/k/ - Weapons

oh, and an A2 flash hider

You might as well call this a .223 thread if you're gonna suck its dick so much fucking faggot OP.

The GIs didn't like it, the marines didn't, the special forces didn't… to this day the marines and specops are trying to switch to anything else.

Stoner 63 and Ares Shrike are way better concepts.

>>525014

>canadian

Source on the special forces "not liking it"?

Fuck off back to cuckchan you disgusting subhuman.

>>525038

How would you know if I were from cuckchan?

>>525036

>>525037

They're been pining for SCAR or anything else for a decade now.

>don't tread on my AR, every other gun can be banned they're not modyewlurr anyway

>>525053

>implying anything besides AR-15's Glock's and 1911's should be legal

>>524996

>cringy anime reaction pic

>what is urban combat

i bet you snuff the everloving fuck out of your farts you noodle armed bitch boi

i just need to hide hehind a cinderblock wall and blow your dick off with .308 firepower.

>>524995

>shooting at walls with a rifle instead of shooting it with a rocket launcher

>>525063

and hard body armor can stop M89 HEDP rounds too, right?

Can I just point out this nigger is following me around from thread to thread, strawmanning my position on the topic. I was saying flak jackets can reduce casualties from M789 fragments, not direct hits. He's completely lying about what the argument was and shitposting ACROSS MULTIPLE THREADS.

That's some severe douchebaggery.

>>525068

nobody cares

Oy vey, this isn't a pre-approved general, better sage bomb it.

>>525068

Can I also follow you? I hate Canadians with a burning passion and think that if you love the British Empire so much you should just move to Pakistan with all the other brits.

>>525070

You know I would feel sympathy for you if you hadn't chambered it in 7.62x39. Did you do it for maximum cringe or did you just have enough autism that you absolutely needed to be special?

>>525068

im so sorry your an absolute salty nigger and you posted in the same thread as me and you make it so god awful easy to find yourself because your such styupid nigger.

btw not fallowing you i wouldnt waist my time

:^)

What 80% 308 AR receivers are there? Anything compatible with PSA's uppers?

>>525156

I bet you're the same communist shitskin who said Stratfor and South Front wasn't a good source.

>>525164

Lightness is the most important performance factor for the infantry and general military soldiering.

This is why ACR almost went full flechette, why G11 was caseless, and why everyone is researching telescoping cartridges now.

Less weight = more ammo.

More ammo = longer suppression time.

Longer suppression time = longer time the enemy is pinned down.

Longer time the enemy is pinned down = more time for artillery or aircraft to kill them.

High explosive is the real killer of war, not bullets.

>>525055

>>what is urban combat

Not shooting at cinderblock walls with rifles and wasting your ammo.

>>525169

Except nobody in that other thread said Southfront wasn't a good source they said they had no reason to trust them and were asking for people to give a reason to trust them only to be met with "just trust them goy" tier responses.

>>525164

m14's in FA aren't exactly the most controllable thing.

>>525164

>where the fuck did this .308 recoil meme even come from?

When the US Army in all their infinite wisdom decided that the M-14 should replace everything in their arsenal. From the Thompson, Greasegun and M1 Garand to the BAR and even M1 Carbine.

It was also made for walking hip fire which was all the rage at the time (yes even in the Vietnam war) since they knew shoulder fire full auto wasn't going to get you anywhere unless you used the bipod.

>>525202

quit hating on the .308, you know it's more fun than the 5.56

>>525203

>quit hating on the .308

>implying I hate .308

I'm just giving you the source of the maymay fam

>>525078

>stainless barrel

Why did you go with this?

>62 grain

The Ar was designed with 55 gr in mind, and the light, fast round works best ballistics wise. Using the European comprimise 62 gr is doin the platform a disservice.

If I were you I'd pick up a new barrel made with some chrome molly steel with a 1:9 or 1:8 twist.

>>525158

The problem with modern AR-10's is that they are not used by the military, with no military standardization to go by MFG's haven't had the initiative to put some in place. So it's a crap shoot whether different MFG's parts will work together. If I were you I'd just buy a PSA lower.

>>525164

>Full auto control

>Follow up shots

>Amount of ammo carried

>Velocity

Recoil is only part of it.

