AJAX machine gun armor

tac_rev_ajax_armor_system

Tactical Revolution has armor panels that can be mounted to a machine gun to help protect the shooter.

We’ve all heard that Fire Draws Fire for a reason. When machine gunners light up the battlefield they draw a lot of kinetic attention. Everyone wants to put their head down, but it’s your job to keep your head in the fight — literally. This is where the AJAX
Armor System comes in.

The AJAX Armor System is a highly versatile, lightweight weapon
mountable ballistic shield designed to defeat high-velocity projectiles. It consists of two sides that attach to your weapon’s standard side rails. With you behind the gun and AJAX
fully deployed, the two sides combine to provide frontal shoulder-width ballistic protection to critical areas such as your head, neck, and upper torso. Furthermore, the system does not interfere with your effective line of sight or any weapon mounted optics. Since the mounting system is designed to mate with standard side
rails, the AJAX Armor System can be easily repurposed from one gun to another. Several design features make this an easy task. Firstly, all operations, including attachment and detachment are tool-free, and all can be done with a single hand. Quick-Attach / Quick-Detach (“QA/QD”) components allow the high-hardness
armor plates to be quickly separated from the armor mounts at any time.

The full up-armoring process, through complete deployment of the AJAX system can be done in less than 10 seconds per side. Furthermore, each side can be entirely doffed from your
weapon in less than 5 seconds. The low-profile armor plates and fully-collapsible compact mounts enable for easy stowage when not in use.

This ease of use and system versatility allows you to prioritize where and when the AJAX Armor System is deployed. Ideal applications may include use on vehicle mounted machine guns, checkpoints, defensive fortifications, base of fire elements, etc. Simply put, AJAX provides ballistic protection where you need it,
when you need it, delivering on the phrase “We’ve got you covered”.

Patent # US 8,511,215 B1




Nicholas C

Co-Founder of KRISSTALK forums, an owner’s support group and all things KRISS Vector related. Nick has been only been shooting for the past 3 years but found his passion through competitive shooting. USPSA and 3Gun. He loves all things that shoots and flashlights. Really really bright flashlights.


Advertisement

  • Vhyrus

    Hitting those baffles won’t kill anyone but it will put heads down, which is all you need to do to suppress a gunner. I’m genuinely not sure how effective these would be in a real gunfight.

    • Marc

      Not getting killed is always a good thing.

      • Vhyrus

        If you can’t shoot back, it isn’t a matter of not getting killed so much as what direction the bullet will come from and when. With a suppressed machine gunner, usually the answer is ‘from the side’ and ‘soon’.

  • H92

    They tried this before with metal plates.

  • 101nomad

    Takes guts to keep shooting when the world is pissed at you.

    • iksnilol

      Nothin but a MG thang.

  • bbmg

    How does it perform against the sort of steel cored 7.62mm projectiles said gunner is likely to be pelted with? All the bullets in the high speed tests appear to be jacketed soft cored rounds which are not representative of what is encountered on the modern battlefield.

    • Risky

      Mild steel core bimetal jacket ammo (aka Wolf, Uly, Tula, old Norinco, etc.) has pretty much the same terminal effects as lead core copper jacketed ammunition.

      • MrPhantom

        Actually, that raises an interesting question – what kind of ammo do insurgents have access to? I mean, obviously mostly surplus WarPac ammo, but would your average insurgency have access to the nastier AP loads, e.g. 7N22/24 5.45 or 7N13 7.62X54r, or would it mostly be the kind of stuff we can import in the States?

        • bbmg

          In Iraq, much of the ammunition available to the insurgents was looted from the Iraqi armed forces, so they basically have access to whatever it is the military was using.

          I would think that the Taliban are much less well equipped, when you look at articles like this one it is clear that they are soldiering on with old weapons caches: http://atwar.blogs.nytimes.com/2010/09/15/whats-inside-a-taliban-gun-locker/
          Nowhere in their press release did AJAX mention what level of ballistic protection their armor provides. If it were great, I would think they would have told us.

          • Tactical Revolution

            There is only so much information that you put in a press release.
            The “308” Model Armor Plates have defeated a .338 Lapua Magnum cartridge from 100-meters, fired from a Sako TRG-42.
            There are two components to the AJAX Armor System: the mounts, and the armor plates. The mounts are standard; the armor plates can be interchanged with different plates to meet a specific threat level.

          • Secundius

            I saw a photo a few months ago, of a Taiban fighter using a old Brown Bess, British Muzzle-Loading Black-Powder Rifle dating back to the early 19th century. I guess they you whatever stays in the family or whatever they can get their hands on. I doubt the Taliban have anything like a true quartermaster, issuing firearms to their fighters.

      • bbmg

        That’s true, but take a look at this video showing 7.62x39mm API: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=7jqfRlSoK60

        It penetrated almost an inch of mild steel plate, do you think it would have fragmented the same way as the bullets in the AJAX demonstration did?

  • Otis Hatfield

    I’m curious if any actual SAW or M240 gunners actually asked for this. Its weight and actual practicality seems extremely limited. Perhaps this could work for fixed weapons but gun shields already exist. If the idea is for checkpoints or other impromptu fixed positions, what was ever wrong with sandbags and foxholes. I would like to see a company actively pursuing ways to take the load off of soldiers in a practical and cost effective manner, not adding extra junk on top of the massive load that they already carry.

    • 11b

      Well put. The load on the infantryman is pretty extreme as it is, no need to add more unnecessary weight. Just look at the shoulder/crotch armor big Army tried to force on us- no mobility and negligible protection, so it sits in a guy’s foot locker somewhere. This idea similarly absurd.

    • Cornelius Carroll

      I was thinking to myself “what % of the time does a saw gunner take up position in the middle of an exposed field”? Frankly, I don’t know, and I’m sure this armor could be useful in certain scenarios but, the majority of the time, I bet SAW gunners just wished for a lighter weapon.

      • Rusty Shackleford

        That’s why the LSAT LMG is being pushed into service ASAP. The 7.62 variant will probably be a year or two after the initial 5.56 variant enters service.

    • Yellow Devil

      It’s probable a military contract “solution” looking for a tax-payer funded “problem”.

    • Secundius

      After looking at these photo, more carefully. It look like Ceramic Armor, and not Steel Plate Armor. That would reduce the weight somewhat, and making it easier too field carry by a single trooper.

      • Hyok Kim

        Actually ceramic armor needs a lot of babying. It cracks easily by rough handling in the field, not only that it cracks invisibly to the naked eyes, so needs to be x-ray examined every now and then. The cracks makes ceramic armor basically dead weight that provides little protection. I wouldn’t recommend ceramic plates for military applications, but LE only.

        • Secundius

          @ Hyok Kim.

          You know 1/5-inch (5.08mm) of Titanium Plating, could stop anything short .50-caliber (12.7x99mm) round, beyond 1,000-meters. And still weight less than 1/4th as much as steel plate armor. If you could find any scrap titanium plating where your posted. Other than that it’s going to be an out-of pocket expense. And the weight savings, translate too more ammunition that can be carries. Also titanium is maintenance free.

          • Hyok Kim

            I was talking about ceramic armor, not titanium. They’re not the same. Don’t you know the difference?

            “You know 1/5-inch (5.08mm) of Titanium Plating, could stop anything short .50-caliber (12.7x99mm) round, beyond 1,000-meters.” – Secundius

            Not all titanium are in the same class. There are ordinance grade titanium and non-ordinance grade stuffs.

            Besides what about within 1,000 meters? Most firefights take place well within 300 yards.

            “If you could find any scrap titanium plating where your posted.” – Secundius

            Most of those junk scrap titanium plates are not ordinance graded, not really suitable for armor application.

            “And still weight less than 1/4th as much as steel plate armor.” – Secundius

            Are you sure about that? Ordinance grade titanium are more like 1/2 th as much.

            Btw. Titanium would have to be a lot thicker than steel plates with comparable ballistic protection, given the same weight, size constraint.

          • Secundius

            @ Hyok Kim.

            You know what would make a great protective shield? You can regulate its size to any dimensions you want and be able too stop a 16-inch battleship gun projectile at the same time. Give up, A “Plasma Window”. But wait, it’s only in the laboratory stage of development right NOW. Wait 50 to 100-years, and their might actually be a working model. Up and operational, but bullet technology may not be in common usage anymore. It will be competing with Lasers, Particle-Beam Weapons, Plasma Cannons and Gauss (Mass-Driver) Rifles!!!

          • Hyok Kim

            Another word, you don’t know much about ceramic and titanium armor technology today?

          • Secundius

            @ Hyok Kim.

            Listen up, I only going write this once. After that I’m going back to the discussion group, and talk about the merits and detraction of AJAX Armor Shielding. There so many Types, Variations of, Various of, Versions of, Composites of, etc. of armor out there. Past types, Present types, and Future types, the possibilities are endless. I could write a Congressional Study Report on and about them. In the ’70’s through the ’80’s, I worked on Attack Helicopters in the US Army. I Fixed them, Repaired them, Armed them, and yes, even Armored them. So don’t lecture me about the differences in armor.

          • Hyok Kim

            “Listen up, I only going write this once.” – Secundius

            Cut and run?

            “After that I’m going back to the discussion group, and talk about the merits and detraction of AJAX Armor Shielding.” – Secundius

            ….but how can you even talk about the merits and detration of Ajax when you don’t even have the update knowledge of ceramic and titanium armor?

            After all, you didn’t even know the different between ordinance grade titanium and junk titanium from scrap yard.

            “There so many Types, Variations of, Various of, Versions of, Composites of, etc. of armor out there. Past types, Present types, and Future types, the possibilities are endless. I could write a Congressional Study Report on and about them.” – Secundius

            ….and that’s why you were looking for ordinance grade titanium from the scrap yard, huh?

            You might have a better luck looking for Ferrari engine from the junk yard.

            “In the ’70’s through the ’80’s, I worked on Attack Helicopters in the US Army. I Fixed them, Repaired them, Armed them, and yes, even Armored them. So don’t lecture me about the differences in armor.” – Secundius

            …and that’s why you were looking ordinance grade titanium from the scrap yard, and mistaking ordinary titanium with armor grade titanium?

            “And still weight less than 1/4th as much as steel plate armor. If you could find any scrap titanium plating where your posted.” – Secundius

            Ordinance grade titanium weights about 1/2, not 1/4th, that’s not ordinance grade titanium.

            “You know 1/5-inch (5.08mm) of Titanium Plating, could stop anything short .50-caliber (12.7x99mm) round, beyond 1,000-meters.” – Secundius

            …and don’t even know the typical engagement distance by small arms against Attack helicopters? It occurs well within 1000 yards.

            Besides if you have the experience you claim to have, why not link to website/facebook page with your real name and resume so that people could verify it.?

            Why do you insist on posting under anonymous internet moniker?

            Hiding something?

            .

            “Side Note: Stop wasting other peoples time asking Stupid questions.” – Secundius

            Asking how to clear a jam on MG3 S O claims to have been trained to operate and how he/she would clear a jam with shield placed immediately in front of ammo pouch is stupid question?

            “I’m tired of them, and pretty sure S O is tired of the as well.” – Secundius

            Ah! You want to be come his/her nanny, again!

          • Secundius

            @ Hyok Kim.

            Look Micro Mind. Don’t tell people about your expertise on armor, and then ask a stupid question. Like if its available to the general public. If you now all about armor, as much a you say you do. You would already know the answer too that question. And about the G-3, it was manufactured until the early 60’s.

            And asking S O about how clear a cartridge jam on a G-3, is another stupid question. S O is probably a WW2 German Wehrmacht veteran, and probably doesn’t have a personal knowledge of that rifle After all there’s 20-year gap between the two technologies.

          • Hyok Kim

            “Don’t tell people about your expertise on armor, and then ask a stupid question.” – Secundius

            …but I’m not. You are.

            “There so many Types, Variations of, Various of, Versions of, Composites of, etc. of armor out there. Past types, Present types, and Future types, the possibilities are endless. I could write a Congressional Study Report on and about them.” – Secundius

            “In the ’70’s through the ’80’s, I worked on Attack Helicopters in the US Army. I Fixed them, Repaired them, Armed them, and yes, even Armored them. So don’t lecture me about the differences in armor.” – Secundius

            “….and then ask a stupid question.” – Secundius

            Aren’t you the one looking for ordinance grade titanium in the scrap yard?

            “If you could find any scrap titanium plating where your posted.” – Secundius

            Talk about a stupid one.

            “And about the G-3, it was manufactured until the early 60’s.” – Secundius

            …but I never did. Who are you arguing with?

            “And asking S O about how clear a cartridge jam on a G-3, is another stupid question.” – Secundius

            …but I never did. Who are you arguing with? I asked him about MG3. MG3 and G3 are not the same weapon, not even the same class of weapon. MG3 is a LMG, G3 is a battle rifle.

            This obviously shows you have very little knowledge in firearms history.

            “S O is probably a WW2 German Wehrmacht veteran, and probably doesn’t have a personal knowledge of that rifle” – Secundius

            A ‘German’ who repeatedly used the British-English slang, ‘Bollocks’ on American gun forum.

            ‘Bollocks’ – S O

            I wasn’t asking about G3, but was asking about MG3, because S O claimed to have been trained to operate on MG3.

            “I was trained on the similar MG3, …..” – S O

          • Secundius

            @ Hyok Kim.

            Armor applies anything impeding, hindering, obstructing, etc. One object from hitting another object. Anything can be used as armor, even paper. Believe it, or not Plywood Wood is the earliest known from of Armor Plating. It was invented by the Ancient Egyptians approximately 5,000-years ago. Even medical grade titanium will stop a bullet. The MG3 Machine Gun, was used “officially” by at least 40-countries, and a least twice that number “unofficially” in other countries. And as far as the word “Bollocks” is concerned, If S O was a German POW in England. He probably learned too speak English there. Or at least enough to get by from day-to-day. My “Opa”, that grandfather in German, fought in the German Wehrmacht at the Battle of Stalingrad in WW2. My uncle-in-law on my mothers side of the family, was 2nd officer on a U-Boat.

            I don’t know about you S O, but this Merry-Go-Round is going nowhere, and the Musical Tune is getting old and I tired of listening too the Same Old Tune. So, I’m getting off now. And listen too something new.

          • Hyok Kim

            “@ Hyok Kim.

            Armor applies anything impeding, hindering, obstructing, etc.” – Secundius

            Another shallow sophistry from Secundius who claims to be an armor expert!

            “There so many Types, Variations of, Various of, Versions of, Composites of, etc. of armor out there. Past types, Present types, and Future types, the possibilities are endless. I could write a Congressional Study Report on and about them. In the ’70’s through the ’80’s, I worked on Attack Helicopters in the US Army. I Fixed them, Repaired them, Armed them, and yes, even Armored them. So don’t lecture me about the differences in armor.” – Secundius

            Armor applies to a concrete geometrical form of material purpose designed to provide ballistic, puncture, and/or blunt trauma protection.

            Cardboard box could obstruct, but is no armor.

            “Believe it, or not Plywood Wood is the earliest known from of Armor Plating. It was invented by the Ancient Egyptians approximately 5,000-years ago.” – Secundius

            “In 1797 Samuel Bentham applied for patents covering several machines to produce veneers. In his patent applications, he described the concept of laminating several layers of veneer with glue to form a thicker piece – the first description of what we now call plywood.” From…………

            http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Plywood#History

            “Even medical grade titanium will stop a bullet.” – Secundius

            Car engine block could stop some bullets, but they are not armor, but cover.

            This only betrays your ignorance regarding armor, and your pathological dishonesty, kinda like S O, maybe you are the same person? …but hey, then who’s the sock puppet, and who’s the puppet master?

            “The MG3 Machine Gun, was used “officially” by at least 40-countries, and a least twice that number “unofficially” in other countries.: – Secundius

            Had I said not? Who are you arguing with?

            “And as far as the word “Bollocks” is concerned, If S O was a German POW in England. He probably learned too speak English there. Or at least enough to get by from day-to-day.” – Secundius

            If S O were, then he would be at least 94 years old today. He would have long forgotten British-English by now.

