Ares Defense GSR-35:  gas system retrofit range report.

Since I personally have never had any reliability issues with my direct gas impingement system AR-15s, my interest in a gas piston system is due mainly to curiosity.  (Isn’t that what killed the cat?)  The possibility of having to spend less time cleaning the bolt carrier group and upper receiver is also rather appealing.

Proponents of the gas piston system for the AR-15 claim it is more reliable than the direct impingement system, (which seems rather ironic since the gas piston system not only adds more parts to the overall system, but adds more moving parts as well.)  Opponents of the gas piston system state the AR-15 does not have reliability issues as long as proper cleaning and maintenance procedures are followed.  They also claim that the gas piston system causes a decrease in the accuracy of the AR-15.

There are a few different gas piston systems for AR-15s on the market, but most of them are proprietary affairs.  The allure of the Ares Defense GSR-35 is that it is user installable on your existing AR-15.  The GSR-35 kit comes with everything you need to convert your existing system to a piston system, including a set of modified M4 handguards.









You use the bolt from your existing system but remove the gas rings to run with the gas piston system.  I chose to use a Smith Enterprise chrome plated bolt as this would more easily show the fouling on the bolt for comparison.  I also chose to use a 16” HBAR for my testing and evaluation of the GSR-35 with the rationale that a heavy barrel would be the least likely profile to show a decrease in accuracy (if it actually did occur).  If a substantial decrease in accuracy was found using the gas piston system with an HBAR, there would be no point in even testing the system with a government profile or light-weight profile barrel.  The 16” HBAR I used for the conversion is a new chrome-moly barrel (not chrome lined) of uncertain pedigree.  (I think it was made from a Douglas blank, but it’s been sitting on my spare parts shelf for so long I’m not sure.)  The barrel is stamped as having a 5.56mm chamber and a 1:9” twist.


Upon removing the GSR-35 kit from the box, I was disappointed to see that the gas spigot was bent.  It was only slightly angled away from the gas cylinder, but you would think Ares Defense would hold a higher level of quality control on such a crucial piece of their system.

The Ares defense literature states their gas system is designed to work with “mil-spec” AR-15s. I decided to deviate a bit from the “mil-spec” by using a JP Enterprises adjustable gas block, for three reasons.

1. The JP gas block uses an extra long roll pin to secure the gas tube/gas spigot.  I thought this would help to mitigate any problems with the roll pin walking-out during firing, (as has been reported.)

2. The JP gas block is secured to the barrel using set screws.  I wanted to see if a set screwed gas block could withstand the additional forces applied to it by a gas piston system.

3. The JP gas block is adjustable.  I thought this might prove for some interesting experiments if the gas piston system proved useful.  (The gas adjustment was left “wide open” for this evaluation.)


Before installing the GSR-35 system on my carbine, I performed some informal accuracy testing from a distance of 50 yards using the direct impingement gas sytem. The forearm of the rifle was placed on a sandbag resting on a wobbly table.  There was no support for the butt-stock (nor for my elbows.)  The ammunition used was one of my hand-loads, using Sierra 52 grain MatchKings and VihtaVuori N135 powder.  As well as being an extremely accurate load, this load has functioned flawlessly in every AR-15 I own.

I fired three 10-shot groups in a row that measured, 0.558”, 0.408”, and .570” for an average group size of 0.512”.  The targets are pictured below.









Dennysguns has done a great job of describing the installation of the GSR-35, so I’ll not go into that here.  As I mentioned earlier, the gas spigot from my kit was slightly bent.  When installed on the carbine, this caused the gas cylinder to angle very slightly to the starboard side of the barrel.  This in turn caused some very slight binding at the juncture of the gas cylinder/gas piston/connecting link.


before conversion






after conversion











I began function testing of the newly converted carbine by loading and then firing a single round at a time from a magazine for the first ten rounds and then 3 rounds at a time for the next several magazines.  I experienced multiple failures of the bolt to lock back after the last round of the magazine was fired.  I don’t know if this was do to the slight binding of the mechanism I mentioned above, or if the system just needs a little “breaking in.”  After approximately 30 rounds the bolt began to lock back consistently.  There were no further malfunctions during testing.

I performed informal accuracy testing with the GSR-35 system installed on the carbine in the same manner as described above.  The three 10-shot groups that I fired from 50 yards measured, 0.677”, 0.501” and 0.879” for an average of 0.685”.  (targets pictured below)   This does demonstrate a decrease in accuracy (larger average group size) using the gas piston system compared to the direct impingement system, albeit a rather small one at approximately 0.35 minutes of angle with this 16" HBAR.









I fired a total of 90 rounds for this first test session of the GSR-35 and here is what the bolt and carrier looked like afterwards; (pictured below) not nearly as much fouling as would have been present with a direct impingement system.  Below is a picture of the inside of the upper hand-guard.  This is where the fouling goes with the gas piston system.  I was pleased to note that the JP gas block had not shifted forward at all during testing; nor was there any sign of rotational shifting.  Also, the roll pin securing the gas spigot held tight.













Over the next few months, I plan to fire 1,000 rounds of ammunition from the GSR-35 converted carbine without cleaning the gas system.  If there are no further malfunctions/problems, I will be doing some formal accuracy testing of the system from 100 yards.  If the results from that testing are acceptable, I’m going to repeat this course of testing with a GSR-35 installed on a 16” government profile barrel.

Here’s a pic of my GSR-35 carbine.

