AR Sponsor
High round count AR/M4's (over 100,000 rounds) and how they have handled on our range (Page 6 of 43)
|
A couple questions:
1. You stated earlier that some 5.56 chambers actually turn out to be .223. Is this across the board or specific to a certain brand or brand(s)? 2. You stated some of the Korean-made railed handguards hold up better than more expensive types. Brand name(s)? |
|
Thanks for these great threads, Ron. I think I can honestly say that these are the most informative threads currently running on ARFCOM.
I’m an employee of a tourist business a couple blocks down the road from you and a we’re a frequent (friendly) competitor for the top spot on TripAdvisor (in fact I think we did a holiday promo with you guys once). We often use you guys as an example of how to “do it right” in Vegas. Anyway, I’ll have to stop by next time I’m in town. Looking forward to the sniper experience…I’d pay large money for that one! Best of luck and thanks for the great info! |
|
Originally Posted By JKrammes: Fantastic thread... Any chance of a similar thread on handguns? Also, looking forward to the optics thread. |
|
Originally Posted By DocGlockster:
A couple questions: 1. You stated earlier that some 5.56 chambers actually turn out to be .223. Is this across the board or specific to a certain brand or brand(s)? 2. You stated some of the Korean-made railed handguards hold up better than more expensive types. Brand name(s)? A few people have asked me about these via PM's and posts in this thread. I don't know the name but I will find out for you as we used to sell them at the retail store. Just a matter of going through the items list on the PC. V/R Ron |
|
Originally Posted By HendersonDefense: A few people have asked me about these via PM's and posts in this thread. I don't know the name but I will find out for you as we used to sell them at the retail store. Just a matter of going through the items list on the PC.
V/R Ron You're a very gracious man. Thank you. |
Thanks to HammerHammer for the Team Membership.
| Just out of curiousity, You said you dont use piston guns anymore. Before you stopped did you happen to use any LMT's i have a DI gun thats upwards of 6k through it, replaced some stuff i suspected, didnt wait for it to break. But that said im looking into piston guns, havent bougt one yet. Just wondered how LMT rifles faired. |
|
I want to clarify that we have NOT used a LWRC rifle here on our range. I don't want to give the impression that we have by not omitting them when I said we've tried all the piston systems. I will try and update some the thread with responses to more questions soon.
V/R Ron |
|
Ron,
Thank you for your threads here on the board. They are a wealth of information. I know I'm only the 10,000th guy here to say that, but it really is true. You guys really get a chance to abuse weapons and platforms and see what breaks early, and what holds out the longest. Your sharing of this information is very valuable to me and many others. Finally, thank you for your response to the poster on page 8... I was in the Marine Corps infantry so I got to play with FA stuff on Uncle Sam's time and dime. FA is fun, but expensive and not something I would ordinarily be willing to pay for after getting paid to do earlier in life. After reading that reply, I will happily make an exception for Battle Field Vegas. Sometimes a business is more than just a business. Guys like you turn a business into a profession and much much more for those who are lucky enough to work for you. Hat's off sir... |
Chaos, confusion, despair....my work is done here. Murphy
Did you just realize the closest you'll ever be to becoming a hero is wearing your underwear outside your pants?
Madcap72
Did you just realize the closest you'll ever be to becoming a hero is wearing your underwear outside your pants?
Madcap72
|
I would love to hear if/how the PWS piston system failed you, if you ever decide to divulge it. I felt vindicated by your high round count AK thread and how well the WASRs did--but then you went and hurt my AR pride by telling me that all your piston guns broke.
Great thread(s), sir. |
You don't want any part of me right now, I'm full of bitterness, Scotch, and impure thoughts!!!!
.
PA-PA-PA-PA-POW! Like 10 pounds of C4 in your sister! --Redhed97
.
PA-PA-PA-PA-POW! Like 10 pounds of C4 in your sister! --Redhed97
|
Originally Posted By the444shooter:
I would love to hear if/how the PWS piston system failed you, if you ever decide to divulge it. I felt vindicated by your high round count AK thread and how well the WASRs did--but then you went and hurt my AR pride by telling me that all your piston guns broke. Great thread(s), sir. I would like to know this as well! |
|
Originally Posted By the444shooter:
I would love to hear if/how the PWS piston system failed you, if you ever decide to divulge it. I felt vindicated by your high round count AK thread and how well the WASRs did--but then you went and hurt my AR pride by telling me that all your piston guns broke. Great thread(s), sir. Y'all act like this is some sort of a shocker. Piston guns go tits-up at EVERY carbine class I've been to that had piston guns. The only one I ever saw run like it should was Jason Falla's real-deal 416. |
|
Samuse, among the piston guns that you have seen have troubles during some of the classes you took did you see the Sig 556 fail? Thanks. |
You KNOW it's going to be an "Interesting" Job when you see the 5 Gal tub of Anal-ease with a popsicle stick sticking out of it and a VERY frightened looking gerbil hiding in his cage. AJK07734
|
Damn I thought the piston guns were the stuff Glad I saved my cash, awesome thread thanks for the info
|
No free man shall ever be debarred the use of arms
Thomas Jefferson
If a law is unjust, a man is not only right to disobey it, he is obligated to do so.