            Talk about pathetic cop out.

            “My “Opa”, that grandfather in German, fought in the German Wehrmacht at the Battle of Stalingrad in WW2. My uncle-in-law on my mothers side of the family, was 2nd officer on a U-Boat.” – Secundius

            …and I am supposed to believe you after all your pathological lies in this thread like S O?

            “I don’t know about you S O, but this Merry-Go-Round is going nowhere, and the Musical Tune is getting old and I tired of listening too the Same Old Tune.” – Secundius

            I’ll tell you the reasons why I decided to stick it out this long. Not because I enjoy wasting my time, but

            1. I like AJAX concept. It’s one of the original concept that I really think is unique and worthy of support. It’s not just clever marketing ploy. Kudos to Firearms blog for mentioning AJAX.

            2. I wanted to see how pathological liars, ‘Cod’ in British-English from England engage in their trade, in contrast to the pathological liars from U.S.

            3. I wanted to learn/observe how a sock puppet master moves his fingers in his dirty socks and what gives him away.

            “So, I’m getting off now. And listen too something new.” – Secundius

            Cut and run, again? or is it about time to pull your hand out of that sock?

          • Secundius

            @ Hyok Kim.

            History Lesson 101.2:

            1. The first application of “Plywood Wood’, in the modern world.
            Patented 1797 CE. to Samuel Bentiham First application of said, “Plywood Wood”, by Ancient Egyptians approximately 5000 BCE. Why, no Patent Office existed at the time.
            2. First application of “Concrete”, in the modern world. Patented 1824 CE. to Joseph Aspdin. First application of said, “Concrete”, Nabataea/Bedoins traders approximately 6470 BCE. Why, again no Patent Office existed.
            3. 1st and 4th paragraphs in your rebuttal, mean the same thing.
            4. A single piece of cardboard will-not stop a bullet, true. But said same piece of cardboard layered and rolled, will stop a bullet.
            5. A single sheet of paper will-not stop a bullet, true. But, take thick “White Page/Yellow Page” phone book, it will.
            6. The words in “Old Imperial English” is Bullock, “New Imperial English” is Cod. In the United States of America, “American
            English” its Pollock.
            7. You take one Wooden Chop Stick”, bend it enough and it will break. But, if you take same said “Wooden Chop Stick” and bundle them in a cordage of 6. And then try to bend, they will not break. And lastly.
            8. In the State in which you live, there must be “Thousands” of Village Idiot’s. So, you be trying out for the State Moron title. Can’t wait to see you name posted on your State License Plates. They might even make it the State Motto: Hyok Kim, The One And Only Moron, In Proud State of Nebraska.

  • Tactical Revolution

    The AJAX Model “308″ Armor System is designed to defeat at a minimum (6) impacts per side from a 7.62 x 51mm M80 NATO ball projectile from 50-feet away. The “308” model plates are rated as stand-alone Level III. However, when the plates are attached to the armor mounts, the system dampens the ballistic energy, allowing it to defeat more substantial threats. This system model has actually defeated a .338 Lapua Magnum projectile from 100-meters. The key to the design is the armor mounts. Variable grade plates can be utilized based on the customer’s desires.

    • take it easy pal

      I like the idea and its a good design keep it up, hope you have success, and dont let the negative feedback stop ya.

    • Matrix3692

      so, how much does a set of system weight? take the model 308 as an example, how much does two armor plates plus their mounting system weights?

    • CaptainSlaughterboard

      Nice product.
      You should build your website or FaceBook page quickly, when we googled “Tactical Revolution” it suggests some videogame fan sites first.

      • Tactical Revolution

        Thanks for the opinion and the info!

  • S O

    Very poor layout. Too far forward, restricts field of view.

    A flat shield immediately in front of the ammo pouch and strictly below the sight line is debatable for a LMG, but this is not.

    • Hyok Kim

      “Very poor layout. Too far forward, restricts field of view.

      A flat shield immediately in front of the ammo pouch…”

      How are you going to clear the jam?

      “……. and strictly below the sight line is debatable for a LMG, but this is not.”

      Wouldn’t that interfere with the pivoting the gun due the shield’s lower edge being a lot lower than otherwise?

      • S O

        (2) No, the ammo pouch is there anyway, and “pivoting” implies a middle-mounted bipod or other rest, so no issue.

        (1) The interfaces of machineguns vary in position from gun to gun. So this (and the question whether a below sight line shield would need to be reduced on one side) depends on the specific machinegun model.

        • Hyok Kim

          “(2) No, the ammo pouch is there anyway,………..” – S O

          I am not questioning the utility of the existence of the ammo pouch. I am asking you how you would clear the jam if the shield were immediately in front of the ammo pouch.

          ” and “pivoting” implies a middle-mounted bipod or other rest, so no issue….” – S O

          That’s strange. It’s usually the tripod that is middle-mounted. Bipod is generally forward mounted.

          Here, take a look.

          http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/M60_machine_gun#mediaviewer/File:M60_machine_gun.jpg

          “(1) The interfaces of machineguns vary in position from gun to gun. So this (and the question whether a below sight line shield would need to be reduced on one side) depends on the specific machinegun model.” – S O

          The bottom edge of the below the sight line shield would interfere with pivoting of the gun, especially on uneven ground when mounted on bipod gun.

          Here is an example of a gun with bipod.

          http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/M60_machine_gun#mediaviewer/File:M60_machine_gun.jpg

          …whereas the bottom edge of the below the sight line shield would interfere with pivoting of the gun, by the rear legs of the tripod itself when mounted on tripod gun.

          http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/M60_machine_gun#mediaviewer/File:M60_machine_gun_DA-ST-84-04992.jpg

          • S O

            “I am asking you how you would clear the jam if the shield were immediately in front of the ammo pouch.”
            And I told you it depends on the weapon type. Look at how the MG3 works, for example. AJAX isn’t going to fit to all kinds of machineguns / “automatic rifles” either. In fact, very few even only have side rails far forward.

            “Bipod is generally forward mounted.”
            No, it’s not. Some machineguns had it in a middle position.
            Examples DT, MG 34 (2 position options for bipod), LMG 15

            “The bottom edge of the below the sight line shield would interfere with
            pivoting of the gun, especially on uneven ground when mounted on bipod
            gun.”

            Are you trolling here? Why would a shield that’s both above and below the sight line avoid the problem? Simply define the lower limit and apply it to both concepts. The issue here is the part above the sight line, whereas the part below can be identical.

            “Here is an example of a gun with bipod.”
            So what. http://tinyurl.com/n38kpdm

          • Hyok Kim

            “”I am asking you how you would clear the jam if the shield were immediately in front of the ammo pouch.” – Hyok Kim

            “And I told you it depends on the weapon type. Look at how the MG3 works, for example.” – S O

            Another word, you don’t know how a jam could be cleared if the shield were immediately in front of the ammo pouch?

            “Bipod is generally forward mounted.” – Hyok Kim

            “No, it’s not. Some machineguns had it in a middle position.
            Examples DT, MG 34 (2 position options for bipod), LMG 15″ – S O

            Yes, it is. . I had said, ‘generally’, not always.

            “The bottom edge of the below the sight line shield would interfere with pivoting of the gun, especially on uneven ground when mounted on bipod gun.” – Hyok Kim

            “Are you trolling here?” – S O

            No, are you? I use real name, you’re the one hiding behind anonymous internet moniker

            “Why would a shield that’s both above and below the sight line avoid the problem?” – S O

            ….but I had never said it. Why are you putting words into my mouths that I had never said? Getting desperate perhaps? No wonder secundius had to come to your rescue…..

            Talk about one hand tied behind my back, hah!

            “Simply define the lower limit and apply it to both concepts.” – S O

            …but that would be an apple to orange comparison since if both above the sight line and below sight line shields had the same lower limit, then below the sight line could have thicker protection, and better overall performance ratio if the weight constraint remains the same.

            Nice try, though……

            “The issue here is the part above the sight line, whereas the part below can be identical.” – S O

            Not given the same weight and thickness constraint. Better approach would be giving the same size and thickness to both below the sight line and above the sight line shields to make more of an apple to apple comparison.

            Obviously, given that, above the sight line shields would have better clearance for pivoting, and better protection to the face of the gunner, not to mention more weight pressing down (along with that bipod far forward) so as to better control the muzzle climb during full auto burst, and better manueverability and the stability of the gun due to more weight (both the shields and the bipod) far forward giving more leverage in manuvering the barrel direction.

          • S O

            “you’re the one hiding behind anonymous internet moniker”

            Actually, no. Regular readers can easily link “S O” with mil blog (mentioned by TFB often), where I sign at times as “S O” and at times with my real name (and did for years). This is far from anonymous and I have to lose something if I wrote nonsense as “S O”; Steve knows my name, for example.
            ————
            “….but I had never said it. Why are you putting words into my mouths that I had never said?”

            Look, you’re arguing against one concept in favour of another.

            You made the argument in favour of your preferred concept, so by logic you implied that your preferred concept would not have the same restriction. It does, though. And I pointed out this error.

            I know this kind of imprecise bullshit arguing you’re using, and it doesn’t work against me. I call BS out. That’s why I called out AJAX in the first place.
            ————
            “Obviously, given that, above the sight line shields would have (…) better manueverability (…)”

            And this is bollocks, as it is HEAVIER, thus less manoeuvrable – unless you now imply that your notional “above sight line shields” have an overall smaller, not greater area than exclusively below sight line shields.
            ————
            “It explains the shortcoming of the FG42 due to the bipod not so far
            forward like MG42, (with its attendant front heaviness, which you decry) It made the gun unstable, which is further documented.”

            Rule of proportion; but obviously you slept over this math lesson. I mentioned it to you, though. Front heaviness by mounting the flimsy bipod farther forward is not what helps to control the gun.
            In fact, muzzle rise is almost entirely dominated by the vertical lever between barrel bore and shoulder-stock contact area centre. The straight buttstock and high sight line were the designer’s principal countermeasures to FG 42 muzzle climb.

          • Secundius

            @ SO

            The German Army during WW2, also used the MG15 Defensive Machine Guns for aerial use on bombers. But were also adapted with a bipod as a LMG. Even though it fired the same round as the MG34/42 HMG. Which supported a 75-round drum magazine.

          • Hyok Kim

            “you’re the one hiding behind anonymous internet moniker” – Hyok Kim

            “Actually, no.” – S O

            Actually, yes, S O is not your real name, but anonymous internet moniker.

            “Regular readers can easily link “S O” with mil blog (mentioned by TFB often), where I sign at times as “S O” and at times with my real name (and did for years)” – S O

            …then why not just post here under your real name? And why do you not only make your profile private, but also not allow people to read all the comments you’ve made in one setting?

            Hiding something?

            “This is far from anonymous and I have to lose something if I wrote nonsense as “S O”; Steve knows my name, for example.” – S O

            You have written nonsense already in this thread. Like you being unable to explain how you would clear a jam if the shield were placed immediately in front of ammo pouch, yet provisionally recommending shield be placed immediately in front of ammo pouch?

            Besides hiding behind Steve, and posting under anonymous internet moniker, with your profile in privacy setting, and not letting people see your comments in one setting implies insecurity (plus negative comments without concrete proof but just your conjectures on products, which implies cowardice).

            Why don’t you step into the light? Don’t be shy. Stop being a Steve’s pet. Learn to stand on your two feet instead of hiding behind some authority figure.

            “….but I had never said it. Why are you putting words into my mouths that I had never said?” – Hyok Kim

            “Look, you’re arguing against one concept in favour of another.

            You made the argument in favour of your preferred concept, so by logic you implied that your preferred concept would not have the same restriction. It does, though. And I pointed out this error.” – S O

            All that torturous ‘tap dancing’ sophistry aside, another word, you don’t deny you have made stuff off and pretend I had said the stuff you made off, even though I have not said it?

            “I know this kind of imprecise bullshit arguing you’re using, and it doesn’t work against me. I call BS out. That’s why I called out AJAX in the first place.” – S O

            Only BSs here are your denial about what you had done, and your inability to explain how you would clear a jam if the shields were placed immediately in front of the ammo pouch.

            “I was trained on the similar MG3, and the stance using the bipod makes front heaviness a non-factor. You basically push forward till the bipod grips the ground firmly.” – S O

            ” I am a German and know the Panzerschreck and its details.” – S O

            You shot yourself in the foot on this one. Okay, you are a German and you were trained on MG3 so you must know in great detail how to clear a jam on MG3 and would know how to clear a jam on MG3 if the shields are placed immediately in front of the ammo pouch.

            So why be so bashful about explaining it when already prompted several times?

            “Obviously, given that, above the sight line shields would have (…) better manueverability (…)” – Hyok Kim

            “And this is bollocks, as it is HEAVIER, thus less manoeuvrable – unless you now imply that your notional “above sight line shields” have an overall smaller, not greater area than exclusively below sight line shields.” – S O

            No, it’s no bollocks, and your response shows you are not as well versed in engineering mechanics (despite your pretension of CoG).

            First of all, it’s not heavier. (Here we’re talking about the shields with the same size and thickness, to make it an apple to apple comparison, not apple to orange).

            Seconly, it’s the CoG (your favorite term, but ended up working against you on this one) of the above the sight line shield is higher than the below the sight line shields.

            The same weight, but higher CoG results in not only more stability (with that much more weight above the barrel working against the muzzle jump of the barrel) but also that much more weight above the barrel working as counter-weight in moving the barrels sideways. But also placing the shield far forward also acts as a lever (like you had mentioned, except you were too oink headed to realize that it actually aids the lever as a sort of counter weight).

            “”It explains the shortcoming of the FG42 due to the bipod not so far forward like MG42, (with its attendant front heaviness, which you decry) It made the gun unstable, which is further documented.” – Hyok Kim

            “Front heaviness by mounting the flimsy bipod farther forward is not what helps to control the gun.” – S O

            False, USMC during WW2 had to ditch the bipod on their BARs when they knew they were going to be fighting ECQB to CQB, because of their weight.

            Obviously the stability of the barrel during ECQB to CQB is not priority, but faster handling is.

            Btw, the ‘flimsy’ bipod you’re talking about weighted somewhere along the line of 2 to 4 lbs, which would be even more cumbersome due to being place near the muzzle end. I don’t call that ‘flimsy’, but who knows you might be a Hercules.

            You ask anyone with some shooting experience, placing 2 to 4 extra lbs on the muzzle end of the barrel would or would not help controlling the muzzle rise of LMGs.

            “In fact, muzzle rise is almost entirely dominated by the vertical lever between barrel bore and shoulder-stock contact area centre.” – S O

            False, if that were the case Luger, or HK P9S should be far more controllable than 1911s or 92Fs in the same caliber and the same weight class.

            1911s and 92Fs have longer vertical lever than Luger or HK P9Ss but have more weight, especially near the muzzle end.

            Luger, in particular was notorious for its muzzle lightness, and not as controllable as 1911s in the similar caliber and similar weight class. This is a well-known fact among experienced pistoleros.

            HK knew enough about muzzle lightness of regular P9Ss to the point of adding barrel weight to tame the muzzle lightness.

            Not only that even Walther modified regular P4/P38 to create P5, which has closed slide so as to have more weight near the muzzle to control the muzzle rise in rapid fire.

            I know this first hand, and so do many owners of the above-mentioned guns.

            Obviously you don’t have much first hand shooting experience, otherwise you would have never said something that asinine or as you might prefer, ‘Bollock’!

            Another big down grading for the credibility of your shooting experience!

            “The straight buttstock and high sight line were the designer’s principal countermeasures to FG 42 muzzle climb.” – S O

            ….but according to the video you showed, it didn’t do such a great job. In fact, its muzzle rise control was so poor, it was generally not recommended to fire full auto.

          • S O

            “Actually, yes, S O is not your real name, but anonymous internet moniker.”

            As anonymous as Madonna calling herself Madonna.

            “So why be so bashful about explaining it when already prompted several times?”

