/k/ - Weapons

>>633690

you can take a flat head screwdriver and index it on the rim recess of the cartridge and tap that lightly and then more heavily with a rock or something to work it loose, Brass has lubricity, it should work loose.

>>633690

how

>>633690

Damn son, you fucked up. Even the tube looks bent. If it is it probably is you might as well remove the tube and let it fall out since you'll need to replace it anyway.

>>633702

>>633690

The gas tube needs to travel rearward to be taken out, the gas block is what need to be removed first.

>>633698

Since OP said its a live round my guess is he brought shit mags and a round popped out of the top while the BGC was cycling

Post better pictures, faggot.

… HAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHA !!! …

Also a thread like this are a very good reminder as to why the AR-15 design is unreliable and how it has nothing to do with environmental factors but purely mechanical ones.

>>633721

This look like a case of shitty magazine, not shitty gun, in which case I'd agree with you, USGI mags are trash. The gun as a whole isn't "unreliable", it just follows a different design philosophy for dealing with foreign elements besides shooting at them. It's better sealed up than AK, making it's much more difficult for shit to get inside the gun, but once it's in there it's a bitch and a half to get out. AK is a gaped open slut and shit can easily get into it, but you just have to smack her around a few times to knock all of it out.

>>633723

>USGI mags are trash

It's not just that, USGI mags amplify the existing problem which is the way the whole chamber/bolt is designed.

The AR is build upon a "everything is gonna be alright" idea, tight tolerances, good craftsmanship, proper maintenance and it's excellent.

But when shit gets bad the rifle has to go in the shop (or into the trash and you get a new one because the US army gigantic logistic power do allow it).

But anyone that has been in the army long enough know that "everything that can go wrong WILL go wrong".

Meanwhile the AK is built knowing it's gonna be used by shitheads and that in time of war every thing is shit from logistic to the quality of supplies.

Nobody remembers this but the soviets where the only power to have phased out bolt actions BEFORE THE WAR, with the Tokarev's rifles family, which are all properly made, precise for their time, perfectly working rifles.

Yet everyone during the war all reports are the same those were terrible! But 70 years later, the surviving examples clearly aren't terrible, so why?

They were (and still are) finicky, they needed proper regular maintenance, they have bits that are a bit fragile, mags aren't great, they have lots of moving parts…

Reminds you of something?

The SVT were regarded as bad rifle because wartime production, fitting and issuing compounded all of those issues ten fold. The most common issue with them is improper seating which is common to ALL WWII rifles including US ones despite having no actual threats to manufacturing plants and excellent quality control. It's nothing an military armorer can't fix on a field-shop but:

1) You actually need one.

2) He needs to know what the fuck is wrong, so the soldier needs to know that his rifle is not hitting were it should and there is something wrong with it.

3) He need the time to spare.

4) He needs the parts.

Small problems in peacetime = Massive hurdle in wartime.

During WWII USMC armorers notoriously used improvised ship-born workshops to check every last rifle they could because they had time to do it during sea travel in the pacific, room to do it by pestering the Navy and the US had lots of people that could immediately diagnose a problem with a gun. And they fixed A LOT of guns that were factory new.

Why do you think the M16 got a bad rep during the Vietnam war?

Because everything that could go wrong went wrong, the ammo wasn't taking to the humidity well, they forgot to issue cleaning kits, the mags were shit, lots of soldiers ended up being conscripts, etc… Everything that makes a finicky rifle into a fucking nightmare for the soldier fighting for it's life.

Meanwhile the AK is not the AR equivalent, it's the anti-SVT.

Either something breaks in it for real (and I'm certain AKs parts break more often than ARs simply due to the poor metallurgy most of them are made of) and it's broken or it works. On and off, with basically any state in between being solvable by even the stupidest communist infantrymen (so the stupidest moronic idiot).

>>633734

>It's not just that, USGI mags amplify the existing problem which is the way the whole chamber/bolt is designed.

The problem in faggot OP's picture has nothing to do with the chamber, what are you on about here?

>or into the trash and you get a new one because the US army gigantic logistic power do allow it

Nigger what? US army are notorious cheapskates, they almost never throw shit away. There are still receivers in circulation with "XM16" rollmarks because they still work. When Daniel Defense fulfilled the Mk 18 contract, the army sent them barrels they had in stock for them to cut to length, re-crown, and re-drill the gas port. This is a minor detail, but the fact that you're not aware of this fact throws the rest of your post into question.

