Best weapons / optimum calibres

Cutaway

LE
Kit Reviewer
In exactly the same way that the AKMS is a different rifle to the AKM.
:rolleyes:
They were built with a folding stock as an OEM option,
As was the FAL Para.

it didn't require major changes to the design as the receiver didn't extend into the stock to begin with.
Thanks.

The FN Para was a different rifle from the regular fixed stock FAL. You can't just slap a Para stock onto a regular FAL, you need a Para receiver for it to go onto.
And now PARAphrased, though just as accurate as the original:
The AKMS was a different rifle from the regular fixed stock AKM. You can't just slap an AKMS stock onto a regular AKM, you need an AKMS receiver for it to go onto.
 
As was the FAL Para.


Thanks.



And now PARAphrased, though just as accurate as the original:
As I understand it the AKMS has a different rear trunnion than the AKM, but the main receiver stamping, and so the stamping die for it is the same. That makes the extra tooling costs not that great.

I have handled the C1 (FN FAL), but not the Para version. I was under the impression that the Para receiver was not the same, but was a different machined part altogether. Is that not the case?
 
Go ahead and post "funnies", it doesn't really explain it to me though.

Let's go back a few steps. I raised a question of why the AR-15 seemed to be the odd man out in modern military rifles in not having either a folding stock nor in being a bullpup. I advanced a theory that this was due to the design of the receiver extending back into the stock (the buffer tube), make this impractical without a significant redesign of the receiver.

I further postulated that while a major change to enable this was possible, existing military customers and manufacturers did not see the advantages to be gained as being worth the effort and expense.

This theory seems plausible, but I am not and do not represent myself as being a expert in this field either technically or from a market analysis standpoint. I would welcome being shown to be wrong by people who know far more about this subject than I do.
You mean like the AR-18?

Sent from my SM-T510 using Tapatalk
 

gafkiwi

War Hero
I think the
It's hardly "a whole new rifle."

The bolt carrier has been shortened, the gas key lengthened and the return spring moved, but it still uses the same rotating bolt, direct gas impingement system.

If that counts as a new design please enter both the the FAL Para and the SLR as separate designs.
I think something more like the SIG MCX would fall into the category of "A whole new rifle" but based on evolution from the AR design. SIG were producing standard DI then piston operated AR designs with the SIG M400 and SIG516 and then developing from there to the MCX. Externally it looks like an AR (less the folding stock) but internally apart from the bolt it looks like a mix of other rifles. The MCX has then led onto the 6.8 MCX Spear which is offered in the current US NGSW-R program.
 
Last edited:
It's a completely different rifle from the AR-15, and it does have a side folding stock.
So if you redesigned the AR-15 to have a folding stock it would be nothing like the AR-18, despite having the same design team?

Edit to correct to AR-18

Sent from my SM-T510 using Tapatalk
 
Last edited:

TamH70

MIA
So if you redesigned the AR-15 to have a folding stock it would be nothing like the AR-15, despite having the same design team?

Sent from my SM-T510 using Tapatalk
Well, yeah.

What prevents the AR-15 from having a folding stock is its recoil buffer tube. Getting rid of that is a complex redesign, and there's no getting away from that.
 
Well, yeah.

What prevents the AR-15 from having a folding stock is its recoil buffer tube. Getting rid of that is a complex redesign, and there's no getting away from that.
Unless you use the LAW system , the only part that gets binned from the original set up is the bolt carrier , a £20 item, the original bolt head , buffer tube , spring and stock can all still be used.
 

Cutaway

LE
Kit Reviewer
As I understand it the AKMS has a different rear trunnion than the AKM, but the main receiver stamping, and so the stamping die for it is the same. That makes the extra tooling costs not that great.
No, the stamping is different.

I have handled the C1 (FN FAL), but not the Para version. I was under the impression that the Para receiver was not the same, but was a different machined part altogether. Is that not the case?
The lower receivers are stamped, the rear "trunnion" different, so less tooling than the AKMS.
 

TamH70

MIA
Unless you use the LAW system , the only part that gets binned from the original set up is the bolt carrier , a £20 item, the original bolt head , buffer tube , spring and stock can all still be used.
LAW system? I have not heard of that nor has Bing.

Source please.
 
So if you redesigned the AR-15 to have a folding stock it would be nothing like the AR-18, despite having the same design team?

Edit to correct to AR-18

Sent from my SM-T510 using Tapatalk
The AR-18 is completely different from the AR-15, with a different manufacturing technology (stampings instead of a machined forging) and a different operating system (conventional gas piston instead of what is often called direct impingement).

The company which developed the AR-15 had sold all rights to the design and patents, so they had to start from a clean sheet of paper for the AR-18, except for certain minor features which were not protected.
 

TamH70

MIA
Bing hasn't heard of fcukall , Google LAW AR15 folding stock.
Keyword "tactical" inserted there helps matters, as it is the name of the company making it. Doesn't look like an elegant solution to the problem but I guess if all you want is an AR-15 in pistol format for as cheap as possible, then it works, I suppose. It's not something that would stand up to the rigours of field use, even if you kept it out of the hands of our respective transatlantic Crayon Eaters.
 
Keyword "tactical" inserted there helps matters, as it is the name of the company making it. Doesn't look like an elegant solution to the problem but I guess if all you want is an AR-15 in pistol format for as cheap as possible, then it works, I suppose. It's not something that would stand up to the rigours of field use, even if you kept it out of the hands of our respective transatlantic Crayon Eaters.
The hinge is steel as is the pin so its just as strong as the buffer tube going direct into the lower.
 

TamH70

MIA
The hinge is steel as is the pin so its just as strong as the buffer tube going direct into the lower.
But it still doesn't look Crayon Eater proof. I'd have to see trials reports of Marines from both sides of the Pond doing the same trials that Colt and Browning submitted their 1907-pattern automatic pistol to and it passing to be convinced. And those had hairy-arsed cavalrymen taking the pistols to the field for an entire year in harsh climatic conditions.
 
But it still doesn't look Crayon Eater proof. I'd have to see trials reports of Marines from both sides of the Pond doing the same trials that Colt and Browning submitted their 1907-pattern automatic pistol to and it passing to be convinced. And those had hairy-arsed cavalrymen taking the pistols to the field for an entire year in harsh climatic conditions.
They are not weaker than a standard AR however you have to push out both the take down and hinge pin for field stripping , they may be beyond some .
 
If it breaks fingernails, it's not inclusive enough
 

Latest Threads

Top