6.5 x 40 New AR varient

[LRRPF52]

I like Cory's idea about shortening the middle hoop of the link.

I will also say that the feed tray mechanism on the SAW is the same one from the MAG58/M240, just scaled down slightly for 5.56 NATO. Where the SAW fails is in the operating system, the way the receiver is constructed, and the magazine well add-on.

To lessen the effects of recoil, constant recoil operating makes sense. Then you have to decide on what locking mechanism to use. The MAG58 uses a tilting lock mechanism, whereas the SAW uses an AK-patterned rotating bolt inside of an AK bolt carrier, with AK op rod and piston head. The SAW thus has very reduced longevity, because it is a bad design. The welded guide rails for the bolt carrier in a sheet steel receiver are good for a certain round count, and then the tolerances hit a point where belt-fed wear have beaten the system to death, and it becomes a jam-o-matic.



They addressed a lot of these issues with the Product Improvement Program, but I have not been able to evaluate any of those PIP SAW's, since it happened after I got out. My perspective is that you can put band aids on a system and address peripheral issues, but if the core design of the weapon is faulty, it's time to ditch it for the turd that it is.

[stanc]

Stan is there something you're not telling us? Do you own stock in the patent for the M27 link??? HAHA

Heh, heh. No, but I sure wish I was collecting royalties on M27 link purchases! :p

My point is that the M27 link configuration has been shown to work with 5.56x45 NATO, 6x45 SAW, and 6.8x43 SPC. It just seems to me like it'd be more logical -- and a helluva lot cheaper, faster, and easier -- to go with cartridge case dimensions that are proven compatible with the existing link design, than it would be to spend a lot of time and $$$ fiddling around in what may be a futile attempt to design a new link to fit a cartridge case that is not compatible with the M27 type.

[stanc]

I like Cory's idea about shortening the middle hoop of the link.

As I said, that idea has been proposed before. On the old forum, someone else noticed the hole in the middle loop and suggested deleting it so the loop could be made narrower.

However, the loop width appears much greater in the close-up photo I posted, than it actually is in real life. Since links have to contend with different types of stress (tension, twisting, etc), it's far from certain if loop width can be reduced to the extent needed for correct cartridge interface with feed pawl and cartridge stop.

If anybody wants to spend their money in an R&D effort to create a new link for 6.5 Grendel, I sincerely wish them success. But, I ain't gonna hold my breath...

[JASmith]

...If anybody wants to spend their money in an R&D effort to create a new link for 6.5 Grendel, I sincerely wish them success. But, I ain't gonna hold my breath...

Someone who admits to having never designed a machine gun sure seems to be claiming perfect knowledge of what can and cannot be done.

The cost of developing any new cartridge will be enormous, with the link system being more of a footnote in the cost and effort equation. It us just too much for anyone to take on as a pro-bono effort.

Why don't we allow alternative opinions to exist and move on with the discussion in more productive venues.

[stanc]

Someone who admits to having never designed a machine gun sure seems to be claiming perfect knowledge of what can and cannot be done.

<chuckle> That ploy made you look foolish in post #39, so you decided to try it again? Bad news. You look even more foolish the second time. I never said links for 6.5 Grendel cannot be developed. Your English comprehension is as bad as your reasoning ability.

Why don't we allow alternative opinions to exist and move on with the discussion in more productive venues.

It should be obvious that alternative opinions do exist, and also that other people have wanted to keep discussing the subject.

[JASmith]

...and the reason you continue to insist that alternative links are not credible until they are PROVEN is?

The bottom line is that you are coming across as being convinced that a cartridge like the Grendel is entirely unsuitable in the machine-gun application.

Yet, the only basis for your claim is that you aren't sure it can be done? There seems to be something missing in the logic.

At the end of five years of this, you really should start to accept the opinions of those with real experience in this world. There are others who have indicated that redesigning links for the shorter cartridge is a straightforward development exercise. My experience includes more than thirty years of work in weapons research and development, yet I cannot claim the expertise in this matter that your several hundred posts over the years suggest that you have. What i can do, however, is accept judgements by those who DO have relevant experience.

You really do need to let the link issue go. You have added nothing new to this topic in five years. Everything since has been mindless repetition.

[stanc]

At the end of five years of this, you really should start to accept the opinions of those with real experience in this world. There are others who have indicated that redesigning links for the shorter cartridge is a straightforward development exercise.

Unfortunately, none of those "others" have any experience in design and development of disintegrating links for machine guns. So why on earth should I accept their unsubstantiated opinions???

[JASmith]

Unfortunately, none of those "others" have any experience in design and development of disintegrating links for machine guns. So why on earth should I accept their unsubstantiated opinions???

