Self propelled Gas Piston System


PDA






zollen
May 29, 2011, 06:02 PM
http://img146.imageshack.us/img146/7602/m4sdesign.png

Advantages of this piston upgrade kit concept:

1. Same level of complexity as the standard AR gas piston system
2. Zero to Minimum modification required for installing this piston system to any standard AR platforms.
3. The installation of a folding stock on a standard AR is now possible.
4. A custom BCG may also provided so owner would not have to saw off the last part of their standard BCG.

If you enjoyed reading about "Self propelled Gas Piston System" here in TheHighRoad.org archive, you'll LOVE our community. Come join TheHighRoad.org today for the full version!
Dreamcast270mhz
May 29, 2011, 06:18 PM
It looks like there would be a reduction in overall length, as well. People on the AR platform however seem to have a prejudice against gas systems, when a short stroke adds little mass to the the bolt group.

kingpin008
May 29, 2011, 06:18 PM
As mentioned in other threads I'm no whiz when it comes to reading/understanding schematics, but what brings it back into battery once the round has been fired and the case is extracted?

Dreamcast270mhz
May 29, 2011, 06:24 PM
The spring inside the front piston would i presume?

Zane
May 29, 2011, 06:26 PM
To put a spring under the gas tube, like that, it appears that the tube would be outside the hand guard and above the top rail of the upper. That would require significant modification and I would expect terrible carrier tilt. Moving the buffer spring so that the piston pulls the BC forward would also make disassembly/reassembly very difficult as the BCG would need to be fixed to the piston.

zollen
May 29, 2011, 06:40 PM
To put a spring under the gas tube, like that, it appears that the tube would be outside the hand guard and above the top rail of the upper. That would require significant modification and I would expect terrible carrier tilt. Moving the buffer spring so that the piston pulls the BC forward would also make disassembly/reassembly very difficult as the BCG would need to be fixed to the piston.
The front double buffer tubes are half the diameter of standard buffer tubes, the double buffer tubes should be small enough to be fit inside the handguard/rail. The front double buffer tube could be designed such a way for allowing quick detach/disassembly.

zollen
May 29, 2011, 06:51 PM
The spring inside the front piston would i presume?
Yes. I was thinking about two stages piston (front piston and back piston). The spring was designed to push the front piston back to its original position.

zollen
May 29, 2011, 07:47 PM
To put a spring under the gas tube, like that, it appears that the tube would be outside the hand guard and above the top rail of the upper. That would require significant modification and I would expect terrible carrier tilt. Moving the buffer spring so that the piston pulls the BC forward would also make disassembly/reassembly very difficult as the BCG would need to be fixed to the piston.
As for the carrier tilt issue, it would depends on how carrier key cup secures the carrier key in place.

kingpin008
May 29, 2011, 07:50 PM
The spring inside the front piston would i presume?

Yeah...I just realized that the blue slashes = springs. I'mma go sit in the corner for a few...:o

zollen
May 30, 2011, 06:44 AM
Are there any technical limitations about this concept (comparing to the conventional design)?

Shear_stress
May 30, 2011, 08:10 AM
Are there any technical limitations about this concept (comparing to the conventional design)?

Yes. Despite what you say, you have made the AR-15 more complicated. You have added at least two springs, another buffer, some pistons, some device for pushing on the bolt carrier, and a housing to put all this stuff in.

At the same time you have created the following problems: 1.) you've put a spring in a place where it would be exposed to high pressure burning propellent, 2.) you have greatly increased the likelihood of carrier tilt (the Stoner design uses gas to push along the centerline of the bolt carrier, not the top) and 3.) the added complexity will probably require significant dimensional changes to the handguard and upper receiver, negating compatibility with standard AR parts.

All this to address a supposed problem (lack of a folding stock) that hasn't prevented the AR-15 from becoming one of the most popular rifles on the market. Not only that, but the real or perceived drawbacks of the Stoner design have been amply examined in dozens of more elegant designs over the past few decades (in particular, take a look at the AR-180 and its many, many progeny as well as the Daewoo K1 and K2/DR-200).

