FA+
Shop
Kinetic Energy Weapons Rant
2 months ago
Welcome to my analog video essay in which I vent about some of the things that bother me within the firearms technology discourse.
Too many people do this "my dad can beat up your dad" thing with their guns of choice, where they cherrypick non-pertinent metrics and anecdotes to validate preconceived choices in equipment - probably because they dropped thousands into what amounts to a fashion piece and feel a need to validate their purchase with a logos appeal. If hipster guns are just socially-acceptable male jewelry to you in the same way knives and watches are, be honest to yourself about it.
I'm not entirely innocent to partaking in this tech heresy because it takes tremendous mental calories to evaluate nuance, and generally-applicable wisdom is easily taken to be axiomatic because it's functionally true 90% of the time; this journal acts as a self-reminder to maintain mental plasticity in an industry with continously-shifting technological paradigms.
RELIABILITY
This comes up a lot when talking about DI vs piston, revolver vs autoloader, striker vs hammer. Despite there being practical metrics like mean-rounds-between-failure for evaluating a selection of weapons samples under specific operating conditions relevant to an individual or organization, reliability is NOT a linear value that you can put a big number to for the purpose of universal comparison. Complex machines have complex failure conditions, dependent on operating conditions, ammunition, and QA/QC of manufacturing. Factors like bolt velocity, unlock timing, extractor geometry and tension, carrier tilt, etc. all coalesce together to deliver a net result, which differ slightly between individual units and differ greatly between different manufacturers. Something as simple as the choice between phosphate or polished-substrate DLC could make or break a system by changing the coefficient of friction.
People too often cite total weapon systems as champion representatives of one of their design features out of dozens of interdependent variables, and then compare net results to other systems with dozens of completely different variables, attributing total performance to the singular aforementioned feature. Correlation =/= causation.
Was direct impingement or the M16 a better or worse technology than its competition because of test metrics under specific trials at the time? Throw a modern Daniel Defense AR into the 1960s-era weapons trials and you'll see how much unspoken factors like the minutia of manufacturing can skew test results that people then selectively extrapolate to support their arguments.
Control as many variables as possible when evaluating a specific feature: e.g. control for ammunition, gas pressure at the piston face, chamber lubricity, dwell time, bcg, and buffer, when trying to determine the effects of gas system length (and subsequent unlock timing) on consistency of extraction and ejection within a specific platform.
Malfunctions also don't have universal remedies. This notion is particularly egregious in talks of the forward assist. It's a jam-enhancer if you apply it to a double feed or brass-over-bolt, but for some malfunctions like a failure to lock, the alternative of manually charging a bolt onto a live, chambered round can risk slamfire due to the lack of magazine to reduce forward bolt velocity.
PRECISION
Despite the advancements in manufacturing, barrels and ammunition are still all snowflakes subject to stacking tolerances. Two barrels of the same model from the same high end manufacturer could prefer different ammunition due to the bore-bullet fitment and where the bullet exits the muzzle during the barrel's harmonic whip.
Guys often post tight 3-5 round groups because it's a fun flex, but it isn't the whole picture. Shoot a 30 round group out of the same precision barrel with the same lot of match ammo and you might be surprised to see your group dramatically grow and shrink across strings of fire, even due to weird factors like magazine follower tension and binding affecting the angle at which the round is fed into and scraped against the feed ramp, imparting inconsistent deformation of the bullet.
MIL CARGO CULTING
The labyrinthine bureaucracy of military organizations works in mysterious ways that are not always logical nor pertinent to your needs: e.g. the development of forward-heavy government-profile barrels addressing a false diagnosis of bending barrels, the mk12 SPR's 18.5in barrel being adopted to sidestep the redundancy of a 20in barrel already in inventory with the m16, 3-round burst to correct a training deficiency, and the abhorrent manganese phosphate coating common to too many weapon components.
While military usage can create large sample sizes to derive conclusions from, and facilitate the maturation of technical data packages and institutional knowledge for producing and maintaining a technology, it's not an infallible model to be emulated without question.
If your goal is to emulate or clone mil kit for the purpose of fashion larping, that's great and guys should be allowed to have fun more. Just be honest about its practical capabilities and why you're doing it, because they're often designed with different METT-TC than yours.
IRONSIGHTS
Ironsights developed an axiomatic mythology of universal durability because they have different failure conditions to the red dots they serve as backup to, namely the lack of electronic failure potential. However, this is very much a myth born out of mistranslation: ironsights easily suffer breakage when sustaining impacts to the sight post or hinge mechanism - much easier than prisms like ACOGs or any of the budget 20mm aimpoint T2 clone dots with monolithic optic housings and can be reinforced with extended lens hoods or killflashes. In addition, FSB irons can shift zero for the entire barrel when impacted, and handguard-mounted irons depend on the handguard to retain zero against impacts, which is a hard ask given the length of leverage from the barrel nut.
The same luddites who insist upon ironsights for alleged durability usually get quiet when you start to nitpick their short gas systems (read the NSWC crane report on carbine vs midlength), phosphate bolt assemblies, and MIM fire control components for their shortcomings under general adverse conditions. It's really just a pretense to justify obsolete sighting technology, aside from budgetary concerns.