            Because I only feed lazy trolls so much. Look for yourself:
            http://mg-42.net/manuals/MG3.pdf
            Any stoppages would be cleared the normal way. The only action that need to be taken into account for shield placement is the barrel change. But that one would be troublesome with AJAX because the window for the barrel is on the right side.

            The amount of counterfactual, fantasy physics and general bollocks in your comment is astonishing. I’ve seen a lot of nonsense comments, but yours is impressive in its total disconnect with reality.

            I shouldn’t feed this troll any more.

          • Hyok Kim

            “Actually, yes, S O is not your real name, but anonymous internet moniker.” – Hyok Kim

            “As anonymous as Madonna calling herself Madonna.” – S O

            Still too shy? Most people know who Madonna is, but how many know who S O is?

            “So why be so bashful about explaining it when already prompted several times?” – Hyok KIm

            “Because I only feed lazy trolls so much. Look for yourself:
            http://mg-42.net/manuals/MG3.p…” – S O

            Another proof S O is a ‘German’ but not a German?

            Does that manual cover how to clear the jam?

            If so, then please point it out.

            Weapons manuals (especially official ones) in general do not cover how to clear the jam. Only how to operate, field strip, and reassembly.

            Learning to clear the jam is taught actually in the field by the training instructors.

            You claim you have been trained to operate MG3, so show me how to clear the jam in your own words as you were trained.

            Should be a piece of cake if you know how.

            “Any stoppages would be cleared the normal way.” – S O

            Okay, so what’s the normal way of clearing a jam of MG3?

            “The only action that need to be taken into account for shield placement is the barrel change.” – S O

            Shield can be detached, too free on the fly. Why is this a problem?

            “But that one would be troublesome with AJAX because the window for the barrel is on the right side.” – S O

            False, it’s right in the center.

            “The only action that need to be taken into account for shield placement is the barrel change.” – S O

            …but doesn’t it contradict what you had said earlier?

            “A flat shield immediately in front of the ammo pouch and strictly below the sight line is debatable for a LMG, but this is not.” – S O

            Okay, so how can placing the shield immediately in front of the ammo pouch and strictly below the sight line better enable the change of the barrel over placing the shield further forward?

            “The amount of counterfactual, fantasy physics and general bollocks in your comment is astonishing. I’ve seen a lot of nonsense comments, but yours is impressive in its total disconnect with reality.” – S O

            So why can you not destroy my reasoning?

            “I shouldn’t feed this troll any more.” – S O

            Cutting and running?

          • S O

            Just to point out the sheer nonsense and 100% disconnect with reality of the garbage you’re posting here:

            “”But that one would be troublesome with AJAX because the window for the barrel is on the right side.” – S O

            False, it’s right in the center.”

            http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/c/c1/MG3_Tripod.JPEG

            Now shut up about guns you have zero clue about. Everybody who knows the MG3 knows that your writing here is utter nonsense. Only someone 100% ignorant about the MG3 in practice can even ask what you ask.

          • Hyok Kim

            “Just to point out the sheer nonsense and 100% disconnect with reality of the garbage you’re posting here:” – S O

            …and that’s why you can’t explain how to clear a jam on MG3 you claim to have been trained to operate?

            “”But that one would be troublesome with AJAX because the window for the barrel is on the right side.” – S O

            “False, it’s right in the center.” – Hyok Kim

            Btw. We were talking about the ‘window’ of the Ajax shield, not which side of the center a scope can be placed on MG3.

            …and the best S O can do is to post a picture of MG3 with a scope still topped in the center line, it’s not even off-center!

            Here’s a better picture of the kind of scope placement S O had posted above.

            http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Rheinmetall_MG_3#mediaviewer/File:MG-3_Infanter%C3%ADa_de_Marina.JPG

            Ajax shield still has more than enough clearance to accommodate the above set up.

            Another word, S O doesn’t even know the meaning of what ‘off-center mounted’ means.

            Below is an example of what is called, ‘off-center mounted’. in the sense it’s used in tactical firearms.

            http://www.brownells.com/optics-mounting/electronic-sights/mounting-hardware/burkett-offset-mount-aimpoint-t1-vortex-sparc-sku100011016-42647-111421.aspx

            …and Ajax shield still has enough clearance to use even truly off-center mounted optic.

            This pathetic attempt by S O only betrays the superficial, shallowness of S O’s knowledge regarding firearms.

            Now, for people with some first hand shooting experience, this is no brainer. But then what do you expect from a ‘German’ who was probably born, raised, and grown up in merry ol’ England, who likes to use common British-English slang, ‘Bollocks’ on American gun forum no less?!

            ‘Bollocks’ – S O

            “Bollocks” /ˈbɒləks/ is a word of Anglo-Saxon origin, meaning “testicles”. The word is often used figuratively in British English and Hiberno-English as a noun to mean “nonsense”, an expletive following a minor accident or misfortune, or an adjective to mean “poor quality” or “useless”.

            “I am a German and know the Panzerschreck and its details.” – S O

          • S O

            Go back to school and learn text comprehension.

            “But that one would be troublesome with AJAX because the window for the barrel is on the right side.”

            “window for the barrel”

            It could be misleading if you knew anything of relevance about the MG3 to begin with (as the ‘window’ marks the side the barrel swings out to, but the barrel doesn’t move through it), but you didn’t even comprehend that the “window” was by grammar linked to “the barrel”.

            Your obsessions and nonsense about jams and my nationality only serve to show those who know something about me how useless your comments are.
            The procedures against a MG3 jam are (as shown in the manual) too long to describe for a comment here. And it would be pointless, as I linked to the manual anyway.

            And yes, I write British English. You cannot even imagine that somebody could be somewhat competent in a second language, obviously. I learned words such as “bollocks” because I’ve met people who talk trash like you do before.

            Ich halte Dich (H.K.) für einen glasklaren Fall von Vollpfosten, der nur Dünnschiss labert, wie er gerade in den Sinn kommt. Diese beknackte Herumphantasiererei offenbart zudem einen Hang zu Spekulationen – und einen dementsprechend lockeren Bezug zur Realität.

          • Hyok Kim

            “Go back to school and learn text comprehension.

            “But that one would be troublesome with AJAX because the window for the barrel is on the right side.”

            “window for the barrel”

            It could be misleading if you knew anything of relevance about the MG3 to begin with (as the ‘window’ marks the side the barrel swings out to, but the barrel doesn’t move through it),” – S O

            So the barrel cannot swing out to the left? The barrel of LMGs (inc MG3) can swing to either side, whether right or left.

            If the barrel can swing out to left, then (per your definition), the window for the barrel would be on the left side as well, not just on the right side like you had claimed.

            “But that one would be troublesome with AJAX because the window for the barrel is on the right side.” – S O

            Another foot in the mouth by S O!

            Another ignorant sophistry from S O, the ‘German’ who was born, raised and grew up in England, with very littler first hand shooting experience!

            “…but you didn’t even comprehend that the “window” was by grammar linked to “the barrel”. – S O

            Btw. the true ‘window’ for the gunner of LMG is right along the barrel, that’s where the gunner aims the gun. Gunner doesn’t aim the barrel using the views outside of the barrel, whether left or right.

            Another proof you have very little first hand shooting experience.

            “Your obsessions and nonsense about jams…..” – S O

            This is another proof S O has not been trained to operate MG3. Being able to clear the jam of LMGs and heavier MGs is one of the cornerstone of the training of the machine gunner.

            Any machine gunner worth his salt would be obsessed with clearing the jams of LMGs or heavier MGs he’s assigned with.

            “….and my nationality only serve to show those who know something about me how useless your comments are.” – S O

            I really don’t care about your nationality on its own, I do care that you falsely pretend to be a German in order to lend credence to your phoniness.

            Btw. Who and how many know what you are? and why can’t you not post under your real name, which can be verified?

            “The procedures against a MG3 jam are (as shown in the manual) too long to describe for a comment here. And it would be pointless, as I linked to the manual anyway.” – S O

            All you have to do is to point out the page on that manual that shows how to clear a jam? Just point out the page.

            Btw. I didn’t see any picture showing the clearing of a jam from that manual.

            “And yes, I write British English.” – S O

            Because you’re not a German. I know Germans when they study English, they study American English, for the simple reason, the main purpose of learning English was to study the latest technology, which mainly comes from U.S. (at least among English speaking countries), not from Britain.

            “There’s no doubt you would go on with your bullshit” – S O

            …and that’s why you cannot comply with my request for you to point out which page of that manual describing the clearing of the jam on MG3?

            So you don’t like to use ‘Bollocks’ no more? It doesn’t matter, you’re a still a ‘Cod’ in British-English slang.

            “You cannot even imagine that somebody could be somewhat competent in a second language, obviously.” – S O

            False, English is my second language, I mean American-English,

            “I learned words such as “bollocks” because I’ve met people who talk trash like you do before.” – S O

            …you mean ‘Cod’ like you, based on your first language, British-English.

            Btw. I corresponded with Germans, not one of them used the word, ‘Bollocks’ not even once.

            “Ich halte Dich (H.K.) für einen glasklaren Fall von Vollpfosten, der nur Dünnschiss labert, wie er gerade in den Sinn kommt. Diese beknackte Herumphantasiererei offenbart zudem einen Hang zu Spekulationen – und einen dementsprechend lockeren Bezug zur Realität.” – S O

            Pathetic try from S O. Anyone could do what you wrote, using online translator.

          • S O

            “Weapons manuals (especially official ones) in general do not cover how to clear the jam.”

            Reality really doesn’t seem to interest you. The ZdV covers it, and anybody who can read German can see so easily by looking at the contents page.

            Just to show everyone here how Hyok Kim just writes garbage here:

            “But that one would be troublesome with AJAX because the window for the barrel is on the right side.” – S O
            “False, it’s right in the center.” – Hyok Kim

            http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/c/c1/MG3_Tripod.JPEG

          • Hyok Kim

            “Weapons manuals (especially official ones) in general do not cover how to clear the jam.” – Hyok Kim

            “Reality really doesn’t seem to interest you. The ZdV covers it, and anybody who can read German can see so easily by looking at the contents page.” – S O

            So why can’t you point it out which page covers clearing a jam on MG3?

            You claim to be a German who has been trained to operate MG3, so you should have no problem pointing it out.

            “I am a German and know the Panzerschreck and its details.” – S O

            “I was trained on the similar MG3,,,,, – S O

            Unless, of course, you’re not a German, but a ‘German’, and has never been trained to operate MG3, but a ‘Bollocks'(the word you have used repeatedly here,) or ‘Cod’, as they would say in merry ol’ England.

          • Secundius

            @ Hyok Kim.

            Again sir, your showing your stupidity. The MG3 is a 1950’s era machine gun. A varient of both the, MG34/42. The MG3 chambered .308Winchester (7.62x51mm NATO) cartridge. And MG34/42 chambered 8mm Mauser (7.92x57mm) cartridge.

          • Hyok Kim

            Had I said not? Who are you arguing with?

          • S O

            “So why can’t you point it out which page covers clearing a jam on MG3?”

            Oh, I can do so – I just don’t want to. You’re not worth it, you’re a mere troll.

            There’s no doubt you would go on with your bullshit no matter how comprehensive the answers are. We’ve seen that already.

          • Hyok Kim

            “So why can’t you point it out which page covers clearing a jam on MG3?” – Hyok Kim

            “Oh, I can do so – I just don’t want to. You’re not worth it,” – S O

            ….because you can’t, because you’re not a German, but a ‘German’ was born, raised, and grew up in England, a ‘Cod’, a phony in British English slang.

            “you’re a mere troll.” – S O

            You’re the one posting and attacking under anonymous internet moniker.

            “There’s no doubt you would go on with your bullshit” – S O

            Finally, my pointing out you using, ‘Bollocks’ had an effect.

            ‘Bollocks’ – S O

            “Bollocks” /ˈbɒləks/ is a word of Anglo-Saxon origin, meaning “testicles”. The word is often used figuratively in British English and Hiberno-English as a noun to mean “nonsense”, an expletive following a minor accident or misfortune, or an adjective to mean “poor quality” or “useless”.

            “…no matter how comprehensive the answers are.” – S O

            ….but you never answered how to clear a jam in MG3, which you claimed to have been trained to operate.

            “I am a German and know the Panzerschreck and its details.” – S O

            “I was trained on the similar MG3,….” – S O

            “We’ve seen that already” – S O

            Yes, we have seen that you’re a pathological liar from England, and has very little first hand shooting experience, otherwise you would have said something this asinine.

            “You’re in the wrong level. The balancing motion is independent of whether the weight is a bit in front or behind the top hinge bipod. What matters is whether the weight is raised to the left or right from the stable low position. The longitudinal (barrel) axis is irrelevant for this self-balancing mechanic.” – S O

            Anyone who have fired silencer/suppressors attached to LMGs know what you had said above is false.

          • Secundius

            @ Hyok Kim.

            I haven’t figured you out, mathematical on paper yet. Because my calculator doesn’t go up that high, it only has 12-digit display case.
            Are you Googol Dense, 10 to the 100 power dense. Or, are you Googolplex Dense, 10 to the 10 power, to the 100 power dense.

            Please, the world wants too know!

          • Hyok Kim

            “There so many Types, Variations of, Various of, Versions of, Composites of, etc. of armor out there. Past types, Present types, and Future types, the possibilities are endless. I could write a Congressional Study Report on and about them. In the ’70’s through the ’80’s, I worked on Attack Helicopters in the US Army. I Fixed them, Repaired them, Armed them, and yes, even Armored them. So don’t lecture me about the differences in armor.” – Secundis

            All you have to do is provide your real name, place you live, ways to confirm them and ways to check your credentials, instead of merely name-dropping,, that’s what the losers and trolls do when they try to impress/intimidate people on internet .

          • Hyok Kim

            “@ Hyok Kim.

            I haven’t figured you out, mathematical on paper yet. Because my calculator doesn’t go up that high, it only has 12-digit display case.
            Are you Googol Dense, 10 to the 100 power dense. Or, are you Googolplex Dense, 10 to the 10 power, to the 100 power dense.

            Please, the world wants too know!” – Secundius

            What does this have to do with what I had said?

  • Jonathan Wright

    Is that mounted on an AR? army of two anyone?

    • iksnilol

      Was about to mention that.

      Also, what is wrong with using a suppressor? Kills the flash and reduces sound making it harder to be fired upon.

      • bbmg

        Also gets very hot when you’re firing in full auto, although there are full auto rated suppressors out there.

        • iksnilol

          It is better that the suppressor gets hot than you getting zeroed on and getting shot.

          Also it is doable to fire for extended periods with one:

          Sure, the smoke might give you away but I doubt you will be firing 100 or 200 rounds in a single burst.

          • Secundius

            Why do you show a Silencer Video, when your talking about a Sound Suppressor. There IS a difference between the two you know.

          • iksnilol

            They are the same. The inventor called it a silencer, Brits call it a moderator while Americans came up with the media-friendly “suppressor”.

            Maybe you meant that there is a difference between a silencer/suppressor and a flash suppressor?

            I know what I am talking about since silencers/suppressors are completely uncontrolled in my country and I have used them.

          • Secundius

            @ iksnilol.

            ACTUALLY!

            A “SILENCER” is mounted on any gun, where the bullet is traveling 999-ft./sec. or less.

            A “SUPPRESSOR” is mounted on any gun, where the bullet is traveling 1,000-ft./sec. or more.

          • iksnilol

            No.

            The difference you mentioned in velocity is the difference between subsonic and supersonic ammo. Even then, the sound barrier is breached at a different velocity depending on temperature and altitude. Very cold = lower treshold before the object is supersonic. At room temperature, 20 degrees Celsius (68 fahrenheit), the speed of sound is 343 meters per second (1125 feet per second).

            You are correct in that some silencers/suppressors can only be used with subsonic ammo, though that is usually only with plastic baffled suppressors (common in cheap .22 suppressors) or when using a pistol can to shoot subsonic rifle ammo (like 300 BLK through a 9mm silencer/suppressor).