SWEET.

This is just what I need to finish off my suppressed SBR. Eagerly awaiting further details.

Excellent review. This should be the standard of reviews.

Excellent!

Can you take a measurement for me? Whats the height of the highest part of the spigot off the OD of the barrel?

I'm interested in this conversion for my 6.8SPC upper (or something else in the future) and I'm using a rifle length JP VTAC handguard over a WOA Recon profile middy gas port carbine length barrel. Need measurements so I can check clearances.

Thanks.

-ZA206


height=8

Quoted: Excellent review. This should be the standard of reviews.

I installed the GSR-35 on my 16" Bushy, and have been very pleased with the performance so far. I had some clearance issues because I did not dremel enough material out of the railed fore-grip I kept instead of using the supplied grip. Once I had the clearance problem solved, it ran like a clock. Locked back every time, only needed a wipe-down after shooting, the bolt face reamains cool to the touch even after numerous mag-dumps, and (on my weapon at least) accuracy was not affected at all. I have not put enough rounds through it to really know if the reliablilty is improved enough to warrant the cost of the system, but running that much cooler and cleaner would lead me to believe that it is. Also, the time saved in cleaning the weapon is in and of itself worth the cost to me.

Great Job Molon.  I still don't have any plans on getting a Gas-Piston System, but it is good to know that it works well.

I would be interested to know folks thoughts on the decrease in accuracy.

Is it dumping pressure before the bullet is out of the barrel? With a decrease in accuracy I would be interested in seeing some chrono tests just for grins....

I am pretty sure that the bullet is something like 70 feet out of the barrel by the time the piston even comes back.

What I would like to see is the condition of the BCG after at least 500 rounds fired of Wolf.

Quoted: Excellent! Can you take a measurement for me? Whats the height of the highest part of the spigot off the OD of the barrel? I'm interested in this conversion for my 6.8SPC upper (or something else in the future) and I'm using a rifle length JP VTAC handguard over a WOA Recon profile middy gas port carbine length barrel. Need measurements so I can check clearances. Thanks. -ZA206 Quoted: Excellent review. This should be the standard of reviews.

The highest part of the GSR-35 above the barrel is actually the portion of the gas cylinder just aft of the spigot.  Since various barrels will vary in their diameter at that point, I've determined that a more useful measurement is the height of the top of the gas cylinder above the center bore line.  By my calculations, that measurement is 1.020".

I don't have a V-TAC tube handy, but if it has the same dimensions as the standard JP Enterprises free-float tube, the inside diameter is approximately 1.75" and thus the GSR-35 will not work with these tubes.

Quoted: I am pretty sure that the bullet is something like 70 feet out of the barrel by the time the piston even comes back. What I would like to see is the condition of the BCG after at least 500 rounds fired of Wolf.

Makes perfect sense I just can't for the life of me come up with a WAG as to why accuracy would suffer.  Great report, I will probably pick one of these up just because.

Quoted: Makes perfect sense I just can't for the life of me come up with a WAG as to why accuracy would suffer.  Great report, I will probably pick one of these up just because.

I am in the same boat, but of course it is tough for me since I am not an expert *awaits someone else to chime in with the answer*

Quoted: Quoted: I am pretty sure that the bullet is something like 70 feet out of the barrel by the time the piston even comes back. What I would like to see is the condition of the BCG after at least 500 rounds fired of Wolf. Makes perfect sense I just can't for the life of me come up with a WAG as to why accuracy would suffer.  Great report, I will probably pick one of these up just because.

Some people think the spring tension on the piston mechanism would cause the barrel to be tensed in one direction. I always thought that was crap.

The only part of the system I had making contact with my Surefire rail was the knurled part of the piston itself. I had the rail system milled out and I gave it a quick coat of black spray paint on the inside to quickly show if contact was being made. It functioned 100% but the knurled part of the piston kept scratching off the spray paint in a few spots no matter how much I took off in minor amounts (after the initial milling job). So I carefully cut out a little over an inch of rail on the top and downward about half an inch, basically the area of travel of the piston. Of course now there isn't any contact and the piston is unimpinged. I use Knight's rail covers so you can't even see the area I removed when it's all assembled.



One observation: I do not think that the piston recoils in a perfectly straight rearward motion, at least near the end. I think that as it gets near the rear of it's travel (just before it starts forward again) and is under the most spring tension it tends the "wobble" a bit. Even with the rail removed I can see ever-so-slight marks where SOMETHING (obviously the piston) is touching the edges of where I cut. Not consistently symetrical, so I think it varies shot to shot which way it will "wobble". No problems however, she runs 100%. Just an observation.      

The highest part of the GSR-35 above the barrel on my carbine is the section on the gas cylinder just aft of the spigot.  It's the shiny spot on the gas cylinder with the red arrow pointing to it in the picture below.  The shiny spot was caused by the gas cylinder rubbing against the the underside of the upper handguard.

Thanks for this great review! Can't wait for updates.



Not only am I interested in a product like this, but I am just fascinated by an ARES product that was actually delivered and appears to work out of the box.  

Quoted: Thanks for this great review! Can't wait for updates. Not only am I interested in a product like this, but I am just fascinated by an ARES product that was actually delivered and appears to work out of the box.

+1 Looks promising. Whats the MSRP on the kit?

