Yukari_Akiyama

When are you guys going to the US to try out American guns?

Recommended Posts

When will we see some Lmgs? the way the spawns are going youl need a 200 round belt fed MG to survive the first 5 seconds.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
On 12/25/2017 at 8:14 AM, Borscht said:

Exotic stuff from Asian manufacturers (Korea, Japan, etc.) is probably very very low on the to-do list.
First the game will be fleshed out with weapons from much more known manufacturers with which licensing is already done (or is in process of), such as for example Kalashnikov, Remington, H&K, etc.

Korean and Chinese weapons may seems exotic to us in America or Europe, but Russia - the setting of the game - is back to back with those countries. Maybe it isn't reasonable for them to spawn randomly around town or on Scavs the way Toz or Vepr's do, since those are primarily civilian weapons. But it makes perfect sense for the PMC's and their illicit contacts to have underground arms trade using local/near-local supply illegally derived from the military inventory of these countries.

 

It's kinda like calling inventory from Mexico or Canada "exotic". They really aren't to us, but that's probably because they're basically local supply.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

damn those are some fine guns but your missing a galil. is this a store or private collection? 

as sick as it would be to have daewoo k2s and all that i feel like most rifles in the US civilian market dont really belong. some more modern stuff do but i dont think there are many daewoos in russia if any at all and i know that a private contractor sure as hell isnt taking one into a gunfight when he has better cheaper options. lee enfields definitely dont belong in tarkov because i really doubt britain was sending its surplus rifles to the "red menace"

you know what im saying?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
1 hour ago, Carl_Wheezer said:

damn those are some fine guns but your missing a galil. is this a store or private collection? 

as sick as it would be to have daewoo k2s and all that i feel like most rifles in the US civilian market dont really belong. some more modern stuff do but i dont think there are many daewoos in russia if any at all and i know that a private contractor sure as hell isnt taking one into a gunfight when he has better cheaper options. lee enfields definitely dont belong in tarkov because i really doubt britain was sending its surplus rifles to the "red menace"

you know what im saying?

K2Cs were issued to ISOF, so I wouldn't put it past some PMCs getting em.

  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
1 hour ago, trotskygrad said:

K2Cs were issued to ISOF, so I wouldn't put it past some PMCs getting em.

 i dont think there are many daewoos in russia if any at all and i know that a private contractor sure as hell isnt taking one into a gunfight when he has better cheaper options.

there are a whole 2 daewoo rifles i see on gunbroker and one is a preban going for 1600$ and the other is a assault ban going for 1000$. i know for a fact no one is gonna put their lives in the hand of an assault weapons ban rifle if they can help it, no one is going to be paying 1600$ for a used ar18 copy when you pay plenty less for a brand new ar15, and i know daewoo isnt selling select fire guns to private military contractors and if they ever do im sure they will have already made a more modern rifle than the k2. i imagine since tarkov takes place somewhat in the future the value of these rifles will only go up and availability will only go down. trust me when i say pmcs arent using daewoos right now and probably never will

  • Sad 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
2 hours ago, Carl_Wheezer said:

 i dont think there are many daewoos in russia if any at all and i know that a private contractor sure as hell isnt taking one into a gunfight when he has better cheaper options.

there are a whole 2 daewoo rifles i see on gunbroker and one is a preban going for 1600$ and the other is a assault ban going for 1000$. i know for a fact no one is gonna put their lives in the hand of an assault weapons ban rifle if they can help it, no one is going to be paying 1600$ for a used ar18 copy when you pay plenty less for a brand new ar15, and i know daewoo isnt selling select fire guns to private military contractors and if they ever do im sure they will have already made a more modern rifle than the k2. i imagine since tarkov takes place somewhat in the future the value of these rifles will only go up and availability will only go down. trust me when i say pmcs arent using daewoos right now and probably never will

Daewoo is shilling the K2C pretty hard, you see em at eurosatory and IDEX etc. They have gotten foreign customers, Iraq is the only known one but there's definitely more, and they are recent (2015-ish) purchases. They defeintely wouldn't buy them if the prices weren't competitive. The prices on gunbroker are highly inflated because of limited supply.

Also you're calling it an AR-18 copy? I don't even. The K2 is a long stroke design, the AR-18 is a tappet short stroke. Get your facts straight.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
5 hours ago, trotskygrad said:

K2Cs were issued to ISOF, so I wouldn't put it past some PMCs getting em.

There is a ROK unit near me that just turned in s ome of their K1s for K2Cs. I'll see if I can get some photos of them. Here are some good photos of the K1A carbine and K7 submachine gun

 

20170713_102109.thumb.jpg.1b779428abb96c575a784389d3e87054.jpg20170713_101740.thumb.jpg.53535a46f16be3388bf6fe4474df7757.jpg20170713_101737.thumb.jpg.6617e74b3b707863d474d2bd325acc5c.jpg20170713_101724.thumb.jpg.f9f85fe025d9c8ef49c5c4e4247c695e.jpg20170719_140237.thumb.jpg.ccad4cfe8df64460c614d3f01fc5fd7f.jpg

20170719_140235.jpg

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Am 25.12.2017 um 17:14 schrieb Borscht:

Exotic stuff from Asian manufacturers (Korea, Japan, etc.) is probably very very low on the to-do list.
First the game will be fleshed out with weapons from much more known manufacturers with which licensing is already done (or is in process of), such as for example Kalashnikov, Remington, H&K, etc.

