Gas Piston vs Direct Impingement Actions


PDA






Tequila jake
February 21, 2007, 12:35 PM
Following is a quote from the Armalite web-site concerning cleanliness of gas piston vs direct impingement actions:

"There is a debate about which system remains cleanest. The Stoner system tends to leave propellant residue in the receivers, while the Piston systems keep the residue outside the action in the cylinder. Piston driven systems, however, tend to allow more external dirt into the action because of the openings required for various connecting members (operating rod, bolt lugs, etc). Comparison tests of the Stoner and the M-14 before Desert Storm confirmed the superiority of the Stoner system in sand and dust tests"

Is the last sentence true/correct? I've always heard that gas piston systems are less likely to jam due to fouling vs direct impingement systems.

Tequila Jake

If you enjoyed reading about "Gas Piston vs Direct Impingement Actions" here in TheHighRoad.org archive, you'll LOVE our community. Come join TheHighRoad.org today for the full version!
ny32182
February 21, 2007, 12:40 PM
Since the entire top of the M14 action is wide open, it wouldn't be too much of a stretch to say that it is at least possible/plausible with the M14, but just about everything else uses a more closed in receiver/dust cover: FAL, all piston ARs, etc. Even the AK has less moving parts exposure....

Tequila jake
February 21, 2007, 02:34 PM
ny13282,

Roger--and the various versions of the AK have an outstanding reputation for continuing to function under the worst of conditions. I have fired many hundreds of rounds from AK47s, AKMs, and AK74s and have yet to have one jam on me.....

Tequila Jake

Ian Sean
February 21, 2007, 02:45 PM
On the Israeli variants of the FAL, they did have "sand cuts" in the bolt carrier to offset the effects of that fine desert sand blowing around.

Don't know of any historical data of any FAL failures in the field, or if these modifications were done "just in case".

Either way, speaking on behalf of the FAL (which I dearly love) the design lends itself to very quick field cleaning, break open the action, remove top cover-bolt and carrier, and brush/clean out any debris. This could be accomplished in a matter of a minute or two.

My .02

atblis
February 21, 2007, 03:05 PM
See Daewoo K2/Dr200. The original gas piston AR. Very good weapons and oft overlooked (also one of the best folding stocks).

jacketch
February 21, 2007, 05:40 PM
See Daewoo K2/Dr200. The original gas piston AR.

And I thought the AR-18 was older than the Daewoo:rolleyes:

rangerruck
February 21, 2007, 07:46 PM
I picke up a keltec plr about 6 months ago, I have fired about 600 rounds through it, and i have yet to even wipe down the inside of the receiver, or the oustside of the bolt assy. still super clean.

atblis
February 21, 2007, 10:30 PM
Forgot about the AR180. I am thinking the Daewoo resembles an AR more though.

Geronimo45
February 21, 2007, 10:39 PM
"I've always heard that gas piston systems are less likely to jam due to fouling vs direct impingement systems." The .223 military round, from what I've read, uses an inordinately filthy powder for maximum performance in a cartridge of its size. Don't think that .308 (M14's food) has such a dirty powder in it. Same goes for the AK.

Then, there's always the chance that the military 'fixed' the tests, to prove that the AR-15 system was the greatest thing of all time.

LittleLebowski
February 21, 2007, 10:43 PM
There is demonstrably more carbon in the bolt and bolt carrier of an AR than on the piston of my FAL.

If you enjoyed reading about "Gas Piston vs Direct Impingement Actions" here in TheHighRoad.org archive, you'll LOVE our community. Come join TheHighRoad.org today for the full version!