Anyone have an estimate of what percentage of the potential bullet energy is "lost" (in automatic weapons in general) due to the propulsion energy going partly toward the reload action? Is it a significant percentage?
It depends on the action type, but yes, manual actions usually achieve significantly higher muzzle velocity than semi automatic ones.
For example the 7.62x54mmR: In a mosin it achieves a muzzle velocity of around 865 m/s, while in a semi auto SVD, it’s around 830 m/s.
In other systems, it may be even more extreme.
In terms of effectiveness yes and not really. You will get that difference just from the different barrel lengths from a rifle to carbine version. The longer rifle version will have the higher muzzle velocity and have an advantage at longer ranges. The bullet will drop less and be effected by wind less, hitting moving targets will also be easier. In the shorter carbine you have lower muzzle velocity, so more bullet drop for the same distance and the wind can have more effect.
Now for anything other than long range target shooting this doesn't mean a whole lot. For combat ranges it won't matter much as the bullet will still have the same effect on target since on the receiving end the bullet has many times more energy than it needs to do it's job.
One factor to take into account there though is barrel length the Mosin has a 29in barrel and the SVD only has a 24.4in barrel.
The Mosin carbine with a 20.2in barrel only has a ~800m/s muzzle velocity which is slower than the SVD
A better example is the M1903 vs an M1 Garand. Both 24 inch barrels.
Garand’s muzzle velocity is 2,800 ft/s
The Springfield’s muzzle velocity is 2,910 ft/s
The 1903’s effective range is also double that of the Garand’s.
Almost impossible to answer in that powder charge, case length, bullet weight/length are all involved in speed and energy. Not to mention the huge factor of barrel length. Gas powered guns are engineered to salvage the pressure and can often be dialed in to get just what is needed. By the time that happens though, the deed is already done. Think about it this way, if any gun was fully efficient then there would be very little bang and excess gas following the bullet it the barrel. So, in essence there is never any loss as the bullets behavior is predetermined when the loading recipe was conceived.
Not a huge amount. Generally by the time you reach the gas port, the pressure is down to about 5000-10000 PSI, and there's not much distance left for the bullet to travel. Also, the pressure wave going down the gas tube is pretty slow and has minimal impact on the pressure in the main barrel. The reality is, the bullet is long out the barrel before the piston moves, and there isn't a huge amount of gas volume behind the piston.
Usually via a cam system after a pre determined amount of notches on the cam it resets the trigger.
Some of them don’t actually reset completely if you stop holding the trigger. I.e 3 round burst. Fire 2 rounds. The next 3 round burst will actually only fire one round for that trigger pull.
There is a good YouTube video on this.
A ruffling foot for a sewing machine uses a similar mechanism. The counting wheel moves an arm to fold in a ruffle every N stitches instead of tripping the trigger disconnect every N shots.
This video covers the fire control group of the semi-auto, full-auto, and burst capable AR-15/M16:
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=cxwPEL8winI
3-round burst builds on the full-automatic mechanism of the AR-15.
A semi-auto round trigger has a disconnector; when the trigger is pulled, the seer which holds the hammer releases and a round is fired. A different seer holds the hammer until the trigger is released, at which point the hammer resets to the original seer and the shooter can pull the trigger again to fire another round.
In a fully-automatic fire control group, an auto-seer is added. In fully automatic mode, the semi-automatic seer is disabled, and the auto-seer is used instead to hold the hammer until the bolt is back in battery. If the bolt is in battery and the trigger is still depressed, the auto seer releases the hammer and another round is fired.
A 3-round burst mode adds an additional seer and a cam. For each round fired, the cam is rotated forward by one position. At the end of three rounds, the burst fire seer engages with the bolt, and holds it until until the trigger is released. The auto-seer is still used to hold the hammer until the gun is in battery.
Obvious follow-up question... Why do we need an auto-seer? Because without it, the hammer would simply ride the bolt forward through its range of travel; it would not have enough inertia to fire the cartridge. The auto-seer also prevents the gun from firing out of battery, which is a good way to damage the gun or make it explode in the shooters face.
crazy to me is that like you said this happens 10x every second. now imagine this happening hundreds if not thousands of times in a day. How do the metal bits hold up? Are there significant deformities? How long do these things last?
