Requiring the user to displace the whole upper potion of the gun in order to switch magazines does several things: From a human factors standpoint, it adds extra work to the reloading process. From an engineering standpoint, it adds more complexity and liability to the design by having more moving parts, and from a marksman's standpoint, it degrades the consistency and accuracy of both the optics on the upper rail and the iron sights ( because the front iron sight must fold down to allow the upper to open). Run through the list of magazine-fed guns you know in your head and consider how the magazines are changed. Everything I can think of has a simple release button and no obstructions to speak of, and I can pretty confidently promise you that its no coincidence. Even the P-90 off of which this is based has the mag exposed to daylight. Like I said, it's not your folly since you're merely translating someone else's design into 3D. One of the unavoidable truths of product design, however, is that everything we design will be used for the most part by human beings, and human beings tend not to appreciate complex loading mechanisms when they must use them while being shot at.
Just purdy! what caliber would you say it uses? Any idea of the RPM it can fire? How does it eject spent cartridges? Wheres the charging handle? Can we get a version with a smaller scope similar to an red-dot or standard ACOG? Sorry for the real technical stuff but guns are a hobby of mine and this is one of the few truly viable concepts I've seen in a while. So definite props on this one!
I'm glad you think it's viable, that's extremely high praise. It is my favourite of my designs, great to see it in 3D! I imagined it in 5.56x45mm, cased, but others have suggested caseless ammo & I wondered why I didn't think of that, the upper receiver was VERY wide to accommodate the 45mm long rounds.
Ejection is behind the pistol grip, the breech is further back than most people imagine, and it ejects downward into a chute.
This scope is baded on the one on my design, it would be good to see it with a more conventional RDS tho, if MrJumpManV4 could oblige... :-D
No problem dude, paramount designs deserve paramount praise . Yea, take it from an enthusiast, caseless rounds aren't all they're cracked up to be. Another round you might consider is the new(ish) 6.8mm SPC which is, in my humble opinion, the future of AR rounds for both Military and LE purposes *And they aren't to shabby for Civies too lol*.
As for the ejection system, the P90 system is not a bad idea and you implemented it well considering the ergonomics of the rifle. However, just as a thought, you may want to look into a gas piston system to help push the round further back so as not to effect the hand while it holds the grip *but then again I don't know where the ejection slot is so this may be mute lol*
Only other nit-pick is the release lever for the guard above the magazine, it just strikes me that it might be impaired by the barrel, however once again this might be mute because it seems to work fine in the picture.
All in all, easily a 9/10 and in case you didn't notice I'm kinda picky when it comes to rifles so awesome work! That said, if this were a real gun and available on the Civilian market, I'd purchase it in a heartbeat!
Please please PLEASE do an internal drawing of the internal mechanisms, that would just be sweet to look at!
some nice stuff there, I like the Kriss style rifles, & the colony security rifle. You should join the Flickr group, much more useful community for feedback & ideas, & better image hosting than Photobucket too!
Thanks! i'm a bit enthusiastic about weapons myself, i just need to get beyond remembering names and move unto actual functionality of weapons. this particular design spec requires 5.56 magazine similar to the p90 (as you have obviously seen in the image) but what is unique about the magazine is the arrangement of bullets in the magazine to allow them to fit, similar to how a pistol magazine arrangement is i guess? anyways, here's a link to what i had in mind [link] the "charging handle" (cocking device as I've heard it called, i think they're the same?) is pretty easy to see, it's below the upper magazine cover and above the forward grip. I'm unaware of any specification on the RPM, but i would imagine 900 would be appropriate, you should ask dukeleto (i added a link in the description, he's the original designer of the weapon in 2D) the cartridges are ejected behind the primary grip, also similar to how a p90 ejects cartridges. however i'm not sure what magical path they take to go around the grip
i have a nice collection of scopes so changing it wouldn't be a huge hassle, only concern of mine in regards to the scope is whether or not it will work, the one it has right now is too large and lifted higher than your average scope, only scope i can think of is like you said ACOG, or maybe some odd russian scope that is abnormally tall. remember, this design was originally made by dukeleto, you should see his original design for sure. also be sure to check out the 360 animation [link] sorry for the long reply glad you were so interested in the model!
heh heh 900 RPM would be a little high, but I'm more of a fan of the slower Russian rates of fire.
Yea and Charging Handle and a Cocking Device are roughly the same, they're more just different locations and philosophies between them. Lol yea I see it now, it just slipped my original viewing.
Actually if you want some ideas for scopes, you should look up some models from companies like Trijcon and Aimpoint. Although fancy scopes like Holographic sights and Red-Dots are in style right now, you'll never go wrong with a good set of Iron Sights or an Ole' Fashioned Rifle Scope *Which are actually quite handy on an AR like this one*. That said, don't get too down on having an unusually tall scope, believe it or not but there are benefits to having a high scope mount on a rifle and while the one you have here is a bit... cumbersome, all you'd really need to do is slim it down a bit to make it a perfectly acceptable scope for a rifle.