            I am really not interested in arguing with you since I know I am right but I also know how hard it can be to admit when one is wrong.

            Here is a decent read if you need more info:

            http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Suppressor

            If you need more info feel free to ask, just reply to this comment.

          • Secundius

            @ Iksnilol.

            Yes but, a silencer will only silence a subsonic round and not a supersonic round. While a suppressor will only suppress a supersonic round and will not silence one.

          • iksnilol

            No suppressor/silencer is gonna do anything about the sound the bullet makes. You can only reduce the noise from the muzzle from the explosion in the cartridge.

            Suppressor=silencer and vice-versa.

            I give up, can someone else please chime in?

          • Hyok Kim

            You mean a silencer will reduce the velocity of supersonic bullet to subsonic speed and also reduce the sound of muzzle blast?

            …and a suppressor will merely reduce the muzzle blast of both supersonic and subsonic bullets, but will not reduce the velocity of supersonic bullet to subsonic speed?

          • Hyok Kim

            Actually, silencer cannot be mounted on any gun. It can be only mounted on guns that allows the barrel to bleed out enough gas into the silencer to reduce the velocity of the bullet to subsonic, and if moving barrels, then that can withstand the weight and gas pressure into the silencer that acts against the operation of the gun, and if fixed barrels, then that can withstand the gas pressure into the silencer that acts against the operation of the gun.

            Suppressor can not be mounted on any guns, either. It can only be mounted on guns with either fixed barrels that can withstand the gas pressure into the suppressor that can withstand the operation of the gun, or with moving barrels that is not affected by the weight of the suppressor, and the gas pressure into the suppressor that acts against the operation of the gun.

          • Hyok Kim

            Where is your country? I envy you.

          • iksnilol

            Norway, in Scandinavia.

            Also, didn’t think too much about heat (most MGs are open bolt), that is an issue.

            Suporessors/silencers don’t really reduce accuracy (actually increase it) but they can and most often will change your POI.

          • Hyok Kim

            I never knew Norway had such ‘liberal’ firearms laws, so much Scandinavian ‘socialism’!

            “Also, didn’t think too much about heat (most MGs are open bolt), that is an issue.” – iksnilol

            HK MP5 series, and most of ARs are closed bolt, and they heat up fast. I believe suppressor/silencers are designed more for those types of weapons than LMG and heavier MGs.

            Besides closed bolts are quieter than open bolt, given everything else equal, and what was the purpose of suppressor/silencers in the first place?

            “Because given everything else equal, it reduces the accuracy of the bullet.” – Hyok Kim

            “Suporessors/silencers don’t really reduce accuracy (actually increase it)” – iksnilol

            Depending on how ‘long’ of a burst , and how many rounds are fired in given duration of time.

            Pro’s regarding the ‘accuracy’ of the bullet with suppressor/silencer is that it makes a gun heavier with more forward placement of weight, where it would do a great job of taming the muzzle rise of the barrel, especially when fired in full auto burst. So the ‘accuracy’ really comes from more weight attached, especially toward muzzle end, not from the barrel and the action itself.

            It’s like if I placed a 4lbs weight near the muzzle end of LMGs, does it make LMG more accurate?

            Technically speaking, no. It makes LMG more controllable, especially in full auto burst, that’s not the same thing as accuracy.

            For example, I can shoot far more accurately, in a slow single fire from a quality revoler in a single action mode, but I can fire a lot of bullets fast in a much tighter zone, with a comparable semi-auto (especially with no tradtional DAs involved) than I could in a revolver.

            Does this mean the revolver is necessarily less accurate? Not so. It’s just less controllable in fast fire than comparable semi-auto (with no traditional DAs involved).

            Regarding the true accuracy of the gun, not mere controllability in full auto burst;

            When fired ‘enough’ rounds, it heats up the barrel faster than without suppressor/silencers attached, and when a barrel heats up, it warps and also expands so that a bullet would not closely follow the pattern inside of the barrel as it would have without the suppressor/silencer.

            In U.S., that’s why people use heavier barrels to ‘more’ or more accurately, longer duration of optimal accuracy capable from the barrel.

            Heavier, thicker, exposed barrels take longer to heat up, meaning longer duration of optimal accuracy capable of from the barrel, given everything else equal.

            “……but they can and most often will change your POI.” – iksnilol

            Yes, and that’s why one often would have to confirm the zero of the weapon, and why HK decided to go with integral silencer with their SD.

            Also, that’s another reason why I am not really sold on those modular ARs, that can be broken down in compact storage. I don’t think zeros will hold, especially the ones one would have to screw the barrel, (all those screwing/unscrewing would result in thread being worn out, even being stripped, especially over the long run, Leica camera repair people used to call it ‘maintainence wear’, and why Rob Leatham doesn’t want to clean his 1911 unless just before competition, or it gets to become unacceptably reliable due to extreme dirtiness inside the action).

          • iksnilol

            Norwegian gun laws are pretty good, much better than American laws in some aspects and much worse in other aspects. That’s life I guess, I do know people in other countries who dabble in illegal firearms so if I want to try something “fun” I do know a guy who knows a guy. I would guess you are from Korea?

            Well, if it works on an AR/AK (they both light themselves on fire if you run 300 rounds on full auto rapidly, don’t ask how I know) in regards to heat then it should work on a MG.

            Regarding sound, you would use a silencer to distort the sound (you hear the bullet but not the muzzle, which confuses the enemy often leading them to believe you are shooting from the opposite side). You would also use it to remove the muzzle flash, many MG gunners got killed because of the intense muzzle flash MGs (made them a bigger target) have compared to ARs and regular rifles (more powerful cartridges like 308, 8mm, etc. combined with high sustained rates of fire).

            Honestly, the sound of the mechanism is not a big deal unless up close (25 meters or less) and for those purposes a bolt action or a pistol with a slide lock is best.

            Accuracy is increased from a mechanical perspective since the gas is redirected away from the bullet which leads to less turbulence affecting the bullet.

            The reason they chane POI is simply because of weight, attach a heavy muzzle brake and same thing happens.

            Regarding those modular designs: They do work well in the Blasers though those are expensive and machined to tight tolerances. If you want to be 100% sure about the zero just attach the sight to the barrel, a red dot or a long eye relief scope (“scout” scope) works well. You just gotta find a gunsmith to attach a rail/mount to your barrel, also you need enough exposed barrel for it to work.

          • Hyok Kim

            “Norwegian gun laws are pretty good, much better than American laws in some aspects and much worse in other aspects.”

            In what aspects are Norwegian gun laws do you think are better American gun laws and much worse in other aspects?

            “I do know people in other countries who dabble in illegal firearms so if I want to try something “fun” I do know a guy who knows a guy.”

            Well, for that you might want to go to Yemen, Afghanistan, or Pakistan. The most gun loving countries in the world.

            “I would guess you are from Korea?”

            Well, were. I came to U.S. in 1982, December 23rd. In SK, the only firearms that are allowed are double barrel shotguns, and even those have to be registered and stored in local police stations during non-hunting seasons.

            Not only that even the police officers have to turn in their firearms at the end of their shift.

            Back in the 70’s, the beat patrol officers were not issued firearms, only night sticks. One had to be at least a sergeant to be able to carry a pistol during duty hours only, and those in uniform were not allowed to carry a live mag inside the firearm. The mags had to be carried separate from the firearm itself.

            Only those with the rank of lieutenant and above were allowed to keep a firearm 24/7.

            “Well, if it works on an AR/AK (they both light themselves on fire if you run 300 rounds on full auto rapidly, don’t ask how I know) in regards to heat then it should work on a MG.”

            I read that normal cleaning maintainence of ARs (the decent ones, not all ARs are the same, some like Bushmasters are known to break down after 800 rounds (not even full auto, but in semi-auto in the space of a week) are major cleaning after 1,000 rounds.

            Regarding sound, you would use a silencer to distort the sound (you hear the bullet but not the muzzle, which confuses the enemy often leading them to believe you are shooting from the opposite side).”

            Totally agree.

            “You would also use it to remove the muzzle flash, many MG gunners got killed because of the intense muzzle flash MGs (made them a bigger target) have compared to ARs and regular rifles (more powerful cartridges like 308, 8mm, etc. combined with high sustained rates of fire).”

            Yes, but also as not to blind the gunner destroying his night vision, and the reason why the Germans developed a tactic of pre-locating suitable sites for LMG deployment and pre-zeroing at each location and once the battle began, relocating their MG teams to these pre-located sites in rotation as to mis-direct the enemy action against their MG teams.

            Btw. In U.S. silencer/suppressors are pain to get. So I am leaning toward flash hider instead. I’ve read that Novske rifle works made the best best flash hiders.

            “Honestly, the sound of the mechanism is not a big deal unless up close (25 meters or less) and for those purposes a bolt action or a pistol with a slide lock is best.”

            True, but aren’t suppressor/silencers originally designed for the entry raid team, with exactly for that purpose?

            “Accuracy is increased from a mechanical perspective since the gas is redirected away from the bullet which leads to less turbulence affecting the bullet.”

            Well, I hadn’t thought of that one. I only thought of barrel heating up. So it’s a question how much enhancement from neutralizing the gas turbulence vs. how much less accurate tracking the bullet due to the expansion of the barrel.

            However, I agree so long as the shots are limited to the extent of not heating up the barrel, it would be more accurate with silence/suppressor on, not merely more controllable.

            “The reason they chane POI is simply because of weight, attach a heavy muzzle brake and same thing happens.”

            True.

            “Regarding those modular designs: They do work well in the Blasers though those are expensive and machined to tight tolerances”

            Of course, you are not talking about typical modular/break down ARs.

          • iksnilol

            Suppressors and magazines are completely unregulated except for hunting, this means 2 round mags for semi auto rifles when hunting. Also I can import guns/ammo from China or Russia (also Igman ammo from Bosnia, some of my favorite ammo) That is the good part, the bad part is that shotguns are screwed.

            Problem is you can’t buy a shotgun for anything else than hunting. This means that you have to follow the laws regarding hunting. This means that you can’t buy a shotgun with more than 5 shot capacity (4+1 and forget about multiple mag shotguns) or a shotgun that uses detachable magazines. Then the coup de grace is the fact that lead ammo for shotguns is illegal, you have to either use bismuth/vismuth or steel shot. The latter is cheap but weak/prone to ricochets while the former works like lead but is much more expensive.

            The “light themselves on fire” comment wasn’t about general reliability. It was about simple mechanics, the gas tube bursts on the AR if you shoot about 10 mags rapidly (not allowing it to cool) while on an AK the wooden handguard catches fire due to the gas tube heating up. You can find vids on youtube of both happening.

            Silencers are made for a lot of things. Most often what they are made for is preventing hearing damage (civilian and millitary due to economical reasons), removing flash (millitary), redirecting sound (both millitary and civilians).Honestly, if you want to kill someone quietly you are going to do it with a buddy or two and a knife or a chloroform soaked rag. One grabs the guy (makes sure to cover his mouth/nose) while the other cuts his throat/drugs him. The movie/videogame part with “stealth takedowns” is impossible since a person trashes and flails around too loudly for one person to prevent them from making too much noise.

            I know how hard they are to get in the US, won’t regret it if you do though (make sure you get a multi-use can). For flash hiders, I honestly don’t know but I saw some testing which showed that the A2 flash hider is really good.http://vuurwapenblog.com/2014/01/09/ar15-muzzle-brakeflash-hidercompensator-comparison-part-3/

            Honestly I don’t see the point of those break down “covert” ARs, an AR is pretty compact if you simply separate the upper and the lower. Same thing applies to many guns (PX4 Storm carbine is one).

          • Secundius

            @ iksnilol.

            There’s and outfitter that specializes in oil filter adapters, for using standard automotive oil filter as silencers and/or suppressors. You can Google them on the web just by typing out either “oil can silencers” or oil can suppressors. I don’t know whether this help you out any or not.

            I myself, would like to have a very good or excellent quality silencer/suppressor system too. Without all the paper work involved. I’ve also seen one on the wed not to long ago, about a flash break/hider. Which also suppresses the sound too. I’d really like to know the physics behind that one.

          • iksnilol

            I know about those adapters, have no need for them. Though they can be a cheap way to try suppressors.

            The flash hider I have heard about. Doesn’t really reduce sound but directs it away from you – not hearing safe.

          • Secundius

            @ iksnilol.

            The system I was talking about, is a AR-type weapon called the MPX-C. By Sig Sauer and sells for $2200. US.

          • Hyok Kim

            It’s not just the suppresor that gets hot. The gun itself gets harder.

            This means ‘cook offs’, especially for closed bolt operation, meaning, gun could start firing on its own.

            Also, hotter internal temps makes the gun less reliable, and less durable.

      • Hyok Kim

        Because given everything else equal, it reduces the accuracy of the bullet.

  • MrPhantom

    “Gee, if only my weapon could be even heavier and bulkier, obscure my field of vision more, and protect me almost as well as good positioning would”

  • Guest

    Very cool appearance. Sci-Fi FPS version of this will have barrier generators on it.
    At least this one is much better than those battleskin/or some kind ‘full-face bulletproof’ things.
    Looks not fitting for LMGs ,but will work for rifles especially during shootout from window.

  • Justin William Officer

    Hey , I’d wouldn’t be a bad idea if the plates could be used as an easy and quick detach as side plates in a plate carrier when en route . Shit, make a plate carrier that could be reworked quickly to set up as a small barricade.

  • Giolli Joker

    Shield Shovel M.Y. 2014

  • Tactical Revolution

    The AJAX Armor System is intended for use on weapons platforms that do not have fixed gun shields. Several applications include fixed base-of-fire elements, defensive fortifications, checkpoints, as well as vehicle, watercraft, and aircraft mounted weapons systems.

    The concept, however, does permit a warfighter to utilize the armor plates as body-worn stand-alone hard armor inserts if desired – the plates are similar in weight to existing hard body armor solutions. The mounting systems weigh 1.4-pounds each.
    Sandbags and foxholes are convenient when you have time to set them up. However, there is labor and time associated with that process, including logistical challenges and costs to the government, and you still have the issue of exposure when you need to fire your weapon effectively.

    With the AJAX Armor System, you can up-armor your position with a validated, ballistic rated system in less than 20-seconds total, or 10-seconds per side. This can provide you with the critical protection needed for vital areas of your body, such as the head, neck, and upper torso. These are areas that conventional body armor solutions don’t adequately protect. Furthermore, AJAX can reduce casualties associated with blunt force trauma from ballistic impacts, since the ballistic energy is largely absorbed by the system, and the remainder is transferred into the weapons platform.

    Regarding the effective line of sight, there is no issue, nor do the armor plates interfere with any weapon mounted optics. The armor plates are cheek level, and they are designed to be apart enough to allow for laser designators, etc. The AJAX Armor System was designed with input from warfighters with significant combat experience utilizing the weapons platforms this system is intended for. We will be posting a new video on our YouTube channel soon, in order to provide clarity on the design, functionality and application of the AJAX Armor System for the general public.

    • Guest

      1.4lbs each is not bad deal.
      Maybe actual users would prefer just one-side plate(left one for right-hand shooter), and some users will want more height for inidividual plates to cover whole heads up and neck/breast area.

      • TV-PressPass

        1.4lbs is the mounting system. The plates will add more.

        • Secundius

          If you use Ceramic Armour, your probably talking about 3 to 4-pounds extra weight. But if your talking about 1/4-inch to 3/8-inch plate steel. Your probably looking at about 5 to 8-pounds extra. And for a soldier in the field, 8-pounds is a lot of weight. That also means your carrying less ammunition too.

          • Hyok Kim

            “Your probably looking at about 5 to 8-pounds extra. And for a soldier in the field, 8-pounds is a lot of weight.” – Secundius

            “Shied weights were kept low, so that your standard legion auxiliary could care it for long hours of marching.” – Secundius

            The shield you’re talking about weighed at least 22lbs.

    • S O

      Provide drawings for your claim about “cheek level” and “there is no issue” about line of sight.