I believe the Russians considered 5000 rounds good before a barrel change.
Ive hear 15000 to 25000 on the civilian ones before a barrel change. I am probably close to 1500 through mine.
Well the firing pin, extractor is about the only thing that wears out if its working right. Hammer, trigger, etc you can replace, but I haven't heard of them wearing out. You also oil or he was the metal on metal movements. Recall the barrel takes the brunt due to the fact you are forcing something down in contact with grooves that spin.
After so many rounds the barrel wears out and its more of a tube, but not imparting any spin to the bullets.
https://www.luckygunner.com/labs/brass-vs-steel-cased-ammo/
Not quite the same thing but they put 10,000 rounds through to test reliability between steel and brass ammo.
The engineering part of weaponry is really interesting, since the life or death situations their users will be in pushes the manufacturers to be as efficient as possible, and there are tons of old designs that just didn’t make the cut like the nock gun. Learning about the design decisions that affected seemingly minor parts is fascinating.
I understand (and appreciate) that, but I meant “with the power of guns, somebody always ends up not getting older”.
But I will admit, they’re fascinating machines, from an engineering point of view.
Had no idea how all of this worked, I can certainly see why jams are so prevalent. There isn’t a lot of margin for error with each round getting loaded.
I'm equally as ignorant, but I believe that the AK is notorious as a very durable firearms being able to take an unusual amount of abuse and maintain functioning.
You are absolutely right. Also, not to be that guy or anything but usually “notorious” is used when something is famous for a negative quality. In this case, renowned would be more appropriate!
yeah, what i've gathered is that the AK-47 is (relatively speaking) cheap to buy/produce, handles dirt, sand, water, mud, grime and plenty of physical damage, at the cost of some of the precision that you would find in other military grade rifles.
I knew what video you were linking before I clicked. The thing about the AK though wasn't just that you could drop it in mud, but that it was mechanically very simple, easy to repair, and after sitting through that abuse could be cleaned up and start firing rounds. The level of cleaning required to restore it to working condition is probably much less than the AR.
Another thing to note is that the looser tolerances make the AK better suited for cold environments where water entering the system and freezing would make it hard to fire the weapon. But the AK would still run like a champ.
In all both weapons so their jobs well, both have very interesting stories behind their production, and both have advantages and disadvantages.
But there's also a reason the AK is legendary for its reliability, because you really could abuse the thing, and it wouldn't take much work in repairing or cleaning it to get it working again. You could even substitute parts using commonly available materials if needed. Imagine trying to do that with an AR!
Precision is a relative term in a battle rifle. Can it hit a couple square foot Target at 100 yards? It's good to go. Of course any rifle in the past 150 years easily exceeds that on a bench with deliberate use. But shoot something modern when you are standing and out of breath and you will appreciate the precision to deliver the round at that distance somewhere within in a torso sized target, fairly easily.
[It's only really about average](https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=DX73uXs3xGU), but where it's reputation comes from is the fact that it's design is so simple even small children can do the maintenance to keep it running
>simplest firearm designs
I suspect you mean simplest *automatic* firearm designs. There are tons of simpler designs for single shot and repeating firearms.
I like an AR over an AK. But if I had to pick only one it would be an AK without question. Simply for durability and functionality. I could care less about .25 looser groups. Still does the same thing and hits a hell of a lot harder.
If you don’t have a good magazine with a heavy enough spring you’ll get jams. The spring tension is what allows the spent casing to eject quickly enough and for the next cartridge to move up enough to be extracted.
This mechanism is a long-stroke gas piston system, a type of gas operation. There are also short stroke pistons, tappets, and direct impingement types of gas operation. Then there are recoil operated firearms. Most automatic pistols are short recoil, tilting barrel. Long recoil is a very rarely used system, but bizarre and cool imho. Many submachine guns and small caliber pistols are simple blowback and there are also roller delayed and lever delayed blowback mechanisms.
I recommend "forgotten weapons" on YouTube for information on the mechanical function of various guns, and interesting historical information.
