- no title specified

Tuesday, September 39, 2001

KNWGM NEWS

Gary Sneed

Rifle Weight
How Heavy is Too Heavy

I am nothing if not the guy who talks about how heavy rifles are. And it isn't just because I am anemic. We had the lightweight fighting rifle figured out in 1959. Why has this lesson been unlearned? Typical bolt action military rifles with 24-32 inch barrels weighed around 10 pounds. The first generation* of autoloading rifles like the M1 Garand and SVT-40 were similar in this weight range, 9-10 pounds. These rifles had full length barrels, in excess of 20 inches, and were milled from steel and furnished in wood. They were also chambered in very powerful cartridges like .30-06 and later .308. The M14, which I will go into detail on at a later date, was very behind the curve when it was introduced in the late 50s. It was still over 10 pounds when loaded with a 20 round magazine. The G3 and FAL both weighed around 9 pounds. The AR-10 in .308 Winchester weighed in at an astonishing 6.85 pounds. When loaded with a 20 round magazine it weighed less than what an M14 weighed naked. The AR-10 used a forged aluminum receiver and fiberglass furniture. It was a massive departure from what was previously used. When it was scaled down to .223 however, these weight savings really showed through. The prototype AR-15 weighed in at 6.55 pounds with an empty 20 round magazine. The rifle later adopted by the Army as the M16A1 came in at around 7.5 pounds when loaded with its new 30 round magazine. To keep this simple, further weights discussed will be without a magazine inserted. Simply add a pound to calculate what it would be like with a loaded 30 round 5.56 mag or 20 round .308 mag. I'm sure you can handle that.

From this point onward the M16 did nothing but gain weight. Some of it for good reasons, some of it for retarded reasons, again, a story to be expanded on at a later date. But to sum it up, the M16A2 when loaded was in the same weight class as older battle rifles. 7.9 pounds naked. 9 pounds loaded. Now we were able to come up with a 6.5 pound rifle in 1959, what can be accomplished now? Well the short answer is something similar. The long answer is as follows: You can easily achieve a 5 pound rifle by utilizing a pencil weight barrel, like the original AR-15, and by remaining conscious of weight on parts like the handguard and buttstock. But the fact that we have modern technology also causes a problem. Iron sights and plastic handguards are no longer acceptable, but using anything more than that adds weight. So when you take your 5 pound rifle and accessorize it with an optics package, visible illuminator (a highly educated term for a flashlight) and optionally* an infrared combination laser unit like the military PEQ-15 you have climbed back up to that 6.5 pound mark of the M16A1. And that is totally fine. What isn't fine is when you start off with a rifle that is already heavier than 6.5 pounds naked, then accessorize it with those same gizmos and end up with a rifle that easily clears the 10 pound mark. Increasing the weight of a weapon that is meant to be fired from the shoulder and moved around with will quickly wear out your arms and make accurate aiming very difficult. You will see M16A4 equipped Marines using their foregrips very far back on the rail so their arms tire out slower.

There are situations where weight either doesn’t matter or isn't the primary concern. A rifle that is effectively emplaced like a large sniper rifle or pseudo light machine gun where they are only carried on a heavy duty sling don’t pay as much attention to weight. Or if its just something your boomer dad bought as a bench rest meme then whatever. But if its something you actually want to carry and shoot then you need to pay attention to ounces and pounds. My particular rule of thumb is that over 8 pounds configured is lagging a little bit behind, while anything over 10 pounds configured is impractical. Starting with a base rifle in the 5-6 pound range leaves you with a lot weight saving to fit whatever you want on there. But there is a practical limit. You need to pay attention to each individual part and not let anything run away on you. A Midwest Industries Combat rail weighs 10 ounces. A Daniel Defense RIS II handguard weighs 18 ounces. And yes people actually use those unironically. A Sig Romeo 4T Pro weighs 6.8 oz. An Eotech EXPS-3 weighs 11.2 oz. A Vortex Viper PST 1-6x scope weighs 22.7 oz with no mount. And the lightest mount you can get will add another 3.4 ounces. All of these things will add up and you need to consider what their total will be in aggregate and where you are willing to sacrifice the weight for superior performance. Personally I think the optics package is the best place to spend weight, but you still need to be conscious of it there and make good decisions. But don’t go getting rid of necessary accessories like lights or optics just to shave weight. It is the 21st century and you will not make it without those. Also I don’t weigh rifles with slings, some people do but I think that’s retarded.

