900 rounds per minute
With two AR uppers and a crank. The Pa Deuce:
15 Responses to “900 rounds per minute”
Remember, I do this to entertain me, not you.
Uncle Pays the Bills
 |
|
Find Local
|
Categories
- ATF (769)
- Death Match (10)
- Eminent Domain (225)
- In the bag (9)
- Notes to Junior (546)
- Poker (74)
- Recipes (142)
- Shotgun Noob (11)
- The Airing of Grievances (19)
- uncategorized (47,725)
September 21st, 2017 at 8:50 pm
Been done before with .30cal M-1 carbine and Ruger 10-22 rifles.
September 21st, 2017 at 9:19 pm
This is a try-hard ad with more shots of his hummer than the guns.
Not impressed in the least.
September 22nd, 2017 at 12:52 am
Well they do love to say “900 ROUNDS PER MINUTE!” over and over don’t they, but that’s not only unproven but pretty impossible as that thing would be an expensive puddle of metal WAY before it got there…as Miculek demonstrated in his crank-fire vid with a 60-rd p-mag.
So what’s wrong with telling it like it is, a 900 rpm rof? Or 15 rounds per second? Well because then it would still be a cool novelty, but nobody would pay attention ’cause they wouldn’t get to say “900 ROUNDS PER MINUTE!” a bunch of times in their ad.
September 22nd, 2017 at 8:21 am
JTC,
If your car red lines at 6000 RPM, that doesn’t mean you have to hold it there for a full minute for that statement to be true. It’s simply a rate, expressed in minutes rather than 100 per second, or 360,000 per hour.
September 22nd, 2017 at 11:21 am
They don’t show the thing being fired at speed. It’s a rock music video with a few shots fired. It has all the cliché and no content. I’m not impressed. If someone had produced that ad for me, I think I’d have fired them on the spot as hopeless 1990s History Channel producer wannabes.
Cut the crap and actually show the product instead. For a change.
(Yes, this has become a peeve of mine, especially right after I visited a manufacturer’s web site to look at a pistol and they wouldn’t tell us whether THEIR OWN PISTOL was blowback or locked breech action, SA, DA, or DAO. Pretty pictures, no content. Fuck you. The webmaster and “content” editors probably didn’t know themselves)
September 22nd, 2017 at 2:29 pm
Right there with the rest of the people wondering “where’s the beef?”. There was about a 30:1 ratio of fluff to content on the gun in that. Pass.
September 22nd, 2017 at 3:43 pm
Ravenwood, zzzip!
That was the point going over your head at a 900 wpm row but my comment was only about 100 words long, so actually a 6-second row burst. Heh.
I did say round-per-minute rate-of-fire, but as to your cited parallel, if my engine (not car, ideally they don’t spin) redlines at 6000 rpm it would certainly do it for an actual minute or three. A 900 rpm (or spm to avoid confusing you) for this semi-cool shooty thing is unlikely to the point of my betting everything against it (and I only bet on sure things).
So if I were commenting for that stupid politi-fact I would rate this claim “pants (or in this case barrels)on fire” Pure hype…also ‘splains all the distractions in the vid.
September 23rd, 2017 at 1:32 am
terrible video. spend less time grooming your fancy beard and take more classes in editing.
September 23rd, 2017 at 1:34 am
I’ve thought that one of the belt-fed ars with a crank or that trigger that fires on the reset would be a cool “poor man’s saw. Lot cheaper than the real thing.
September 23rd, 2017 at 1:14 pm
I think I got epilepsy from just watching this fluff piece. I was disappointed that it didn’t show shit about the gun(s). More pics of the vehicles than anything. I would much prefer a setup with 10/22’s or AK’s.
September 23rd, 2017 at 1:59 pm
+1, Tokarev.
WTF did I just watch? 1:13 of cinematic seizure, accompanied by an obnoxious, repetitive guitar riff, devoid of information.
FAIL.
September 23rd, 2017 at 2:46 pm
Ah, but we did watch it, didn’t we?
Because “900 ROUNDS PER MINUTE!”
Fait accompli.
September 25th, 2017 at 2:06 pm
Rate of fire, or cyclic rate, has always meant one thing; the time spacing between rounds fired, expressed as a rate r/t. It has never had anything whatsoever to do with the total number of rounds one might be expected to fire before the weapon overheats and fails.
Some of the submachine guns have had cyclic rates of well over a thousand rounds per minute. Regardless how many, or how few, rounds you fire, the rate is still the rate. You’re never going to carry enough ammo on your person for a sub gun to make a full minute of trigger-down time, even if you had a magazine large enough to hold 1100 or 1200 rounds. Nor would you ever want to do so, for any practical purpose. That’s not the point. It never was.
“Rate of Fire” is nonetheless a meaningful number so you’d best be able to understand it.
Maybe you’d be less confused and befuddled if the rates were commonly expressed in rounds per second. An AK for example, with a rate of fire of 600 RPM will empty a 30 round magazine in three seconds if you hold the trigger down the whole three seconds. That’s not how the weapon was designed to be used, but the rate of fire is still the rate of fire. You will NEVER be able to actually fire 600 rounds in one minute. Again, that’s not the point, AT ALL. Aside from the issue of barrel overheating, no feeding device can suppy that many rounds to the weapon without stopping to reload– That’s not the point of a rate of fire specification. It never was.
However, as I understand it, the “rounds per minute” thing has come down to us through the centuries, from when the state of the art in military weaponry was the muzzleloader. Even then, no one ever expected a rate of fire to be sustainable indefinitely, not even in the days when it was 3 or 4 RPM.
The engine RPM comparison is just silly.
September 25th, 2017 at 10:38 pm
Lyle, everything you said is correct which was my (I thought obvious) point…the terms rate of fire or cyclic rate or rounds per second were never mentioned in the fluff ad. As I said “So what’s wrong with telling it like it is, a 900 rpm rof? Or 15 rounds per second? Because nobody would pay attention.”
900 ROUNDS PER MINUTE! was used not because it is a technically correct expression of rate of fire but for one reason only, a click-bait lure…and it worked.
Ironically, while Ravenwood’s engine comparison was a disconnect as most engines can easily sustain redline rpm for several minutes, so too is your muzzleloader one as the rounds per minute thing would have been doable if not indefinitely, certainly for 2 or 3 actual minutes; like the engine an actual RPM and not just an expression of rate. Point clear yet?
September 26th, 2017 at 4:22 pm
Iy you want more info with more fun in your gun videos, go see the TAMU Aggie veterinarian gun guy on YouTube videos from Demolition Ranch. Gig ’em!
https://www.youtube.com/user/DemolitionRanch