Quoted: Quoted: Thanks for this great review! Can't wait for updates. Not only am I interested in a product like this, but I am just fascinated by an ARES product that was actually delivered and appears to work out of the box.   +1 Looks promising. Whats the MSRP on the kit?

$399
Just got mine in today, I'll be installing it on my suppressed SBR. Report will follow after the weekend!

Thanks to all for the compliments.  

I enjoy reading your posts Molon but I find your "testing" in this one uncharacteristic of your usually well done tests.

Not that my opinion matters, but I've added my notes for your consideration and maybe possible modification on future tests.

Quoted: Proponents of the gas piston system for the AR-15 claim it is more reliable than the direct impingement system, (which seems rather ironic since the gas piston system not only adds more parts to the overall system, but adds more moving parts as well.)   Opponents of the gas piston system state the AR-15 does not have reliability issues as long as proper cleaning and maintenance procedures are followed.  They also claim that the gas piston system causes a decrease in the accuracy of the AR-15.

This serves as an interesting abstract summary.

You use the bolt from your existing system but remove the gas rings to run with the gas piston system. IIRC, aren't the gas rings critical to the alignment of the bolt in the barrel extension and a noted source of bolt fatigue/failure in the DI system?  Also, I know the LWRC system doesn't remove the gas rings what about the POF system? I chose to use a Smith Enterprise chrome plated bolt as this would more easily show the fouling on the bolt for comparison. I also chose to use a 16” HBAR for my testing and evaluation of the GSR-35 with the rationale that a heavy barrel would be the least likely profile to show a decrease in accuracy (if it actually did occur).  If a substantial decrease in accuracy was found using the gas piston system with an HBAR, there would be no point in even testing the system with a government profile or light-weight profile barrel. The 16” HBAR I used for the conversion is a new chrome-moly barrel (not chrome lined) of uncertain pedigree.  (I think it was made from a Douglas blank, but it’s been sitting on my spare parts shelf for so long I’m not sure.)  The barrel is stamped as having a 5.56mm chamber and a 1:9” twist. The Ares defense literature states their gas system is designed to work with “mil-spec” AR-15s. I decided to deviate a bit from the “mil-spec” by using a JP Enterprises adjustable gas block, for three reasons. 1. The JP gas block uses an extra long roll pin to secure the gas tube/gas spigot.  I thought this would help to mitigate any problems with the roll pin walking-out during firing, (as has been reported.) 2. The JP gas block is secured to the barrel using set screws.  I wanted to see if a set screwed gas block could withstand the additional forces applied to it by a gas piston system. 3. The JP gas block is adjustable.  I thought this might prove for some interesting experiments if the gas piston system proved useful.  (The gas adjustment was left “wide open” for this evaluation.)

I understand your reasoning behind the deviations from a "Mil-Spec" rifle.  However, collecting data without that "Mil-Spec" data makes your "modified" test protocol very difficult to correlate as your tests would be done only after those points were collected.  It's a small nuance that has serious ramifications within the interpretation of this data.  Furthermore, one usually tests a limited number of variations at any one time to ensure the reliability and validity of the data in a specific test cycle.

Before installing the GSR-35 system on my carbine, I performed some informal accuracy testing from a distance of 50 yards using the direct impingement gas sytem. I fired three 10-shot groups in a row that measured, 0.558”, 0.408”, and .570” for an average group size of 0.512”. I performed accuracy testing with the GSR-35 system installed on the carbine in the same manner as described above.  The three 10-shot groups that I fired from 50 yards measured, 0.677”, 0.501” and 0.879” for an average of 0.685”.  (targets pictured below). This does demonstrate a decrease in accuracy (larger average group size) using the gas piston system compared to the direct impingement system, albeit a rather small one at approximately 0.35 minutes of angle with this 16" HBAR.

In order for this statement to hold true with authority you should have reinstalled the DI system and obtained a third set of accuracy data based upon the "Modified" platform you were using in this testing cycle.

I fired a total of 90 rounds for this first test session of the GSR-35 and here is what the bolt and carrier looked like afterwards; (pictured below) not nearly as much fouling as would have been present with a direct impingement system.  Below is a picture of the inside of the upper hand-guard.  This is where the fouling goes with the gas piston system. I was pleased to note that the JP gas block had not shifted forward at all during testing; nor was there any sign of rotational shifting.  Also, the roll pin securing the gas spigot held tight. Over the next few months, I plan to fire 1,000 rounds of ammunition from the GSR-35 converted carbine without cleaning the gas system.  If there are no further malfunctions/problems, I will be doing some formal accuracy testing of the system from 100 yards.  If the results from that testing are acceptable, I’m going to repeat this course of testing with a GSR-35 installed on a 16” government profile barrel.

Those sound like some good follow up tests and I hope my comments might provided some additional consideration on the matter.

Quoted: IIRC, aren't the gas rings critical to the alignment of the bolt in the barrel extension and a noted source of bolt fatigue/failure in the DI system?  Also, I know the LWRC system doesn't remove the gas rings what about the POF system?

IIRC, my POF (before I sold it) did NOT have any gas rings.  Maybe SC-Texas will step in as he currently owns a POF upper.

Quoted: I enjoy reading your posts Molon but I find your "testing" in this one uncharacteristic of your usually well done tests. Not that my opinion matters, but I've added my notes for your consideration and maybe possible modification on future tests.

Section1,

Please note that in my original post I clearly stated that this was an informal testing.  My goal for this preliminary evaluation was to determine if the Ares Defense GSR-35 warranted any further testing on my part to determine if the system would be suitable for my purposes.  