      The upper photo was taken from above barrel level. The upper edge of one plate is still on centre of optic lens-height. It’s probably also taken from a greater height than the sight line’s.

      This system visibly interferes with the field of view and thus the situational awareness. This wouldn’t be so bad on a medium machinegun whose fire is supposed to be controlled by the squad leader in plenty armies. The illustration shows an application on an ‘automatic rifle’ kind of light support weapon, and their users need to detect and choose targets on their own!

      • Tactical Revolution

        S O: We do not know your background, whether you served in the armed forces or not, or what your experience is regarding the subject matter; however, as previously mentioned, the AJAX Armor System was designed with substantial input and critique from some of the best Tier 1 special operations warfighters that our military has. Each of them have significant experience with the types of weapons platforms the AJAX Armor System is intended for use on.
        There are many photos around the web that show the system on various weapons platforms – this is to demonstrate that the AJAX Armor System has a universal attachment capability and that you can use the system on any weapons platform that has standard Picatinny side rails on it. With that said, it is up to the end-user to determine how to best utilize the system based on their specific TTP’s and the type of equipment they have.
        We appreciate the opinions and feedback of everyone talking about the product. From the posts we have seen, there are clearly many incorrect interpretations of the system, it’s intent, and it’s functionality. Over the next several weeks, there will be plenty of photos and videos that will be made available to help the general public get a better grasp of this new technology.

        • S O

          That’s 18 lines of reply to a simple geometric observation that’s in apparent conflict with your claim – but in all those 18 lines there was no relevant content.

    • Matrix3692

      so, how much does a single piece of “model 308″ armor plate weight?

      • Tactical Revolution

        We have several plates available to defeat various threats. Only a limited amount of information has been publicly disseminated at this time. However, the Model “308” armor plate that you are referring to weighs approximately 3.5 lbs.

        • Hyok Kim

          Would you offer it to civilians as well?

          • Secundius

            @ Hyok Kim, the Armor Expert Here.

            Hey Moron, the 308 mean cailber size of the bullet.

            Ballistic Armor 101.1:
            Type I: .22LR (5.6x15mm) through .380ACP (9x17mm)
            Type IIA & II: 9mm (9x19mm) through .357Magnum (9x33mm)
            Type IIIA: .357Magnum (9x33mm) through .44Magnum –
            (10.9×32.6mm)
            Type III: .308 (7.62x51mm)
            Type IV/AP: .30-06 (7.62x63mm)

            All these Armor Plate is available to the general public, at a price.
            The higher the protection Level, the higher the price.

            If you want the Top-of-the-Line Protective Vest called “Dragon Skin”, your talking for $8,000.00 to $10,000.00 dollars

            Were not here to teach you. If you want too learn, READ and LOOK IT UP.

          • Hyok Kim

            “@ Hyok Kim, the Armor Expert Here.” – Secundius

            “Hey Moron, the 308 mean cailber size of the bullet.” – Secundius

            Had I said not? Who are you arguing with?

            “Ballistic Armor 101.1:
            Type I: .22LR (5.6x15mm) through .380ACP (9x17mm)
            Type IIA & II: 9mm (9x19mm) through .357Magnum (9x33mm)
            Type IIIA: .357Magnum (9x33mm) through .44Magnum –
            (10.9×32.6mm)
            Type III: .308 (7.62x51mm)
            Type IV/AP: .30-06 (7.62x63mm)

            All these Armor Plate is available to the general public, at a price.
            The higher the protection Level, the higher the price.” – Secundius

            Not necessarily true, some steel plate armors, Level III to IV/AP are less expensive than spectra shield, Level IIIA.

            “@ Hyok Kim, the Armor Expert Here.” – Secundius

            “If you want the Top-of-the-Line Protective Vest called “Dragon Skin”, your talking for $8,000.00 to $10,000.00 dollars” – Secundius

            US Army begs to differ.

            http://www.army.mil/article/3292/army-defends-body-armor-quality

            “Were not here to teach you. If you want too learn, READ and LOOK IT UP” – Secundius

            “Dragon Skin is only available to law enforcement officials, military personnel and government agencies, which Warren knew when he bought the vest.” from…………

            http://www.capecodonline.com/apps/pbcs.dll/article?AID=/20080504/NEWS/805040344

            “@ Hyok Kim, the Armor Expert Here.” – Secundius

            Some armor expert. In merry ol’ England, they call people like Secundius, a ‘Cod’, meaning a phony.

  • Paladin

    Ahh, the Mini-14, everyone’s favorite LMG :P

  • JT

    I guess once slidefire starts selling bump sleds these will be hot? .308 upper and beta mag?

  • sianmink

    I always had an idea for a chunk of armor to go in front of a foregrip, to protect your hand when firing around cover with a remote or corner optic, but this seems slightly excessive.

    • Nicholas C

      I would prefer to use a cornershot.

  • Schizuki

    “Kinetic attention”? Jesus God…

    • Giolli Joker

      Yep, that bit is great… It made me LOL as well…

  • John

    I like the version in The Living Daylights better (from 1987). Which leads me to ask how is this idea possibly patentable?? And there’s no way the patent can stand up to a challenge when the idea has been in the public domain for 27+ years.

    http://www.imfdb.org/images/thumb/5/53/TLD_381.jpg/600px-TLD_381.jpg

    • S O

      They pretend they have invented some genius spring mechanism, that’s what the patent is about. Strange how in 100+ years no spring/attenuator mechanism has ever been successful on gun shields…

      • Hyok Kim

        “Strange how in 100+ years no spring/attenuator mechanism has ever been successful on gun shields.” – S O

        What other spring/attenuator mechanism have been used on gun shields?

    • Secundius

      @ John.

      What works in the movies. Doesn’t actually translate well into the REAL world.
      For example, You can break the Laws of Physics in the Movies. But you CAN’T break them in the Real World.

      • Hyok Kim

        “What works in the movies. Doesn’t actually translate well into the REAL world.
        For example, You can break the Laws of Physics in the Movies. But you CAN’T break them in the Real World.” – Secundius

        “If you want the Top-of-the-Line Protective Vest called “Dragon Skin”, your talking for $8,000.00 to $10,000.00 dollars” – Secundius

        “These temperature tests caused the adhesive holding the Dragon Skin’s protective discs together to fail, and the discs gathered at the bottom of the vest, leaving gaps in protection, he said.

        Brig. Gen. Brown also noted that the Dragon Skin vests are significantly heavier and thicker than the Interceptor vests. Dragon Skin vests in size extra large are 47.5 pounds and 1.7 to 1.9 inches thick; the Interceptor vests in size large, which offer an equivalent coverage area to the extra large Dragon Skin vests, weigh 28 pounds and are 1.3 inches thick.

        “Bottom line is it does not meet Army standards,” the general said of the Pinnacle body armor.

        http://www.army.mil/article/3292/army-defends-body-armor-quality

        “@ Hyok Kim, the Armor Expert Here.” – Secundius

        “Were not here to teach you. If you want too learn, READ and LOOK IT UP.” – Secondius

  • Papadatos

    I think the Ajax system is brilliant. And I’m really ashamed to hear people like SO, “so” called self experts, that rush to judgement on any product to come out before it has an honest chance to prove what it can do to the actual experts. You know what they call a scientist that forms a conclusion BEFORE any hard science data is introduced? An idiot. Yeah, you buddy. An idiot. You people start rushing to shout out your own opinions, shoving them down our throats…opinions that you have no idea are correct or not, just so you can appease yourself. Maybe you should go kick rocks somewhere else, or even beat off if it will keep you quiet.

    Here’s a fact for you. The neck and upper shoulder/collar areas are incredibly difficult to armor against ballistics, and American soldiers die far too often taking rounds in these areas. I would attach a paper mâché plate to the end of my riffle if I thought it had the slightest chance to deter a BULLET that wanted to see the inside of my throat. The AJAX system is a new answer to where previous solutions failed, and it is a modern approach that can be attached anywhere that the OPERATOR chooses…not you. It is up to the operator to choose what may or may not save their lives, NOT YOU. So please, and ever so gently, shut your god damned mouth and keep it shut until our United States Government has a chance to run their battery of tests to determine if the Ajax system can or can not get the job done and maybe save some of our men and women out there risking their lives every single day while you sit at Starbucks playing expert. And as for armor piercing ammunition, it is normally tested on fixed plates and not on systems designed for impact energy mitigation. Stop deeming a product in effective when you haven’t done or seen the work.

    I’m going to stand on the side of fact and reality. When the Ajax system has been tested, implemented and proven by keeping a soldier in the fight and out of Arlington…that’s the day you can go to their mother and father and tell them that you felt this was a bad idea. ‘SO’, I better not see you at Starbucks.

    • S O

      They had years of time to test this gadget and didn’t buy it, obviously.
      Besides, I don’t need data when I can see that the mechanics of the design are unsound. That plate could be graphene and the mechanics would still be mechanically unsound.
      I asked the PR guy for data, and he didn’t reply.

      And your talk about “operator” is BS. The government buys and decides, and in a disciplined army the superiors tell the guy on the machinegun what equipment he’s allowed to carry or not. The glorified ‘operator’ has to shut up and obey.
      ‘Operator’ talk is the new tacticool; for wannabes.

      Also nice how you first criticise a “rush to judgement” and then write “When the Ajax system has been tested, implemented and proven by keeping a soldier in the fight and out of Arlington…”.

      Besides, I know you work for them, I’m not dumb (and don’t think you’re that dumb). You annoyed me, so now I will cause some real trouble in this snake oil affair.

      • Tactical Revolution

        SO: You are posting a lot of false claims and assumptions on this site and it is unfortunate. The fact is that Tactical Revolution is attempting to provide accurate information about the system, and you are attempting to undermine something you do not understand. There is no personal
        attack here on you, nor has there ever been from our end – just facts.

        We did not reply to your post several days ago for obvious reasons – it was a very busy week for us after the SOFIC tradeshow, and it was the weekend. Our lives do not revolve around posting in forums. However, we appreciate your critical opinions of the product, as well as the anxiety that it creates when we do not reply within a matter of minutes to a misinformed post.

        With that said, the AJAX Armor System has been perfected over years of dedicated effort by extremely qualified individuals. It took approximately 3
        years to develop, and many versions were tested. The patent drawing you posted clearly illustrates the effective coverage that the system provides to the warfighter – thank you for posting that. Anyone looking at the image can clearly tell that the shooter has a clear line of sight on his target. Also, the weapon shown has flip-up iron sights – they are in the down position in the drawing.

        Your understanding of theshock system is inadequate at best. The
        shock has two primary tasks:

        1.) It allows the mounting system to be collapsed to the size of a small Red Bull can for easy stowage. It also enables the system to expand into the fully deployed position. When the mount is fully collapsed, so is the shock. When the system is expanded, the shock enables the armor plate to move past 45-degrees all the way out to 70-degrees, where it provides additional surface area to protect the shooter. This whole idea was to maximize protection area with minimal material.

        2.) As you stated before, the spring is more effective in ballistic energy reduction the further the impact is laterally from the forward connector pin. This is basic physics. The original intent was mentioned above. A byproduct of that original intent was the benefit of reduced energy transfer into the shooter. The further out the impact is the less energy is directed directly towards the user. However, the principle of momentum conservation relative to inelastic collisions is still in effect during the ballistic impact. This is an important factor in mitigating blunt force trauma, regardless of where the projectile strikes the armor plate – inside edge, outside edge, top side edge, bottom side edge, middle – wherever. The momentum of the projectile transfers partially into the armor system and weapons platform, thus drastically reducing the effect on the shooter.

        In addition, your criticism of the armor plates, and the effect that the springs have on them while deployed on the mounts is unfounded. It
        is clearly published that the armor plates we have currently released are rated stand-alone. This means the “308” plates are designed to defeat (6) M80 projectiles from a 50-ft distance on their own, with no backing or other supporting material. This classifies them as NIJ Level III stand-alone hard armor plates. However, when the plates are installed on mounts, they have regularly defeated threats greater than their stand-alone rating. Would you complain if the system stopped a more significant threat than the plate was rated for? No.

        Also, the spring rates are such that the system conveniently expands to its fully deployed position readily, and then when the system is closed by hand to its compact form, it isn’t impossible to do so. We know what we are doing. SOFIC was a prime example. Why would large, successful companies in this industry, such as FNH USA, and International Armored Group prominently display our products for the special operations world to see? That’s a good question.

        We did our homework, we put in the work, and we had our failures and our successes. The fact that we displayed high-speed video from testing 2-1/2 years ago means nothing – it shows the basic functioning of the system during a ballistic impact. That was by no means the first, or last video we have made. The bottom line is that in order for something revolutionary to be created from concept to field-ready product takes time. You have to be a million percent sure the system will work when it counts. We are exactly that.

        Going into this, we knew there would be doubters and the like, but we also knew that once the field-ready system was completed, there would be substantial interest in the product – this was never more evident than at SOFIC.

        The current intent of informing the public about the product is with respect to its intent and basic functionality. We knew there would be a lot of incorrect information floating around the digital realm. With that said, we are not here to discuss design information or our client base with unknown individuals.

        Also, Papadatos does not work for Tactical Revolution. However, we
        do know him, and he’s a pretty good guy – and he’s honest. Many of your statements are completely false. However, you have raised reasonable questions as well. Next time, just ask instead of assuming. Better yet, you can visit us at one of the upcoming military trade shows.

        You can count on the AJAX Armor System being deployed in the field very soon.

        • S O

          “Would you complain if the system stopped a more significant threat than the plate was rated for? No.”

          You don’t know me. Yes, I would. Because this means that the part is likely of excessive weight and cost.
          But I understood a while ago that you pretend the problems of weight and front-heaviness may not be prohibitive.

          Your whole point “1.)” is nonsense.

          “A byproduct of that original intent was the benefit of reduced energy transfer into the shooter.”

          The attenuation is likely negligible, and springs don’t reduce energy transfer – they merely distribute it over time.

          “The momentum of the projectile transfers partially into the armor
          system and weapons platform, thus drastically reducing the effect on the shooter.”
          …and the physical variable which achieves this is the system’s terrible heaviness. The energy transferred into the gunner is the lower the heavier the gun with shield is. I’m not impressed.

          ————
          Your system is worthless because of its weight. Its protective coverage is small compared to the weight – especially in a world where the enemies are not all in front of the gunner. The front-heaviness is ridiculous.

          Your marketing talk is unbearable and your communication here is in part aimed at denigrating a critic (next time do your homework and first make a background check on whom you want to pick on).
          ————-
          You won’t have much commercial success with this product because the military will understand its foolishness and coverage is a joke for LE.

          I think you warmed up the gun shield idea for dismounted troops – which has been given up again and again for more than a hundred years due to the weight – and since there was nothing about it that you could get a patent on you developed an unessential part (the spring mechanism) to have a weak claim of offering a novelty.
          The rest is standard marketing hype.

          And I feel insulted (everyone here should) over you pretending we’re stupid enough to think there’s any relevant blunt force trauma on a gunner’s chest if an uncushioned gun shield is hit.
          A 50 gram buttstock cushion pad would be a better choice than 2.8 lbs of gun shield mounting if there was an actual problem with trauma.

          • Hyok Kim

            “Your system is worthless because of its weight. Its protective coverage is small compared to the weight:

            Then why do soldiers even bother to wear helmets?

            ” – especially in a world where the enemies are not all in front of the gunner.”

            Helmet does not protect mid and lower facial areas, so does this mean soldiers shouldn’t wear helmets?

            “The front-heaviness is ridiculous.”

            Didn’t the Roman legion hold their shield in the front? I am sure it was a lot more front-heavy and no, the threat didn’t always come from the front, so it was worthless, according to your reasoning.

          • S O

            Helmet weight is 2-4 lbs depending on(common) type, and this reduces fatalities to fragmentation by about 50%.
            This shield weighs multiple times as much and provides a much lesser protection.

            And for simple reasons of geometry, it’s obvious a shield quite distant to the body provides much less protection in “° covered” than the same shield very close to the body (such as a helmet).

