Welcome, Guest. Please login or register.
May 28, 2020, 09:57:04 AM
Home Home Help Calendar Login Register
News:

Please support BullpupForum.com sponsors!!
. . . Midwest Industries . . . BullpupArmory.com . . . Shooting Sight . . . BullpupUnlimited.com . . . Homeland Guns . . . . . . . . . . . . Desert Tech . . . GallowayPrecision.com . . . K & M Arms . . . . . . Geissele Automatics
+  BULLPUP FORUM
|-+  Bullpup Rifles (Auto & Semi-Auto Centerfire)
| |-+  Steyr AUG and clones AUG icon
| | |-+  AUG Ergonomic Improvement Concepts Take 2 - Working Post
Pages: 1 ... 7 8 [9] 10 Print
Author Topic: AUG Ergonomic Improvement Concepts Take 2 - Working Post  (Read 3779 times)
Mr.Tucker
Member
**
Offline Offline

Posts: 119



« Reply #160 on: May 20, 2020, 04:44:17 PM »

Gonna do one more pass on the Stock, clean up some lines and build a little more material to accommodate the extended mag release / ambi bolt release parts.

Had to redesign the MFB/MFR, cleaned up allot of the lines and simplified dimensions for the MFB to be nice round numbers in the 10ths/100ths

Logged
Mr.Tucker
Member
**
Offline Offline

Posts: 119



« Reply #161 on: May 20, 2020, 10:34:55 PM »

MFR-CA3-S pictured.

Closed up the gas block side, and provided a witness hole to check the gas setting.

Changed the extrusion core to include two hollow sections (will come in handy later for weight reduction and a clamping surface for mounting to the MFB)

adjusted the MLOK slots to be flush with the CA3 top rail

CA3-R to follow tomorrow-ish.



* MFR v2 -1.JPG (94.62 KB, 1824x710 - viewed 20 times.)

* MFR v2 -2.JPG (113.11 KB, 1560x736 - viewed 16 times.)

* MFR v2 -3.JPG (112.47 KB, 1589x743 - viewed 10 times.)

* MFR v2 -4.JPG (96.34 KB, 1678x700 - viewed 14 times.)
Logged
Mr.Tucker
Member
**
Offline Offline

Posts: 119



« Reply #162 on: May 22, 2020, 03:46:04 PM »

Alright. changed the MFB and fore-end design based on feedback and styling. 1 of 3 posts presenting the changes:


Don't be alarmed by the lack of nuts and bolts as I haven't selected the fastening hardware yet.

MFB V2:

Note the two piece design, with a self centering and progressive clamp on the top, coupled with the lower bulk portion of the MFB V2.

The white lines protruding beneath the MFB V2 are guide lines for where the fasteners for mounting the MFR will be located.


* MFB v2 1.JPG (62.98 KB, 1177x710 - viewed 9 times.)

* MFB v2.JPG (66.24 KB, 1252x648 - viewed 13 times.)

* MFB v2 3.JPG (83.44 KB, 1379x702 - viewed 12 times.)

* MFB v2 2.JPG (69.47 KB, 1071x747 - viewed 9 times.)
« Last Edit: May 22, 2020, 03:57:42 PM by Mr.Tucker » Logged
Mr.Tucker
Member
**
Offline Offline

Posts: 119



« Reply #163 on: May 22, 2020, 03:49:31 PM »

2 of 3

MFR-CA3-S Version 1 (No cut out underneath the nose, allows for 3 additional mlock slots at the 4, 6 and 8 o clock)

Mounts to the MFB V2 by 3 screws, fixing the MFR to the MFB at the 6 o clock position. The interior of the MFR is extruded with a matching bevel to self center and seat on the MFB. The screws provided the clamping force and prevent the MFR from sliding forward on the MFB.



* MFR-CA3-SV1 -3.JPG (74.48 KB, 1501x737 - viewed 9 times.)

* MFR-CA3-SV1 -1.JPG (103.74 KB, 1494x740 - viewed 7 times.)

