Jump to content
AAC

Gun & Gear news

Recommended Posts

Ziet er naar uit dat de "impression minded" onder ons hun rail binnenkort gaan kunnen veranderen denk  :D

 

Details On The USSOCOM Sponsored KeyMod vs M-LOK Test Conducted at NSWC-Crane

May 5th, 2017

img_1520.jpg

During this week’s NDIA Armaments Conference, Caleb McGee from Naval Surface Warfare Center – Crane conducted a briefing which detailed the test protocols used to evaluate the KeyMod and M-LOK weapon accessory attachment systems on behalf of the United States Special Operations Command. We recently published a FOIA released summary of that test which indicates that SOCOM selected M-LOK for use on the Suppressed Upper Reciever Group and Advanced Sniper Rifle programs. This briefing explains why they made that decision.

img_1521.jpg

Crane procured Commercial-Off-The-Shelf rail systems which were offered in both KeyMod and M-LOK variants so as to offer direct comparisons. Modular rail systems were evaluated for repeatability, endurance, rough handling, drop testing, and static failure load.

img_1522.jpg

IMG_1523-440x330.png

The most remarkable differences between the two types of attachments was observed during repeatability testing. With variations measured in MOA, KeyMod exhibited a spread from 0.2 to 14.6 while M-LOK varied from 0.0 To 6.6 POA shift.

IMG_1526-440x330.png

For the Endurance and Rough Handling tests, both KeyMod and M-LOK passed testing.

IMG_1528-440x330.png

IMG_1529-440x330.png

The imagery from the impact tests are shocking until you consider how the rails were tested.

IMG_1531-440x330.png

Regardless, the results are clear.

IMG_1532-440x330.png

IMG_1533-440x330.png

IMG_1534-440x330.png

In failure load testing which attempts to pull accessories from the rail from 90 Deg off-axis, Crane noted an increase of 215% in average sustained load of M-LOK over KeyMod.

IMG_1530-440x330.png

Granted, the sample size of this testing is limited. However, for SOCOM, the conclusions were clear enough to choose a path forward. This test concludes that M-LOK is a more robust and more stable system. In addition to repeatedly maintaining point of aim for mounted accessories during normal mounting and remounting, it also better maintained rail intagrity in spite of impacts. On the other hand, testing shows that KeyMod suffered significant POA shifts during both repeated mounting and remounting as well as after impacts. Additionally, while both systems noted cracking under impact, some KeyMod rail samples lost integrity with fracturing beteeen slots.

IMG_1524-440x330.png

One additional point to consider; Crane noted that it was extremely important to properly mount accessories to the rail. KeyMod did a much better job of self-aligning the accessory during mounting while M-LOK required more attention. The takeaway here is to pay attention while attaching accessories to the rail and to check zero after mounting.

IMG_1527-440x330.png

For those interested, we have provided the entire briefing here. However, it will also be available on the NDIA proceedings section of the DTIC website in the next few weeks.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Het M4A1+ project mag in 'n geheel dan wel afgevoerd zijn.

Blijkbaar blijven de verschillende componenten hiervan toch nog nagloeien.

Ben 's benieuwd wat hier in de toekomst, daadwerkelijk,  van in gebruik gaat genomen worden ?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Het is tegenwoordig op elke nieuwe AEG alleen M-lok of Keymod. Ik had zelf een Keymod rail op mijn ICS UK1R en het is heel fijn gezien het een ronde vorm heeft en daardoor lekker in de hand ligt, maar ik vind de oude ris rails op 3, 6, 9 en de 12 uur positie gewoon een stuk toffer eruitzien, zeker als ik dan kijk naar de Daniel Defense Free float rail. Keymod wordt al zo door onze strot geduwd met elke nieuwe replica en waarschijnlijk M-lok straks ook, goeie voorbeelden van keymod is G&G, VFC (en M-Lok), Krytac, zelfs LCT met hun nieuwe Keymod handguards.

