Innovative and Interesting: Tinck Arms Perun X16

Don’t miss Bloke of the Range’s video of the X-16:

The Tinck Arms Perun X-16 (distributed in the US by AEA Arms) is a much more interesting rifle than I expected from an initial glance. I assumed it would be just another AR-18 derivative, but the truth is much more interesting. Slovenian company Tinck Arms designed the Perun (named after a Slavic god of thunder) to be exceptionally modular – even moreso than an AR, dare I say it. It is also designed to use a lot of standard commercially available parts – AR barrels, gas blocks, bolts, gas tubes, lower receivers (some trimming required here), all AR lower components, and SCAR buttstocks. And yet, the rifle is more than an AR, with a clever gas system and a similarly modular upper assembly.

The gas system is similar to the Halloway HAC-7, but much more refined. It is a short stroke gas piston, but located over the chamber instead of at the gas block. A shortened AR gas tube leads from the (adjustable) gas block back to the upper receiver, thus reducing the amount of reciprocating mass and keeping that mass closed to the center of the rifle. This improves balance over other piston AR type rifles, and it also reduces potential muzzle climb.

Disassembly is exceptionally quick and simple, as is reconfiguring the rifle to different layouts. Since the bolt, barrel, and gas block are all straight AR parts, builds in hipster calibers like 6.5 Grendel, 6.5 ARC, 224 Valkyrie, or whatever new flavor you like are easy to do. Standard factory options are 5.56 and .300 Blackout in the US, plus some additional options in Europe. Note that the lower on the Slovenian version is different than that of the US version. These are imported into the US simply as uppers, and mated to domestic production AR lowers here.

Thanks to Florence of SpaetzleOperator for the guest appearance; you can find him at:
https://www.instagram.com/spaetzleoperator/
https://www.youtube.com/c/SpätzleOperator
https://www.facebook.com/spaetzleoperator/

42 Comments

  1. Comment or not to comment… oh well. Because of my background I feel the urge 🙂

    One thing which gets my attention is top rail and receiver separation; that adds another item and thus cost (fit has to be snug). But it has a good part about it – better access for machining/ measuring and assembly of the steel rails. I do not think they are necessary, but they do not hurt either.

    As far as this hybrid gas thing…. well the sh-t does not get into action and that is a good thing. It could be also done an easier way by just acting right on face of carrier just like the MAS49/56. Designers of this contraption probably know why they did it in this way; it keeps whole thing better packaged and gas overblow under control. Good.

    At the end one has to wonder how much of these 5.56 semi-military toys market can absorb. Be aware – new US Dem. legislation is on the way!

      • “My English comprehension skills are not enough to correctly parse what does impingement [of] impingement mean.”
        ———————–

        I could go simply into a word “impinge” definition but you can do it on your own. Instead I give you my interpretation as the term applies on firearms, specifically on AR5/M16/M4 type of rifles. Linguistically the “word” impinge is to cause tactile impact.

        In essence it is a method how to operate a weapon Action while not implementing conventional piston. Therefore is is a direct action of the gas which is tapped off the barrel and directed to the area where it acts on a mechanism’s key component(s).

        In case of mentioned weapon line the gas is led by tube of small diameter and entered into Bolt carrier compartment where it due to gas expansion simultaneously pushes Carried back and Bolt forward. The result is a)force reduction at contact/lock areas b)causing thru Bolt Pin and Carrier Cam action/ rotation to unlock the breech/ chamber.

        The system as used on the presented rifle is a combination of both, the direct gas impingement and gas pressure to force converting piston.

        • I know what direct impingement system is, like in MAS 49, is, but what direct impingement impingement system is, as opposed to earlier one?

        • Yeah, but…

          I think it would be fairly safe to say that the language surrounding this issue is, at best, opaque. At worst, actively obfuscating the real mechanism.

          I would not say that the Perun is using any form of impingement, whatsoever. What they’ve done, from my perspective on the mechanism? They’ve basically piped the gas back from the gas block into a short-stroke piston, reversing the usual setup. If this were any from of impingement, which it ain’t, there’d be no gas rings on that piston. The Ljungman and the MAT49/56 both basically consisted of a cup to catch the gas piped back from up front, and there wasn’t an internal piston affair like we see on this Perun iteration. It’s a reversed short-stroke action, period. The fact that they’re using AR-15 look-alike parts should not fool you; There’s not a whit of anything even remotely akin to what has been termed “impingement” in the past.

          I’ve always disagreed with the characterization of the Stoner system as “impingement” in any way, shape, or form: That set of gas rings in the bolt, and the fact that the system is supposed to rely on that gas chamber expanding to drive the carrier back? That’s not impingement; that’s a perverted sort of piston-adjacent system, with the piston relocated back into the bolt carrier.