I have no "dog in this fight" and was not out to prove beyond the shadow of any scientific doubt that one system was superior to the other.  Even the basic testing and evaluation that I do with firearms and ammunition is very time consuming and extremely expensive.  To control for every variable possible with the systems involved is beyond the resources of most everyone here, including myself.

Originally posted by Section1_Operations Quoted: You use the bolt from your existing system but remove the gas rings to run with the gas piston system. IIRC, aren't the gas rings critical to the alignment of the bolt in the barrel extension and a noted source of bolt fatigue/failure in the DI system? Also, I know the LWRC system doesn't remove the gas rings what about the POF system?

The removal of the gas rings from the bolt is per the design of the Ares Defense GSR-35.  With the GSR-35 system, the bolt cannot be inserted into the bolt carrier with the gas rings on the bolt.  There is no other way that the GSR-35 could have been tested.

Quoted: I understand your reasoning behind the deviations from a "Mil-Spec" rifle. However, collecting data without that "Mil-Spec" data makes your "modified" test protocol very difficult to correlate as your tests would be done only after those points were collected. It's a small nuance that has serious ramifications within the interpretation of this data. Furthermore, one usually tests a limited number of variations at any one time to ensure the reliability and validity of the data in a specific test cycle.

My deviation from a "mil spec" configuration was designed to test the system as I would be using it.  My test was not designed to be compared with the results of others using a "mil spec" system.  I tested the accuracy of the direct impingement system using the JP Enterprises gas block.  I then tested the accuracy of the GSR-35 system using the JP Enterprises gas block.  Hence, the JP Enterprises gas block was not even a variable in testing the accuracy between the two gas systems as I would be using them.  This was done to compare the accuracy of the the two different gas systems in the configuration I would be using them, once again, not to compare to any accuracy results using a "mil spec" upper.

Quoted: Originally posted by Molon" This does demonstrate a decrease in accuracy (larger average group size) using the gas piston system compared to the direct impingement system, albeit a rather small one at approximately 0.35 minutes of angle with this 16" HBAR. In order for this statement to hold true with authority you should have reinstalled the DI system and obtained a third set of accuracy data based upon the "Modified" platform you were using in this testing cycle.

My statement comparing the accuracy of the two gas systems was not meant to "hold true with authority."  In order for that to occur I would have to perform accuracy testing with multiple barrels, with multiple lots of ammunition in a double blind fashion using multiple shooters.  As I stated earlier this is beyond the means of most people here.  

My statement about the accuracy of the two gas systems was an observation of the data points collected in this informal testing and nothing more.  The informal results obtained demonstrated to me that the GSR-35 warranted further testing and that was all that this evaluation was designed to determine.  As I stated in my original post, if the GSR-35 had shown a gross decrease in accuracy compared to the direct impingement system under the same informal circumstances, I would not have considered any further testing of the system.  The financial resources involved in even this type of informal testing are too great for me to spend persuing potential "dead ends."

I have often found that if I have a question or am curious about something, there are other people here with the same questions and curiosities.  I post the results of my observations so that others who might not have even the time or resources that I do, can also benefit from my experiences and not to provide incontrovertible proofs.

Molon

Which set of hand-guards is the original Colt M4 handguards, and which is the Ares Defense modified handguards?

I am going to go with the left side as being the Ares and the right side as the Colt.

ETA: I say that because you can clearly see what appears to be two layers of heat shielding on the right and only one on the left. Now I don't know for sure if that has much to do with it but that is the only difference I notice at the moment.

Quoted: Quoted: I am pretty sure that the bullet is something like 70 feet out of the barrel by the time the piston even comes back. What I would like to see is the condition of the BCG after at least 500 rounds fired of Wolf. Makes perfect sense I just can't for the life of me come up with a WAG as to why accuracy would suffer.  Great report, I will probably pick one of these up just because.

Here's my SWAG from shooting an AR15 across the course and goofing around with an M14 on the side, and from what I've read - in the case of the M14 at least, the gas piston hanging on the end of the barrel isn't "perfect."  It puts tension on the barrel, it moves around a lot, there can be varying volumes of gas working the piston from shot to shot, combined with the gas system heating up as the rifle is fired...makes for a lot of variables that can affect groups downrange.

Nice review, Molon.  I agree, this should be the standard of product reviews.  

Quoted: I am going to go with the left side as being the Ares and the right side as the Colt. ETA: I say that because you can clearly see what appears to be two layers of heat shielding on the right and only one on the left. Now I don't know for sure if that has much to do with it but that is the only difference I notice at the moment.

Correct.  Good eye!  Here are some pics showing the differences between the two sets of handguards from the inside.

Maybe I just shouldn’t have said a thing…

Quoted: Quoted: I enjoy reading your posts Molon but I find your "testing" in this one uncharacteristic of your usually well done tests. Not that my opinion matters, but I've added my notes for your consideration and maybe possible modification on future tests. Section1, Please note that in my original post I clearly stated that this was an informal testing.  My goal for this preliminary evaluation was to determine if the Ares Defense GSR-35 warranted any further testing on my part to determine if the system would be suitable for my needs.

I must have missed that clear statement of intent as initially it appears more a matter of curiosity on your part in regards to some of the later noted "issues" with the piston setups.

My error, please accept my apology…

Quoted: I have no "dog in this fight" and was not out to prove beyond the shadow of any scientific doubt that one system was superior to the other.