>>525203

That award goes to 7.62x39 buddy.

>>525208

>The Ar was designed with 55 gr in mind

>yfw new round to use 90gr rounds with similar tragectory and velocity to 6.5 creedmoor

>there are "l-lowah capaciteeh" retards on this board

first the rp-tier threads then the fucking weebs , now this , we reddit now

>>525211

Explain how lower capacity is not a negative. Admittedly it isn't a huge deal, but it should be considered.

>>525210

Damn that looks pretty cool. I may pick up a 6.5 creedmoor AR as a range toy some day.

>>525213

I wish you luck, it looks pretty sweet, but I should mention that .224 Valkyrie is for AR-15s so they can get the trajectory without getting into the weird weird world of different out of spec AR-10s

>>525214

So what would I need for .224 anyway? New barrel, bolt? Magazines?

>>525219

Bolt and Barrel. 6.8SPC mags are recommended but you don't really need them since they kinda fit into regular .223 AR-15 mags.

>>525221

>>525219

Should mention, the bolt isn't really all that special or specifically for .224 Valkyrie, it's really just a 6.8SPC bolt (or it looks like that Federal hasn't really released much info on it as of yet)

>>525221

>>525224

Oh, sweet. I'll be looking into it.

>>525169

>I bet you're the same

nope never said anything about Stratfor and South Front

>shitskin

nope

>communist

interesting coming from the capitalist island in a communist waste land

also don't try to defend that shitty bottle of syrup

Lets talk about AR-10s just to spite OP.

What part kits have you used or wanted?

Armalite or DPMS configuration?

Admittedly, I've never researched the topic more than in bored passing, but despite that I've wanted to build from the Aero Precision M5E1 Part kits. A buddy of mine owns one and I really liked it but never made the commitment to actually get one.

>>525228

Ar-10 a shit

No standardization take away a major advantage of using an AR style rifle. You'd be better off with some other .308 rifle.

>>525228

>>525230

To be fair, the closest you can get to standardization is the DPMS config, other than that you're completely on your own (PSA should've just made another DPMS clone but no they had to be faggots and come up with their own shit)

>>525208

>Why stainless?

I live in a humid southern shithole.

>Why 62 grain

>It's slow

The 1:7 twist in stainless apparently does need the heavier round, noticeable difference in accuracy @100 between the two.

18" barrel and 62 grain is capable of averaging 3100 fps at the muzzle in the right weather with non-burger ammo. I think 20" 55 grain is maxing out at 3250 fps. 3100 fps is fast

>>525078

>You're able to buy uppers from Amazon? Weird Frankenstein rifle, I must say.

You used to be able to buy full uppers from Amazon until they cracked down on "assault weapons".

>>525234

If you say so. I'm sure it'll kill guys dead. Although you could just get a chrome lined barrel. My barrel is non chromed steel and it fairs well in Austin texas, I even keep it under my bed.

What do you use for lube? I use grease, it seems oil doesn't last for months of non use.

What Buffer are you running? h2 here

Trigger?

>>525238

My PSA A4 build has a nitrided barrel.

>>525236

>trigger

"mil-spec." I intend on getting one of those nice Geissele triggers on black friday, or any drop-in trigger. The factory "mil-spec" is very heavy.

>buffer

http://palmettostatearmory.com/palmetto-state-armory-h-heavy-buffer.html

>lube

"rem oil" just to spray in, mineral oil when I take it apart. I honestly want to try some grease though because the rem oil stuff doesn't last for shit and the mineral oil seems to get burnt by the heat. What grease do you use?

I'll probably also buy a 20" 4150 upper from PSA on black friday. If it's not too heavy, I'll switch it out permanently.

>>525242

ah that wasn't meant for you it was meant for ceb7b4b and >>525234 post. my bad

>>525248

I know, I have 2 AR's and just wanted to chime in. My PSA build doesn't see much use though.

>>525279

Taking cover and putting the enemy down so you can move closer is what you need to do, I don't know what you're asking for here, but you need to expend those rounds to stop rounds from getting to you.

Rag Head using Ché's tactics doesn't really fix that that's just how you have to do shit in a firefight.

>>525074

>you

Do you have ID hiding enabled in site options or not know how IDs work?

