Colt commando

[Nerf Herder]

Ah yes the IMI Tavor TAR-21. The newest gun that I'm obsessed with. Comes in three flavors:

Regular:

TAR-21

Small:

CTAR-21

And extra crispy...I mean small.

MTAR-21


Caliber: 5.56mm NATO
Action: Gas operated, rotating bolt
Overall length: 720mm CTAR 640mm MTAR 480 mm
Barrel length: 460mm CTAR 380 mm MTAR 250mm
Weigth: 2.8kg emty, 3.63kg w. full magazine & sling
Magazine capacity: 20 or 30 rds
Rate of fire: 750 - 900 rpm

 

[carnivore]

We DON'T need the m4!

Please, give us something cool, some futuristic weapon like the Tavor or the Sar, but not another colt or crapy H&k.

btw. great pic poaw, where did you get it?
man that Tavor looks fine!

 

[poaw]

That's not a TAR-21, it's a SAR-21. It was made in Singapore. It's featured in their latest recruiting commercial. And unlike TAR this one has been given rave reveiws and will actually be used to replace the M16, unlike ther TAR. Which the Israelis aren't likely to implement in favor of of M16s and M4s they get as freebies from the US.

 

[Luminuis]

A Singapore Assault Rifle?


I though SARs was Search And Rescuse, and that guns didn't have that Acronym because Radio usesrs might hear SAR-21 and think that it meant a Search and Rescue Operation...

/me shrugs

Even if it was made in Singapore it's a TAR, which means Tavor Assault Rifle. IF it is the same design as the Tavor then why rename it no matter where it's made?

Or is this another version....and what's the Producer/manufacturer for the SAR?

 

[poaw]

It is NOT the TAR, it is a totally different weapon.

It is manufactured by STKinetics in Singapore. Oh yeah, there is one variant of the TAR you forgot.....

 

[Nerf Herder]

Didn't have a pic of it. There are 2 more I think. A sniper and a HBAR for continued automatic fire.

Oh yeah and

IMI Tavor TAR-21:

STK SAR-21

 

[Snakeye]

I meant M4A2 - and after performing a quick search I found that post from ShakKen:

Sebu_NZ: The m4a2 has the full 'A2' fixed carry handle receiver. Not the 'A3' rail upper of the M4A1.

The m4a2 also uses the slimmer handguard seen on the XM177E2, as opposed to the thicker, double liner handguard on
the M4A1.

While the US army issue spec M4 carbine is by default limited to semi and 3-round bursts, the m4a2 in Infiltration will have
full selective fire.

Should be somewhere there:
http://forums.planetunreal.com/showthread.php?postid=328083&highlight=m4a2#post328083

Snakeye

 

[Col.Sanders]

Shakken:

I agree with the gist of your statements on the Colt Commando; however, the M4's 14.5" barrel length was selected for two reasons:

Compromise of velocity versus compactness;
and the distance from the bayonet lug under the front handguard to the flash hider is the same as the 20" M16 so the same bayonet can still be attached to the weapon.

From the trials with the Colt XM177e2 ("CAR-15" of Vietnam fame), Colt felt the 11.5" barrel was the shortest reliable, and fitted a 2" suppressor to the muzzle to lower the blast. Nowadays, there are people making reliable M-16's as short as 7", but they use custom gas-tube assemblies and are more curiosities than effective weapons.

 

[ShakKen]

Col. Sanders:

Compactness VS velocity is actually a poor excuse given a measly 1.5 inches, but you have a good point about the bayonet. Technically though, M16 bayonets have a poor thrust angle. They ought to be redesigned like the new French FAMAS ones that sit to the side of the barrel.

I habe seen 7" AR-15s yes. Most of which were remanufactured to fire using blowback actions actually. Don't know what you want to hit with a barrel that short though=P

 

[Col.Sanders]

According to every reputable report on the terminal ballistics of the 5.56mm NATO, 2700 fps is a critical minimum velocity for maximum effect. Perhaps the 14.5" barrel, being 3" longer than the 11.5", pushed the distance at which the bullet slowed below 2700 fps to an acceptable distance.