- Thomas Jefferson
Thomas Jefferson
If a law is unjust, a man is not only right to disobey it, he is obligated to do so.
- Thomas Jefferson
|
Amazing that the M4 has a much more durable receiver than the AK. You hear about stories with Afghans that have AKs that have been used since the Soviet invasion. I bet they just don't get to shoot them nearly that much. ETA: Great thread, by the way |
|
Originally Posted By ArmyInfantryVet:
Amazing that the M4 has a much more durable receiver than the AK. You hear about stories with Afghans that have AKs that have been used since the Soviet invasion. I bet they just don't get to shoot them nearly that much. ETA: Great thread, by the way How is that surprising? The AR receiver is under little no stress, its basically a tube. |
|
Originally Posted By vicious_cb:
How is that surprising? The AR receiver is under little no stress, its basically a tube. Originally Posted By vicious_cb:
Originally Posted By ArmyInfantryVet:
Amazing that the M4 has a much more durable receiver than the AK. You hear about stories with Afghans that have AKs that have been used since the Soviet invasion. I bet they just don't get to shoot them nearly that much. ETA: Great thread, by the way How is that surprising? The AR receiver is under little no stress, its basically a tube. This. And we have plenty of receivers still in service from the nam days. Hell, Mk 12s and Mk 18s are all built on repurposed M16A1 lowers 
|
|
Originally Posted By TinyCrumb:
This. And we have plenty of receivers still in service from the nam days. Hell, Mk 12s and Mk 18s are all built on repurposed M16A1 lowers
Originally Posted By TinyCrumb:
Originally Posted By vicious_cb:
Originally Posted By ArmyInfantryVet:
Amazing that the M4 has a much more durable receiver than the AK. You hear about stories with Afghans that have AKs that have been used since the Soviet invasion. I bet they just don't get to shoot them nearly that much. ETA: Great thread, by the way How is that surprising? The AR receiver is under little no stress, its basically a tube. This. And we have plenty of receivers still in service from the nam days. Hell, Mk 12s and Mk 18s are all built on repurposed M16A1 lowers
True. I can remember seeing an XM16E1 strikethrough receiver in 1997. |
Обезьяны всех стран, соединитесь!
|
Originally Posted By samuse:
Y'all act like this is some sort of a shocker. Piston guns go tits-up at EVERY carbine class I've been to that had piston guns. The only one I ever saw run like it should was Jason Falla's real-deal 416. Originally Posted By samuse:
Originally Posted By the444shooter:
I would love to hear if/how the PWS piston system failed you, if you ever decide to divulge it. I felt vindicated by your high round count AK thread and how well the WASRs did--but then you went and hurt my AR pride by telling me that all your piston guns broke. Great thread(s), sir. Y'all act like this is some sort of a shocker. Piston guns go tits-up at EVERY carbine class I've been to that had piston guns. The only one I ever saw run like it should was Jason Falla's real-deal 416. I have zero failures with my PWS mk116 mod 1, but only have 5-600rds through it so far. I was curious at the breaking point of this system because I dumped the short stroke system for PWS's long stroke, thinking there would be less stress on the piston system itself, due to the low pressure/high volume aspect of it. |
You don't want any part of me right now, I'm full of bitterness, Scotch, and impure thoughts!!!!
.
PA-PA-PA-PA-POW! Like 10 pounds of C4 in your sister! --Redhed97
.
PA-PA-PA-PA-POW! Like 10 pounds of C4 in your sister! --Redhed97
|
I would be interested in your maintenance intervals on these weapons. Do they get maintenance at certain round counts or just when they start to malfunction? With the number of rounds you are putting through these do you keep track of round count before they require maintenance?