I never said that you were, I was merely offering some observations for you and others to discuss or consider.

Quoted: Even the basic testing and evaluation that I do with firearms and ammunition is very time consuming and extremely expensive.  To control for every variable possible with the systems involved is beyond the resources of most everyone here, including myself.

I'm well aware of the time, cost, and controls necessary to properly conduct scientific testing.  My observations are just that and serve only as points of consideration regarding issues not address in your write-up.

Then again there was no mention of the temperature, wind, or elevation variations during the tests either.

Did you do the testing at Island Lake with the last batch of weather we’ve had around here ?  (If so you’re a rave man…)

Quoted: You use the bolt from your existing system but remove the gas rings to run with the gas piston system. Originally posted by Section1_Operations IIRC, aren't the gas rings critical to the alignment of the bolt in the barrel extension and a noted source of bolt fatigue/failure in the DI system? Also, I know the LWRC system doesn't remove the gas rings what about the POF system? The removal of the gas rings from the bolt is per the design of the Ares Defense GSR-35.  With the GSR-35 system, the bolt cannot be inserted into the bolt carrier with the gas rings on the bolt.  There is no other way that the GSR-35 could have been tested.

That's an interesting note on the design and alone by itself could account for any variation in accuracy between the two set-ups posted results.

Quoted: Quoted: I understand your reasoning behind the deviations from a "Mil-Spec" rifle. However, collecting data without that "Mil-Spec" data makes your "modified" test protocol very difficult to correlate as your tests would be done only after those points were collected. It's a small nuance that has serious ramifications within the interpretation of this data. Furthermore, one usually tests a limited number of variations at any one time to ensure the reliability and validity of the data in a specific test cycle. My deviation from a "mil spec" configuration was designed to test the system as I would be using it.  My test was not designed to be compared with the results of others using a "mil spec" system.

Fair enough as that wasn't the real point of my comment but rather there’s a number of variables that added to the complexity of unanswered questions.

Quoted: I tested the accuracy of the direct impingement system using the JP Enterprises gas block.  I then tested the accuracy of the GSR-35 system using the JP Enterprises gas block.  Hence, the JP Enterprises gas block was not even a variable in testing the accuracy between the two gas systems as I would be using them.  This was done to compare the accuracy of the two different gas systems in the configuration I would be using them, once again, not to compare to any accuracy results using a "mil spec" upper.

I get the parts usage of your tests however the point is that this change beyond a "Mil-Spec" upper adds complexity to the results with parts that may cause other issues that a pinned FSB doesn't contend with.

Said differently every change made could be a potential area to cause a difference in data points.  It’s understood though that in a limited test and for simple discussion reasons that it doesn’t matter, but one should still note it and that’s more the real point.

Quoted: This does demonstrate a decrease in accuracy (larger average group size) using the gas piston system compared to the direct impingement system, albeit a rather small one at approximately 0.35 minutes of angle with this 16" HBAR. Quoted: In order for this statement to hold true with authority you should have reinstalled the DI system and obtained a third set of accuracy data based upon the "Modified" platform you were using in this testing cycle. My statement comparing the accuracy of the two gas systems was not meant to "hold true with authority."

Don't read into that statement any more than the point reads as it calls into question the very results as long as it remains an unanswered question regarding your test setup, i.e. there's a base line performance, then a noted change in accuracy with the modification, but no retest to see if the barrel returns to the baseline once the modification is reversed.

Quoted: In order for that to occur I would have to perform accuracy testing with multiple barrels, with multiple lots of ammunition in a double blind fashion using multiple shooters.  As I stated earlier this is beyond the means of most people here.

No, not necessarily as in a straight accuracy test using different barrel may well provide different results regardless of the shooter and ammunition.  Multiple lots wouldn't necessarily be prudent for such a test except in lot comparisons out of the same barrel and the same could be argued in regards to the shooters.

All of these factors just complicate your simple test and thus why I've made no mention of these issues.

Quoted: My statement about the accuracy of the two gas systems was an observation of the data points collected in this informal testing and nothing more.  The informal results obtained demonstrated to me that the GSR-35 warranted further testing and that was all that this evaluation was designed to determine.

This is my point as without the reestablishment of the DI barrels baseline accuracy it's a poor conclusion based upon an incomplete test observation.

Quoted: As I stated in my original post, if the GSR-35 had shown a gross decrease in accuracy compared to the direct impingement system under the same informal circumstances, I would not have considered any further testing of the system.  The financial resources involved in even this type of informal testing are too great for me to spend persuing potential "dead ends."

Again, without a reconfirmation of the baseline in your tests I'd almost go so far as to say that as an incomplete test it was a waste since the conclusions can’t necessarily be drawn with a certainty.

Quoted: I have often found that if I have a question or am curious about something, there are other people here with the same questions and curiosities.  I post the results of my observations so that others who might not have even the time or resources that I do, can also benefit from my experiences, and not to provide incontrovertible proofs. Molon

I applaud your altruistic purpose in sharing the information but I’m sorry that the glowing error I pointed out in a simply discussion gleans such a defensive reply.  We’re all here to learn from each other -- no?