Both of these rifles are 6.5 pounds unloaded. But I would suey take one over the other. Slapping these accessories onto an M16A1 will put it into the weight class of a naked M16A2. And doing the same to an A2 will put it in the same weight class as an M110. Cutting barrel length, and by extension (or retraction, in this case) cutting the handguard length can be a solid way to save weight. These rifles have a barrel length difference of 4 inches. And losing yet another 4 inches of barrel could save probably another half pound if so desired. This effect can be doubly felt if equipping a silencer where the swing weight can be brought towards the user by reducing barrel length. We can talk about more of the specifics of barrel length at a later date, but to sum it up, both 10 inches and 20 inches are a meme. Excellent.

Everyone in day-to-day life has used the term pounds in reference to how much something weighs. If you’re enlightened, you may have even used kilograms. If you’ve ever done that, you probably know that 1 kg is 2.2 lbs. right? Well let me ask you this. Which pound? Are we talking about mass or weight? Keep with me as I attempt to explain to you how attending college for mechanical engineering has ruined me and jams me anytime a layman does unit conversion.

Maybe you’ve heard of Newtons. That is 1kg accelerating at 1 m/s2. Gravity is 9.81 m/s2. This means that 1 kg is actually 9.81 newtons and that a newton is actually a weight which is also a force. Here’s the fun part. Pounds don’t have two distinct names. There is pound-mass and pound-force. So when you weigh yourself, due to weight being a force, you are weighing in pounds-force. That must mean that gravity is a factor, right? Yes, it is. Take a guess at the value. 9.81 ft/s2? No! 32.2 ft/s2 is gravitational acceleration, a number I hadn’t heard till college.

Knowing this, how can we equate kilograms, a mass, to pounds, which you weigh in pounds-force? When accelerated to 9.81 m/s2, a kilogram is equal to 9.81 newtons. 1 newton is equal to .224809 pounds-force. Using multiplication, 9.81 N equals 2.205 pounds-force. The moral of the story is that they are lying to you! A kg of mass subjected to Earth’s field causes a force that some consider to be equivalent to 2.2 pounds-force.

Another kicker is that there are multiple names for things AND you can’t just convert between pounds-mass and pounds-force. 1 lbf = 1 lbm x ft/s2. This may seem simple, everything is subject to Earth’s gravity, right? Not when you enter into the world of dynamics or anything off-planet (of course). Dynamics utilizes both forms at different times in different ways. Moments of inertia (in which there are multiple, both area and mass moments, not to mention about all three axes, assuming rectangular coordinates) will fuck you up and I hate finding them. If you need a moment of inertia solved, get SolidWorks or pay a civil engineer to do it, I don’t want to touch it.

You may be asking, why does the tagline for this soapbox mention a slug? Well, a slug slithery slithers its way in to make things even more confusing by adding another unnecessary unit. A slug is equal to 1 pound-force x s2/ft. Another way is 1 pound-force is 1 slug x ft/s2. A slug is also 32.2 pounds-mass. If you are given slugs in an equation, you are expected to convert and track your units. A slug is here to make that harder. It will mess up your units all to give you the same number that you would’ve gotten if you just use pounds (you decide which one). Don’t even start me on slinches (which is real btw).


Tuesday, September 39, 2001	KNWGM NEWS Your Only Source for the REAL Location of the Sun						Issue #4


Gary Sneed HHR Holocaust The latest updates SOMEONE in the Central Ohio area bought up all of the retro-styled automobiles that they could get their hands on. This includes PT Cruisers and HHRs. This scheme had been in the works for months prior. They then took all of their newly acquired vehicles and melted them down into scrap, leaving only a scant few extremely ugly grandma cars still in existence. Their motives are still unclear but the effects are felt throughout the Midwest. No More of That
			Gary Sneed NORAD Loses Sun Daily Astronomical Events
			NORAD recently confirmed that on April 8th they lost track of the sun. Visual confirmation was reestablished roughly 4 minutes after loss. How incompetent is our military when they cant even keep track of the sun? This is very embarrassing on the world stage. RUSSIA didn’t lose track of the sun. This shows their military superiority once again. It is so embarrassing to have a sitting president admit he didn’t know where the sun was for 4 minutes. At least at night we can just assume it was on the other side of the Earth. But this was different. NATO should disband immediately it is rendering this country so weak and inadequate. We need to stop funding NATO and giving our money away to freeloading “allies” who don’t even pay their share.			We probably would have thought the sun disappeared forever if we hadn't got in contact with Israel and had them confirm the sun’s position. Its good to have at least ONE reliable ally in this trying time. And they are at war! They can keep track of these things while terrorists massacre their people. I guess it isn't too different from what is happening at our southern border. I bet none of those illegals even cared that our government was too stupid to know where the sun was. They just care that they are getting a check for crossing the border. Illegally I might add! This doesn’t bode well for the future of our nation. Trump kept close watch on the sun’s position, because of his thankfully close ties to Putin. Please pray for us!