Thanks for the great real world perspective and the time you have spent answering all the questions. |
|
Originally Posted By ALREB:
I would be interested in your maintenance intervals on these weapons. Do they get maintenance at certain round counts or just when they start to malfunction? With the number of rounds you are putting through these do you keep track of round count before they require maintenance? Thanks for the great real world perspective and the time you have spent answering all the questions. We've thought about that for quite awhile. The problem is the continued growth that we are experiencing. Growth is good thing but it doesn't allow us to put the mechanisms in place to accurately track round count. Some of the ideas we have are to bar code each weapon so when it goes out on the line, it gets scanned along with the quantity of magazines going along with it. I would have to hire another full-time employee just to handle that procedure. That's not a bad thing because that employee would assemble each of the packages for the RSO and have it ready for them to hit the range. Again, we are still growing and we are probably going to have to expand the range another 14 lanes so that's a priority at this time. V/R Ron |
|
Originally Posted By R0N: Technical Report ARWSE-TR-10006, M4 CARBINE FORGED BARREL STUDY REPORT is pretty interesting study were they tested various manufacturing processes using similar barrel steels. however it contains proprietary information that can access via DTIC with a CAC, but is not releasable. A couple of the take away from the report is with the current barrel steel used by the military, CHF only gives marginal improvements, while other steels they got significantly more improvements. And steels that are known for the durability while CHFd when button rifled really suck Originally Posted By R0N: Originally Posted By M4Tank: Your the one in the bubble, convinced yourself that CHF is better and there is nothing that will prove you wrong. I have an open mind, I just have NOT seen or read actual proof and I will feel the same way until proven other wise. If the op had came and said he noticed a clear differance in CHF life over button rifled barrels I would acknowledge them as better as he appears to have real values with multiple weapons. Snce he did not, your trying to debunk what he is saying. This is real actual data, not computer analysis. He instead stated what i have always felt that there is no noticable differance. I guess the op is just mistaken about these standard barrels lasting 80k rounds... Oh, wait it was only done at 15 yards... If it was done at 50... Well it was only 50, do the test at 100 and so on. Technical Report ARWSE-TR-10006, M4 CARBINE FORGED BARREL STUDY REPORT is pretty interesting study were they tested various manufacturing processes using similar barrel steels. however it contains proprietary information that can access via DTIC with a CAC, but is not releasable. A couple of the take away from the report is with the current barrel steel used by the military, CHF only gives marginal improvements, while other steels they got significantly more improvements. And steels that are known for the durability while CHFd when button rifled really suck I'd love to see the results of that. If anyone can "splurge" to find out what is superior, it's the military. |
|
Originally Posted By Bartholomew_Roberts:
True. I can remember seeing an XM16E1 strikethrough receiver in 1997. Originally Posted By Bartholomew_Roberts:
Originally Posted By TinyCrumb:
Originally Posted By vicious_cb:
Originally Posted By ArmyInfantryVet:
Amazing that the M4 has a much more durable receiver than the AK. You hear about stories with Afghans that have AKs that have been used since the Soviet invasion. I bet they just don't get to shoot them nearly that much. ETA: Great thread, by the way How is that surprising? The AR receiver is under little no stress, its basically a tube. This. And we have plenty of receivers still in service from the nam days. Hell, Mk 12s and Mk 18s are all built on repurposed M16A1 lowers
True. I can remember seeing an XM16E1 strikethrough receiver in 1997. I was issued a no shit XM16E1 in original configuration in 2008 at Fort Lewis during ROTC LDAC. |
|
Originally Posted By NUcadet07:
I was issued a no shit XM16E1 in original configuration in 2008 at Fort Lewis during ROTC LDAC. Originally Posted By NUcadet07:
Originally Posted By Bartholomew_Roberts:
Originally Posted By TinyCrumb:
Originally Posted By vicious_cb:
Originally Posted By ArmyInfantryVet:
Amazing that the M4 has a much more durable receiver than the AK. You hear about stories with Afghans that have AKs that have been used since the Soviet invasion. I bet they just don't get to shoot them nearly that much. ETA: Great thread, by the way How is that surprising? The AR receiver is under little no stress, its basically a tube. This. And we have plenty of receivers still in service from the nam days. Hell, Mk 12s and Mk 18s are all built on repurposed M16A1 lowers
True. I can remember seeing an XM16E1 strikethrough receiver in 1997. I was issued a no shit XM16E1 in original configuration in 2008 at Fort Lewis during ROTC LDAC. Did yours have the A2 handguards? What reg were you? |
Please, call me Joe
<font size=2>Follow me on Instagram!
http://instagram.com/tcba_joe/</font id=s2>
<font size=2>Follow me on Instagram!
http://instagram.com/tcba_joe/</font id=s2>
|
Originally Posted By samuse:
Y'all act like this is some sort of a shocker. Piston guns go tits-up at EVERY carbine class I've been to that had piston guns. The only one I ever saw run like it should was Jason Falla's real-deal 416. Originally Posted By samuse:
Originally Posted By the444shooter:
I would love to hear if/how the PWS piston system failed you, if you ever decide to divulge it. I felt vindicated by your high round count AK thread and how well the WASRs did--but then you went and hurt my AR pride by telling me that all your piston guns broke. Great thread(s), sir. Y'all act like this is some sort of a shocker. Piston guns go tits-up at EVERY carbine class I've been to that had piston guns. The only one I ever saw run like it should was Jason Falla's real-deal 416. What ABOUT piston guns is the failure point? THAT is what we're trying to get his comments on. |
"--you can't conquer a free man; the most you can do is kill him."