Just for the 3D work and all, I still give you a 8/10, and only the bulky scope keeps it from a 9. Although I would say you should raise the forward sights a bit, they're a little low in profile compared to the rear sights.
yea, russian weapons are typically 7.62 which are more powerful than 5.56, i think 900 is high but not abnormally so, average ROF for a assault rifle with 5.56 is 850 if i'm not mistaken. 7.62 are like 600-700 i think. I love the idea for aimpoint rifles, i may take some inspiration from those. I like the detail i put into my rifle but i think it's too large (most would agree). Next rifle of my own design i will try and remember to use a scope similar to an aimpoint type. thanks for the rating. regarding the forward sight, it's adjustable i just forgot to extend it up a bit
Heh heh well the newer Russian AR's use the 5.45mm which is, in my opinion, a better round than the 5.56 *only because of the ballistic performance*, but even then they have a lower re-fire rate (650-700 RPM for the AK-74) which is lower than the NATO 850 like you said. But this is due to different combat philosophies.
Lol hell yea on the forward sight and that makes sense, it just looked a little odd is all. And yea, no problem dude, it's an awesome looking rifle and both of you did a hell of a job on it!
Well, i'd say it depends more on the caliber typically because even NATO type weapons at 7.62 have low ROF such as the FN-FAL, m14, HK M417 (7.62 version of the m416). But to be honest i'm more a fan of rounds that stay around 6.5mm, i'm not sure which one exactly but it's a nice fit between 5.56 and 7.62 (one with too much kick and one with not enough punch).
I think you're referring to Remington's 6.8 SPC round which is AWESOME. But yea, you're correct, a larger calibers tend to have lower re-fire rates. There isn't any realistic way to hold a 7.62x51 NATO steady in full auto, but even the smaller 5.56 rounds can be tricky beyond 50-60 meters. I guess that's my real problem with high(er) rates of fire. There's just no real reason for it. At realistic combat ranges outside of urban environments, there is no way to properly use full auto effectively and up close, most rounds have more than sufficient energy and stopping power to drop a man in one shot. Now the 5.56 is an exception, personally I think it's a glorified varmint round which should only be used to penetrate body armor *which is what it was originally designed for*, but NATO fell in love with it because they could use it in urban environments at full auto and burst fire to literally turn insurgents and other unarmored enemies into Swiss cheese. The NATO Militaries have thus been having an affair with the round since the late 60's.
Lol but we all have our preferences. Sorry I know I'm a real firearms nerd but Ballistics and Guns are a hobby of mine. I've been hunting since I was a wee Lad, and I'm currently well on my way to getting into the Army National Guard. I don't mean to talk y'alls ears off, it's just Firearm's and Military theory are two of my passions.
yea 6.8 i think is the new(ish) one that i prefer. I think rifles should only need totake one round to take down an enemy where in a lot of cases the 5.56 fails to do that if i'm not mistaken. i'm not really sure about armored units which rounds are better though, would a 5.56 better than a 7.62 against say a standard kevlar armor? If i were to choose my weapons i would want something like an mp7 for urban combat and keep some 7.62 weapon (preferably an FAL) for about 100m+ combat but i guess there's the problem of expenses of having two weapons.
anyways, dont worry about it, weapons are actually one of my main interests next to 3D modeling and chemistry.
I can understand that when someone compares similarities between two weapons it appears as if its not original, so heres this. This weapon is original, and easily distinguishable from the AR from halo.
well the way the magazine is loaded implies it uses caseless rounds. as usually an external magazine and reciever would have a shell ejection shaft on the right side of the weapon. but i dont know it depends on the original design.
that's right, bottom ejection, behind the pistol grip. It never occurred to me to make it caseless, would solve the width issue, anyway! (note that caseless weapons DO still need an ejection port, in case a round fails)
i've never been a fan of caseless ammunition, it can cause overheating in the barrel and various other problems (unless there is some sci-fi fix to these problems at least) no offence intended regarding the ejection of the casing position, it just seems like the case would have to go a fair distance and make a few turns to get all the way behind the pistol grip.
existing caseless PROTOTYPES have suffered those problems, I don't think the idea that modern materials science could, with time & investment, solve them is really that far-fetched. No offence taken, the breech is just further back than you assumed, behind the grip rather than above it, & the mag is correspondingly longer. Spent cases/failed rounds drop behind the grip, just as in the P90.
Oh, that makes more sense, but how does the magazine go that far back? do the cartridges go further back to enter the breech then?
ceaseless ammunition is possible and exists but to date they are for all intents and purposes fictional, unless the G11 has become standard issue beyond my knowledge. Not to say fictional things can't become reality in the near future of course. But you're gun is fictional anyways so it would work in your design.