Survivalist Forum banner

21 - 40 of 62 Posts

·
Registered
Joined
·
11,493 Posts
Amazing how the BTDT crowd, including the resident SF representative (with 30+ years experience with the platform) have weighed in yet some guy in PA still insists they are all wrong because of his one outing with a GB.
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
2,154 Posts
Back in the early 2000s I did some beta testing of the H&K 416 10.5" 5.56 MG with a SF guy that was doing the testing for a gov't facility. A small group of us went to a local farm for a shoot and he had the H&K 416, lots of ammo and a chrono.
That's not how product testing is done by the US military. If your buddy was in fact, "beta testing" a weapon system that was not currently issued by .gov, he was under a stack of NDA's that would have precluded him from taking a random group of people to a farm field, off base, and conducting assininely unscientific testing. Or, are you intimating you were hired by the US Army to conduct said "beta testing?"
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
624 Posts
Special Forces Navy Seal Force Recon Ranger guy wasn't a mechanical engineer or a metallurgist. Whether it was hot or cold in his hand is irrelevant. The army has been using the AR platform for what, 60 years now? There have been a lot of firefights over the years and I have never heard of BCGs melting in the upper receiver. Cracked bolts due to high pressure rounds? Sure, that happens but not melting bolt carrier groups.

The only reason for a piston is to keep the rifle from dumping burnt powder into the chamber. In that respect, pistons are more reliable because they run cleaner. This is assuming that the impact of the piston isn't vibrating the BCG from impact to a degree that its slowing wearing out the walls of the upper receiver. Or bolt tilt where it's hitting the buffer at a slight angle causing the buffer to scrape the bottom of tube while it's traveling backwards.

DI is fine to me. I don't live in the desert and Mobil 1 Synthetic makes a good gun oil.
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
10,001 Posts
That's not how product testing is done by the US military. If your buddy was in fact, "beta testing" a weapon system that was not currently issued by .gov, he was under a stack of NDA's that would have precluded him from taking a random group of people to a farm field, off base, and conducting assininely unscientific testing. Or, are you intimating you were hired by the US Army to conduct said "beta testing?"
Often times stuff will be "tested" in this manner, but it doesn't replace official testing data. Random cool dudes get random cool toys. Feedback is generated. Revisions to product are made, etc.
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
2,154 Posts
Often times stuff will be "tested" in this manner, but it doesn't replace official testing data. Random cool dudes get random cool toys. Feedback is generated. Revisions to product are made, etc.
Not when a product is under NDA, which any new weapon system would be. They are not taking a NDA rifle to Bubba's farm, with some random dudes, and soliciting feedback.
 

·
Originalist
Joined
·
1,221 Posts
Not when a product is under NDA, which any new weapon system would be. They are not taking a NDA rifle to Bubba's farm, with some random dudes, and soliciting feedback.

Depending on the phase of development, things aren’t always so neat and tidy. We’ve had rocket engines, rockets, drones, APCs, and lots of other cool stuff tested on our “farm.” I’ve never signed a single NDA or in fact singed a single piece of paper other than the ones that ensure that we are indemnified against all liabilities. We just so happen to be in an area that makes great sense for various contractors to use our property and airspace. It’s pretty awesome to watch. Sometimes almost without warning we’ll see a 5 ton show up out on the range and soon follows a low level C-130 who does a drop and the truck will pick it up. They test out different sorts of crates and crating arrangements to see the survivability.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
2,154 Posts
Depending on the phase of development, things aren’t always so neat and tidy. We’ve had rocket engines, rockets, drones, APCs, and lots of other cool stuff tested on our “farm.” I’ve never signed a single NDA or in fact singed a single piece of paper other than the ones that ensure that we are indemnified against all liabilities. We just so happen to be in an area that makes great sense for various contractors to use our property and airspace. It’s pretty awesome to watch. Sometimes almost without warning we’ll see a 5 ton show up out on the range and soon follows a low level C-130 who does a drop and the truck will pick it up. They test out different sorts of crates and crating arrangements to see the survivability.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk
Are you firing the rockets/flying the drones/driving the APC's/etc? Are they soliciting feedback from you? Using your property as a test site, under contract, with military folks doing everything, with you at a distance, is a far cry from being part of the T&E process. Talking to you about the results, or the products, without you being under the same NDAs they are is also a big no-no.
 

·
Originalist
Joined
·
1,221 Posts
Are you firing the rockets/flying the drones/driving the APC's/etc? Are they soliciting feedback from you? Using your property as a test site, under contract, with military folks doing everything, with you at a distance, is a far cry from being part of the T&E process. Talking to you about the results, or the products, without you being under the same NDAs they are is also a big no-no.

Yawn.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk
 

·
that's like, your opinion
Joined
·
17,821 Posts
Hot to the touch is one thing...

The only way you could get a BCG hot enough to effect the temper of the steel it's made of would be to fire thousands upon thousands of rounds nonstop. Get real... The gas tube would melt before that happened...
thermal stress is a thing, primarily affects points of stress concentration like the 90 degree angles on the locking lugs for the most part.

that being said, its not the short pole in the tent as you mentioned. i think most carpenter 158 and 9310 bolts are good enough even with DI and under very hot firing conditions.
 