Heinlein
NRA Life Member
Glock Certified Armorer
Certified AR15 Armorer
Certified M1911 Armorer
Heinlein
NRA Life Member
Glock Certified Armorer
Certified AR15 Armorer
Certified M1911 Armorer
|
Originally Posted By HendersonDefense: There have been instances where changing a bolt wouldn't correct the malfunction issues but swapping out carriers did correct the issue. I don't know what exactly "wears" out but if I didn't personally see it with my eyes I would've doubted it myself. V/R Ron Originally Posted By HendersonDefense: Originally Posted By peecmkr45: When using BCG's manufactured by other than DD or LMT what failures did you see. You have mentioned failures of individual bolt components such as cam pins, bolt lugs etc. Other than the shearing of gas key screws(you mentioned gas tube shearing off) what can fail on the bolt carrier itself? I would think these would last indefinitely. Keep the real world experience coming. It is pretty rare to get this type of info on high round count rifles and parts. There have been instances where changing a bolt wouldn't correct the malfunction issues but swapping out carriers did correct the issue. I don't know what exactly "wears" out but if I didn't personally see it with my eyes I would've doubted it myself. V/R Ron I've run into this as well. I've been playing around with full auto M16's since around 2001. Not as many rounds as these guys but still a lot. What I think the issue is that the inside of the carrier gets eroded and even with new gas rings, excess gas will get past the rings but depending on how the rings line up may work....it causes sporadic issues until it is just plain unreliable. These days so many people make AR parts, I've run into some other carriers that use some special coating that is not chrome like a milspec carrier that has the same issues. Worked fine for a while and just stopped working unless more gas is allowed into the action. |
http://micromoa.com
https://www.facebook.com/MicroMOA
AR15.com Industry Forum - http://www.ar15.com/forums/f_2/543_.html
https://www.facebook.com/MicroMOA
AR15.com Industry Forum - http://www.ar15.com/forums/f_2/543_.html
|
Originally Posted By GHPorter: What ABOUT piston guns is the failure point? THAT is what we're trying to get his comments on. Originally Posted By GHPorter: Originally Posted By samuse: Originally Posted By the444shooter: I would love to hear if/how the PWS piston system failed you, if you ever decide to divulge it. I felt vindicated by your high round count AK thread and how well the WASRs did--but then you went and hurt my AR pride by telling me that all your piston guns broke. Great thread(s), sir. Y'all act like this is some sort of a shocker. Piston guns go tits-up at EVERY carbine class I've been to that had piston guns. The only one I ever saw run like it should was Jason Falla's real-deal 416. What ABOUT piston guns is the failure point? THAT is what we're trying to get his comments on. The AR is engineered to be a "DI" rifle. It's like taking a car and putting a bunch of untested, aftermarket suspension system parts on your car. It just wasn't designed to use it. IIRC, the DI allows the AR to use an aluminum receiver. |
Two Time BoTD CoC Changer and Tranny in Training.
Joined:
Aug 2013
Posts:
3702
EE: 0% (0)
MO, USA
|
Originally Posted By ArmyInfantryVet: The AR is engineered to be a "DI" rifle. It's like taking a car and putting a bunch of untested, aftermarket suspension system parts on your car. It just wasn't designed to use it. IIRC, the DI allows the AR to use an aluminum receiver. Originally Posted By ArmyInfantryVet: Originally Posted By GHPorter: Originally Posted By samuse: Originally Posted By the444shooter: I would love to hear if/how the PWS piston system failed you, if you ever decide to divulge it. I felt vindicated by your high round count AK thread and how well the WASRs did--but then you went and hurt my AR pride by telling me that all your piston guns broke. Great thread(s), sir. Y'all act like this is some sort of a shocker. Piston guns go tits-up at EVERY carbine class I've been to that had piston guns. The only one I ever saw run like it should was Jason Falla's real-deal 416. What ABOUT piston guns is the failure point? THAT is what we're trying to get his comments on. The AR is engineered to be a "DI" rifle. It's like taking a car and putting a bunch of untested, aftermarket suspension system parts on your car. It just wasn't designed to use it. IIRC, the DI allows the AR to use an aluminum receiver. So you are saying that the Aluminum receiver can break with a piston system?  It makes more sense that the actual piston itself breaks under hard use than the receiver. |
The Jedi are the fucking Taliban of Star Wars... -Miami_JBT
I'm all the more convinced this is an LGBT forum with a gun problem... .-EESmith
I'm all the more convinced this is an LGBT forum with a gun problem... .-EESmith
|
Originally Posted By Valintino: So you are saying that the Aluminum receiver can break with a piston system? It makes more sense that the actual piston itself breaks under hard use than the receiver. Originally Posted By Valintino: Originally Posted By ArmyInfantryVet: Originally Posted By GHPorter: Originally Posted By samuse: Originally Posted By the444shooter: I would love to hear if/how the PWS piston system failed you, if you ever decide to divulge it. I felt vindicated by your high round count AK thread and how well the WASRs did--but then you went and hurt my AR pride by telling me that all your piston guns broke. Great thread(s), sir. Y'all act like this is some sort of a shocker. Piston guns go tits-up at EVERY carbine class I've been to that had piston guns. The only one I ever saw run like it should was Jason Falla's real-deal 416. What ABOUT piston guns is the failure point? THAT is what we're trying to get his comments on. The AR is engineered to be a "DI" rifle. It's like taking a car and putting a bunch of untested, aftermarket suspension system parts on your car. It just wasn't designed to use it. IIRC, the DI allows the AR to use an aluminum receiver. So you are saying that the Aluminum receiver can break with a piston system? It makes more sense that the actual piston itself breaks under hard use than the receiver. I wish I could explain it better. But there are people with engineering backgrounds that have talked about it when the discussion has come up in GD. |
Two Time BoTD CoC Changer and Tranny in Training.
