Circular Direct Imprintment Gas System

Status
Not open for further replies.
Z

zollen

Member
Joined
Apr 2, 2011
Messages
126
effdis.png


The conceptual diagram is quite self-explanatory.

Advantage of this concept:

1. Utilize the same blow back gas for the entire reciprocating shell extraction and shell feeding cycle.
2. Require less materials to construct.
3. More simple design.
4. Majority of the gas vented through the exhaust port.

Is this concept workable? Do you think this concept is more efficient?
 
Its a complicated way of using a spring?

Also, youd have to cut a channel in the 'gas chamber' to allow it to connect to the BCG. You'll lose pressure through that.
 
I'll be the first to admit that I'm terrible at reading schematics, but it looks to me like depending on where the exhaust port is, the gun would vent gases right in front of the shooter's face.

Of course, I could be interpreting the drawing wrong. If not, though, that's definitely a problem in my opinion.
 
why is there a gas tube on the bolt, when the functional gas tube runs above it?

Also, it would be difficult to time the cycle duration as it is a directly related to multiple factors that would be difficult to control/change. (what about running a suppressor?)
1. diameter of the tube
2. angle and shape of the transitional period of the tube between the blocked off portion and the more open section
3. distance the gas has to travel around the loop.

other thoughts
1. it would be a PITA to clean the gas tube with the bolt and valves in the way
2. if you look at the length of an ar-15 action, and how much distance the bolt travels during cycling, i think the gas tube in your design would get in the way of creating a maneuverable rifle.
 
tyeo098 said:
Its a complicated way of using a spring?

Also, youd have to cut a channel in the 'gas chamber' to allow it to connect to the BCG. You'll lose pressure through that.
Click to expand...
The gas chamber is behind the BCG platform, so it does not get in the way of the BCG platform movement. I am trying to see if I could utilize the same gas for the entire cycle, I admit this concept is more complex than the conventional AR design. Let me think about this....
 
You already have a piston and gas exhaust ports in the bolt carrier group in the schematic, IE, the AR-15 bolt carrier group. Instead of using that efficient and in-line piston to cause bolt carrier movement, you have some other less efficient gas path. The only thing that might work in the whole drawing is the short spring system, but this has been done before in various AR-15 conversions.
 
interesting, but i don't think it would work with the timing of the gas traveling around the bolt, and i don't think the gas pressure would be enough to complete the procedure. jmo of course :)

it's too dependent on gas pressure and timing.
 
I think I can understand what he's getting at though, because on the upper half of the gas tube, you can see where the tube widens, and on top of the BCG, there's a flat plate there used to catch the gas, pushing the BCG backwards into the reciever.

However, like others stated, it wouldn't work because of the reliance of the gas (and who's to say that there'll be enough left over after the round leaves the barrel) and timing (it would be pretty difficult getting the gas pressure down right and tap [see gas problem] along with the mechanical timing of the firearm.)

In-line DI has been around for quite some time. Why change it now?
 
How does it lock?

All the mechanism seems to do is reciprocate the bolt -- which is not the problem with self-loading firearms. The key problem is locking and unlocking the bolt.

The bolt appears to be a knock-off of an AR 15 bolt, complete with gas impingement tube.
 
I think it's good to think about new ideas. He's thinking, and learning, and I feel that's to be encouraged.

Where does the magazine go? Would it be a side feeder, like a Sten, or would the bottom of the gas tube angle or wrap around it?

Why is there a gas key on the bolt if it isn't used?

Where does it exhaust to? Under the handguard? Elsewhere?

Is the whole buffer assembly eliminated?
 
I don't understand why we all keep taking this seriously. This is obviously just some kid playing with MS paint.
Click to expand...

So what? Because he's a novice we should ignore him and not offer our insights and advice? That makes absolutely zero sense. This site exists to offer help and share ideas and knowledge.
 
I think it's good to think about new ideas. He's thinking, and learning, and I feel that's to be encouraged.

