Page 16 of 18 FirstFirst ... 61415161718 LastLast
Results 151 to 160 of 176

Thread: Midlength Gas Systems (split from the Colt Midlength thread)

  1. #151
    Member
    Join Date
    May 2014
    Location
    South Central Us
    Quote Originally Posted by Sadmin View Post
    Yes... in part. I could no longer utilize H2 buffers. No biggy, and you are probably correct. Just flinched me enough to stick with 16" middys because: gun forum induced fear. I dont go around advocating against 14.5s or anything - I was just interested in the Noveske history.
    My theory has always been:

    Take pmc bronze .223
    Take a clean weapon.
    Gunsscubber the bcg off.
    Load a full 30 round mag, 1 in the chamber. 31 on board. Fire 2 rounds, reload and repeat. Do this x10.
    Take a mag with 2 rounds. Chamber one. Fire twice and verify lockback. Do this 10 times.

    For both of these tests, the weapon should be held as loosely as safely and intelligently possible, allowed to recoil freely and not against a shoulder or other impediment.

    Pick the heaviest buffer and spring combo this works for, all 20 iterations.

    You should have a weapon setup that is dead nuts reliable with any brass cased ammo that is in spec.
    Last edited by Unobtanium; 07-24-2016 at 02:58 AM.

  2. #152
    Reviewer of the Tools
    Join Date
    Nov 2012
    Location
    Connecticut
    Anyone here have any experience with different muzzle devices on the 14.5" carbine system? Trying to decide if something like a Warcomp or BCM Gunfighter would offer any substantial advantage over an A2.

    Sorry for the slight thread drift.

  3. #153
    Quote Originally Posted by Whiskey_Bravo View Post
    Anyone here have any experience with different muzzle devices on the 14.5" carbine system? Trying to decide if something like a Warcomp or BCM Gunfighter would offer any substantial advantage over an A2.

    Sorry for the slight thread drift.
    I have the BCM Mod1 1.5" on a 6921. It's the only one I've had on it. It's no louder than an A2 and jumps a little less. It feels about the same as the Battlecomp on my Noveske 16".

  4. #154
    Quote Originally Posted by Whiskey_Bravo View Post
    Anyone here have any experience with different muzzle devices on the 14.5" carbine system? Trying to decide if something like a Warcomp or BCM Gunfighter would offer any substantial advantage over an A2.

    Sorry for the slight thread drift.
    Currently have an original Warcomp on a 14.5" Colt. I prefer it, over the A2 on my 16” Colt.

  5. #155
    Member
    Join Date
    Sep 2014
    Location
    Western New York
    I have a mod. 1 on a 14.5 middy, so obv not an apples to apples comparison. For what its worth, the mod 1 does seem less offensive than some other, more aggressive designs. I don't note any negative effects behind the gun, and I don't hear any complaints from other shooters on the line.
    Possibly of interest to you, given your intended use on a 14.5 carbine, is a discussion on the design of the comp and how it affects gas pressure. More discussion at the link, but the design of the mod 1 basically adds back pressure via an expansion chamber.

    http://www.m4carbine.net/showthread....04#post1889504

  6. #156
    Reviewer of the Tools
    Join Date
    Nov 2012
    Location
    Connecticut
    I am a big fan of the BCM comp. I had one on one of their 14.5" Missy's previously and most recently on a 16" middy. Both uppers have since been sold to find a new Colt upper project.

    I plan on building a Non-NFA (Pinned and Welded) around a 14.5" Colt SOCOM barrel. Was having difficulty deciding upon what muzzle device to use. I am a big fan of the BCM device, but I see some Surefire suppressors in my future, so I am pretty much set on one of the new birdcage style warcomps.

  7. #157
    Hillbilly Elitist Malamute's Avatar
    Join Date
    Oct 2013
    Location
    Northern Rockies
    I have an unfired BCM mod 0 compensator from a new barrel if anyones interested. Id make a good deal on it
    Last edited by Malamute; 08-13-2016 at 07:31 PM.

  8. #158
    Site Supporter rob_s's Avatar
    Join Date
    Nov 2011
    Location
    SE FL
    Quote Originally Posted by Unobtanium View Post
    I rather like a 14.5 middy. 14.5, regardless, and mid-gas is just a step up in durability and longevity.
    Regardless of the fact that you he's no way to measure or prove said durability or longevity.

    Ok Linus.

    Attachment 9859

  9. #159
    Member
    Join Date
    May 2014
    Location
    South Central Us
    Quote Originally Posted by rob_s View Post
    Regardless of the fact that you he's no way to measure or prove said durability or longevity.

    Ok Linus.

    Attachment 9859
    I cannot prove that dropping 200# on your foot would hurt more than dropping 20# on your foot, but if one were destined to happen, I'd wager you would prefer the 20#. The force exerted on the bolt, while not as much disparity, is a similar argument.

  10. #160
    Quote Originally Posted by SoldierSystems
    Last week’s NDIA Armaments Forum ended with a briefing by Naval Surface Warfare Center – Crane, of what is this year’s most applicable topic, for both the US military as well as manufacturers of commercial AR variants. Last year Crane unveiled their findings regarding KeyMod vs M-Lok. This year it’s the performance of a mid-gas system on an M4 carbine.