Joined:
Aug 2013
Posts:
3703
EE: 0% (0)
MO, USA
|
Originally Posted By ArmyInfantryVet: I wish I could explain it better. But there are people with engineering backgrounds that have talked about it when the discussion has come up in GD. Originally Posted By ArmyInfantryVet: Originally Posted By Valintino: Originally Posted By ArmyInfantryVet: Originally Posted By GHPorter: What ABOUT piston guns is the failure point? THAT is what we're trying to get his comments on. The AR is engineered to be a "DI" rifle. It's like taking a car and putting a bunch of untested, aftermarket suspension system parts on your car. It just wasn't designed to use it. IIRC, the DI allows the AR to use an aluminum receiver. So you are saying that the Aluminum receiver can break with a piston system? It makes more sense that the actual piston itself breaks under hard use than the receiver. I wish I could explain it better. But there are people with engineering backgrounds that have talked about it when the discussion has come up in GD. Then could someone step in and explain it to me?  |
The Jedi are the fucking Taliban of Star Wars... -Miami_JBT
I'm all the more convinced this is an LGBT forum with a gun problem... .-EESmith
I'm all the more convinced this is an LGBT forum with a gun problem... .-EESmith
|
First of all, as referenced in Stoner's patent, the standard AR IS a piston...a stationary piston. https://www.google.com/patents/US2951424?dq=2951424&hl=en&sa=X&ei=8CCfVd_NKImwe5L2o8gF&ved=0CB4Q6AEwAA It is NOT a DI. An example of DI would be something like the ljungman. One thing to remember with all these current 'front end' piston kits or complete builds is that when you add a heavy buffer you are putting more stress on the op rod and impact lug of the bolt carrier. What happens when you put a buffer that is too heavy to function with the standard gas system? It just won't cycle but nothing will break or get stressed like it will with a 'front end' piston. I've already broken op rods and impact lugs on various piston kits. I think most if not all use an op rod that has a maximum diameter to fit in an unmodified upper but still not beefy enough. I also have a Shrike that I use in full auto and while that uses a proprietary upper and a beefier op rod, the bolt carrier has the same or close to the same OD as a standard AR carrier and the impact lug on mine broke off the carrier after maybe 20K rounds of full auto rendering the gun in operable. They did replace the bolt carrier and told me they changed the heat treat process. I have not run it hard again since then. All the front end piston systems I've tried do not have rails like an AK does. (I know there is at least one company that now makes a piston upper with rails). With these front end piston systems the bolt is basically 'pulled' out of the extension vs the standard 'Stoner' gas system where the carrier is pushed away from the bolt from the gas coming in...that force is not present on a 'front end' piston. I would think that would cause the bolts to fail faster in a front end piston system. Since there is no 'tilting' occuring and the stationary piston is inline with the bolt carrier the standard gas system doesn't need rails and works fine with an aluminum receiver as it doesn't take any stress during firing. My last effort in playing with a piston system is seen in the video below. This was an AA kit where we milled out the bottom of the carrier to function with unmodified AK74 mags. This is with an MGI modular lower and RDIAS. I thought this would be a perfect setup for the front end piston since the ammo is so dirty. To my surprise, it was extremely unpleasant to shoot. Not even suppressed, it threw a lot of crap back in my face and was not smooth in firing. Not cleaning the front end piston and it got seized up. Then it didn't even make it to 500 rounds of full auto and the op rod got bent.  Went back to the standard gas system and it is much more pleasant to shoot and cleanup isn't that bad as long as it is lubed. Regarding the whole eats where it craps argument, someone on Subguns.com commented how the M16 did pretty well in some sand testing. He was using the analogy of when you open the door of your house and leaves are around they get sucked inside from the vacuum - that is a front end piston. On the standard AR gas system gas is expelled from the ejection port which also means sand around the ejection port is blown away vs sucked in. Lastly, I've found that the standard gas system is more forgiving with varying conditions and interestingly, Stoner himself mentions this in one of his patents. I think this is also evident when you look at what people do with AR's today...all the tricked out parts around. How many competition shooters use 'front end' pistons that are not getting paid or sponsored to do so? Very few, I just don't think you can get a 'front end' piston to run as smooth as a well tuned standard AR gas system. So for me, from a performance perspective, I prefer the standard gas system as it is very smooth with the inline recoil. From a durability perspective, I've seen first hand that it can handle heavy full auto better than the 'front end' pistons. Some may say the gas tube is a weak link and I must say that I thought the nitrided gas tubes were a gimmick until I tried one and they really do work. I know someone that ran a few beta mags back to back in full auto until rounds were cooking off and the nitrided gas tube did not fail. Also when talking suppressed, the piston systems are louder and heavier and you are already talking about adding more weight with the suppressor. However, with a suppressor, I would strongly recommend running adjustable gas or a smaller port with a dedicated suppressed upper. Doing so, you can actually achieve a slower full auto RoF than unsuppressed from the increased dwell time. |
http://micromoa.com
https://www.facebook.com/MicroMOA
AR15.com Industry Forum - http://www.ar15.com/forums/f_2/543_.html
https://www.facebook.com/MicroMOA
AR15.com Industry Forum - http://www.ar15.com/forums/f_2/543_.html
Two Time BoTD CoC Changer and Tranny in Training.