I guess this test by Molon goes to show what I've said all along in these piston threads: in shooting my piston guns (an Ares, a Leitner-Wise, and a POF that I've since sold) I've not noticed any appreciable difference in PRACTICAL accuracy. Mine are/were all set up as M4gery-style "combat" carbines. At least as much combat as takes place here in TN! They all wore/wear either an Aimpoint or an EoTech with folding BUIS's. They never were intended for 600 meter head shots or shooting a gnat's nuts off. For the purposes of what most carbines are set up for you won't notice any accuracy difference.

For me the biggest selling point has always been the ease of maintenance. The whole heat/accuracy/reliability debate is a moot point for my concerns. Of course ease of maintenance (i.e. less fouling in critical areas) can be extrapolated to equal more reliability in those situations where one may not have the time to detail clean his weapon despite extensive round counts.

YMMV

I agree about the maintenance. The accuracy difference is not a big deal for my purposes as it is still Minute Of Asshole.

If I need to reach out and touch something I've got my 20'' A2 anyways.

Quoted: Quoted: IIRC, aren't the gas rings critical to the alignment of the bolt in the barrel extension and a noted source of bolt fatigue/failure in the DI system?  Also, I know the LWRC system doesn't remove the gas rings what about the POF system? IIRC, my POF (before I sold it) did NOT have any gas rings.  Maybe SC-Texas will step in as he currently owns a POF upper.

Mine does not have rings.

Quoted: I guess this test by Molon goes to show what I've said all along in these piston threads: in shooting my piston guns (an Ares, a Leitner-Wise, and a POF that I've since sold) I've not noticed any appreciable difference in PRACTICAL accuracy. Mine are/were all set up as M4gery-style "combat" carbines. At least as much combat as takes place here in TN! They all wore/wear either an Aimpoint or an EoTech with folding BUIS's. They never were intended for 600 meter head shots or shooting a gnat's nuts off. For the purposes of what most carbines are set up for you won't notice any accuracy difference. For me the biggest selling point has always been the ease of maintenance. The whole heat/accuracy/reliability debate is a moot point for my concerns. Of course ease of maintenance (i.e. less fouling in critical areas) can be extrapolated to equal more reliability in those situations where one may not have the time to detail clean his weapon despite extensive round counts. YMMV

What do you think of the Ares gas piston system compared to the Leitner-Wise system?

The Ares is less expensive, more readily available, and can be installed by the end user. It can be moved from weapon to weapon if you so desire as it does not require permanent mods to the parts (such as milling out the FSB).

In a perfect world I would like to see the piston and inside of the cylinder hard chromed on the Ares. The L-W uses some sort of teflon coating, which is okay but it eventually starts to wear off.

Weight-wise the Ares and L-W seem to be close, unlike the POF. The POF was nice and it worked fine but it made my carbine a little too front heavy for my liking (which is why I sold it).

Quoted: The Ares is less expensive, more readily available, and can be installed by the end user. It can be moved from weapon to weapon if you so desire as it does not require permanent mods to the parts (such as milling out the FSB). In a perfect world I would like to see the piston and inside of the cylinder hard chromed on the Ares. The L-W uses some sort of teflon coating, which is okay but it eventually starts to wear off. Weight-wise the Ares and L-W seem to be close, unlike the POF. The POF was nice and it worked fine but it made my carbine a little too front heavy for my liking (which is why I sold it).

I was thinking the exact same thing when I was installing the Ares.  The piston on my Steyr AUG is chrome plated and cleaning it is a breeze.

Great review.  

I was holding out hope that HK would sell it's 416 uppers to the civilian market, but since they won't, the ARES conversion seems to be the way to go.

I hope ARES comes out with the rifle kit soon!


0351

Will an M4 hanguard work with the Ares kit?  I would like to add a rail/light combo but I'm not sure with parts will clear a free float tube.

Quoted: Will an M4 hanguard work with the Ares kit?  I would like to add a rail/light combo but I'm not sure with parts will clear a free float tube.

Additionally, are their any rail systems that will work with the ARES GSR-35 without modification?

I'm not aware of anyone using the Ares system with rails that hasn't had to modify the upper portion of the rail.  You will need greater than 1.020" of clearance from the center of the bore line to the underside of the upper rail for it to work.

I'm still waiting for Ares to release their "upside down" KAC URX rail made specially for the GSR-35.  I wonder how long that is going to take?

My mini-range report:

I found a few minutes today to take my 11.5" SBR out, with the newly fitted ARES system.
First couple of mags were hit or miss as far as the bolt staying back after the last round, but that got better after a bit of shooting. I ran around 210 rounds through it, without any problems.
Here's what I noticed:

-Recoil becomes a bit worse, not a lot, but noticeable.

-You can tell the difference in the way the rifle feels when it cycles; it kind of shoots like...well...a gas piston operated rifle... Think FAL

-And then, something I was very curious about: Suppressed. Shooting suppressed with an AR  can be very uncomfortable when no mods have been made to the charging handle, or a PRS unit has been installed. Gas blow back in your face around the creases below and above the charging handle are tremendous, and can make your eyes water.

After about 250 rounds of trouble free shooting, I mounted my Gemtech can. Gas in your face is 90% gone, the only thing I noticed is that a little puff of smoke will come out of the front of the receiver, coming out of the chamber. No biggie, and by no means annoying.

After about 120 rounds suppressed, I took the bolt and carrier out and I hadn't seen a pair coming out of my rifle so clean in a long time...

So overall, I'm very pleased with the system, I agree with the OP that it needed around 30~40 rounds to "set up", but after that it ran flawlessly. My rifle stays considerably cleaner, as do my trigger finger and right cheek. I'm very curious to see how it holds up over time.





