd have to be shipped through an FFL. Still neat though. Not sure if I'd try and swing the cash for it, but a sweet idea in my book. Anyone have an idea on how much P90 mags are going to run, and if we're going to be easily able to purchase the 50rd mags?
Link Posted: 10/2/2005 12:26:19 AM EDT

Originally Posted By Zarathustra1:
Well, I can't say that I know that much about the stats of the 5.7mm round, but you are saying that FN purposely introduced a round that has no beneficial qualities at all?




sorta, but more important the round that FN uses we can't get, only a weaker less penetrable round
Link Posted: 10/2/2005 1:19:34 AM EDT
I like the bottom ejection through the original mag well. You could clip a brass catcher onto the flare at at the bottom of the mag or one that has a faxe mag body and just sanps into the well.

With subsonic ammo and a short barrell optimized for such and a brass catcher this could be a very stealthy clandestine CQB weapon.

Tsh77769
Link Posted: 10/2/2005 1:21:40 AM EDT
And, a military user or agency using an AR would not have to purchase a P90. They could just use their exisiting lowers.

Although I do see potenttial here in general I see the most potetnital witht he short barrell, length optimized for use of a heavy for cartridge subsonic round.

Tsh77769
Link Posted: 10/2/2005 2:22:45 AM EDT
What sort of operating system does it use?

I keep confusing Rhineland with Oberlander.....
Link Posted: 10/2/2005 5:17:03 AM EDT

Wow! That upper (dare I say it here) looks like fun!
Link Posted: 10/2/2005 6:21:57 AM EDT
Rhineland:
are you going to make these with 16" barrels or would they be NFA length and then have to go through a C3 dealer. also, since a short barrel would be a separate NFA item (you mentioned they would be serialized as separate firearms) could i slap it on an non-SBR lower and still be OK with the ATF? or would i have to get off my butt and send in the money for my tax stamp and list 5.7 as a caliber option?
Link Posted: 10/2/2005 11:11:58 AM EDT

Originally Posted By Forest:
One other interesting point.

All uppers I've ever seen that feed the ammo (i.e. hold the magazine or belt) are regulated items (like the lower).

There are 8mm beltfed uppers for the AR-15 that you must purchase like a firearm because the BATF has indicated THOSE uppers count as the 'firearm'. The lower just becomes a 'trigger pack' like HKs - even though lowers are also considered a 'firearm'. The same concept is used with FAL upper receivers (holds the barrel AND the magazine).

Would not this upper fall into the same situation as the magazine feeds into the upper? Meaning you can't just order over the internet like 99.9% of the other uppers on the market.



Hey, why don't you stop crapping on this thread?

It's a neat idea and no one is forcing you to buy it, so STFU go troll elsewhere.


Back on subject: Very cool idea!
Link Posted: 10/2/2005 2:23:42 PM EDT

Originally Posted By TSH77769:
I like the bottom ejection through the original mag well. You could clip a brass catcher onto the flare at at the bottom of the mag or one that has a faxe mag body and just sanps into the well.

With subsonic ammo and a short barrell optimized for such and a brass catcher this could be a very stealthy clandestine CQB weapon.

Tsh77769



GOOD IDEA!
Link Posted: 10/2/2005 2:34:00 PM EDT
Thats neat.
But aside from the test bed aspect I think its pointless.

Bigger, heaver, probly more expensive.
Link Posted: 10/2/2005 3:10:59 PM EDT
The more I think about this, the more I want one more than a P90.

10.5 inch barrel with a 5.5 inch flashhider, integral rail system, and please diopter BUIS.
Link Posted: 10/2/2005 3:28:28 PM EDT
Tag

At least the 5.7 mm is better against body armor than the 9 mm.

If the price of this upper will not be too high, it should be a good alternative with the P90 and 9 mm AR.
Link Posted: 10/2/2005 4:30:07 PM EDT

Originally Posted By roboman:
Hey, why don't you stop crapping on this thread?



That's funny in all the years I've been here it's never been considered 'trolling' to point out "the Emperor has no clothes". Then again since last year we've had an influx of rude teenage newbies that don't know the difference between constructive criticism and trolling.


Well, I can't say that I know that much about the stats of the 5.7mm round, but you are saying that FN purposely introduced a round that has no beneficial qualities at all?


The round was designed to piece body armor at relatively close ranges in compact weapons. The idea was to develop a family of weapons that would replace the 9mm NATO handguns & subguns, so rear echelon troops could be issued lighter/cheaper weapons instead of a full-blow rifle (like the M16 or G36). They thought rear echelon types would rarely need to fight but if they do they would need to penetrate body armor out to 200m.

Events in Iraq have shown this idea of "rarely fighting rear echelon troops" to be suspect.

So here we now have a rifle the weight, size, and cost of an AR-15 (M16) firing a round that was intended for handguns and PDWs. An interesting engineering exercise and novelty, but that is all.