Joined:
Aug 2013
Posts:
3708
EE: 0% (0)
MO, USA
|
Originally Posted By amphibian: First of all, as referenced in Stoner's patent, the standard AR IS a piston...a stationary piston. https://www.google.com/patents/US2951424?dq=2951424&hl=en&sa=X&ei=8CCfVd_NKImwe5L2o8gF&ved=0CB4Q6AEwAA It is NOT a DI. An example of DI would be something like the ljungman. One thing to remember with all these current 'front end' piston kits or complete builds is that when you add a heavy buffer you are putting more stress on the op rod and impact lug of the bolt carrier. What happens when you put a buffer that is too heavy to function with the standard gas system? It just won't cycle but nothing will break or get stressed like it will with a 'front end' piston. I've already broken op rods and impact lugs on various piston kits. I think most if not all use an op rod that has a maximum diameter to fit in an unmodified upper but still not beefy enough. I also have a Shrike that I use in full auto and while that uses a proprietary upper and a beefier op rod, the bolt carrier has the same or close to the same OD as a standard AR carrier and the impact lug on mine broke off the carrier after maybe 20K rounds of full auto rendering the gun in operable. They did replace the bolt carrier and told me they changed the heat treat process. I have not run it hard again since then. All the front end piston systems I've tried do not have rails like an AK does. (I know there is at least one company that now makes a piston upper with rails). With these front end piston systems the bolt is basically 'pulled' out of the extension vs the standard 'Stoner' gas system where the carrier is pushed away from the bolt from the gas coming in...that force is not present on a 'front end' piston. I would think that would cause the bolts to fail faster in a front end piston system. Since there is no 'tilting' occuring and the stationary piston is inline with the bolt carrier the standard gas system doesn't need rails and works fine with an aluminum receiver as it doesn't take any stress during firing. My last effort in playing with a piston system is seen in the video below. This was an AA kit where we milled out the bottom of the carrier to function with unmodified AK74 mags. This is with an MGI modular lower and RDIAS. I thought this would be a perfect setup for the front end piston since the ammo is so dirty. To my surprise, it was extremely unpleasant to shoot. Not even suppressed, it threw a lot of crap back in my face and was not smooth in firing. Not cleaning the front end piston and it got seized up. Then it didn't even make it to 500 rounds of full auto and the op rod got bent.  http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=0ZNiTT7domcWent back to the standard gas system and it is much more pleasant to shoot and cleanup isn't that bad as long as it is lubed. Regarding the whole eats where it craps argument, someone on Subguns.com commented how the M16 did pretty well in some sand testing. He was using the analogy of when you open the door of your house and leaves are around they get sucked inside from the vacuum - that is a front end piston. On the standard AR gas system gas is expelled from the ejection port which also means sand around the ejection port is blown away vs sucked in. Lastly, I've found that the standard gas system is more forgiving with varying conditions and interestingly, Stoner himself mentions this in one of his patents. I think this is also evident when you look at what people do with AR's today...all the tricked out parts around. How many competition shooters use 'front end' pistons that are not getting paid or sponsored to do so? Very few, I just don't think you can get a 'front end' piston to run as smooth as a well tuned standard AR gas system. So for me, from a performance perspective, I prefer the standard gas system as it is very smooth with the inline recoil. From a durability perspective, I've seen first hand that it can handle heavy full auto better than the 'front end' pistons. Some may say the gas tube is a weak link and I must say that I thought the nitrided gas tubes were a gimmick until I tried one and they really do work. I know someone that ran a few beta mags back to back in full auto until rounds were cooking off and the nitrided gas tube did not fail. Also when talking suppressed, the piston systems are louder and heavier and you are already talking about adding more weight with the suppressor. However, with a suppressor, I would strongly recommend running adjustable gas or a smaller port with a dedicated suppressed upper. Doing so, you can actually achieve a slower full auto RoF than unsuppressed from the increased dwell time. Great post!  Figured the op-rods and strike faces were the ones that get damaged the most. Beefier op-rods would be the better solution but then you need a proprietary upper.  Go any further and you are pretty much heading into 416 and ARAK-21 territory. |
The Jedi are the fucking Taliban of Star Wars... -Miami_JBT