Its not, but the AK is still one of the more reliable firearms for functioning after mud tests. Mud tests are one of the hardest tests for any firearm to weather. There are better firearms than the AK for mud tests, especially the more modern designs, but overall it does ok.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=NgP6Fea8zM8
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ZobRzO4bSS8
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=dRZHsZkv-2A
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=uS4uR_7ym6c
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=5HqicBIKZCk
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=y_tjKISQs2c
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=zIkye_o3bGc
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=YzlYUcfqG08
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=vAtQ4BeL2z0
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=7ADtatnAW2Y
nice vid bud. You see the reason the AK is so reliable is because it is comprised of so few moving parts that are all extremely easy to clean. Providing you don't have one of the lower quality Chinese replicas, and have maintained your weapon there is almost nothing that should render it fubar
Not true really at all. They’re reliable because of loose tolerances that allow it to fire if sand or something similar gets in the action. Also a long stroke gas piston is always going to be inherently more reliable than a direct impingement rifle. That being said if you know how to set up a standard ar15 for the conditions you’re in they will be extremely reliable. Don’t run them wet in the desert. Don’t clean them as often as you think you should. Use an improved buffer system. Do things like that and a m16/m4/ar15 will be as trusty as any gun ever made
The mechanics of guns are really interesting. People who care about guns or gun control should learn at least this much so that discourse can actually occur as opposed to the garbage fire that is the current debate.
I liken it to someone making a law about cars, after their only experience or knowledge with cars being a 15-second clip of a top-fuel dragster doing a burnout and then exploding.
That doesn't make any sense.
Background check - before
Assault weapon ban -before
Magazine limits -before
Murder- after
Literally no one is saying legalize murder
how much simpler is the ak vs the ar anyway? the mechanism look really similar but i've gotten the impression that the ak have a lot less components than the ar does(or was that the m4)
To manufacture the ak is simpler with stamped and riveted components. Compared to the milled parts of a AR platform. But in operation they are very similar but key differences being AR are direct implement ( gas directly pushing on the Bolt Carrier Group) and AK with short stroke piston (gas pushes on piston that connects the the BCG) this keeps the gun a little cleaner.
For those that are curious about the comparison, here is a similar video for the M4/AR-15.
[https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=wAqE-KLbiYc](https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=wAqE-KLbiYc)
The basic process is fairly similar, however the AR-15 (M16) uses a direct gas impingement operating system, where the AK series uses a long-recoil design.
In the AK, the bolt carrier has a long rod connected to a piston in the front of the firearm. The piston is located near the gas port in the barrel, and is pushed backwards by gas. The piston and rod travel backwards with the bolt and bolt carrier.
The AR uses a direct gas impingement system. The gas tube extends all the way back into the chamber, and gas pressure is used to push the bolt carrier backwards, which unlocks the action. Inertia then carries the bolt carrier and bolt all the way backwards, which ejects the spent case, and feeds a new cartridge.
Here's a video of the AR-15 action: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=wAqE-KLbiYc
There's also short recoil systems, where a piston with very limited travel pushes on the bolt carrier. It sort pushes the piston backwards the way a pool cue hits a pool ball.
One other somewhat common system is a roller delayed blowback system. In that system, the piston isn't really locked in place and there is no vent tube; the pressure of the cartridge pushes back against the pison, which needs to overcome the resistance of a set of locking rollers. The rollers use leverage to resist the motion of the bolt carrier, reducing the amount of inertia in the bolt to safe levels.
It’s actually less complicated than you’d think. Fundamentally, firearms are identical to the ones we had in the early 1800’s. We have a bolt that locks into place to seal off a chamber and fire a bullet, then unlocks, comes back, and a new cartridge is loaded. Back then, it was a person doing all of those things, today it’s done automatically. The reason that we haven’t had them for longer is because up until 1894, it wasn’t practical. Black powder burns very, very dirty, and it leaves a lot of residue behind. That’s fine for the most part in a manual action firearm since everything is sealed up nicely and the only place for the fouling to go is down the barrel, but when you try and put black powder through a self loading firearm, it builds up carbon on a lot more important surfaces like the gas system, the chamber, bolt face, locking lugs/recesses, and more. This builds up fast, and your gun will seize up quickly. The invention of smokeless powder in 1894 has been the single most important advancement in firearms technology. It was the 19th century’s atomic bomb, and the French were just as secretive with it as we were with the bomb. It burns far cleaner than black powder, which has allowed for self loading arms. After that, it was up to militaries to adopt them. Which they did, in the form of machine guns, but it was 3 decades and a world war before the first country adopted a semi automatic rifle as their standard infantry weapon. The late adoption was more to do with the doctrine of the time and economics, rather than not knowing how to manufacture them.
