Why the fuck is this shit 3 times as long as it actually needs to be?

Because as I said here there needs to be a clear space above the trigger group to prevent the hammer from snagging on the buffer system.
>designed before adjustable stocks
>relatively simple, ergo relatively inexpensive

Get rid of the buffer tube and spring. Seriously, the biggest failing of the AR is its reliance on that shit-ass buffer spring and BCG combo.

But user there's still one third of the length you could get rid of without affecting the hammer clearance part at all.

But it's mostly hollow!

That's what allows it to have such soft and perfectly inline recoil, giving it much better control in rapid fire and full-auto.
If that doesn't matter to you, you want an AR18 clone, not an AR15.

Just put dual recoil springs beside the bolt, perfectly inline, perfectly compact.
It's not fucking rocket science.

t. Never shot an AR that buffer spring makes it shoot hella smooth compared to other 556 even my mini 14 (shooting 556 not 223) has more recoil than an AR

perfect for you weak basedboys

The buffer spring does absolutely nothing for recoil.
Mini 14 and the AR have completely different operating systems.

How so?

The bolt must be longer than the length of the cartridge plus length required for locking into the barrel extension otherwise it can't actually function. And even then it needs additional length as bearing surface so it doesn't wear out itself or the receiver as it reciprocates.

What length can you get rid of that doesn't affect bearing area or function?

Of course it is. That maximizes bearing area for a given weight. Increased bearing area prevents parts from wearing out.

if it where solid it could be more compact

Pic rel is completely useless length even with the buffer system.
>even then it needs additional length as bearing surface
Except the AR's BCG only has bearing surfaces on the first third of its length.

Attached: Harris-Tactical-NiB-X-BCG-pre-order.jpg (906x520, 75K)

i wonder what this guys angle is?
maybe his girlfriend left him for an AR?

I want a folding stock on an AR without having to fold the goddamn buffer.

Why waste time machining a slot somewhere to insert weight when you can just machine it to meet said weight.

more = lower rate of fire in full auto
less = higher rate of fire in full auto

The part you circled is a bearing surface.

AR18 was almost literal perfection. Only major problems is the folding hinge being a weak point, bolt stops can be broken easily if the hammer hits it, and the sling should've been mounted on the stock instead of the grip.

Attached: DSC_0153.jpg (1496x842, 268K)

WELL IT WAS DESIGNED BY A STONER

UHHAHAHAHAHAHAHA

Has anyone developed a striker-fired AR? Something to eliminate the hammer?

>if it where solid it could be more compact
It would. It would also have less bearing surface which means that the receiver would wear out a lot faster. The bolt carrier would wear faster too, but since it's steel and the receiver is aluminum most of the wear is on the receiver.

no it isn't you retard

Attached: izolOFGLgZPtNbpAcyuWBMTT3y03dWVgBSV-uW5aY8k.jpg (800x665, 89K)

see

look into mcx 300 blackout conversion kits. they allow you to use an AR lower with a folding stock

there's no point really.
You'd have to re-do a lot of of parts, bcg and at the very least a drop in adapter in the lower receiver not to even mention the whole striker system.

Do you want a list?'cause I can give you a list.

The big one is just locking surfaces. Make sure the bolt locks and unlocks as it should.

Lead doesn't have the same physical and chemical properties to steel. You'd have anode-cathode issues. You'd have thermal expansion issues. You'd have issues with the lead melting before the steel does.

Really, it's just not a good idea.

I'm not really sure what you think that picture is supposed to illustrate.

I don't think it means what you think it means.

I'm not interested in some dumbass short stroke crap, pic rel is a lot better.

Attached: IMG_0645.jpg (1024x575, 162K)

The metal past the baring surface could be put into a smaller denser bolt shortening the bolt by 1/3 of the length at least.

The picture shows the parts that actually touch the receiver of the gun, those rails highlighter in the picture.

>solid
Not an option with centerfire cartridges. You need accommodate the firing pin.