I'm all the more convinced this is an LGBT forum with a gun problem... .-EESmith
I'm all the more convinced this is an LGBT forum with a gun problem... .-EESmith
|
Originally Posted By NUcadet07:
Nope, original triangle handguards and A1 stocks on most of our weapons. Some still had the original chrome carriers too. 9th Regiment. Originally Posted By NUcadet07:
Originally Posted By TCBA_Joe:
Did yours have the A2 handguards? What reg were you? Nope, original triangle handguards and A1 stocks on most of our weapons. Some still had the original chrome carriers too. 9th Regiment. Damn..I was at Lewis circa '93-'95 in 9th Reg.....we had A2's then |
|
Ron was the first gun dude to welcome me to Vegas, when my wife and I came over here for our house-hunting expedition prior to PCS from Florida, so...Hi Ron! I don't get down to Henderson and the store very often anymore, though, it's just too far out of my way most of the time.  |
A wayfarer should not walk unarmed,
But have his weapons to hand:
He knows not when he may need a spear,
Or what menace meet on the road.
~The Havamal
Gunpowder is my incense.
But have his weapons to hand:
He knows not when he may need a spear,
Or what menace meet on the road.
~The Havamal
Gunpowder is my incense.
|
Originally Posted By TJRoush:
Damn..I was at Lewis circa '93-'95 in 9th Reg.....we had A2's then Originally Posted By TJRoush:
Originally Posted By NUcadet07:
Originally Posted By TCBA_Joe:
Did yours have the A2 handguards? What reg were you? Nope, original triangle handguards and A1 stocks on most of our weapons. Some still had the original chrome carriers too. 9th Regiment. Damn..I was at Lewis circa '93-'95 in 9th Reg.....we had A2's then Hey, the 9th IR was part of 2nd ID in WWII. Was it when you guys were in? |
Jesus came to comfort the afflicted and afflict the comfortable. - My Pastor
|
Originally Posted By HendersonDefense:
We've thought about that for quite awhile. The problem is the continued growth that we are experiencing. Growth is good thing but it doesn't allow us to put the mechanisms in place to accurately track round count. Some of the ideas we have are to bar code each weapon so when it goes out on the line, it gets scanned along with the quantity of magazines going along with it. I would have to hire another full-time employee just to handle that procedure. That's not a bad thing because that employee would assemble each of the packages for the RSO and have it ready for them to hit the range. Again, we are still growing and we are probably going to have to expand the range another 14 lanes so that's a priority at this time. V/R Ron Originally Posted By HendersonDefense:
Originally Posted By ALREB:
I would be interested in your maintenance intervals on these weapons. Do they get maintenance at certain round counts or just when they start to malfunction? With the number of rounds you are putting through these do you keep track of round count before they require maintenance? Thanks for the great real world perspective and the time you have spent answering all the questions. We've thought about that for quite awhile. The problem is the continued growth that we are experiencing. Growth is good thing but it doesn't allow us to put the mechanisms in place to accurately track round count. Some of the ideas we have are to bar code each weapon so when it goes out on the line, it gets scanned along with the quantity of magazines going along with it. I would have to hire another full-time employee just to handle that procedure. That's not a bad thing because that employee would assemble each of the packages for the RSO and have it ready for them to hit the range. Again, we are still growing and we are probably going to have to expand the range another 14 lanes so that's a priority at this time. V/R Ron Hire someone from a local college that likes guns and is very well versed in Excel. When you get a tracking system, you'll start getting a TON of quantifiable data out of the program. You'll probably be surprised at just how good the information you'll gather is. |
|
Originally Posted By JJREA:
Hey, the 9th IR was part of 2nd ID in WWII. Was it when you guys were in? Originally Posted By JJREA:
Originally Posted By TJRoush:
Originally Posted By NUcadet07:
Originally Posted By TCBA_Joe:
Did yours have the A2 handguards? What reg were you? Nope, original triangle handguards and A1 stocks on most of our weapons. Some still had the original chrome carriers too. 9th Regiment. Damn..I was at Lewis circa '93-'95 in 9th Reg.....we had A2's then Hey, the 9th IR was part of 2nd ID in WWII. Was it when you guys were in? They designated the various ROTC LDAC class cycle each summer as regiments named after famous Army regiments. I was "7th Regiment", so the 7th class cycle in that summer, they even went with the whole "Gary Owen" thing. NUcadet was the 9th class cycle that summer. We had XM16E1s, that looked to be all original but had A2 handguards installed. |
Please, call me Joe
<font size=2>Follow me on Instagram!