Rifle Weight How Much is Too Much?		What is a Silencer? Its a Car Muffler			Why .300 Blk? Submachine Guns are Dead
Gary Sneed		Gary Sneed			Gary Sneed
The M1 Garand weighed 9.5 pounds, the M14 weighed 10.7 pounds (loaded), the M16A1 weighed about 7 pounds with a loaded 20rd magazine. Do you think the weight trend continued down? Page 2		The silencer was invented in 1902 by Hiram Percy Maxim, the son of the inventor of the machine gun. He also invented the car muffler, on the same day, in the same minute. Page 3			5.56 is the thing to have in current year. Is .300 another thing to have? It could be if you have a tax stamp or can stomach the idea of a pistol brace. Page 4
				Page 1

Tuesday, September 39, 2001	KNWGM NEWS					Issue #4

Gary Sneed What is a Silencer? No Retard, its not a Suppressor.		Wow, that was fucking boring. Anyways the silencer is in many ways very simple but in others very complex. Real life isn't like video game where silencers last maybe 30 rounds before becoming worthless, except when they have wipes. Traditional military silencers which entered use in the 1960s but became more popular in the 80s and 90s can go tens of thousands of rounds before needing factory service. Allen Engineering (formerly OPS Inc*) silencers have gone at least 50,000 rounds without repair. Many available silencers can handle full auto firing schedules even from short barrels, which on 5.56 is extremely punishing. Fully titanium silencers are more fragile and prone to exploding when put through this kind of stress but are perfectly usable on longer barrels and under reasonable semi auto firing schedules. Titanium is still unpopular for its propensity for causing sparks and almost acting as a reverse flash hider however. Most silencers on the market are made of stainless steel or super-alloys like inconel. These can withstand extreme punishment. The other misconception is often their method of attachment. The silencers seen in the movies are often just threaded to the end of a pistol hand tight and used to shoot a couple people. This is about 50% right and 50% wrong.			The previous way of doing things was to in fact just have the silencer affix to the threads of whatever barrel you were using. On 5.56 this was most often 1/2x28 threads, the same for .22 Long Rifle*. However this method was neither fast nor secure. The square, 90 degree shoulder that the silencer backed up against would easily loosen when firing and cause a big problem. So in the 90s it became common to affix a muzzle device such as a flash hider or muzzle brake, then have the silencer lock onto it through various different methods, such as a locking collar or external thread system. This continued into what we have today, which is a nearly universal system where the silencers themselves are internally threaded 1 3/8x24. This allows them to accept a wide range of adapters internally, where they can either attach via the old direct thread method or affix to any number of muzzle device attachment mechanisms. Some high profile manufacturers do not include this system and instead force you to use whatever gay muzzle device ecosystem they use, like Apple. Most .22lr specific silencers also do not use this system, as the 1/2x28 barrel thread is practically universal on those weapons anyways.
A silencer is a device that is attached to the muzzle of a firearm to lessen its report in both the acoustic and visual signature range. This is most often accomplished with a series of conical baffles with a hole punched through their center welded to the inside of a metal tube. More archaic silencer designs have employed rubber wipes which are effectively just rubber discs which the bullet would cut a hole through within 20 rounds, lessening the signature reduction of the wipes as the hole increased in size. This style was most famously employed on the Welrod assassination pistol during WW2, but was also revived on the Knight’s Armament XM9 silencer which also employed a slide locking mechanism to further reduce the sound of firing. This style of silencer is not viable for the civilian market as the wipes are only good for a couple dozen rounds and they are designated as a silencer component by the ATF and not available for civilian purchase, meaning the device must be sent back for factory refurbishment when the wipes are used up. So the civilian market is limited to baffle silencers 99% of the time.

