I am not an AR guy, but I need your help

[CoalTrain49]

It does seem to get the praise of certain groups within our military.

That's because they're more or less weapons experts and they know what works. They get the weapons they want, not standard issue garbage that breaks down. Their weapons training is probably 4x greater than the average recruit.

The H&K 416-A5 will be the next std. US military combat rifle. The only reason it isn't already is the military commands have control of their individual budgets and aren't locked into spending the money on any one thing in a given year. If they were the M4 would have been replaced a long time ago.

 

[mshootnit]

Why doesn't somebody just take the current Swiss military rifle which I think is superb, scale it to handle a 6.5 Creedmoor and be done with it?

 

[IndianaBoy]

That's because they're more or less weapons experts and they know what works. They get the weapons they want, not standard issue garbage that breaks down. Their weapons training is probably 4x greater than the average recruit.

The H&K 416-A5 will be the next std. US military combat rifle. The only reason it isn't already is the military commands have control of their individual budgets and aren't locked into spending the money on any one thing in a given year. If they were the M4 would have been replaced a long time ago.

An AR NEEDS the gas pressure to push the bolt FORWARD (thus pushing the carrier REARWARD, since the bolt has nowhere to go). This actually unlocks the bolt while there is still FORWARD pressure on it (as it was designed). That's why under normal firing, the lugs don't drag and the cam pin doesn't scrape inside the upper (but does during hand cycling because there is no gas pressure inside).
What's the issues with piston versions?.... yep, you guessed it.... cam pin drag and bolt lug drag inside the barrel extension. Both which the AR design was NOT meant to deal with.


Shoehorning a piston onto a Stoner expanding gas design is an evolutionary step backwards.


It certainly isn't a cost effective solution for the OP.


The idea that because the military uses something makes it somehow ideal for other users is wrongheaded. I don't have much use for a stock Colt M4 although many would suggest that it is a premier product solely due to it's long term military acceptance.

 

[CoalTrain49]

The idea that because the military uses something makes it somehow ideal for other users is wrongheaded.

I agree. That's why I never bought an AR. I started buying rifles in the 70's and still don't have one.

 

[IndianaBoy]

I agree. That's why I never bought an AR. I started buying rifles in the 70's and still don't have one.

Well speaking as a guy who has fired example of both. Including full auto dealer sample external piston driven6.8 SPC short barreled machine guns, as well as a wide variety of traditional Stoner expanding gas rifles, when I am spending my own money on an AR, I am not paying extra for an external piston.

The ONE application where there may be good utility is in extremely short barreled rifles. There isn't enough barrel in front of the gas port to properly charge the gas system on extremely short barrels. Whereas the expansion chamber for piston driven guns is directly adjacent to the gas port in the barrel. That might be why some high-speed-low-drag units have adopted them. They are using 10.3 inch barrels, or something in that neighborhood. Sometimes with and sometimes without silencers. That leads to a wide range of pressure at the gas port during firing of the weapon.



You won't find me giving advice in revolver threads because I don't own one. Perhaps if you don't own an AR, giving advice on ARs might not be in the best interest of the recipient of that advice.

 

[someguy2800]

The military has adopted and subsequently abandoned many stupid ideas. They also do many things that may make good sense to them but no one else on earth, so forgive me if I don't follow their every whim. Moreover I'm not in the US military so I don't see how their battle rifle needs translates to my needs when shooting coyotes.

 

[CoalTrain49]

Shoehorning a piston onto a Stoner expanding gas design is an evolutionary step backwards.

The engineers at H&K would disagree with you about that. They have a lot of experience with military rifles. The USMC is well on it's way to adopting the M27, a piston rifle that has been tested beyond belief. Not bad for an evolutionary step backwards.

 

[IndianaBoy]

The engineers at H&K would disagree with you about that. They have a lot of experience with military rifles. The USMC is well on it's way to adopting the M27, a piston rifle that has been tested beyond belief. Not bad for an evolutionary step backwards.