>The big one is just locking surfaces. Make sure the bolt locks and unlocks as it should.
the fuck are you retard saying?

deadfootarms.com

I doubt the firing pin takes up that much space in the bolt

The rails are not the only part which touches the receiver. The entire outside diameter of the bolt does.

The entire part circled in is bearing surface.

Not on the receiver and if we shorten the bolt the buffer moves forward.

>youtube.com/watch?v=_qr2GTq3v3w
Oh cool they took off the unnecessary length from the BCG and managed to make it pretty damn compact.
I wonder why stoner didn't do that to begin with

Attached: TWO-BCGS.jpg (1920x1418, 81K)

>and if we shorten the bolt the buffer moves forward.
Yes, I get that.

But in shortening the bolt we also remove bearing surface.

>The rails are not the only part which touches the receiver. The entire outside diameter of the bolt does.

Probably because he wasn't willing to accept the long-term hit to reliability that causes, and because the lower weight of the bolt would drive the ROF too high for full auto applications.

I'm glad we agree.

pic rel, the AR-15 upper is basically a tube with an inner diameter of an inch
Only the rails of the bolt touch the receiver

Attached: 6cf7492885a5df50bbdedd2fe33585a2.png (682x587, 60K)

If we dumped the forward assist could we shorten it even more?

The few grams lost due to cutting off an inch of steel tube could have easily been made up with a solid metal buffer spring guide.

nope
The buffer style spring setup and the use of a hammer restrict the length of the BCG

>pic rel, the AR-15 upper is basically a tube with an inner diameter of an inch
Yes. And the cylindrical OD of the BCG rides inside that hole.

>Only the rails of the bolt touch the receiver
No.

A heavier buffer would keep the ROF the same, but reliability would still go down since a lighter BGC will smack the buffer much harder.

the inner diameter of the upper is constant
the rails' outer diameter is bigger than the rest of the BCG's
therefore the rails and the rest of the bolt carrier group cannot touch the receiver at the same time
see vid
youtube.com/watch?v=MA-qC0SaYQU

Attached: download (1).jpg (275x183, 8K)

That bit actually does 2 things. Firstly, it slips into the buffer spring cylinder when the bolt carrier is sliding back, keeping the bolt carrier aligned. Second, it gives you space so you're takedown pin and buffer retaining pin aren't on top of your safety and trigger assembly.

what do you mean user?
the buffer weight and the BCG basically act as a single group when the gun is assembled
>lighter BGC will smack the buffer much harder.
what does this mean? when the gun is closed up the BCG rests against the buffer spring and buffer weight is squeezed between the spring and the BCG

Shorten up the upper by a few inches
Bring the buffer a few inches forwards
>Second, it gives you space so you're takedown pin and buffer retaining pin aren't on top of your safety and trigger assembly.
nothing bad about the takedown pin being on top of the safety

Then get a SCAR16.

It doesn't but you're bolt carrier is also acting as a gas piston. Pressure is relative to surface area.

When you're asking"Why is the bolt carrier so big" my answer is that it's taking all the force the gun produces to work the action in proper timing.

It NEEDS to be as heavy as possible and being wider actually makes it harder to deform.

But as you're real question is "Why is there an additional inch of material at the back end of the bolt carrier" the answer is a bunch of smaller reasons that make the bolt carrier, buffer retaining pin, take down pin, safety, buffer spring cylinder, and trigger group play nice together.

>a gas piston
we could give it a separate gas piston

>nothing bad about the takedown pin being on top of the safety

Oh yes there is. The last thing you need is for the takedown pin to get caught on the safety pin because the tolerances were just marginally out of whack.

Also, you're bolt carrier key now slams into your buffer spring cylinder.

How're you gonna trip the sear without dat ass?

Attached: Safety Sear.jpg (720x1280, 377K)

Ah, but now we're in AR-18 territory. Not a bad place to be but more expensive and recoil is less inline.