Yes some groups do use the P90 (in the US & abroad) - particularly people who need to work in confined space and/or carry something with more reach than handgun but be able to conceal under their jackets. Note when they move up to full size weapons (ARs and the like) they also move up to better calibers & ammo. Nobody is clammering for weaker rounds with less performance - they are clammoring for smaller more compact weapons - which oftentimes require reduced capability ammo.

I should note Colt worked on a similar PDW project (round & sub-gun) years ago (it's covered in Black Rifle II) compact version of .223 with a smaller receiver, they realized the limited potential and dropped it.
Link Posted: 10/2/2005 5:36:12 PM EDT
C'mon, Forest. God forbid that someone makes an innovative product that makes AR's more fun.

I glad that Rhineland is doing this, and I think it'll be a blast to shoot. Ought to be accurate enough, and it'll be easy to capture the brass for reloading. Also, it'll probably be a lot cheaper than the civvie P90, and I get to use my choice of high quality stocks, grips, and triggers.

There's no reason this can't be a great low-recoil, fun, blasting gun. Not every upper has to be SHTF-qualified. But if the hordes of nutria ever try to rise up, I'll be waiting with this upper and 40gr vmax rounds.
Link Posted: 10/2/2005 5:49:50 PM EDT
[Last Edit: 10/2/2005 5:55:04 PM EDT by RhinelandArms]
Specs. Military P90, Civi P90, AR57
Weight, 6.62#, 6.7#, 6.5# with a bull barrel
Length, 19.69", 25.69", 30" or 26" with a folding stock or 18" with folder and SBR
Cost, LEO $2000, $1500, $700+- complete

Well, that above chart did not come out very well.

We come in weighing less and have the possibility of being much shorter while retaining better accuracy and the ability to tune the tirgger and barrel. We are also a bit narrower and have ergonomics for those who want something different from the p90.

We also have the ability to shave a good pound or more. I am using a Colt SP1 lower on this prototype.
Link Posted: 10/2/2005 5:57:19 PM EDT
I think it is a good thing for products to be criticized and scrutinized, and my technical knowledge is woefully inadequate in this area, so I can appreciate the criticism even more, because I learn so much from it.

What struck me about this thread was that the first comment was "one step forward, three steps back."

If I understand the implication there correctly, it is stating that the product from Rhineland Arms, not the 5.7mm round itself, is somehow going to damage the entire gun community because it is such a horrid idea.

Criticize the hell out of the product if you feel it has flaws so it might be improved, but don't ridicule manufactures for trying to introduce new products to an already beleaguered market.

Unless it is the manufacturer of that duo stock, ball and socket stock thing; what is it called?
That really is a terrible idea and should be ridiculed...
Link Posted: 10/2/2005 6:46:03 PM EDT
Dirtect impingement, piston or blowback?

Simon
Link Posted: 10/2/2005 6:46:13 PM EDT

Originally Posted By Zarathustra1:
I think it is a good thing for products to be criticized and scrutinized, and my technical knowledge is woefully inadequate in this area, so I can appreciate the criticism even more, because I learn so much from it.


Then maybe you should read more and type less


Originally Posted By Zarathustra1:What struck me about this thread was that the first comment was "one step forward, three steps back."

If I understand the implication there correctly, it is stating that the product from Rhineland Arms, not the 5.7mm round itself, is somehow going to damage the entire gun community because it is such a horrid idea.


You don't understand the implication. The 5.7 round is inferior to the 5.56. To put the 5.7 in an AR is to handicap the AR.


Originally Posted By Zarathustra1:
Criticize the hell out of the product if you feel it has flaws so it might be improved, but don't ridicule manufactures for trying to introduce new products to an already beleaguered market.


The only person being ridiculed is you for being a tool. This is a discussion forum where OPINIONS are discussed. If a person is not prepared to hear good and bad OPINIONS then they should not post. In this case you are simply ignorant and can't understand why putting the 5.7 cartridge in an AR is a step backward.

Link Posted: 10/2/2005 6:49:07 PM EDT
It's a lot like putting a 9mm or 22LR upper on the M16. Hey....wait...that's what Rhineland does!!!!

It's a market segment that can be scratched. Rock on.....

Simon
Link Posted: 10/2/2005 7:07:52 PM EDT
[Last Edit: 10/2/2005 8:28:07 PM EDT by RhinelandArms]
We have 2 operating methods. Delay blowback a-la HK and standard blowback. I worry about the roller system and grit though, not to mention the cost.

As for the AR, it has one of the best lowers ever created and perfect for modifing to anything you want. You do need to go back and read our specs though, it is coming in as very comparable to the P90. As for the 5.7 we are not pushing it as a front line replacement or whatever some of you guys are thinking, but it does seem to have its place with certain govt groups. I would love to see it completely replace the 22 mag and 17hmr though.



Link Posted: 10/2/2005 7:22:34 PM EDT
Rhinelander:

Will this work with a Reg Receiver?