            About ancient shields: Look at ancient shield construction. There’s a “boss” in the centre of all non-convex shields. This allows the grip to be in the centre of gravity of the shield. There’s effectively no lever for this reason.
            This Ajax thing is several inches in front of the fore grip and many more inches in front of the main grip of the weapon. The lever is substantial, and this is what “front heaviness” (not the same as mere heaviness) is about.
            You appeared to look at shoulders instead of hands as hinges, but this doesn’t change much, as Ajax is still much more forward than a shield, particularly as a Scutum can be carried only inches in front of the chest, and Hoplons did even partially rest on shoulders.

            Also, any comparison of this tiny yet heavy something called Ajax with the huge Scutum is quite ridiculous. The Scutum provided about 90% frontal coverage.
            Romans also fought often in close order formations, where shields can even overlap. The last close order formations had fallen out of fashion with modern infantry by 1915.

          • Hyok Kim

            “Helmet weight is 2-4 lbs depending on(common) type, and this reduces fatalities to fragmentation by about 50%.” – S O.

            I agree, but …………

            “This shield weighs multiple times as much and provides a much lesser protection.” – S O

            So helmet provides more protection than the shield? Can average military helmet stop battle carbine rounds which the shield is rated to stop?

            “And for simple reasons of geometry, it’s obvious a shield quite distant to the body provides much less protection in “° covered” than the same shield very close to the body (such as a helmet).” – S O

            You’re obviously not aware of blunt trauma effect.

            If someone hit with a baseball bat on the shield, that would be more damaging to my body than hitting the helmet I would be wearing?

            “About ancient shields: Look at ancient shield construction. There’s a “boss” in the centre of all non-convex shields. This allows the grip to be in the centre of gravity of the shield. There’s effectively no lever for this reason.” – S O

            That doesn’t make the shield front heavy?

            The ‘boss’ in the centre of a shield was still forward of the rest of the shield.

            http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Scutum_(shield)#mediaviewer/File:Scutum_1.jpg

            “This Ajax thing is several inches in front of the fore grip and many more inches in front of the main grip of the weapon. The lever is substantial, and this is what “front heaviness” (not the same as mere heaviness) is about.
            You appeared to look at shoulders instead of hands as hinges, but this doesn’t change much, as Ajax is still much more forward than a shield, particularly as a Scutum can be carried only inches in front of the chest, and Hoplons did even partially rest on shoulders.” – S O

            Front heavy-ness is actually beneficial when firing light machine gun, especially in full auto, as the Germans found out in WW2.

            Here take a look, how that bipod made MG34/42s front heavy.

            http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/MG_34#mediaviewer/File:Bundesarchiv_Bild_101I-721-0386-15,_Frankreich,_Soldaten_mit_MG_34.jpg

            Now, bipod in general is a lot lighter than tripod, which is the reason why it’s put in the way forward of the ammo pouch to make LMG front heavy so as to control the gun especially in full auto.

            “Also, any comparison of this tiny yet heavy something called Ajax with the huge Scutum is quite ridiculous. The Scutum provided about 90% frontal coverage.” – S O

            Yes, scutum provided about 90% frontal coverage of the exposed head, body.

            …and Ajax provides about 90% frontal coverage of the exposed middle, lower facial areas, plus it helps to control the weapon so as to make more controllable and accurate.

            Here is an example, see how the bipod clamp actually goes over the barrel so as to make the gun more front heavy, to make the rifle more controllable in rapid fire

            http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Walther_WA_2000#mediaviewer/File:Walther_WA_2000.JPG

            Front heavy is good, especially for LMGs when using light weight mount.

            “Romans also fought often in close order formations, where shields can even overlap. The last close order formations had fallen out of fashion with modern infantry by 1915.”

            Strange, so why anti-tank guns have side shields? They don’t overlap shields.

            Here take a look.

            http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Anti-tank_warfare#mediaviewer/File:Pak38_cfb_borden_2.JPG

          • Secundius

            @ Hyok Kim

            The German Army of WW2 employed (3) Anti-Tank Missile Launchers. The RPzB.43 Ofenrohr, the RPzB.54 Panzerschreck and the Panzerfaust. Only the RPzB.54 Panzerschreck had a faceshield. It was never designed to protect the soldier from enemy fire, it was meant to protect the soldier from the back-blast of the anti-tank missiles rocket motors igniting. If you look at the shield more closely, its to thin to stop a bullet. And a shield that size to stop a bullet, would have made the weapon to heavy to be man-portable by one person.

          • Hyok Kim

            I wasn’t merely referring to a particular anti-tank gun design. I was referring in the context of the utility of the shield in anti-tank guns for the gunner protection.

            S O explains it for you below.

            “Strange, so why anti-tank guns have side shields? They don’t overlap shields.” – Hyok Kim

            “Because
            (1) They are ambush weapons, their crews are more often able to dictate the geometry of the firefight than infantry.
            (2) The additional weight of a total 8 mm steel plate is easily acceptable on two wheels.
            (3) The shield also conceals the anxious or loading crew’s movements.
            (4) ATG teams are NOT infantry.” – S O

          • S O

            Emphasis on “on two wheels” (and there was even a 3rd auxiliary wheel with some designs, such as 5 cm Pak 38).

          • Hyok Kim

            What does the number of wheels have anything to do with the purpose of armored side shield?

          • S O

            More trolling. Three words, and you choose the one to focus on that’s dispensable.

            Once more, for special needs:

            ON WHEELS

          • Secundius

            @ Hyok Kim.

            I agree with S O. When you talk/write in a non-angry manner, you speech/writing is somewhat disjointed. Like your trying to talk in a normal speech/writing pattern, but your thoughts and command of the language are out of sink. You write with an obvious foreign syntax you speech/writing pattern. But when you get angry, you english is picture perfect. With no trace of foreign origin. Who are you, really. And why are you in this discussion forum. You keep referring to S O, as a troll. I suspect, that your’e the actually troll in this discussion group. And you asking far more questions, then giving answers. WHO ARE YOU, SIR. AND WHAT DO YOU WANT!

          • Hyok Kim

            “I agree with S O.” – Secundius

            I see, now why you are here. You’re S O’s nanny! Gotta let go of those hands and let him/her walk on his/her two feet.

            “When you talk/write in a non-angry manner, you speech/writing is somewhat disjointed. Like your trying to talk in a normal speech/writing pattern, but your thoughts and command of the language are out of sink. You write with an obvious foreign syntax you speech/writing pattern. But when you get angry, you english is picture perfect. With no trace of foreign origin. Who are you, really. And why are you in this discussion forum.” – Secundius

            I thought we’re discussing the virtues (or lack thereof) of Ajax shields, but you are insisting on playing a grasshopper psychologist.

            “You keep referring to S O, as a troll.” – Secundius

            …but I haven’t. On the contrary, it has been S O who kept accusing me of being a troll when I asked him how he/she would clear a jam on MG3 for which he/she claims to have been trained to operate, with the shield placed immediately in front of ammo pouch.

            “More trolling.” – S O to Hyok Kim

            “You’re 100% troll, obviously.” – S O to Hyok Kim

            “I suspect, that your’e the actually troll in this discussion group.” – Secundius

            My profile will lead you to my facebook (but I haven’t posted any pictures, I find it too narcissistic and distract from the ‘gestalt’ of my thoughts like those annoying loud farting music on most of gun videos on youtube) page, where I discuss all kind of subjects with no inhibition of any kind, in the same style (you find so annoying) for the last couple of years.

            There is only one Hyok Kim in Omaha, NE.

            Here is my email, [email protected]

            or you can send me a snail mail if you are quaintly inclined.

            Hyok Kim

            2121 Douglas St. #1005

            Omaha, NE 68102

            or you could call Westbrook Tower apartment manager’s office (you can google it to confirm it is really Westbrook Tower, not some BS number I cooked up, using local friend’s) to verify I live there and ask for my description, 5’7″, 150lbs, 46 years old, of North East Asian male with shaved hair, and wearing Rey Volkov model eyeglasses, who carries shiny Zero Halliburton case most of times.

            I am also hoping you would ask to be my facebook friend.

            How is that for a ‘troll’?

            “And you asking far more questions, then giving answers. WHO ARE YOU, SIR. AND WHAT DO YOU WANT!”

            I want S O to explain how he/she clears a jam on MG3 for which he/she claims to have been trained to operate, and how he/she would clear a jam on MG3 with the shield placed immediately in front of the ammo pouch.

            …and I’m hoping maybe both S O and you to become my facebook friends!

          • Secundius

            @ Hyok Kim.

            I could careless about who you are and/or where you live. My problem with you is, you keep asking ridiculous questions, and expecting us to supply the answers. I answer one of your questions earlier this morning. But apparently you were too wrapped up in he said, she said, argument with S O, too read it. Just look for the word SPALLING in it. And be educated, on the the disadvantages of having frontal shield armour.

          • Hyok Kim

            “I could careless about who you are and/or where you live.” – Secundius

            “WHO ARE YOU, SIR. AND WHAT DO YOU WANT!” – Secundius

            Changing your mind, again, How fickle!

            “My problem with you is, you keep asking ridiculous questions, and expecting us to supply the answers.” – Secundius

            What are ridiculous questions? The one like about how S O would clear a jam on MG3 if the shields are placed immediately in front of ammo pouch per his/her request?

            “And be educated, on the the disadvantages of having frontal shield armour.” – Secundius

            Like your lack of education regarding ceramic and titanium armor?

            “Just look for the word SPALLING in it. – Secundius

            That’s an easy issue to solve, anti-spalling liner. Plus another reason to put the shield far forward to reduce the impact of spalling to the minimum.

          • Secundius

            @ Hyok Kim.

            Why are you adding wheels. Your going from Man-Portable, to Man-Towable. That would add an additional 50 to 60-pounds to the Machine Gun. You going from a Fast Mobile Tactical Unit to a Semi-Static Offensive Battalion Structure. That kinda defeats the purpose, doesn’t it.

          • S O

            He didn’t “add” wheels, merely pointed at (almost always wheeled) ATGs as an example for useful shields.

            A shield doesn’t add 50-100% weight to an ATG, though – as AJAX does to a machine gun. ATGs can accept the shield weight because they’re wheeled anyway. Same as with the PM1910’s Sokolov carriage, which combined a proper shield and wheels.

          • Hyok Kim

            “A shield doesn’t add 50-100% weight to an ATG, though – as AJAX does to a machine gun.” – S O

            Total AJAX system weighs about 9lbs total. Most LMG weigh a lot more than that.

            MG3 weighs 23.15 lb without tripod, 61 lbs with tripod

            I guess you will be complaining about tripod, too, since it adds close to 40 lbs to typical LMG, a lot more than AJAX set up.

            Besides AJAX provides protection to mostly unprotected face, neck, shoulder areas when the gunners are firing from prone. Plus it synchronizes the barrel movement, plus its extra weight gives more stability to the barrel, allowing more controllable full auto burst.

          • Hyok Kim

            “Why are you adding wheels” – Secundius

            …but I am not.

            “Your going from Man-Portable, to Man-Towable.” – Secundius

            AJAX only adds about 9lbs total. A soldier cannot carry extra 9lbs? Even LMGs with just bipod would weigh a lot more than 9lbs.

            “That would add an additional 50 to 60-pounds to the Machine Gun.” – Secundius

            Not so, it’s only extra 9lbs.

            “You going from a Fast Mobile Tactical Unit to a Semi-Static Offensive Battalion Structure. That kinda defeats the purpose, doesn’t it.” – Secundius

            Not with just extra 9lbs.

          • Hyok Kim

            Thanks for the history lesson, but I was referring to the purpose of side armored shield of anti-tank guns. Again, who are you arguing with?

          • S O

            “So helmet provides more protection than the shield?”

            Yes, because a tiny shield far forward is much less likely to stop anything, since most threat missiles will fly past it. A helmet stops a great many weak missiles flying towards the most exposed body part. Protection isn’t the same as NIJ rating or RHAeq.

            “You’re obviously not aware of blunt trauma effect.”

            Lol. You obviously ignore that blunt trauma effect is about soft body armour, whereas a helmet is never soft and ballistic helmets have about 2 cm spacing to the skull.

            “That doesn’t make the shield front heavy?”

            Front heaviness depends on a lever. The lever is almost zero since the ancient shield grip is close to its CoG. http://tinyurl.com/oc3z3yl

            “The ‘boss’ in the centre of a shield was still forward of the rest of the shield.”

            It’s about the hinge = the grip = the hand. The boss allows this to be at the CoG.

            “Front heavy-ness is actually beneficial when firing light machine gun, especially in full auto, as the Germans found out in WW2.”

            It’s shitty 99.999% of the time and offers negligible benefit during full auto.

            “Here take a look, how that bipod made MG34/42s front heavy.”

            I was trained on the similar MG3, and the stance using the bipod makes front heaviness a non-factor. You basically push forward till the bipod grips the ground firmly.

            “Now, bipod in general is a lot lighter than tripod, which is the reason why it’s put in the way forward of the ammo pouch to make LMG front heavy so as to control the gun especially in full auto.”

            This is nonsense. The bipod is often far forward because this means small shooter movements have a lesser effect on the barrel direction (rule of proportion) and the levers are long, thus it’s easier to control bursts.

            “…and Ajax provides about 90% frontal coverage of the exposed middle, lower facial areas, plus it helps to control the weapon so as to make more controllable and accurate.”

            Neither nor. Light machine guns are no duel weapons, not for 1vs1. There are always multiple opponents, usually in multiple directions. Ajax is the equivalent of a buckler shield (with a full shield’s weight!) in regard to coverage.

            “Here is an example, see how the bipod clamp actually goes over the barrel so as to make the gun more front heavy, to make the rifle more controllable in rapid fire”

            Even more nonsense. Bipod hinges above CoG height are meant to help the weapon self-balance to horizontal, thus help avoid the aiming error of canting.

            “Strange, so why anti-tank guns have side shields? They don’t overlap shields.”

            Because
            (1) They are ambush weapons, their crews are more often able to dictate the geometry of the firefight than infantry.
            (2) The additional weight of a total 8 mm steel plate is easily acceptable on two wheels.
            (3) The shield also conceals the anxious or loading crew’s movements.
            (4) ATG teams are NOT infantry.

          • Hyok Kim

            “Yes, because a tiny shield far forward is much less likely to stop anything, since most threat missiles will fly past it.” – S O

            Why should a gunner care about the missile threat flying past the shield? The shield is meant to protect the gunner’s face.

            “Lol. You obviously ignore that blunt trauma effect is about soft body armour, whereas a helmet is never soft and ballistic helmets have about 2 cm spacing to the skull.” – S O

            Another proof you’re ignorant of blunt trauma effect. It isn’t simply about soft body armor. It’s also about concussion to the heads, and the people’s skull and necks can be broken due to blunt trauma caused by concussion to the helmet, and that’s why they keep coming up with better lining materials inside the helmet.

            “Front heaviness depends on a lever. The lever is almost zero since the ancient shield grip is close to its CoG.

            It’s about the hinge = the grip = the hand. The boss allows this to be at the CoG.” – S O

            Nice sophistry, the boss is still far forward of the arm and the shoulder. One has no grip without the arm and the shoulder, which are further supported by the neck, waist, and the hip.

            “”Front heavy-ness is actually beneficial when firing light machine gun, especially in full auto, as the Germans found out in WW2.” – Hyok Kim

            “It’s shitty 99.999% of the time and offers negligible benefit during full auto.” – S O

            That’s how German infantry utilized the concept to control muzzle climb, especially during full auto burst.

            “I was trained on the similar MG3, and the stance using the bipod makes front heaviness a non-factor. You basically push forward till the bipod grips the ground firmly.” – S O

            Then why even bother to put the bipod far forward?

            “Now, bipod in general is a lot lighter than tripod, which is the reason why it’s put in the way forward of the ammo pouch to make LMG front heavy so as to control the gun especially in full auto.” – Hyok Kim

            “This is nonsense. The bipod is often far forward because this means small shooter movements have a lesser effect on the barrel direction (rule of proportion) and the levers are long, thus it’s easier to control bursts.” – S O

            So putting the bipod far forward doesn’t make the gun front heavy? I thought you don’t like front heaviness.