Ik ga proberen na mijn volgende 2 aanschaffen wat meer te verbreden in mijn verzameling, LCT G3 staat zeker hoog op mijn lijstje.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Het lijkt erop dat het exoskelet -waar al zo lang aan gewerkt word- stillaan bruikbaar aan het worden is

 

Mawashi – UPRISE Tactical Exoskeleton

July 24th, 2017

img_3113.jpg

While the UPRISE™ Tactical Exoskeleton has popped up in various future soldier system program demonstrations, it was officially unveiled to the market at an offsite during SOFIC. I got a good look at it not long after, while attending CANSEC in Ottawa., Canada, in late May.
img_2272-1.jpg
There are a whole slew of companies developing wearable robotics, or as they are more popularly known, exoskeletons. Mawashi says that Exoskeletons are a disruptive technology because they are impacting multiple industries simultaneously. Some of the systems have been created specifically for defense use. Of these, the vast majority are powered, which is crucial to the ability to lift heavy weights, such as a Power Loader taking the place of a forklift. However, that reliance on power can also be a weakness, for some applications. For example, no one wants to run out of power, midway through a mission. What makes Canadian firm Mawashi’s solution different is that it is human powered. Designed to reduce skeletal muscular injuries, UPRISE™ is an acronym for Ultralight Passive Ruggedized Integrated Soldier Exoskeleton.

img_2275.jpg

Starting load carriage studies in 2005, Mawashi’s engineers investigated how the human body bears weight, in particular they looked at the severely overweight (300-700 lbs), especially Sumo wrestlers, who remain active despite their girth. Interestingly, the name Mawashi comes from the loincloth worn by the Sumo.

What Alain Bujold, President and Chief Technology Officer of Mawashi, and his team found, is that the body can bear an amazing amount of its own weight because of how it is distributed. They surmised that a load is a load; a pound, a pound, whether it’s fat or Mission Equipment.
UPRISE™ mimics the human form, with a flexible spine and sliding belt which combine to offer a great deal of freedom of movement. The exoskeleton is padded and fit is fine tuned via Boa dial at several locations on the legs.

img_2277.jpg
The Harness also integrates with body armor as well as other loads such as packs. Additionally, they’ve demonstrated that gear normally worn on the War Belt, such as holsters, can be attached to the exoskeleton. No matter what is attached to the system, the entire weight of the exoskeleton is borne by a plate which is inserted like an insole into the wearer’s footwear. In fact, UPRISE™ transfers 50-80% of the wearer’s load right to the ground. Mawashi intends it for use on three to seven day missions.

img_2280.jpg
Development continues. So far, the work has concentrated on the major load bearing structures of back and lower extremities, Mawashi plans to increase coverage. While UPRISE™ won’t make you run faster, and won’t give you super human strength, it will make you less fatigued, and it will help protect your lower joints.
They recently produced this video entitled, “WE ARE MAWASHI: The Rise of The Exoskeleton” which showcases the technology.

WE ARE MAWASHI: The Rise of the Exoskeleton from Mawashi Science & Technology on Vimeo.

www.mawashi.net

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Komt de 7.62 battle rifle terug !?  :P

 

 

 

US Army Issues Solicitation For 7.62mm Interim Combat Service Rifle

August 6th, 2017

The US Army is concerned about overmatch of its Infantry forces and the proliferation of inexpensive, rifle caliber resistant body armor. So much so, that Chief of Staff of the Army, GEN Mark Milley has testifiedbefore the Senate Armed Services Committee on the need for a new 7.62 rifle and ammunition.

GEN-Milley.jpg

Word is that last Friday morning, the Army’s G8, LTG John M Murray was on the range, firing the three GOTS candidates which might fulfill the requirement: the KAC M110, H&K M110A1 (G28) and FNH Mk17 (SCAR Heavy). Later in the day, on 3 August, the US Army released a solicitation for the purchase of the 7.62mm NATO Interim Combat Service Rifle we began writing about back in April.

IMG_3398-440x440.jpg

Initially, it had sounded like the Army would just buy one of the three weapons mentioned above. But with an acquisition plan which includes downslecting to up to eight candidates and then awarding a final winner, it seems that the Army wants to see what industry has to offer.

The Notice states that the Army plans to purchase up to 50,000 examples of the rifle which must be in 7.62mm NATO, capable of semi and full-auto. It must also be designed for use with a suppressor. Interestingly, the ICSR’s attributes aren’t quite as stringent as they were two months ago, when the requirement was just an RFI to industry.

