Announcement

Collapse
No announcement yet.

Bushmaster ACR/Masada vs AR 15

Collapse
X
 
  • Filter
  • Time
  • Show
Clear All
new posts

  • #31
    The Bushmaster ACR is defiantly the US's solution to the direct impingement M4's that have constant problems with jams and carbon build up. But it's different from the M16 and M4 that the US Army, Marine Core, and Navy use and the other best contender is the LWRC M6 series. But for personal needs, the Bushmaster ACR is defiantly the one you want to buy.

    Comment


    • #32
      Terran:
      This will be the third time I've explained I responded to roffelskate's Battle of Mogadishu Mk.2 scenario regarding use of ammunition scavenged from enemy AKs. If you again show zero comprehension of this a third time, I'm just going to ignore you as you clearly would prefer to talk to a wall.

      This scrounger idea is common enough with the idea of modularity between calibers, and I've explained the technological issue enough to not need to explain it a third time.

      Originally posted by Terran empire View Post
      Vehicle crews, Entry teams personal for who a Full length system is a imposibility.
      Inconvenience? Yes. Arguably inferior? Yes. Impossible? No. If it was impossible shotguns, a staple of home defense armaments, would be doubly so given their barrels legally go down to 18” for most customers.

      So in response to the QCB feature, all you're going to do is fuss about short, shorter, and shortest carbines? Your claim is… they need to overhaul and convert their systems before each deployment, so QCB is going to save time while ignoring the gas system and spring. Really…

      Given it takes like two second to pop two pins, take out the buffer, and replace with different parts your proposal is less optimized and thus more likely to cause breakdown all things being equal and thus inferior based on your own readiness spec. The physics of springs are what they are, and are sensitive enough through the range for 5.56 round possibilities to justify spring changes.

      Originally posted by Terran empire View Post
      Current M4/M16 systems are two different systems with the Exception of the MK12 And Marine SAM-R theres is little in the way of Blending of parts in Active military use. the MK12 Rifle and USMC SAM-R utilize M4 uppers on A2/A4 M16 Lowers
      So what you're saying is they bought new uppers, given the A2/A4 distinction is only the top of the upper receiver. And this is a bad thing in your book? Not enough money for the unions unless they buy full guns or something?

      Given the spring inherently needs to be different to deal with the different gas system why would you not separate them? You want to change the procedure? So how do you propose making sure they have the right spring while playing mix and match, given the wrong spring will cause the gun to function poorly or not at all?

      Why would you help to stall future development by advocating a single receiver? Have you seen the issues the AK, FAL, and other single receiver systems have had trying to upgrade to use of Picatinny rails? Not to mention a single receiver tends to make optimum cleaning, from the bore, more difficult.

      Originally posted by Terran empire View Post
      when Compared too preforming a rebuild of the entire system like your hydra it is.
      My Hydra? I own MGI, now? News to me.

      Given the MGI Hydra works just like a stock AR unless you need to change the mag well to allow different magazines, this wipe falls flat, anyway. The fact the MGI product has more options on top of being able to do everything of the platform you are advocating isn’t exactly what I’d call a negative. Not sure why popping two pins and a magwell, is considered a bigger deal then mag disassembly given soldiers have messed up mag reassembly with some routine, unlike gun reassembly with an AR.

      Originally posted by Terran empire View Post
      a check too the ATF and a Clean background check in a State that does not have it's own anti Gun laws can
      And none the less most will not. I’m not going to argue of the validity of my word choice with you.

      FNH and Colt make military grade arms for the US Military. Neither Robinson’s nor Bushmaster demonstrate the level of quality control demanded by the US Military, a distinction that leads to many, docking Bushmaster in particular in performance when pushed hard.

      You aren’t aware of who makes American’s small arms, and how some manufacturers cut corners in comparison to mil spec?

      Originally posted by Terran empire View Post
      *blah blah* AR not do water
      Original promotional video. If you failed to realize the US Navy SEALs are one of the longest operators of the AR system, picking it up before the big service and that the AR has one of the longest service records, take a look what Eugene Stoner does coming onto the beach.

      The issue is underwater firing, particularly as related to firing underwater with air in the barrel or firing out of the water with water in the barrel. That intrinsically is bad juju that risks detonation of the gun. A little water on the finish was never an issue.