            “..and Ajax provides about 90% frontal coverage of the exposed middle, lower facial areas, plus it helps to control the weapon so as to make more controllable and accurate.” – Hyok Kim

            “Neither nor.” – S O

            It’s obvious from the picture it does.

            “Light machine guns are no duel weapons, not for 1vs1.” – S O

            Had I said it? Who are you arguing with?

            “There are always multiple opponents, usually in multiple directions.” – S O

            Had I said not? Again, who are you arguing with?

            “”Here is an example, see how the bipod clamp actually goes over the barrel so as to make the gun more front heavy, to make the rifle more controllable in rapid fire” – Hyok Kim

            “Even more nonsense. Bipod hinges above CoG height are meant to help the weapon self-balance to horizontal, thus help avoid the aiming error of canting.” – S O

            …and the weight of that far forward placement of the bipod (thus making the whole assembly front heavy) has nothing to do with helping the weapon self-balance to the horizontal, thus helping to avoid the aiming error of canting?

            “Strange, so why anti-tank guns have side shields? They don’t overlap shields.” – Hyok Kim

            “Because
            (1) They are ambush weapons, their crews are more often able to dictate the geometry of the firefight than infantry.
            (2) The additional weight of a total 8 mm steel plate is easily acceptable on two wheels.
            (3) The shield also conceals the anxious or loading crew’s movements.
            (4) ATG teams are NOT infantry.” – S O

            Another word, you don’t deny the utility of the shield?

          • Secundius

            @ Hyok Kim

            Only three armies had wheeled machine gun. The Soviet Army, the PLA and the North Koreans. I doubt your PLA, so yuo must be North Korean.

          • Hyok Kim

            I live in Omaha, NE. Where do you live and what’s your real name?

          • S O

            “Why should a gunner care about the missile threat flying past the shield? The shield is meant to protect the gunner’s face.”

            You insist on the shield facing the enemy. Not all enemies do this favour. Some are 40° to the left or right instead.
            ————–
            “blunt trauma effect. It isn’t simply about soft body armor. It’s
            also about concussion to the heads, and the people’s skull and necks can be broken due to blunt trauma caused by concussion to the helmet”

            Bollocks. That’s concussion, not blunt trauma. Trauma is about pressure = force divided by area => yielding tissue, whereas concussion is about the acceleration occurring due to an elastic shock.
            ————–
            “the boss is still far forward of the arm and the shoulder”

            I already answered this, but you don’t seem to comprehend the texts here well. Even with the shoulder as hinge (and that’s not what people talk about when they discuss front heaviness of guns), a mass with CoG forward of the hand still has a longer lever than a mass with CoG in the hand. The front heaviness still differs.
            ————–
            “That’s how German infantry utilized the concept to control muzzle climb, especially during full auto burst.”
            ————–
            Nonsense. The 2nd hand on the side-folded bipod, exerting a downward force is the (modestly satisfactory) approach to control muzzle climb while standing.
            ————–
            “Then why even bother to put the bipod far forward?”

            I already told you; rule of proportion in force.
            ————–
            “So putting the bipod far forward doesn’t make the gun front heavy? I thought you don’t like front heaviness.”

            Bipod weight is small; few hundred grams with a 11 kg machine gun. But you gave up on logic anyway, for I was telling you front heaviness isn’t introduced to fight muzzle climb.
            ————–
            “It’s obvious from the picture it does.”

            I can only conclude you don’t know what “90%” means.
            ————–
            “”Light machine guns are no duel weapons, not for 1vs1.” – S O
            Had I said it? Who are you arguing with?”

            “Had I said not? Again, who are you arguing with?”

            See first entry of this reply; you imply a 1vs1 scenario.
            ————–

            “…and the weight of that far forward placement of the bipod (thus making the whole assembly front heavy) has nothing to do with helping the weapon self-balance to the horizontal, thus helping to avoid the aiming error of canting?”

            You’re in the wrong level. The balancing motion is independent of whether the weight is a bit in front or behind the top hinge bipod. What matters is whether the weight is raised to the left or right from the stable low position. The longitudinal (barrel) axis is irrelevant for this self-balancing mechanic.

            ————–
            “Another word, you don’t deny the utility of the shield?”

            You’re confused, and this question is nonsense. I wrote about a below sight line shield, and I pointed out how ATG shields are bearable because of the wheels.

            You’re 100% troll, obviously.
            http://www.troll.me/images/full-retard/you-went-full-retard-never-go-full-retard.jpg

          • Secundius

            @ S O.

            No, the shield is there to protect the soldiers face from the back blast of rocket motors igniting, after the missile clears the launch tube. He is not only protected by the rocket motor flames, but his is also protected from the rocket motor gases. Which could be fatal if breathed in.

          • S O

            @Secundius:
            Not sure what you’re replying to. I am a German and know the Panzerschreck and its details.

          • Secundius

            @ SO.

            Sorry, I thought I was responding to Hyok Kim.

          • Hyok Kim

            ” I am a German and know the Panzerschreck and its details.” – S O

            ‘Bollocks’ – S O

            “Bollocks” /ˈbɒləks/ is a word of Anglo-Saxon origin, meaning “testicles”. The word is often used figuratively in British English and Hiberno-English as a noun to mean “nonsense”, an expletive following a minor accident or misfortune, or an adjective to mean “poor quality” or “useless”.

            http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Bollocks

            A ‘German’ who repeated used British-English slang in an American Gun Forum, in merry ol’ England, they call such a ‘German’, a ‘Cod’, meaning a phony.

          • Hyok Kim

            I was referring to the purpose of the armored side shield of anti-tank guns. Who are you arguing with?

          • Secundius

            @ Hyok Kim.

            Go to the beginning of the comment site, and you’ll find your answers there!

          • Hyok Kim

            “I was referring to the purpose of the armored side shield of anti-tank guns. Who are you arguing with?” – Hyok Kim

            “@ Hyok Kim.

            Go to the beginning of the comment site, and you’ll find your answers there!” – Secundius

            Another word, you are trying to pretend I has said stuff you made up.

          • Hyok Kim

            “Why should a gunner care about the missile threat flying past the shield? The shield is meant to protect the gunner’s face.” – Hyok Kim

            “You insist on the shield facing the enemy. – S O

            Okay, so the shield should not face the enemy?

            “Not all enemies do this favour. Some are 40° to the left or right instead.” – S O

            Why only 40° to the left or right instead? Why not 50°? 60°? even 90°? 180°?

            “blunt trauma effect. It isn’t simply about soft body armor. It’s
            also about concussion to the heads, and the people’s skull and necks can be broken due to blunt trauma caused by concussion to the helmet” – Hyok KIm

            “Bollocks.” – S O

            “I am a German and know the Panzerschreck and its details.” – S O

            http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Bollocks

            Strange, a ‘German’ repeatedly using a British slang on an American gun forum?

            Especially, a ‘German’ who claims to have been trained to operate MG3, yet refuses/unable? to explain how he/she clears a jam on MG3 and furthermore how he/she would clear a jam if the shield are placed immediately placed (per his/her preference) in front of the ammo pouch?

            “That’s concussion, not blunt trauma. Trauma is about pressure = force divided by area => yielding tissue, whereas concussion is about the acceleration occurring due to an elastic shock.” – S O

            Another nice word games/sophistry from S O.

            Blunt trauma simply means any wound caused to the body without penetration.

            Here is a definition of Blunt Trauma.

            http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Blunt_trauma

            …and here is a definition of Concussion

            http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Concussion

            Another word, blunt trauma can cause concussion. You shot yourself in the foot, again.or as a ‘German’ who repeatedly use a well-known British English slang, ‘Bollocks’ on American gun forum, you put your foot in your mouth.

            “the boss is still far forward of the arm and the shoulder” – Hyok Kim

            “I already answered this, but you don’t seem to comprehend the texts here well. Even with the shoulder as hinge (and that’s not what people talk about when they discuss front heaviness of guns),…” – S O

            Another misunderstanding with regard to shooting techniques, but then what do you expect from a ‘German’ who repeatedly uses British-English slang, and unable to articulate how he/she would clear a jam on MG3 he/she claims to have been trained to operate! (Btw. in merry ol’ England, where the opportunity to practice shooting on first hand, especially pistols is severely limited, so it’s understandable, and you have my sympathy)

            This is fairly a common misconception among ‘grasshoppers’, that hand/grip is the cornerstone of sound shooting technique, even among rifles, not just pistols.

            The strength of the grip comes from arms, both muscle and bone structures, and the neck/shoulder muscle/bone and to a lesser extent, upper back and the waist and to a further lesser extent from the rest of the body depending on whether prone, sitting, kneeling, standing, standing with sling wrapped around the arm.

            Assuming standing position, the ‘hinge’ is the neck/shoulder/upper back/waist/spine/knees/ankles, especially for the rifles/shotguns, especially further for LMGs.

            “…a mass with CoG forward of the hand still has a longer lever than a mass with CoG in the hand. The front heaviness still differs.” – S O

            Yes, and that’s why experienced shooters lean forward to increase the CoG as front heavy as possible (without losing the balance) so as better control the muzzle rise when firing fast shots, or some competition shooters put extra weight near the muzzle to put the CoG as far forward as possible so long as it keeps the fast handling capability within the acceptable limit.

            This was also true with LMG gunners when firing ‘area suppression’ at ECQB to CQB distance, Only difference was that at ECQB distance (or CQB distance accompanied by long marches), LMGs were used more as a ‘shotgun with buckshots’ often dispensing with the bipod (as employed by USMC), due to bipod weight too taxing for long marches or to improve fast handling, whereas at CQB distance or longer, bipod was retained to control the muzzle rise for more accurate ‘area suppression’, or even improvised sniper use.

          • Secundius

            @ To no one in particular.

            Its about center-of-gravity in relation too the person. Bipod were put at the end of the barrel to-of-set the center-of-gravity when firing full-auto in a prone position. Ask any surviving US. BAR LMG gunner or T31 (a lightweight version of M1919A4 or 6, with a rate-of-fire similar to the MG34/42) 1,200 to 1,500-rpm. That much recoil, is going slam you back really, really hard. So, your going to want the bipod as far forward as possible.

          • Hyok Kim

            “Bipod were put at the end of the barrel to-of-set the center-of-gravity when firing full-auto in a prone position. That much recoil, is going slam you back really, really hard. So, your going to want the bipod as far forward as possible.” – Secundius

            You put your foot in the mouth, again. Bipod was put near the end of the barrel so as to control the muzzle rise, especially during full auto burst.

            Placement of bipod along the longitude along the barrel does not affect the felt recoil transferred to the gunner.

          • Secundius

            @ Hyok Kim.

            I’ve seen both video and illustration, and nothing about the AJAX Shield is “TINY”. What’s your definition of the word “tiny”. Because it isn’t mine.

          • Hyok Kim

            “@ Hyok Kim.

            I’ve seen both video and illustration, and nothing about the AJAX Shield is “TINY”. What’s your definition of the word “tiny”. Because it isn’t mine.” – Secundius

            It was S O who had said ‘tiny’, not I.

            “Yes, because a tiny shield far forward is much less likely to stop anything, since most threat missiles will fly past it.” – S O

          • Secundius

            @ Hyok Kim., about DRAGON SKIN

            Next time you read a report, READ THE ENTIRE REPORT and not just snippets of the report. The tests tampered with by the competing company and NOT by the MAKERS OF DRAGON SKIN.

            The competition switch the ammunition used in performing the tests. BILLIONS OF DOLLARS WERE AT STAKE, and the competition didn’t want too lose the contract.

          • Hyok Kim

            “@ Hyok Kim., about DRAGON SKIN

            Next time you read a report, READ THE ENTIRE REPORT and not just snippets of the report.” – Secundius

            …but I did read the entire report.

            “The tests tampered with by the competing company and NOT by the MAKERS OF DRAGON SKIN.” – Secundius

            How do you the competing company tamper the tests?

            “The competition switch the ammunition used in performing the tests. BILLIONS OF DOLLARS WERE AT STAKE, and the competition didn’t want too lose the contract.” – Secudius

            How do you the competition switch the ammunition?

          • Secundius

            @ Hyok Kim.

            The next time you go online, too do a Google search on your Knowledgeable Expertees Skills on All-The-Things-I-Don’t-Personally-Know-About-In-The-Real-World, Too-Make-Myself-Look-Smarter-Than-I-Actually-Am comments.

            Try looking up: Army Acquisitition Capos Fraudulently Alter Body Armor Test Results, Dated June 12, 2008.
            (http://www.defensereview.com/modules.php?/name=New&file=
            article&sid=1140).

            Don’t let S O read it. He’ll ripe you a Really Big New One.

          • Hyok Kim

            “@ Hyok Kim.

            The next time you go online, too do a Google search on your Knowledgeable Expertees Skills on All-The-Things-I-Don’t-Personally-Know-About-In-The-Real-World, Too-Make-Myself-Look-Smarter-Than-I-Actually-Am comments.

            Try looking up: Army Acquisitition Capos Fraudulently Alter Body Armor Test Results, Dated June 12, 2008.
            (http://www.defensereview.com/m….”

            The link doesn’t work at this time, but I had already checked the page from defensereview’s own web site.

            Defense review ‘claims’ what you told, but not providing proof or facts, only conjectures.

            Here are the facts:

            “House Armed Services Committee members Wednesday accused a body armor maker with falsifying information about its product and making unsubstantiated claims that the Army rigged live-fire tests to set the firm’s vests up for failure.

            During a long hearing that often seemed like a trial, the Fresno, Calif.-based Pinnacle Armor Inc. offered lawmakers no firm evidence to back up its public assertions that Army officials manipulated tests on its Dragon Skin body armor to cover up the vests’ true capabilities.

            Murray Neal, the Pinnacle Armor chief executive, expressed displeasure over a May 2006 Army test and a “pattern of anti-Dragon Skin misinformation” coming from the military. But Neal was unable to provide specific information on wrongdoing done by either the Army or H.P. White Laboratory Inc., a private ballistic research facility in Maryland that ran the tests.”

            “The panel’s hearing came as the Air Force, which also has tested the Pinnacle Armor vests, has opened a criminal investigation into the firm over allegations that it had placed a label on their Dragon Skin armor improperly stating that it had been certified to a ballistic level it had not.”

            “Nonetheless, Skelton seized on written evidence demonstrating that Pinnacle Armor had labeled its armor as certified eight months before the National Institute of Justice, which evaluates the Dragon Skin vests used for law enforcement personnel, actually certified it as meeting a certain law enforcement specification.”

            “During the hearing, Neal asserted that the Army had inaccurately concluded that bullets had penetrated the Dragon Skin armor during the tests, when in fact it had only pierced the surface of the vests. But Army officials later played a video of the same test that Neal alluded to in his testimony, demonstrating that at least portions of the fragmented bullet had traveled through the entire vest.

            Neal, who was featured in the video, said later that the Army showed the wrong test, and disputed that the bullet had actually penetrated the armor. The video showed a large bullet hole on the surface behind the vest.”

            http://www.govexec.com/defense/2007/06/lawmakers-say-body-armor-firm-made-false-claims/24596/

            “The Air Force last year was notified by the National Law Enforcement and Corrections Technology Center that Pinnacle Armor had no body armor certified to meet the National Institute of Justice’s Level III standard. But the armor bought by the Air Force was “clearly and falsely marked” with a label purporting that it met Level III standards, according to written June 6 congressional testimony from Douglas Thomas, executive director of the Air Force Office of Special Investigations.

            The Air Force then directed an independent lab to put the Dragon Skin armor through Level III testing, which the vests ultimately failed, Thomas said. Pinnacle Armor’s CEO, Murray Neal, told reporters on Capitol Hill last week that the National Institute of Justice had “verbally” informed him to affix the label to the Dragon Skin armor. The armor did not officially receive Level III certification until eight months later.” –

            http://www.govexec.com/defense/2007/06/air-force-officials-seek-debarment-of-body-armor-maker/24620/?oref=relatedstories

            Btw. Here is what the true inventor of Dragon Skin had to say about Murray Neal, who had been employed as a salesman and had had no experience in body armors, and the Dragon skin armor itself.

