Shooters Forum banner

21 - 40 of 47 Posts

·
The Hog Whisperer (Administrator)
Joined
·
36,426 Posts
The AR is not a true DI system. The bolt is a piston so it is truly a piston driven system.
So, what exactly would be a "true" DI system? :confused:

Something has to work the bolt...... be it gas, or a mechanical device.
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
33 Posts
Mas 49, AG42, Hakim, Rasheed. Gas directly pushes the whole bolt back. On an AR gas is directed into a chamber where it pushes an piston(bolt) back to cycle action.
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
309 Posts
I think Stoner was a genius to come up with this system. To think outside the box like he did was really an accomplishment in itself. Getting rid of all the wood and using aluminum for most everything was so unheard of in that time I can just imagine the nay sayers that surrounded him at every opportunity.
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
40 Posts
It seems like I could find a discussion on this, but I haven't. I understand why a piston driven rifle is more reliable, but not in ways most of us who clean our guns will appreciate. And there's also the benefit of not having gas dumped near your face, especially if you're running a suppressor.

I'd call piston drive a slight advantage. But isn't it strange how unavailable piston rifles are? Everything i find is direct impingement. This includes parts for snapping one together.

I want to build a KM18 style rifle with a suppressor, but I thought it would be cool to do it with piston drive. I've found two outfits making piston system, but it seems like they're a seriously small minority. The only piston AR's I find are .308 chambered.

Why? Piston system seem so much cooler. What's up with this?
Some don’t know there are differences. For those that do, they may want the inherent accuracy of direct impingement compared to a gas piston. Could be a number of reasons. When I bought my AR15 twenty five years ago I didn’t know the difference . All I know is I wanted one and that it was a Colt with a carry handle. Were I to buy one today, a lot more consideration would go into the decision.
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
2,246 Posts
Stoner didn't invent the direct impingement. It was old. The first experimental rifle using a direct impingement system was the French Rossignol ENT B1 automatic rifle followed by Rossignol's B2, B4 and B5. The first successful production weapon was the MAS 40 rifle adopted in March 1940.

Stoners design was driven by one factor, keep the cost low. when Stoner left the project the rifle wasn't functional; so his Patent Attorney finished the design and got the project on to a commerical track. The AR was designed by an aero-space manufacturer, so light weight low cost materials were used...plastic, Al, cast parts that could be out source.
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
47 Posts
The AR was designed to be cheaply built, mostly stamped parts. But today the AR rifles are not cheap. The AR crowd really doesn't understand firearms, so direct impingement is fine with them.

The Ruger Mini is a piston operated, clean design, much better made. It has a fixed-piston gas system and self-cleaning moving gas cylinder . But it isn't cool with the under 40 group.

The AR is sold on 'tactical looks' not quality. Hence the nic-name 'Made by Mattel'.
That is not accurate.
the joke that they were built by Mattel was because of the "plastic" stock and forend. At that time composites were new to the military, and the troops, who were used to wood stocks, joked about it.

The AR was not designed to be "cheaply built" that is the hallmark of the AK. (ARs were never "cheap". You make it sound like it was meant to be like the "grease gun" of ww2.)

The DI was to keep the firearm light, simple and easy to maintain, something that the military wanted after dealing with the more complex rifles of the past.
 
  • Like
Reactions: shooter444

·
Registered
Joined
·
252 Posts
My first AR clone was a KelTec SU16 series rifle, which was, and still is, a piston action rifle. I probably put well over twenty thousand rounds through it before being talked into a trade. I went to DI Ar's for a short time afterwards, before building my own.

I never found either system better than the other, or, lacking to one another!

On a side note,... I am glad to read above about some not having the genetic need to shoot hundreds of rounds every time, at the bench. As posted above, I shoot a semi like a bolt gun, like a shotgun, like a single shot, and a bow and arrow. First shot concentration on hitting the target with the expectations of not needing a follow up shot!