Can we expect similar weapons like in contract wars? or will you go another way?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
9 hours ago, trotskygrad said:

Daewoo is shilling the K2C pretty hard, you see em at eurosatory and IDEX etc. They have gotten foreign customers, Iraq is the only known one but there's definitely more, and they are recent (2015-ish) purchases. They defeintely wouldn't buy them if the prices weren't competitive. The prices on gunbroker are highly inflated because of limited supply.

Also you're calling it an AR-18 copy? I don't even. The K2 is a long stroke design, the AR-18 is a tappet short stroke. Get your facts straight.

ok, my bad. the k2 is litterally an ar18 copy until you look at the simplest part of the guns mechanism, srorry. try hard next time though. as for availability, ok, i guess i could be wrong.

  • Sad 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
3 hours ago, Carl_Wheezer said:

ok, my bad. the k2 is litterally an ar18 copy until you look at the simplest part of the guns mechanism, srorry. try hard next time though. as for availability, ok, i guess i could be wrong.

different manufacturing process, different control positioning, different bolt carrier design? 

"simplest part" yeah, that's not born out by anyone serious.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
1 hour ago, trotskygrad said:

different manufacturing process, different control positioning, different bolt carrier design? 

"simplest part" yeah, that's not born out by anyone serious.

the bolts work identically, both have stamped recievers, both have ar15 style magazine releases, both have reciprocating charging handles on the bolt. Yeah, its basically a copy. You do realize both the k2 and ar 18 were designed to be cheaper alternatives to the ar 15, having a similar operating system, but the president of korea wanted to domestically produce its military arms so the k2 was adopted instead? please. try harder

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
19 minutes ago, Carl_Wheezer said:

the bolts work identically, both have stamped recievers, both have ar15 style magazine releases, both have reciprocating charging handles on the bolt. Yeah, its basically a copy. You do realize both the k2 and ar 18 were designed to be cheaper alternatives to the ar 15, having a similar operating system, but the president of korea wanted to domestically produce its military arms so the k2 was adopted instead? please. try harder

K2's receiver is milled, the bolts cam differently inside of the bolt carrier group. The magazine release is the same because they use the same magazines. The entire recoil spring assembly is different. The AR-18 was designed to be cheaper, the K2 was designed to be "better".

They're diverging evolutions of the AR-15 design. One is not a clone of the other.

Edited by trotskygrad

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
5 minutes ago, trotskygrad said:

K2's receiver is milled, the bolts cam differently inside of the bolt carrier group. The magazine release is the same because they use the same magazines. The entire recoil spring assembly is different. The AR-18 was designed to be cheaper, the K2 was designed to be "better".

They're diverging evolutions of the AR-15 design. One is not a clone of the other.

the k2s LOWER reciever is milled, and the bolts ARE nearly identical. they work in the same way, and if you wanna pull some meaningless "one bolt cams to the right and the other goes to the left" bs im gonna ignore you and we will both be bored. the k2 uses ar15 mags and the ar18 has its own proprietary magazines. and when are start splitting hairs by bringing up the recoil spring assembly, then i really know your trying hard.

i literally just told you why the ar18 and k2 exist. they are not an evolution of the ar15 design, because to be an evolution they would have to be better, which they are not. and yes, the k2 was a functional clone of the ar18.

try harder

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
10 minutes ago, Carl_Wheezer said:

the k2s LOWER reciever is milled, and the bolts ARE nearly identical. they work in the same way, and if you wanna pull some meaningless "one bolt cams to the right and the other goes to the left" bs im gonna ignore you and we will both be bored. the k2 uses ar15 mags and the ar18 has its own proprietary magazines. and when are start splitting hairs by bringing up the recoil spring assembly, then i really know your trying hard.

i literally just told you why the ar18 and k2 exist. they are not an evolution of the ar15 design, because to be an evolution they would have to be better, which they are not. and yes, the k2 was a functional clone of the ar18.

try harder

 

6

Way to move the goalposts. The recoil spring assembly is not splitting hairs at all, as it's got a pretty big bearing on how the stock and handguard of the rifle are designed.

Something doesn't have to be an improvement to be an evolution. They both are adaptations to fit different requirements, which is what an evolution is. SK wanted something with a long stroke gas piston so they adapted the design to take that.

You're calling a rifle with an entirely different operating mechanism, bolt carrier design, recoil spring design, and manufacturing process a functional clone, which is wholly incorrect.
 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
19 minutes ago, trotskygrad said:

Way to move the goalposts. The recoil spring assembly is not splitting hairs at all, as it's got a pretty big bearing on how the stock and handguard of the rifle are designed.

Something doesn't have to be an improvement to be an evolution. They both are adaptations to fit different requirements, which is what an evolution is. SK wanted something with a long stroke gas piston so they adapted the design to take that.

You're calling a rifle with an entirely different operating mechanism, bolt carrier design, recoil spring design, and manufacturing process a functional clone, which is wholly incorrect.
 

im still trying to find out where you get this different operating mechanism and bolt designs from. i think its because you are looking at the shape of the gun and somehow thinking they must be way different.

they are both gas operated, with a rotating bolt similar to an ar15. its almost as close as you can get to a functional clone in a time where the ar18 had a patent on it.

the recoil spring has nothing to do with the handguard on the k2 because it doesnt even go into it. you can pretty much say the same for both guns. neither gun requires a buffertube stock since the recoil springs fit entirely in the reciever of the gun. you can litterally look up pictures and videos of these rifles apart and see exactly what i am saying, but you seem to think you are an internet gun expert so i guess you never will.