      The Magpul vid you show isn’t burped, so is utterly meaningless. The HK tests show signs of being deliberately rigged so there is little to no water in the barrel when actually fired, while insuring the M4 had as big a slug as possible. If they could actually do it, they’d flaunt it by burping it, capping it underwater, and then firing it, or fill it and fire it slanted up to keep the water in.

      If you got it you flaunt it. They’re just screwing around with magician tricks. Ergo they most likely don’t have anything to brag about. I’m calling normal marketing trickery unless I see a legitimate test done with proper procedure, instead of that nonsense.

      Originally posted by Terran empire View Post
      I never said a thing about the FAL and these are newer systems
      Since when did firearms become fashions, so that age was relevant? The AR already uses the best materials, so that’s not an issue. Anything else is design features, most of which are significantly older in origin then the AR system. You want to debate design features, do so.

      The FAL has the most flexible piston system, and had to change the piston to deal with barrel length variation. Ergo as you yourself have to admit other piston systems have to, as you admit. Never thought about why Stoner, Klaskinov, and Browning didn’t pull the gas feed all the way back I presume?

      Originally posted by Terran empire View Post
      it's not the same as the M4 or M16 in that with these changes basic operation does not change due to pressure.
      So the pressure on the end of the metal rod magically does what now? Adjustable gas systems are a feature that can be used on any gas system if that’s what you’re alluding to. Otherwise, I’m calling BS on that history doesn’t support you.

      Originally posted by Terran empire View Post
      With a AR15 style system yes it is harder too integrate [Picatinny rails] But the ACR, XCR,SCAR Systems are not a AR15/M16 or M4s. And a number of Systems floating on the market get around that by using non standard AR hand guards.
      Daniel Defense’s rail system developed for a current military contract is crap now? You serious are arguing the bloody hand guard when the design is already so flexible they can freely delete the D-Ring and forward mounting point to make it free floated if they really want to?

      Originally posted by Terran empire View Post
      *blah* *blah* Marginal speed and accuracy doesn’t matter.
      Read. Something that improves a time related factor is a real tactical advantage. A piston gun is heavier, so swing slower. A recoil system that is not direct line recoils more, which means longer time between shots. Not to mention I already posted vids showing how dramatic 5.56 recoil was in a XCR even compared to an AR-10, earlier in this thread. Further a folder system weakens the butt stuck structure making it inferior for beating the crap out of people when push comes to shove.

      The AR was so reliable Colt originally marketed it as not needing cleaning. The AOB used this as part of their intentional effort to kill it, putting their own petty agendas before soldier's lives. Once that nonsense had been resolved the AR performed just fine, ergo the slap-rack-bang drill.

      A significant amount of what reliability issues exist can be tracked to bad magazines. The fact you have to push it in an extra little bit or it doesn't lock in properly may also have an effect if not properly trained. Then there's the rack-rack-rack drill which tends to prevent maximum force to force the extractor over the cartridge rim verse locking it back and letting it go. With the rack-rack-rack drill the tendency is to short stroke and possible not even let it go all the way forward making it less efficient at correcting a double feed or failure to extract.

      The benefit of a folding stock is convenience of storage, which is not tactically relevance. Meaning it is at best a convenience at the expense of tactical performance. The AR-18 was designed with a piston and the capability to fold. Guess which gun wasn’t bought in comparable numbers to its DI direct line recoil system brother?

      Originally posted by Terran empire View Post
      Even the Latest attempts by Colt too keep it's Army contracts have offered some kind of Folder.
      What are you talking about? The big Army ordered more M4s and flat out dumped the myriad of submissions, last I checked. Daniel Defenses order is recent enough it's not like the special forces are now anti-M4 in terms of new purchases either. I just checked Colt’s website under the military side, and there’s an amazing lack of folder in evidence. I don't think Colt even sells the AR-18 anymore, and looking through the rest of the Colt site am at an utter loss what you could be talking about.

      Originally posted by Terran empire View Post
      number are now adding adjustable Cheek Welds for sight systems that need too ride higher a option that M4 inhibits due too it's charging handle structure.
      You find Magpul MOE furniture or other options inadequate for what sights? Given the AR is one of the big competition guns used with more sights then anyone would ever mount off the playing field I’m really curious exactly what sights you think can’t be mounted effectively on a AR.
      Last edited by FOG3; 02 Sep 09,, 20:31.