Where does the magazine go? Would it be a side feeder, like a Sten, or would the bottom of the gas tube angle or wrap around it?

Why is there a gas key on the bolt if it isn't used?

Where does it exhaust to? Under the handguard? Elsewhere?

Is the whole buffer assembly eliminated?
Click to expand...

I doubt it really matters where the gas tube routes. It could come along the side, as long as it's stable.

As for the key, I'll bet he just cut-and-pasted a picture of an AR bolt for the demo, or copied it without checking its function first. Consider it dampening mass. :)

As with the routing, the venting doesn't matter. If it's not in your face, it can route anywhere else.

This demo appears to eliminate the buffer tube and use the rerouted gas as a delayed return for the bolt. It's an idea, but I propose reworking that spring system.

This is how innovations come along. Curiosity, thinking, and criticism. I just don't think using the gas to move the bolt both directions would work well, but it could be contained to eliminate the problem of crudding up the insides (if you subscribe to that) or in a pressure-controlled locking system.
 
I hope I'm not feeding a troll here and this is an honest attempt at discussion. I see what the OP is attempting; a Direct Impingement system that loops the "bad" gasses back out of the action. The main anti-DI argument is that it is hot and dirty.

I don't think this requirement could be met here. The designer's "BCG Platform" has a valve that pushes the carrier back to a relief point, at which the gas is diverted around the loop. Is there truly a way to restrain the gas inside the system with a moving valve attached to the BCG platform. I don't think there is, thus the heat and fouling from the current DI system is still present, just in a different place and in a more complicated mechanism. No benefit, less efficiency. That's just how I see it in its current configuration.
 
The reason it shouldn't be taken seriously is because this one, and the other one he posted make no engineering sense whatsoever. Most innovations come from people that are either truly genius (very few) or someone that has spent 20 years in the field, learning it.

If you don't have the background, you can't design. One of the first things you learn in a profession is how much you DON'T know. On the previous topic, Sam and I said to him, amongst others, that it was a bad design that made no sense and was inefficient.

Yet, here is another inefficient, circular design.

Also, the OP isn't being straightforward. Why is he set on a circular design? Why does he keep using AR parts in his "drawings"? I have a theory. He probably has a Bushmaster he wants to turn into a pistol by removing the buffer tube and most of the barrel.
 
Its advice that is mostly being ignored.
Click to expand...

So? Sometimes it takes awhile for the lightbulb to click on. Also, we don't know what he's working on or thinking about - maybe our advice and explanations are sinking in, but he's trying to go a different direction.

I just don't see why it bothers you so much. If you think he's just wasting time, with all due respect the answer is pretty simple - stop following the thread.
 
If you don't have the background, you can't design.
Click to expand...

Wow, elitist much? Yes, having a background in engineering would help, but what's the point of shooting someone down just because they've got their training wheels on?

Also, the OP isn't being straightforward. Why is he set on a circular design?
Click to expand...

Why not? Maybe he likes the thought of it, and is trying to see if it would work. He's posted a few different designs because that's how the brain understands things - by looking at it from different angles and sussing out the flaws.


I just don't understand the animosity that's coming out in this thread. If you don't like it, report it to a Mod and let them deal with it if they think he's trolling. Otherwise, why not give the dude the benefit of the doubt? He's obviously interested in firearms, even if he is slightly hard-headed when it comes to accepting advice.
 
Kliegl said:
If you don't have the background, you can't design.
Click to expand...

The OP started insulting me when I asked what his background was. Mods cleaned it up thankfully.


Kliegl said:
I have a theory. He probably has a Bushmaster he wants to turn into a pistol by removing the buffer tube and most of the barrel.
Click to expand...

The OP is Canadian and can't own such things.
Back in April he was asking about a opinions on a Shorty AR....which he can't legally own.
http://www.thehighroad.org/showthread.php?t=584993

http://www.thehighroad.org/showthread.php?t=586939

One month later he is "fixing" the flaws of DI.

I really think its some kid wanting his ego stroked.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top