hey /k/ im kinda new to guns and i have a question
does a rifle with no buffer/buffer tube have more recoil than a rifle with a buffer?
i.e im assuming guns that are too short to accommodate a buffer (bullpups) have more recoil than a rifle with a buffer because the bolt is just hitting the receiver. if so, why not put buffers in rifles?
>>27937693
I think it has more to do with the individual moving parts not moving as one like a long stroke design would. I think that's why short stroke pistons have less recoil. The mass isn't all moving at the same time.
>>27937693
The buffer tube holds the main spring, you tit. It has nothing to do with the bolt hitting the receiver, it's just that the ARs design is retarded.
But you are technically right, some race ARs are tuned so that you don't bottom out, and they do have less felt recoil at the cost of reliability.
>>27938013
No need to call them a tit, they admitted they were new to guns.
You could also theoretically tune any autoloading rifle in that manner, though it would be stupid, so that's still not a virtue of the buffer tube.
My bolt action .223/5.56 has very little felt recoil compared to an AR, unless the AR is braked/compensated. Moving parts include a trigger pin and firing pin spring. Das it. AR's and Mini 14's feel bouncy, rough and rickety compared to the solid feeling bolt gun. EXCEPT when it has a nice muzzle device, then they shoot soooo sweet
>>27937693
Semi-auto guns have return springs. That how the bolt goes from open to closed after the gun is fired.
AR-15 buffer tube springs are their return spring. It has nothing to do with the "bolt hitting the receiver", in fact that series of words makes no sense.
The point of the AR-15 having such a funky return spring design is to give it "straightline" recoil, essentially reducing the amount of climb that would be imparted to a shooter during automatic or rapid semi-auto fire. The hugely large return spring also serves to reduce felt recoil (this is different than actual recoil). The downside is that straightline design requires elevated sights (since the stock must be in line with bolt carrier) and it can not be fired while folded (and 99% of the time can't be folded at all. Only very botique modifications allow AR-15s to have folding stocks).
ARs were originally designed to fire .308 and do so with controllable full auto functionality in a rifle sized weapon, so everything about the design is tailored towards reducing recoil. It's somewhat overkill with 5.56mm or smaller calibers, which is why it isn't done much outside of ARs.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=138Of8ucaMY
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=138Of8ucaMY
>>27938587
Derp, resposted the same video twice. Just watch this for how ARs work, OP:
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=7b5w7Aypamg
>>27938605
Kek at that guy actually grabbing the "carry handle". Bet his drill sergeant chewed him out after.
>>27939748
Why is it even there then? I've always been confused by this.
>>27939995
It was a design feature to protect the originally top mounted charging handle. The handle was then moved to the back where it is now, and the carry handle was kept in the new design. I guess it technically makes the whole thing more solid, but the handle wouldn't be used anywhere that has any urgency.
>>27939995
It serves a number of functions:
1. The sights have to be raised anyways, so they may as well have the carry handle to make them more sturdy.
2. The wings on the carry handle can serve as boundries to give the shooter a gross sight picture for rapid, close combat. Remember this is before red dots.
3. The carry handle serves as a mounting point for optics. Before rails, this was the only spot for a scope to screw onto the rifle.
4. Yes, it was in fact, intended as a carrying handle. Older military doctrines regarded slings as something used when marching with a rifle, but rifles were meant to be completely unslung during combat. If the soldier needed to grab something else like an ammo can or another wounded soldier, they were meant to use the carry handle in one hand and grab the object in the other. Notice on rifles like FALs there is an added carry handle for just this purpose.
Reasons 1-3 are made obsolete by rails, widespread use of optics, and foldable sights. Reason 4 is made obsolete by improved slings and doctrinal changes from combat lessons learned.
These days, military trainees are often told:"Carry handles are not carry handles and they never were!" because that's the easiest and fastest way to get trainees to shut up and keep their mitts off them. Basic instructors have neither the time, patience, or inclination to give a nuanced history of the design evolution.
>carry handle charging rod change
Open slot channel on top, dirt falls through and into the rifle's action.
Hole in the back of the rifle that when charging the rifle would drag most accumulated dirt away from the action...
Pick one, nothing to do with strength of the rifle.
>>27940329
Wouldn't "they used to be but we learned that that was fucking retarded" work?
>>27940649
The approach taken at the basic most level of military instruction is the absolute most dumbed down and simple explanation. It is often wrong, but "good enough" for the end user to apply. There is a lot of "This is the way it is. Because I said so. Shut the fuck up." factor by DIs who do not want to get dragged into answering questions. The DIs may also, themselves, honestly believe the wrong things they are saying.
Anyway, Drill Sergeants are where a lot of military enlisted get incorrect myths or half truths first drilled into them. And then those trainees grow up to be unit NCOs or Drill Sergeants and further spread those myths.
>>27940713
>found the joe that got smoked this afternoon
>>27940818
Hmm?
Basic military instruction is incredibly dumbed down for the lowest common denominator, and is not uncommonly taught by people who are not much more well versed in the subject than those they are training.
>>27938587
>You will never storm a beach with a backpack fed battle rifle
Why even live?