SK didnt adopt the K2 looking for a long stroke design, they adopted it because they wanted to replace the K1, which was an ar18 clone down to the recoil springs and gas operating system if you think its that important. they saw ways to improve the gun while still maintaining a similar cost to manufacture, and went with it.

also, the definition of evolution is "the gradual development of something, especially from a simple to a more complex form."

the ar18 and k2 cant be an evolution of the ar15 when they are litterally a step backwards to save money. 

at this point you need to stop trying. i dont even want to argue with you, i just dont want anyone who stumbles on this post to see the crap you posted and take it as truth when is simply isnt.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
1 hour ago, Carl_Wheezer said:

im still trying to find out where you get this different operating mechanism and bolt designs from. i think its because you are looking at the shape of the gun and somehow thinking they must be way different.

they are both gas operated, with a rotating bolt similar to an ar15. its almost as close as you can get to a functional clone in a time where the ar18 had a patent on it.

the recoil spring has nothing to do with the handguard on the k2 because it doesnt even go into it. you can pretty much say the same for both guns. neither gun requires a buffertube stock since the recoil springs fit entirely in the reciever of the gun. you can litterally look up pictures and videos of these rifles apart and see exactly what i am saying, but you seem to think you are an internet gun expert so i guess you never will.

SK didnt adopt the K2 looking for a long stroke design, they adopted it because they wanted to replace the K1, which was an ar18 clone down to the recoil springs and gas operating system if you think its that important. they saw ways to improve the gun while still maintaining a similar cost to manufacture, and went with it.

also, the definition of evolution is "the gradual development of something, especially from a simple to a more complex form."

the ar18 and k2 cant be an evolution of the ar15 when they are litterally a step backwards to save money. 

at this point you need to stop trying. i dont even want to argue with you, i just dont want anyone who stumbles on this post to see the crap you posted and take it as truth when is simply isnt.

22

I'm looking at the bolt itself. The K2's bolt has a long op-rod attached to it when assembled, very similar to an AK bolt. The AR 18's bolt doesn't have any such attachments, and is far bulkier and blockier due to the way it nestles around the recoil guide spring.

"the recoil spring has nothing to do with the handguard on the k2 because it doesnt even go into it"

wrong, the recoil spring on the K2 goes into the handguard. If you watched any videos of them being taken apart, you'd realize this. It's why the K2's upper reciever goes into the handguard in one clean shape, because it needs to accomodate that recoil spring assembly. The AR-18, while being laid out similarly, has a dual recoil spring assembly which results in its handguard being more blocky. As I said earlier, the layout of the recoil springs affects the dimension and shape of the upper reciever and handguard.

"SK didnt adopt the K2 looking for a long stroke design, they adopted it because they wanted to replace the K1, which was an ar18 clone down to the recoil springs and gas operating system if you think its that important"

again, wrong. The K1/K1A were designed to replace the .45 caliber M3 submachine gun, not the M16A1. And the K1/K1A are DI guns like the AR-15, not short-stroke gas piston like the AR-18. Thus your point about the K2 having long stroke because it was meant to replace the K1 is incorrect, because the K1 and the K2 were parallel developments. You can take this from Chris Bartocci, who is an actual expert, here: 



"also, the definition of evolution is "the gradual development of something, especially from a simple to a more complex form.""

you're cherrypicking here. The definition that I'm giving is valid as well. Besides, both the AR-18 and K2 fulfill your definition of evolution. They are complex in some ways due to different requirements, which is a development.

You're insisting you have a monopoly on the truth, when a lot of the stuff you post is factually incorrect. There's some subjective and semantic stuff we disagree on (eg. how different guns must be to not be clones of each other), but saying the stuff I post is blatantly incorrect, is well, incorrect.

 

Edited by trotskygrad

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
5 minutes ago, trotskygrad said:

I'm looking at the bolt itself. The K2's bolt has a long op-rod attached to it when assembled, very similar to an AK bolt. The AR 18's bolt doesn't have any such attachments, and is far bulkier and blockier due to the way it nestles around the recoil guide spring.

"the recoil spring has nothing to do with the handguard on the k2 because it doesnt even go into it"

wrong, the recoil spring on the K2 goes into the handguard. If you watched any videos of them being taken apart, you'd realize this. It's why the K2's upper reciever goes into the handguard in one clean shape, because it needs to accomodate that recoil spring assembly. The AR-18, while being laid out similarly, has a dual recoil spring assembly which results in its handguard being more blocky. As I said earlier, the layout of the recoil springs affects the dimension and shape of the upper reciever and handguard.

"SK didnt adopt the K2 looking for a long stroke design, they adopted it because they wanted to replace the K1, which was an ar18 clone down to the recoil springs and gas operating system if you think its that important"

again, wrong. The K1/K1A were designed to replace the .45 caliber M3 submachine gun, not the M16A1. And the K1/K1A are DI guns like the AR-15, not short-stroke gas piston like the AR-18. Thus your point about the K2 having long stroke because it was meant to replace the K1 is incorrect, because the K1 and the K2 were parallel developments. You can take this from Chris Bartocci, who is an actual expert, here: 



"also, the definition of evolution is "the gradual development of something, especially from a simple to a more complex form.""

you're cherrypicking here. The definition that I'm giving is valid as well. Besides, both the AR-18 and K2 fulfill your definition of evolution. They are complex in some ways due to different requirements, which is a development.

