HOME | DD
Nolo84 — Talon Rifle Final
Published: 2008-07-31 05:17:18 +0000 UTC; Views: 1274; Favourites: 8; Downloads: 36
Redirect to original
Description
This is the final version of the Talon MAR. The rail is now slightly higher, to ease up space constraints on the gas system.That's about it. Enjoy.
Chambered in 6.5x45mm.
EDIT: New barrel and pistol grip.
EDIT: Final art.
EDIT: Quad Picatinny rails
EDIT: Thicker, sloped buttstock. Charging handle moved to above the QR handguard.
Related content
Comments: 24
I like this rifle, it's more streamlined and better designed than any M4/M16 Platform.
👍: 0 ⏩: 0
Neat-o.
What's the OAL of the cartridge this is designed to accept?
Do you have an allowance for a bolt hold-open?
Have you calculated the length of pull?
How does the barrel attach to the receiver?
Is the quad-rail detachable? This is one area where the ACR excels.
Depending on how you've designed the internals, one thing this design can do that the Masada/ACR doesn't is jettison the AR15 bolt head design for something simpler and more robust (such as in the Robinson XCR). Since (I assume) you're chambering a longer round than 6.8 SPC/6.5G then you're also doing something that very few others are.
Suggestions (if I may):
-I might reduce the aggressiveness of the finger grooves on the grip. Grooves like that aren't for everybody. Though, if that's a standard ar15 style grip mount, then it's essentially a modular component and easy to replace.
-Have you given much thought to other buttstock designs? A collapsible stock is handy, even when transitioning between indoor practice with a t-shirt and then real work outdoors with a jacket. ...much less a vest, body armor, and whatever else armed professionals lug around.
-Sling attachment points? In today's market, it's not cool unless you have 20 options.
-It'd be really cool to see a Militia-ized version (following the same general concept as your Lynx, but retaining all the practical features of modern carbines not flagged as "assault weapon" features in potential legislation).
👍: 0 ⏩: 1
OAL: 63.5mm
No, it currently doesn't have a BHO. That was something I didn't think of originally, and once I realized the Magpul/Bushmaster ACR was everything this rifle was and more (minus the better OAL), I stopped working on it. I went back to put rails on it, so that I could use them for future projects, but I never bothered to add any of the other good features to the rifle.
The LOP is the same as the M16/AR-15/M4, but I forgot exactly what that LOP was. In fact, the whole rifle's dimensions started with the AR-15's dimensions.
The barrel attaches to the receiver the same way the M16/AR-15/M4's does. It is unthreaded, but held on by a quick-release nut. The QD barrel system is based largely on the ACR's.
Yes, the quad is detachable.
The bolt is based largely off of the AK's, but it looks a little different after redesign. It's somewhere halfway between the AK's and the AR's at this point. It has four big lugs.
The grip is supposed to simulate a Hogue. The mount should be a standard AR-15 grip mount.
I have tried to draw collapsible buttstocks, but they're a real bitch to do. This buttstock was easy to draw, but the plan is for other buttstocks to be used as well.
The design didn't get far enough for a BHO, much less sling attachment points. XD
A militia-ized version would look really silly.
👍: 0 ⏩: 1
"A militia-ized version would look really silly."
Eh, perhaps. There may be some merit in it, though, if it were ever useful. How heavy do you suppose a Lynx would be?
For your designs, have you given much thought to how rim diameter affects how rounds stack in a magazine, magwell width, rifle width, etc...? This is one of the aspects that handicaps the 6.5 Grendel. It doesn't truly double-stack.
My only concept work in cartridges so far has been to look at necking down a full-length .30 Remington to something along the lines of 6.8 (haven't even gotten as far as running numbers yet, so not sure of ideal diameter/BC). I was poking around for info on 7x43 Murray when I ran across your posts on THR.
I think it's really great that you've put as much energy as you have into "virtual wildcats". A lot of your stuff seems to lean toward sub-6mm (a range I was perfectly willing to ignore altogether) and toward using 7.62x39 as a parent case. Any particular reasons for those two design decisions?
Finally, have you ever "scaled down" a 7mm-08? I've found that .308 doesn't quite have the case capacity to take full advantage of a .30 bullet with a good BC. 7mm Seems to be the sweet spot for that particular case (largest/heaviest common diameter bullet that can be loaded with a full powder charge). After seeing your work with scaling down cartridges, I'm curious if the ideal relationship between case capacity and bullet weight will scale down directly with overall dimensions. I'd be glad to hear your thoughts.
