Comments by "" (@neutronalchemist3241) on "Beretta's New Assault Rifle Platform - The NARP" video.

@Ming-Chan The NARP is not going to replace the ARX160 in Italian service. The ARX 160 is an Army rifle. It's lightweight, relatively cheap, ambidextrous, runs forever on little maintenance. If you have to train an entire army to use a rifle, that's still the best solution. The NARP is a special forces rifle. Most of them are already trained on some sort of AR15 platform. Things like trigger and accuracy are more important, unit cost is less important. For Beretta also, if there's some foreign customer that doesn't want polymer rifles, or want AR15 ergonomics, that's a further possibility to close a contract.
3
No. They are adding an aluminium framed rifle to the existing polymer framed rifle.
3
Firearm manufacturers don't design rifles to satisfy their intellectual curiosity. They want to make money with them. There are reasons much of those systems are not used any more. IE tilting bolt (SVT40, STG44, FAL...) are no more used because they require a robust link, in the receiver, between the front of the bolt and the rear of it (where the locking surface is), and that makes the rifle heavier. That's why a modern AR MUST have front locking lugs (so that the rest of the receiver can be made of light alloy, or plastic). It's necessary to make them multi-lug rotating bolt? No. The Breda rising bolt (the one used on the Breda PG, IE), to say one, would work perfectly. BUT, to design a modern AR with a rising bolt system, you should start from a white sheet. An AR18-style multi-lug rotating bolt, instead, you KNOW that it works, as long as you respect some dimensions. It spares design time, and so design costs.
2
M4 had not a short stroke gas piston last time I checked.
2
.223 is a pain in the ass to be blowback delay operated in a AR weight limit. It works as long as the bolt is quite heavy, and so the required delay is not that much but, as soon as the weight of the bolt is taken down to match that of the gas operated ARs, it dangerously oscillates between "not enough delay" and "too much delay" and becomes very ammo specific. See the HK33, that requires different mass of the bolt and shoulder angles for different ammo.
2
@goaski474 "assault rifle" is a translation of "Sturmgewer", the name given to the first of them to be adopted. it's charateristics are: intermediate caliber, select fire, detachable magazine fed.
2
Stoner was in charge of the design of the AR10, and had something vaguely to do with the initial designs of the AR16. It had already left the company when the AR15 had been derived from the AR10 (not exactly a simple job) and the AR18 had been much more loosely derived from the AR16. The only part of the AR10 he could patent was the direct impingement / internal piston (they are the same thing, every DI system is an internal piston system) whit the gasses directly in contact with the bolt. All the rest was taken by previous designs. Stoner personally considered the .223 Rem. 5.56 NATO a mistake, and designed his first .223 Rem platform only in the '70s (Ever the Stoner 63 was the redesign, by Fremont and Sullivan, of the Stoner 62, that Stoner designed in .308). As Sullivan recalled later, Stoner was great, but he was not a one-man-show.
1
@tasjan9190 Stoner was in charge of the design of the AR10, and had something vaguely to do with the initial designs of the AR16. It had already left the company when the AR15 had been derived from the AR10 (not exactly a simple job) and the AR18 had been much more loosely derived from the AR16. The only part of the AR10 he could patent was the direct impingement / internal piston (they are the same thing, every DI system is an internal piston system) whit the gasses directly in contact with the bolt. All the rest was taken by previous designs. Stoner personally considered the .223 Rem. 5.56 NATO a mistake, and designed his first .223 Rem platform only in the '70s (Even the Stoner 63 was the redesign, by Fremont and Sullivan, of the Stoner 62, that Stoner designed in .308).
1