Yes, ask the opinion of team leaders who have been asked to give up their belt fed M249 and replace it with a box fed IAR.

"tested beyond belief' because they are consistently identifying issues, such as early breaking of bolt lugs and other catastrophic malfunctions. I think the 416 is on iteration 5 at this point.

Military procurement is not a good metric for choosing a rifle for non-military use. Different criteria, purchasing structures, etc.

Are you really suggesting that everyone buying an AR should be sourcing hard to obtain $2500 guns which HK supplies to the US civilian market with many noticeable differences from the actual military supplied guns, the most notable of which is the lack of the hammer forged barrel?

 

[IndianaBoy]

Just because it says HK on the side doesn't make it infallible:

 

[CoalTrain49]

You won't find me giving advice in revolver threads because I don't own one. Perhaps if you don't own an AR, giving advice on ARs might not be in the best interest of the recipient of that advice.

I never gave advice to anyone on which type of AR to buy. I suggested an M1A. You might have me confused with someone else.

I'm just saying the military likes piston rifles and they have given plenty of reasons why they like them. If they were dogs they wouldn't be replacing DI rifles in the militaries and police units around the world. The DI rifle is dated.

 

[CoalTrain49]

Military procurement is not a good metric for choosing a rifle for non-military use. Different criteria, purchasing structures, etc.

Again, I'm not suggesting the OP buy a piston AR. For his needs and budget it probably doesn't make sense.

There have been way more piston rifles in use by the US military since WW2 than any DI rifle. Proven over and over again in just about any scenario you care to identify. H&K isn't the only mfg. building piston rifles. I can think of at least 5 including Colt and LMT.

 

[IndianaBoy]

Again, I'm not suggesting the OP buy a piston AR. For his needs and budget it probably doesn't make sense.

There have been way more piston rifles in use by the US military since WW2 than any DI rifle. Proven over and over again in just about any scenario you care to identify. H&K isn't the only mfg. building piston rifles. I can think of at least 5 including Colt and LMT.

The Stoner expanding gas design has been the standard issue combat rifle for the US military for more than 50 years. Longer than the 1903, the Garand, FAR longer than the M14.

It remains the standard issue. Which isn't particularly relevant because the M4 itself has some design flaws that are mitigated by subsequent refinements that have been largely ignored by the US military.

Military procurement is not particularly relevant for a civilian save one, cost structure and parts availability.

Standard Stoner expanding gas rifles are extremely affordable due to economy of scale, and the whole of the US is awash in replacement parts. Neither of which is true in regards to the various piston designs of dubious merit.

 

[boom boom]

I never gave advice to anyone on which type of AR to buy. I suggested an M1A. You might have me confused with someone else.

I'm just saying the military likes piston rifles and they have given plenty of reasons why they like them. If they were dogs they wouldn't be replacing DI rifles in the militaries and police units around the world. The DI rifle is dated.

Minor point--
Um, the blowback, long and short piston actions precede Direct Impingement in age. French and Swedes were the first to field true gas impingement actions around WWII.
Really, the DI as Stoner envisioned it used the expanding gas as a piston--"This invention is a true expanding gas system instead of the conventional impinging gas system." (from Stoner's patent application.)

Gas impingement whether it was Stoner's version or the French/Swede version can be a quite effective operating system. Short pistons, and long pistons, can too and even blowback can work quite well for some applications. Each have their drawbacks and each system has its strengths. Right now, the rage is for shorter barrels which do not play as well with the Stoner system as developed through the AR which was originally for a 20 inch barrel and a long rifle length gas system. Ammo has been changed to much higher pressure and now the military is seriously considering suppressors as having more uses than simply for Spec Ops folks.

If you are arguing that Stoner's design envelope of the AR 15 (including specifications for things like magwells and magazines, length of cartridge, etc. then I would agree once you depart a great deal from Stoner's original design. You will have to adopt a variety of kludges and work arounds of the original design.