          Direct impingement systems are those like the Ljungman and the MAT49/56; the Stoner ain’t direct, and it ain’t impingement, no matter how many of you stamp your little feet and insist that it is. It is what it is, and that’s entirely unique and (as far as I’m aware…) completely uncopied anywhere else. I dunno if that makes Stoner a genius, an idiot, or what, but that gas system of his is not, I repeat, NOT IMPINGEMENT. I think the best thing to term it is “Stoner System”, and leave it at that.

          The Perun, as I point out, is nothing more than a short-stroke gas system that’s been reversed. Although, maybe you could call it a really short long-stroke gas system, if you squinted really hard and believed in all your heart that it was…?

          I do kind of like it, but I’m less than impressed with the number of fiddly little screws holding it all together. As a first-generation affair, this is pretty great, but I would want to see a lot of development and refinement before anyone passed this thing out on general issue…

  2. I wouldn’t have done the removable top rail either, but in so many other respects this combines most of the features I’ve been hoping to see synthesized into one design for a long time.

    • The design should make it easy to meet the compliance parts count with nothing complex or proprietary, as long as they counted the lower as the serialized component.

  3. Well it looks very well made. It loses the Ar’s “Toy like” size… Though eh, aye it does. How heavy is it out of interest compared to a Ar bit more? Aye.

    So anyway direct impingement Ar… With, no delay. Kind of makes you think what apart from “toy gun” ergonomics was the point.

    I would prefer an AR also like; is the other way of looking at it, no soot in the bolt mind… That silencer is a bit shit.

    Headphones here like. Digital, etc…

  4. I mean was the Stoner gas system, a delayed direct impingement mech… Or was it not?? He he. Anyway, so it was, but why then? Given it did not need to be; ergonomics? I.e. The toy gun.

  5. Legitimate points, MAC lovely fella; is this a direct impingement Ar? Yes… So, what is an actual AR, delayed direct impingement? What is it then. Quite so why, does this not do it? I am saying it should; and keep the “toy gun” ergonomics.

    • Or does the AR do something else, magical even? I mean you can see here this gun is huge in comparison, but apart from that.

      And the straight impact of the bolt, and not giving a smack at the rear via the buffer. Etc. Just thinking what is the point of this now… Heee…

      Anyway techinical point is this guns bolt more heavy?

  6. Modular I hate that term, one size fits all; bollocks. “Not calling the producers, you need to say such bollocks to sell” bollocks though. They do it with planes you know, and it is evidently not true. The big fat fucker can’t be a fighter, or the skinny twat can’t be a bomber; they will keep at it though costing the tax payer mere billions.

  7. Modular f…ing Scar stock P… F… B….. C… f… T… P… loathe it.

    Anyway it looks well made, fair play to them. Out.

  8. Actually I will just clarify; my objection to the scar/this is the added bulk, which I do see no gain from… What is this “Fat” doing, the gun is not better, it can’t shoot satelites etc what do you want a medal? For designing a fat, bulky… Fires f…… Lasers does it.

    I will debate that if anyone wants, or I will just say out… In order not to post 36 hrs of expletives.

    • How does barrel weight compares between “scar/this” and control sample? If it is heavier it might allowed firing more shots before overheating, which I would call advantage.

    • I think the name “perun” was a marketing error. Look at what are names of foreign products destined to U.S. market – they without exception draw on U.S. american folklore. Thus products end up with names like “Liberty”, “Eagle” or by names related to animals living in NA continent like “Bobcat”. You want to sell? Go along with what WE like. That’s the way it is.

  9. The Perun X-16 puts many interesting features together and seems easy enough to manufacture with modern CNC machines. The gas system hybridising a gas tube and a short-stroke piston reminds me of a similar patent I read about fifteen years (?) ago in German DWJ magazine of such a system for modifying AR-15/M16 type rifles. But I forgot the name of the inventor and could not find the patent yesterday, sadly. I am sure other inventors have desinged somethign similar somewhere some time in the past as well already. But nice to see it actually being manufactured.

    But what I really dislike is the diassembly with so many screws. Call me old-fashioned, but I like to clean easily under the handguard because the dirt from the burnt propellant powder gets blown there as well as mud can get stuck there, too. I think it needs a few more design iterations to make it a toolless disassembly IMHO. So far this looks more like a rifle for the civilian enthusiast and for police use. For the military it looks too fiddly with all the screws IMHO. Yes you don’t have to unscrew it for cleaning, but especially soldiers are going to get mud stuck everywhere and you normally do not have a pressure washer at hand to clean out the mud.