>>525212

It isn't when you're not autistic. Most rifle rounds, including .308, can still have 30 round mags. It's not like a videogame where mag caps are 100% set in stone, you could set up drum mags for .50 if you try hard enough.

Also, git gud and you won't need more rounds. :^)

>>525323

https://www.canadaammo.com/product/detail/dpms-ar-15-stripped-lower-receiver-223-remington-5-56-nato-forged-aluminum-anodized-matte-black/

Enjoy you dumb nigger.

>>525324

From what I understand they banned the scary looking stuff because muh movies, tried to take said scary stuff by force and realized when you try to steal peoples property you get slotted worse than terrs did against RLI guys.

Am I wrong in thinking M193 style bullets are the superior choice for the AR-15 platform compared to M855 style bullets and derivatives?

I base my opinion on my other opinion that the AR-15 is fundamentally tied to the small caliber, high velocity concept and thT any deviation from the core principles of that concept only reduced the utility of the platform as a whole. Basically, I believe upsizing the caliber is a fools errand as dimensional constraints force you into using sub-optimal cartridges and anything which leads to velocities below ~2,500fps (little to fragmentation below this speed) at 300 yards simply eliminates the main avenue for 5.56's lethality. Basically, if you want an AR to be anything more than an unweildy SMG (what happens with sub 16" barrels), a fancy AK (what you get with .300 Memeout), or a low ammo capacity battle rifle without a battle riflr's STOPPIN' POWAH (what youbget with 6.5 Grendel and 6.8 SPC) you need an 18 or 20" barrel chambered in 5.56.

Given that as a starting point, M193 appears to bring more to the table than M855. 5.56 relies on fragmentation and M193 has greater frangibility and has a velocity advantage that keeps it fragmenting far past the range at which M855 becomes ineffective. M193 also has the speed to defeat almost all classes of steel plate armor available today, and while that only applies at short distances, it still penetrates unlike M855. In a world where almost every combatant with two pennies to rub together can purchase decent plate armor, this is a huge advantage in my opinion.

As far as I can tell, M855 style bullets only do one thing better than M193: barrier and brush penetration. My question is how big of a difference is there between the two in this respect? Remember, this isn't the era of "one man, one shot" marksmanship, we're using these rounds in weapons capable of accurately and rapidly delivering a high volume of fire. Is M193 so bad that if you shot 10 rounds at a target behind light cover, none of them would hit or produce a lethal wound while M855 style rounds would do so and do so reliably (50fuccess)? I don't know how drastic the difference is in this regard but M193 is drastically superior against both soft and armored targets on foot.

Am I totally off base here or are M193 style rounds all one should ever consider using except in incredibly niche use cases?

>>525385

At 300 yards, both rounds are well below 2500 fps. The 5.56 is simply not a long range round, as are all intermediate cartridges. 300 is already stretching it.

But I think you're right that m193 is better with a 20" barrel that is. I go with m855 simply because of my 1:7 twist rate, but again, 3100 fps is still really fast.

>>525385

>Am I wrong?

yes because when you up the bullet weight you increase the amount of time (or distance depending on how you want to measure) that said project is lethal. You can kill farther. 5.56 doesn't have to fragment to kill someone. it just makes it more lethal. So with M193 you trade longer distance lethality for ability to penetrate X inches of steel. It's no different than comparing any other two rounds there both balanced and each has something that its better at.

But I would argue that M855 is preferable to M193 in more situations. Thus being a "better" "general use" cartridge. Mostly because the biggest factor going for M193 is velocity and the velocity a bullet can achieve can varies A LOT depending on the atmospheric/ environmental conditions its fired in. On top of "needing" a longer barrel to increase said bullets velocity. Making the rifle heavier. Where as you could just field shorter barreled rifles with heavier grain bullets whose velocities aren't as affected by the environment.

>>525413

How "bad" is M193 out of a 1:7 barrel? Is it still capable of sub-3 MOA groups with a good barrel? I know any decent rifle will be more accurate than I am but I have a 1:7 barrel that I haven't stretched beyond 25 yards at an indoor range yet. I'll take the reduced mechanical accuracy as long as it's within my skill window.

Also, I was under the impression M193 out of a 20" barrel stayed around 2,500fps out to 225-250 yards but I'm not finding much to back that up.

