mgregg85
Member
DI for me, seems like a simpler system. Simple is good.
AR: Direct Impingement or Gas Piston?
- Thread starter Eustachius234
- Start date
- Status
chieftain
Member
I guarantee that the next generation of combat rifles will have a piston of some sort, long or short. Go ahead and ask yourself why?
It WILL NOT BE DIRECT GAS IMPINGED.
Why? No engineer would design such an abomination on purpose. Get rid of the heat, we can talk. Until then, give me a piston.
I do hope they put a decent Bolt with a robust extractor this time. Not that toy like bolt presently used. I know of no other combat/battle rifle/carbine where broken bolts are a norm vs an exception. And do we really have to talk about what is jokingly called an extractor?
And of course a larger caliber, 6-6.5mm 90-115 gr @ +/- 3000 fps is the ideal cartridge range to me. The 6.8 or the 6.5 sound about right and close enough to my personal specs.
Most importantly get a weapon where the weapon is not the CAUSE of American troops deaths and injuries. What a concept, for over 40 years American troops have been told, "It jams if you don't clean it". Please, don't give us another weapon with that much of a lubrication/cleaning problem. As we have seen with handguns, we can design weapons that will work with minimal maintenance. Let's do the same for our troops, they are more than worth the cost.
Go figure.
Fred
It WILL NOT BE DIRECT GAS IMPINGED.
Why? No engineer would design such an abomination on purpose. Get rid of the heat, we can talk. Until then, give me a piston.
I do hope they put a decent Bolt with a robust extractor this time. Not that toy like bolt presently used. I know of no other combat/battle rifle/carbine where broken bolts are a norm vs an exception. And do we really have to talk about what is jokingly called an extractor?
And of course a larger caliber, 6-6.5mm 90-115 gr @ +/- 3000 fps is the ideal cartridge range to me. The 6.8 or the 6.5 sound about right and close enough to my personal specs.
Most importantly get a weapon where the weapon is not the CAUSE of American troops deaths and injuries. What a concept, for over 40 years American troops have been told, "It jams if you don't clean it". Please, don't give us another weapon with that much of a lubrication/cleaning problem. As we have seen with handguns, we can design weapons that will work with minimal maintenance. Let's do the same for our troops, they are more than worth the cost.
Go figure.
Fred
Deer Hunter
Member
- Joined
- Dec 26, 2005
- Messages
- 4,097
On the internet, a running AR-15/M16 is anecdotal.
In real life, a jamming AR-15/M16 is anecdotal.
Let us all now beat our chest and bellow loudly, proclaiming absolute unwavering facts.
In real life, a jamming AR-15/M16 is anecdotal.
Let us all now beat our chest and bellow loudly, proclaiming absolute unwavering facts.
chieftain
Member
I have a question I have often asked. I have NEVER received an answer. EVER!
How many of the guys in your unit have to die and get wounded BECAUSE OF THE RIFLE THEY WERE ISSUED, before you would not trust that rifle anymore? Please, give me a number. Nobody will touch it. That is my response to the Gas impinged AR15/M16/M4 family of rifles.
I hear a lot of folks, many on this forum, complain that they will not deal with a gun manufacturer or store because of lousy customer service. I will not trust a rifle because good men I personally knew died and were wounded because of it.
Then again in 2003 we had a convoy essentially wiped out, both dead and captured. One of the reasons was that many of their rifles didn't work. Same story 46 years after I saw it personally.
Many argue that it wasn't the rifle (same story 40 years ago), it was the troops. Got to blame anyone but the idiot that chose that POS Matty Mattel.
For those of you that have served, I redirect you to that above question I posed. What is your answer, please?
And 40-50 years hasn't brought one of those troops back either.
Some body referred to the Army sand tests. The first test he was right the HK came out just marginally better.
IN the second test, where the Army was FORCED to use sand with the small granules as found in Iraq, the HK did substantially better. Some things never change.
I guess, you will believe what you will. I know I am "one of those old Farts" that know nothing. But I know that rifle has failed at least some troops already in the present fighting, it will fail again.
Some things never change. I do wish, if they insist at keeping American troops at risk, that they would at least pick a better caliber, and for God's sake get a substantial bolt and extractor.
Go figure.
Fred
How many of the guys in your unit have to die and get wounded BECAUSE OF THE RIFLE THEY WERE ISSUED, before you would not trust that rifle anymore? Please, give me a number. Nobody will touch it. That is my response to the Gas impinged AR15/M16/M4 family of rifles.
