TJ, I know you aren't trying to pick a fight. You're a little passionate, yes and that's ok by me. I get that way too.
The thing about the AR as designed is that as long as it's kept wet, it runs except in the most dire of circumstances. Nearly twenty years ago a friend related his experiences with the M16 he carried in the Army. Blanks are very filthy. After firing a bunch of blanks during excercises, the cyclic rate of his rifle would slow down. He kept a bottle of CLP on his helmet band and when the ROF slowed, he'd give a squirt into the BCG and it'd pick right up again.
As far as the piston rod conversion goes, it still needs cleaning to run. Dirt ends up in a different place.
Added complexity is not synonymous with overwhelmingly complex, but there are extra parts critical to function. An extra 6 ozs. on a carbine is noticeable, at least to me and also to several others I've talked to. I notice the extra weight more than I notice the shift in balance. If I'm going to add 6 ozs. to my rifle, it's going to be in the barrel where it can help handle the heat. Speaking of heat, the op rod gas block runs hotter and keeps the heat at the barrel. TANSTAAFL.
From what I've seen, the op rod conversion functions, but it doesn't make an AR better than it was.
The AR as designed is simpler, lighter, just as reliable and just as durable.
But step back for a moment and study how an AR is put together and how recoil affects the shooter. There is a reason Stoner shortened up the reciprocating mass, placed it as close to the butt as possible and lined it all up with the bore of the rifle and the shoulder of the shooter. He did so while keeping it very simple.
Take a look at the AK. Poor ergonomics, heavy and long reciprocating mass with a good portion of it above the line of recoil and way out in front of the rifle where the shooter's body mass has less control of it. It's obvious why an AK has poor recoil control compared to the AR.
That's why I say adding the op rod to the AR is a step backward in recoil control
The thing about the AR as designed is that as long as it's kept wet, it runs except in the most dire of circumstances. Nearly twenty years ago a friend related his experiences with the M16 he carried in the Army. Blanks are very filthy. After firing a bunch of blanks during excercises, the cyclic rate of his rifle would slow down. He kept a bottle of CLP on his helmet band and when the ROF slowed, he'd give a squirt into the BCG and it'd pick right up again.
As far as the piston rod conversion goes, it still needs cleaning to run. Dirt ends up in a different place.
Added complexity is not synonymous with overwhelmingly complex, but there are extra parts critical to function. An extra 6 ozs. on a carbine is noticeable, at least to me and also to several others I've talked to. I notice the extra weight more than I notice the shift in balance. If I'm going to add 6 ozs. to my rifle, it's going to be in the barrel where it can help handle the heat. Speaking of heat, the op rod gas block runs hotter and keeps the heat at the barrel. TANSTAAFL.
From what I've seen, the op rod conversion functions, but it doesn't make an AR better than it was.
The AR as designed is simpler, lighter, just as reliable and just as durable.
But step back for a moment and study how an AR is put together and how recoil affects the shooter. There is a reason Stoner shortened up the reciprocating mass, placed it as close to the butt as possible and lined it all up with the bore of the rifle and the shoulder of the shooter. He did so while keeping it very simple.
Take a look at the AK. Poor ergonomics, heavy and long reciprocating mass with a good portion of it above the line of recoil and way out in front of the rifle where the shooter's body mass has less control of it. It's obvious why an AK has poor recoil control compared to the AR.
That's why I say adding the op rod to the AR is a step backward in recoil control
