Why hasn't anybody taken a stab at a modern short recoil

>>33733083
the mass saturation of aks, ars, g3s, and FALs makes it unnecesarry, hence no economic or immediate practical need or value

throw some mud and dirt between the hand guard and barrel and see what happens, or doesnt happen.

>>33733140
>Throw some mud in between a Glocks slide and barrel and see what happens
Oh wait it works fine because this potential point of weakness was recognized and sealed off from debris

>>33733134
>The "it's good enough" argument
And yet new creative and innovative designs are constantly coming onto the market, even though you could argue that the AR15, Glock, Mauser, and Mossberg 590 designs were all "good enough".

>>33733297
and most countries are sticking with "good enough", so what does that tell us

Isn't that what all AR18 derivatives are? Between the SCAR, L85 and G36, Id say a fair few people have taken a stab at it.

>>33733311
Everybody replaces their guns eventually, and as we speak the world's largest military is looking for a new rifle.

>>33733347
No, those are conventional gas operated rifles.

>>33733357
>everybody replaces their guns eventually
>with ones more outdated than they already had
Looking at you, France.

File: roth krnka 1899 2.jpg (18KB, 996x230px) Image search: [Google]

18KB, 996x230px

>>33733083
There are several reasons why short recoil operated small arms (as far as infantry rifles are concerned) are evolutionary dead ends as of right now. The biggest reason is also the least obvious, that being one of mechanical complexity and flexibility of materials. Probably the single biggest innovation in traditional small arms was the development of the bolt locking into and extension on the barrel. while at first this doesn't seem very important, for the purposes of material selection it is extremely important as it means that all of the forces generated during firing are contained completely by the bolt head and the barrel. because of this the upper receiver on an ar can be made entirely of aluminum, or in the case of the g36, polymer as no particularly great amount of force is imparted on the receiver. Now the bolt on the Johnson does lock into a barrel extension (I think it was the first to do that but im not sure) however because its recoil operated it needs to at the very least have a steel cam-way built into its receiver that unlocks the bolt form the barrel during the recoil process. The junction between the steel cam-way and the non-steel receiver would very likely be a point of excess wear though, I say likely because you can probably engineer around that but the effort wouldn't really be worth it as gas operated firearms work perfectly fine.

pic unrelated

>>33734060
I meant to say biggest innovation in the past ~70 years

>>33733357
You mean the world's largest military is looking for an excuse to burn several million to determine rifle is fine.

>>33733399
The FAMAS was only a thing becasue Ferance wanted a native design, bullpups are getting canned all over the place becasue it was determined that the few advantages to a shorter rifle is offest by literally everything else.

The only reason people still hail it as a new thing is becasue they like the look of it.

>>33734060
although, it does work great on GPMGs/HMGs
>see M2
because it's already guaranteed to be fucktard heavy and made of steel to support belt feed, accuracy isn't as big of an issue, barrel changing ease is highly important, and the last thing you want is jamming from gas/powder fouling.
I think HMGs are gonna be recoil operated for good bit of the forseeable future, assuming gatling-sytle guns don't just outright take over

File: Glock_17_Gen_1.jpg (43KB, 1023x747px) Image search: [Google]

43KB, 1023x747px

>>33734060
>reciever wear
Hmm I wonder what other recoil operated gun manages to have incredible durability/strength, and a polymer frame...

>>33733083
There is nothing a short recoil gun does better than any other type of operating mechanism. It isn't the 30s anymore. People understand that there's absolutely nothing wrong with drilling a gas port in a barrel, and if you're really super worried about it, use delayed blowback.

>>33734389
*short recoil rifle

Obviously it has advantages in handguns, and machine guns.

>>33734389
Except I never mentioned gas port wear, and you never mentioned any of the obvious pros I listed.

>>33734377
the forces generated from locking and unlocking are directed into the slide/barrel and a steel locking block.

>>33734529
And somehow the polymer reciever and slide hold up fine for hundreds of thousands of rounds. Care to revise your original statement?

>>33733083
>better balence
not really? If you're going by internal magazine battle rifle standards maybe but that's pretty stupid. Are you stupid?
>no gastube messing up barrel harmonics
Yes you are.
>runs way cleaner
Okay but this isn't a problem with modern designs
>Seems easier to make it with quick change barrel
See point number two.
It's an okay idea at best but it's really stupid when you try to argue it's better than what is current.

File: MCX.jpg (65KB, 900x601px) Image search: [Google]

65KB, 900x601px

>>33734597
>not really
Do you know what a gas tube is?
>Yes you are
Are you having a stroke?
>this isn't a problem with modern designs
It's not as big of a problem perhaps, but it's obviously still a problem.
>See point two
As brand new ARs and other competitors are releasing with one of their most pushed features being a quick change barrel.

>>33734597
why would you not want a quick change barrel? there's only one, negligible downside to it, that being the small amount of locking mechanism weight, but that's really a nonissue.

>>33733083
Because it's not an AR15.

>>33734703
Gas operated 9mm
For what purpose?

>>33734803
The MCX is chambered in .300 BO or .223.

>>33734899
That magwell looked pretty dam small in that picture

>>33733083
I mean whether it would be good for a combat rifle or not, I'd like to see a hunting rifle trying it out.