You're insisting you have a monopoly on the truth, when a lot of the stuff you post is factually incorrect. There's some subjective and semantic stuff we disagree on (eg. how different guns must be to not be clones of each other), but saying the stuff I post is blatantly incorrect, is well, incorrect.

 

good Lord.

k. great. you gave me some development history of the k2, proving me wrong in that aspect i guess. but you still dont see the similarities between the ar18 and k2.

ok. the k2s spring goes into the handguard. you are right. i was wrong. but you are still saying that since the K2s recoil spring goes into the handguard, it somehow makes a substantial infuence in how the handguard is shaped when the only thing special about the handguard is really nothing except that its big enough to hold the spring and piston at the same time. the ar18 and k2 have similar sizes and weights, so i doubt the spring assembly of the ar18 is making it "far bulkier and blockier" than the k2. since the ar18s reciever isnt uncomfortable to maneuver, and since the k2 is heavier and slightly longer despite having a similar barrel length.

you are saying a gun has a bolt similar to an ak simply because it is long stroke. that doesnt matter. you can attach the bolt and carrier to any kind of piston you want, its still an ar15 style rotating bolt. are piston ar15s more like svdrifles because they are both shortstroke and rotating bolt guns? because that is litterally all they hav in common. the ar 18 and k2 both us the same exact bolt design,

your acting like the shape of the gun has anything to do with how it works. its like saying the guns on m45 quadmounts are way different from regular m2s because they are shaped different. it does not matter because the meat of how a gun works is mostly in the bolt. 

and no, neither of these rifles fit my definition of evolution because the ar18 was designed with the intent of giving countries the option of adopting a rifle that could be produced using world war 2 era manufacturing techniques and steel recievers, and the k2 pretty much follows suite.

the ar15 introduced a new breed a rifle, using things never really seen before like polymer furniture and aluminum recievers for light wieght. the bolt design is really strong and reliable but still not to complicated. other countries were interested but were either to proud to by from the US like korea or simply couldnt afford the m16. so instead of sitting with their old in their butt they started buying ar18s or making guns with similar mechanisms and manufacturing to ar15s and ar18s. that is why the k2 and ar18 exists, not because they are so much better than the ar15, because they really arent. there are a whopping 15 countries using the k2, and all of them are either very small or third world except south korea. no modern military is issuing ar18s today. instead a huge list of countries either adopted the m16 or m4, an ak, or took the concept behind the ar18 (ar style bolt, gas operation) and put them in a different reciever and stock using aluminum and all that new great manufacturing stuff, and put a new name on it. 

despite being decent guns, neither is better than the ar15 in any way. if they were, more wealthy countries would be adopting the k2 (im not sure why they wouldnt if it was so good, im sure SK would love to take other countries money to build up their military or something with NK right there), and the US would have continued refining the ar18. 

im still looking for the major difference that makes the k2 not functionally similart to the ar18

 

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
38 minutes ago, Carl_Wheezer said:

good Lord.

k. great. you gave me some development history of the k2, proving me wrong in that aspect i guess. but you still dont see the similarities between the ar18 and k2.

ok. the k2s spring goes into the handguard. you are right. i was wrong. but you are still saying that since the K2s recoil spring goes into the handguard, it somehow makes a substantial infuence in how the handguard is shaped when the only thing special about the handguard is really nothing except that its big enough to hold the spring and piston at the same time. the ar18 and k2 have similar sizes and weights, so i doubt the spring assembly of the ar18 is making it "far bulkier and blockier" than the k2. since the ar18s reciever isnt uncomfortable to maneuver, and since the k2 is heavier and slightly longer despite having a similar barrel length.

you are saying a gun has a bolt similar to an ak simply because it is long stroke. that doesnt matter. you can attach the bolt and carrier to any kind of piston you want, its still an ar15 style rotating bolt. are piston ar15s more like svdrifles because they are both shortstroke and rotating bolt guns? because that is litterally all they hav in common. the ar 18 and k2 both us the same exact bolt design,

your acting like the shape of the gun has anything to do with how it works. its like saying the guns on m45 quadmounts are way different from regular m2s because they are shaped different. it does not matter because the meat of how a gun works is mostly in the bolt. 

and no, neither of these rifles fit my definition of evolution because the ar18 was designed with the intent of giving countries the option of adopting a rifle that could be produced using world war 2 era manufacturing techniques and steel recievers, and the k2 pretty much follows suite.

the ar15 introduced a new breed a rifle, using things never really seen before like polymer furniture and aluminum recievers for light wieght. the bolt design is really strong and reliable but still not to complicated. other countries were interested but were either to proud to by from the US like korea or simply couldnt afford the m16. so instead of sitting with their old in their butt they started buying ar18s or making guns with similar mechanisms and manufacturing to ar15s and ar18s. that is why the k2 and ar18 exists, not because they are so much better than the ar15, because they really arent. there are a whopping 15 countries using the k2, and all of them are either very small or third world except south korea. no modern military is issuing ar18s today. instead a huge list of countries either adopted the m16 or m4, an ak, or took the concept behind the ar18 (ar style bolt, gas operation) and put them in a different reciever and stock using aluminum and all that new great manufacturing stuff, and put a new name on it. 

