[tktm]

And again, do you any anything conclusive to show that malfunctions do happen because debris gets inside action during bolt bounce?

yes, it is called opportunity; there is also a well known corollary called Murphy's Law.

 

[tktm]

ARGH!! I AM A PIRATE!!
Oh...sorry, wrong forum......

If you take that Slide Fire stock off your rifle you'll start to feel better.

 

[AGR416]

yes, it is called opportunity; there is also a well known corollary called Murphy's Law.

Well, okay then. I guess you knocked that one out of the park huh? Nothing trumps the scientific opportunity, and the empirical Murphy's Law.

I have tried to help you, and explain it, but you seem to have made up your mind about this.

Good luck with that.

 

[Hunter Rose]

The longer I read gun forums the more I love the over analyzing of insignificant minutae and what seems the incessant hunt for problems where they really don't exist.

Are people really worried that slight carrier bounce movement is going to allow debris to enter the rifle and cause it to malfunction? If so they must have nightmares and tremble with shear dread everytime they have to initially load the weapon, do a magazine change, or fire it. Hell, that gaping hole in the receiver is orders of magnitude larger than the pathway that exists during carrier bounce.

But hell, it seems lots of people just aren't complete unless they have something to obsess and worry over.

 

[tktm]

The longer I read gun forums the more I love the over analyzing of insignificant minutae and what seems the incessant hunt for problems where they really don't exist.

Are people really worried that slight carrier bounce movement is going to allow debris to enter the rifle and cause it to malfunction? If so they must have nightmares and tremble with shear dread everytime they have to initially load the weapon, do a magazine change, or fire it. Hell, that gaping hole in the receiver is orders of magnitude larger than the pathway that exists during carrier bounce.

But hell, it seems lots of people just aren't complete unless they have something to obsess and worry over.

In a world of compromise, some men don't -HK

And some people do

Which are you?

 

[Hunter Rose]

In a world of compromise, some men don't -HK

And some people do

Which are you?

Wow, I stand corrected. With such a compelling argument, I hereby wholeheartedly validate your obsessive worry over inconsequential minutae like bolt bounce allowing debris to enter the rifle and cause it to malfunction.

Cheers.

 

[Grumpy]

*EDIT*

Ya know what, it doesn't matter. Never mind.

Nothing I can say will do any more damage then he's already done to himself.

 

[tktm]

*EDIT*

Ya know what, it doesn't matter. Never mind.

Nothing I can say will do any more damage then he's already done to himself.

Come on now, picturing you trying to double the cyclic rate of a full auto rifle by adding a Slide Fire stock is pretty humorous.

But maybe your answer to this question will clarify if you truly believe that bolt bounce in a semi-auto is "virtually meaniningless [sic]"

If you had two semi-autos that were physically identical in every way EXCEPT that one, regardless of ammo, always had bolt bounce and the other never showed bolt bounce, on which one would you rely?

 

[AGR416]

I want to ask you a question about reliability.

If your rifle, after having shot 6000 rounds, experienced the following malfunctions:

Failure of bolt to lock: 2
Failure to fire: 2
Failure to feed (from magazine): 5
Failure to eject: 3
Failure to chamber: 3
Failure to extract: 1
Failure of bolt to lock to the rear: 2
Other malfunctions: 1

Is it reliable in your eyes?

And, not Grumpy, but I would rely on both.

 

[pb_removed]

In a world of compromise, some men don't -HK

And some people do

Which are you?

Wow, I stand corrected. With such a compelling argument, I hereby wholeheartedly validate your obsessive worry over inconsequential minutae like bolt bounce allowing debris to enter the rifle and cause it to malfunction.

Cheers.

Thanks Hunter, I had a good laugh at that.

And now back to the....uh....whatever the hell this thread has become.

 

[tktm]

I want to ask you a question about reliability.

If your rifle, after having shot 6000 rounds, experienced the following malfunctions:

Failure of bolt to lock: 2
Failure to fire: 2
Failure to feed (from magazine): 5
Failure to eject: 3
Failure to chamber: 3
Failure to extract: 1
Failure of bolt to lock to the rear: 2
Other malfunctions: 1

Is it reliable in your eyes?

And, not Grumpy, but I would rely on both.

There is not enough information to answer your question; but i will give it a quick off the cuff shot.