    NSWC-Crane, or Crane as it is commonly known, is located in rural Indiana. In addition to providing a wide range of acquisition services for the US Navy, they are also responsible for the test, evaluation, procurement and life-cycle management of SOF weapons. It’s in this role that they evaluated the mid-length gas system for United States Army Special Operations Command M4A1 carbines.

    Gas System History

    The M16 Rifle and variants use a 20” barrel and gas system. This rifle length gas system uses a gas tube 15” in length with gas port at 13”. The well distance is approximately 7”.



    When the M4 was developed, research concluded the Army should utilize a 14.5” barrel for the M4 & M4A1 carbines

    This necessitated redesign of the M16 gas system because a 14.5” barrel with a rifle length gas system had only 1.3” dwell distance. Consequently, they gas port was moved to 7.8” from bolt face on M4 offering 6.7” dwell distance.

    This decrease in distance from the bolt face to the gas port resulted in an increased port pressure in the M4 carbine when compared to M16 rifle. The port pressure of the M4 at 7.8” from the bolt face is 17,000 psi, while port pressure at 13” from bolt face of the M16 is 10,000 psi.

    Mid-Gas Testing included:

    – Endurance
    – Reliability
    – Precision
    – Muzzle Velocity
    – Terminal Velocity (@100 yards)
    – Bolt Speed
    – Low Temperature (-60F)
    – High Temperature (160F)
    – Barrel Erosion

    However, the briefing did not address every area of testing.

    Endurance & Reliability

    So far, Crane has put 30,400 rounds of M855A1 through three M4A1s equipped with 14.5″ cold hammer forged barrels and a mid-gas system with a gas block approximately 9.8″ from the bolt face.



    They stated SOF M4A1s normally start to see accuracy degradation at around 6,000 rounds. But during testing of the mid-gas system, they’d hit 12,600 and still hadn’t seen any changes.

    They also have only broken one bolt so far in testing, although I don’t think they’re ready to attribute the improved bolt performance to the mid-gas system.

    The Crane team will finish testing up with 34,000 rounds per upper. It’s not that they don’t think the barrels can’t take more, but rather that they had to use the same lot of M855A1 to satisfy the accuracy portions of testing.

    USSOCOM Accuracy Testing & Protocol

    With this mid-gas system they are getting 5 MOA groups while the standard is 7 MOA. One of the three uppers was shooting 1 MOA, except for the tenth round which was still within limits.

    Interestingly, USSOCOM tests accuracy differently than most others. They fire 10 rounds suppressed and another 10 rounds unsuppressed. They measure the extremes of the spread of impacts, rather than their closest points. Then, they do it again two more times and average the results to determine accuracy.

    Muzzle Velocity

    These measurements are averaged and validate what we know about the use of suppressors increasing muzzle velocity.



    Terminal Velocity

    The velocity at 100 yards for mid-length weapons is 32.6 fps or 1.2%, higher for suppressed fire and 41.7 fps or 1.6%, higher for unsuppressed fire.



    Cyclic Rate

    Mid-length cyclic rate of automatic fire was 62.7 rounds per minute (rpm), or 7%, lower than carbine-length for suppressed fire and 127.2 rpm, or 16%, lower for unsuppressed fire.



    Temperature High & Low

    960 rounds were fired at 160F for Reliability at High Temp and another at -60F for Reliability at Low Temp.

    For carbine-length weapons, 5 out of 65 malfunctions occurred during high temperature testing. For mid-length weapons, 1 out of 30 malfunctions occurred during high temperature testing. For high temperature testing, carbine-length weapons had 576.0 mean rounds between failures (MRBF) compared to 836.1 MRBF for ambient temperature testing and mid-length weapons had 2800 MRBF compared to 1993.8 MRBF for ambient temperature testing.

    For carbine-length weapons, 27 out of 65 malfunctions occurred during low temperature testing. For mid-length weapons, 16 out of 30 malfunctions occurred during low temperature testing. For low temperature testing, carbine-length weapons had 333.3 mean rounds between failures (MRBF) compared to 836.1 MRBF for ambient temperature testing and mid-length weapons had 562.5 MRBF compared to 1993.8 MRBF for ambient temperature testing. Approximately half of the total malfunctions recorded for both carbine-length and mid-length weapons occurred during low temperature testing, so the relative rate of malfunctions between carbine-length and mid-length remained similar to that of ambient temperature testing.

    Conclusion

    Although testing to 34,000 rounds isn’t yet complete, the conclusion is simple. Use of a mid-gas system significantly extends the life of the overall weapon system. It also offers increased performance over a carbine-length gas system.

    Implications

    This information is particularly important for the US Air Force’s Improved Modular Rifle – Blue program which templates off of upper receiver group improvements adopted by USASOC (Brownells is offering a similar package for reference). While USASOC will upgrade up to 15,000 carbines, the AF wants to modify around 50,000 guns. That could be enough to force a major Technical Data Package update applicable to all services and creation of a GOTS upgrade for all M4s, regardless of service.

    This government testing also validates what many commercial vendors have been offering for years.
    Source: http://soldiersystems.net/2018/05/14...d-performance/

    Suck it, haters.
    Last edited by Default.mp3; 05-13-2018 at 11:14 PM.

User Tag List

Posting Permissions

  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts
  •