It must also be capable of reliably firing the new M80A1 Enhanced Performance Round (EPR) which is not yet in general circulation. Please recall that prior to the cancelled Individual Carbine competition, industry had a rough time sourcing 5.56mm M855A1 ammunition to conduct development.

IMG_0127.jpg

There has been much handwringing in industry over whether the Army would purchase one of the three government issue 7.62mm rifles for the Interim Combat Service Rifle directed requirement, or issue an open solicitation. The Army is asking for something that isn’t a commodity in their ICSR requirement: a full-auto 7.62mm rifle. They just don’t exist as production weapons, save the FNH SCAR Heavy and H&K 417, due to controllability issues. Out of the three GOTS rifles, only the Mk17 is full auto capable, making the need to turn to industry, inevitable.

IMG_3392-440x147.jpg

Offerors may submit more than one design. The Army will evaluate the candidate weapons based on the following criteria:

1. Dispersion (300m – function, 600m – simulation)
2. Compatible w/ FWS-I and laser
3. Weapon length (folder or collapsed)/ Weight (empty/bare) / Velocity (300m and 600m calculated)
4. Semi-Automatic and Fully Automatic function testing (bursts and full auto)
5. Noise (at shooter’s ear) / Flash suppression
6. Ambidextrous Controls (in darkness or adverse conditions) / Rail interface
7. 20-30 round magazine to support a 210 round combat load
8. Folding sights

NOTE 1: Attributes 2, 6, 7, and 8 above will be evaluated on a zero/full point basis. An Offeror whose bid sample receives zero (0) points for one (1) or more of these attributes will not be automatically eliminated from the competition; however, receiving a zero (0) score for one (1) or more of these attributes will adversely impact an Offeror’s overall score.

NOTE 2: The proposed candidate will be eliminated from the competition with no further evaluation if at any time the weapon becomes inoperable during testing.

They chose to issue a Commercial Opportunity Notice (CON) for Other Transaction Agreements (OTA) for this procurement action. The idea is to fast track the acquisition, with three phases.

It’s obvious the Army is in a hurry here. By September 6, 2017, they want offerors to submit:
a) White Paper Proposal
B) Safety Assessment Report
c) One (1) bid sample weapon system to include manual, cleaning kit, special tools (if required), enough magazines to support basic combat load of 210 rounds, and one (1) suppressor.

If a candidate weapon is one of up to eight selected for the follow-on OTA, the offeror will have to submit the following within 30 calendar days after notification:
a) Seven (7) weapon systems per configuration (if awarded OTA) with enough magazines to support the basic load of 210 rounds per weapons
B) Seven (7) cleaning kits
c) One (1) supressor
d) One (1) specialized tool kit (provide if required), and
e) Seven (7) manuals.

Eventually, they plan to issue an Indefinite Delivery, Indefinite Quantity for up to 50,000 examples of the ICSR. However, the Army reserves the right to adjust that amount, including purchasing more.

Notice that offerors are required to provide magazines sufficient for a 210 round basic load. There aren’t a lot of 30 round 7.62mm magazines on the market, so 20 rounders will suffice. Magpul currently offers a 25 round magazine in the SR-25 pattern that will likely be tapped.  Basic math dictates that any combination of 20 and 25 round magazines will yield 220 or 225 rounds of rather weighty 7.62 ammunition.  Interestingly, the Army wants to maintain its 210 round basic load of ammunition even though the 7.62mm M80A1 round will more than double its weight.

They must also submit a suppressor. However, we expect that there will be a suppressor competition down the road as well as a telescopic optic competition for the ICSR. There’s not much point in open sights for a weapon expected to engage targets out last 600m.

Finally, there’s the issue of the weapon’s name. It’s referred to as an “interim” rifle leading us to believe that the Army still wants to transition at some point, to an intermediate caliber, a concept we discussed at length during our initial reporting back in April. Don’t forget, USOCOM is currently evaluating cartridges in the 6.5mm family. Our money remains on the .260 Remington.

For full details, visit www.fbo.gov.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Create an account or sign in to comment

You need to be a member in order to leave a comment

Create an account

Sign up for a new account in our community. It's easy!

Register a new account

Sign in

Already have an account? Sign in here.

Sign In Now

×