I hear a lot of folks, many on this forum, complain that they will not deal with a gun manufacturer or store because of lousy customer service. I will not trust a rifle because good men I personally knew died and were wounded because of it.
Then again in 2003 we had a convoy essentially wiped out, both dead and captured. One of the reasons was that many of their rifles didn't work. Same story 46 years after I saw it personally.
Many argue that it wasn't the rifle (same story 40 years ago), it was the troops. Got to blame anyone but the idiot that chose that POS Matty Mattel.
For those of you that have served, I redirect you to that above question I posed. What is your answer, please?
And 40-50 years hasn't brought one of those troops back either.
Some body referred to the Army sand tests. The first test he was right the HK came out just marginally better.
IN the second test, where the Army was FORCED to use sand with the small granules as found in Iraq, the HK did substantially better. Some things never change.
I guess, you will believe what you will. I know I am "one of those old Farts" that know nothing. But I know that rifle has failed at least some troops already in the present fighting, it will fail again.
Some things never change. I do wish, if they insist at keeping American troops at risk, that they would at least pick a better caliber, and for God's sake get a substantial bolt and extractor.
Go figure.
Fred
Maverick223
Member
Since price is a non-issue, I would opt for a short recoil operated AR, it works for the 1911 
+1, for accuracy the DI is better, for reliability the piston trumps direct gas
Uhmmm, pretty sure Eugene Stoner was an Engineer (Aeronautics Engineer for Fairchild to be exact), now whether he should have stuck to aircraft is another debate. I think he did better when he designed the AR-18, but that's just me.
chieftain
Member
Until I see the reference, it's vaporware.
I know a lot of folks feel a need to justify direct impingement. Seem to have a lot of emotion tied up in it. But that's all it is.
There is a reason no other major design uses direct impingement.
As to Gene Stoner. The AR system is what happens when a very bright non gun guy tries to design a service weapon. He solved the problem of reciprocating mass, but at what price? He solved one issue and created several others. Hell, on television through an interpreter, he told Klashnikov that he forced him to develope a 30 round magazine for the AR15/M16. Hint, the AK had been around for a lot of years before the AR system.
Think about that for a while.
(I agree about the AR-18. Many folks at the time believe we chose the wrong weapon of the two. Of course the 18 came later after the 15. And of course Colt didn't buy the rights to the AR18. Almost like the idea of, "What if the Mini 14 had come out 10-15 years sooner." Just childish what if's.)
Not if it got YOU dead it ain't! That's absolute. Besides, "One man's anecdot, is another man's........"
AS to my question? Still no answers, just avoidance and excuses. No surprises here.
Go figure.
Fred
for every story of a soldier dying in Iraq because of a jammed rifle, you can tell a story of an AK-wielder dying because of bad iron sights, a sniper given away by a faulty scope, etc. etc. etc.
The weapons we use have last for a good couple decades now, despite the fact that the bolt is more prone to wear due to the extra heat. In 'Nam, the morons who wrote the operations manual caused a good deal of damage, I'd say the real problem was due to crappy mags this time around. Maybe if you used an AR or M-x series of the rifles that are currently in circulation you'd notice a much better performance.
The weapons we use have last for a good couple decades now, despite the fact that the bolt is more prone to wear due to the extra heat. In 'Nam, the morons who wrote the operations manual caused a good deal of damage, I'd say the real problem was due to crappy mags this time around. Maybe if you used an AR or M-x series of the rifles that are currently in circulation you'd notice a much better performance.
Deer Hunter
Member
- Joined
- Dec 26, 2005
- Messages
- 4,097
I'd wager to say more soldiers are killed in friendly fire events than getting gunned down while trying to clear a jam in their rifle.
Or IEDs. How about sending more silly string over to the sandbox? That saves lots of lives.
Maybe better surveillance equipment, unmanned of course.
I'd rather see these things fixed and placed into circulation. The rifle works. Yes, I'm sure there are many rifles "better", but this is the one that we are stuck with. And my children will probably be fielding this rifle, God forbid they have to go to war. I don't see a huge shift anytime soon. The money just isn't there. If something new were to come about, it would be very plastic, hold 50+ rounds, and shoot caseless telescoped ammo.
So we wont be seeing it anytime soon.
Or IEDs. How about sending more silly string over to the sandbox? That saves lots of lives.