👍: 0 ⏩: 1
I think a Lynx would weigh about 7.5-8.5 pounds unloaded. The Lynx itself is obsolete, though. If I ever did a militia carbine again, it would be extremely modular, and be a bolt-action.
Certainly. 6.5 Grendel does DS, just not in an AR-15 magwell. It really needs a thicker magazine.
Most of my cartridges' performance numbers are based on guesses. Excellent guesses, sometimes, but still guesses.
I tend to work in under-explored territory. There's a lot of sub-6mm work because all that we've seen out of there has been either a 32-40 grain heeled bullet at various (low) speeds or a 55-70 grain bullet at various (high) speeds. We've not seen a cartridge designed to use a 90-grain .224" bullet. We've not seen a cartridge designed for a 110-grain .224" bullet. Why not?
Actually, many of my cartridges are using 7.62x45mm Czech as the base, but it's got the same case head as 7.62 Soviet, it's just longer. And, again, 7.62x45mm is unexplored territory.
"Scaled down"? As in, taken the dimensions and multiplied them all by a fraction? Probably. One thing I have found out about how cartridges scale down is that they do have the same performance as their parent... Relative to their size. For instance, I once scaled down .30-06 to 6mm (bullet weight, too). At .30-06 max pressures, it could only push the (I think it was) 105-grain bullet at something like 2350 fps, not the 3000 I wanted. Why? Because if you multiply 3000 fps by .243/.308, then you get 2366 fps. Remember, feet per second is size-dependent, too. If you scale the size of the cartridge, the speed will scale with it. In addition, the weight of your bullet will scale cubicly. Meaning if you scale down, your bullets will be a lot lighter (and have a lower BC) than you want, and if you scale up, they'll have a higher BC and be heavier.
👍: 0 ⏩: 1
"If I ever did a militia carbine again, it would be extremely modular, and be a bolt-action."
More modular than a Savage?
"6.5 Grendel does DS, just not in an AR-15 magwell."
Then it would be a fish out of water. The Grendel makes several compromises like bullet weight, case design, OAL in order to fit in the Stanag magwell. If you get rid of that magwell, then you can have performance as good as or better than the Grendel in a much more elegant solution.
I guess my thinking in scaling down was just looking at the relationship between case capacity and bullet weight. I also never thought to scale bullet weight directly. I'd have just found an available bullet in the desired diameter with a good BC.
A better way to phrase my question: if .308 Win wastes some bullet weight due to loading length restrictions, but 7mm-08 doesn't have that same problems, then 7mm-08 is a more efficient pairing of bullet to case. If both cartridges were scaled down (at least in terms of size), would the new cartridge based on .308Win be just as inefficient, and would the new one based on 7mm-08 be better.
Along those same lines, since 7mm-08 is the sweet spot for energy and high-BC for that bullet diameter, it seems to me that the 7x43 Murray is going to be inefficient. It's powder charge is less than that of the 7mm-08, but it's going to be using some of the same bullets. The Murray "ideal" might be better if he sticks with 6.8 for this cartridge, too.
The Stanag magwell "ideal" cartridge may end up being somewhere around 6mm. Scaling may be useful there, too. Find out how much thinner you can make the magazine walls and ribs, and then see how much more case width that allows you, per case. Then increase the rest of the diameters of the cartridge by the same percentage.
I'm going to see if I can work out a formula for this Case Efficiency idea of mine: that for any given bullet diameter there's an ideal bullet weight (giving a target BC of .5) and an ideal case capacity. More/less powder or more/less bullet is "specialization".
👍: 0 ⏩: 1
Modular enough to go from bolt action rifle, to SMG, to assault rifle, to light machine gun, to GPMG.
Not if you chambered an AK in 6.5 Grendel.
Don't think I don't find existing bullets; I do. However, I don't like to confine myself to what bullets already exist.
I am not sure where you're getting that .308 Winchester wastes bullet weight. Either way, if you scaled both down, you'd find that they're performance wasn't impressive at all.
I believe Murray is going for a "One Cartridge to Rule Them All", plan. I'd be shocked if he didn't; assault rifles don't need that much size.
BTW, STANAG magwell perfect cartridge:
[link]
It's the 6x41mm SCC on the right.
I hate to say this, but there is no "ideal" bullet weight for any caliber. There's good weights if you're trying to do something specific, but generally, even so generally as "best for an assault rifle", there is no sweet spot. Longer, lanky bullets will fly farther. Short, squat bullets will do more damage inside the body. Flat bullets will chew up tissue like nothing else. Pointed bullets will penetrate better.