  10. Very clever bolt indexing 🙂 far simpler than for example the Colt GMC2 & 3

    Also a nod and a wink to IKEA for the threaded inserts 😉

    Just a thought or three about the steel rail inserts;

    I’m guessing that “nikasil” Sprayed coating on aluminium rails would be too complicated or require too much capital equipment for the small company

    But, are actual rails really needed?

    Both the M3 grease gun Sullivan’s AR18 (the Colt CMG machineguns, and well just quietly tiptoe over the grave of the SA80) simply used round rods to guide the bolt / bolt carrier, removing the need for precise and well finished guiding and bearing surfaces in the receiver itself.

    That short stroke piston and its little gas cylinder, have got me thinking

    The AR10 and 15, with their gas system in the bolt and bolt carrier, do have the advantage of the thrusts all occurring along the centre line of the bore, rather than creating bending moments that need to be resisted by other parts, such as the barrel and the bond between the receiver and trunnion.

    And of using parts which already need to be strong and heavy, rather than adding additional parts

    PDB is right about the sooty bolt carrier, and of course the gas into the firer’s face, from the gas system in the bolt.

    • Pdb is also right in saying, that top section just to facilitate a cocking handle; which you could have at the back like an AR if it wasn’t for… That stock… Makes the scar bulky, doesn’t it Pdb? “It so does Pdb, spot on. And don’t forget they do it with planes.” I know, at the cost of mere billions; I mean that stock… A stock, that is supposed to be progress. “It doesn’t fire lasers?” no.

      I have been watching demo ranch, so I may have picked up 3rd person speaking from him…

  11. Just saying with all the “mud” videos we have watched; I grew to like the Ar cocking handle. Less egress holes for mud, like… To interupt the operation.

    • The more I looked at the Ar & gained more and more of an understanding of it, albeit as it evolved “And the calibre, vitally” the more, I thought… It is actually the best gun. In truth, from the U.S, who’s folk like, know about guns. As originally I didn’t like it “Toy gun” but it became apparent my issue was 5.56mm but then as I learned more I grew to respect the choice of the calibre/gun and thought it was a good idea; overall. Even with short barrels…

      So having come to this conclusion, unless a 5.56mm rifle that is twice as big actually “does something” blows up tanks, quite; I am going to have a hard job liking it.

      I don’t think a “fancy stock” will do much, it may enable a better cheek weld for overweight lesbians; but that is not a consideration I deem relevant.

      Now maybe I am wrong, he he.

      • I might be, I am not tall… Bog standard 5’9″ 1980 height. Times change… So lanky fuckers… Maybe I am wrong. Ar short arse stocks are even older than me… Want to feed them less gmo, hormone, anti biotic mutha fucking feed lanky fat cnuts. Bigger targets, keep short stocks. He he.

      • The AR-15 is a rifle whose piss-poor fielding led to it earning an entirely unjustified reputation for unreliability that’s trailed behind it like toilet paper stuck to the shoe of someone leaving a public restroom. Had they fielded the weapon in peacetime with proper developmental work done, rather than making believe it was an “off-the-shelf” item, ready to go to war? It would have a much different reputation than it does.

        It’s a good design, but it’s also not a design you want to hand off to a military that doesn’t have the proper quality of recruit or the time to train them. For that, you should really be handing out sharp sticks they can fire-harden on their own.

        I entered the US Army with an abiding distaste and utter lack of respect for the M16, based on things I was told by people and what I read in the literature. It took me years to overcome that, and recognize that it’s actually a decent little weapon that will take care of you, so long as you give it minimal care and attention.

        Typical AK? Not what I want to carry into combat. Offer up a Valmet, we can talk. The M76 I owned for a few years was a tack-driving sumbitch entirely different from every other AK I’ve ever fired, and I don’t know if that’s because “Magic Finn”, or some esoteric tuning magic that Valmet pulled off.

          • There were a bunch of things the bureaucracy did that essentially ensured failure. The powder change was just one; the other was not chrome-plating the barrel as Stoner advised they do.

            When you look at the fielding process as it actually happened, it’s hard not to come to the conclusion that they were “programming to fail”, in hopes that they’d not set up a competitor to the preferred SPIW. Doing so put a weapon with a bunch of problems into the hands of troops that relied on them for their lives, and the result wasn’t pretty.

            Frankly, I think that a lot of those ass-clown bureaucrats should have been tried for murder over every one of those young men who were found trying to unjam a weapon with a cleaning kit they’d had to have sent to them from home.

Leave a Reply

Your email address will not be published.


*