If you mean firing a bog standard M16 A1 or even A2 model firing standard 55 gr issued ammo using the proper propellants, and a rifle length then the design still works for what it is designed to do and a piston rifle system such as the AR 180 that did the same basic things failed when marketed as it was not incrementally better than the std. Stoner design.

 

[MachIVshooter]

I think the US military would disagree with you about that. They seem to think the H&K 416 is the rifle to have. That's an op rod piston rifle.

The only reason the military hasn't ditched the M4 already is cost. Just because a system is more expensive doesn't mean it's inferior. The military has already proven the superiority of the HK416 for their purposes. That's why the M4 was adopted and why a piston rifle will eventually replace it.

I couldn't care less what the military thinks, nor about the opinion of an individual soldier who is comparing a brand new $2,500 rifle with a high mileage $700 unit.

The problems introduced by the op rod are real, namely carrier tilt and bolt lug drag wearing parts and binding things up. A weapon that was designed from the get go to have an op rod is not the same as one which had the op rod system grafted to it. And regardless of subjective/variable durability, op rod guns are heavier and don't suppress as well as Stoner gas system rifles. Those are indisputable facts.

 

[Varminterror]

Ever have a user you would like to put on ignore list, but worry about the bad advice they might offer?

None of this pontification about military contracts and inductive justifications of HK’s design really aren’t apt for the OP’s question. At the outset of this thread, it was clear the OP had been misled by reading junk like this, favoring piston rifles for false reasons. The air has been cleared, and an even more efficient option has surfaced to meet his needs.

 

[CoalTrain49]

Ever have a user you would like to put on ignore list, but worry about the bad advice they might offer?

Nope. But I do worry about people who are offering advice claiming to be building rifles for lots of other people that don't have any profile information, like occupation, location or maybe an 07 FFL.

 

[Coal Dragger]

Ah the HK416 Uber carbine.

A military brass beloved solution in search of a real problem. Fact is DI AR’s run just fine and a piston and is not needed.

Listening to to Primary & Secondary pod casts about the topic of improving the AR with guys who are industry professionals, have .mil procurement experience, or who are .mil subject matter experts has been enlightening.

Military procurement is a mess, and a lot of gear gets selected by dudes who aren’t running it, or to solve policy or maintenance problems with new hardware. The myth of needing to be white glove clean to work for example, results in Joe’s cleaning rifles to the point of absurdity and destructive methods to get moron armorers to accept them into the armory. Somewhere along the way it had been decided that a gas piston gun will “solve” this issue of needing a lot of cleaning. Even though a filthy M4 will still run if lubed properly almost indefinitely.

Former US Army SF NCO Chuck Pressburg said something to the affect that anyone suggesting overly complicated and heavier weapons as a “solution” for already overloaded grunts, should go blow their own brains out in a parking lot. I agree with him. I don’t want a carbine with an extra 1/2lb of bull mess parts added to solve a problem that doesn’t exist. I’ve humped all that gear around before, it’s not much fun and adding weight is not the right answer.

USASOC is headed the right direction with their program of rebuilding uppers with a 14.5” Daniel Defense cold hammer forged barrel with midlength gas system, and a Geissele rail. It’s light, accurate, and proven in testing to be much more accurate, durable, and reliable than the current M4.

 

[IndianaBoy]

Nope. But I do worry about people who are offering advice claiming to be building rifles for lots of other people that don't have any profile information, like occupation, location or maybe an 07 FFL.

If you are passive-aggressively talking about me, I build rifles for myself. Although I have loaned tools and a vice to some good friends plenty of times.

I also don't make assertive statements about a category of weapons that I also strangely brag about not owning.








OP if you have any more questions about going down the Grendel path, feel free to PM me or post again in your thread. My friend who built his around an excellent Sabre Defence barrel had the opportunity to spend some time talking with Bill Alexander at a match, and picked his brain about some of the finer points of the cartridge.

 

[CoalTrain49]

If you are passive-aggressively talking about me, I build rifles for myself.

Not directed at you. Sorry.

 

[MachIVshooter]

Nope. But I do worry about people who are offering advice claiming to be building rifles for lots of other people that don't have any profile information, like occupation, location or maybe an 07 FFL.

