Soldier0117
Member
Who do you think has created the best piston driven AR-15 style rifle. Heckler and Koch with the HK 416, LWRC with the M-6, or Barrett with the REC-7 (6.8 mm.)?
An interesting question would be "Who here has shot all three piston rifles that you mentioned?"
I thought this thread was titled "PURPOSE-DRIVEN AR15", and immediately assumed you were talking about rifles being used in modern church services LOL
Because I don't like rifles that will run reliably only under a running shower of CLP?This seems like a good thread to ask the following question, why do you want an AR-15 with a piston driven gas system?
I don't think it really matters. People who looks for piston driven AR15 does it because of reliability factor. And, reliability of a certain rifle model is one factor that cannot be jusdged by one individual picking up a one specimen and shooting it. Best way is to collect as many user review as possible, and get a statistic.An interesting question would be "Who here has shot all three piston rifles that you mentioned?"
Awww...c'mon! It's the internet!Well since we seem to be sold on the concept that DI cannot possibly be reliable and that it isn't necessary to actually handle a weapon before commenting on which one would be the most reliable rifle, I will bow out of this conversation.
Perhaps we could have some clarification on this? Mine runs fine with only cursory cleaning, as do most AR's I've seen. If you want to pack your rifle with mud, run it over with a truck and run it through a rock tumbler, be my guest. I tend to be a bit nicer to things I invest large amounts of money in.Because I don't like rifles that will run reliably only under a running shower of CLP?
This is one part where common wisdom fails. It's true. You cannot determine a reliability of a certain model by one person firing a single specimen, with a few exception. Most reliable method is to gather statistics from multiple users.Well since we seem to be sold on the concept that DI cannot possibly be reliable and that it isn't necessary to actually handle a weapon before commenting on which one would be the most reliable rifle, I will bow out of this conversation.
I handled M4 while in the military. It cannot have malfunctioned because of improper cleaning, because we clean it until whoever inspects it will find nothing on the Q-tip when they swipe any part with it. Then we lubed it.Perhaps we could have some clarification on this? Mine runs fine with only cursory cleaning, as do most AR's I've seen. If you want to pack your rifle with mud, run it over with a truck and run it through a rock tumbler, be my guest. I tend to be a bit nicer to things I invest large amounts of money in.
Where to start?
Retrofitting a gas piston onto a AR just doesn't make much sense to me: The original works fine and the 'fix' doesn't change the things that are the REAL problem.
When was the last time you saw an AR go down because of gas residue in the bolt carrier? Sand and grit, yes, smokeless powder residue, not so much.
ARs fail to function because foreign debris gets into the works. The minimal clearances and compact design of the upper don't allow the garbage anywhere to go. A gas piston will not help with this problem.
Gas piston retrofits also have problems:
1) Proprietary parts from manufacturers that may or may not be around when it breaks. Anybody still running a Rhino conversion? Got extra op rods?
2) Not proven. I want my SHTF firearms to have been manufactured by the millions. I want Garand ser# 4500000, not 0000004. Bugs get worked out in serial production. Proprietary gas piston systems manufactured in the 1000s (if that many) may never get past the buggy stage.
3) Adverse effect on reliability: Every gas piston system I've seen is using more parts than the system it replaces, a stainless steel tube. Many of these parts are small, of questionable robustness, and have unknown lifetimes. The AR already has too many small parts to get lost and if you've ever dropped a firing pin retaining pin you know what I mean.
The only positive I've seen from retrofitting a gas piston that is that lube may last longer than with DI. OTOH, a properly lubed AR will fire a basic load of 7 mags without needing additional lube. If you're burning more than that without a chance to clean (or at least relube) you should have brought something beltfed, or preferably fire support.
BSW
AR -15 Proven? Of course it is. Proven to still jam after decades of adoption and changes. I'm supposed to be comforted by this?Whole point is, when you go with something new or unknown, you are giving up a massive, almost complete wealth of knowledge on another system
AK-47 - proven.
AR-15 proven, same with FAL and others.
It was plenty unreliable in the in the military range without being in the desert.Speaking of which. AR-15 unreliability in the desert is primarily HK propaganda to push for their piston uppers.
This is not the only problem. 100% for the failures I've observed related to M4 was not foreign sand/grit. The top cause was carbon the DI system sprayed on the inner seizing up the action, followed by poor magazine.Piston AR's offer no solution whatsoever to the sand/grit problem.
If I have an M4 with a seized up bolt carrier in my hand, and I don't have a massive spray bottole of CLP with me, that thousands of pages of written documents will help me how?Just look at the PDF's Barth has posted in the past. That is just a sample of the documents available for the M16 system. There are thousands of pages written for hundreds of tests, done by the military with thousands of rounds of ammo fired. I don't think there's a rifle or system out there with such a massive amount of analysis and testing done. It is the most documented rifle on Earth.
The gas piston works. However they still had to add sand cuts because they would jam in dust. Go google the problems the Israelis had with their FALs jamming.Is it maybe because the FN FAL gas piston design has been so succesful for so many years? Just wondering. . . . . .
Very similar to the problem the FAL had. The bolt is binding in the receiver. Piston ARs and DI Ars use the same bolt. Military bolts are usually parked. Remember the parked M9 mags having issues. They didn't redesign the mag they just redid the finish. Point being it is not just the gas system causing failures.Why? Because the problem lies in the bolt. It has tiny lugs and the fit to the carrier as well as the carrier to the upper doesn't allow grit, sand and dust to get out of the way.
Test Pilot said:You cannot determine a reliability of a certain model by one person firing a single specimen, with a few exception. Most reliable method is to gather statistics from multiple users.