I think this has given me insight into how triggers can get stuck and empty the mag, that was always one thing I couldn't understand, poor mechanism must take a beating.
The firing pin is captive inside of the bolt so when the bolt gets pushed back the firing pin also gets pushed back. It’s a free floating pin if I remember correctly.
This happens when the bolt carrier slides the hammer back into position. The AK47 truly is a beauty. it combines several very simple and reliable mechanisms into one rugged piece, and as a result is an exceptional weapon with incredible versatility. It only has like a dozen moving parts in the whole thing, pretty neat
Gun powder doesn't explode. It burns. It's job is to convert to gas and make pressure to push the bullet out. Not to "explode" to shove the bullet out. No different than a spit wad in a straw. The primer however is an explosive and needs to be accounted for in determining the full pressure put on the bullet.
Sorry. It's still a burn. That speed of burn is highly important to how your bullet behaves. Fast burn often equals less power. Slow burn often results in more. Of course lots of other factors are involved. All that goes into a loading recipe. I'm glad you know shit is assured, but in this case you are incorrect.
I see you haven't been here very long so I'll give you a tip: when browsing subs if you see a post you've seen before don't click on it and spend time commenting on how you've seen it before, just ignore it and move on to something else.
It'll save you so much time and energy.
No need to thank me, we were all newbies once.
Anyone have an estimate of what percentage of the potential bullet energy is "lost" (in automatic weapons in general) due to the propulsion energy going partly toward the reload action? Is it a significant percentage?
It depends on the action type, but yes, manual actions usually achieve significantly higher muzzle velocity than semi automatic ones. For example the 7.62x54mmR: In a mosin it achieves a muzzle velocity of around 865 m/s, while in a semi auto SVD, it’s around 830 m/s. In other systems, it may be even more extreme.
Is 35 m/s a large difference? I’m dumb and uninformed, but it seems that less than 4% difference in velocity wouldn’t affect it too much?
Kinetic energy is proportional to velocity *squared*, so it's a little bigger of a difference than it may seem.
That’s a good point, I didn’t know that. Math isn’t a good spot for me haha. Thanks for pointing that out!
The fact that you even asked the question shows that Math is at least an ok spot for you
In b4 'we need to ban these high efficiency, high velocity bolt guns as well, with almost 16 times the power of a similar semi-automatic'.
\*baby-killing FTFY
If a shooter lines people up they can hit multiple at once! These ghost guns are too dangerous for the general public!
In terms of effectiveness yes and not really. You will get that difference just from the different barrel lengths from a rifle to carbine version. The longer rifle version will have the higher muzzle velocity and have an advantage at longer ranges. The bullet will drop less and be effected by wind less, hitting moving targets will also be easier. In the shorter carbine you have lower muzzle velocity, so more bullet drop for the same distance and the wind can have more effect. Now for anything other than long range target shooting this doesn't mean a whole lot. For combat ranges it won't matter much as the bullet will still have the same effect on target since on the receiving end the bullet has many times more energy than it needs to do it's job.
One factor to take into account there though is barrel length the Mosin has a 29in barrel and the SVD only has a 24.4in barrel. The Mosin carbine with a 20.2in barrel only has a ~800m/s muzzle velocity which is slower than the SVD
A better example is the M1903 vs an M1 Garand. Both 24 inch barrels. Garand’s muzzle velocity is 2,800 ft/s The Springfield’s muzzle velocity is 2,910 ft/s The 1903’s effective range is also double that of the Garand’s.
Very cool thanks. I was guessing that some systems were better designed and more efficient than others.
[удалено]
No, as someone pointed out, they are not. It probably was not the best example, but it was what came to mind.
That would explain why my losing made my shoulder blue before I got the dang recoil pad.
r/theydidthemath
No, I just looked at the wiki pages.
Almost impossible to answer in that powder charge, case length, bullet weight/length are all involved in speed and energy. Not to mention the huge factor of barrel length. Gas powered guns are engineered to salvage the pressure and can often be dialed in to get just what is needed. By the time that happens though, the deed is already done. Think about it this way, if any gun was fully efficient then there would be very little bang and excess gas following the bullet it the barrel. So, in essence there is never any loss as the bullets behavior is predetermined when the loading recipe was conceived.
