Primer Actuated M16

C

Cutaway

Inactive
Has anyone seen this?, the operation uses the primer to unlock the bolt instead of using a gas piston. The operation would perform similar to a lever/roller delayed blowback firearm but possibly more hardwearing, reliable and would also allow a free floating barrel for accuracy on DMR platforms. Its possible the bolt would work in an existing M16 upper although the gas ports would have to be closed off.

Would it be possible to use this type of operation in an AR18 derivative?

28lg8dt.png


2qsrxc1.jpg


282er9.jpg


x59kdy.jpg


1zyk101.jpg


ncmp7p.jpg


http://www.google.com/patents/US7886470
 
John Garand had a primer actuated rifle design what went into the ash heap of history when the military starting crimping their primers.

I am certain it would work but it is probably less reliable in function than the designs in the marketplace. It also looks more expensive to make than a DI.

Don't see why it would not work in an AR180 assuming you did not crimp your primers!
 
The military crimps primers to help prevent blown out primers from interfering with the function of their weapons. Using a system that promotes blown primers doesn't seem like much of an improvement over current designs.
 
It is interesting that the patent was even applied for and issued. There are detailed differences, of course, but Garand's design is basically the same, and that patent has long expired. Maybe the patent office forgets about the old stuff after while.

Jim
 
It would be according to how they had the patent written, and what Garrand included in his. If they received the patent for using the method to operate a certain bolt design, or that it was an improved method, then they may have gotten it issued over that. The language of the patent means everything.

I know a patent attorney, who received a patent over a method of using a voltage regulator IC, that the manufacturer of the IC simply missed. He sells his design on eBay, for a precision voltage reference, backed by that patent. The last I spoke with him, though, he wasn't making tons of money.:rolleyes:
 
The Garand action had a vertical toggle of some kind, IIRC, so it was a different mechanism. Go to the patent for the primer actuated M16 and you may find it references Garand's patent and then explains how it is different. That kind of thing is a standard practice in the body of a patent.

It is the mechanism or process for realizing a desired function that is patentable, not the root idea to have such a function. Thus, you can patent a novel means of actuating a rifle with a primer, but not the abstract idea that a primer actuated rifle could be devised. If abstract ideas like that were patentable there would be patents for all sorts of things people wish they could find a way to do, but can't. Then actual inventors who might be able to come up with a practical means of doing it would be much less motivated to try, as the fruit of their labors would then only benefit the person who couldn't do it himself. Also, a patent office whose records were full of ideas like, "we should have a time machine" or "a magic wand" just wouldn't be of any practical value to anyone not writing fiction.
 
I was doing a bit of chain-pulling. I am well aware that the details of patents are important and make a lot of difference. And broad claims can have a long term effect, like the White patent that S&W used to gain a monopoly on cartridge revolvers, or the Browning auto pistol patent on the breechblock and slide in one piece that sent other designers scrambling for ways around it and coming up with the ideas seen in the Savage, Remington, S&W, Infallible, etc.

BTW, the toggle action was the Pedersen, not the Garand; Pedersen never used a primer-actuated system, but his system required lubricated (waxed) cartridges which the military rejected. Also, he couldn't get it to work with .30-'06, and we had billions of rounds of that caliber in war reserve.

Jim
 
Maybe the patent office forgets about the old stuff after while.
Click to expand...

Patent for an 'Animal Toy'

...it's a stick. Like a wooden stick. Branch, twig, switch. The kind you find on the ground for free courtesy of Mother Nature and throw to a dog. Patent granted.

The Patent Office today exists solely for printing a form of inflation-resistant currency useful in brokering corporate mergers (kinda like a bond) and to a lesser extent, to function as a cudgel or barrier against small inventors whose products are to be poached by a conglomerate. That's assuming it was ever NOT those things.

TCB
 
There was another historical design for a primer setback actuated auto.
It depended on special brass with a thick case head and deeply recessed primer. But it gave a longer smoother stroke than the Garand.

The old reason given for obsoleting the Garand system was powder more priogressive burning than Pyro DG. Now the legend is crimped primers.
 
That was the Krnka-Roth rifle (c.1901); a drawing exists but I am not sure the rifle ever did. Maxim also had a similar design. The problem, of course, was that special ammo was required.

There were actually two Garand primer-actuated designs. The first was a turning bolt system which appears to work much like the design posted by the OP. The second had a bolt locked by a "flap" on the bottom seating in a recess in the receiver; the bolt carrier (my name - I don't have the original patent) cammed the flap out of engagement and threw the bolt back.

The end of primer actuation came, as Jim Watson says, from a combination of a powder change and the adoption of crimped primers. The former improved cartridge performance, but by changing the pressure curve of the burning powder, it reduced the pressure available at the flash hole. Crimping primers resolved a problem common with the .30 Browning machine guns, when the primer popped out of the case due to residual pressure after the bolt unlocked and jammed the mechanism.

BTW, the operation of Garand's primer actuated rifles did NOT depend on the internal pressure from the primer compound alone. That pressure was not sufficient to operate the mechanism; the pressure generated by the burning of the main powder charge was required. (This was by design; if the rifle could have been made to operate on primer force alone, a hangfire would have destroyed the rifle by opening the bolt just as the main charge ignited.)

Jim
 
barnbwt,

He must have not used an attorney, as I didn't see one listed, or the inventor is one, or didn't need one. I got a good laugh out of that, but there was a reexamination, that threw out the claims 1 through 20, which were all the claims. I had a good laugh at of the whole thing, as one could have sold a stick, as you said, when you read what the material was. It would be as good as patenting the pet rock.

I wonder if the original examiner still works for the patent office?
 
The nice thing about a primer actuated auto is that it is clean. No DI into the bolt carrier, not even a cylinder and piston to coke up.

For something even simpler, look at a Tanfoglio FAR. Only suitable for straight wall cartridges but it gives you a straight blowback service pistol without unduly heavy slide or stiff recoil spring. Cartridges are specific to the action, though.
 
DG,

I think the reason no attorney was listed is the "inventor" (I'd argue God was the actual inventor) had no interest in accruing attorney's fees for what had to be a joke from the start. He was willing to pay the filing fees, probably with the micro-entity discount, for good giggle and to get the rejection paper to frame on his wall beside the application. I expect he was thoroughly astonished that it ever issued.
 
Unclenick, I was too. I actually wonder if that was a new examiner, who let it go through, or someone that just didn't care? It was one of the best pranks that I've seen on a government office, that actually worked. The inventor has bragging rights on it, at least.

I printed a copy of that, and have showed it to a few buddies of mine. One thought that I made it up using Photoshop.
 
He has a little more than bragging rights. He has a legitimate patent on a perfectly feasible method of operating a [semi]automatic firearm. If it does infringe Garand's prior patent, Garand's estate would have to sue and unless the new "inventor" makes big bucks, that is pretty unlikely.

Jim
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top