Gary Sneed So What is the Point? Why do I have to Read this? A continuation of the previous article.
Any silencer you should actually consider buying will have this “HUB” rear threading, which allows you to then choose your attachment system. Some attachment methods are better than others. Direct thread is still an option and may be the option you want to go with. Direct thread saves weight and length compared to any muzzle device attachment system, and when properly installed it will not back off. But then that practically marries your silencer to your rifle. Which if you are a gun enthusiast you probably want to use it on a bunch of things. Your system of choice should then probably be Rearden ATLAS, which is a knockoff of the Q Plan B system. That isn't important. What is important is that the ATLAS system utilizes a muzzle device which has a tapered shoulder, which allows you to affix the silencer to it, hand tight, and the taper will generate enough friction for it to not back off while firing. There is no hard locking mechanism like a spring loaded collar or quick release lever. Its just threads and a tapered shoulder. This once again saves weight.				This system (and many others) then allows you to quickly migrate your silencer onto several different rifles which may not even be in the same caliber or have the same muzzle threads. 5.56 is 1/2x28 and .308 (or .300) use 5/8x24. So with just a direct thread adapter the same silencer cannot fit on both. But when the rifles have ATLAS muzzle devices and the silencer has the ATLAS adapter you can use the same one on both. You could then put a 5.56 silencer on a .308 and blow it up if you are a moron. But you could conversely buy a .308 or 9mm silencer and use it on everything from .338 Win Mag down to .223. The silencer I generally recommend is the OCL Polonium, or Polonium-30. They are the same thing but in 5.56 and .308. These cost around $500, then $200 for your stamp. $85 for the ATLAS adapter and $80 for a flash hider for every rifle you want to put it on. That leaves you in at about $1000 for a full setup. Not cheap, but not an insurmountable cost either.
			Page 3

Tuesday, September 39, 2001	KNWGM NEWS			Issue #4

Gary Sneed
Stopping Powah The Case for .300 Blackout
I discussed previously the large crop of 6mm meme cartridges, and name dropped .300 as one of the successful alternative AR15 cartridges. Why? Well because it isn't the most complicated thing, contrary to what vibeo games and internet experts may imply. I am not going to bore you with the development history of .300. Wikipedia exists for a reason. But .300 in its supersonic guise very closely mimics 7.62x39, just without an egregious cartridge taper and penchant for steel cased ammunition. You may have just raised an eyebrow at the word “supersonic” just then, because many people believe the entire point of .300 is its subsonic performance. But that is only half the story, and to some degree even less than half the story. .300 in a supersonic load will often be a 110 grain bullet at 2,400 FPS. Consider this the .300 equivalent to 55gr ball. 7.62x39 is typically a 123gr bullet at a similar velocity. Other select loads are 125gr at 2,200 fps, and 115gr at 2,300. But again, this is half the story. Subsonic .300 is a thing, unlike subsonic 5.56. It is most often a 220gr bullet. This 220 will move around 1,000 fps. Very similar in power to a 230gr .45 ACP round, which is naturally subsonic. .300 uses the same size case head (where the primer is) as a 5.56 NATO round, and the cartridge OAL is the same or less than the 5.56. This basically means it is a necked up 5.56 round, although it is not a straight wall. This allows it to work in standard AR-15 magazines* and use standard AR-15 components in the rifles. Only the barrel needs to be different to work with the .300 Blk cartridge. This is unlike various other cartridges like 7.62x39 where the magazines are not only different, but insanely curved. The bolt itself must also be thinner to accept the larger case head, which makes the bolt very fragile and prone to cracking. So if you want the ballistic properties of 7.62x39 but want all of the benefits beset upon you by the AR-15 platform then .300 is your bag. Subsonic .300 loads give you the ability to direct nearly silent fire onto targets at greater range than the trundling .45 AARP cartridge, and will work reliably in a rifle. However neither of these are the largest benefit of .300 Blk. Various .300 loadings compared to 5.56 and 7.62x39.			The reason I think .300 has a place in the AR-15 world is its ballistic potential from very short barrels. 10 inch ARs in 5.56 have the ballistic properties of .22lr, 10 inch ARs in .300 basically haven't lost any steam compared to 16 inches. Barrels as short as 5 inches can be viable for .300, which is literally pistol length. The burn rate of .300 propellants and the volume of both the case and the bore allow nearly full powder burn within 8 inches of barrel. Velocity increases are only incremental after 10 inches. Where a 10 inch 5.56 drops the ball, a 10 inch .300 will sprint with it. A .300 Blk rifle with a 16 inch barrel has a muzzle velocity of 2,220 fps with 125gr ammo, while the same cartridge fired from a 9 inch barrel only drops this to 2,050 fps. This effectively renders all previous pistol caliber carbines and submachine guns obsolete. .300 even from extremely short barrels offers way more terminal effect than 9mm or even .45 or 10mm. The venerable MP5 used a barrel length of 9 inches, and offered roughly 1,300 fps with 125gr ammo. Meanwhile as I said before, an AR firing this 125gr projectile out of the same 9 inch barrel will hit over 2,000 fps. This also allows them to be more efficiently suppressed, even when using the supersonic ammo, as the overall length of the weapon is shorter than a competing 5.56 setup. A 10 inch barreled .300 with a 6 inch silencer will hit the same length as a 16 inch 5.56 with nothing. Now even the PDW market is as boring as the regular rifle market. The P90 and MP7 with their high velocity soft armor defeating memes which had gained very little following in the 30 years since their initial development have been rendered totally useless in the face of this new fangled cartridge for the old and boring AR-15 platform. I should also pay service to the idea that other weapons do come in this cartridge, most often weapons that were already AR-15 adjacent, or newly designed for the .300. The CMMG Dissent and Brownells BRN-180 are the quintessential “Not an AR-15”, folding stock capable weapons with mostly AR-15 handling, both using standard AR lowers. The SIG MCX is much the same, just twice as expensive. H&K has produced their new HK 433 rifle in the .300 cartridge, dubbing it the HK 437. The AUG is also offered in .300. Even some companies which produced 5.56 AK rifles are now making those in .300, which sounds somewhat ass backwards until you realize that .300 is now more ubiquitous than 7.62x39, being more easily found in stores and in a lot of cases, cheaper. Theoretically any 5.56 firearm can be converted to .300 with just a new barrel, and some custom gunsmiths have done this with oldhead HK rifles like the 33 and 53 to produce something that was never a factory option. .300 isn't vying to replace 5.56 as the rifle cartridge of choice, just to supplement it where it tends to fall flat. It is one of the only alternative AR cartridges to actually get military use. Delta has used it in the SIG MCX all the way down to 5 inch barrels. SEAL Team 6 has used it in 10 inch Noveske AR-15s. KSK is now using it in the HK 437. If you are looking into a short barreled AR, that is joined at the hip with looking into .300 Blackout.
		Page 4