Since changing over to my own hand loads a couple decades ago, I find that I shoot MANY more rounds developing a specific load for an individual rifle/handgun, than I would normally shoot in a YEAR! My typical routine is to bring a weapon out of the safe twice a year to check function, and scope zero (if it has one) which normally only takes around 6 rounds,... 3 for verification, and 3 for the fun of it and then stripping/cleaning. :sneaky:

Any more shots than that, and I find, pounding the center area of my 8" gong at 100 yds,... simply,... repetitive,... and, BORING!

There have been MANY times, when I would pull a weapon from the safe, shoot one round, dead center at 100 yds, and just pack up, walk back to my reloading room and clean it up before going back to the safe. That is the way I want my weapons! First shot,... dead on,... whenever I pull the trigger,... or, I don't keep them! I don't have the need to do it, over, and, over, and, over again!

Lastly, I find TODAY'S Ar's to be more than adequate in every respect,... the reliability, accuracy, and ergonomics of my builds, verify such, for me.
 
  • Like
Reactions: alaska682

·
Registered
Joined
·
309 Posts
The AR's popularity isn't about the gas system is uses. It's about the modularity of the parts. All the parts can be purchased from a broad range of manufacturers and combined into something that works. That was the goal of the military from the beginning. In battle the weapons were subjected to tremendous damage from all kinds of accidents and being able to grab any damaged firearm laying on the ground and combining the parts from another the soldier could create a usable weapon in minutes. The AR design did that better than any firearm previous. That modularity is what makes it so popular today. The same principle that made the Personal Computer popular in the beginning. Standardize the parts and everyone will be happy.
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
40 Posts
My first AR clone was a KelTec SU16 series rifle, which was, and still is, a piston action rifle. I probably put well over twenty thousand rounds through it before being talked into a trade. I went to DI Ar's for a short time afterwards, before building my own.

I never found either system better than the other, or, lacking to one another!

On a side note,... I am glad to read above about some not having the genetic need to shoot hundreds of rounds every time, at the bench. As posted above, I shoot a semi like a bolt gun, like a shotgun, like a single shot, and a bow and arrow. First shot concentration on hitting the target with the expectations of not needing a follow up shot!

Since changing over to my own hand loads a couple decades ago, I find that I shoot MANY more rounds developing a specific load for an individual rifle/handgun, than I would normally shoot in a YEAR! My typical routine is to bring a weapon out of the safe twice a year to check function, and scope zero (if it has one) which normally only takes around 6 rounds,... 3 for verification, and 3 for the fun of it and then stripping/cleaning. :sneaky:

Any more shots than that, and I find, pounding the center area of my 8" gong at 100 yds,... simply,... repetitive,... and, BORING!

There have been MANY times, when I would shoot one round, dead center at 100 yds, and just pack up, walk back to my reloading room and clean it up before going back to the safe. That is the way I want my weapons! First shot,... dead on,... whenever I pull the trigger,... or, I don't keep them! I don't have the need to do it, over, and, over, and, over again!

Lastly, I find TODAY'S Ar's to be more than adequate in every respect,... the reliability, accuracy, and ergonomics of my builds, verify such, for me.
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
47 Posts
vinootz, did you forget to add your comment or are you saying that that is exactly what you do too?
 
  • Like
Reactions: shooter444

·
Premium Member
Joined
·
14,797 Posts
Think of how much longer a spear last if it's straight instead of dog-legged. Direct impingement keep the energy closer to the bore line. It takes the bend out of the op rod and it is the bend that makes them short-lived.
 

·
The Hog Whisperer (Administrator)
Joined
·
36,426 Posts
If you think ARs aren't cheaply built, you haven't tried to whittle a mauser action out of bar stock. Vastly cheaper to build an AR.
 
  • Like
Reactions: MZ5

·
Registered
Joined
·
309 Posts
The term "cheaply built" carries with it the possible meaning that a reduction of quality is at stake here. I would agree that it's certainly "cheaper to build" an AR but in my opinion they are not "cheaply built" Wood is a terrible material to use in the building of a firearm due to it's uncertain internal structure and tendency to rot and crack. It's romantic and beautiful and warm and traditional and has lots of things like that but as a material to build stocks out of it's horrible. We only used it because it grows all over the earth. But I do love laminated stocks and the use of resins to reinforce the wood grains and I think that would make a nice looking butt stock on an AR.
 