·
Si vis pacem, para bellum
Joined
·
7,184 Posts
Okay, let me get this straight. When a cartridge is fired the propellant powder in it burns producing large amounts of heat and high pressure gas. As that gas pushes the projectile down the barrel as very small amount of it is allowed to pass through a hole in the barrel in to a tube that carries it back toward the action (cooling a slight amount as it does). The tube introduces the gas in to the bolt carrier through the key where it pushes on the tail of the bolt to cause it to begin to move rearward until the ring seals pass two ports in the side of the carrier venting the gas out of the ejection port. Y'all are telling me that that small amount of gas, that gets vented out of the action through the ejection port, causes the bolt carrier group to rise in temperature enough to cause the parts to suffer heat damage. Did I get that right so far?

Then you imply that a piston driven variant vents that same small amount of gas before it enters the action so that even after firing thousands of rounds in a short time the bolt remains cool to the touch. Even though it is locked into the barrel extension, which is attached to the barrel, and pushed up against the back of the barrel tightly, the barrel which contains the heat and hot gasses produced by the burning of the powder charge, the barrel that itself which gets very very hot, there is no mechanism of heat transfer from the barrel extension/barrel into the bolt directly. Is that really what you want to say?
 

·
that's like, your opinion
Joined
·
17,821 Posts
Okay, let me get this straight. When a cartridge is fired the propellant powder in it burns producing large amounts of heat and high pressure gas. As that gas pushes the projectile down the barrel as very small amount of it is allowed to pass through a hole in the barrel in to a tube that carries it back toward the action (cooling a slight amount as it does). The tube introduces the gas in to the bolt carrier through the key where it pushes on the tail of the bolt to cause it to begin to move rearward until the ring seals pass two ports in the side of the carrier venting the gas out of the ejection port. Y'all are telling me that that small amount of gas, that gets vented out of the action through the ejection port, causes the bolt carrier group to rise in temperature enough to cause the parts to suffer heat damage. Did I get that right so far?

Then you imply that a piston driven variant vents that same small amount of gas before it enters the action so that even after firing thousands of rounds in a short time the bolt remains cool to the touch. Even though it is locked into the barrel extension, which is attached to the barrel, and pushed up against the back of the barrel tightly, the barrel which contains the heat and hot gasses produced by the burning of the powder charge, the barrel that itself which gets very very hot, there is no mechanism of heat transfer from the barrel extension/barrel into the bolt directly. Is that really what you want to say?
the extent of the heat 'transfer' is a function of how hot of gas is redirected, time of exposure, surface area of exposure and type of material (its thermal conductivity), etc.... how much 'damage' that correlates to is probably pretty small to measure but it does exist... even if an AR BCG is 10 degrees hotter than a piston counterpart after the same amount of rounds, that equates to some kind of thermal stresses. those stresses might be more internal than external in many cases. All of the other factors you mention (e.g., conduction heating from other parts like the barrel/extension) we can assume are identical between systems, the gas operation is what is additive in terms of heat exposure.

all that being said, I personally think that DI is still plenty reliable, albeit more of a pain to clean, and with a need for tighter tolerance parts (e.g., gas rings) to work properly.
 

·
Si vis pacem, para bellum
Joined
·
7,184 Posts
the extent of the heat 'transfer' is a function of how hot of gas is redirected, time of exposure, surface area of exposure and type of material (its thermal conductivity), etc.... how much 'damage' that correlates to is probably pretty small to measure but it does exist... even if an AR BCG is 10 degrees hotter than a piston counterpart after the same amount of rounds, that equates to some kind of thermal stresses. those stresses might be more internal than external in many cases. All of the other factors you mention (e.g., conduction heating from other parts like the barrel/extension) we can assume are identical between systems, the gas operation is what is additive in terms of heat exposure.
Until someone takes a DI and a piston to the range, fires the same number of rounds through both at the same pace and measures the temperature of the bolts immediately after they lock back after the last round I am skeptical that the temperature difference will be that great.

I personally think that DI is still plenty reliable, albeit more of a pain to clean
I have a 22 liter ultrasonic tank. A 16" upper will fit diagonally in the tank. Not a problem to get it clean with it. Just gotta use the right tools for the job.
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
1,082 Posts
Y'all arguing about some crap that nobody ever does. Y'all arguing about if a BCG gets too hot (being defined as "too hot to hold"). If it got too hot and did damage to the metal... it's burn a hole right through your hand if you tried to hold it.

Silly arguments. Both work, use what you want. Clean what you use... either a lot of carbon gunk or a little carbon gunk. Your gun, your decision.

Let's get back to making fun of Antifa azzhats.
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
10,001 Posts
Not when a product is under NDA, which any new weapon system would be. They are not taking a NDA rifle to Bubba's farm, with some random dudes, and soliciting feedback.
Some stuff has been tested exactly like that. Albeit "Bubba" is in the in crowd, and farming ain't his only life experience.
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
2,154 Posts
Some stuff has been tested exactly like that. Albeit "Bubba" is in the in crowd, and farming ain't his only life experience.
Read what I posted. Then ask yourself what would be gained from "testing" like that. Then look at what is required from actual testing of military weapon systems. It is absolutely not conducted that way.