            “Dear Patriot,That was a very nice explaination of force and impact. Here are a few additional points to consider:

            1) All the tiles sit at an angle when flat or when wrapped around the body as they are overlapped by adjoining tiles. It’s called an imbricated pattern or better known as scalar armor. These tiles open a bit as they flex around the body by the tiles pivoting off each other to make the curve.

            2) The tiles are true discuses, where the center is the thickest part, and they have a uniform downward slope of radius co-extensive with a radius or a segment. This is an Independant claim. All other claims are basic public domain concepts dependant upon the first claim. That is they have all entered the market well before the Dragon Skin patents.

            3) The weakest point here is the point between successor tiles offset from the center, whereby you angle the test barrel receiver so that you get a perpendicular shot on the thinnest spot not supported by an overlapping disk. This is the definition of your perpendicular impact discussion.

            4) Currently the armor is not tested this way in respect to the NIJ protocol or in the German lab that recently conducted side by side testing for the NBC Dateline news show. It is tested flat.

            5) For scalar armor to be tested correctly it MUST be set around a fixed target around a test fixture designed to mimick the true wearing of the vest, and then impacted as set forth above so that the weakest point is attacked in a true 90 degree angle and also attacked at an angle to try and take advantage of the slight opening of the tiles as they make the bend around the body.

            6) From what I gather the army did this, and the German laboratory didn’t, as well as any other testing entity that has reported results on Dragon Skin.

            While interceptor plates certainly possess less repeat capability as shown at the German laboratory in what appeared to be true independant testing; remember the uniform thick plannular plates represented by the Interceptor system doesn’t change it’s poition at all while wearing, but the scalar armor does, and that’s why the NIJ has devised a different test for scalar armor. The military has simply taken it two step further; true wearing placement while testing, and extreme environmental conditioning testing. I remember very clearly giving armor to the military to train with, the boys play rough! The armor comes back looking like crap in a short period of time unless it’s built tough.

            The environmental testing is designed to accelerate the aging process. In service life testing and maintenance has become quite common with military body armor world wide.

            Regards,

            Al

            By the way, if you haven’t heard the name Allan Bain before, here’s a little primer.

            The fact is most of Pinnacle Armor’s systems were invented by Allan D. Bain formally of Armor Technology Corp.. Pinnacle Armor started manufacturing after we educated Mr. Neal how to make armor by contract executed in October of 2000 that was fair and honestly fulfilled. Pinnacle Armor and Mr. Neal never manufactured any body armor prior to this date. So if you hear about Pinnacle Armor or the “Dragon Skin” armor being manufactured since 1995 your talking about armor that Pinnacle Armor never made or developed. In fact Murray Neal was a sales representative for Armor Technology from 1997 – October of 2000 a company owned entirely by Allan D. Bain, the true inventor of Dragon Skin.”

            Read more: http://op-for.com/2007/05/yet_more_truth_about_dragon_sk_1.html#ixzz37UEieyB6
            OP FOR

            Another word, the real, original inventor of ‘Dragon Skin’ is agreeing with the U.S. Army on ‘Dragon Skin’.

            “Don’t let S O read it. He’ll ripe you a Really Big New One.” – Secundius

            Why would I worry? He’s your sock puppet.

          • Secundius

            @ Hyok Kim.

            From the 1st Article: Dr. J. Zheng, he doesn’t represent or have any association with H.P. White Laboratories, in Maryland and as far anybody knows he doesn’t actually exist, except on paper. The (7) witness cant’t be found, Karl Masters is not a PEO-Soldier, Col. John Norwood from the US Army, is under criminal investigation and lied about his position in the US. Army.

            Follow-Up Report:
            (www.sftt.org/news/point-blank-body-armor-and-dragon-skin/).

          • Hyok Kim

            “From the 1st Article: Dr. J. Zheng, he doesn’t represent or have any association with H.P. White Laboratories, in Maryland and as far anybody knows he doesn’t actually exist, except on paper.” – Secundius

            “The (7) witness cant’t be found,…..” – Secundius

            …and that is from sftt, defense review and/or watch? Right? Who else can corroborate their story as facts?

            “Karl Masters is not a PEO-Soldier, ,,,” – Secundisu

            Another foot in the mouth, are sftt, defense review and/or watch PEO-Soldiers?

            What makes Karl Masters’ test/review of Dragon Skin invalid, but their tests valid?

            Btw. Col. Norwood was a PEO-Soldier.

            “Col. John Norwood from the US Army, is under criminal investigation….” – Secundius

            ….and that is according to sftt, defense review, and/or watch?

            Who was/is investigating Col. Norwood? and under what charge?

            ” and lied about his position in the US. Army.” – Secundius

            What kind of lies? and how do you know he lied about his position? and who is investigating it? It was back in 2007.

            So that’s the best you can do, hearsay by people who cannot corroborate it and actually sue the US military?

            Here are the facts.

            Murray Neal did lie about getting NJI certification for Dragon Skin. He couldn’t provide a name who gave the verbal authorization, btw there is no such thing as verbal certification from NJI.

            The charge was made by USAF.

            “The Air Force last year was notified by the National Law Enforcement and Corrections Technology Center that Pinnacle Armor had no body armor certified to meet the National Institute of Justice’s Level III standard. But the armor bought by the Air Force was “clearly and falsely marked” with a label purporting that it met Level III standards, according to written June 6 congressional testimony from Douglas Thomas, executive director of the Air Force Office of Special Investigations.

            The Air Force then directed an independent lab to put the Dragon Skin armor through Level III testing, which the vests ultimately failed, Thomas said. Pinnacle Armor’s CEO, Murray Neal, told reporters on Capitol Hill last week that the National Institute of Justice had “verbally” informed him to affix the label to the Dragon Skin armor. The armor did not officially receive Level III certification until eight months later.” –

            http://www.govexec.com/defense

            Alan Bain, the real inventor of Dragon Skin, agrees with the testing by U.S. Army that its flaws are bigger than its virtues.

            Btw. Here is what the true inventor of Dragon Skin had to say about Murray Neal, who had been employed as a salesman and had had no experience in body armors, and the Dragon skin armor itself.

            “Dear Patriot,That was a very nice explaination of force and impact. Here are a few additional points to consider:

            1) All the tiles sit at an angle when flat or when wrapped around the body as they are overlapped by adjoining tiles. It’s called an imbricated pattern or better known as scalar armor. These tiles open a bit as they flex around the body by the tiles pivoting off each other to make the curve.

            2) The tiles are true discuses, where the center is the thickest part, and they have a uniform downward slope of radius co-extensive with a radius or a segment. This is an Independant claim. All other claims are basic public domain concepts dependant upon the first claim. That is they have all entered the market well before the Dragon Skin patents.

            3) The weakest point here is the point between successor tiles offset from the center, whereby you angle the test barrel receiver so that you get a perpendicular shot on the thinnest spot not supported by an overlapping disk. This is the definition of your perpendicular impact discussion.

            4) Currently the armor is not tested this way in respect to the NIJ protocol or in the German lab that recently conducted side by side testing for the NBC Dateline news show. It is tested flat.

            5) For scalar armor to be tested correctly it MUST be set around a fixed target around a test fixture designed to mimick the true wearing of the vest, and then impacted as set forth above so that the weakest point is attacked in a true 90 degree angle and also attacked at an angle to try and take advantage of the slight opening of the tiles as they make the bend around the body.

            6) From what I gather the army did this, and the German laboratory didn’t, as well as any other testing entity that has reported results on Dragon Skin.

            While interceptor plates certainly possess less repeat capability as shown at the German laboratory in what appeared to be true independant testing; remember the uniform thick plannular plates represented by the Interceptor system doesn’t change it’s poition at all while wearing, but the scalar armor does, and that’s why the NIJ has devised a different test for scalar armor. The military has simply taken it two step further; true wearing placement while testing, and extreme environmental conditioning testing. I remember very clearly giving armor to the military to train with, the boys play rough! The armor comes back looking like crap in a short period of time unless it’s built tough.

            The environmental testing is designed to accelerate the aging process. In service life testing and maintenance has become quite common with military body armor world wide.

            Regards,

            Al

            By the way, if you haven’t heard the name Allan Bain before, here’s a little primer.

            The fact is most of Pinnacle Armor’s systems were invented by Allan D. Bain formally of Armor Technology Corp.. Pinnacle Armor started manufacturing after we educated Mr. Neal how to make armor by contract executed in October of 2000 that was fair and honestly fulfilled. Pinnacle Armor and Mr. Neal never manufactured any body armor prior to this date. So if you hear about Pinnacle Armor or the “Dragon Skin” armor being manufactured since 1995 your talking about armor that Pinnacle Armor never made or developed. In fact Murray Neal was a sales representative for Armor Technology from 1997 – October of 2000 a company owned entirely by Allan D. Bain, the true inventor of Dragon Skin.”

            Read more: http://op-for.com/2007/05/yet_
            OP FOR

          • Hyok Kim

            “Helmet weight is 2-4 lbs depending on(common) type, and this reduces fatalities to fragmentation by about 50%.
            This shield weighs multiple times as much and provides a much lesser protection.” – S O

            AJAX shield weighs less than 4lb at the max.

          • S O

            You’re lying.
            They already disclosed the weight here. Plates + mountings for protection against .308 sum up to almost 10 lbs.

          • Hyok Kim

            “They already disclosed the weight here. Plates + mountings for protection against .308 sum up to almost 10 lbs.” – S O

            I had said, ‘AJAX Shield’, not shields plus mounting. AJAX plate, weighs less than 4lbs, even .308 ones.

            “You’re lying.” – S O

            No, but you are. A ‘German’ who claims to have been trained to operate MG3, but cannot explain how to clear a jam on MG3.

            A ‘German’ who repeatedly used ‘Bollocks’, a very common British English slang on American gun forum. In merry, ol’ England, they call such a ‘German’, a ‘Cod’, meaning a phony.

          • Secundius

            Comparing Roman Tactics, too today’s standards. Is like comparing a Firecracker to an H-Bomb, Yes they both explode. But that’s all they have in common.

          • Hyok Kim

            I wasn’t discussing Roman tactics. I was merely commenting on the front heaviness of the scutum. Who are you arguing with?

          • Secundius

            Roman Legion shields had very little metal on them, and the metal used was more for showing the colors. Or legion identification then actual protection. Shied weights were kept low, so that your standard legion auxiliary could care it for long hours of marching. It was meant to stop spears, arrows and bladed edge weapons only. It was next to useless in trying to stop Catapult Shot, Arbalists and Ballistas. Which would have made kindling wood out of the shields.

          • Hyok Kim

            “Roman Legion shields had very little metal on them, and the metal used was more for showing the colors. Or legion identification then actual protection.”

            Even the metal rim? It was to protect the bottom of the shield when resting or dropping the shield momentarily on the ground during combat.

            Also the iron boss was forward of the rest of the shield, and way forward of the arm, shoulder, upper back, and waist which made the shield very front heavy, and wasn’t that the issue S O have about ajax.

            “It was meant to stop spears, arrows and bladed edge weapons only. It was next to useless in trying to stop Catapult Shot, Arbalists and Ballistas. Which would have made kindling wood out of the shields.”

            Had I said not? Anyway, it was gallant of you to come to the rescue of S O, who don’t even know how he/she would clear the jam if the shield were immediately in front of the ammo pouch (per his/her preference for the purpose of avoiding the front heaviness).

        • Secundius

          @ Tactical Revolution.

          Don’t take this the wrong way. But the AJAX is Tactical Evolutionary “Piece of S__t”. No SAW and/or M249 gunner in their right mind would even contemplate using it. First it restricts your forward-field-of-view, and no competent want’s to restrict his vision of the killing zone in front of him.

          You know the US. Military and Government Contractors, can supply you with reams of information on paper. Telling you the merits of the system. But in reality those people who test the equipment, are sitting at home having a cold one after a days work. They’re not the ones fighting in the fields.

          During WW2 the US. Army Air Force, made the claim. That their Ultra-Top Secret Norden Bomb-Sight could accurately drop a 500-pound bomb, from 30,000-feet into a Pickle Barrel in IDEAL conditions. The problem with that statement is, war seldom has, if any IDEAL condition.

          If you want to rick your life on untested, untried and unproven in battlefield conditions new pieces of equipment. Be my guest!

        • Secundius

          @ Tactical Revolution.

          The gunner doesn’t have a clear-line-of-sight, if he’s/her’s using iron-sights only. The only way the gunner has a clear-line-of-sight view is, when the weapon is scope mounted. Both the illustration and the video clearly shows that. Without the scope his/her field-of-view is blocked on either sides by the AJAX Shield System.

    • c

      Are you applying for a job or what?

    • Hyok Kim

      I came late to the ‘party’. S O is a pathological liar who falsely claimed to have been trained as a machinegunner for MG3, yet was unable to explain how to clear a jam on MG3.

      He also has very little first hand shooting experience, based on the asinine remarks he has made.

      He’s a loser from England who has had too much idle time in his hand, maybe he should remember what he used to do with his hands back in high school. (I am assuming he still has ‘one egg roll’ and ‘two crab rangoons’

      • Secundius

        Why are fixated on clearing a cartridge jam on a MG3 Machine Gun.

  • Squirreltactical

    I like it. This could be pretty useful for tail-gunners on birds, or ECP/VCPs. Cool product, guys. Keep it up.

  • gunslinger

    how good is it? thick armor? what’s it raited to stop? 1 .223 round? 5 50cal rounds???

  • Thomas Everett Haynes

    >Named after that guy who killed himself.

    Great job.

  • Czechsix

    Next up: Wheeled carriages!

  • Secundius

    I would think this shield configuration, would limited my forward field of view. And for any Squad M240 and/or M249 gunner need to have an un-obstructive view of whats in front of them.

    • Hyok Kim

      “I would think this shield configuration, would limited my forward field of view.” – Secundius

      So does the gas mask.

      “And for any Squad M240 and/or M249 gunner need to have an un-obstructive view of whats in front of them.” – S O

      They can get see what’s in front of them by simply turning the barrel to the sides as necessary.

  • Christine

    Way to create 2 blind spots!

  • Hyok Kim

    I like the idea of spring/hydraulic set up absorbing the energy of the incoming bullet to make the shield more effective. Reminds me of how earth was used to dampen the blows from the siege machine to protect the walls.

  • Secundius

    @ Hyok Kim & S O.

    Your both right and wrong, at the same time. I’m sorry it took so long to respond to both of you questions. I had to do some digging to find the answers. The problems associated with the AJAX system, is the following. (=mw/2). Simply put, its called “Spalling”. It’s when a fast moving object (e.i. Bullet) slams into a stationary object (e.i. AJAX). In WW1 it was discovered that when a bullet traveling at high-speed at short-ranges, hit a stationary object (like steel plate armor). It causes “spalling”. Simply put, it kinetic energy transfer.
    When Bullet hits Armor Plate, the kinetic energy released is transfered to the armor plate.
    When this happens, it causes the armor plate facing the soldier too break-up and fly-apart.
    Either causing sever injury and/or death.

    A stahihelm or modern ACH – Advanced Combat Helmet or simply “Fritz” Helmet, isn’t going to help you very much. You also need to wear a pair of Ballistic Glasses, made from ALON – Aluminum Oxynitride or Transparent Aluminum Armor glasses.

    Sorry about all the confusions, guys!

    • Hyok Kim

      All one needs is anti-spalling liner in the back side of the armor plate.

  • Secundius

    @ S O, subject Hyok Kim.

    Don’t do it, he isn’t worth the Effort, the Time, the Aggravation, the High-Blood Pressure,
    the Potential Heart-Attack and Stock Value. He’s a Parrot and Brick Wall, all-wrapped-into-one frame PEST!

  • bobby

    Someone has been playing too much Army of Two