Why depositing fouling in the very chamber where it feeds ammunition from and heating parts to shorten their lifespans and remove lubrication, Old Bean.
It’s exactly that reason that I myself find favour with Mr. Kalashnikov’s offering. I’ll settle for a loss of rapid fire accuracy (a minor bother that and easily overcome by the experianced marksman) which is, to bring the discussion back around to the germane, the same system used by Mr. Garand, while retaining a lower schedule of cleaning, since we do discuss instruments of war - which all gentlemen agree is rather the dirty business.
I will suppose it to suffice that if one desires a similar platform and ergonomics to the AR genus that the Armalite AR-18 and it’s novel short piston mechanism is also acceptable, but not nearly as much as the long piston.
ETA- and really, a retrofit? Simply replacing the upper portion of an AR can hardly be considered a retrofit.
Spraying combustion products into the lock work. Especially the critical raceway at the top. The gas key and bolt operating pin need to slide smoothly there, or there will be binding as the bolt tries to strip a round from the magazine. Beyond filth, this also heats the works up, which causes any (now dirty) lube to migrate away from where it is needed.
Also, the “direct impingement” nomenclature seems to have fooled you as it did me initially. The gas key has a passage into the interior of the bolt carrier. The carrier and bolt function as a cylinder and piston (the bolt even has piston rings). This vents out the two holes on the right side of the carrier when the bolt reaches it’s unlocked position. For the first shot, the dust cover is probably still closed at that point, which traps ALL the hot filth in the action instead of just what blows past the loose key-tube interface and out the tube after the key clears it. Oh yeah, some blows out the forward end of the bolt carrier as well.
I like my ARs just fine, but I am not using them to discourage people who want me dead. If I were going in to battle, I’d prefer an AK or even an SKS.
The British solution to the issue of rifle manoeuvrability in jungles was to basically take a standard No. 4 Mk I Lee-Enfield, shorten the barrel and woodwork, and put a flash hider on the barrel, creating the No. 5 Mk I “Jungle Carbine”. Which still fired the same .303 cartridge as the other British service rifles of the time.
My understanding and reading on the subject of British military firearms is that soldiers really were expected to be able to engage targets at long range on a semi-individual basis. Early Lee-Enfields and Pattern 1914 rifles had “Volley Sights” on them (which went to something like 3,000 yards), which were intended for long-range volley fire, but I’m not aware of them ever actually being used in that capacity often.
Yet real world testing, like the dust test, shows DI-deposited carbon not to be the issue. The AK series derives its legendary reliability from generous clearances and from being somewhat overgassed (and therefore violent) in its action. Retrofitting a piston to an M-16 doesn’t change the tight clearances. It does add parts. It does add weight at the wrong end of the gun. It does create new problems such as bolt carrier tilt. If you want a piston gun, buy one designed as such from the ground up. If you want a quick and easy improvement of reliability in an AR, get some improved magazines.
Despite my protests I don’t dislike AR pattern rifles, despite the fact that I’m left handed and they tend to shoot cat pee smelling gas into my face while I’m shooting them. They’re reliable, simple to operate and maintain, widely available and there’s much to admire about the .223. My love for the AK pattern is more conceptual as I’ll admit I’ve never fired a real one. I’ve shot a punked out version in .223 before (that I suspect was AK in furniture only) and I’ve only ever had a chance to shoot commie block satellite versions like the WASR, which isn’t really an AK anyway and that isn’t winning any contests beyond the “Cheapest AK looking rifle possible” one.
So, how would you redesign a Garand into a modern assault rifle? The bolt could be made a little more gentle, and the magazine/clip system would be rebuilt, of course.
If you mean a true assault rifle firing an intermediate cartridge, Ruger has produced their Mini-14 in a select fire version for police and military sales. The Mini-14 isn’t really a miniaturized M-14, though, despite the name. It is a relative of the Garand, but not a copy of it. Still, it is a starting point. No real, true manly fighting army ever adopted it. Some were purchased by Bermuda and some by Ireland, IIRC , and maybe a few by a Central American nation or two for their gendarmerie. Here in the US, it’s been used by prisons and police forces where it wasn’t subject to much hard use. In carbine classes, though, it has gained a reputation for fragility and for a severely wandering zero as it heats up. So, if I wanted a Garandesque assault rifle, I’d start developing a PIP Mini-14.
If you mean just a higher capacity, more user-friendly Garand, there are several options. Beretta developed the BM-59 without nearly the drama surrounding the conceptually similar M-14 here in the US.
Springfield Armory Inc. seems to have gotten around a lot of the ass-pain involved in manufacturing M-14’s by using investment casting in place of forging. A majority of the “M-14’s” in civilian hands use this receiver and are actually M1A’s. They are pretty well regarded by the shooting community. SA makes all manner of chopped versions of this gun, so if you want a box-fed Garand-based carbine festooned with rails and all that operatory stuff, they have you covered.