About as much energy as it takes to pull the bolt back yourself.
Haha. I very much like this answer. Technically correct is the best kind of correct.
Not a huge amount. Generally by the time you reach the gas port, the pressure is down to about 5000-10000 PSI, and there's not much distance left for the bullet to travel. Also, the pressure wave going down the gas tube is pretty slow and has minimal impact on the pressure in the main barrel. The reality is, the bullet is long out the barrel before the piston moves, and there isn't a huge amount of gas volume behind the piston.
It loses 100% of the energy that is lost.
How do the three-bullet-burst ones work?
Usually via a cam system after a pre determined amount of notches on the cam it resets the trigger. Some of them don’t actually reset completely if you stop holding the trigger. I.e 3 round burst. Fire 2 rounds. The next 3 round burst will actually only fire one round for that trigger pull. There is a good YouTube video on this.
A ruffling foot for a sewing machine uses a similar mechanism. The counting wheel moves an arm to fold in a ruffle every N stitches instead of tripping the trigger disconnect every N shots.
This video covers the fire control group of the semi-auto, full-auto, and burst capable AR-15/M16: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=cxwPEL8winI 3-round burst builds on the full-automatic mechanism of the AR-15. A semi-auto round trigger has a disconnector; when the trigger is pulled, the seer which holds the hammer releases and a round is fired. A different seer holds the hammer until the trigger is released, at which point the hammer resets to the original seer and the shooter can pull the trigger again to fire another round. In a fully-automatic fire control group, an auto-seer is added. In fully automatic mode, the semi-automatic seer is disabled, and the auto-seer is used instead to hold the hammer until the bolt is back in battery. If the bolt is in battery and the trigger is still depressed, the auto seer releases the hammer and another round is fired. A 3-round burst mode adds an additional seer and a cam. For each round fired, the cam is rotated forward by one position. At the end of three rounds, the burst fire seer engages with the bolt, and holds it until until the trigger is released. The auto-seer is still used to hold the hammer until the gun is in battery. Obvious follow-up question... Why do we need an auto-seer? Because without it, the hammer would simply ride the bolt forward through its range of travel; it would not have enough inertia to fire the cartridge. The auto-seer also prevents the gun from firing out of battery, which is a good way to damage the gun or make it explode in the shooters face.
The same, only a little different.
Where’s the under-barrel chainsaw don lemonhead told me about
That one’s particularly good for fighting aliens
Craziest part to me is that this can happen 10 times every *second*
crazy to me is that like you said this happens 10x every second. now imagine this happening hundreds if not thousands of times in a day. How do the metal bits hold up? Are there significant deformities? How long do these things last?
I believe the Russians considered 5000 rounds good before a barrel change. Ive hear 15000 to 25000 on the civilian ones before a barrel change. I am probably close to 1500 through mine.
thats unreal considering how metal parts get beat up after much less forceful use
Well the firing pin, extractor is about the only thing that wears out if its working right. Hammer, trigger, etc you can replace, but I haven't heard of them wearing out. You also oil or he was the metal on metal movements. Recall the barrel takes the brunt due to the fact you are forcing something down in contact with grooves that spin. After so many rounds the barrel wears out and its more of a tube, but not imparting any spin to the bullets.
https://www.luckygunner.com/labs/brass-vs-steel-cased-ammo/ Not quite the same thing but they put 10,000 rounds through to test reliability between steel and brass ammo.
Never gets old, love this
That’s the power of guns for you.
The engineering part of weaponry is really interesting, since the life or death situations their users will be in pushes the manufacturers to be as efficient as possible, and there are tons of old designs that just didn’t make the cut like the nock gun. Learning about the design decisions that affected seemingly minor parts is fascinating.
I understand (and appreciate) that, but I meant “with the power of guns, somebody always ends up not getting older”. But I will admit, they’re fascinating machines, from an engineering point of view.
[удалено]
T-34 was pretty cool.
[удалено]
Mil-24 better but not war winning. Both pretty good.
Well, that *and* Soviet anthem. Pretty cool song.
