POF P415 Piston AR

[ugaarguy]

You totally lost me at this point. In what way are they "propagating the AR DI myth"?

Phaedrus, the myth is that gas tube AR-10s, AR-15s, and the like are DI. They aren't DI: Read the excerpt below from Eugene Stoner's patent on the AR-10 bolt and carrier:

"It is a principal object of this invention to utilize the basic parts of an automatic rifle mechanism such as the bolt and bolt carrier to perform a double function. This double function consists of the bolts primary function to lock the breach against the pressure of firing, and secondarily, to act as a stationary piston to actuate the automatic rifle mechanism. The primary function of the bolt carrier is to lock and unlock the bolt by rotating it and to carry it back and forth in the receiver. The secondary function of the bolt carrier is to act as a movable cylinder to actuate the automatic rifle mechanism. By having the bolt carrier act as a movable cylinder and the bolt act as a stationary piston, the need for a conventional gas cylinder, piston and actuating rod assembly is eliminated."
Ref - https://www.google.com/patents/US29...a=X&ei=EBQ7VNSyM9C6ggTCzYKADw&ved=0CB8Q6AEwAA

Hopefully that clears up some of what MachIV is trying to explain.

 

[HammsBeer]

Does the POF have a tool less quick adjust gas block? That would come in very handy if you live in a state that allows suppressors. Thats also where a GP design shines over DI, you only get the gas needed to run the gun without overgassing in the face like DI and the associated harder wear on the gun. My Adams Arms has 3 settings (full power, suppressed, off) but unfortunately I live in a suppressor ban state.

As far as DI terminology, yes it's technically a piston design, but people just refer to it as DI to avoid confusion when comparing gas systems. I suppose if you want to be accurate you could call DI an internal piston system and GP an external piston system. But thats very wordy so DI and GP are just easier acronyms.

 

[MachIVshooter]

You totally lost me at this point. In what way are they "propagating the AR DI myth"? Is the existence of their product to be taken as a challenge to the right of DI guns to be sold? Or are you referring to some statement the company has made elsewhere?

It's here: http://www.pof-usa.com/pof-gas-piston-system.html

The Stoner Direct Gas Impingement AR-15 (in one variation or another) has been in continuous service with the US military for over 40 years. This is a long time and a testament to the design; however, it’s not without its faults.

When a round is fired, a portion of the gas produced by the burning gunpowder is vented into the gas block, (usually integrated in the base of the front sight). Here the gas does a 180-degree turn down the gas tube, back into the upper receiver, through the gas key, and is finally injected directly into the bolt carrier group under sufficient pressure to operate the action. There are a series of problems associated with this design: carbon fouling, continuous lubrication, and timing issues with short-barreled variants.

 

[boricua9mm]

I'm not sure it's so much 'what problem does it solve' as which rifle do you like best. But it's less of a chore to clean a piston gun.

Across multiple designs, I have not found guns with barrel-mounted gas pistons to be any "cleaner" than the traditional AR15. That is to say that every rifle takes a dump somewhere, it's just a matter of where.

Whenever I hear people talk about "cleaner running piston guns" I usually find out that they are oblivious to the fact that they must maintain the gas system or it too will cause problems down the road.

When I clean my M1A's gas system, it's a dirty, filthy SOB. Same goes for cleaning the AUG's gas system. The AK's gas block...the list goes on.

Personally, I find that I can detail clean an AR much quicker than I can any other design. The AK is quick to clean too, but the more advanced gas piston systems involve more components, and with that complexity comes the PITA factor.

 

[Archangel14]

Just to be straight, I've got nothing against DI rifles. I just thought that a piston rifle would be very cool and may offer better reliability in the long run. I also failed to mention that I live in a desert. One good wind storm and it could ruin my day. I guess there's a reason that the Israeli's called the piston driven AK47 the "Lion of the Desert" in one of their most recent wars (1972?). As much as I do not care for the AK platform, I think we can take it as gospel that it is a very reliable design. I would also venture to say that, generally speaking, the AK is accepted as more reliable than the AR. Or at least less prone to problems. Could this be mainly because the AK uses a piston? If so, then would a GP AR mimic the same reliability?