ASSUMPTIONS:
All failures are independent
Your failure rate is representative of the mean of the population of your model of rifle.
Only people with your level of skill are shooting the rifles
Only people with your level of rifle maintenance are shooting the rifles.
People are shooting under the same environmental conditions as you did.
The failure rate distribution is Gaussian.
The shooter picked the worst rifle of the bunch (+3 sigma)

RESULTS:
given those assumptions, the shooter would have a 0.6% chance of failure on any particular shot.
That means out of 158 shooters, 1 shooter would have a failure on any particular shot.
Or think of it this way, if there are 158 shooters on a range with the worst case rifles, on average, 1 random shooter would have a failure every time.
If each of those shots were a life and death situation 1 out of every 158 would die on every shot because of the failure.

So is that reliable enough?; It depends on the scenario.

If I were writing a contract to supply an 1,000,000 man army; and I assumed that you reflected the typical soldier; and your test conditions reflected typical combat conditions; 3167 soldiers would have a failure on the first shot. If each failure means a death.....

Now assume skill/maintenance and environmental conditions both play a role in failure rates tied to your observations, it becomes a multivariate problem and the failure rates jump even higher under the right conditions.

But to try and answer your question; I'll assume your better than most, and you take better care of your weapon than most, and shoot it under better conditions than most. my swag would be that a randomly picked shooter with a randomly picked rifle would have a failure around 1 once every 100 shots in adverse conditions. I would prefer something more reliable, but the question is how much are you willing to pay for increased reliability. If it costs $1,000,000 per rifle to increase the reliability to 1 every 200 shots, then the rifle is reliable enough and the money is better spent elsewhere.

But going back to the original video in this thread, if the HK reliably feeds the rounds as smoothly as it does in that video and can do it without bounce it might be worth an additional $2000 over the price of a Sig.

 

[AGR416]

A yes or no would suffice. Although your answer enforces a certain trend when it comes to minutia and irrelevant information.

Anyways, I set the premise for the question, it is not open to interpretation. It is not based on my experience, I have shot way more than 6000 rounds with my gun.

The question is, if you fire 6000 rounds through a weapon, as part of a test, and you experience the failures in the list above, is the weapon reliable or not? This test also encompasses cleaning and lubrication at set intervals.

 

[tktm]

A yes or no would suffice. Although your answer enforces a certain trend when it comes to minutia and irrelevant information.

Anyways, I set the premise for the question, it is not open to interpretation. It is not based on my experience, I have shot way more than 6000 rounds with my gun.

The question is, if you fire 6000 rounds through a weapon, as part of a test, and you experience the failures in the list above, is the weapon reliable or not? This test also encompasses cleaning and lubrication at set intervals.

actually its not minutia, it is the data required to answer your question. The answer I gave is as specific as the information you provided allowed. But if you don't understand it, maybe this will help. Reliable enough for what purpose, and what is the cost of failure?
Or how about this question: Is 1 litter of water per person enough?

If some one gave me a free rifle and all I was doing was shooting paper with no consequence to failure, I would be happy with the reliability of your weapon.

 

[AGR416]

Are you not able to answer the question in a proper manner? Instead of trying to insult my intelligence by insinuating that I did not understand your post? And none of the data in your reply is neccessary to answer my question.

1 "litter" of water would be quite useless. As for your lame attempt at an analogy, 1 litre of water is not enough, as we sweat, evaporate and urinate about 2,5 litres of liquid pr day during normal activity. Also, you cannot measure a humans effectiveness on how much water he/she needs. Far to many variables than a given standard to test a weapon.

And it is not my weapon.

I am talking about a test to evaluate the reliability of a weapon system, all factors are equal, no what if's, shooter skill level is irrelevant. 6000 rounds, cleaning and lubrication intervals programmed in the testing, failures as specified in tha table above.

Is the weapon reliable enough for, say, general issue to a standing military?

 

[tktm]

AGR416, I'm not trying to insult your intelligence. You did not provide enough info to answer your question, and I gave a nonsensical question about a "litter of water" to illustrate the problem; and, it seems to have worked since you have provided more detail.

The answer to your question based on a quick reading of MIL-R-71126 ( 7.62 "sniper" rifle) the answer is no the weapon is not reliable enough.
That spec indicates

3.15.5 Reliability. The mean round between stoppage (MRBS)
for the rifle shall be 1400 rounds. The MRBS is the total number
of rounds fired divided b:y the total number of stoppages. A
stoppage shall be defined as any malfunction* of the rifle.


In your case the MRBS is 6000/19 = 316 rounds so it fails a quick examination of the std



If we try a different spec for semi-automatic 7.62 sniper rifles MIL-PRF-32316 we find your rifle still does not pass the spec.

3.7.1.1.2 Mean Rounds Between Stoppages (MRBS). The rifle mounted with the day
optical sight shall demonstrate a MRBS of 949 or greater at the lower 80% confidence level (see
6.11).



