Waiting on the short barrel
-
ODT Gun Show this Saturday! - Click here for info and tickets!
Wolf A1 complete upper $559 shipped
- Thread starter bulletpaluza
- Start date
Waiting on the short barrel
Keep waiting lol!
I gets carbon in the action like any other firearm. It's also a highly antiquated design.The AK doesn't use carbon for lube
RPK is the exact same design as AKM, aside from the thicker receiver and a barrel. And no, AKM design does not have ussues with ammo cook off. It does not **** where it eats.
PS page 3 of the 1967 Soviet rifle manual (7.62 AKM and AMS) states that "automatic fire is the main mode of fire from this automatic rifle."
Lol yeah the 9 year difference makes for super antiquated but superior design.
Having a thicker barrel, IE being built to withstand the stress of sustained fully-automatic fire, is the main functional difference between a light-machine gun and an assault rifle.
Both are fully automatic rifles. The assault rifle is a service rifle which is the cross between a sub machine gun and a traditional battle rifle. They're capable of fully-automatic fire to give an advantage over non-fullauto firearms in close range, but the barrel is of a light profile as to not weigh the soldier down. Dump a magazine, maybe two, and you're good to go, but dumping magazine after magazine after magazine isn't what an assault rifle was designed to do.
Light-machine guns are designed to be man-portable fully-automatic rifles designed specifically for sustained fire. They're not light and handy like an assault rifle, but they're also designed to withstand the stress of very large volumes of fire within a short period of time.
The AKM is not a light-machine gun; it's an assault rifle. The RPK is not an assault rifle; it's a light-machine gun.
The AK wasn't designed or intended to be the best possible service rifle. It was designed to be a decent service rifle that was simple to use and easy to mass-manufacture for the USSR, a still-industrializing nation that did not have the latest and greatest machining and manufacturing capabilities. The AK is a mix of different concepts which had already existed to make a good rifle for its day.
The AR was designed to be the best possible service rifle. Unlike the AK, the AR was designed in the most technologically advanced nation that not only utilized but created the best manufacturing technologies. It pioneered its own design which was an objective improvement upon external-piston firearms. Eliminating the op-rod by designing the bolt and carrier to function together as the piston was genius; there really wasn't anything like this prior to the AR. Its use of aluminum and polymer to cut on weight, which seems so mundane today, flied in the face of virtually every service rifle before it and set the trend that essentially every service rifle today now follows.
Yeah, they were only designed 9 years apart, but that just goes to show how ahead of his time Stoner really was. It blows my mind that the AR design has been around longer than the pocket calculator, and yet despite its age no service rifle yet as eclipsed its fundamental design.
https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/ArmaLite_AR-18
https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/T91_assault_rifle
After Stoner with Armalite developed the AR-15, they went on to develop the AR-18, a short stroke, piston driven rifle incorporating the same high tech materials of its predecessor, the AR-15. Taiwan's military adopted the AR-18 design instead of the AR-15. They made a few improvement tweaks and called it the T91, which is in use to this day by their military. The Wolf A1 is a Taiwanese military full auto T91 upper without the bayonet lug and gas block sling swivel. Its Stoner piston system is no joke and is a bonafide military upper that is in service right now.