Across multiple designs, I have not found guns with barrel-mounted gas pistons to be any "cleaner" than the traditional AR15. That is to say that every rifle takes a dump somewhere, it's just a matter of where.

Yes, I agree. But the other factor I consider is WHERE all the crap gets dumped. It always bothers me when I open the AR after a day of shooting and stare at all the garbage dumped in the receiver, with a black bolt covered in crude. Again, I consider the DI system reliable. But for me the questions becomes, "which is more reliable after shooting all day in 110 degree desert conditions? Which will likely fail first for lack of cleaning?" I think I'm hard pressed to find that the DI is comparable to the GP system in that simple regard. I think...

 

[MachIVshooter]

I would also venture to say that, generally speaking, the AK is accepted as more reliable than the AR. Or at least less prone to problems. Could this be mainly because the AK uses a piston? If so, then would a GP AR mimic the same reliability?

Accepted dogma ≠ truth.

Any actual reliability advantage the AK has is owed to very generous tolerances, not the gas system. It is the same feature that leaves the design lacking in accuracy.

Having said that, the AR has been vetted, ripped up, reverse and re-engineered to a point that few other designs have. In my personal experience with having owned 4 AKs and 8 ARs, the ARs proved superior in every way, reliability included. Only the cheap WASR was a jam-free rifle.

But for me the questions becomes, "which is more reliable after shooting all day in 110 degree desert conditions? Which will likely fail first for lack of cleaning?" I think I'm hard pressed to find that the DI is comparable to the GP system in that simple regard. I think...

If there's sand in your gas system, you have bigger problems. To that end, however, you'd be more likely to end up with abrading sand particulate in an op rod design than the Stoner system, as it is less sealed/shielded from the elements.

If you're going to be playing in high winds & dusty environments, remember that the dust cover was designed for a reason.

 

[Jackal]

Honestly, with quality piston rifles being so near the price range of any other DI high end AR, it all comes down to personal preference. I may buy a piston gun one of these days just for something different, even though Ive never had a bad DI AR.

 

[MCMXI]

As someone who owns two POFs, two conventional ARs (both excellent), a Vz.58, an FAL and a Ruger Mini 14 I feel that each platform has it's own advantages and disadvantages. I've only convinced one person to buy a POF P415 but every single person who has handled/shot either of my POFs has stated that they want one, but that's not an uncommon reaction for other firearms I own either. There are so many good ARs available now with prices ranging anywhere from $500 to $4000. I didn't look for THR approval before I bought my POFs four or five years ago and I don't look for THR acceptance of them now. They're good ARs, they're accurate, they work, they're reliable, they're easy to clean, they're expensive. I don't give the whole 'parts availability' argument a second thought. POF has been around for quite a few years and there are plenty of parts on their website. There's nothing stopping perspective buyers from stocking up on all of those parts that are supposed to break. Ultimately, the best reason to buy a POF is because you want one. If your life depends on your choice you should put as much thought into your choice as possible. If it doesn't, then "want" is all that matters.

 

[Archangel14]

The POF "Puritan" is running $1,450 at my LGS. EVERY Daniels Defense DI gun at my LGS is running more than that. If I decide to go into the plus-$1,000 range and can get the POF for that price, I really have to consider it. It appears that it is a high quality firearm.

 

[MCMXI]

Just be aware of the fact that the Puritan is an entry level POF lacking some of the features of the higher end models. You might get more for your money buying a higher end DD for the same or similar amount.

