Remington likes to tout the EtronX as the most significant advancement in rifle and ammunition performance since smokeless powder, a mighty claim indeed. I was wondering is there any "magic" to the EtronX system or not?
It't not "magic", but the concept behind the Etronx is that without a firing pin and moving mechanical parts, except the trigger, there is less motion and therefore more accuracy, it uses an electirical charge (if you didn't read the web page).I don't know how much accuracy you would gain but it would be interesting to see a review of it. It is an interesting idea, but I don't know how accurate it is compared to traditional rifles but it is an interesting idea non the less. It would been an interesting rifle to test but it does cost quite a bit.
It will be fun to hear after-action reports in cold conditions. "I couldn't fire, because a thin layer of ice had formed over the electrode, preventing conductivity" and other similar things should very well be possible =)
Well, these rifles have actually been around for about 5 years (if memory serves me correct). While interesting in concept, I do know that early models did in fact run into problems. But I also know they have worked to address these. As of right now, I do not believe they are working on additional models of this system. That may change.
Which is quite interesting. If they had been able to fix it, it would have been a good idea for target shooting, and LE snipers(they usually don't get as wet and muddy as us mil types do. Otoh, they are lazy gits :wink: )
But, if they aren't currently doing any more models with it, my conclusion is that they weren't able to overcome the problems.
Which wouldn't be a hindrance among military and various well-off LE agencies if it was really offering any benefits over traditional actions.
I think one problem could be that the shooter would have to spend much more time fine-tuning the trigger to get exactly the pressure they want, and to get used to feeling exactly when they will reach the trigger point.
All are good points, and I would have to say/agree that in its current form, it does not offer any "significant" advantage to the sniper, and does provide another failure point. Perhaps Remington would be willing to provide one for review.
Batteries wouldn't be that much of a problem. If you really want to make it so you don't need batteries, it's very easy. You don't need a powerful spark to ignite many blasting caps, so you can easily develop enough current with a resistance system coupled to the trigger. As you push the trigger, the system builds up a current, until it's enough to trigger the spark that ignites the blasting cap.
Sorry about the long absence, I just got a new job and that has kept me kinda busy.
In any case, yesterday at the range of a local Army base I had short conversation about the EtronX with a guy who had tried one out. He hadn't liked much, appereantly the rifle has almost no trigger pull, but he said that apart from that he hadn't been able to tell the difference between the EtronX and an ordinary Remington.
Yeah but think about all the dust, dirt, water, and other debree that would get in there. Water would ruin it if you used a spark that operated off some kind of magnetic device. Probably wouldnt be a consistent burn but maybe primers arent that consistent either. Hey nekekami, how consistent is the detonation of a primer, or does it not really matter?
Yeah, we'd already covered the part about dirt etc, but water is not really a problem for what I was thinking. My idea is to use something like a miniature dynamo, such as on really old bike lights. It wouldn't work exactly like that, but the general idea is similar, and then you have a sparkplug to ignite the primer, so to speak.
As for how consistent primers are in how they detonate, that depends on many variables, but unless you've got some bad primers that are unstable due to having been on a shelf for 30 years or something, it shouldn't vary too much.