      Comment


      • #33
        Ghetto edit:
        Okay Terran after some further digging I found what you're talking about. The fact it is a USMC contract for a IAR to supplement the current FNH SAW is completely at odds with your assertion of an Army contract for a GPMG, but I can't see anything else it could be. Noteworthy is the fact they just refined Stoner's DI system as opposed to other options.

        The super compact version is this, which is a neat trick involving a more compact buffer spring. Not my choice, given how flimsy that makes the butt stock is but shows it can be done. A trick that is facilitated by the wide and long spring originally used. While it's true they offer options other then DI, giving the customer options regarding what they want is just good business.

        Seems as how these showcase the flexibility and growth potential still inherent to Stoner's design I'm not sure why you brought them up in a negative light. I hope these work out for their end users, but have a sneaking suspicion the USMC might not get funding for a IAR to supplement the FNH SAW currently in use.

        EDIT:
        After a little more digging SOCOM is less then impressed with the actual FNH SCAR and HK product. If there is any legitimacy to that I doubt SOCOM is going to bother much more with them due to budget realities if nothing else.


        Given the SCAR uses what is for all intents and purposes a slightly modified AK action those advocating a modified AK would do be exceptional basically have had their day, and it will shortly be over. I suspect the reality has always been we have more whiners. Those stuck with AKs have rarely been in a position to complain.
        Last edited by FOG3; 05 Sep 09,, 04:22.

        Comment


        • #35
          Why are you bringing up that they RFPed for caseless? That's what the second, third, time they've done that? While I can't fault them for slipping it into the FCS program, I wouldn't exactly hold my breath over it. The fact global security doesn't have anything newer then around 2006 on that in its database doesn't inspire confidence they really have anything. Nor does the Army going forward with a new rifle contract for conventional ammunition.

          Honestly I expect Colt to win both of the other contracts. For the IAR contract it is the entry that is the lightest, the only one with a serious heat sink, doesn't involve unproven and questionable technology for bolt open/closed, and simplifies training of armorers. Unless Colt dropped the ball on barrel changing, it looks like the best candidate.

          Given Colt has refined the technology overall, I expect the new rifle contract to go to them with request for features/concepts the Army decides it likes about other submissions. The fact they've gotten all these manufacturers to show off their ideas doesn't mean they can't use it as an opportunity to shop for good ideas. Any manufacturer for the final contract will need to demonstrate the quality control and capacity to fulfill orders to spec.

          Given SOCOM is less then impressed with the piston ARs (HK 416) and AK derivatives (SCAR), I seriously doubt the challengers making any real head way. Not to mention this is just the Nth time that the Army has RFPed for a challenger to the AR. The AR is like a Gladiator Champion in that way. I'm going to repudiate the Army Times bias on it based on my own and others analysis of the engineering dust test, and that Defense Review isn't that bad at getting things straight.

          Comment


          • #36
            Originally posted by FOG3 View Post
            Given SOCOM is less then impressed with the piston ARs (HK 416) and AK derivatives (SCAR), I seriously doubt the challengers making any real head way. Not to mention this is just the Nth time that the Army has RFPed for a challenger to the AR. The AR is like a Gladiator Champion in that way. I'm going to repudiate the Army Times bias on it based on my own and others analysis of the engineering dust test, and that Defense Review isn't that bad at getting things straight.
            From what I can gather on PS.com, SOCOM is very impressed with HK416, unenthusiastic about SCAR, and not sufficiently impressed with either to toss out their M-4 carbines. According to Larry Vickers, who had a hand in 416's creation and a SFOD-D trooper, the real reason Delta wanted a gas piston gun was because direct gas impingment does not run well in short-barrel M-4. These are practically SMGs and I don't see how this problem would be relevant to 99.9 per cent of the infantry out there.
            All those who are merciful with the cruel will come to be cruel to the merciful.
            -Talmud Kohelet Rabbah, 7:16.

            Comment


            • #37
              Originally posted by FOG3 View Post
              Ghetto edit:
              Okay Terran after some further digging I found what you're talking about. The fact it is a USMC contract for a IAR to supplement the current FNH SAW is completely at odds with your assertion of an Army contract for a GPMG, but I can't see anything else it could be. Noteworthy is the fact they just refined Stoner's DI system as opposed to other options.

