MTMilitiaman
New member
Some people are thinking too hard. Calm down guys. I doubt if any of us are the next John Moses Browning. Think smaller, less revolutionary, or you'll give yourself a brain aneurism.
Someone might have already tried some of these, but I thought them up by myself.
For example, I always wondered why the recoil assembly on an automatic pistol couldn't be placed above the barrel to bring the bore axis more in line with the hand, or even just wrapped around the barrel, reducing overall height.
Or why an engineer who prides himself on simplicity of design didn't think to put the recoil spring of the Kalashnikov around the gas piston instead of behind the bolt carrier. At the very least, that would make it so that the length of the receiver could be cut down.
Speaking of Russians, how is it they can design a reciprocating barrel assault rifle with a compensator that nearly eliminates muzzle climb, but forty years after its adoption, we're still stuck with the M16? It may be a decent rifle, but we got to be able to do better. They're problem is that they can't find the money to produce the AN-94 in sufficient numbers. Our problem is that we lack the ingenuity to invent anything worth spending money on. While we're on the subject, tell me a reciprocating barrel assembly and a muzzle compensator couldn't have been used to greatly reduce felt recoil in a 7.62x51mm battle rifle--think semi-auto and two round burst with a really high cyclic rate so that both bullets have exited the muzzle before the shooter can react to recoil.
Somewhere out there, someone has to have a feasible idea for caseless ammunition. I mean come on--we can design a robot with a laser that can do brain surgery, but developing caseless ammunition just boggles our minds? The HK G11 was an interesting concept, but from my understanding, complex in operation and the design of its ammunition had problems too. I think we should be able to do better now.
Or why the concept of bottom ejection isn't more popular, esp with the growing trend of bullpup style rifles. FN did it with their P90, but for whatever reason decided a forward ejection chute was more intuitive than working with gravity on their F2000 assault rifle.
I want to see Trijicon put two and two together and get four. As in they have their ACOG series, which is excellent, but not as good at CQB as their reflex sights. They now mount a reflex sight on top of an ACOG, which shows that wheels are turning, but doesn't really strike me as a usable "brilliant" solution. I want to see a tactical version of their Accupoint series. Think 1.25-4x24 with BAC and dual illumination, but with a rangefinder/BDC as found in some versions of the ACOG built into it. Fast, versatile, accurate, and useful in all lighting conditions without batteries.
I want to see a handgun with rails that slide out of dual dovetails, like interchangeable grip panels, so the operator can choose between clean lines and snag free without rails, or the utility of a rail with a weapon mounted laser or white light by himself, in seconds, without tools. There. That is my idea. It is small and simple, but practical.
Someone might have already tried some of these, but I thought them up by myself.
For example, I always wondered why the recoil assembly on an automatic pistol couldn't be placed above the barrel to bring the bore axis more in line with the hand, or even just wrapped around the barrel, reducing overall height.
Or why an engineer who prides himself on simplicity of design didn't think to put the recoil spring of the Kalashnikov around the gas piston instead of behind the bolt carrier. At the very least, that would make it so that the length of the receiver could be cut down.
Speaking of Russians, how is it they can design a reciprocating barrel assault rifle with a compensator that nearly eliminates muzzle climb, but forty years after its adoption, we're still stuck with the M16? It may be a decent rifle, but we got to be able to do better. They're problem is that they can't find the money to produce the AN-94 in sufficient numbers. Our problem is that we lack the ingenuity to invent anything worth spending money on. While we're on the subject, tell me a reciprocating barrel assembly and a muzzle compensator couldn't have been used to greatly reduce felt recoil in a 7.62x51mm battle rifle--think semi-auto and two round burst with a really high cyclic rate so that both bullets have exited the muzzle before the shooter can react to recoil.
Somewhere out there, someone has to have a feasible idea for caseless ammunition. I mean come on--we can design a robot with a laser that can do brain surgery, but developing caseless ammunition just boggles our minds? The HK G11 was an interesting concept, but from my understanding, complex in operation and the design of its ammunition had problems too. I think we should be able to do better now.
Or why the concept of bottom ejection isn't more popular, esp with the growing trend of bullpup style rifles. FN did it with their P90, but for whatever reason decided a forward ejection chute was more intuitive than working with gravity on their F2000 assault rifle.
I want to see Trijicon put two and two together and get four. As in they have their ACOG series, which is excellent, but not as good at CQB as their reflex sights. They now mount a reflex sight on top of an ACOG, which shows that wheels are turning, but doesn't really strike me as a usable "brilliant" solution. I want to see a tactical version of their Accupoint series. Think 1.25-4x24 with BAC and dual illumination, but with a rangefinder/BDC as found in some versions of the ACOG built into it. Fast, versatile, accurate, and useful in all lighting conditions without batteries.
I want to see a handgun with rails that slide out of dual dovetails, like interchangeable grip panels, so the operator can choose between clean lines and snag free without rails, or the utility of a rail with a weapon mounted laser or white light by himself, in seconds, without tools. There. That is my idea. It is small and simple, but practical.
You better get to making it work because someone will, or possibly already is. I can see that being as common as handcuffs on every LEO's belt.