**OFFICAL*** The Type 97NSR is Non restricted!!!
- Thread starter North_Sylva
- Start date
From 30 round mags going full auto or...?
If this thing would go full auto we'd have one hell of a problem all over again.
The video had it running semi, thank god.
I more so meant what were the testing events. Did they just shoot as many rounds, as fast as possible...too see what would happen?
From what I understood of the video, yes.. This went WAY beyond any realistic combat conditions (iirc, and I may get corrected on this, you'd take about 300 on a combat patrol and I can't think of a scenario outside of a concentration camp where you'd be able to dump 27 or even 10 normal capacity mags without having to take cover and pause from time to time) and I've seen AK handguards catch fire under similar test conditions.
So... Any info on who gets the samples yet and when do we get to fondle them in the East?
sly mantis
CGN Regular
From what I understood of the video, yes.. This went WAY beyond any realistic combat conditions (iirc, and I may get corrected on this, you'd take about 300 on a combat patrol and I can't think of a scenario outside of a concentration camp where you'd be able to dump 27 or even 10 normal capacity mags without having to take cover and pause from time to time) and I've seen AK handguards catch fire under similar test conditions.
So... Any info on who gets the samples yet and when do we get to fondle them in the East?
Knowing that you own a 100% durable and reliable combat weapon is worth a lot.
I'd take one as a right handed shooter... I'd like to be able to do weak hand transitions.
Yep
Knowing that you own a 100% durable and reliable combat weapon is worth a lot.
These Tactical Response clowns fired 1000 rounds through a Glock 19 in 13 minutes and the guide rod melted.
I consider Glock a durable, reliable combat weapon - and even it has melted parts at 1000 rounds.
Here's a 1000 round torture test of an AR15 (with his report below)
Sounds to me that a SBR AR-15 becomes unsafe to shoot at about 1000 rounds in under 10 minutes. If a T97 only has plastic melting around the ejection port, I'd say that's a BIG improvement. Being a piston gun, I think the T97 might not have the same problem (melting gas tube) - although I'm sure it would have others.
The thing to remember is the T97 is designed to be the primary weapon for a RIFLEMAN. Dumping 1000 rounds in under 10 minutes would probably be the job of a MACHINE GUNNER, and though it's been over a decade for me, IIRC, in a section attack, if a C9 LMG operator went down, the nearest rifleman in the section would sling his rifle get behind the section's C9 - probably to account for the limitation of the rate and volume of fire that C7 assault rifle could provide.
The RATE of fire for a rifleman was dependent upon range and the indication of the section commander - it's fuzzy for me, but I believe we did a slow and fast rate - but even then, it was either semi-auto (1-2 rounds per second) or 3-shot bursts in intervals long enough to provide cover for the other groups in the section to advance a few meters.
The only "big dump" was when Charlie team cleared the trench by lobbing a grenade into it, then sprayed a single magazine, full auto, into it.
Either way I don't believe in theory or practice - a rifleman would ever dump 25-30 full mags sequentially in 10 minutes (maybe a REAL rifleman can correct me). A buddy of mine who served in A-stan with a combat arms unit did tell me most of the guys he was with would have 10 loaded mags and in the middle of a firefight, someone would take cover behind a LAV and reload them. By his accounts those firefights could be measured in half an hour to several hour intervals (I wasn't there, thankfully, maybe someone who was could correct me again).
There's some cool pics on ARFcom:
ar15.com/forums/t_3_118/589572_AR15_1_000_round_torture_test_.html
Last edited:
I just think it's important to understand the limitations of a tool before dismissing it because someone exceeded them and wasn't pleased with the results.
Knowing that you own a 100% durable and reliable combat weapon is worth a lot.
Go way beyond anything you'll ever come up with in the field with only a bit of plastic melting around the ejection port tells me reliability is more than up to snuff. This is equivalent to running a car without an oil change for 60,000km and saying it's unreliable because it needs a valve seal job after that.
Not talking about the reliability, AFAIK, it is 100% reliable. But going through a torture test without any problem says a lot about a design.
Imagine a cup cake versus a cup cake with icing on top.
I'd be more than happy to have the latter, but doesn't mean that I'll be sad with the plain cup cake.
In this case, the Toyota beside it that doesn't need a valve seal job still comes out on top.
Yeah Glocks are unbelievably reliable, and the melted plastic rod would not affect it's function. It is, however, better if it didn't melt
Last edited:
Not talking about the reliability, AFAIK, it is 100% reliable. But going through a torture test without any problem says a lot about a design.
Imagine a cup cake versus a cup cake with icing on top.
I'd be more than happy to have the latter, but doesn't mean that I'll be sad with the plain cup cake.
In this case, the Toyota beside it that doesn't need a valve seal job still comes out on top.
Yeah Glocks are unbelievably reliable, and the melted plastic rod would not affect it's function. It is, however, better if it didn't melt
I'm enjoying this conversation, so please don't take my responses as trolling or combative. There simply are physical and practical limitations to all things. Anything can be done, it's a matter of how long it takes to build it and how expensive the finished product will be.
I'm sure if they used the highest grade titanium alloys, higher grade steel, etc. for various components, they could probably make a completely unbreakable, indestructible gun... the cost to produce it might skyrocket, it might weigh twice as much, or it might have other limitations.
More importantly than determining WHAT anything is, is determining WHAT IT IS REQUIRED TO DO AND VERIFYING IT CAN DO IT.
The scenario I described above (infantry section attack) is the key requirement for a rifle similar to the T97. I would say if it could function under those circumstances - it is well designed. I understand as an interesting TEST to determine the limitations of the gun, it would be neat to try pumping 1000 rounds through in under 10 minutes - that said, the results of such a test I think in no way reflect the overall quality of the tool, if the requirements for it are such that it will NOT practically be required to do so.
I am a professional tester of advanced systems - again to me it doesn't matter very much what the tool we are building is capable of. What matters to me is does the tool we are building meet the requirements specified. If it does, the tool is adequate. If it does not, we need to rework it. Of course that's all predicated on the assumption that the requirements are clearly and properly defined - but that's a whole other story.