              The super compact version is this, which is a neat trick involving a more compact buffer spring. Not my choice, given how flimsy that makes the butt stock is but shows it can be done. A trick that is facilitated by the wide and long spring originally used. While it's true they offer options other then DI, giving the customer options regarding what they want is just good business.

              Seems as how these showcase the flexibility and growth potential still inherent to Stoner's design I'm not sure why you brought them up in a negative light. I hope these work out for their end users, but have a sneaking suspicion the USMC might not get funding for a IAR to supplement the FNH SAW currently in use.

              EDIT:
              After a little more digging SOCOM is less then impressed with the actual FNH SCAR and HK product. If there is any legitimacy to that I doubt SOCOM is going to bother much more with them due to budget realities if nothing else.


              Given the SCAR uses what is for all intents and purposes a slightly modified AK action those advocating a modified AK would do be exceptional basically have had their day, and it will shortly be over. I suspect the reality has always been we have more whiners. Those stuck with AKs have rarely been in a position to complain.
              It's not at all like an AK. The SCAR uses a short stroke piston the AK uses a long stroke piston.

              Comment


              • #38
                Honestly as of right now and for at least the next 7 years budget realities and the governements budgetary concerns about thins non-military pretty much mean that no one will be making large purchases for other than emergency measures defense wise. The M-16/M-4 combo will remain primary service weapons for at least that long and when you consider any switchover would take 2 or 3 years to effect minimum its even longer than that.

                Because of some fairly significant reports of heavier calbre battle rifles finding favour when used in current conflict I think its more likely that you see something with larger calbre get adopted but with alot of weight saving measures and measures to reduce recoil. Having the ability to swap parts to change calbres makes no sense in the field except for some special forces units and even then are rare enough that it really shouldn't be a consideration when adopting a firearm.


                If you've got receivers enough in supply to change over a large enough % of your troops to the ammo the enemy is using to mean anything; you should just send them ammo in the first place.

                As to the Direct Impingement, vs Piston of Long and Short stroke. I personally prefer the idea of a piston over that of direct impingment. While both have certainly shown themselves capable in use over various fireamrs and years, there is just something to me that strikes me as wrong about vent hot burned gasses over any more components of your rifle than abosolutely needed. Variations in likely propelants over the years your rifle is in service doesn't seem to help that idea much either. I would rather have a short stroke than a long stroke why introduce more felt recoil and movement of mass in a rifle than you have to? Since we've allready rejected venting hot gas back over my bolt and bolt carrier, question number two leaves us with a short stroke piston.

                As to toy attachments, any heavy rail system should do, on a personal note I think that nato should adopt a standard rail system so that everyone can use everyone elses toys. It'd be interesting to incorperate a power bus into it so that powered attachments can share batterypower accross the rifle as well as with the rifle itsself, would so be a fun concept to incorperate into the infantrymans radio, nightvision, gps and communications equipment with redundant bussed powersources. However this is essentially just an expensive and somewhat complicated gimmick. Its a nice toy but not really required in anyway.

                Future Force dictated a combat load of not more than 50 lbs back in 2001 that hasn't been acheived and really 75 is probably a reasonable amount including body armour. Will having bunches of extra atchments and receivers for your rifles help this at all? how about changing your pouches so they can accomodate magizines and barrels of different sizes?

                Comment


                • #39
                  They next catridge we should adopt should be able to replace both the
                  5.56x45 and the 7.62x51 with a catridge like the 6.5 grendel.

                  Comment


                  • #40
                    Originally posted by Ermac View Post
                    It's not at all like an AK. The SCAR uses a short stroke piston the AK uses a long stroke piston.
                    Huh? Did SBR AKs, lose the distinction of being AKs? It's not like they don't exist.

                    It was designed that length to accommodate the 10.5" barrel length speced by SOCOM, which initiated the contract due to issues that arose with the existing gas system. Issues I should emphasize Colt has by now researched and developed solutions for by upgrading the DGI system. The piston can't exactly be meaningfully longer in the 10" barrel configuration.

                    The AK action has the bolt carrier and piston as one assembly: Check.
                    The AK action's recoil spring is based off the back of the receiver: Check.
                    Overall configuration: same.