I appreciate your interest in firearms design and your attempts to be original. But, take the following from someone who spent a few years doing mechanical design and engineering professionally:

1.) Originality for its own sake is fun for the designer, but that's about it.

2.) A successful design is the result of answering a meaningful question or addressing a significant unmet need. It starts with a clear, realistic set of requirements, not vice versa. You need to be much more honest with yourself as to whether the seeming problems you're trying to solve can be done so without introducing many more drawbacks.

3.) I know this is the age of instant gratification, but good design takes a while. Blasting every brainstorm you have across the internet does two things: first, you open yourself up to much more criticism than necessary and second, you negate the patentability of your designs by exposing them to the public before they are protected.

If I were you, I would spend more time learning about the current firearms state of the art. Get your hands on all the guns you can. Shoot them. Tear them apart. Get every firearms book you can and read it cover to cover. Finally, spend a lot more time on the internet asking questions rather than trying to post answers.

Vern Humphrey
May 30, 2011, 11:29 AM
In the diagram, the bolt is not connected to the buffer -- the system is direct gas action, like the current M16 (Note the carrier key cup in the lower drawing.)

The buffer works on the gas system, not the operating parts, so you still need a buffer and return spring for the bolt.

lmccrock
May 30, 2011, 12:20 PM
zollen, forgetting gas/piston/DI for a moment, you need SOME kind of charging handle. Looks like the Carrier Key Cup would not be compatible with the existing design.

zollen
May 30, 2011, 05:39 PM
Thanks for your inputs. Let me clarify my concept (It is not a design)


At the same time you have created the following problems: 1.) you've put a spring in a place where it would be exposed to high pressure burning propellent, 2.) you have greatly increased the likelihood of carrier tilt (the Stoner design uses gas to push along the centerline of the bolt carrier, not the top) and 3.) the added complexity will probably require significant dimensional changes to the handguard and upper receiver, negating compatibility with standard AR parts.



1. The two buffer springs were protected by the sealed heat resistance composite buffer tube casing.

2. I was hoping the carrier tilt issue could be resolved by the carrier key cup secure the carrier key tightly in place. The purpose of carrier key cup is to allow the push rod to push/pull the BCG.

3. I simply rearrange the buffer tube to the front. The only complexity is the double buffer tubes. The two buffer tube would have the same length but much smaller in diameter in order to be fit inside a handguard/rail system. The complexity is not really that much worse than the standard gas piston AR design.

zollen
May 30, 2011, 05:49 PM
In the diagram, the bolt is not connected to the buffer -- the system is direct gas action, like the current M16 (Note the carrier key cup in the lower drawing.)

The buffer works on the gas system, not the operating parts, so you still need a buffer and return spring for the bolt.
If you look closer, you would see the BCG is tightly secured by the carrier key cup so that the rod can push/pull the BCG. The rod also connect with the internal double buffer tubes levers, so when the piston get pushed back, it would also compress the two buffer tubes springs. The rod, piston, BCG and carrier key cup all move as one.

kozak6
May 30, 2011, 06:26 PM
What exactly are you designing? It it a gas-piston upper for an AR-15, or is it a new firearm entirely?

It would be better to flip the piston assembly upside down. It would lessen carrier tilt significantly. Look up the OA-98. You might find it interesting.

zollen
May 30, 2011, 06:37 PM
What exactly are you designing? It it a gas-piston upper for an AR-15, or is it a new firearm entirely?

It would be better to flip the piston assembly upside down. It would lessen carrier tilt significantly. Look up the OA-98. You might find it interesting.
It is a self-propelled piston upgrade kit for standard AR. The kit also eliminate the need of having a rear buffer tube.

MX26
May 30, 2011, 06:41 PM
Why is everyone taking this so seriously? To the OP, good for you for thinking creatively. There's no reason that someone should be excessively berated for attempting to share some casual ideas over the forum. If you have nothing constructive to say, don't say anything at all. Look at all this needless garbage that's been posted in response to both of the recent AR design posts.

kwelz
May 30, 2011, 11:15 PM
It is a self-propelled piston upgrade kit for standard AR. The kit also eliminate the need of having a rear buffer tube.