Too many people do this "my dad can beat up your dad" thing with their guns of choice, where they cherrypick non-pertinent metrics and anecdotes to validate preconceived choices in equipment - probably because they dropped thousands into what amounts to a fashion piece and feel a need to validate their purchase with a logos appeal. If hipster guns are just socially-acceptable male jewelry to you in the same way knives and watches are, be honest to yourself about it.
I'm not entirely innocent to partaking in this tech heresy because it takes tremendous mental calories to evaluate nuance, and generally-applicable wisdom is easily taken to be axiomatic because it's functionally true 90% of the time; this journal acts as a self-reminder to maintain mental plasticity in an industry with continously-shifting technological paradigms.
RELIABILITY
This comes up a lot when talking about DI vs piston, revolver vs autoloader, striker vs hammer. Despite there being practical metrics like mean-rounds-between-failure for evaluating a selection of weapons samples under specific operating conditions relevant to an individual or organization, reliability is NOT a linear value that you can put a big number to for the purpose of universal comparison. Complex machines have complex failure conditions, dependent on operating conditions, ammunition, and QA/QC of manufacturing. Factors like bolt velocity, unlock timing, extractor geometry and tension, carrier tilt, etc. all coalesce together to deliver a net result, which differ slightly between individual units and differ greatly between different manufacturers. Something as simple as the choice between phosphate or polished-substrate DLC could make or break a system by changing the coefficient of friction.
People too often cite total weapon systems as champion representatives of one of their design features out of dozens of interdependent variables, and then compare net results to other systems with dozens of completely different variables, attributing total performance to the singular aforementioned feature. Correlation =/= causation.
Was direct impingement or the M16 a better or worse technology than its competition because of test metrics under specific trials at the time? Throw a modern Daniel Defense AR into the 1960s-era weapons trials and you'll see how much unspoken factors like the minutia of manufacturing can skew test results that people then selectively extrapolate to support their arguments.
Control as many variables as possible when evaluating a specific feature: e.g. control for ammunition, gas pressure at the piston face, chamber lubricity, dwell time, bcg, and buffer, when trying to determine the effects of gas system length (and subsequent unlock timing) on consistency of extraction and ejection within a specific platform.
Malfunctions also don't have universal remedies. This notion is particularly egregious in talks of the forward assist. It's a jam-enhancer if you apply it to a double feed or brass-over-bolt, but for some malfunctions like a failure to lock, the alternative of manually charging a bolt onto a live, chambered round can risk slamfire due to the lack of magazine to reduce forward bolt velocity.
PRECISION
Despite the advancements in manufacturing, barrels and ammunition are still all snowflakes subject to stacking tolerances. Two barrels of the same model from the same high end manufacturer could prefer different ammunition due to the bore-bullet fitment and where the bullet exits the muzzle during the barrel's harmonic whip.
Guys often post tight 3-5 round groups because it's a fun flex, but it isn't the whole picture. Shoot a 30 round group out of the same precision barrel with the same lot of match ammo and you might be surprised to see your group dramatically grow and shrink across strings of fire, even due to weird factors like magazine follower tension and binding affecting the angle at which the round is fed into and scraped against the feed ramp, imparting inconsistent deformation of the bullet.
MIL CARGO CULTING
The labyrinthine bureaucracy of military organizations works in mysterious ways that are not always logical nor pertinent to your needs: e.g. the development of forward-heavy government-profile barrels addressing a false diagnosis of bending barrels, the mk12 SPR's 18.5in barrel being adopted to sidestep the redundancy of a 20in barrel already in inventory with the m16, 3-round burst to correct a training deficiency, and the abhorrent manganese phosphate coating common to too many weapon components.
While military usage can create large sample sizes to derive conclusions from, and facilitate the maturation of technical data packages and institutional knowledge for producing and maintaining a technology, it's not an infallible model to be emulated without question.
If your goal is to emulate or clone mil kit for the purpose of fashion larping, that's great and guys should be allowed to have fun more. Just be honest about its practical capabilities and why you're doing it, because they're often designed with different METT-TC than yours.
IRONSIGHTS
Ironsights developed an axiomatic mythology of universal durability because they have different failure conditions to the red dots they serve as backup to, namely the lack of electronic failure potential. However, this is very much a myth born out of mistranslation: ironsights easily suffer breakage when sustaining impacts to the sight post or hinge mechanism - much easier than prisms like ACOGs or any of the budget 20mm aimpoint T2 clone dots with monolithic optic housings and can be reinforced with extended lens hoods or killflashes. In addition, FSB irons can shift zero for the entire barrel when impacted, and handguard-mounted irons depend on the handguard to retain zero against impacts, which is a hard ask given the length of leverage from the barrel nut.
The same luddites who insist upon ironsights for alleged durability usually get quiet when you start to nitpick their short gas systems (read the NSWC crane report on carbine vs midlength), phosphate bolt assemblies, and MIM fire control components for their shortcomings under general adverse conditions. It's really just a pretense to justify obsolete sighting technology, aside from budgetary concerns.