* MFR-CA3-SV1 -2.JPG (78.49 KB, 1262x698 - viewed 8 times.)
Logged
Mr.Tucker
Member
**
Offline Offline

Posts: 119



« Reply #164 on: May 22, 2020, 03:53:32 PM »

3 of 3

MFB-CA3-S version 2.

Only change to this version is the undercut in the nose, which nixes the V1 Mlok slots in that same area. Same mounting and bearing surfaces all around.

Of these two versions, I like the Version 1 more.

A railed version at the 12,3,6 and 9 is doable if you want to see that, but I promised minimalism.

The "+" sign shape of this extrusion was inspired by your feedback Jibbity, and of all the handguards, I like it the best. Because of the extrusion style, it clears all the underlying components without the need to machine more cavities to make it fit.


* MFR-CA3-SV2 -3.JPG (82.73 KB, 1487x733 - viewed 11 times.)

* MFR-CA3-SV2 -1.JPG (96.38 KB, 1319x696 - viewed 8 times.)

* MFR-CA3-SV2 -2.JPG (83.26 KB, 1308x721 - viewed 5 times.)
Logged
housertl
Member
**
Offline Offline

Posts: 116


« Reply #165 on: May 22, 2020, 03:56:21 PM »

Alright. changed the MFB and fore-end design based on feedback and styling. 1 of 3 posts presenting the changes:

MFB V2

Really slick; any chance at all of a 1 or 2 slot pic rail on the portion under the gas block? Iíd really like the ability to mount a QD bipod without having to remove any AFG or vertical grip also mounted to the MFB.
Logged
Mr.Tucker
Member
**
Offline Offline

Posts: 119



« Reply #166 on: May 22, 2020, 03:59:45 PM »

I'll see what's out there for 3 slot pic rail sections, and find a screw hole spacing that works for the bottom portion. Otherwise, I'll just design a section that can fit underneath there, mounting with two holes.
Logged
Jibbity
.
Member
**
Offline Offline

Posts: 45


« Reply #167 on: May 22, 2020, 10:16:25 PM »

Alright. changed the MFB and fore-end design based on feedback and styling. 1 of 3 posts presenting the changes:

MFB V2

Really slick; any chance at all of a 1 or 2 slot pic rail on the portion under the gas block? Iíd really like the ability to mount a QD bipod without having to remove any AFG or vertical grip also mounted to the MFB.

Out of curiosity, is there a reason that you wouldn't just attach an MLok rail section to meet your needs?
Logged
Jibbity
.
Member
**
Offline Offline

Posts: 45


« Reply #168 on: May 22, 2020, 10:34:58 PM »

The "+" sign shape of this extrusion was inspired by your feedback Jibbity, and of all the handguards, I like it the best. Because of the extrusion style, it clears all the underlying components without the need to machine more cavities to make it fit.

That is primarily why I suggested it, to simplify the extrusion and encompass the gas system.

I did prefer the flush bottom of the previous versions. It looks like you are totally rethinking the attachment to the MFB, I assume that is the reason for the added thickness in the bottom? Also, you should maybe come up with some more easily distinguished names, I always have to think twice before typing MFR or MRB which is going to cause issues in a conversation with a wider audience.

Are you still planning a 12 o'clock rail version (CA3R?), that would be my personal preference. You could do a fully adjustable front sight and take your zero with your barrel on a swap. You know, assuming everyone will think these are so awesome that they are buying one for every barrel.

Speaking of which, here is a possibly stupid thought...If you are looking to maintain QD functionality and tools are required to remove the MFR from the MFB, is there really any reason to rely on the MFB at all? Could you save weight and complexity by just direct mounting the MFR? I was originally seeing this as a sort of quick change slide on solution, but we seem to be moving away from that which may make the MFB uncessary?