No it doesn't. Where does the bolt go in your design? It still has to reciprocate. And before you say you can cut down on the carrier, no you can't. The mass of the carrier is very important to the function of the gun.

Rubber_Duck
May 30, 2011, 11:31 PM
The idea is to cut off the rear half of the bolt carrier, cutting it in half and allowing it to reciprocate inside the upper receiver.

kwelz
May 30, 2011, 11:34 PM
The idea is to cut off the rear half of the bolt carrier, cutting it in half and allowing it to reciprocate inside the upper receiver.

Read the rest of my post about Carrier weight.

No to mention you are shifting a lot of the weight forward. This will lead to an unbalanced gun.

xtriggerman
May 30, 2011, 11:56 PM
The off center forces on such a thin op piston rod would more than likely end up with either a fractured or bent rod. Too much push/pull on to thin a rod from off center resistence. Look at how well the Daewoo system is designed with center line forces between piston & recoil. Add to that the massive piston rod bolt key. Your concept is a glass slipper by comparison. Sorry

zollen
May 31, 2011, 06:03 PM
The idea is to cut off the rear half of the bolt carrier, cutting it in half and allowing it to reciprocate inside the upper receiver.
I was thinking a custom shorter version (but same weight and same weight distribution) of BCG provided by this kit... would safe owners from destroying their standard BCG.

kwelz
May 31, 2011, 07:06 PM
How do you plan on making it shorter and still weigh the same?

zollen
May 31, 2011, 07:26 PM
How do you plan on making it shorter and still weigh the same?
There are a number of approaches.

1. Using more dense metal.
2. Redistribution the weight to a new feature of a BCG that would not interfere the normal operation of the BCG.
3. Complete redesign of BCG

kwelz
May 31, 2011, 08:38 PM
1. Using more dense metal. What are you going to use? Depleted Uranium. the BCG is already made out of steel.

2. Redistribution the weight to a new feature of a BCG that would not interfere the normal operation of the BCG. How are you going to do this? There isn't a lot of room to work with here already. Bolts are pretty solid with the only open areas in a place for the hammer and back in the area you want to cut off.


3. Complete redesign of BCG Wow really? So you are going to redesign the Bolt on a proven 50 year old design making it incompatible with most other parts out there to achieve what exactly?



I give up. I know people talk about JMB and others who didn't have a background designing guns. But at least they had some idea ofwhat they were talking about. At this point you are just making stuff up.

I am all for people trying to improve what is out there. You are just trying to come up with a reason to post. Go to school. Learn about design and how these things function and then come back and try again.

zollen
May 31, 2011, 08:42 PM
I give up. I know people talk about JMB and others who didn't have a background designing guns. But at least they had some idea ofwhat they were talking about. At this point you are just making stuff up.

I am all for people trying to improve what is out there. You are just trying to come up with a reason to post. Go to school. Learn about design and how these things function and then come back and try again.
They are all in my original diagram. I did not mention using heavier metal but I did mention this kit could offer a custom shorter BCG. Your answers already suggested you aren't interested in this discussion at all.

You must understand that I would not take you seriously at this point in time because you are one of those who discriminated me out of an extremely silly reason. I am surprise you are still here.

browneu
May 31, 2011, 09:23 PM
You must understand that I would not take you seriously at this point in time because you are one of those who discriminated me out of an extremely silly reason. I am surprise you are still here.


I must be reading a different thread because Kwelz asked some very good questions and was trying to help your design.

Please explain where he descriminated against you. You should take his advice seriously.

kingpin008
May 31, 2011, 09:29 PM
I did not mention using heavier metal

Uh, check your last post on the 1st page. You specifically mentioned using a more dense metal as a possible solution to the weight issue.

Zollen, I have to agree with some of the folks here. It's awesome that you're trying to use your head and innovate, but it seems like you're just starting to re-hash the same stuff without getting anywhere. Perhaps it's time to take a step back and get seek out some info on the designs you're trying to change, and why they became the standard.

Dreamcast270mhz
May 31, 2011, 09:33 PM
Schooling has nothing to do with innovation.