Most of us are concealed carrying a simple handgun for protection during everyday errands, or protecting our homes from 1-3 burglars breaking in. In that event, the gun that is in working order that you have extensive familiarity with is going to be the one that most likely saves your life. Clearing your home with a Security 9 instead of a Glock 19 isn't going to get you killed because you can't scavenge repair parts and extra mags from the buglars. But at the same time, the hipoint that you SWEAR never jams but you only say that because you don't want the other guys at the range to make fun of you and you mentally block out all the times it DOES jam, and suddenly your self defense tool is unreliable? That's where being honest with yourself comes into play.
It's like camping, your wallet might appreciate you getting the Wish or Ozark Trail Walmart discount versions of your tent and supplies, but when you actually have to use them you'll really really wish you forked out the cash for the real deal.
Now down near the border if the cartels start to get more reactionary, yeah things might creep towards WROL pretty fast depending on how the suits take things, but that isn't the typical situation that typical gun owners are typically going to be talking about.
All that to do done, if a new prospective gun owner asked my advice on what guns they should pick up to get started, I would without skipping a beat recommend a Glock, a 10/22, an AR15, and a 500/590, for the exact reasons of simplicity and standardization you said. Not sure where I'm going with all this, but bottom line I guess is that personal training and self honesty will do you far more favors than playing Tarkov Dressup with your gun safe.
All the standard commercial options are going to make it easier for new shooters to acquire gear like holsters and magazines, so they have less hurdles to jump through to get to training. More gunsmiths are going to immediately know how to diagnose and fix them with shorter turnaround times too. It's like getting a Toyota instead of some boutique luxury car.
behold my piles upon piles of garbage rods
they are legion
they're sorta coming back as an added cost option, but fuck man that's kinda odd feeling when I grew up in the era where A3 uppers were the new hotness and you paid extra for them
Hell, calling them A3 uppers is kinda anachronistic since the A3 turned out to just be an A2 with the better FCG
A common example is the AK vs AR debate. Both systems are "reliable," but people often call the AK "more reliable" because it's notorious for loose tolerances, which make it better for dirty / dusty / wet / muddy conditions, where the AR has much tighter tolerances and could be disabled by too much mud around the chamber. The AK's larger caliber also helps with this. The piston system too - firing an AR underwater will usually pop the gas tube, where a piston gun might short stroke, but otherwise shouldn't have any issues. What people miss is how the AR's design helps in this regard all the same - being so tightly toleranced often prevents dust and dirt from getting in in the first place (though I can't say the same for water). The AK's design necessitates loose tolerances because there are so many points of ingress for dirt compared to an AR. Each design is good in its own way. Both can go without cleaning or part swaps for thousands of rounds and still work. Both are generally manufactured with barrels that can sustain round counts higher than most people will ever buy, etc.
The point is that people usually don't consider this when they say "reliability," so it's immediately disingenuous. Yes, the AK typically has a broader operational envelope, but that doesn't mean it's "more reliable," necessarily.
If your intended use case is dumping the gun in salt water and then coming back out again and immediately shooting 250 rounds in full auto, yes, the AK or a piston AR is probably a better choice than a DI AR. If your idea of "reliability" is popping off a few rounds at a 10yd target, at a flat range, on a room-temperature clear-skied day, there's not even a point in discussing it beyond "Does the gun cycle with your particular ammunition"
Regarding the AR/AK, there's also the tight tolerances of the AR's buffer system pushing water through the weep hole on the rear of the buffer tube, which should be enlarged to mitigate the risk of hydrolock.
Though, I generally believe that ARs perform better in mud because of the DI gases venting out the side of the bolt carrier and evacuating mud away from the ejection port. The only plausible condition for mud to ingress into the chamber is during a bolt-lock reload and sudden need to fall prone, which is statistically tiny compared to the conditions in which the bolt is forward.
Dusty environments affecting bolt velocity are better addressed with sandcutter carriers, dry lubricants, and surface treatments like QPQ nitride and polished-substrate DLC with a low coefficient of friction without the need for lubricants.
ARs, and a lot of modern rifles with tight tolerances in the ignition controls, have an increased vulnerability in frozen environments where condensation and thawing ice can wick moisture into the selector and detent channels before freezing again, necessitating that rifles are not brought from a cold environment into a warm environment like a heated tent before being brought back out again.
My main problems with the legacy AKs is the barrel change process requiring heavy tooling that inconveniences consumers in a civilian environment and increases the maintenance footprint in combat environments, in the case of bore obstructions or blown up barrels from sabotaged ammunition (e.g. Project Eldest Son), and all the optics mounting options being fragile or limited in placement because of the disassembly process. Kalashnikov Concern addresses the optics issue with the AKV-521 that has a continuous picatinny upper receiver that hinges away from the lower receiver, but it's not a proliferated weapon yet.
gonna be even funnier when there's a return to large objective bells for better light gathering
I personally got humbled by a friend of mine when we drilled 1r1 for fun, I'd say I'm alright at reloading drills, but despite that I was using an AR and he was using an AUG (not even the NATO version with the bolt lock) he beat me consistently.