Because some of them have relevant experience but cannot claim it for a number of valid reasons, and the rest are light years closer to the issue than folks who have NEVER personally designed or developed modern weapons.

There are much larger questions that need to be worked than the one you continue to hammer away at.

By allowing the question stand unanswered to your satisfaction, but still part of a sane development plan, you can help guide the discussion into the areas truly meaningful to the question of whether the 6.5 Grendel has a role in the machine gun.

Get those other questions resolved, and the link question will find its appropriate place in the effort.

[stanc]

Because some of them have relevant experience but cannot claim it for a number of valid reasons...

The only relevant experience is in design and development of metallic links.

...and the rest are light years closer to the issue than folks who have personally designed or developed modern weapons.

I have no idea what that means. :confused:

There are much larger questions that need to be worked than the one you continue to hammer away at.

I'm only responding to other people's posts. You, however, are using inordinate amounts of page space repeatedly telling me to stop replying. Perhaps you should take your own advice, and put your efforts into more productive posts.

By allowing the question stand unanswered tos your satisfaction, but still part of a sane development plan, you can help guide the discussion into the areas truly meaningful to the question of whether the 6.5 Grendel has a role in the machine gun.

6.5 Grendel can be a machine gun cartridge only if a viable disintegrating link design can be created for it. Without knowing that, any other discussion about a Grendel LMG would be pointless.

Get those other questions resolved, and the link question will find its appropriate place in the effort.

For the umpteenth time, what other questions? I don't have any, myself.

[JASmith]

Sorry about leaving out a word in the sentence you grabbed for the second quote. I highlighted in red bold italicized caps so it is crystal clear. You should have understood the meaning but instead pretend to not understand.

The fact you claim to have no questions beyond the link shows that you either truly don't understand design and development or are trying, successfully I might add, to annoy those of us who do understand.

Your intransigence in this truly harms our ability to answer the basic question you and many of the rest of us want to see an answer to: "Is the 6.5 Grendel a reasonable candidate for a machine gun cartridge."

[stanc]

Sorry about leaving out a word in the sentence you grabbed for the second quote. I highlighted in red bold italicized caps so it is crystal clear. You should have understood the meaning but instead pretend to not understand.

So now you expect me to be telepathic???

The fact you claim to have no questions beyond the link shows that you either truly don't understand design and development or are trying, successfully I might add, to annoy those of us who do understand.

It's possible that I don't understand design and development.

It's definite that I can't read your mind to know what questions you think merit discussion.

Your intransigence in this truly harms our ability to answer the basic question you and many of the rest of us want to see an answer to: "Is the 6.5 Grendel a reasonable candidate for a machine gun cartridge."

Hoo, boy... You accusing me of intransigence would be hilarious, if it wasn't so sadly pitiful. I have never intentionally refused to answer a sincere question from anybody. You, on the other hand, have steadfastly and repeatedly ignored my requests for enlightenment on the issues you insist should be addressed.

As to the question, "Is the 6.5 Grendel a reasonable candidate for a machine gun cartridge." I can only repeat, that depends entirely on whether or not a viable link can be developed for it.

Without links, the most that a Grendel could be is an Infantry Automatic Rifle similar to what the USMC fielded.

[video=youtube;PF-PV5BQkk0]http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=PF-PV5BQkk0[/video]
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=PF-PV5BQkk0

[JASmith]

...You, on the other hand, have steadfastly and repeatedly ignored my requests for enlightenment on the issues you insist should be addressed...

So, we see continued attempts at intimidation.

I actually did offer suggestions for other issues. I don't feel obliged to repeat them, you are welcome to parse through old threads to find them. They are obvious to any one with serious development experience or those who are not so experienced but are willing to think.

Remember that none of us are obliged to parrot your uniformed opinion. We all, however, obliged to read it often enough to understand your point. Most, if not all, of us passed that point a long time ago. You haven't added anything new to this conversation for a long time.

For that matter, I will admit that responding to your mindless repetition of your baseless assertion about the inability to design and develop links tends to minimize the information content in my posts too. Yes you have occasionally admitted that they are doable, but you continue to inflate the problem with true but misleading statements. You really do need to step back and see what your arguments are doing to the question.

[LR1955]

OK you two. Cut the 'kaa-kaa' and get back to what this thread was supposed to concern. No, I don't know but you two arguing over what either of you said sometime in the past and or your expertise needs to go back channel.

Oz has spoken.

[stanc]

Ah, the great and powerful Oz doth speaketh. I bow before you, and humbly beg thy mercy, oh wise and wondrous one.

Hi, Gene! Just yesterday I was wondering if you were still around. Good to hear from you.



P.S. My "kaa-kaa" deleted. Now, what was the original topic, again?

[Timmy2Knives]

Read this entire stinking thread and want to gouge my own eyes out.