·
Premium Member
Joined
·
14,797 Posts
An overnight pass was the reward for breaking a (wooden) M-14 stock on the bayonet course. EVERY trainee tried his best. None ever did it while I was Armorer, but about four thousand troops tried while I was watching.
Plastic has its place. Guns ain't one of them.
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
453 Posts
JBelk,
I couldn't agree more, however I don't intend on using an AR 15 for hand to hand combat. :)
If I was using an AR 15 that close then something has gone terribly wrong. My assessment of the combat situation stinks!
My AR's are intended for 150 yards to no less than 50 yards. Closer than that I have pistols that are at least as effective and quicker on target. I am too old for hand to hand and too young to die.
 

·
Premium Member
Joined
·
14,797 Posts
The point was the ultimate utility of GOOD wood as gunstocks. Two generations of shooters have been brainwashed into believing 'wood' is bad and 'plastic' is better because the gunwriters planted multiple lies and the gun companies quit using stock blanks and started using walnut LUMBER. There is a night and day difference that totally changes the entire argument.
Good wood is BEST for gunstocks of any kind. Plastic is cheaper, easier to work with and will never go away in the marketplace. I'm not trying to change buying habits, only correcting the record. NOTHING beats good wood for use as a gunstock. A lot of things can be used as a substitute.
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
309 Posts
I would agree that as a spear and club the AR is not as good as the M14. The connection between the butt stock and receiver on the AR is in my opinion a weak point for face to face hand to hand combat and little better than the connection on a broom stick.. And to be fair I would not have chosen the AR as it was originally designed to replace the M-14. But I also think the M14 would have been a much better firearm with a resin embedded or fiberglass stock. But I also think it was entirely too heavy and too large a caliber to fight the war we were in at the time. We needed something smaller, lighter and more resistant to the adverse climate conditions to fight the war in the jungles of Vietnam. The AR design fit some of the conditions better than the M14 but not all of them. A lighter version of the M14 in a smaller caliber would have been much better. The mini 14 comes to mind. (with a fiberglass stock)
 

·
Premium Member
Joined
·
14,797 Posts
My point is still being missed and the wood versus plastic was a diversion.
DIRECT IMPINGMENT is a gas system that has mostly replaced the off-set, op-rod operations of the the Garand, Carbine, M-14, and Mini-14. In those systems the op rods have a bend in them to get around the receiver and act on the right locking lug to CAM it out of battery and carry it back and forth. The BEND in the op rod makes it into a 'crooked spear' and they eventually break, wear out or bend and stop the gun. DI gets around that and puts the gas forces directly to the bolt and carrier for operation. Look at the difference in the off-set from center of the energy flow to see the real difference.
An M-14 walnut stock is strong enough not to break in bayonet practice and lighter than a laminate or impreg stock. They certainly didn't need more strength or stability, just LOWER COST. Plastic does that.
 
  • Like
Reactions: alaska682

·
Registered
Joined
·
47 Posts
The term "cheaply built" carries with it the possible meaning that a reduction of quality is at stake here. I would agree that it's certainly "cheaper to build" an AR but in my opinion they are not "cheaply built"
Exactly. It was even said that they used "mostly stamped parts" on ARs, that is so far off base its...
"Less expensive than machined steel" would have been a much better way to say it.

In ww2 the Thompson Sub machine gun was wildly expensive (over $200 iirc) because of the machining required, that's why the "grease gun" became so useful, it was $12 in stamped steel and parts, and yes, the grease gun was "cheap" because it was just "slapped together". The AR is machined Aluminum, a much less expensive metal to work, its softer so the machining involved is easier and therefore less expensive, and faster. But not "cheap".
 
21 - 40 of 47 Posts
Top