                    It looks like they modified the piston itself and moved the point the spring connects to the BCG in order to minimize the diving problems. It looks exactly what I'd expect if I gave someone the AK action and told them to modify it to the specs required by SOCOM.

                    What do you think an AK action modified to meet Western specs and requirements would like like?

                    Maxor:
                    Isn't the Picatinny aka MIL-STD-1913 rail NATO standard by STANAG 2324?
                    Last edited by FOG3; 08 Sep 09,, 20:08.

                    Comment


                    • #41
                      From what I have seen of the Colt new Offerings
                      Colt ERC (Extended Range Carbine): Long-Range, Select-Fire Carbine/Rifle
                      Colt Sub-Compact Weapon (SCW): Folding-Stock Tactical 5.56 SBR (Photos!)
                      Colt ACC-M (Advanced Colt Carbine-Monolithic): 21st Century M4/M4A1 Carbine
                      Colt IAR (Infantry Automatic Rifle) Assault Rifle/SAW Hybrid Weapon (Photos!)

                      I don't see much in that way of a improvement over the existing system other then the Monolithic rail and a Piston system. you can get much the Same with LWRC M6, HK416, POF 416 and others there attempt at a folding but stock offered on the SCW offered more issues the solutions. Even Para's New Tactical Target Rifle ( preduction of ZM weapons L300 seems too have more in the way of improvement then what's coming out of colt.
                      Para USA, High-Quality Handguns: Special Forces and Law Enforcement
                      And Colts IAR did not even meet the Original requirements the specs were changed from firing from a open bolt too optionally doing so. of course HK also failed in that regard.

                      Comment


                      • #42
                        Those are basically the same articles I linked earlier, and don't support your position, Terran...

                        Given DGI was developed to avoid the issues of piston guns, why is going back to the archaic an improvement in your book? SOCOM went that way to get away with a 10.5" barrel and value DGI's strengths otherwise. The Mk18 Mod 0 and derivatives as it is classed, hasn't exactly been taken off the roster though, meaning even as currently sold it is a workable niche system.

                        Given Colt has figured out a means to further mitigate the problems in what's really a long barreled pistol configuration, what's the problem? They've put some effort into mitigating the extractor issues and helping to deal with dust with the wiper thing. These unlike the 1nt3rn3tz M4A1 sux0rs b3c4us3 it poops where it 34ts, are real, if minor for most users, issues. The reality of magazines being the source of most malfunctions in all automatics, which the Military has too much of a tendency to ignore, is a much bigger issue for the vast majority of users.

                        SOCOM isn't exactly jumping up and down about how the HK 416 or FN SCAR is so much better. While that doesn't mean they don't work, to get a real contract they have to impress the Army they're so much better as to be worth it which based on everything I have and has been brought up by others, the SOCOM reaction they are epic failures at. Well... actually the M4A1 is actually pretty much the best out there isn't what I call a vote of confidence for those mods to be worth the trouble. Particularly as the existing system has already been thoroughly debugged unlike the new propositions.

                        The Para recoil system seems interesting, but appears to add some significant weight. Without any real diagrams showing their action I'll withhold judgment, but note marketing can promise whatever it wants.

                        I honestly don't get why you're stuck on fragile folding stocks for guns you may need to beat someone to death with. You want to handicap yourself that way knock yourself out, but don't try to convince me you were brilliant for deciding to do so.
                        Last edited by FOG3; 22 Sep 09,, 23:57.

                        Comment


                        • #43
                          Good luck beating some on too death with a M4, or M16 the Collapible is not a stock built for the task and the Plastic M16A2 has it's own issues.
                          .Conway resists adopting collapsible M16 stock - MarineCorpsTimes.com
                          Socom Has Deployed Scars And Is set too be replacing there entire M4 inventory with them. Quite A Different Story.
                          Defense Tech: Rangers Get Their SCARs
                          As For pushing for a army Contract they are The army is bigger though and requires a ton more paper work too change systems From the Top down it's also given too in fighting there are officers in the Army Brass Right now doing mush the same as we are some thinking like you Managed too keep colt alive by push of rank. they killed the Xm8 with the help of Colt's lobing group. others pushed for the XM8 and managed too get it too the cusp of deployment some of the same arguments were won in Socom by Officers who saw the M4 lacking.