despite being decent guns, neither is better than the ar15 in any way. if they were, more wealthy countries would be adopting the k2 (im not sure why they wouldnt if it was so good, im sure SK would love to take other countries money to build up their military or something with NK right there), and the US would have continued refining the ar18. 

im still looking for the major difference that makes the k2 not functionally similart to the ar18

 

 

26

 

"but you are still saying that since the K2s recoil spring goes into the handguard, it somehow makes a substantial "infuence in how the handguard is shaped when the only thing special about the handguard is really nothing except that its big enough to hold the spring and piston at the same time."

yes, that's what I meant by the recoil spring assembly affects the shape of the handguard

"are piston ar15s more like svdrifles because they are both shortstroke and rotating bolt guns?"

yes, in my opinion, they're closer because of the operating mechanism

"it does not matter because the meat of how a gun works is mostly in the bolt." 

All modern rifles use largely the same bolt design (cammed rotating multi-lug bolts), so I'd say the heart of their differences lie in the gas operating mechanism. That's why I say the K2 is different from the AR-18.

"and no, neither of these rifles fit my definition of evolution because the ar18 was designed with the intent of giving countries the option of adopting a rifle that could be produced using world war 2 era manufacturing techniques and steel recievers, and the k2 pretty much follows suite."

because it's your rigid definition that says it has to be "improved", which is not the only definition of evolution. I say they're evolutions of the AR-15 design because they simply changed to match their environment (for SK, lower cost and desire for long stroke system). This is also a correct definition of evolution, so our disagreement here is semantic.

"neither is better than the ar15 in any way"

the K2 is easier to clean for conscripts, and the original design has better provision for mounting sights compared to the M16A2 and M16A1. The modern variants of the AR-15 are better for a professional military.

""im still looking for the major difference that makes the k2 not functionally similart to the ar18"

well. Let me ask you a question. Are the Scar-16, G36, ACR, HK433, FNC, etc. all functional clones of the AR-18 by your definition? if you think they are, then I'll agree that by YOUR definition of a functional clone, the K2 is as well.

Edited by trotskygrad

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
9 minutes ago, trotskygrad said:

 

"but you are still saying that since the K2s recoil spring goes into the handguard, it somehow makes a substantial "infuence in how the handguard is shaped when the only thing special about the handguard is really nothing except that its big enough to hold the spring and piston at the same time."

yes, that's what I meant by the recoil spring assembly affects the shape of the handguard

"are piston ar15s more like svdrifles because they are both shortstroke and rotating bolt guns?"

yes, in my opinion, they're closer because of the operating mechanism

"it does not matter because the meat of how a gun works is mostly in the bolt." 

All modern rifles use largely the same bolt design (cammed rotating multi-lug bolts), so I'd say the heart of their differences lie in the gas operating mechanism. That's why I say the K2 is different from the AR-18.

"and no, neither of these rifles fit my definition of evolution because the ar18 was designed with the intent of giving countries the option of adopting a rifle that could be produced using world war 2 era manufacturing techniques and steel recievers, and the k2 pretty much follows suite."

because it's your rigid definition that says it has to be "improved", which is not the only definition of evolution. I say they're evolutions of the AR-15 design because they simply changed to match their environment (for SK, lower cost and desire for long stroke system). This is also a correct definition of evolution, so our disagreement here is semantic.

"neither is better than the ar15 in any way"

the K2 is easier to clean for conscripts, and the original design has better provision for mounting sights compared to the M16A2 and M16A1. The modern variants of the AR-15 are better for a professional military.

""im still looking for the major difference that makes the k2 not functionally similart to the ar18"

well. Let me ask you a question. Are the Scar-16, G36, ACR, HK433, FNC, etc. all functional clones of the AR-18 by your definition? if you think they are, then I'll agree that by YOUR definition of a functional clone, the K2 is as well.

Yes. i would say the guns you listed are pretty much functional clones of the ar18, except i know nothing about the hk 433 and based off what i could find the fnc seems to have more in common with the ak because it only has 3 locking lugs instead of 7 like an ar15, and even has the long stroke piston like the ak, instead of a shortstroke like the svd or DI like an ar. the other guns are pretty much ar18 clones on the inside, yes. the ar18 has inspired a lot of guns and i was gonna say that and for some reason found it irrelevant to my point and didnt. the l85 started as ar18s that were converted into bullpups. the beretta arx 160 also works similarly to  the ar18. the ar18 has inspired the designs of so many guns, all because of its bolt. all it needed was some polish from some countries over time, and while others like england made more drastic changes to it, but the concept is always the same: ar bolt, gas operation, stamped/ polymer parts, folding stocks, the works. now we have a crapton of guns that all function very similarly and all get generally good reputations. 

like you said most service rifles today use the same basic principals, but i dont think that is a good reason to look at smaller details when comparing and contrasting them because the guns are designed using these basic principals on purpose. most of the smaller differences dont make a big difference in reliability and function. rotating bolt gas guns have just been proven to be insanely reliable and safe and the ar18 set a standard for a cheap to produce stamped steel gun without a buffer tube. the extractor and ejector are all on these types of bolts and they all disassemble similarly. the bolt is what puts the bullet in the chamber and keeps the gun safe, and when it shoots it pulls the casing out of the chamber and kicks it out the side of the gun. it is one of the main factors in determining a rifles accuracy and rate of fire. the configuration of the recoil spring, gas system, and trigger mechanism dont make any substantial effects on the guns performance assuming they are built to quality standards with quality materials and arent doing stupid things like having op rods bent at a 90 degree angle (like early m1 garands). yes, the heart of the differences is in the smaller things, but the heart of the guns is in the bolt and basic operating system, and inless you want to get nitpicky,i think its good to start with the basics, especially with general purpose military rifles.