On a side-note, this tattoo-ed kid came over and saw my rifle with the can mounted. He yelled out "Oh man, that rifle is FAT!!!"
Me, playing stupid " My rifle is what??"
Him "Man that rifle is Badass! Is that one of those Vltor (pronounced with V) stocks?"
Me " Nope, that's a Magpul".
Him "Is that a Trijicon"?
Me  "Yep"
Him" Is that a Tangodown grip?"
Me "Ehhhh I think so...."
And off he went, to his buddies, who had been shooting two G3's at 25 yards, they do that every time I'm there, and I overheard him: "Man, that guys over there has an AR, with a Vltor stock, a Trijicon scope, and a Tangodown grip! And  a silencer! That thing's got all the bells and whistles!" His buddy: "Silencers are illegal."

Great write up Molon. If I had full auto or a SBR I would think about it, but for me the DI gas system works. If I got one cheap I would throw it on a carbine to play with, but for 400 dollars I would buy other stuff first.

Quoted: Great write up Molon. If I had full auto or a SBR I would think about it, but for me the DI gas system works. If I got one cheap I would throw it on a carbine to play with, but for 400 dollars I would buy other stuff first.

Direct impingement works for me too!  I don't have any intentions of changing out the gas systems on all my uppers, but I do enjoy trying out new products in order to "see for myself."

Quoted: My mini-range report: I found a few minutes today to take my 11.5" SBR out, with the newly fitted ARES system. First couple of mags were hit or miss as far as the bolt staying back after the last round, but that got better after a bit of shooting. I ran around 210 rounds through it, without any problems. Here's what I noticed: -Recoil becomes a bit worse, not a lot, but noticeable. -You can tell the difference in the way the rifle feels when it cycles; it kind of shoots like...well...a gas piston operated rifle... Think FAL -And then, something I was very curious about: Suppressed. Shooting suppressed with an AR  can be very uncomfortable when no mods have been made to the charging handle, or a PRS unit has been installed. Gas blow back in your face around the creases below and above the charging handle are tremendous, and can make your eyes water. After about 250 rounds of trouble free shooting, I mounted my Gemtech can. Gas in your face is 90% gone, the only thing I noticed is that a little puff of smoke will come out of the front of the receiver, coming out of the chamber. No biggie, and by no means annoying. After about 120 rounds suppressed, I took the bolt and carrier out and I hadn't seen a pair coming out of my rifle so clean in a long time... So overall, I'm very pleased with the system, I agree with the OP that it needed around 30~40 rounds to "set up", but after that it ran flawlessly. My rifle stays considerably cleaner, as do my trigger finger and right cheek. I'm very curious to see how it holds up over time. On a side-note, this tattoo-ed kid came over and saw my rifle with the can mounted. He yelled out "Oh man, that rifle is FAT!!!" Me, playing stupid " My rifle is what??" Him "Man that rifle is Badass! Is that one of those Vltor (pronounced with V) stocks?" Me " Nope, that's a Magpul". Him "Is that a Trijicon"? Me  "Yep" Him" Is that a Tangodown grip?" Me "Ehhhh I think so...." And off he went, to his buddies, who had been shooting two G3's at 25 yards, they do that every time I'm there, and I overheard him: "Man, that guys over there has an AR, with a Vltor stock, a Trijicon scope, and a Tangodown grip! And  a silencer! That thing's got all the bells and whistles!" His buddy: "Silencers are illegal."

Interesting that you also had failures of the bolt to lock back at the outset.  Makes me feel a little better about the bent spigot on my unit.  

I'll have to pay more attention to the recoil next time I shoot with the Ares unit to see if I notice any difference.  Thanks for posting your review.

Quoted: Quoted: The Ares is less expensive, more readily available, and can be installed by the end user. It can be moved from weapon to weapon if you so desire as it does not require permanent mods to the parts (such as milling out the FSB). In a perfect world I would like to see the piston and inside of the cylinder hard chromed on the Ares. The L-W uses some sort of teflon coating, which is okay but it eventually starts to wear off. Weight-wise the Ares and L-W seem to be close, unlike the POF. The POF was nice and it worked fine but it made my carbine a little too front heavy for my liking (which is why I sold it). I was thinking the exact same thing when I was installing the Ares.  The piston on my Steyr AUG is chrome plated and cleaning it is a breeze.

I plan on sending my ARES  out to have the piston, inside of the cylinder & The Bolt Carrier hard chromed (I also am going to use a Chromed Bolt).
I will post how it all turns out.

Quick question, I don't know much about the science of barrel harmonics, but if one were able to design a piston assembly that is suspended from say a MRP upper (to insure perfect alignment with the bore), so the piston assembly free floats, would that achieve better accuracy?

Is it possible to design a piston assembly that doesn't touch the barrel?

Quoted: -And then, something I was very curious about: Suppressed. Shooting suppressed with an AR  can be very uncomfortable when no mods have been made to the charging handle, or a PRS unit has been installed. Gas blow back in your face around the creases below and above the charging handle are tremendous, and can make your eyes water. After about 250 rounds of trouble free shooting, I mounted my Gemtech can. Gas in your face is 90% gone, the only thing I noticed is that a little puff of smoke will come out of the front of the receiver, coming out of the chamber. No biggie, and by no means annoying.