Maybe better surveillance equipment, unmanned of course.
I'd rather see these things fixed and placed into circulation. The rifle works. Yes, I'm sure there are many rifles "better", but this is the one that we are stuck with. And my children will probably be fielding this rifle, God forbid they have to go to war. I don't see a huge shift anytime soon. The money just isn't there. If something new were to come about, it would be very plastic, hold 50+ rounds, and shoot caseless telescoped ammo.
So we wont be seeing it anytime soon.
FlyinBryan
Member
no pistons in my rifles ever.
if i wanted a piston rifle, it would not be an ar.
it wouldnt be an ak either. i wouldnt own one unless it was dirt cheap.
then id sell it and get something that would shoot a little straighter.
if i wanted a piston rifle, it would not be an ar.
it wouldnt be an ak either. i wouldnt own one unless it was dirt cheap.
then id sell it and get something that would shoot a little straighter.
Probably. Here's the thing though, it will probably have a piston because the disadvantages of DI seem to outweigh the advantages, in the most general sense. However, this actually has very little to do with the question at hand.
The question at hand is NOT "is DI better than piston", or vice versa.
The question IS "is an AR design retrofitted with a piston better than a standard AR design?"
Basically, if you were designing a 5.56 piston-driven rifle, you would NOT come up with a piston-driven AR. Just slapping a piston into the AR design may not make it better than a DI AR, even if you stipulate that piston systems are better that direct gas. You put different forces on different parts, and you can end up with a whole host of breakage, reliability and wear issues that you never had before, because the parts of the system remaining were designed to operate under completely different circumstances.
Mike
FlyinBryan
Member
actually, im an ar fan and i found it hilarious.
i especially liked the part where he said to be extra careful when field stripping it not to lose any of the parts, as if to suggest it would be unique to the ar not to be able to operate if all the parts werent there.
Zak Smith
Member
Wait-- OH NO! Someone on the internet doesn't like my rifle!
FlyinBryan
Member
is this fact or heresay?
lol, if true thats so funny.
"Delta Force now carries the weapon in combat" (quote from http://www.armytimes.com/projects/flash/2007_02_20_carbine).
If it's good enough for them it's good enough for me ...
Personally, the only rifle I own so far is a M1A. I'd never even consider buying an AR, I shoot them plenty at work. If I bought a 5.56 x 45 mm it'd be something cool and different like a G36 or a Sig 556 and those both use GP if I'm not horribly mistaken (as does my M1A) so I guess my vote is GP.
On a sidenote, off thread I know, I was reading that the Navy SEALs switched to the Sig P226 after having issues with the Beretta 92 and many SOCOM units that have a choice carry 1911s. My point is, I'm no expert, but if the SOCOM guys are choosing to carry something other than the standard infantry weapon (be it a Beretta or a AR) into combat, maybe there's something wrong with the standard issue weapon
If it's good enough for them it's good enough for me ...
Personally, the only rifle I own so far is a M1A. I'd never even consider buying an AR, I shoot them plenty at work. If I bought a 5.56 x 45 mm it'd be something cool and different like a G36 or a Sig 556 and those both use GP if I'm not horribly mistaken (as does my M1A) so I guess my vote is GP.
On a sidenote, off thread I know, I was reading that the Navy SEALs switched to the Sig P226 after having issues with the Beretta 92 and many SOCOM units that have a choice carry 1911s. My point is, I'm no expert, but if the SOCOM guys are choosing to carry something other than the standard infantry weapon (be it a Beretta or a AR) into combat, maybe there's something wrong with the standard issue weapon
Pulse
Member
what I don't understand is how a gas piston would prevent jams that are caused by sand accumulating in a tight-tolerance weapon. The key word for every jam mentioned here is "sand" - how does simply putting a piston on it solve that problem, if sand gets into the weapon even when being unfired and covered?
that is because the government did the same thing they did when they adopted the M16: they ignored certain vital facts and numbers. For example, the government thought the Beretta would be able to handle shooting rounds that operated at pressures not suited for the gun, which caused blow-outs that caused facial and hand injuries to a few testers and fielders of the weapons at first. But after using appropriate ammo and/or strengthening the slide components, the beretta works just fine.
that is because the government did the same thing they did when they adopted the M16: they ignored certain vital facts and numbers. For example, the government thought the Beretta would be able to handle shooting rounds that operated at pressures not suited for the gun, which caused blow-outs that caused facial and hand injuries to a few testers and fielders of the weapons at first. But after using appropriate ammo and/or strengthening the slide components, the beretta works just fine.