 

[Archangel14]

Just be aware of the fact that the Puritan is an entry level POF lacking some of the features

Yes, you are correct it that the Puritan lacks many of the features that you'd find on the 415. But they're features that I don't need to have. The Puritan still has the same GP system as found on the higher end models and the "E2" ejection system. That's looks like a pretty good idea (or bad, I wouldn't know). Even then, the stock and forearm are of a good quality. I can't stand the "rail" type forearms anyhow.

I don't know, maybe I'll save the money and buy a ton of 12 gauge shells.

 

[boricua9mm]

Just to be straight, I've got nothing against DI rifles. I just thought that a piston rifle would be very cool and may offer better reliability in the long run. I also failed to mention that I live in a desert. One good wind storm and it could ruin my day. I guess there's a reason that the Israeli's called the piston driven AK47 the "Lion of the Desert" in one of their most recent wars (1972?). As much as I do not care for the AK platform, I think we can take it as gospel that it is a very reliable design.

I own lots of guns, not out of any particular need, but because I think they are compelling for one reason of another. Nothing wrong with that at all. If I was worried about maintaining an AR while exposed to the elements in a desert environment, then the AK would certainly have some appeal. Fewer parts, bigger parts, and less nooks and crannies. That said, I have never had any problems with an AR15 here in the Florida sugar sand, so long as the BCG was liberally lubricated. Temp-wise, we only hit the 100s, so I don't know how that translates to the desert, but its what we've got going on down here.

Yes, I agree. But the other factor I consider is WHERE all the crap gets dumped. It always bothers me when I open the AR after a day of shooting and stare at all the garbage dumped in the receiver, with a black bolt covered in crude. Again, I consider the DI system reliable. But for me the questions becomes, "which is more reliable after shooting all day in 110 degree desert conditions? Which will likely fail first for lack of cleaning?" I think I'm hard pressed to find that the DI is comparable to the GP system in that simple regard. I think...

I have found that the carbon buildup on the tail of the AR bolt is a self-limiting proposition. I admit to cleaning it now and then, but in reality there is no need to religiously scrub off every last bit of carbon every time you shoot. The buildup would have to be egregious to have any effect on reliability. In my opinion, cleaning the tail of the bolt is akin to detail cleaning the gas system of other guns with barrel-mounted piston systems. It's good to do, but it is not necessary each and every time you fire the gun. This goes against all intuition, because we see the grime, but the truth is it isn't detrimental unless it impedes the movement of the bolt in the carrier, which would require some serious negligence.

In the end, you should buy and tote whatever gives you peace of mind. I've found that, given liberal applications of lube, the AR doesn't let me down. It doesn't need to pass a white glove test, it just needs to be wet.

YMMV...

 

[benEzra]

Just to be straight, I've got nothing against DI rifles. I just thought that a piston rifle would be very cool and may offer better reliability in the long run. I also failed to mention that I live in a desert. One good wind storm and it could ruin my day. I guess there's a reason that the Israeli's called the piston driven AK47 the "Lion of the Desert" in one of their most recent wars (1972?). As much as I do not care for the AK platform, I think we can take it as gospel that it is a very reliable design.

Russian AK doctrine says that when you are in desert conditions, the way to keep the rifle running is to keep it buttoned up tight and lubricate, lubricate, lubricate. Pretty much the same as best-practice for keeping an AR running under the same conditions. I believe the following is the English translation of the Russian AK operator's manual:

https://app.box.com/shared/cu2djae1zb

50. USE OF THE AUTOMATIC RIFLE IN AREAS WITH HIGH TEMPERATURES AND SANDY TERRAIN

In training exercises, during matches and in combat in sandy terrain, it is necessary to adopt all measures for protecting the rifle and ammunition from dust.

During extensive use of the rifle in dusty terrain, the bolt and the guides in the receiver should be oiled frequently through the opening for the magazine and ejection port....In such dusty terrain, the opening in the receiver through which the magazine is inserted into the rifle should be uncovered only when changing magazines and during the period lubrication mentioned above....the slot for the cocking handle should be covered during lulls in fire by means of the selector cover plate, i.e., by setting the rifle on safety.

