"New"Assault rifles for the Russian Armed Forces

[timmy]

I think this will stiffen up the action cover nicely and allow the easier of today's optics.

Yes, one really needs to use a side mount. This may help, but the thing is, if one removes the cover, the thing still needs to be zeroed in when it is replaced. This may help, but it can't take the place of the M16/A4 mount.

I always wondered about the multiple lug bolts too. Just seemed like unnecessary machining. I suppose it allows a quicker unlocking of the action.

If they are using 8 lugs (or the SCAR's 7, since it is really 8 with one lug removed for the extractor), it wouldn't require very much rotation -- about 22* -- at all to unlock the bolt. This is like the M16/M4 design. I suspect that this works because the spiral slot in the bolt has less slope and is less prone to sticking. The original AK can't rotate more than 45* for unlocking the bolt, but both the AK and the SKS are notorious for being "overpowered": the amount of gas fed to the piston could eject a 155 mm howizer shell! This is part of what makes them reliable, I suppose. I wonder how much gas is bled back on the SCAR and G36? I have heard that the SCAR is controllable -- maybe a reduced gas tap controls recoil a little better and makes the lesser bolt rotation more necessary?

[xl_target]

Tim, I was not that impressed by the SCAR 16. I mean its a nice rifle but it seemed like a 16" barreled AR15 recoiled less.
The SCAR was longer too. It's a substantial rifle. That's why I was surprised when I fired it. On the other hand the Tavor, an itty-bitty rifle, was very pleasant to shoot.
As far as controllability, I thought the M16 was very controllable. There is a lot less mass moving around, in full auto, with direct impingement. No piston, etc., just the Bolt and Carrier. No idea what a SCAR would do in full auto.

[TwoRivers]

Here is the G36. The bolt carrier here has some similarities with the AK but it's not the same.
[ Image ]
Image from here

Nope, that's not the G36. This would be its predecessor.

[xl_target]

Here is the G36. The bolt carrier here has some similarities with the AK but it's not the same.
[ Image ]
Image from here

Nope, that's not the G36. This would be its predecessor.

You're correct that's the G3.

[TwoRivers]

None of these people are copying the Stoner system with direct impingement, are they?

No one else is doing direct impingement anymore except for the AR, are they?

The direct impingement system is not Stoner's invention. The French came up with it in the 1930s, and it was also then used in the Swedish Ljungmann.

[TwoRivers]

I always wondered about the multiple lug bolts too. Just seemed like unnecessary machining. I suppose it allows a quicker unlocking of the action.

Gentler. The cam slot is less steep than would be required with a two-lug bolt. On the down side, you reduce the camming power, hence the "assist" required on the later M16s.

[timmy]

He didn's say Stoner invented direct impingement.

XL said:

No one else is doing direct impingement anymore except for the AR, are they?

I said:

None of these people are copying the Stoner system with direct impingement, are they?

Niether of us invented the idea that Stoner invented direct impingement, did we? I'm not sure what you are disagreeing with here.

[timmy]

I always wondered about the multiple lug bolts too. Just seemed like unnecessary machining. I suppose it allows a quicker unlocking of the action.

Gentler. The cam slot is less steep than would be required with a two-lug bolt. On the down side, you reduce the camming power, hence the "assist" required on the later M16s.

I disagree. The gentler slope of the bolt slot needed for less rotation (used with more lugs) offers more mechanical advantage than a slot that turns the bolt more. The camming power is not determined by this slot anyway. This slope of this slot only determines the twist of the bolt head. The angle of the locking lugs is what produces the camming power that moves the bolt head back as the locking lugs are turned.

Also, assist on M16s is used to close the bolt, not open it. It is meant to solve the problem of a round that won't chamber due to carbon build up (a problem with the early propellants used in the 5.56x45) or because of dirt in the chamber.

[TwoRivers]

I disagree. The gentler slope of the bolt slot needed for less rotation (used with more lugs) offers more mechanical advantage than a slot that turns the bolt more. The camming power is not determined by this slot anyway. This slope of this slot only determines the twist of the bolt head. The angle of the locking lugs is what produces the camming power that moves the bolt head back as the locking lugs are turned.

Also, assist on M16s is used to close the bolt, not open it. It is meant to solve the problem of a round that won't chamber due to carbon build up (a problem with the early propellants used in the 5.56x45) or because of dirt in the chamber.

You certainly may. And the camming surfaces on the bolt lugs, if there are any, combined with degrees of bolt rotation determine the camming power. The more lugs, the shorter and less effective the camming surfaces.
Don't recall a claim that the assist was used for opening (as a certain someone previously inferred), it's needed because there isn't enough camming power to close the bolt if the chamber is dirty.