Compromises, compromises, my friend.
👍: 0 ⏩: 1
That sort of modularity will be truly novel as far as I'm aware.
True, a Grendel-ized AK would be a good use of the round, assuming that the AK used was accurate enough to take advantage of the round and that Grendel magazines could be made (hair longer OAL and different case taper, right?).
The efficiency idea comes from the fact that the .308 Win can't take full advantage of a bullet with a BC of .5 or more without sacrificing more powder space than it's worth. A .30-06 on the other hand can use bullet weight all the way up through 200+ gr. Assuming the .5 BC as a goal, then the .308 case is better suited to 7mm than 7.8mm.
Another way of looking at it is that any given cartridge will benefit ballistically from increasing the BC only to a certain extent. After that point, you lose too much powder space for each increase in bullet weight and the flight path begins to curve down again. Following that illustration, each case has a ballistic optimum, where less weight is wasted velocity and less powder is wasted mass.
Long bullets should also tumble more reliably after impact and down to lower velocities than a small bullet. Because of this and the fact that the higher BC holds energy longer, the "critical range" of a 7mm-08 should be longer than that of the .308, right? For certain case energies this could be the difference between critical range ending well inside the most common engagement distances and well past it.
I've drawn up a document that outlines the goals and methods of my thought exercise. I'll need at least two criteria for each cartridge. The first will be a BC of or approaching .5 and the second will either be a scale of muzzle velocities or that the critical range exceed 300 or 400 meters. I'm liking the latter. Another criteria will likely be that (for the purposes of this exercise) neither of those aspects gets too much into overkill, like BCs of .9, critical ranges of 700m, etc.
Those criteria will be what results in my range of "ideal" cartridges. You're right, though, ideal is probably a bit of a misnomer and may even turn some people off to the finished product. The purpose of my experiment is to produce a scale of efficiency and to use that to identify an excellent new intermediate combat cartridge (or to confirm someone else's as such).
One other need I've identified is some software that'll help me generate numbers related to both internal and external ballistics. Do you know of a good free candidate? I'm simply going to need more data to really get started.
My email address is FlatDarkEarth@gmail.com. Feel free to contact me there. Just bouncing ideas and illustations off of you has already helped me immensely in forming them and IDing what this project will require.
👍: 0 ⏩: 1
Yeah, I don't think anyone's tried to do anything like that since Stoner.
They have 5.56mm AKs, so I don't see the taper or OAL being a problem.
Why is it so important to have a BC of .5 or more? .400-.480 is optimum for military weapons. But, yes, assuming .5+ BC is the goal, then 7mm is the sweet spot for .308. The reality, however, is that, for military purposes, you only need BCs in the .400s.
The whole next paragraph is full of stuff I knew. But thanks for specifying your design goals.
You're wrong about long bullets tumbling better than short ones. The opposite is true. Long bullets tumble much less well than short bullets, and they also break up less easily. All things being equal, you want a bullet that will penetrate about 12-14" into tissue and start tumbling around 8-10" into tissue, I believe. Given streamlined jacketed ball boattail bullets, this ends up being somewhere in the .420 BC range.
Critical range, as I define it, is dependent on BC, not classical terminal effectiveness. It's a useful figure, but don't take it too far. All "critical range" means is the range at which a cartridge dips below 2050 fps. Below this is the speed when most jacketed bullets stop fragmenting. It has nothing to do with how reliable a given bullet will fragment. Thus, longer, skinnier bullets with a higher BC will have a longer critical range, yes. However, that's no guarantee that they'll be effective man-stoppers.
AFAIK, there is no free loading software. All my data is based on educated guesses.
Reply to this message through email. You should have an email in your inbox by the time you read this.
👍: 0 ⏩: 0
Looks pretty good, but you really should save them as PNG files. JPG's always get little distortions.
👍: 0 ⏩: 1
I save them as Bitmaps. I know the bane of JPGs.
dA converts them to JPGs when I upload them.
I think if you hit "download" you get the unadulterated image.
👍: 0 ⏩: 1
No, you dont.
[link]
Save them as PNGs and they'll be untouched.
👍: 0 ⏩: 1
YES, I DO.
Look, I'm too tired to remember how to take a screen shot right now, and I don't want to argue with you.
I KNOW WHAT I SAVE MY FILES AS. I EDIT THEM LITERALLY ALL THE TIME.
I save them as bitmaps.
deviantART converts them to JPGs, just like it does every other file.
