sarduy
Member
This may be old news for some of you..BUT is i just find this out while looking at Bushmaster website
Bush master using Gas piston
- Thread starter sarduy
- Start date
- Status
GBExpat
Member
Excellent news, thanks for that! The only thing that I really dislike about the ARs is the Stoner direct gas design. I will now post this and wander over to the Bushmaster site for more info.
Acera
Member
$399.99 and available online if interested.
http://www.bushmaster.com/products.asp?cat=6#GP-GSR
No I don't work for them as a sales rep.
http://www.bushmaster.com/products.asp?cat=6#GP-GSR
No I don't work for them as a sales rep.
scott22
Member
Any effect on accuracy?
Bartholomew Roberts
Member
Eh... the more gas pistons that get out there and actually get shot, the more people are going to learn that AR gas pistons come with their own set of issues.
There are some nice gas piston ARs out there; but just throwing any old gas piston on an AR doesn't necessarily improve reliability or function. Even on the nice gas pistons, the improvements in function and reliability tend to be in fairly niche areas.
There are some nice gas piston ARs out there; but just throwing any old gas piston on an AR doesn't necessarily improve reliability or function. Even on the nice gas pistons, the improvements in function and reliability tend to be in fairly niche areas.
skinewmexico
Member
Imagine that. It would almost make you think the Remington is a re-badged Bushmaster.
Cougfan2
Member
The news about the Bushy gas piston conv. has been out there for a while, but it has some issues. #1 it is only available for 16" barrels. #2 because of the additional heat shielding in the forearm halves, it will only work for the lightweight and M4 barrels and not the standard weight barrel.
An alternative, although not available to the civilian market yet, would be the Osprey Defense gas piston conv. kit.
http://www.defensereview.com/modules.php?name=News&file=article&sid=1109
An alternative, although not available to the civilian market yet, would be the Osprey Defense gas piston conv. kit.
http://www.defensereview.com/modules.php?name=News&file=article&sid=1109
Bartholomew Roberts
Member
Depends on the gas piston; but let's look at the marketing-speak here:
Any random gas piston system isn't inherently anymore reliable than direct impingement. In gas piston ARs, a common issue with gas pistons is that the carrier key shears from the bolt carrier due to repeated stress. This because you are basically unlocking the bolt by pushing on the very top of the carrier. A DI AR on the other hand equalizes pressure inside the bolt carrier so that the push is straight back against the buffer. Because you are still trying to use architecture designed for DI (hole in upper receiver, AR-style carrier), you get a less than ideal architecture for a gas piston system.
Another result of this is uneven wear on the bolt as it dragged against the top of the locking lugs by the same forces. Both of these can and do lead to failures that negatively impact reliability.
Well-designed gas pistons have managed to overcome these problems; but it didn't happen overnight. Even well-regarded systems like the HK416 had years of development behind them... how much development is behind the gas system du jour you are adding to make your AR "more reliable?"
It seems to me that adding several additional moving parts to replace a single non-moving part that is cheap and easy to replace (plus rarely fails to begin with) does not add to ease of maintenance.
Putting aside the issue of whether you want your $0.50 gas tube to fail before your $250 barrel does, what they are really trying to say here is that it will be slightly easier to do the regular maintenance you should be doing to any rifle in any case.
Look at an HK G3. Cleaning wise - the chamber is a pain and gets every bit as dirty as an AR (if not more so), yet it is one of the more reliable rifles out there. Clearly, while too much dirt will choke any rifle. There is a big difference between a dirty chamber and one that impairs function.
Long-term, it will be interesting to see if a well-designed gas piston increases reliability in ARs or lifespan of the rifle; but I think the jury is still out on that (or at least the unclassified jury is still out on that).
Suffice it to say that I am skeptical of designs that claim you can just drop them into your existing AR with minimal work and have it still be an upgrade in performance. Even systems like the HK416 have made significant changes to the upper. I think you are going to have a difficult time shoehorning a gas piston system into an area designed for DI and getting a performance upgrade even in the best of circumstances. Doing it with a drop-in kit seems like even more of a challenge.
cracked butt
Member
That's assuming that remington knows the difference between piston and impingement.