Well updating the Garand would at best make it an M-14. To make it a modern assault rifle you’d have to re-chamber it into a smaller cartridge to start, which would pretty much make it a Mini-14. So to say it’s been done, however as most Mini owners would say it leaves a lot to be desired in a modern rifle.
Edit - Goddamn it. Scumpup beat me to it and had a better written response.
Double Edit - Those Springfield rifles are sweet, but they’re paper punchers really. I don’t know anyone who would reach for one of those over something else in a real fight besides the fat guys who hang around gun stores and pretend to be SpecOps warriors.
You’re exactly right about the fat guys and their M1A’s. The US military doesn’t issue the M-14 on any kind of widespread basis. The Navy, I think, still has some. The ground forces were pulling them out of storage and reworking them to serve as stop-gap marksman rifles; but those are getting phased out in favor of accurized AR-10 variants like the M110. The Remington 700-based M24 sniper systemis still in use, too, though it is currently being examined for modification.
The M-14 is, IMPO, one of the most highly over rated military guns of all time. As envisioned during development, it was supposed to do everything. It was supposed to replace the .30 carbine, the M3 submachine gun, the M1 Garand, and the BAR. If they had just made it a semi automatic rifle with a box magazine and replaced the M1 rifle with it, it would have been more successful. Making it select fire meant that everything had to be beefed up and the rifle heavier. It still proved uncontrollable by the average soldier, even with the addition of a bipod and a goofy pistol-grip E2 stock. So, we had to keep the BAR and most M-14’s had the full auto setting locked out. It was too long and unwieldy for armored personnel, truck drivers, non-combat personnel and the like, so the submachine guns and .30 carbines ended up staying in inventory, too. As a sniper rifle, it proved a gigantic pain in the ass to accurize (and to keep that way) and wasn’t friendly to mounting optics. It was difficult to manufacture. The wood stock gave problems in tropical environments and a fiberglass replacement had to be devised. It saw very limited combat use in Vietnam and (despite the internet version of things) wasn’t incredibly beloved by the troops who actually had to carry and use it.
Despite all that, gun shop commandoes still consider it the epitome of combat rifles and still get the fantods because it got replaced by a plastic piece of shit that is soldiering on 50 years later.
Again in the interest of fairness if someone offered me one of those Springfield M1’s (especially the Carlos Hathcock White Feather edition) I’d snap it up and probably sleep with the thing. I have little interest in a $4k rifle however and I don’t own a .308 already on purpose since they’re more expensive to feed than a first date.
I’d probably still opt for an FN-FAL were I to do so thanks to Shotgun News induced childhood lust, but those Springfields are still some damned fine rifles, if you’re into military pattern rifles that never actually got to be used in a war and were obsolete by the time they were made.
I owned a Polytech M-14 clone, which is actually closer in many ways to the original than the M1A, but after a short while I sold it off. Later on, I owned a PTR-91 (HK clone). Sold it off after a year or so too. .308 semis, to date, always seem like a great idea to me until I actually own one. The Polytech was just kind of meh. The PTR-91 was picky about ammo and, due to its roller-locked delayed blowback action, harder recoiling than it needed to be. The ergonomics sucked too.
OTOH, I’ve had a PSL for a while now and think it is the bee’s knees. Though they are sometimes found in .308, mine is in the original 7.62 x 54R. I shoot nothing but corrosive surplus through it. Here’s the best part: one of these will set you back $529 for a new rifle, two magazines, cleaning kit, military surplus scope, and accessory case. I just had it out Saturday and did some shooting.
I’ve been tempted to those at gunshows before since they have the overall general appearance of a SVD, but I’m going to hold out for a real Dragunov if and when the day ever comes where I have the oppertunity and cash at the same time, which is unlikely given the rarity and price that a real one can command. It’s on the wishlist though.
Back on track, the next generation of standard infantry weapons isn’t going to go back to the Garand, but will be a modified AR most likely - such as the SCAR. Or maybe someone will finally get a bullpup that doesn’t suck with the FAMAS, but I’d say that Eugene Stoner’s design won’t be going away any time soon since the ergonomics are excellent overall for an assault rifle. But the Garand will remain popular for the rest of our lifetimes as well, since they’re still available for purchase through the CMP and there’s nothing wrong with a semi auto .30-06.
The PSL (also known as ROMAK-3) looks superficially like an SVD, but it is basically just a semiautomatic AK-47 in 7.62x54 with a slightly modified stock and a scope.
If I had one, I would put AK hardware on it and make it look like an M76.
Why not justbuy an M76 in the proper 8mm? J&G isn’t the only ones selling them, nor do they have the best price. I’ve seen them advertised in Shotgun News for substantially less than the price in the link.
