09-16-2019, 07:48 PM
grayfox Wrote:Sure I will elaborate. And this is all my own opinion, you can take it for that as input and make your own decisions. I was "brought up" in engineering terms in the US nuclear navy, and a chief principle was, even though we had operating parameters and were designed as a (multi-billion) warship to operate in battle conditions, one of the primary rules was you do not over-stress your equipment beyond what is needed for the job at hand. 2 pumps in slow are better than 1 in fast even though both of those were acceptable operation. Like I said this is just my own point of view.
I would view a 556 or similar AR as more suited to a sustained, rapid fire situation than the Grendel, again, IMO. The Grendel has more bolt cross-sectional area and thrust, and has a thinner face/rim to handle the larger case bottom, these 2 things contribute to a larger thrust and force against the bolt lugs (anyway this is how I understand it) -- this all being said sustain-fire is probably taken into account of somehow in this design, notwithstanding.
The Grrr, however IMO, is more of a select your target and fire for accuracy, not fire for effect or suppressing fire, or other terms that I'm not as familiar with... so this all being said you could be right that it was all inside of AR parameters.... but for my money, if I'm not at war, and not in a rapid-fire-needed situation, I would personally not be inclined to do that type of firing. I probably differ in this viewpoint from others but that's the $0.02 that I would advise.
With that mindset sir why do we have cars with speedometers that go to 200 but we are only supposed to go 55. Now would I fire my match M1a like that no, but an AR should be able to get hot and not fail.
Hopefully it was just a fluke.
I like your signature quote. Best on the forum.