Gun Porn!

Those prices aren't bad and I am surprised they didn't cover their T-shirts with picatinny rails and polymers.

Noice, out of context page topper!

edited 21st May '16 9:41:27 AM by AngelusNox

Why are t-shirts covered by those regulations anyway? It seems even more ludicrous than usual.

Firearms Mythbusters: AK vs AR, is the AK really inaccurate?

Answer: Under controlled conditions with the same grade of ammo and well-built, well-maintained stuff, they're all but identical in accuracy. The differences between the two don't appear to achieve statistical significance.

So long as both are in good shape with good parts and ammo they work about the same. Which M-16? The A1 had a bit different ammo and barrel then the A2 forward.

I'd venture the A2 onward given how the AR-15 family only acquired a reputation for uber accuracy from the 1980s onwards. (The A1 is closer to a submachinegun than long range rifle despite being pretty accurate itself.)

The A2 was given a heavier barrel, more precisely-adjustable sights, and a slightly longer stock for "service rifle" marksmanship contests. But these refinements seldom translate into more accurate fire under actual combat conditions.

It also has different rifling. The A1 has a 1 in 12 twist the A2 forward is 1 in 7 twist. The A1 is tooled towards the old M-193 which is no longer fired through current military rifles but M-855 is what works better. There are barrels that work just fine with both and have a different twist rate again.

To clarify: The heavier the bullet, the faster the twist you need.

The very first AR-15 rifles (built by Armalite in 1957) fired lightweight bullets of 40 to 50 grains — which were commonly used in high-velocity .22 rifle calibers at the time. They had a rifling twist rate of 1 turn in 14 inches, which was the industry standard. But the US military wanted a heavier bullet for better penetration and longer range. Sierra developed a 55-grain boat-tail bullet which fit the bill. However, the 1-in-14 twist wasn't quite fast enough to stabilize it. When the AR-15 was adopted as the M16 in 1963, the twist was increased to 1-in-12.

In the early 1980s, when the Belgian SS109 round was officially adopted by NATO (and given the designation of M855), it was found that a rifling twist rate of 1-in-9 was required to stabilize its 62-grain bullet. However, the M16A2 had its rifling twist rate increased to 1-in-7, to stabilize the heavier 68-grain tracer round also used by the US military.

Military barrels in 5.56mm almost all use a 1-in-7 twist nowadays. However, civilian barrels commonly use a 1-in-9 twist, which works equally well with 55-grain or 62-grain ammo; it doesn't over-stabilize the lighter bullets, while it's fast enough to stabilize most of the heavier weight bullets. (And civilians aren't likely to be shooting tracers, anyway.)

For M-16 derivatives yes. A number of models and families use 1:9. They include the FAMAS (which performs horribly no matter what ammo it uses), the AUG (which unlike the FAMAS performs pretty good), the Tavor series including the X95 (which operates pretty good for military models), and I think a couple of others including the FNC, G-36 and SG-550 use 1:9 barrels as well.

Tom: The G2 FAMAS works the G1 is the one that has to use steel case because it shreds brass casings and is generally not compatible with NATO Standard Kit. Also none of those are M-16 derivatives.

edited 24th May '16 5:17:01 PM by TuefelHundenIV

And is used by nobody.

Because the French are dumbasses. Recently they've had their moment of clarity and are ditching the FAMAS, G2 or otherwise.

I'm referring to the other part. "Military barrels in 5.56mm almost all use a 1-in-7 twist nowadays." There are a number of models and families of 5.56mm firearms that do not use 1:7 but instead use 1:9.

Did something get lost into confusion or?

Tom: The French Marines use the G2. The reason for the F1 and all the other sometimes oddball French only kit is the French frankly, no pun intended, bizarre nationalism from De Gaulle. There is no moment of clarity the internal industry to support the FAMAS is gone as in it no longer exists and only the French made it. They have been running off of stock piles alone for parts and replacements. All of their FAMAS rifles haven't been backed by a factory They pretty much have no choice in the matter. Even the original ammo manufacturing left France quite a while ago and has long since been imported in at ever increasing costs because only the French use French ammo.

Yeah that doesn't change anything you said. None of those are derivatives of the M-16 they are all different systems with different barrels and the context was the M-16's which is pretty easy to see in just one or two posts and your going off on a tangent about different foreign weapon systems. Pwiegle was correctly referencing a difference in M-16's commonly sold to civilians and the ones used by the military specifically. There is more then just a trigger group difference.

Exactly, nobody. We both know the French Marines don't do anything!

Cheeky lil bugger. :P Might be they are the only ones smart enough to switch out of all the French military. At least when they get new fire arms they will have access to the big pools of NATO Standard ammo across their entire military instead of the just the French Marines.

Somebody made a functioning man-portable version of the Microgun. And an awesometacular looking bullpup (semi-auto?) shotgun there.

Tuffel! Find me info about that shotgun! I think I found what I want in a good old fashioned boomstick!

Interesting. I want to see this reworked micro-gun.

Something else popped up on the blog - the Americans are finally getting access to what I consider the best bull-pup rifle, the Australian F90 (their replacement for their old version of the AUG, the F88)

http://www.thefirearmblog.com/blog/2016/05/23/lithgow-arms-usa-importing-thales-aus-ef88f90-atrax-rifle-nra-2016/

Kinda like the looks of that.

You rarely see domestic Australian weapons. Should be interesting.

Tom: That Microgun was interesting to see the recoil out of it from even that short burst was pretty notable. Not as bad as I thought it might be but notable I wonder if a longer burst would be worse?

Well answered my own question pretty quickly. Looks like the same gun. Only the recoil from this one looks like it is a lot more under control. I am guessing it is likely due to the rig. This longer barrel one made by another company has some disturbing sideways motion.

As for the shotgun I can't find anything overt about it beyond the obvious. It is a magazine fed 12 gauge magazine fed bull-pup style shot gun. The only interesting bit is the bit at the muzzle looks like something might attach there. What it is I have no clue.

edited 25th May '16 3:10:10 AM by TuefelHundenIV

It seems in video games, the amount of guns from each continent from most to least common is Europe > North America > Asia > Africa > South America > Oceania. The reason Africa is above South America is because of the MGL-140, which tends to appear in a lot of games even if they don't take place in Africa, probably due to being adopted by the US Military.

edited 25th May '16 8:37:58 PM by Bat178

There's the Armsel Striker/Protecta and the NeoStead 2000 as well.

But really, do you have something more interesting to share than relative obscurity ratings of non-Western firearms in first person shooters developed in the West and marketed to Western audiences?

Enter the T86, a Taiwanese AR design from 1998... with a gas piston and drop in trigger group long before anyone in the West had thought of it.

Africa, South America and Oceania are technically Western, but I digress. Also, I know about the T65 and T91, but I didn't know about the T86.

edited 25th May '16 10:32:33 PM by Bat178

New weapons handling pamphlet courtesy of the US Army.

http://www.thefirearmblog.com/blog/2016/05/26/new-updated-army-rifle-carbine-training-circular-free-download/

Sweet find.

Not your usual bit of road debris.

Hey! Free gun!