Great idea, by the way.
Link Posted: 10/2/2005 7:40:14 PM EDT
Because you can.
Link Posted: 10/2/2005 8:26:09 PM EDT
[Last Edit: 10/2/2005 8:29:10 PM EDT by Zarathustra1]

The only person being ridiculed is you for being a tool. This is a discussion forum where OPINIONS are discussed. If a person is not prepared to hear good and bad OPINIONS then they should not post. In this case you are simply ignorant and can't understand why putting the 5.7 cartridge in an AR is a step backward.


How will producing a 5.7mm upper harm the entire world of firearms?

Is this the anti-Christ upper? As soon as the first working model is finished, will all the AR-15s and M16s suddenly become less effective or reliable?

It isn't as though the US Government is going to adopt the Rhineland Arms upper. It is simply a novelty upper that might be fun to plink with on a sunny afternoon.

Do you think that the owner of Rhineland Arms is stupid for designing this upper? You must either believe he is stupid, greedy, or both.

Of course people can post any opinion they want, within the bounds of the COC. My point was simply that it is counter productive to actually suggest that a new product should not be produced simply because you don't want to buy one.

Is it a step backwards to make a semi-auto 1919? Of course it is. It is heavy, awkward, and totally removed from the role it was designed to fill when it is religated to a semi-auto form. Does that mean that the entire firearms community is harmed by its existence? Of course it isn't.





Link Posted: 10/2/2005 8:31:42 PM EDT

Originally Posted By SimonTan:
It's a lot like putting a 9mm or 22LR upper on the M16. Hey....wait...that's what Rhineland does!!!!



No it's not.

Both 9mm and .22LR are CHEAP plinking rounds. Matter of fact there are clubs I visit that only allow .22LR on their indoor ranges - so a .22LR upper for practice makes alot of sense. Same could be said about 9mm AR on indoor handgun ranges. 9mm (which by the way has better terminal performance than the 5.7) can be supressed and retain it's terminal performance. Supress a supersonic round and you'll still have the crack, supress a .22x sub-sonic round and your not much better off than a .22LR - with just a higher per round cost.



Specs. Military P90, Civi P90, AR57
Weight, 6.62#, 6.7#, 6.5# with a bull barrel
Length, 19.69", 25.69", 30" or 26" with a folding stock or 18" with folder and SBR
Cost, LEO $2000, $1500, $700+- complete




Come on lets tell the WHOLE story.
That 19" P90 is with the stock fully extended ready for shoulder use.

Your 18" is when the AR57 is configured as a large pistol - yeah! so the real length is what 26" BIG difference.

Weight is 6.62 pounds on the P90 with a loaded 50 round magazine AND an refex type red-dot sight and BUIS. I KNOW you don't have a 6.5lb bull barreled AR that has a loaded 50 round 5.7 magazine RED dot and BUIS.


C'mon, Forest. God forbid that someone makes an innovative product that makes AR's more fun.

Hey I'm all for fun, but geez I can blast nutria with .22LR or Winchester White box 45gr HPs - just as much fun with much less cost. IMHO Fun need to be inexpensive if it's going to be low recoil/low performance, I don't mind paying $1 round for Big blasts/big holes or long range capability.

This isn't an idea that will hurt the firearms industry, but neither does it advance it.
Link Posted: 10/2/2005 8:49:31 PM EDT
You really are missing quite a bit Mr Forest. It is not a AR upper receiver or bolt. And yes our weigth is with a loaded mag, we are minus the red dot though. However we do pick up standard AR sights. And yes we do have a lot of weigth we can shave if we want, putting us well under the p90 either way.

Some people dont have to be so practical as you. I think there is a lot you do not know about the 5.7 as well. This was built with the direct input from some 5.7 end users, there input is a little more advanced than yours.

Link Posted: 10/2/2005 9:25:51 PM EDT
Is there any issue with straight blowback on the 5.7?

Simon
Link Posted: 10/2/2005 9:37:47 PM EDT
I love innovation. Good on you!
Link Posted: 10/2/2005 11:00:25 PM EDT
stupid question:

Will 7.62 tok/luger/whatnot fit into a p90 mag?
Link Posted: 10/3/2005 3:25:20 AM EDT
I like it.

I am trying as best as I can, but still unable to see how anyone could look at this in a negative light. No one is being forced to buy it and throw away their 5.56 stuff, and we're not in a zero-sum situation, where every new caliber/setup introduced into the market is robbing us of "standard" AR's. On the contrary, it's providing us with more choices.
Link Posted: 10/3/2005 5:20:14 AM EDT
This will fit all the AR lowers, even the ones with the side folding stocks. I am not sure if it will fit the Carbon 15 lowers, I do have one here and will test it.

On the blowback, the only issue we may run into is can you make a rifle that will work equally well with the SS190 or higher performance rounds as well as subsonic. That is the most important test we are looking at. Unfortunalty we cant get all the ammo we need due to a shortage, That should ease up soon.
Arrow Left Previous Page
Page / 4
Top Top