Why do any modern guns have pounds of excess metal when all you need is a few ounces of steel in the barrel extension and bolt to contain even high pressure rounds like the 5.56?
It's surprising that so few gun designs take advantage of this fact. If anything, designs are trending heavier. Why aren't there lightweight designs out there that utilize this capability? Not only do designs like the M1 carbine with minimalistic receivers save weight, they save money too. Is it just due to greedy industry execs stifling designers to keep prices high?
this is a purposefully retarded bait thread.
kys OP.
I love you Anon, no homo
It's retarded if you're stupid, have no imagination or drive, and are fine with limited possibilities.
Your imagination isnt real.
Thats..... how almost all modern rifles are made.....
Yes, they keep high strength steel limited to the barrel extension, bolt and piston, but still have lots of unnecessary weight in the receiver. Versus a gun like the M1 Carbine which doesn't need to cover everything with its receiver, or uses the stock to.
The reciever has to be strong enough to contain the barrel extension/trunnion in the first place, not turn into a fragmentation grenade if a kB! occurs, more importantly contain the bolt and the other moving parts while providing a stable optics mounting solution
>why don't modern guns use wood? that's more advanced and scientific
just have a nice day OP
It's retards sticking to outdated designs featuring trunnions joining the receiver to the barrel instead of a barrel nut (which also has the added benefit of making the barrel much easier to replace when it gets shot out or damaged.)
t. KE Arms
Because in 1941 they didn't use plastics and were barely even using aluminium. They could've shaved another pound or two off the M1 design using aluminium parts and polymer.
Ever tried shooting a super lightweight gun, like one of those super-thin barrel composite stock hunting rifles or an alloy-frame Titanium cylinder revolver? Yeah they're light, but the recoil is no fucking fun at all. People have known this for a long time, the ideal mass of a gun is dependent on the recoil it generates. The old-school rule for shotguns, for example, was to make the gun weigh 96 times the intended mass of shot.
I have a 4lb 1oz AR that's fine. With muzzle breaks it isn't an issue. I agree that too lightweight is a problem, but there are ways to deal with recoil. I had a Spanish FR8 that was the least enjoyable gun to shoot with just a t-shirt, but with a recoil pad and shoulder pad was fine. And that's with no muzzle break.
Now that you mention it though, I bet the main reason gun designs abandoned weight saving is due to women in the military who can't handle recoil.
>I bet the main reason gun designs abandoned weight saving is due to women in the military who can't handle recoil.
Its because heavier guns are harder for 7 ASVAB grunts to destroy.
5.56 is such a diminutive round that I doubt you could design a rifle which would make it uncomfortable to shoot. Like even a 2lb break action survival rifle wouldn't be that bad.
>cased telescoped electrically ignited 120kpsi M855A1 (but 45 grain) 12" barrel 4lb quad stack bullpup with smart optic
I need it.
I'm working on a flyweight rifle that will be so light it will use a USGI canteen of water and some straps to add weight to handle recoil.
Idea is you always want to carry some water, so on your epic hike to high country you bag your trophy then drink your last water on the way back.
Could you share your parts specs for your 4.1lb gun?
>there are ways to deal with recoil
Like making a heavier gun. If you have to "deal" with a gun it isn't well made.
>muh women
Incel moment.
>Uses an AR as an example
>A fucking .22 Caliber bullet as an example of how a light rifle is no big deal
>muzzle breaks
Can't even spell.
Why do we care about your opinion?
>96 times
That's how you know it was autism. 100x is so much cleaner and easier to calculate while hardly impacting the weight with the extra half pound max.
They would be measuring the weight in ounces, and weight in pounds, so no, 100x would actually have been harder to calculate. It's just 3 pounds per ounce of shot.
1 ounce shot = 6 pound shotgun.
1.25 ounce shot = 7 1/2 pound shotgun.
And so on.
*3 pounds per half ounce
Suppressive fire is fundamental to modern combat. Any service rifle needs to be capable of laying down a full infantryman's ammo load of fire in multiples, down range while maintaining accuracy.
>sustained fire is important
Okay, so you keep a decently thick profile in the barrel. There are still like 3 lbs of redundant weight in systems like the XM5. If recoil is REALLY an issue, then just make it light instead of ultralight.
>Okay, so you keep a decently thick profile in the barrel.
And the chamber, the piston, the bolt, the bolt carrier, anything that's in contact with gases. You do this, minimizing weight and you end up with the M16/M4/AR design, and that's why everyone in the world is copying it right now.
That's how your burst your gas tube and melt your magpul afg Anon
Just buy a better rifle. Piston ARs are the future of combat.
How's the war going in Vietnam?
Look at all Northern AR users. They've all got piston ARs.
If you need your rifle to function in all adverse conditions, the piston is what you want.
Canada's the most northern AR user possible and they use DI guns
Nordic countries just love to suck German cock and buy whatever garbage HK puts out
>Canada's the most northern AR user possible
Their main cities are at the height of Italy...
>muh latitude
Norway is heated by the Gulf Stream. Canada is not, Toronto and Oslo have similar climates
And Canadian Rangers in the far North use some Sako bolt action rifles instead of ARs.
The meaningful Canadian armed forces are built to fight on the latitudes of Italy and France. That's where all their major cities are.
no we aren't you stupid fucking homosexual. our infantry regularily do exercises above fort mac. look up where that is you gorrilia nagger.
we've used di guns for soemthing like 50 years, and are about to adopt yet another one in the next 5-10. they work perfectly, and you have no idea what you're talking about if you say otherwise. actually, care to explain, mechanically, how di wouldn't work in the cold? I'd love to hear what comes out of your mouth on that one
My point is most service rifles in a 5.56/5.45/5.8 or your typical small bore high velocity will start to burn down or degrade after firing a combat loadout on full cyclic. A mag or two can be dumped in a pinch but the role of suppressive fire is done by machine guns for a reason.
It's surprising you are this stupid.
>>anon will claim to be subject matter expert then go on to show it by not understanding the thickness of the material will indeed change how it reacts to different internal and external metrics.
you can assemble stupid light ar15s if you want to. polymer lowers, pencil profile barrels, wireframe carbon fiber handguards, skeletonized BCG. If you really think that's what you want, then make one.
>tfw the zion-15 doesnt have the israelite lightening cuts
Have you seen ~~*thier*~~)) other weapons? They add weight faster than they pile babies at moloch's temple.
Poly lowers worth a shit (read KP15) are in practice much heavier than magnesium/lithium or just skeletonized aluminum. Normal spec lower lets you go with carbon stock, buffer tube which is how you save the weight.
I fucking hate hex nuts and the state of pisrael
I mean if something is a moving part on any machine of any kind and it can't be oiled or perfectly shielded from debris or buildup of some kind then why wouldn't you want to make it out of metals or metal alloys? For example, my AR had multiple failures to feed. I went home and lubed it the fuck up with gun oil and guess what? Everything worked perfectly again and I shot like 5 or 6 mags through it not long after that. What are you going to make your gun out of that can be lubed up and is resistant to being worn down through repeated use and operating conditions?
I rather have the rifle weigh a bit more than have the PoI shift due to the barrel heating up.
Do you even lift, bro?
>Make ultralight weight AR that's 4 to 5 pounds
>Put optic and light and suppressor on it
>Now you have a perfectly comfortable 7 pound rifle that's good to go
Adding weight to a gun is the easiest thing in the world to do, but removing weight is the hardest.