Next we'll check the spec for the 7.62 M14 (MIL-R-45012E)

Code Malfunction Number permitted in the 6,000-round endurance test..-Total malfunctions combined 12

You listed 19 total failures, again not reliable enough.



So there we have 3 separate specs for 7.62 caliber rifles and a quick reading shows it was not reliable enough to meet either of those 3 specs.

if you wish to belabor the point further you'll have to supply some counter analysis.

 

[Hunter Rose]

tktm,

Out of curiosity what do you do for a living? You seem plenty intelligent enough but remind me of almost every stereotypical type A engineer type I have ever taught how to fly: obsessed with the details but can't see the forest for the trees. Your obesession with bolt bounce and its theoretical contributions to malfunctions remind me of students who spend 30+ minutes trying to analyze what caused an engine fire as opposed to landing the plane on the runway 2 minutes away.

 

[tktm]

Hunter Rose, if you'll check the first part of the thread you'll see the bolt bounce was an aside; it was the improved feeding of the MR762 which caught my eye. The video by itself, as other have pointed out, really doesn't contain enough info to determine if there is a bolt bounce difference between the 3 weapons over the population of possible ammunition choices.

But I have to admit that it is interesting that people quickly understand that +p in a handgun increases wear but have little grasp that bolt bounce (as sign of +p if you will) has similar issues. Of course, I didn't help matters by being much less than precise in my initial reply about bolt bounce.

 

[AGR416]

@tktm:

The numbers I used are from the Mil-Spec for the M4A1, MIL-DTL-71186A, with a total of 9 malfunctions allowed from the list above, but not exceeding the maximum limit in each category. I opted to not inform you of the number of failures allowed, as I hoped it would keep you from over-analyzing the issue.

Guess I failed there.

As to the comment about bolt bounce being an aside, lets review your first post:

Not my video.
Different shooters on each rifle.
Note the bolt bounce.
More importantly note the cartridge bounce as it leaves the mag feed lips.
One of these three is not like the rest.

It does not come across as an aside to me, and when Grumpy made the statement about bolt bounce being virtually meaningless in a semi-automatic, you argued that it caused extra wear, it provided a venue for debris getting inside the action, causing it to "jam" and that it would actually activate the disconnector during fully automatic fire. You then continue to state that you will not dry fire your weapons because of the extra wear.

The only "documentation" you have provided are blanket statements mentioning "opportunity" and "Murphy's Law".

As far as the +p or +p+ comparison, I am not really seeing why it is a valid comparison. Is the PSI increased significantly in a weapon experiencing bolt bounce?

And I find it interesting that you say that we have little grasp that bolt bounce has similar issues to using hotter loads, when you cannot provide proper documentation that it (bolt bounce) affects the weapon system, unless it is a poorly timed system running fully automatic.

 

[Grumpy]

If you had two semi-autos that were physically identical in every way EXCEPT that one, regardless of ammo, always had bolt bounce and the other never showed bolt bounce, on which one would you rely?

Whichever one went "bang" when I pulled the trigger and put the rounds where I wanted them to go.

Since I don't run FA all that much, bolt bounce means nothing to me. And even when I have run FA, the small amountof bolt bounce i've experienced still hasn't caused an issue. Seriously, it doesn't bother me. I've seen it far too much in real life on weapons that were perfectly functional and reliable to give a ****. And if you actually went and used those guns you own, you'd think the same way. But apparently, arguing points that you cannot even eloquate properly on the internet is a better use of your time.

Keep in mind that when people quit arguing with you, it's not because you have "won" the argument, it's because we're here to discuss, learn, and share real world information about guns that we like and USE, not provide a socialization area for special needs adults who argue just to argue. We'll stop talking to you simply because we're tired of wasting our time trying to explain the REAL WORLD to a number cruncher with no experience.

Toodles.

 

[Grumpy]

You seem plenty intelligent enough

Booksmart with the common sense of a rock.

Typical engineer. Same type who would look at the prints for a sub, then write up a TGI to fabricate and install a piece without actually having gone into the damn dry-dock to look at the worksite.

When we'd write up a DR, they'd get soooo upset and accuse us of being stupid......****in' trolls. We'd have to force them to go down on the damn sub to see that the prints didn't match reality. Getting them out of their comfy little offices was......er....."difficult" at times.....well, all the time. Until we got the rules changed so that they HAD to go observe the jobsite whenever we wrote a DR/DL.

Although in all due fairness, when I was TDY in San Diego in 2006, the engineer for my part of the job on the carrier was a younger guy who listened, and so long as I came to him with a solution and not just a problem, he was very cool about things. Wasn't the typical minutea driven type. I liked working with him. He was one of the good guys.