@kwelz

yeah, he is proposing a change to a nearly 50 year old system, but I'm sure Soviet generals said the same about the AK, it messing up the proven bolt action. The M16 and M4 don't have exactly the greatest track record of reliability, when considering the marginal advantages of the stoner system over a short stroke like used in the AUG or the delayed blowback of the FAMAS, it really is not worth it. The SA80 and the M16 share one key problem, less reliable than the rifles they replaced.

kingpin008
May 31, 2011, 09:58 PM
Schooling has nothing to do with innovation.

Not necessarily, but it will help. I'm a big fan of Zollen's efforts, but it is kinda getting to the point where a little knowledge of engineering (even basic principles) is going to be a huge help in moving things forward with his ideas.

zollen
May 31, 2011, 10:01 PM
Thanks for the supports guys. I really means a lot to me after days of beatings.

Shear_stress
May 31, 2011, 10:09 PM
Schooling has nothing to do with innovation.

Yes it does. Not necessarily formal education, but schooling in the sense that:

1.) The inventor actually has a complete understanding of the current technology.
2.) The inventor has the mechanical wherewithal to come up with something that is not only new but has significant advantages rather than significant disadvantages.

Also, let's talk a little about what passes for "innovation". There are already a million and six piston kits and piston-driven, AR-derived guns already out there--including many that eliminate the buffer. What does this thing bring to the table? Instead of trying to come with yet another piston-driven AR, it would be nice if folks set their sights a little higher.

zollen
May 31, 2011, 10:19 PM
Yes it does. Not necessarily formal education, but schooling in the sense that:

1.) The inventor actually has a complete understanding of the current technology.
2.) The inventor has the mechanical wherewithal to come up with something that is not only new but has significant advantages rather than significant disadvantages.

Also, let's talk a little about what passes for "innovation". There are already a million and six piston kits and piston-driven, AR-derived guns already out there--including many that eliminate the buffer. What does this thing bring to the table? Instead of trying to come with yet another piston-driven AR, it would be nice if folks set their sights a little higher.
You mean there are already piston upgrade kit for standard DI AR that could also eliminate the rear buffer tube? Please send us the link.

Shear_stress
May 31, 2011, 10:33 PM
You mean there are already piston upgrade kit for standard DI AR that could also eliminate the rear buffer tube? Please send us the link.

Not that I know of. Including yours, which so far seems to exist largely in your imagination.

And, since I apparently need to help you interpret simple sentances now, there are many piston-driven, AR-derived rifles which don't have a buffer (the Daewoo K1 and K2 for example).

Please do yourself a favor and divert the energy you expend lashing out at constructive criticism toward something more productive.

Vyacheslav
May 31, 2011, 10:33 PM
yes, there is

http://www.quarterbore.com/ar15m16/oa93.htm

Shear_stress
May 31, 2011, 10:46 PM
yes, there is

Interesting. Found this one as well. Amazing what five minutes on Google can tell you:

http://world.guns.ru/assault/usa/zm-weapons-lr-300-e.html

It's currently being resold by Para-Ordnance as the TTR. Uppers are available directly from the manufacturer.

jon_in_wv
May 31, 2011, 10:50 PM
Dude, AR15s are the sacred cow. Suggesting it could be improved in any way is GOING to get you flamed. Whether your idea has merit or not is irrelevant.

zollen
May 31, 2011, 11:01 PM
Please do yourself a favor and divert the energy you expend lashing out at constructive criticism toward something more productive.

I just want to point out I am not trying to invent a completely different rifle, which is what you think I have been doing. If this concept has not yet exist in the market, then I would think this is an innovation. I would love to hear more of your wisdom. :)

Shear_stress
May 31, 2011, 11:02 PM
These are specialize designed assault rifles. Most of their internal components are not even compatible with standard AR.

You are mistaken. It uses a standard AR lower.

Suggesting it could be improved in any way is GOING to get you flamed.

I'll be happy to start the flaming as soon as I see the improvement.

Look, I don't really care one way or the other AR-15. I do have a problem with armchair engineers posting, to put it mildly, tentative designs, making bold claims about the advantages they offer, and then getting pissed when someone dares to challenge them.