i would not compare the svd to an ar18 because the bolts have so little in common. yeah they are both short stroke rotating bolt guns, but i emphasize that the big part is the bolt because it does so much. the problem is is that just the amount of lugs alone has a huge impact on how the guns act. yeah some gas systems can make the gun more pleasant to shoot and triggers can feel different, but the reliability of the rifle is still gonna be the same. you can make a rifle better by changing things like the gas system but when you take the bolt out of another gun, that means a big piece of the design is basically done for you. you dont have to worry about one of the more complicated concepts of the weapon because someone a long time ago made it for us. we just need to perfect the little things.

when you have 7 smaller lugs you can get a more consistent lockup and have more accuracy. the bolt wont have to rotate as much to unlock so you have more potential for high rates of fire. this also makes these guns work well with direct impingement and short stroke gas systems and gas ports being farther from the barrel (which can help decrease recoil) because you wont need as much pressure to rotate the bolt. the ar bolt is very strong, and you can prove this simply by mentioning that all mil-spec ars can handle the 5.56 cartridge pressure where there are other civilian guns designed with 2 lugs that cant.

you can make a rifle better by changing things like the gas system but when you take the bolt out of another gun, that means a big piece of the design is basically done for you. you dont have to worry about one of the more complicated concepts of the weapon because someone a long time ago made it for us. we just need to perfect the little things, which really is a minor task when the main things are basically done for you.

as for my rigid definition of evolution, you could say since SK military wanted a cheaper, long stroke piston gun, the k2 would be more suitable for its environment if its environment is south korea, but if you look at the gun on the world scale, which is how all military weapons should be viewed, is it an evolution of the modern service rifle, or is it only an evolution of the south korean service rifle? i suppose the latter could be true, but the former is not. if south korea was using bolt actions in the 1980s, and switched to semi autos only then, have they really made an impact on how military arms should be when everyone else has stuff like the g3, fal, ak, and m16? is there military really up to par with all these other countries, especially when the world is in the middle of a cold war? would the k2 stand out among all the other rifles in the world if it had to serve in a huge war? i dont think so. i think it would be clumped among other rifles in the category and the g3, fal, ak, an ar15 will just sit on top of their high thrones like they always have. im not saying the ar18 and k2 are bad guns, i already said the ar18 has inspired a lot of other designs. i think the ar18 and k2, and all the other guns that work similarly and even look similarly are interesting because they represent an era of gun design that was very boring in that a lot of the western rifles were similar but every country were making their own small changes to a big concept that would lead to some interesting designs that can look so unique on the outside but still have so much in common with each other.

and when i said the ar15 was better in every way, i kind of lied. i feel stupid forgetting the k2 and ar18 dont have forward assist tumors and use normal charging handles. i also forgot the ar15's terrible buffer tube that prevents the gun from using a folding stock.guns like the sig mcx do give you ar15 style controls and bolt while using a spring system and short stroke piston that allows for the removal of the awful buffer tube to be replace with a folder stock, but i think the forward assist and t charging handle are just so bad, and in this was the ar18 and k2 did evolve from the ar. i guess you could say that the k2 had better options for mounting scopes than m16a1's or 2's, but not many rifles back then were being mounted with scopes back then and the scopes werent that great. and i would definitely not say the k2 is much easier to clean if at all because all you really need to do it break the gun open, where they both come apart in an upper and lower similarly, pull the guts out from the back of the upper, wipe down the all-too similar bolts, and shove a brush down the bore and follow with with a wipe. i think someone familiar with the ar15 would be at home with a k2 and vice versa once you told them how to seperate the upper and lower (assuming they couldnt figure it out)

but now this entire conversation seemed pointless and could have been solved easily if we did not have a misunderstanding.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
1 hour ago, Carl_Wheezer said:

Yes. i would say the guns you listed are pretty much functional clones of the ar18, except i know nothing about the hk 433 and based off what i could find the fnc seems to have more in common with the ak because it only has 3 locking lugs instead of 7 like an ar15, and even has the long stroke piston like the ak, instead of a shortstroke like the svd or DI like an ar. the other guns are pretty much ar18 clones on the inside, yes. the ar18 has inspired a lot of guns and i was gonna say that and for some reason found it irrelevant to my point and didnt. the l85 started as ar18s that were converted into bullpups. the beretta arx 160 also works similarly to  the ar18. the ar18 has inspired the designs of so many guns, all because of its bolt. all it needed was some polish from some countries over time, and while others like england made more drastic changes to it, but the concept is always the same: ar bolt, gas operation, stamped/ polymer parts, folding stocks, the works. now we have a crapton of guns that all function very similarly and all get generally good reputations. 