Watch the ad hom. One, it's prohibited on these boards and two, you're only going to embarrass yourself. If i were you, I wouldn't challenge Varminterror to a battle of wits or try to engage him in a hostile debate on technical minutia. He knows what he's talking about. I build a whole lot more than just ARs, and I respect his knowledge and opinions. That should tell you something.

 

[Varminterror]

Nope. But I do worry about people who are offering advice claiming to be building rifles for lots of other people that don't have any profile information, like occupation, location or maybe an 07 FFL.

Don’t have to have a 7 unless you are manufacturing the serialized parts. Building and selling AR’s on stripped lowers is nothing more than a gunsmithing activity and firearms dealing. Mine were 1 and 6.

 

[CoalTrain49]

I build a whole lot more than just ARs, and I respect his knowledge and opinions.

Everyone's opinions should be respected. That's the problem with self appointed experts and unofficial moderators.

 

[CoalTrain49]

Don’t have to have a 7 unless you are manufacturing the serialized parts. Building and selling AR’s on stripped lowers is nothing more than a gunsmithing activity and firearms dealing. Mine were 1 and 6.

Not anymore.

ATF’s long-standing position is that any activities that result in the making of firearms for sale or distribution, to include installing parts in or on firearm frames and receivers, and processes that primarily enhance a firearm’s durability, constitute firearms manufacturing that may require a manufacturer’s license.

That requires an 07. But I'm sure you know that.

 

[Varminterror]

Not anymore.



That requires an 07. But I'm sure you know that.

Assembling AR-15’s is not “making” a firearm. The serialized lower is the firearm. Assembling AR’s from other firearm manufacturers is gunsmithing, which requires a Type 1, not manufacturing. You’re inexperienced and wrong in this, and as @MachIVshooter mentioned, you are now embarrassing yourself. When you apply for your FFL and complete your interview, your business is fully disclosed and discussed, the Bureau will ask you to apply for any and all which apply. I was legal in my business as a Type 1 and Type 6, as I was also manufacturing ammunition. Google stupid **** all you want, pretend you know about something you don’t, as if those of us living it and the agents which handled our licenses know less about their business than you.

 

[CoalTrain49]

Assembling AR-15’s is not “making” a firearm. The serialized lower is the firearm. Assembling AR’s from other firearm manufacturers is gunsmithing, which requires a Type 1, not manufacturing. You’re inexperienced and wrong in this, and as @MachIVshooter mentioned, you are now embarrassing yourself. When you apply for your FFL and complete your interview, your business is fully disclosed and discussed, the Bureau will ask you to apply for any and all which apply. I was legal in my business as a Type 1 and Type 6, as I was also manufacturing ammunition. Google stupid **** all you want, pretend you know about something you don’t, as if those of us living it and the agents which handled our licenses know less about their business than you.

Whatever.

This is from the ATF website. I don't have to talk to a ATF agent that may or may not know the regulations, but I can darn sure read.

ATF’s long-standing position is that any activities that result in the making of firearms for sale or distribution, to include installing parts in or on firearm frames and receivers, and processes that primarily enhance a firearm’s durability, constitute firearms manufacturing that may require a manufacturer’s license. In contrast, some activities are not firearms manufacturing processes, and do not require a manufacturer’s license. For example, ATF Ruling 2009-1 (approved January 12, 2009) explained that performing a cosmetic process or activity, such as camouflaging or engraving, that primarily adds to or changes the appearance or decoration of a firearm is not manufacturing. Likewise, ATF Ruling 2009-2 (approved January 12, 2009) stated that installing “drop-in” replacement parts in or on existing, fully assembled firearms does not result in any alteration to the original firearms. Persons engaged in the business of these activities that do not constitute firearms manufacturing need only obtain a dealer’s license.

This may be a really good question for Frank or one of the other attorneys on this forum.

Can a person legally assemble AR's for sale or distribution without an 07 (manufactures) license?