As always, these are just thoughts and feedback, not trying to run your project. I am just glad that you are taking this on!
Logged
housertl
Member
**
Offline Offline

Posts: 116


« Reply #169 on: May 23, 2020, 09:53:55 AM »

Alright. changed the MFB and fore-end design based on feedback and styling. 1 of 3 posts presenting the changes:

MFB V2
Really slick; any chance at all of a 1 or 2 slot pic rail on the portion under the gas block? Iíd really like the ability to mount a QD bipod without having to remove any AFG or vertical grip also mounted to the MFB.

Out of curiosity, is there a reason that you wouldn't just attach an MLok rail section to meet your needs?

In and of itself, it would be fine. The two issues are this: I want the bipod to mount at the point where the OEM foregrip sits, since that would have the least impact accuracy. Also, my experience with a barrel clamp pic rail has shown me that AFGs are superior to vertical grips when using a thumb over bore grip at keeping the fingers away from the gas piston. Short of spending an extra hundred dollars on an MLok QD pic rail, the current design doesnít afford enough space to mount a bipod and an AFG simultaneously. I donít want to have to pull out a hex wrench and remove my AFG so I can mount a bipod. I would much prefer to be able to leave the AFG in place and mount a QD bipod to a pic rail. If there was an MLok slot directly under the OEM foregrip mounting point, I suppose that would suffice, as well, but I would assume that would add more vertical bulk than a small section of picatinny.
Logged
Mr.Tucker
Member
**
Offline Offline

Posts: 119



« Reply #170 on: May 23, 2020, 10:59:29 AM »

Version 1 handguard solves your issue with the longer bottom and  6 o clock MLok slots

As for mounting a bipod forward of the support hand, reference the barrel mounted bipods for the AUG. Testing will have to show true results, but for short, stiff barrels, the amount of force needed to cause the barrel to bend may be way more than what it experiences from an 8lb rig and your body resting on the bipod at that short of a moment arm. Placing the bipod aft of the afg doesnít make sense to me as folding legs forward will block the use of the afg, and folding them aft, well that might work out fine if the legs are short enough. Quick detaching a bipod to a pic rail at that location makes the most sense, and I assume thatís what you meant.

End of the day itís user preference. From shooting the test a few weeks ago, scoring hits at 500+ with an Eotech was challenging, but doable with just the monopod of a VFG available. Iíve thought about rigging a bipod to the AUG, but after that shoot, and applying the AUG as a field ready rifle, I donít feel the need to throw one on the AUG given the sight Iím using and itís current weight. If I had a 20Ē barrel and a scope, absolutely.

I can tell you that adding a hard mounted pic rail on the bottom where you described will definitely increase the complexity of machining, driving up cost.

Drilling and tapping two holes at the base will keep that cost down and allow you to attach or detach as desired. Having an MLok slot at that location on the Base is a no go since there is not enough space in between the OEM VFGís mounting point to accommodate a spec MLok slot.

The only fixes are to drop the profile of the base lower, so that it is not flush, giving back some material to build an MLok slot. The flush look and function is pretty refined and I think itís just right. The current offerings have always bothered me because they donít run flush. Another fix is the handguard.

The handguards pictured above represent how far down that drop would be if it were to occur on the Base to accommodate a slot at the OEM VFG location. After working on the fore end solutions, drawing dozens of these and only showing you guys ~3, I can tell you that The flush design as is makes the most sense. The progressive clamp allows for expansion of the barrel diameter due to heat. The Handguard mounts directly to the Base, without touching any other part of the barrel assembly or top rail. The ďtongue ď of material that extends aft of the receiver into the cutlass area sits low enough and short enough to flow well on the original stocks, and gives you the slots needed to accomplish your Bipod/ AFG config.

More iterations of the MFRís that mount in two halves to the base are coming, to show the modularity of mounting solutions to the base. I can extend the base 1 more MLok slot to show what that would look like too.