Last edited:
Aquila
Member
Well, if you were to start from scratch you would NOT design a DI action. Period. The AR is like an object that I'm interminably infatuated with - the Porsche 911. It's great! It's awesome! But at the end of the day - witness GT Racing - the engine is in the wrong place. The Carrera GT, Cayman and Boxter are all MID-ENGINE not REAR-ENGINE designs. Same with our AR. There was a weight requirement which precluded a downsized gas-piston system from the AR-180.
It does not require "rocket science" to engineer a gas-piston into the AR/M16 but as with any engineering exercise there are details that must be thoroughly understood and properly addressed.
Advantages of Gas-Piston
[1] No carbon build-up IN THE CHAMBER where one is trying to Extract, Eject and Feed another cartridge in a very hot environment.
[2] The chamber temps are lower. This will extend the life of the wimpy little springs for the extractor and ejector.
[3] I don't have a SBR and have no interest in them so even though Gas-Pistons have an advantage here it matters not to me PERSONALLY.
[4] One can go a longer period of time between cleanings due to the CHAMBER not being covered in hard carbon deposits. Yes, carbon will build up on the piston but it apparently is less of a problem there than in the CHAMBER.
I've shot a POF and SL8, handled an HK416, Sig 556, LMT MRP Gas Piston carbine, LWRC M6A2, BFI/POF and CMMG Gas-Piston system. They are all heavier than a DI weapon system. And they are obviously more muzzle heavy, too. Does this matter? I dunno. One has to weigh the "pros" and "cons" and determine for Self.
The days of the US using DI are dying. Is it any wonder no one else designed a DI system in recent history? No, I don't think so. But it's a lightweight system - which has it's own advantages for troops carrying 60 + lbs of gear.
Give me the gas-piston any day of week and twice on the weekends.
It does not require "rocket science" to engineer a gas-piston into the AR/M16 but as with any engineering exercise there are details that must be thoroughly understood and properly addressed.
Advantages of Gas-Piston
[1] No carbon build-up IN THE CHAMBER where one is trying to Extract, Eject and Feed another cartridge in a very hot environment.
[2] The chamber temps are lower. This will extend the life of the wimpy little springs for the extractor and ejector.
[3] I don't have a SBR and have no interest in them so even though Gas-Pistons have an advantage here it matters not to me PERSONALLY.
[4] One can go a longer period of time between cleanings due to the CHAMBER not being covered in hard carbon deposits. Yes, carbon will build up on the piston but it apparently is less of a problem there than in the CHAMBER.
I've shot a POF and SL8, handled an HK416, Sig 556, LMT MRP Gas Piston carbine, LWRC M6A2, BFI/POF and CMMG Gas-Piston system. They are all heavier than a DI weapon system. And they are obviously more muzzle heavy, too. Does this matter? I dunno. One has to weigh the "pros" and "cons" and determine for Self.
The days of the US using DI are dying. Is it any wonder no one else designed a DI system in recent history? No, I don't think so. But it's a lightweight system - which has it's own advantages for troops carrying 60 + lbs of gear.
Give me the gas-piston any day of week and twice on the weekends.
I'll snip out the individual advantages, but will note that DI guns don't carbon-foul enough to affect function. Are they dirtier? Sure. But piston guns aren't pristine either, especially in the chamber, where carbon fouling can and will show up from extraction/ejection. The point remains, neither DI nor piston guns carbon-foul enough to jam the weapon. The AR's reliability issues, such as they are, do not stem from carbon-fouling due to direct gas.
Mike
Zak Smith
Member
I also call into doubt the claim that "carbon build-up IN THE CHAMBER" is a problem of DI guns. I've never seen it to a noticeable extent, nor have I seen it cause a problem even on suppressed SBR's. The DI gas path doesn't even involve the chamber. A suppressor, more than anything else, will cause the chamber to get dirty. I have seen bolt guns get high pressure from these deposits, however.
-z
-z
gvnwst
Member
I will say it again, the best thing for GP rifles is that they are easier to clean. MUCH easier. Likke, i can literally wipe off my parts with a rag, and it is almost totally clean. That is after 300+ rounds in a string...
GBExpat
Member
I greatly prefer GP over DI, primarily because I regularly clean my firearms.
- Status