As I understood it, Stoner originally wanted this but someone figured that by deleting 2 parts from millions of guns they'd safe Uncle Sam a million dollars or so.

Meh, I'd be okay carrying an ar-18.

The profit margin on that thing is like twice the price of everything else from manufacturing to shipping and marketing.

But isn't there like loads of space for the takedown pin and the upper receiver rear peg there?

Attached: d84ab72538c64d90cf4bc01e070503da.png (490x501, 56K)

The AK doesn't need a long ass bolt ass to trip a sear, are you saying that Stoner is a worse designer the Mikhail?

That is indeed true, it actually doesn't cost FN Herstal very much money to make.
It's a good example of the AR18 taken into the 21st century, genuinely a good rifle, but FN Herstal charging a fanboy premium on it I think is a huge shame.
It could easily retail for like $1000 and still make good profits.

I can't think of any currently commonly available AR18 derivative though, short of some bullpups, which aren't for everyone.

Yeah man all around a pretty well thought out rifle and a great demonstrator of the modern cheap and simple manufacturing techniques.
One of my only complaints is that they just extend the receiver forwards to serve as the handguard, the handguard doesn't need to be as thick as the receiver and therefore there is unnecessary weight added compared to a design with a separate handguard.

Attached: UPPER_FDE_17S.jpg (450x173, 11K)

The AK sear engages the hammer even on "semiautomatic" mode, the selector is unable to manipulate the sear

Yeah, it also isn't particularly aesthetically pleasing (nor is the sand tan colors, IMO).
It'd be neat to see some good AR18 clone that uses an extruded aluminum receiver, but is then setup for handguards/cheesegraters on the front.

>3
>M O A
>O
>A

Attached: SCR_Bolt_Carrier_grande.jpg (600x600, 15K)

3 MOA is acceptable for an infantry rifle.

Sure, but you wouldn't have enough material to ensure the pin holes would stay secure.

>ITT people suggest over-complicated fixes for something that isn't broken and works fine

Yeah man the Garand works fine, just pump out more of 'em throw those new plastic toys in the bin.

Or just leave it because the vast majority don't benefit from folding stocks anyway

Yeah cause the para ttr was fantastic right

AR=/=a garand

They're trying to fix it for the sake of fixing it. There is no improvement to be had. M4s pass QC at 4 MOA at the moment due to the government not wanting to buy new barrels.

Or you could just start with another gun designed to have that system from the start instead of trying to make it something it's not, like various manufacturers over the last 20 years have done

have fun with that under long term stress, let alone sustained fire

Are you saying that the whole M14 program wasn't a shitshow that was largely a fruitless expenditure

This, unless you're tank crew, folding stocks aren't that amazing of a utility. I mean it's nice to have when it's there I guess, but most wouldn't miss it if it wasn't there.

They're really only a must-have on subguns and machinepistols, where their only point these days is to be more compact than typical CQB carbines.

Attached: B&T MP9.jpg (500x451, 44K)

the rear sling mount literally does not matter when you use it properly

>no laser sight
It decreases hipfire spread by 50% nerd

That's what she said.

>doesn't have steady aim
Lol

Attached: SteadyPro.png (140x140, 14K)

no matter how steady your aim is the laser makes it easy to point the barrel to the target

>AR18
Does anyone make a quality repro these days?

Save an inch off receiver length.

You don't remember the G18s do you

It's more comfy when it goes further back. You can't hang the sling around the back of your neck and bring it to fire when it's on the pistol grip.

No. The only repro on the market is just that nodacspud lower for the 180B,even then it's aluminum instead of stamped steel.

Wow a whole inch!

It was designed in the mid 50s but nice try. Stoner is widely regarded as one of the best weapons designers of the 20th century. The AR-10/15 is an excellent design. The AR-18 itself wasn't that successful, but it's design is used in nearly every modern non-AK assault rifle design.

Actually, it isn't long enough (edges of your recoil buffer get gnawed off)

Attached: 20181109_193238.jpg (3264x2448, 2.04M)