Still, despite everything, I appreciate what Zollen is trying to do in principle. He just needs to learn a lot more about firearms before he's ready to start blazing trails.

zollen
May 31, 2011, 11:11 PM
Dude, AR15s are the sacred cow. Suggesting it could be improved in any way is GOING to get you flamed. Whether your idea has merit or not is irrelevant.
I know exactly what you mean.

Shear_stress
May 31, 2011, 11:17 PM
I just want to point out I am not trying to invent a completely different rifle, which is what you think I have been doing. If this concept has not yet exist in the market, then I would think this is an innovation.

I get that you're trying to modify an existing rifle. Still, please spend a little more time working out the kinks before presenting your design. There really are significant technical challenges to what you are trying to do, and you should be aware of them. All the while you should ask yourself if the design represents a real advance over the current field. Honestly, at this point I am not convinced it does.

Despite everything I've said, I do think that you have the potential to come up with something good. However, whether through books, classes, or basic experience you need to be on the ball when it comes to the state of the art. Also, you're going to need to be your own harshest critic to really ensure you've got something worthwhile.

zollen
May 31, 2011, 11:21 PM
I get that you're trying to modify an existing rifle. Still, please spend a little more time working out the kinks before presenting your design. There really are significant technical challenges to what you are trying to do, and you should be aware of them. All the while you should ask yourself if the design represents a real advance over the current field. Honestly, at this point I am not convinced it does.

Despite everything I've said, I do think that you have the potential to come up with something good. However, whether through books, classes, or basic experience you need to be on the ball when it comes to the state of the art. Also, you're going to need to be your own harshest critic to really ensure you've got something worthwhile.
I agree with you.

kwelz
May 31, 2011, 11:22 PM
You must understand that I would not take you seriously at this point in time because you are one of those who discriminated me out of an extremely silly reason. I am surprise you are still here.

So wait. Since I am not telling you how great your idea is I am "discriminating against you" Wow. What are you? 12?

zollen
May 31, 2011, 11:31 PM
So wait. Since I am not telling you how great your idea is I am "discriminating against you" Wow. What are you? 12?
This guy was called out on another board. Here is what we know about him.
He is Canadian, does not own and never has owned an AR, and he has no understanding of the workings of a firearm.

So far he has posted this on just about every major Firearms board. A few have banned him more than once for his BS.

Would you consider this is a discrimination? I think it is.

I am asking you nicely if you have nothing positive to contribute, please do not derail this thread anymore.

Rubber_Duck
May 31, 2011, 11:39 PM
No I don't consider it discrimination. I posted something similar in this thread but it seems to have been deleted by the mods, so I'm not going to pursue the issue. These people have been far more forgiving with you than those on the other boards, particularly the ones you were banned from. So try to appreciate it and learn something here.

Sam Cade
May 31, 2011, 11:45 PM
Would you consider this is a discrimination? I think it is.


That word does not mean what you think it means.


I am asking you nicely if you have nothing positive to contribute, please do not derail this thread anymore.

If you ask for constructive criticism you shouldn't complain when you get it.



But one thing is clear: before attempting to create something new, it is vital to have a good appreciation of everything that already exists in this field.--M. Kalashnikov

kwelz
May 31, 2011, 11:45 PM
Would you consider this is a discrimination?

No it isn't It is stating the truth. You don't have knowledge of what you are trying to speak about. That is an important (and obvious) fact.

The fact that some of the people who have told you that you don't know what you are talking about are well respected members of the firearms community should be a clue.

Once again if you want to do this that is great. But you need to learn a lot first.

zollen
June 1, 2011, 07:09 AM
I thought most of you were having problem seeing me posting my ideas/concepts. If this is not an issue, I shall continue my important works here.

rbernie
June 1, 2011, 07:17 AM
Enough bickering.

Zollen - your ideas are interesting but lack any engineering credibility. You've been allowed to run several threads now in which you present your notions, and in those threads you've been provided with feedback that indicates the immaturity of your efforts. You would do well to internalize those comments.

To those of you that provided thoughtful commentary - thanks.

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