Tuesday, September 39, 2001	KNWGM NEWS			Issue #4

Shit Your Pants Dinner Introducing our newest flavor of Shit Your Pants Dinner: Maple with Seasoning Cheese! All the journalists at our partner news outlet KNWGM know the real truth. And the truth is that Shit Your Pants Dinner is so Dinner, You’ll Shit Your Pants! Next time you eat dinner, ask yourself, “Did I shit my pants?”. If you answer no, you need to change your dinner! Packed with more shit than other leading dinners, Shit Your Pants Dinner is sure to ruin your Sunday best and ruin your colon! Gary Sneed
The Weekly Soap Box MAPphobes Must Die
I hate MAPphobes! They are so fucking annoying its unreal. They make all these edgy memes about putting pedos in woodchippers and whatnot when the last time they had a girlfriend that girl was at max 16. They just make these memes as an excuse to be edgy against a group of people that is almost universally maligned. The same way that war movies in the 60s and 70s were all about killing Nazis. They were just an easy target. But at the same time they aren't using this as a vehicle to bring me a funny meme or an awesome action sequence. In this case the means is also the end. Which just means the whole thing falls flat. It is the last bastion of boog boy cringe, instead of making unfunny memes about killing ATF agents they instead make memes about killing pedos. This is the part where I should include an example because I feel like you don’t actually believe me or at least don’t understand the full gravity of the situation. But that would bring the quality of this publication down to a point that I would not be happy with. But the next time you see a cartoon dog with an SBR and night vision goggles saying “kid touchers don’t have rights” you will know what I'm talking about. I've seen very few memes that actually criticize these crog redditors. Mostly because I think the optics of speaking against it in any way is really bad. But memes about having sex with children (and kill them) are clearly way funnier so you can probably begin to understand why these are so unfunny and gay. It is the highest tier of larp, it requires 0 practical action and you will get 5,000 reddit updoots just for being an edgy boy.			This has the same general problem as other Redditor sentiments. They make cringeworthy memes then when you call them out on their meme being horrendously bad they just fall back on the “defense” (deflection) of saying “Only pedos would be against this”. If your dad made a facebook post about how the AR-15 isn't a weapon of war and the M16 is totally different, he would defend his point the same way. I would say “Retard, its the same thing” then he would call me anti-gun. There is no way around it. I don’t even know what to call this type of trap, sometimes it isn't even laid deliberately. But it isn't the sort of thing I can even accurately articulate in this article, let alone in a facebook comment section. But it is extremely annoying, and in the particular case of ped hunters it allows them to continue posting their atrocious memes unabated. I'm sure everyone reading this looks down on child predators, but you will roll your fucking eyes every time you see one of these memes. Its like a human rights violation. They are the type of memes you will see your cousin share. Keep that in mind, you might surprise yourself.
		Page 5