In all, striking a balance between all of our preferences is challenging, but building modularity into the design instead of permanence to design is my goal here.
« Last Edit: May 23, 2020, 11:13:05 AM by Mr.Tucker » Logged
housertl
Member
**
Offline Offline

Posts: 116


« Reply #171 on: May 23, 2020, 11:31:06 AM »

Totally understand; Iím simply looking at it from the perspective of only using the MFB, not the MFR. Iím already using the Midwest Industries rail, and the juice of a slight improvement over my current set up isnít worth the squeeze of having to buy a whole new upper rail, plus an MFB and MFR.

I may just try to find a TR-1A and cut off the forward portion of it to leave just the rail at the location I want.
Logged
Mr.Tucker
Member
**
Offline Offline

Posts: 119



« Reply #172 on: May 23, 2020, 11:37:25 AM »

Gotcha. In that case, a pic rail version of the MFB is in order, just as you described in the gooseneck post.
Logged
Jibbity
.
Member
**
Offline Offline

Posts: 45


« Reply #173 on: May 24, 2020, 02:14:54 PM »

More iterations of the MFRís that mount in two halves to the base are coming, to show the modularity of mounting solutions to the base. I can extend the base 1 more MLok slot to show what that would look like too.

In all, striking a balance between all of our preferences is challenging, but building modularity into the design instead of permanence to design is my goal here.

Cool, I am excited to see more.
Logged
Mr.Tucker
Member
**
Offline Offline

Posts: 119



« Reply #174 on: May 24, 2020, 05:22:17 PM »

More


* MFB-X w Rail Section.JPG (107.53 KB, 1519x728 - viewed 10 times.)
Logged
Mr.Tucker
Member
**
Offline Offline

Posts: 119



« Reply #175 on: May 24, 2020, 06:09:47 PM »

Flush Version of the MFR on the extended base. This does not extend below like the previous posts.


* MFB - MFR FLUSH.JPG (66.08 KB, 1540x665 - viewed 8 times.)

* MFB-MFR 2.JPG (148.4 KB, 1496x724 - viewed 11 times.)
Logged
Mr.Tucker
Member
**
Offline Offline

Posts: 119



« Reply #176 on: May 24, 2020, 09:47:35 PM »

Added the Brass deflector/hood combo. Minor changes to the MFR's:

side cut made to allow QC toggle to pass.

eliminated the "half" mlok slot.


* V7 Mockup.JPG (70.99 KB, 1472x682 - viewed 11 times.)

* V7 Mockup 2.JPG (80.49 KB, 1580x694 - viewed 9 times.)

* V7 Mockup 3.JPG (62.97 KB, 1417x635 - viewed 4 times.)

* V7 Mockup 4.JPG (77.18 KB, 1841x716 - viewed 3 times.)
Logged
Mr.Tucker
Member
**
Offline Offline

Posts: 119



« Reply #177 on: May 24, 2020, 10:36:34 PM »

The "+" sign shape of this extrusion was inspired by your feedback Jibbity, and of all the handguards, I like it the best. Because of the extrusion style, it clears all the underlying components without the need to machine more cavities to make it fit.

That is primarily why I suggested it, to simplify the extrusion and encompass the gas system.

I did prefer the flush bottom of the previous versions. It looks like you are totally rethinking the attachment to the MFB, I assume that is the reason for the added thickness in the bottom? Also, you should maybe come up with some more easily distinguished names, I always have to think twice before typing MFR or MRB which is going to cause issues in a conversation with a wider audience.

Are you still planning a 12 o'clock rail version (CA3R?), that would be my personal preference. You could do a fully adjustable front sight and take your zero with your barrel on a swap. You know, assuming everyone will think these are so awesome that they are buying one for every barrel.

Speaking of which, here is a possibly stupid thought...If you are looking to maintain QD functionality and tools are required to remove the MFR from the MFB, is there really any reason to rely on the MFB at all? Could you save weight and complexity by just direct mounting the MFR? I was originally seeing this as a sort of quick change slide on solution, but we seem to be moving away from that which may make the MFB uncessary?

As always, these are just thoughts and feedback, not trying to run your project. I am just glad that you are taking this on!