>Why do you think the M16 got a bad rep during the Vietnam war?

Because the army used WW2 surplus ball powder in the ammo, despite knowing from preliminary tests that that would wreck the gun. If they'd stuck with Armalite's stick powder (which is what they used for all the official testing), the vast majority of issues in Vietnam wouldn't have occurred. Once they redesigned the gun to work with the wrong ammo, field complaints largely went away.

>forgot to issue cleaning kits

They didn't "forget." It was intentional negligence to save a few shekels, and they lied to the soldiers about it, saying the gun was "self-cleaning".

>the soviets where the only power to have phased out bolt actions BEFORE THE WAR

Burgers adopted the Garand in 1936. It's not exactly correct to say the Soviets "phased out" bolt actions either, the Nagant was still being produced and issued in large numbers even immediately before Barbarossa. The SVT was only given to noncoms and other specialized troops, not the general infantryman.

>Yet everyone during the war all reports are the same those were terrible! But 70 years later, the surviving examples clearly aren't terrible, so why?

People complained about the SVT-38, the problems were largely resolved with the SVT-40, which was the model that saw widespread use. If people still complained about it then it's the same reason people complain about the AR now—even though the problems are limited to the first generation and have been fixed long ago, armchair generals think complaining about the service rifle and how stupid the army's procurement decisions are makes them woke and big-brained.

>>633737

As a guy who has a svt, they're very finicky rifles. The gas system will rattle itself loose, magazines have to be hand fitted, reloading with clips isnt recommended because of the rimmed round. They have to be babied as much as a g43 if not enjoy kicking the charging handle.

>>633740

>using clips isn't recommended because rim

Are you entirely or only mostly nogunz?

>>633741

Mosins have a real fancy thing in them that prevents rimlock, SVT's do not leading to really amusing situations when out and about. I would unironically use my mosin over the SVT in the fun case of fecal matter hitting a spinning propeller mounted on a celling.

>>633734

>Why do you think the M16 got a bad rep during the Vietnam war?

>the ammo wasn't taking to the humidity well

The ammunition issued wasn't the same as it was initially made for.

>they forgot to issue cleaning kits

They purposely didn't issue cleaning kits.

>the mags were shit

The mags were fine - soldiers had trouble seating a fully-loaded magazine with a closed bolt. The M14 has a different method of loading involving rocking it in like an AK does, which eliminates the struggle for the limp-wristed.

>lots of soldiers ended up being conscripts, etc… Everything that makes a finicky rifle into a fucking nightmare for the soldier fighting for it's life.

Draftees were trained, Anon. There were political reasons behind sabotaging the adoption and issuing of the M16 wholly unrelated to the people using them or the conditions they were pushed into.

>>633778

>Draftees were trained, Anon.

Of course but people that are there unwillingly always take said training far less to heart, always resulting in a drop of troop quality.

>The mags were fine

Aluminum mags are not fine. They're a POS we have virtually the same and at the slightest impact you risk bending the feedlips and even a slightly poorly angled feedlip can cause malfunctions and it's stuff that you cannot tell just by looking at it and a FAMAS is more tolerant with misfeeding than a AR. PMAGs are universally acclaimed, not because they're lighter (they're not) not because they're tougher (they're not) but because if you drop a PMAG and the fed lips are compromised it breaks or cracks. You can immediately tell and solve the problem -> toss it in the trash -> take another one. It's a simple on/off thing, you don't need to bring a caliper and a protractor with you to fix it.

>There were political reasons behind sabotaging the adoption and issuing of the M16

But that's my entire point. On purpose or not everything that could go wrong went wrong.

Even if you tried to make AKs look like shit, first you don't have too, second you would have to actively sabotage the ammo or something.

The AK is not better than the AR by any measurable metrics.

It's however considerably simpler, which when it comes to weaponry is an end in itself as it reduce considerably what can go wrong with it.

The pointy stick stayed in use long after we had invented swords.

>>633803

>Aluminum mags are not fine

>at the slightest impact you risk bending the feedlips

Anon we didn't spike loaded magazines into the ground for fun like Generic Loud YouTube Guy(tm) does as a torture test.

If you smashed shit on the ground you didn't expect it to work like people do now.

>muh AK

Century Arms is showing that millions of dollars put into AK production doesn't mean a fucking thing if you don't line up your locking surfaces to the bolt lugs.

The simpler a weapon, the more catastrophic the results if there IS a problem.