Even yours, though your ammo may get through it because it's small enough (JPGs have smaller storage spaces than bitmaps, which helps with bandwidth). I know my ammo gets through.
I thought "download" preserved the original of the image for viewing. It does not. So what?
I've got the bitmap on my computer. I don't care.
Trust me, sometimes I accidentally save my stuff as JPGs. And then I usually throw a big temper tantrum and have to do it all again.
Don't tell me how I save my pictures. I know more about them than you do.
👍: 0 ⏩: 1
My work is on here as PNG files.
How can you be so sure you know more about them than I do?
👍: 0 ⏩: 1
Okay, so dA likes PNG.
I don't care all that much. I really don't give a hoot whether dA converts mine to JPG.
They're on my computer as bitmaps.
Okay, that statement was just arrogant.
Why would you know more about them than ME?
I CREATED the damn images. I EDIT the damn images with regularity. I have tens of variant images on my computer that no one on dA has ever seen.
What you guys see is a minute part of the work I actually do on them.
I draft the internals, I create colorless images for printing, I create colored images for when I figure PS out enough to use them, and I create drawings of the damn things.
I created this image and rifle from the ground up. ON MY OWN. How can you tell me you know more about this rifle and the pictures of it than I do?
👍: 0 ⏩: 1
So you're not only one very arrogant, but you're also very ignorant. I meant: Why would you know more about image formats than I do? Having it as a JPG on here just looks sloppy.
You know, there were a couple of guys ranting on me about a year or a year and a half ago. They said I had a sick obsession with "Tools of Death". They may have been right, but the level of obsessity you claim to have dwarfs even their insulting skills. It's not your job, nobody ordered you to do so, there is not a problem that this rifle will definately solve.
BTW, you could never have created this rifle on your own. I mean, look at it, it's just like the AR15. It's not your design, it's Eugene stoner's, you just adapted it.
👍: 0 ⏩: 1
I had a bad night last night. I apologize for how I sounded. You know how long it takes for these images to upload to dA?
It takes about 30-45 minutes for ONE.
They're big images, and people can see them just fine the way they are.
No, it's not my job. When did anyone say it's my job? I design rifles. So?
BTW, externally, it shares a few features with the AR-15. But it is not an AR-15 internally, by any stretch of the imagination. It's actually much close to an AK than an AR. Plus the receiver is half G3.
There was a problem that this rifle would have solved. But, after I designed it, it became apparent that I ended up doing almost nothing the Masada/ACR didn't do.
It's not Eugene Stoner's. It has ergonomic similarities with the AR-15, yes. It's measurements are based off of the AR-15's, for accuracy. But it is not an AR-15.
Not at all.
You want to recklessly and unproductively criticize my work? Pound sand.
Seriously. Why nitpick about the format?
I dunno what's gotten into you, and I am sorry for the attitude I had last night (I was running on three hours sleep for 48 hours), but seriously.
Just go away if you're gonna be like that.
👍: 0 ⏩: 1
Well then you either have a crappy internet connection or, euhm, I have no idea what else could have caused it, but mine take only 12 seconds or so (yeah I know, yours are bigger, but they arn't 150-175 times bigger).
Okay, you design rifles, but appearantly you do it like it's your job (Eugene stoner), or like somebody ordered you to do so (Mikhail Kalashnikov), or it was needed to solve a serious problem (Richard Gatling).
You know what, let's just shut up and keep the cocky comments to our own mind. This isn't getting anywhere.
(BTW, do you think that THR is a good place to ask how the Mk. 211 acualy works?)
👍: 0 ⏩: 2
Glad to return to civil discussion.
By the way, that's what all the time is: converting bitmap to JPG.
I don't know why dA can't handle bitmaps, but whatever.
I'll be sure to use PNG from now on. Thanks.
👍: 0 ⏩: 0
I design rifles like that because it's what I do.
Some people play sports really seriously, some people create art seriously, I design and draft firearms.
This design actually was from the ground up. I literally took a clean MS Paint document and started drafting, starting with the barrel. Nowhere did I copy anything directly (by outlining), like when I normally conceptualize.
That is "from the ground up". I am doing a radical design that is using similar methods right now.
I didn't mean to be cocky earlier, I just escalated it because I was tired and cranky. I already apologized for that.
You could look it up on Wiki. They have a decent article on it. Otherwise, Google it orTHR would help you.
I don't know why they take so long. Maybe because it is trying to convert it to JPG...
Lemme see about uploading them as PNGs...
👍: 0 ⏩: 0
Well, I wouldn't quite call it THAT...
XD
👍: 0 ⏩: 0