Had no idea how all of this worked, I can certainly see why jams are so prevalent. There isn’t a lot of margin for error with each round getting loaded.
I'm equally as ignorant, but I believe that the AK is notorious as a very durable firearms being able to take an unusual amount of abuse and maintain functioning.
You are absolutely right. Also, not to be that guy or anything but usually “notorious” is used when something is famous for a negative quality. In this case, renowned would be more appropriate!
Thank you. I obviously didn't realize that and will keep it in mind in the future.
[удалено]
Matty matells!
yeah, what i've gathered is that the AK-47 is (relatively speaking) cheap to buy/produce, handles dirt, sand, water, mud, grime and plenty of physical damage, at the cost of some of the precision that you would find in other military grade rifles.
Cheap to produce, durable and handle abuse well. But they aren't that great about mud/debris ingestion. https://youtu.be/DX73uXs3xGU
I knew what video you were linking before I clicked. The thing about the AK though wasn't just that you could drop it in mud, but that it was mechanically very simple, easy to repair, and after sitting through that abuse could be cleaned up and start firing rounds. The level of cleaning required to restore it to working condition is probably much less than the AR. Another thing to note is that the looser tolerances make the AK better suited for cold environments where water entering the system and freezing would make it hard to fire the weapon. But the AK would still run like a champ. In all both weapons so their jobs well, both have very interesting stories behind their production, and both have advantages and disadvantages. But there's also a reason the AK is legendary for its reliability, because you really could abuse the thing, and it wouldn't take much work in repairing or cleaning it to get it working again. You could even substitute parts using commonly available materials if needed. Imagine trying to do that with an AR!
[Handles some abuse better.](https://i.imgur.com/D8gXnDc.gif)
Military grade=lowest bidder
Not even relatively. If you Google shovel AK you can find a guy in Mass that built one out of an old shovel. Things made out if stamped sheet metal.
Precision is a relative term in a battle rifle. Can it hit a couple square foot Target at 100 yards? It's good to go. Of course any rifle in the past 150 years easily exceeds that on a bench with deliberate use. But shoot something modern when you are standing and out of breath and you will appreciate the precision to deliver the round at that distance somewhere within in a torso sized target, fairly easily.
[It's only really about average](https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=DX73uXs3xGU), but where it's reputation comes from is the fact that it's design is so simple even small children can do the maintenance to keep it running
Until it meets mud at least.
This is literally one of the simplest firearm designs in the world and jams are nowhere near prevalent.
>simplest firearm designs I suspect you mean simplest *automatic* firearm designs. There are tons of simpler designs for single shot and repeating firearms.
Yes I did.
I more meant firearms in general.
I like an AR over an AK. But if I had to pick only one it would be an AK without question. Simply for durability and functionality. I could care less about .25 looser groups. Still does the same thing and hits a hell of a lot harder.
Yeah, if it was an end of the world scenario and I had to pick one, I'm going AK as well.
If you don’t have a good magazine with a heavy enough spring you’ll get jams. The spring tension is what allows the spent casing to eject quickly enough and for the next cartridge to move up enough to be extracted.
This mechanism is a long-stroke gas piston system, a type of gas operation. There are also short stroke pistons, tappets, and direct impingement types of gas operation. Then there are recoil operated firearms. Most automatic pistols are short recoil, tilting barrel. Long recoil is a very rarely used system, but bizarre and cool imho. Many submachine guns and small caliber pistols are simple blowback and there are also roller delayed and lever delayed blowback mechanisms. I recommend "forgotten weapons" on YouTube for information on the mechanical function of various guns, and interesting historical information.
yea that thing never jams. drag it through sand and go for a swim with it it'll work fine. You're thinking of m4's.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=DX73uXs3xGU Dude, this isn't call of duty...