Mr. Roberts,
You offer one of the best arguments against piston retrofits I've come across.
I am mostly interested in a piston retrofit because I like to keep my guns in pristine condition and having that carbon blowing back into my action makes such a mess. (The reliability implied by a cooler, cleaner action is a bonus.)
Regarding the bolt-carrier/top-lug wear concern, post on this thread suggests all of the retrofit manufacturers have addressed that in their designs:
So do you believe these designs mitigate your wear concerns?
You offer one of the best arguments against piston retrofits I've come across.
I am mostly interested in a piston retrofit because I like to keep my guns in pristine condition and having that carbon blowing back into my action makes such a mess. (The reliability implied by a cooler, cleaner action is a bonus.)
Regarding the bolt-carrier/top-lug wear concern, post on this thread suggests all of the retrofit manufacturers have addressed that in their designs:
Ares system uses a new bolt. The Gas key is place further back to balance the BCG. And the BCG is also beefed up in the lower. This prevents the BCG from tilting.
LWRC system uses a beefed up BCG to prevent tilting.
PWS system, the piston rod is connected to the BCG, which prevents the BCG from tilting.
LWRC system uses a beefed up BCG to prevent tilting.
PWS system, the piston rod is connected to the BCG, which prevents the BCG from tilting.
So do you believe these designs mitigate your wear concerns?
I recall seeing a Armalite 180 that used a free floating operating rod on a carrier system that was very similar to the AR.
I would hate to have to take off the handguards on a AR everytime, just to clean out the operating rod area.
I agree that “bandaid” fixes on an existing design may not turn out to be so reliable. It has to be tested. Small design changes can ripple through an entire design, or cause major redesign in order to accommodate the design. You really don’t know how hard mounting a operating rod and relocating the gas port changes the dynamics of the system. Hopefully, it is not for the worst.
Incidentally Military Program managers do this all the time. A system comes out of developmental testing with a lot of failures. The Program Office then says, “oh, these will go away when we make these changes, and these ones, well we can fix them also”. They convince the scoring conference to they toss the failures out of the reliability summaries (to improve the score) because they are going to “fix” them. But they never test the fix. And what do you know, the fix often or not turns out to be a new failure mechanism.
If the chamber flutes in a G3 get clogged up, the system is going down. Breech friction inevitably causes all semiautomatic mechanisms to fail. The G3 design is great in that it is easy to make, easy to disassemble, the carrier weight to bolt ratio is so high, and as long as the flutes are clean, that case is going to be popped out one way or another.
If there is an easy way to clean a G3 type chamber, let me know. I use about a half dozen patches and towels. And I always use a chamber brush.
Bartholomew Roberts
Member
I am not familiar with the Ares or PWS designs; however, tilting is only one area of concern. They also need to address the stress that eventually leads to key shear.
On the LWRC; by all accounts they have a decent system. However, it is not a drop-in kit either. The upper has to be sent back to the factory to have the conversion installed and I know there have been issues in the past with some uppers not lending themselves well to the conversion.
As the libertarians like to say, "There ain't no such thing as a free lunch." You are always trading one benefit off for another in designing any mechanical device. Some companies do this more successfully than others.
If I were looking at a gas piston, I would have two big questions:
1. If this works as designed, what am I really gaining for my uses?
2. What independent evidence do I have that this will work as designed/marketed?
My main point is just that the magic words "gas piston" do not mean your AR will be more reliable than it was. Replacing the DI system with a gas piston and using the same architecture isn't an easy task (thus explaining why H&K and POF have bother changed the AR upper receiver in order to accomodate new parts). I am not saying that somebody doesn't have a reliable drop-in kit - I am just saying that given the difficulties of some major players in implementing that system, I am skeptical about it.
- Status