The original XM177E2 with 11.5" barrel and ~3" suppressor could also fit a bayonet, but the terminal would have been less than with 3" of real barrel.

And we all know the FAMAS is superior in every conceivable aspect to any firearm ever or to be made.
But as we saw in Israel, if M16's are plentiful and good enough, and Galils are costly and better, cheap and OK wins.

 

[Snakeye]

And we all know the FAMAS is superior in every conceivable aspect to any firearm ever or to be made.

Is it possible I read a bit of sarcasm between you lines

BTW:
If I'm really right about the M4A2 (since no team member - like ShakKen, or so - who might have read that post commented on it, I'm not sure..) why is it still called M4A1 in the armory?

Snakeye

 

[ShakKen]

Using a ballistic calculator, this 'acceptable distance' is no more than 150meters.

From both 11.5 and 14.5" barrels, the round doesn't reach maximum stability till 100 meters, so they both have more or less the same lethality.

The M4 has only 50 more meters worth of significantly higher lethality. Rather than another 100-150 if they'd used a 16" barrel. Methinks US military planners jumped the gun on this one.

Btw, I'll let the FAMAS crack slip this time.

The only flaw I find with it, is that it is a bullpup design. And hence is not easily fired from the opposite shoulder.

Otherwise; |+ 0\/\//\/35 j00 477! 477 j00r >4rb|/\/35 4r3 b370/\/g +0 u5!

Snakeye: typo.

 

[jaymian]

Shakken, but not stirred
Just needed to get that outta the way.
Jaymian

 

[Snakeye]

Wonderful, what exactly do you mean with typo?

Typo in your post, in my post, in the armory??
I don't want to be too annoying, I'd just like to know wheter or not I'm posting wrong information..

Snakeye

 

[ShakKen]

typo in the armory

 

[Col.Sanders]

Call me Col.Overkill...

from the data at: http://www.bushmaster.com/images/faqchart.gif
for 10, 11.5, 14.5, 16, 20, 24, and 26" barrels, I compiled a spreadsheet and ran it through a ballistic calculator. I'd love to see their data on extreme spreads, because that might lay all of our arguments to rest. What if a "fast" 11.5-inch barrel matched or beat a "slow" 14.5-inch barrel? Individual variances would make comparisons between averages moot.

Anyway, I grabbed Excel and plotted velocity for each barrel length. I was on a roll and figured that including the 20, 24, and 26-inch lengths would show how much could be wrung from the 5.56mm.

Remember, that 2700 is the lower threshold for complete fragmentation, and 2500 is the lower threshold for partial fragmentation (two pieces).
source: http://home.snafu.de/l.moeller/military_bullet_wound_patterns.html
specifically the image: http://home.snafu.de/l.moeller/wund5.jpg (which is 84k)

The chart is attached:

 

[Col.Sanders]

Call me Col.Can't-Attach...

take 2....

 

[asmodeus]

they look a bit too linear for me...

I mean, speed is a function of acceleration, and acceleration is a function of force...

but the friction in a high speed bullet IIRC is roughly proportional to the speed squared... then we have

v=v0+a*t

a=F/m

Ff prop v²

=>v=v0+(Constant*v²*t)/m

=>(Constant*t/m)*v²-v+v0=0

that is a quadratic equation: giving a parabolic curve

in the case of a decelrating bullet, it should be concave down.

Feel free to correct me if I'm wrong.

If I'm not, you ballistic calculator makes a false assumption of linearization!

 

[Col.Sanders]

The problem behind your assumptions is that the actual drag on the bullet varies according to its velocity. As the velocity decreases, the drag on the bullet decreases, and the deceleration is less-- until we hit the transsonic range, 1.2-.8 times the speed of sound, where the drag may spike severly.

And if you look, the curve is not straight, it is concave upward. Plus the entire flight time to 250 yards is approximately a quarter-second.

Not trying to be rude, but I'm glad to see someone is thinking and not blindly accepting a pretty graph! I myself have compared the ballistic calculator to other published info, which it matches pretty well -- except they don't supply detailed atmospheric info which the calculator corrects for.

 

[asmodeus]

woha, the cruve is pretty slight agreed on that

and yes, it was my assumption, Drag is proportional to velocity squared