6.5 x 40 New AR varient

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

  • #31
    The challenge is you to think about what other issues might be important.

    I gave you and the forum a list two or three iterations of this discussion ago. You are welcome to search for it, or develop your own.

    In the meantime, your obsession on the link truly distracts from what might be an otherwise healthy debate.

    Comment

    • BluntForceTrauma
      Administrator
      • Feb 2011
      • 3897

      #32
      At any rate, I suppose the topic of this thread, the 6.5x40, is as DOA as the 6.5 Grendel (6.5x38.7) as far as a military cartridge candidate goes, since disintegrating links cannot possibly be made for an LMG that chambers either cartridge. Right, Stan?

      John
      :: 6.5 GRENDEL Deer and Targets :: 6mmARC Targets and Varmints and Deer :: 22 ARC Varmints and Targets

      :: I Drank the Water :: Revelation 21:6 ::

      Comment

      • stanc
        Banned
        • Apr 2011
        • 3430

        #33
        Right, John.




        A cartridge case length of about 43mm is necessary to use the M27 link without shortening the length of the link, or narrowing the link loops:


        Last edited by stanc; 04-08-2014, 10:35 PM.

        Comment

        • pinzgauer
          Warrior
          • Mar 2011
          • 440

          #34
          Originally posted by HANKA View Post
          At any rate, I suppose the topic of this thread, the 6.5x40, is as DOA as the 6.5 Grendel (6.5x38.7) as far as a military cartridge candidate goes, since disintegrating links cannot possibly be made for an LMG that chambers either cartridge. Right, Stan?
          Someone needs to inform the various orgs headed down this path.... otherwise they might spend millions, then never deploy. Oh, wait... nevermind!

          Comment

          • cory
            Chieftain
            • Jun 2012
            • 2985

            #35
            Originally posted by pinzgauer View Post
            Someone needs to inform the various orgs headed down this path.... otherwise they might spend millions, then never deploy. Oh, wait... nevermind!
            Shit yeah you're right. Maybe in a couple of decades the science will advance enough for us to accomplish this engineering marvel. Our time and money is best spent on simpler things, like putting men on mars.
            "Those who sacrifice liberty for security, deserve neither." Benjamin Franklin

            Comment

            • stanc
              Banned
              • Apr 2011
              • 3430

              #36
              Originally posted by cory View Post
              Shit yeah you're right. Maybe in a couple of decades the science will advance enough for us to accomplish this engineering marvel. Our time and money is best spent on simpler things, like putting men on mars.
              Hey, I'd love to see us put people on Mars!

              As for the matter of machine gun links, the solution is quite simple: Adopt a cartridge with case dimensions compatible with the M27 link configuration.

              Comment

              • cory
                Chieftain
                • Jun 2012
                • 2985

                #37
                Originally posted by stanc View Post
                Hey, I'd love to see us put people on Mars!

                As for the matter of machine gun links, the solution is quite simple: Adopt a cartridge with case dimensions compatible with the M27 link configuration.
                Stan is there something you're not telling us? Do you own stock in the patent for the M27 link??? HAHA
                "Those who sacrifice liberty for security, deserve neither." Benjamin Franklin

                Comment


                • #38
                  Originally posted by stanc View Post
                  I dunno, Bill. I've never designed a machine gun. ...
                  Originally posted by stanc View Post
                  ...As for the matter of machine gun links, the solution is quite simple: Adopt a cartridge with case dimensions compatible with the M27 link configuration.
                  Your claim in the second quote suggests that you have significant knowledge relating to the details of machine gun design. The first quote indicates that you do not have this knowledge.

                  You can't have it both ways.

                  Continuing to push an opinion that one is entitled to but does not have the knowledge to be credible with only hurts the forum.

                  Everyone would now be best served to accept that there are differences in opinion and move on.

                  Comment

                  • stanc
                    Banned
                    • Apr 2011
                    • 3430

                    #39
                    Originally posted by JASmith View Post
                    Your claim in the second quote suggests that you have significant knowledge relating to the details of machine gun design. The first quote indicates that you do not have this knowledge.

                    You can't have it both ways.
                    <sigh> Flawed reasoning, Joe. Just because I've never designed a machine gun, doesn't mean I know nothing about them.

                    Comment


                    • #40
                      I like Cory's idea about shortening the middle hoop of the link.

                      I will also say that the feed tray mechanism on the SAW is the same one from the MAG58/M240, just scaled down slightly for 5.56 NATO. Where the SAW fails is in the operating system, the way the receiver is constructed, and the magazine well add-on.