The rifle should be cleaned and lubricated after each extensive use. Special care should be taken in cleaning and oiling the working surfaces of the trigger and firing mechanism, bolt, operating rod, extractor, gas tube and magazine.

In combat, lack of time may make it permissible to fire the rifle without oiling it, but not without wiping the dust off all the parts. The rifle must be thoroughly cleaned and oiled at the first opportunity.

Not that different from running an AR. Keep it buttoned up and lube the heck out of it with a good oil that stays liquid, to keep the dust suspended and fluid, and clean and re-lube whenever you can.

Yes, I agree. But the other factor I consider is WHERE all the crap gets dumped. It always bothers me when I open the AR after a day of shooting and stare at all the garbage dumped in the receiver, with a black bolt covered in crude. Again, I consider the DI system reliable. But for me the questions becomes, "which is more reliable after shooting all day in 110 degree desert conditions? Which will likely fail first for lack of cleaning?" I think I'm hard pressed to find that the DI is comparable to the GP system in that simple regard. I think...

An AR dumps most of its gas the same place an AK does--into the piston chamber, which in the AR's case is inside the rear of the bolt carrier---and then vents it out to the atmosphere through the gas vent holes. An AK piston gets just as cruddy, and in neither case is it a big deal unless you run the rifle so dry that the carbon turns to cement. Outside the bolt carrier, an AR isn't much dirtier than an AK in my experience (most of the residue in the receiver comes from chamber blow-by during extraction), though running a suppressor will make the AR run much dirtier than the AK due to overgassing.

Like an AK, a good AR will run for thousands of rounds without cleaning if you keep all the moving parts wet with good oil. Here's a lower-tier AR after fifteen thousand rounds of cheap steel-case ammo without cleaning; it was still running.

http://www.thefirearmblog.com/blog/2010/06/09/a-clean-wouldnt-hurt/

 

[dvdcrr]

Let us know how that POF shoots. I like my 20" home build. 15 hits on steel in 15 sec at 220 yd is addicting.

 

[Omatm]

Greetings. This is my first post here, I was just looking and saw the question about the POF rifle and noticed that there were not many replies from actual POF owners so I thought I'd chime in.

I've had my 415 for about 3 years. Due to time constraints, I've put less than 1500 rds through it.

My impressions so far:
1. It was expensive. I saved my pennies for almost 2 years before accumulating enough to pay for the thing.

2. It is heavier than I expected. I bought mine sight-unseen, making my choice only the basis of reviews I had read.

3. When I first got it, I couldn't hit the broad side of a barn. I could hand it to my buddy, and it seemed like he could put bullet after bullet into the same hole. That's an exaggeration, of course. But I can almost always shoot far better than he does. For whatever reason, this rifle has a steeper learning curve for me.

4. Because of the above, I experimented with several brands and bullet weights, all seemed to give me about the same results.

5. I eventually mounted a relatively inexpensive scope and that seemed to solve most of my problem hitting the target. Still, I just don't do as well with this rifle as I would like, but I suppose I should keep my expectations low since it has only been to the range about 4 or 5 times.

6. Because it comes with a muzzle brake rather than a flash hider, the shock wave from the muzzle blast is annoying to people to the side, and because some of the blast is directed rear-ward, it seems to amplify the sound (especially when under the typical steel roof that a lot of ranges have). From the firing position, it seems loud, but the muzzle blast is not felt.

I've found that people always want to tell you what they love about something, but to really get a feel for whether you can live with the same thing you need to know what they hate about it, hence my list of criticisms above. Having said all that, I do like my rifle and I have no regrets for spending the extra coin required for it.

By way of full disclosure, this is the only AR type rifle that I own, and for that matter the only one that I have fired (so far). I did have a Mini-14 about a gazillion years ago. Completely different experience (apple/orange).

The POF is very easy to clean, with hardly any crud in the receiver at all.

--T