HOME | DD

Lord-Malachi In reply to GundamGPO3 [2011-09-20 11:28:29 +0000 UTC]

I don't suppose you could please explain why it would have this effect instead of the intended one?

👍: 0 ⏩: 1

GundamGPO3 In reply to Lord-Malachi [2011-09-20 16:35:39 +0000 UTC]

Because the sole culprit for the AN-94's 2 round burst is that short-action stage of the carrier, and the half-fed round sitting in the feed tray. Your design is simply an over-complicated conventional system where the carrier distance is unaltered and the next in line round is being drawn off the magazine from the full cycle distance, just as the first was.

👍: 0 ⏩: 1

Lord-Malachi In reply to GundamGPO3 [2011-09-20 21:37:02 +0000 UTC]

...?
So the cycle distance has no effect on the rate of fire?
And the rounds are drawn off the magazine from the side and have 2 follow up rounds in the feed system at all times.
[link]
That image has a rear view of the system (Though very simplified)

[link]
The AN-94 is capable of such rapid burst fire simply because the second round has less distance to travel when being chambered. It essentially has nothing to do with the carrier distance changing, that is simply the method in which the chambering distance is shortened. When the barrel retreats during the carrier shift it strips the follow up round from the feedway. When the bolt returns, it has less distance to travel in order to finish chambering the round because the barrel has come back to meet it. The effect would be similar to pulling on something while also running toward it.

The problem with the method that the AN-94 uses to shorten the chambering distance is that it can only be done once every 2 shots. If there was more room for the assembly to continue traveling rearwards it could be done more often, but only for as much room as there is. The benefit is that it has the delayed felt recoil.

By shortening the chambering distance without it being dependent on on the assembly moving rearward, my design is capable of sustaining the same rate of fire. The downside is that there is no delayed felt recoil. But that is offset by lessening the felt recoil of each round fired, much like the AK-107 does.

The speed at which the AN-94 fires actually has nothing to do with how it's fed. The feeding mechanism is simply a requirement due to the assembly moving. With a traditional feed system, the barrel would jam against the magazine lip and couldn't move backward. If some way of allowing the barrel to freely pass through the magazine lip could be found, a more traditional feeding system could easily work.

My rotating mechanism is also a requirement of my method. It too would require the barrel to pass through the magazine lip, thus a 'pre feeding' step is needed in order to remove the magazine from the chambering process. I 'could' use the exact same feeding method as the AN-94, since it solves the same issue. But the rotating mechanism also keeps the bolt and barrel in sync, which a feeder and pulley would not do.



Wow I typed a lot... just my full view on why I thought the idea was sound.

👍: 0 ⏩: 1

GundamGPO3 In reply to Lord-Malachi [2011-09-21 00:23:24 +0000 UTC]

I am very educated on the AN-94, and you are not understanding the rifle correctly. I'm not sure I can help you with that, since you reject the fact that the weapon DOES rely on the half-fed round, and the short-stroking carrier. Your weapon apparently recoils the barrel forward, and the carrier backward. Let me ask you this: If the mass of the carrier is less than that of the barrel, and by your illustration, does not lock into the barrel, how do you expect the barrel to recoil forward? It won't. Simple physics. Also, your illustration does correctly show SMG rounds, but almost all SMGs today fire from open bolt, and have very short bolt travel, which means the cyclic rate is already optimized.

I'm afraid your weapon is an over-complicated approach to an obsolete action, and blow-forward will never work work a moving bolt mass.

👍: 0 ⏩: 1

Lord-Malachi In reply to GundamGPO3 [2011-09-21 01:46:42 +0000 UTC]

I'm not rejecting it, I just don't understand why it makes a difference. How are you educated on the AN-94? Is there a detailed manual somewhere I could read? Or videos of the system in action?

As can be seen in the 'first' image, the one posted here on DA, the barrel recoils forward due to a modified rack and pinion. The force upon the bolt is redistributed to the barrel. Again, like the AK-107 and its anti recoil system. The bolt doesn't have to weigh as much as the barrel for that to function.

I was not aware of the difference between open and closed bolt systems. Thank you.
But I don't see how that effects the cyclic rate. It does effect many things but not that. It doesn't change the distance that the bolt must travel. Only the timing at which it does so.
Define Optimized in this sense please. I was unaware there was an optimal rate.

I do agree the blow-forward as a stand alone action will never work. I simply used the name because the barrel moves forward. A name change should probably be in order, but I'm not sure what an accurate name would be.
As for complication, it's hardly much more complicated than the AN-94. At least there aren't any thin pulley systems in mine.

👍: 0 ⏩: 1

GundamGPO3 In reply to Lord-Malachi [2011-09-21 02:21:51 +0000 UTC]

You aren't using a rack and pinion system, you are probably using a worm gear. A rack and pinion would only allow the bolt to move as far as the barrel, and your illustrations show a worm gear. As for AN-94 literature, google works wonders. Open and closed bolt systems affect the cyclic rate of the weapons because an open bolt system typically locks back and recoils a shorter distance than a closed bolt. What I meant by optimized was that there is no possible way to make the weapon fire faster than it already does.