Gonna try out this fancy quote feature thing y'all are using.

In order of your comments, here are some responses:

I prefer the flush version too, but It comes at the cost of available attachment points on the bottom, hence the MFR that can attach and ride a little lower to get those points back. So it' s a give and take here. The means of attaching to the MFB is actually multiple. It can quick slide on, and cinch down from the side, or, like the ones recently posted, bolt in from the bottom. It is highly modular.

MFR, MFB, BFT, JBCP, CPOF, UDL, UIC, DODAAC, NSN, NIIN...I live and work in a world of acronyms, and as far as this projects acronyms, they're really there for me to do version control as I pump out multiple variants of similar ideas.

I am planning a 12' oclock rail version. Don't worry Smiley

So, let's just clarify what QD means versus QC, because I've definitely crossed the lines on this one a few times. QC refers to Quick Change for the barrel assembly. QD will refer to the Modular Rails attaching and detaching from the base. I have not devised a QD throw lever like what Larue, ADM or MI have developed for their offerings, but that's the end goal here.

For now, the best I can do for a QD rail is one that takes a single tool to install/remove, preferably an allen wrench. or maybe some captive cross pins you can punch out with a bullet tip.

No stupid thoughts here, we're just exploring allot of ideas that take time to pull the thread on. The MFB is the intermediary to mitigate heat conduction, and provide a solid base for a rail. I think it is a critical part. Direct connection of the Rail to the barrel assembly would add complexity to the part, and provide a conductive pathway for increased heat transfer. And to steer this back to the original concept of the MFB/MFR interface, yes, I want to get back to a QD solution. These bolt on solutions were exploratory to see what I could do simplifying the extrusion, nix the need for a QD function, and get more rail space on the 6' o clock. I don't want to over design the MFR to be perfectly suitable to everyone's needs, as that would take forever to get right. I just need one that will turn some heads and sell and I think we're almost there.

I'll leave other versions to aftermarket inventors who can devise other solutions that mount to the Base.

End of the day, this is a really fun project, and the drawing has been challenging. I've definitely learned allot about the AUG and how it was made, and as an engineer and designer, I can appreciate it all the more. It's really easy to describe how awesome this weapon is. The principles applied in it's engineering and simplicity of construction is amazing by today's standards of modern weapons. A well built AUG still outperforms it's competition 30 years their senior. And it was designed back in the 70's... With slide rules...??!? The AUG is a monster, and after shooting it during that test, I am an absolute believer in it's capabilities and potential to dominate the bullpup market...she just needs that little extra 'x' factor to push her past the competition, and I really hope this project yields some fruit. I don't really care about making $$$ for myself (obviously, since all these ideas are open source) Rather, I'm driven by tapping into the AUG's potential and establishing it's relevance for the next 40 years. 







Logged
housertl
Member
**
Offline Offline

Posts: 116


« Reply #178 on: May 24, 2020, 10:40:15 PM »

More

Me likey. Can you tell me the distance from the OEM foregrip pin to the front of the MFB? Trying to see where the AFG would put my hand, relative to what I currently have.
Logged
Mr.Tucker
Member
**
Offline Offline

Posts: 119



« Reply #179 on: May 25, 2020, 01:18:26 PM »

From the center of the VFG pin, to the front edge of the Shorter MFB: 3.8015Ē

From the center to the longer MFB: 5.3265Ē

Shorter has 2 MLOK slots, Longer has 3. Both have 0.3Ē from the front edge of the forward most MLOK slot to the end of the MFB. Each MLok slot follows the spec spacing of 1.575Ē center to center.
Logged
Pages: 1 ... 7 8 [9] 10 Print 
Jump to:  



Login with username, password and session length

Powered by MySQL Powered by PHP Powered by SMF 1.1.21 | SMF © 2015, Simple Machines
SimplePortal 2.3.5 © 2008-2012, SimplePortal
Valid XHTML 1.0! Valid CSS!