                      To lessen the effects of recoil, constant recoil operating makes sense. Then you have to decide on what locking mechanism to use. The MAG58 uses a tilting lock mechanism, whereas the SAW uses an AK-patterned rotating bolt inside of an AK bolt carrier, with AK op rod and piston head. The SAW thus has very reduced longevity, because it is a bad design. The welded guide rails for the bolt carrier in a sheet steel receiver are good for a certain round count, and then the tolerances hit a point where belt-fed wear have beaten the system to death, and it becomes a jam-o-matic.



                      They addressed a lot of these issues with the Product Improvement Program, but I have not been able to evaluate any of those PIP SAW's, since it happened after I got out. My perspective is that you can put band aids on a system and address peripheral issues, but if the core design of the weapon is faulty, it's time to ditch it for the turd that it is.

                      Comment

                      • stanc
                        Banned
                        • Apr 2011
                        • 3430

                        #41
                        Originally posted by cory View Post
                        Stan is there something you're not telling us? Do you own stock in the patent for the M27 link??? HAHA
                        Heh, heh. No, but I sure wish I was collecting royalties on M27 link purchases!

                        My point is that the M27 link configuration has been shown to work with 5.56x45 NATO, 6x45 SAW, and 6.8x43 SPC. It just seems to me like it'd be more logical -- and a helluva lot cheaper, faster, and easier -- to go with cartridge case dimensions that are proven compatible with the existing link design, than it would be to spend a lot of time and $$$ fiddling around in what may be a futile attempt to design a new link to fit a cartridge case that is not compatible with the M27 type.

                        Comment

                        • stanc
                          Banned
                          • Apr 2011
                          • 3430

                          #42
                          Originally posted by LRRPF52 View Post
                          I like Cory's idea about shortening the middle hoop of the link.
                          As I said, that idea has been proposed before. On the old forum, someone else noticed the hole in the middle loop and suggested deleting it so the loop could be made narrower.

                          However, the loop width appears much greater in the close-up photo I posted, than it actually is in real life. Since links have to contend with different types of stress (tension, twisting, etc), it's far from certain if loop width can be reduced to the extent needed for correct cartridge interface with feed pawl and cartridge stop.

                          If anybody wants to spend their money in an R&D effort to create a new link for 6.5 Grendel, I sincerely wish them success. But, I ain't gonna hold my breath...

                          Comment


                          • #43
                            Originally posted by stanc View Post
                            ...If anybody wants to spend their money in an R&D effort to create a new link for 6.5 Grendel, I sincerely wish them success. But, I ain't gonna hold my breath...
                            Someone who admits to having never designed a machine gun sure seems to be claiming perfect knowledge of what can and cannot be done.

                            The cost of developing any new cartridge will be enormous, with the link system being more of a footnote in the cost and effort equation. It us just too much for anyone to take on as a pro-bono effort.

                            Why don't we allow alternative opinions to exist and move on with the discussion in more productive venues.

                            Comment


                            • #44
                              ...and the reason you continue to insist that alternative links are not credible until they are PROVEN is?

                              The bottom line is that you are coming across as being convinced that a cartridge like the Grendel is entirely unsuitable in the machine-gun application.

                              Yet, the only basis for your claim is that you aren't sure it can be done? There seems to be something missing in the logic.

                              At the end of five years of this, you really should start to accept the opinions of those with real experience in this world. There are others who have indicated that redesigning links for the shorter cartridge is a straightforward development exercise. My experience includes more than thirty years of work in weapons research and development, yet I cannot claim the expertise in this matter that your several hundred posts over the years suggest that you have. What i can do, however, is accept judgements by those who DO have relevant experience.

                              You really do need to let the link issue go. You have added nothing new to this topic in five years. Everything since has been mindless repetition.

                              Comment


                              • #45
                                Originally posted by stanc
                                Unfortunately, none of those "others" have any experience in design and development of disintegrating links for machine guns. So why on earth should I accept their unsubstantiated opinions???
                                Because some of them have relevant experience but cannot claim it for a number of valid reasons, and the rest are light years closer to the issue than folks who have NEVER personally designed or developed modern weapons.

                                There are much larger questions that need to be worked than the one you continue to hammer away at.

                                By allowing the question stand unanswered to your satisfaction, but still part of a sane development plan, you can help guide the discussion into the areas truly meaningful to the question of whether the 6.5 Grendel has a role in the machine gun.

                                Get those other questions resolved, and the link question will find its appropriate place in the effort.
                                Last edited by Guest; 04-11-2014, 02:16 AM.

                                Comment

                                Working...
                                X