Until I read this statement, I have never had any interest or desire in the Ares or any other piston system.  However, I am now contemplating spending $400.  "Silencer Eye" drives me nuts.  I use the PRI Gasbuster, which mitigates the gas somewhat, but is by no means a perfect solution.  

Also, you mentioned perceived recoil as a bit harsher with the piston.  Knowing nothing about the piston system, I imagine less gas is siphoned off to cycle the bolt.  Do you think the piston system would be harsher on the suppressor?  I'm running a 10.5" barrel, which isn't easy on the suppressor to begin with.

Quoted: Quoted: -And then, something I was very curious about: Suppressed. Shooting suppressed with an AR  can be very uncomfortable when no mods have been made to the charging handle, or a PRS unit has been installed. Gas blow back in your face around the creases below and above the charging handle are tremendous, and can make your eyes water. After about 250 rounds of trouble free shooting, I mounted my Gemtech can. Gas in your face is 90% gone, the only thing I noticed is that a little puff of smoke will come out of the front of the receiver, coming out of the chamber. No biggie, and by no means annoying. Until I read this statement, I have never had any interest or desire in the Ares or any other piston system.  However, I am now contemplating spending $400.  "Silencer Eye" drives me nuts.  I use the PRI Gasbuster, which mitigates the gas somewhat, but is by no means a perfect solution.   Also, you mentioned perceived recoil as a bit harsher with the piston.  Knowing nothing about the piston system, I imagine less gas is siphoned off to cycle the bolt.  Do you think the piston system would be harsher on the suppressor?  I'm running a 10.5" barrel, which isn't easy on the suppressor to begin with.

90%? I have a SBR w/can and it wasn't close to this in reduction. I would reverse that number more like 10-20% at most. I have the LW, and bought into all the hype only to find out you can't control the blowback, which is the main problem with cans.

I do like pistons for SBRs and F/A. The accuracy change was good to see, results posted finally.

Quoted: Quoted: -And then, something I was very curious about: Suppressed. Shooting suppressed with an AR  can be very uncomfortable when no mods have been made to the charging handle, or a PRS unit has been installed. Gas blow back in your face around the creases below and above the charging handle are tremendous, and can make your eyes water. After about 250 rounds of trouble free shooting, I mounted my Gemtech can. Gas in your face is 90% gone, the only thing I noticed is that a little puff of smoke will come out of the front of the receiver, coming out of the chamber. No biggie, and by no means annoying. Until I read this statement, I have never had any interest or desire in the Ares or any other piston system.  However, I am now contemplating spending $400.  "Silencer Eye" drives me nuts.  I use the PRI Gasbuster, which mitigates the gas somewhat, but is by no means a perfect solution.   Also, you mentioned perceived recoil as a bit harsher with the piston.  Knowing nothing about the piston system, I imagine less gas is siphoned off to cycle the bolt.  Do you think the piston system would be harsher on the suppressor?  I'm running a 10.5" barrel, which isn't easy on the suppressor to begin with.

I don't know if there is more gas staying in the can, the piston has 4 vent holes to get rid of the excess gas. I can't imagine hurting your can any more than you already are.

Quoted: The highest part of the GSR-35 above the barrel on my carbine is the section on the gas cylinder just aft of the spigot.  It's the shiny spot on the gas cylinder with the red arrow pointing to it in the picture below.  The shiny spot was caused by the gas cylinder rubbing against the the underside of the upper handguard. www.box.net/public/static/htx28ncl8l.jpg

I wonder if that bit if friction could be resoponsible for the accuracy loss?

Quoted: Quoted: Quoted: The Ares is less expensive, more readily available, and can be installed by the end user. It can be moved from weapon to weapon if you so desire as it does not require permanent mods to the parts (such as milling out the FSB). In a perfect world I would like to see the piston and inside of the cylinder hard chromed on the Ares. The L-W uses some sort of teflon coating, which is okay but it eventually starts to wear off. Weight-wise the Ares and L-W seem to be close, unlike the POF. The POF was nice and it worked fine but it made my carbine a little too front heavy for my liking (which is why I sold it). I was thinking the exact same thing when I was installing the Ares.  The piston on my Steyr AUG is chrome plated and cleaning it is a breeze. I plan on sending my ARES  out to have the piston, inside of the cylinder & The Bolt Carrier hard chromed (I also am going to use a Chromed Bolt). I will post how it all turns out.

I'd be curious to see if the tolerances are too close to allow the chroming and still function properly. By all means, keep us posted on this. Oh, and include who you set it to and how much it cost.

Quoted: Quoted: Quoted: The Ares is less expensive, more readily available, and can be installed by the end user. It can be moved from weapon to weapon if you so desire as it does not require permanent mods to the parts (such as milling out the FSB). In a perfect world I would like to see the piston and inside of the cylinder hard chromed on the Ares. The L-W uses some sort of teflon coating, which is okay but it eventually starts to wear off. Weight-wise the Ares and L-W seem to be close, unlike the POF. The POF was nice and it worked fine but it made my carbine a little too front heavy for my liking (which is why I sold it). I was thinking the exact same thing when I was installing the Ares.  The piston on my Steyr AUG is chrome plated and cleaning it is a breeze. I plan on sending my ARES  out to have the piston, inside of the cylinder & The Bolt Carrier hard chromed (I also am going to use a Chromed Bolt). I will post how it all turns out.

Excellent!  Don't forget to post some pictures of the chromed parts with your range report.

Would this fit under a Vltor CAS-V?