>>525428

>Where as you could just field shorter barreled rifles with heavier grain bullets whose velocities aren't as affected by the environment.

That's the correct and obvious solution but the AR-15's magwell places a hard limit on a cartridge's overall length. The inly way to get adequate performance from a "big" bullet in the AR-15 requires a fat cartridge (reduces magazine capacity, can require stupid sharp neck angles like 6.5 Grendel) or a really unaerodynamic bullet (6.8 SPC). Lengthening the magwell solves that conundrum but then you've broken the universal compatibility aspect of the AR ecosystem.

I never meant my post to come across as if it's impossible to improve in 5.56, I just think everyone would be better off with a new platform if we're going to use something bigger than 5.56. You can try to wedge things into the limitations of the old design or change the design itself but you're either getting something far from optimal or breaking the ecosystem that is the AR-15's greatest strength.

>>525429

I was getting some pretty loose groupings at 100 with m193, about 5 inches versus 2" with m855, both PPU.

>>525430

>I never meant my post to come across as if it's impossible to improve in 5.56, I just think everyone would be better off with a new platform if we're going to use something bigger than 5.56. You can try to wedge things into the limitations of the old design or change the design itself but you're either getting something far from optimal or breaking the ecosystem that is the AR-15's greatest strength.

I didn't take it that way but thats the problem with all firearms. You can pick up a 5.56 assault rifle or a .308 DMR. Theres always going to be a balance for each rifle and trade off between each rifles weight, projectile foot pounds of energy (lethality sort of), length reliability versatility. theres always going to be a better rifle. In a couple a of years there will be something better the the SCAR.

Along the lines of improving 5.56 you can keep it light because that was one of the core aspects of the original design using plastic and pencil barrels. You can double down on that with more plastic and carbon fiber and better metal alloys that decrease the total amount of metal.

My preference is for lighter semi auto rifles and the ar15 and 5.56 is everywhere. Parts for it are every and its extremely customizable to my personal ergonomics. Which to me is like a dream other dudes love the historic or A E S T H E T I C S attributes of a rifle more than ergonomics and weight.

My over all point being that whether you pick an AR15 or something that fires a .308 or any rifle or hell even a shotgun. Is that as long as you can use it safely and aim accurately and precisely under duress its a good rifle and it is capable of killing.

>>525316

Full auto rate of fire on all infantry arms should be scaled back.

The reason we have them on such high rates of fire is actually due to WWII when general machine guns were also used on planes that needed high ROF, and even infantry was expected to fire on aircraft. The submachine guns and the first assault rifles just copied this initial idiotic purpose and used extremely high rates of fire (~1000rpm).

Soviets sort of tried to compensate by going down to 600rpm on the AK patterns, but their retard WWII generals still wanted it high because they thought the RPK would be used to shoot down aircraft. Even gave it sights for that.

Something as low as 100-300rpm would still be effective at suppression.

>>525454

a 300rpm AR-10 would be like heaven. The current M4s at 900rpm are fucking ridiculous and seriously need to be scaled back.

if they were planning to make a new assault rifle i'd suggest they make it in 6.5 creedmoor, that's pretty much the perfect middle ground cartridge with enough stopping power. Granted i'd prefer .308 but 6.5 is more than adequate for most situations. .223 is just not up to snuff, it doesn't have the range needed for long distance confrontations.

>>525437

You basically summed up why I like the AR-15. It just bothers me to see people trying to make it something it isn't and never will be. Love it for what it is as it is a truly thoughtfully considered design, just don't try to turn it into something else because you're just wasting money and time that is better spent elsewhere.

>>525468

>OMG mixing ammo types what are you insane!?!?!?! Assault rifle, machine gun, sniper, and sidearm must all be one cartridge!

You're right. Just start issuing AR pistols to everyone!

>>525169

What if you're in a conventional war and they can't afford to airstrike everyone? What if you're fighting someone with good AA?

>>525316

>isn't that the job of the LMG? Why does everyone need that?

Because the LMG alone can only deal with a few targets, if you're equally numbered or outnumbered you're going to have to use everyone's firearms.