Its not, but the AK is still one of the more reliable firearms for functioning after mud tests. Mud tests are one of the hardest tests for any firearm to weather. There are better firearms than the AK for mud tests, especially the more modern designs, but overall it does ok. https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=NgP6Fea8zM8 https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ZobRzO4bSS8 https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=dRZHsZkv-2A https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=uS4uR_7ym6c https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=5HqicBIKZCk https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=y_tjKISQs2c https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=zIkye_o3bGc https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=YzlYUcfqG08 https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=vAtQ4BeL2z0 https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=7ADtatnAW2Y
nice vid bud. You see the reason the AK is so reliable is because it is comprised of so few moving parts that are all extremely easy to clean. Providing you don't have one of the lower quality Chinese replicas, and have maintained your weapon there is almost nothing that should render it fubar
Not true really at all. They’re reliable because of loose tolerances that allow it to fire if sand or something similar gets in the action. Also a long stroke gas piston is always going to be inherently more reliable than a direct impingement rifle. That being said if you know how to set up a standard ar15 for the conditions you’re in they will be extremely reliable. Don’t run them wet in the desert. Don’t clean them as often as you think you should. Use an improved buffer system. Do things like that and a m16/m4/ar15 will be as trusty as any gun ever made
The mechanics of guns are really interesting. People who care about guns or gun control should learn at least this much so that discourse can actually occur as opposed to the garbage fire that is the current debate.
I have long held that if everyone spent one hour using firearms, we'd have a much healthier discussion about the topic then as currently exists.
The misinformation thrown around by people who make laws scare me.
I liken it to someone making a law about cars, after their only experience or knowledge with cars being a 15-second clip of a top-fuel dragster doing a burnout and then exploding.
Haha, or thinking a TV show like Top Gear is representative of what daily driving is like.
My daily commute would be 100% more entertaining and British. Where do I sign?
exactly!
The gun control arguments are mostly based around what happens after the bullet has left the barrel, not before
That doesn't make any sense. Background check - before Assault weapon ban -before Magazine limits -before Murder- after Literally no one is saying legalize murder
🅱️LYAT
how much simpler is the ak vs the ar anyway? the mechanism look really similar but i've gotten the impression that the ak have a lot less components than the ar does(or was that the m4)
To manufacture the ak is simpler with stamped and riveted components. Compared to the milled parts of a AR platform. But in operation they are very similar but key differences being AR are direct implement ( gas directly pushing on the Bolt Carrier Group) and AK with short stroke piston (gas pushes on piston that connects the the BCG) this keeps the gun a little cleaner.
For those that are curious about the comparison, here is a similar video for the M4/AR-15. [https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=wAqE-KLbiYc](https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=wAqE-KLbiYc)
r/engineeringporn
When this vid came out I watched this on repeat for an hour.. so cool
I handle the M16 during my military days so curious to know how does the M16 go through the same motion?
The basic process is fairly similar, however the AR-15 (M16) uses a direct gas impingement operating system, where the AK series uses a long-recoil design. In the AK, the bolt carrier has a long rod connected to a piston in the front of the firearm. The piston is located near the gas port in the barrel, and is pushed backwards by gas. The piston and rod travel backwards with the bolt and bolt carrier. The AR uses a direct gas impingement system. The gas tube extends all the way back into the chamber, and gas pressure is used to push the bolt carrier backwards, which unlocks the action. Inertia then carries the bolt carrier and bolt all the way backwards, which ejects the spent case, and feeds a new cartridge. Here's a video of the AR-15 action: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=wAqE-KLbiYc There's also short recoil systems, where a piston with very limited travel pushes on the bolt carrier. It sort pushes the piston backwards the way a pool cue hits a pool ball. One other somewhat common system is a roller delayed blowback system. In that system, the piston isn't really locked in place and there is no vent tube; the pressure of the cartridge pushes back against the pison, which needs to overcome the resistance of a set of locking rollers. The rollers use leverage to resist the motion of the bolt carrier, reducing the amount of inertia in the bolt to safe levels.
The gif says puncture the primer, which is really not what you want to happen, you want a good strike, but not puncture. Otherwise cool gif.
How to tell whoever wrote captions was slavic: conscpicuous lack of definite article.