like you said most service rifles today use the same basic principals, but i dont think that is a good reason to look at smaller details when comparing and contrasting them because the guns are designed using these basic principals on purpose. most of the smaller differences dont make a big difference in reliability and function. rotating bolt gas guns have just been proven to be insanely reliable and safe and the ar18 set a standard for a cheap to produce stamped steel gun without a buffer tube. the extractor and ejector are all on these types of bolts and they all disassemble similarly. the bolt is what puts the bullet in the chamber and keeps the gun safe, and when it shoots it pulls the casing out of the chamber and kicks it out the side of the gun. it is one of the main factors in determining a rifles accuracy and rate of fire. the configuration of the recoil spring, gas system, and trigger mechanism dont make any substantial effects on the guns performance assuming they are built to quality standards with quality materials and arent doing stupid things like having op rods bent at a 90 degree angle (like early m1 garands). yes, the heart of the differences is in the smaller things, but the heart of the guns is in the bolt and basic operating system, and inless you want to get nitpicky,i think its good to start with the basics, especially with general purpose military rifles.

i would not compare the svd to an ar18 because the bolts have so little in common. yeah they are both short stroke rotating bolt guns, but i emphasize that the big part is the bolt because it does so much. the problem is is that just the amount of lugs alone has a huge impact on how the guns act. yeah some gas systems can make the gun more pleasant to shoot and triggers can feel different, but the reliability of the rifle is still gonna be the same. you can make a rifle better by changing things like the gas system but when you take the bolt out of another gun, that means a big piece of the design is basically done for you. you dont have to worry about one of the more complicated concepts of the weapon because someone a long time ago made it for us. we just need to perfect the little things.

when you have 7 smaller lugs you can get a more consistent lockup and have more accuracy. the bolt wont have to rotate as much to unlock so you have more potential for high rates of fire. this also makes these guns work well with direct impingement and short stroke gas systems and gas ports being farther from the barrel (which can help decrease recoil) because you wont need as much pressure to rotate the bolt. the ar bolt is very strong, and you can prove this simply by mentioning that all mil-spec ars can handle the 5.56 cartridge pressure where there are other civilian guns designed with 2 lugs that cant.

you can make a rifle better by changing things like the gas system but when you take the bolt out of another gun, that means a big piece of the design is basically done for you. you dont have to worry about one of the more complicated concepts of the weapon because someone a long time ago made it for us. we just need to perfect the little things, which really is a minor task when the main things are basically done for you.

as for my rigid definition of evolution, you could say since SK military wanted a cheaper, long stroke piston gun, the k2 would be more suitable for its environment if its environment is south korea, but if you look at the gun on the world scale, which is how all military weapons should be viewed, is it an evolution of the modern service rifle, or is it only an evolution of the south korean service rifle? i suppose the latter could be true, but the former is not. if south korea was using bolt actions in the 1980s, and switched to semi autos only then, have they really made an impact on how military arms should be when everyone else has stuff like the g3, fal, ak, and m16? is there military really up to par with all these other countries, especially when the world is in the middle of a cold war? would the k2 stand out among all the other rifles in the world if it had to serve in a huge war? i dont think so. i think it would be clumped among other rifles in the category and the g3, fal, ak, an ar15 will just sit on top of their high thrones like they always have. im not saying the ar18 and k2 are bad guns, i already said the ar18 has inspired a lot of other designs. i think the ar18 and k2, and all the other guns that work similarly and even look similarly are interesting because they represent an era of gun design that was very boring in that a lot of the western rifles were similar but every country were making their own small changes to a big concept that would lead to some interesting designs that can look so unique on the outside but still have so much in common with each other.

and when i said the ar15 was better in every way, i kind of lied. i feel stupid forgetting the k2 and ar18 dont have forward assist tumors and use normal charging handles. i also forgot the ar15's terrible buffer tube that prevents the gun from using a folding stock.guns like the sig mcx do give you ar15 style controls and bolt while using a spring system and short stroke piston that allows for the removal of the awful buffer tube to be replace with a folder stock, but i think the forward assist and t charging handle are just so bad, and in this was the ar18 and k2 did evolve from the ar. i guess you could say that the k2 had better options for mounting scopes than m16a1's or 2's, but not many rifles back then were being mounted with scopes back then and the scopes werent that great. and i would definitely not say the k2 is much easier to clean if at all because all you really need to do it break the gun open, where they both come apart in an upper and lower similarly, pull the guts out from the back of the upper, wipe down the all-too similar bolts, and shove a brush down the bore and follow with with a wipe. i think someone familiar with the ar15 would be at home with a k2 and vice versa once you told them how to seperate the upper and lower (assuming they couldnt figure it out)

but now this entire conversation seemed pointless and could have been solved easily if we did not have a misunderstanding.

52

"but i dont think that is a good reason to look at smaller details when comparing and contrasting them because the guns are designed using these basic principals on purpose. most of the smaller differences dont make a big difference in reliability and function. "

eh, most problems with modern rifles have been with those systems. the Sig MCX had big problems because of poor design of their recoil spring assembly, for example. In addition, most interesting innovations in small arms design in recent years (Eg continuous recoil, balanced action recoil) have to do with the gas operating systems and recoil systems as opposed to the bolt. Thus I believe these systems are quite relevant when discussing the differences between guns.

"it is one of the main factors in determining a rifles accuracy and rate of fire. the configuration of the recoil spring, gas system, and trigger mechanism dont make any substantial effects on the guns performance assuming they are built to quality standards with quality materials and arent doing stupid things like having op rods bent at a 90 degree angle (like early m1 garands)."

while you are definitely correct in accuracy, the operating system definitely has more to do with the rate of fire. It's why a Mk18 can jump up to 300 rpm when a suppressor is attached. As such, I maintain that differences in the operating mechanism are important to discuss.