Also comparing your design to the AK-107 makes little sense at all. It works because the barrel is stationary. Which is why the bolt group is essentially the same as the original AK rifle. The only difference is the T junction for the gas, and the BARS rod that recoils forward. My RAR is actually an improved 107/108 system.

👍: 0 ⏩: 1

Lord-Malachi In reply to GundamGPO3 [2011-09-21 03:02:44 +0000 UTC]

Worm gear, I knew it had it's own name -.- again thank you.

And the barrel 'does' only move as far as the bolt.

Nowhere have I seen anyone say that open bolt systems have a shorter distance or faster cyclic rate. And I've been all over google just to double check that. If anything, I've been reading that open bolt systems fire 'slower' because of an increased lock time. Granted that's only applicable for the first shot, but it's the only mention of speed or time that I've run across.

And I highly doubt that SMGs fire as fast as a fully automatic weapon is capable of firing period. Especially since almost every SMG has a different RoF. Unless you mean that each specific SMG already fires as fast as it specifically can fire. In which case duh. That has nothing to do with discussing a new system as that new system would obviously have a different speed potential.

Comparing the design to the AK-107 makes perfect sense. The AK-107 works because the massive AK Bolt is offset by the BARS rod. It has nothing to do with the barrel. By replacing the BARS rod with the barrel in such a system, weight is reduced, as well as number of parts, and thus complexity. Adding the BARS rod was just a simple addition to an already in place and accepted weapon in order to improve it.

I looked into your RAR, it looks amazing, but I obviously can't learn from or compare your internal systems. Since you're working on a patent that's understandable. I also noticed you're 21, not that that in and of itself is important. But what makes you qualified to have a design so refined that it's patentable? Not jumping on you, I'm genuinely curious. I'd like to be able to learn whatever it is you have. I'm still trying to figure out how to get to your position. With years of schooling in mechanics I'm sure I would have a better understanding of these things. But you're only a year older than I am, so you couldn't have the tons of experience I imagined you would need.

I blame our differences of opinion on my lack of experience. I'm trying to look up proofs to your comments but I can't find many, if any at all. I can't understand where you're coming from without such proofs. I'm not saying you're wrong about things, I just don't understand how you come to the conclusions you do.

I'm not sure if that bit makes sense.

👍: 0 ⏩: 1

GundamGPO3 In reply to Lord-Malachi [2011-09-21 14:49:22 +0000 UTC]

An Uzi fires faster than an MP5, a MAC-11 fires faster than an Uzi. The MAC and Uzi are both open bolt. All 3 are the exact same caliber. I didn't say that "Open bolt guns all fire as fast as they can." The reason they are designed with short bolt travel is because it prevents a larger space for dirt and debris to get caught up inside.

I've been studying and playing with all sorts of guns for a very long time. Part of my experience is firing SMGs, pistols, rifles, shotguns, MGs, etc. Not only do I shoot a lot. I take apart EVERY weapon I am allowed to. I am also a mechanical engineering student.

You aren't going to find literature on the RoF of SMG's and their bolt system, because it's considered redundant information. You may find hints of it, but my information was coming from firing several SMGs. Take the MP-40 and the M1 Thompson for example. Both fire from open both, the MP-40 fires the 9mm, and the M1 the .45. Despite this, the Thompsom has a much faster cyclic rate. This is a perfect example of bolt travel dictating rate of fire.

Also, if you have all this schooling, why aren't you drawing this up in CAD? PMG is for 12 year olds.... I'd be willing to teach you SolidWorks or something just so you are actually making this design in something that is supposed to be used for such things.

If you have skype, or xfire, or steam, I'd love to have you add me so we can talk outside of DA. Even facebook if you want.

👍: 0 ⏩: 1

Lord-Malachi In reply to GundamGPO3 [2011-09-22 02:16:21 +0000 UTC]

I've sent you a FB request lol
And I meant when I get years of that experience, not that I have it now.
I use PMG because it's fun for me, I enjoy PMG. Plus for simple things it's quicker and easier.
Until recently I hadn't been planning on doing anything super detailed before. When I learn CAD I'll probably use it, or SolidWorks would be great as well.

👍: 0 ⏩: 1

GundamGPO3 In reply to Lord-Malachi [2011-09-22 19:34:47 +0000 UTC]

Any CAD software should prettymuch be your primary software, but I got your FB request, so we'll talk soon

👍: 0 ⏩: 0

Lord-Malachi In reply to Great-5 [2011-08-27 19:37:40 +0000 UTC]

Nope

👍: 0 ⏩: 0

Lord-Malachi In reply to zacharyp99 [2011-08-27 19:38:05 +0000 UTC]

Haha thanks, and yea, with shapes anything is possible

👍: 0 ⏩: 0