Nothing is gained from having random, non-professionals "test" weapons. No true data can be gathered. No educated subjective opinion can be gathered. "Oooooh, John! Lookee there! The bolt is hot," gives you nothing.

Actual temperature readings, from actual test ammo lots, conducted under repeatable conditions, thoroughly documented would be needed. Not "feelings."

Use under previously-established conditions.

Especially during early-phase testing.

Then a phasing out to other people in positions where use is likely to mimic actual use. Then to other people in the industry. Having signed more than a handful of NDA's for T&E projects, including some items that were being considered for military use, again, absolutely 100% not how testing works.

Now, has a dude who had a pre-issue copy for T&E ever let someone else play with the toys? Sure. But that is not being involved with testing. Their opinion and input meant nothing. They got to see behind the curtain a little early. That's it.
 

·
Originalist
Joined
·
1,221 Posts
Read what I posted. Then ask yourself what would be gained from "testing" like that. Then look at what is required from actual testing of military weapon systems. It is absolutely not conducted that way.

Nothing is gained from having random, non-professionals "test" weapons. No true data can be gathered. No educated subjective opinion can be gathered. "Oooooh, John! Lookee there! The bolt is hot," gives you nothing.

Actual temperature readings, from actual test ammo lots, conducted under repeatable conditions, thoroughly documented would be needed. Not "feelings."

Use under previously-established conditions.

Especially during early-phase testing.

Then a phasing out to other people in positions where use is likely to mimic actual use. Then to other people in the industry. Having signed more than a handful of NDA's for T&E projects, including some items that were being considered for military use, again, absolutely 100% not how testing works.

Now, has a dude who had a pre-issue copy for T&E ever let someone else play with the toys? Sure. But that is not being involved with testing. Their opinion and input meant nothing. They got to see behind the curtain a little early. That's it.

If you want to be an anorak about testing then great, but your last paragraph basically walks back everything you’ve been pushing back against.

Nobody said ANYTHING about what if any of the input was valued, nobody said ANYTHING about making a valuable contribution to testing. The ONLY thing that was said was the equivalent of EXACTLY what your last paragraph said. Someone happened to be around when testing was going on and got to see something kind of cool in a rather casual setting. Basically what you previously tried to call out Mike in PA, Unobtainium and myself for. What a joke.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
10,001 Posts
Read what I posted. Then ask yourself what would be gained from "testing" like that. Then look at what is required from actual testing of military weapon systems. It is absolutely not conducted that way.

Nothing is gained from having random, non-professionals "test" weapons. No true data can be gathered. No educated subjective opinion can be gathered. "Oooooh, John! Lookee there! The bolt is hot," gives you nothing.

Actual temperature readings, from actual test ammo lots, conducted under repeatable conditions, thoroughly documented would be needed. Not "feelings."

Use under previously-established conditions.

Especially during early-phase testing.

Then a phasing out to other people in positions where use is likely to mimic actual use. Then to other people in the industry. Having signed more than a handful of NDA's for T&E projects, including some items that were being considered for military use, again, absolutely 100% not how testing works.

Now, has a dude who had a pre-issue copy for T&E ever let someone else play with the toys? Sure. But that is not being involved with testing. Their opinion and input meant nothing. They got to see behind the curtain a little early. That's it.
You realize that Browntip was refined by hunters before it was packaged for JSOC, and that many people have been using Hodge stuff before gov agencies began buying it, and offering our input etc?
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
2,154 Posts
You realize that Browntip was refined by hunters before it was packaged for JSOC, and that many people have been using Hodge stuff before gov agencies began buying it, and offering our input etc?
You realize the HK416 was specifically designed for SFOD-D, in the US, right? Adoption of a previously-existing item is not the same thing. If you think Unit guys are running around letting randos shoot stuff they are testing during development, I don't know what to tell you. They can't even talk about what boots they wear, but they take test guns out to farms...
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
2,154 Posts
If you want to be an anorak about testing then great, but your last paragraph basically walks back everything you’ve been pushing back against.

Nobody said ANYTHING about what if any of the input was valued, nobody said ANYTHING about making a valuable contribution to testing. The ONLY thing that was said was the equivalent of EXACTLY what your last paragraph said. Someone happened to be around when testing was going on and got to see something kind of cool in a rather casual setting. Basically what you previously tried to call out Mike in PA, Unobtainium and myself for. What a joke.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

Back in the early 2000s I did some beta testing of the H&K 416 10.5" 5.56 MG with a SF guy that was doing the testing for a gov't facility. A small group of us went to a local farm for a shoot and he had the H&K 416, lots of ammo and a chrono.


"I did some beta testing..." not the same as "I watched a dude shoot a gun."

Testing, by definition is to gather data. But hey, you watch boxes fall out of the sky.
 
21 - 40 of 62 Posts
Top