                          And For the Record nether systems is really modern the Direct Gas Impingement system dates back too 1901 when the first experiments began it was used in the French MAS 49 and swiss Ljungman rifle during the second world war, and barely changed when it was worked into the AR10 and later Ar15 systems that would later become both M16 and M16. nothing truly modern here.
                          the Gas pistons were there too the M1 Garand and M1 Carbine both used Pistons however the the modern Short Stoke Piston date back too the AR18 a weapon built after the AR15 by the same builders this system is found quite commonly G36, JSDF Type 89, FN FNC, And yes the less then reliable SA80's. the origins of the systems date back too the same time are the same age. most of the Worlds Combat rifle use Pistons. There's nothing truly modern there either; there are only so many ways too build a gas operation And As for Colds new " hybrid DGI/piston system" they are letting So little Information is out there, If they had a truly Ground breaking system They should be shouting too the moon. It's Just another Take on the Piston and I think a weaker carbine for completion. I am sorry Fog You can flame all you want but I don't see you winning nor that Colt has the Horse that they claim they have. From what I see ACR is the better weapon for the army of the 21's century

                          Comment


                          • #44
                            So this time you bring forward a mere article mentioning the Rangers are trying out the SCAR, which was already mentioned, and are going to pretend it's FN winning a contract to entirely replace the SOCOM armament? Which would mean both the HK and Colt lost utterly, and isn't even vaguely implied. You might wish I was flaming you for posting utter nonsense, but I haven't, so sorry.

                            You forget there's this metal tube the plastic is simply dressing around on an AR system. Really, posting an article about the Corp being concerned about insuring their rifles can be used to beat someone to death to advocate not only it can't but rifles that are orders of magnitude worse is so out there I can only assume you are trying to lay flame bait in the hope it will somehow grant you a "win" on based on "morally superior" conduct.

                            Even though you were the one that wanted to pick over nothing, by quoting my response to the Mogadishu Mk. 2 concept and pretending it was something else in the hope you could somehow achieve traction.

                            I find the fact you bring up the overly intgrated XM8, as opposed to say the earlier ACR project interesting. So let's say we bought that HK product, like you wanted. Given it is not only not setup for rails, but has a much more integrated design. How much of a problem do you think you would have now put us in to meet the needs currently fulfilled by rail systems like those produced by Daniel Defense? And why would having to fund this design overhaul and be ironing out the designs issues be such a great thing to be dealing with now?

                            Bureaucratic momentum is on the ARs side, guy. Not to mention both FN and Colt have contracts to make ARs for the US military. So smacking Colt in favor of FN, to be contrary on the AR is just bizarre. As is your faith the evil Pony will be vanquished by the Piston's divine crusade, because God has prophecized it must be so. ;)

                            You want to drink piston Kool Aid, seems as how you seem so blind by your DGI hate you refuse to acknowledge it as anything else then something that is evil and must die, that's your problem. The fact you have not brought anything forward of any substance means there's nothing to talk about anyway.
                            Last edited by FOG3; 02 Oct 09,, 23:26.

                            Comment


                            • #45
                              [QUOTE]
                              Originally posted by Terran empire View Post
                              Good luck beating some on too death with a M4, or M16 the Collapible is not a stock built for the task and the Plastic M16A2 has it's own issues.
                              If the military would put these on thier guns, they could. i have one on each of my ARs and the bottom of the butt has a potato masher style impact base on it, made for buttstroking someone. However, no modern rifle was designed to be a bludgeoning object.
                              It's Just another Take on the Piston and I think a weaker carbine for completion. I am sorry Fog You can flame all you want but I don't see you winning nor that Colt has the Horse that they claim they have. From what I see ACR is the better weapon for the army of the 21's century
                              Terran, you may argue all you want here about what you think may be the better gun but that is not what it is about, nor does quality or ability have anything to do with the selection process. It politics and who gets some money that decides. The inception of the M-16 is a prime example of this.

                              IMO, the Robinson XCR outperformed them all and has multi-caliber abilities that no other has, but it has already been dropped from the role. Once again, its not about which is the best gun, its about who has the best sales pitch!;)

                              Comment

                              Working...
                              X