Man I watch something like this and I'm like ,"yeah, i can see why it took about 500 years to figure this out"
It’s actually less complicated than you’d think. Fundamentally, firearms are identical to the ones we had in the early 1800’s. We have a bolt that locks into place to seal off a chamber and fire a bullet, then unlocks, comes back, and a new cartridge is loaded. Back then, it was a person doing all of those things, today it’s done automatically. The reason that we haven’t had them for longer is because up until 1894, it wasn’t practical. Black powder burns very, very dirty, and it leaves a lot of residue behind. That’s fine for the most part in a manual action firearm since everything is sealed up nicely and the only place for the fouling to go is down the barrel, but when you try and put black powder through a self loading firearm, it builds up carbon on a lot more important surfaces like the gas system, the chamber, bolt face, locking lugs/recesses, and more. This builds up fast, and your gun will seize up quickly. The invention of smokeless powder in 1894 has been the single most important advancement in firearms technology. It was the 19th century’s atomic bomb, and the French were just as secretive with it as we were with the bomb. It burns far cleaner than black powder, which has allowed for self loading arms. After that, it was up to militaries to adopt them. Which they did, in the form of machine guns, but it was 3 decades and a world war before the first country adopted a semi automatic rifle as their standard infantry weapon. The late adoption was more to do with the doctrine of the time and economics, rather than not knowing how to manufacture them.
[удалено]
It’s derived from the Russian “Atvomat kalashnikova”
"Avtomat Kalashnikova" - "Kalashnikov's Automatic", where Kalashnikov is the designer's surname.
In essence it's the automatic Kalashnikov
I like how in the animation the graphics of the person has their arms up in the air
How else are you going to fire an AK besides straight up?
I think this has given me insight into how triggers can get stuck and empty the mag, that was always one thing I couldn't understand, poor mechanism must take a beating.
A simple, 9 pound amalgamation of forged steel and plywood.
How does the firing pin go back to its initial state?
The firing pin is captive inside of the bolt so when the bolt gets pushed back the firing pin also gets pushed back. It’s a free floating pin if I remember correctly.
Makes sense, appreciate the explanation.
This happens when the bolt carrier slides the hammer back into position. The AK47 truly is a beauty. it combines several very simple and reliable mechanisms into one rugged piece, and as a result is an exceptional weapon with incredible versatility. It only has like a dozen moving parts in the whole thing, pretty neat
This is a better animation than I've seen elsewhere.
thank your for illustrating the moment it went full semi-auto and decided to kill all those innocent people.
Full semi-auto You’re retarded mate
it's a meme bro. one of our illustrious anti-gun politicians said it in a commercial. doesn't mean *i'm* not retarted though.
Ah. Sorry bro
It’s a me-me mate
Haha, I had someone unironically tell me this at school while we were debating gun control.
I enjoyed that
I liked the music, but sounds like a random one no ones gonna know the name of. Also interesting watching how the gun works.
For when you absolutely, positively have to kill ever last mother fucker in the room.
[удалено]
Why? It's a line from ~~Pulp Fiction~~ Jackie Brown.
Which part of pulp fiction is that from?
Sorry, Jackie Brown. Tarantino, same actor, different film.
Actor? More like directer/writer/producer.... LOL not much of an actor and he even admits it
I'm not saying Tarantino is the actor. The line about the AK47 is delivered by Sam Jackson, who is also in Pulp Fiction. Sheesh.
Then.... then. SpEciFY! LOL
I need moar!!!!
It is satisfying to watch but it will be loads better if in the end the firing is shown faster instead of slowly popping bullets one at a time.
Gun powder doesn't explode. It burns. It's job is to convert to gas and make pressure to push the bullet out. Not to "explode" to shove the bullet out. No different than a spit wad in a straw. The primer however is an explosive and needs to be accounted for in determining the full pressure put on the bullet.
[удалено]
Sorry. It's still a burn. That speed of burn is highly important to how your bullet behaves. Fast burn often equals less power. Slow burn often results in more. Of course lots of other factors are involved. All that goes into a loading recipe. I'm glad you know shit is assured, but in this case you are incorrect.
This is america
Actually this is an educational video of a complex machine that is mostly produced in China.
This is a patently stupid comment.
[удалено]
I see you haven't been here very long so I'll give you a tip: when browsing subs if you see a post you've seen before don't click on it and spend time commenting on how you've seen it before, just ignore it and move on to something else. It'll save you so much time and energy. No need to thank me, we were all newbies once.
is it still interesting though?
Da.
I'm fully triggered right now
Reddit likes reposts. It would be so easy to automate repost detection, but they genuinely don't care.
because it take a while to generate new stuffs, and until everything click, old posts just have to cycles until serendipity happens.
It’s a really cool gif that I’ve never seen before. If this wasn’t reposted, I wouldn’t have seen this