LMG alone is only when you have:

A) enough range so the LMG is doing area denial (with 556 kek not happening)

B) you outnumber who you're fighting already and already have a base of fire with multiple LMGs

>>525478

That's what artillery is supposed to be for.

>>525164

Both have their uses in combat, anon. 5.56 nato is a better cartridge for the average grunt or for cqc ops. 7.62 nato preforms better for a dedicated marksman or when fighting out in a more open field.

Also regular .223 is just fun to shoot. I like variety.

>>525471

>people trying to make it something it isn't and never will be.

Wait what is it that people are trying to make the AR 15 into?

>>524990

>he fell for the antiwalk pin meme

>>525720

>.300blk

How good is that round in practice, beyond suppressors ?

And most governments choose whats cheaper, multirole is just shitty way to cut costs like the modularity meme.

>>525722

It's a 7.62x39 designed for the AR platform, and with more projectile options.

>cheaper

Yeah that's the illusion, they think replacing everything with 5.56 makes it cheaper. In reality giving the contract to one company to control your ENTIRE small arms ammunition supply means that one company can bully competitors out of business, and demand increasingly higher payments because their bargaining power is huge.

Look at the reality of having one company (Lockheed) provide one or two multirole jets that do all the jobs, versus historically having a dozen different companies providing a variety of jets and competing with each other.

>>525727

See >>525725

Also belted and mag ammo is completely different, there isn't going to be any pulling of bullets out of belted links and shoving it into a magazine in the heat of battle. So ammo for box magazines can be completely different from ammo for belts, with no decrease in inter-operability.

>you have to make sure that every fireteam gets both type of rounds, and in the appropirate amount. You have to keep track of how much each type is used, and you have to come up with the right amount to manufacture, and you have to package them separately but still ship them together.

Yep, or they could be one of these people

>Multirole cancer exists because leadership doesn't want to think.

"It's too hard to keep track of numbers so we're going to get people killed and lose entire wars just to reduce the number of spreadsheet lines from 3 to 2" doesn't sound so good when you say it out loud.

>>525742

>Expect that you could easily design the LMG and the service rifle to use both the same magazines and belts.

You mean something like the Ares Shrike system? It's a zero modification drop-in AR upper that lets a regular AR system use both belts and mags.

That would actually work if it was implemented correctly. Only real change would be that we're limited to the LMG range and power, couldn't go below that. So our assault rifles would have to fire something with a bit more momentum than the 5.56. Maybe .300blk, maybe 6.5mm, maybe something else.

>>525748

Ah, but then it cant use ammo belts out of box. It would be better to go the exact mirror concept, have a belt feeder in the rifle and just dispense with mags entirely, have doublestack 30rd rigid belts.

Still very out there design…

>>525748

>>525760

And since I cannot embed video and have images at the same time, some guy came up with the design in the US as well.

Have not heard anything about it since.

>>525760

Look at the first pic in the post you've replied to. You might need to fiddle with that adapter for a bit, but it's fine if you can still reload under 10 seconds. It can take as much with a traditional belt-fed design after all. But if you use pouches or smaller boxes, then you can reload nearly as quickly as with a magazine.

>>525768

That doesn't seem to be any different from the Shriek, expect that it weights as more than a PKM.

>>525769

Damn, that seems to be nice. It's a pity I get aneurysm from reading patents.

>>525769

That looks really neat, it's probably already in use somewhere without us knowing. The adapter looks like a very innocuous thing if it's removed from the tripod.

>>525779

Shrike has a solid box, which is actually superior. The scrotum pouch tends to get belts tangled up because it's amorphous.

>>525792

eh, the shrike eats itself after 800 rounds and the feedtray gets destroyed.

Not sure if they fixed it but this was an issue recorded back to 2015 so it's fairly recently. (kind of why the uppers got taken off the market)

>>525793

That's just "lets reduce weight insanely so manlets can use it" mentality that comes about from any commercial sales. I'm sure a military variant can be beefed up a bit.

>>525794

No, it's the same exact upper. Which is why they went from the multipiece tray to a machined billet one (and it still eats itself)

>>525769

Forgot to mention that both this and the URZ is just what happens if you use the Schwarzlose's feed system with push-through belts. As you can see it just requires some extra machining on the bolt, and you could cast the gear from aluminium.