" and i would definitely not say the k2 is much easier to clean if at all because all you really need to do it break the gun open, where they both come apart in an upper and lower similarly, pull the guts out from the back of the upper, wipe down the "all-too similar bolts, and shove a brush down the bore and follow with with a wipe. i think someone familiar with the ar15 would be at home with a k2 and vice versa once you told them how to seperate the upper and lower (assuming they couldnt figure it out)"

because of the long stroke design, carbon isn't being blown all over the inside of the bolt. Thus it's faster and easier to simply wipe down the piston and the bolt face, as opposed to the AR where you have to pull the bolt apart to really get it clean. That's what I meant when I said it was easier to clean and maintain for conscripts.
 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
7 hours ago, trotskygrad said:

"but i dont think that is a good reason to look at smaller details when comparing and contrasting them because the guns are designed using these basic principals on purpose. most of the smaller differences dont make a big difference in reliability and function. "

eh, most problems with modern rifles have been with those systems. the Sig MCX had big problems because of poor design of their recoil spring assembly, for example. In addition, most interesting innovations in small arms design in recent years (Eg continuous recoil, balanced action recoil) have to do with the gas operating systems and recoil systems as opposed to the bolt. Thus I believe these systems are quite relevant when discussing the differences between guns.

"it is one of the main factors in determining a rifles accuracy and rate of fire. the configuration of the recoil spring, gas system, and trigger mechanism dont make any substantial effects on the guns performance assuming they are built to quality standards with quality materials and arent doing stupid things like having op rods bent at a 90 degree angle (like early m1 garands)."

while you are definitely correct in accuracy, the operating system definitely has more to do with the rate of fire. It's why a Mk18 can jump up to 300 rpm when a suppressor is attached. As such, I maintain that differences in the operating mechanism are important to discuss.

" and i would definitely not say the k2 is much easier to clean if at all because all you really need to do it break the gun open, where they both come apart in an upper and lower similarly, pull the guts out from the back of the upper, wipe down the "all-too similar bolts, and shove a brush down the bore and follow with with a wipe. i think someone familiar with the ar15 would be at home with a k2 and vice versa once you told them how to seperate the upper and lower (assuming they couldnt figure it out)"

because of the long stroke design, carbon isn't being blown all over the inside of the bolt. Thus it's faster and easier to simply wipe down the piston and the bolt face, as opposed to the AR where you have to pull the bolt apart to really get it clean. That's what I meant when I said it was easier to clean and maintain for conscripts.
 

 

like i said the sig mcx uses the same concept of the ar18, using a short stroke piston and similar bolt. i also mentioned when you do wierd stuff to the gas system and stuff you can screw up the gun.

i think the bolt is still a big factor because the amount of rotation in unlocking and locking as well as its weight can slow its travel rearward and forward. this is one reason the ar15 is so much faster than the ak. also, suppressors over gas the gun (if you dont adjust the gas port), and if anything increase the rate of fire of pretty much any gas operated full auto you stick them on.

and i think the cleaning the outside of the bolt is sufficient enough since bolt dissasembly isnt really part of a field strip inless you like losing pins. i am sure the armourer can handle taking the bolt apart further  for more complex maintenance.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
12 minutes ago, Carl_Wheezer said:

 

like i said the sig mcx uses the same concept of the ar18, using a short stroke piston and similar bolt. i also mentioned when you do wierd stuff to the gas system and stuff you can screw up the gun.

i think the bolt is still a big factor because the amount of rotation in unlocking and locking as well as its weight can slow its travel rearward and forward. this is one reason the ar15 is so much faster than the ak. also, suppressors over gas the gun (if you dont adjust the gas port), and if anything increase the rate of fire of pretty much any gas operated full auto you stick them on.

and i think the cleaning the outside of the bolt is sufficient enough since bolt dissasembly isnt really part of a field strip inless you like losing pins. i am sure the armourer can handle taking the bolt apart further  for more complex maintenance.

15

"and i think the cleaning the outside of the bolt is sufficient enough since bolt dissasembly isnt really part of a field strip inless you like losing pins. i am sure the armourer can handle taking the bolt apart further  for more complex maintenance."

The US Army disagrees

GTA-07-01-039-M16A2-Reduced.jpg

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
18 minutes ago, trotskygrad said:

"and i think the cleaning the outside of the bolt is sufficient enough since bolt dissasembly isnt really part of a field strip inless you like losing pins. i am sure the armourer can handle taking the bolt apart further  for more complex maintenance."

The US Army disagrees

GTA-07-01-039-M16A2-Reduced.jpg

hm you are right, but i dont think soldiers are going to take the handgaurds off if no one is watching, lol. or the buffertube, inless the retainer pin for it is not in the rifles

Edited by Carl_Wheezer

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
1 hour ago, Carl_Wheezer said:

hm you are right, but i dont think soldiers are going to take the handgaurds off if no one is watching, lol. or the buffertube, inless the retainer pin for it is not in the rifles

I always clean and inspect my buffer tube for wear, it's not hard. Soldiers do it too, as I've seen way too many joes ask how to get their bolt carrier group out of the buffer tube because they reassembled the rifle before putting the buffer and spring back in first.

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