http://instagram.com/tcba_joe/</font id=s2>
<font size=2>Follow me on Instagram!
http://instagram.com/tcba_joe/</font id=s2>
|
Here is a nice link to some of the guns in the Battlefield Las Vegas arsenal!
http://www.guns.com/2015/06/26/a-peek-inside-the-weapons-vault-and-its-all-for-rent-15-pictures/ Just some of the images, click on the link for the full collection. 
|
Put down the Optic! Learn how to shoot the REAL way!
***************************************
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ligUEAJH25E
***************************************
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ligUEAJH25E
|
Originally Posted By Blain:
Here is a nice link to some of the guns in the Battlefield Las Vegas arsenal! http://www.guns.com/2015/06/26/a-peek-inside-the-weapons-vault-and-its-all-for-rent-15-pictures/ Just some of the images, click on the link for the full collection. http://www.guns.com/wp-content/uploads/2015/06/battlefield-vegas5.jpg http://www.guns.com/wp-content/uploads/2015/06/battlefield-vegas2.jpg http://www.guns.com/wp-content/uploads/2015/06/battlefield-vegas3.jpg http://www.guns.com/wp-content/uploads/2015/06/battlefield-vegas7.jpg  
|
Freedom is not Free..
The 2nd Amendment is a RIGHT, not a Privilege...
Gun Gallery 4 Life: "Sellng Guns, Changing People's Lives"
The 2nd Amendment is a RIGHT, not a Privilege...
Gun Gallery 4 Life: "Sellng Guns, Changing People's Lives"
|
I think if I won the Powerball it might just pay for a similar room. Wow. 
|
You KNOW it's going to be an "Interesting" Job when you see the 5 Gal tub of Anal-ease with a popsicle stick sticking out of it and a VERY frightened looking gerbil hiding in his cage. AJK07734
|
Originally Posted By amphibian:
I've already broken op rods and impact lugs on various piston kits. I think most if not all use an op rod that has a maximum diameter to fit in an unmodified upper but still not beefy enough. Yep, with that much force you break the rod or the lug. Lastly, I've found that the standard gas system is more forgiving with varying conditions and interestingly, Stoner himself mentions this in one of his patents. Some may say the gas tube is a weak link and I must say that I thought the nitrided gas tubes were a gimmick until I tried one and they really do work. I know someone that ran a few beta mags back to back in full auto until rounds were cooking off and the nitrided gas tube did not fail. If you look at the M4 failures with GI barrels they blow out the barrel side, not the gas tube. The only time you need a better gas tube is when you switch to the socom barrels. Also when talking suppressed, the piston systems are louder and heavier and you are already talking about adding more weight with the suppressor. However, with a suppressor, I would strongly recommend running adjustable gas or a smaller port with a dedicated suppressed upper. Doing so, you can actually achieve a slower full auto RoF than unsuppressed from the increased dwell time. Originally Posted By amphibian:
I've already broken op rods and impact lugs on various piston kits. I think most if not all use an op rod that has a maximum diameter to fit in an unmodified upper but still not beefy enough. Yep, with that much force you break the rod or the lug. Lastly, I've found that the standard gas system is more forgiving with varying conditions and interestingly, Stoner himself mentions this in one of his patents. Some may say the gas tube is a weak link and I must say that I thought the nitrided gas tubes were a gimmick until I tried one and they really do work. I know someone that ran a few beta mags back to back in full auto until rounds were cooking off and the nitrided gas tube did not fail. If you look at the M4 failures with GI barrels they blow out the barrel side, not the gas tube. The only time you need a better gas tube is when you switch to the socom barrels. Also when talking suppressed, the piston systems are louder and heavier and you are already talking about adding more weight with the suppressor. However, with a suppressor, I would strongly recommend running adjustable gas or a smaller port with a dedicated suppressed upper. Doing so, you can actually achieve a slower full auto RoF than unsuppressed from the increased dwell time. All of the above. Anyone that brags about pistons I let shoot one with my dias. After burning their hand, and couching up smoke they thought it was supposed to be better. They I let them shoot a normal AR and they are happy. Originally Posted By amphibian:
What I think the issue is that the inside of the carrier gets eroded and even with new gas rings, excess gas will get past the rings but depending on how the rings line up may work....it causes sporadic issues until it is just plain unreliable. . This, it happend more with corrosive ammo. TOK upper I had did this and I chased my tail on it for a long time. |
High round count AR/M4's (over 100,000 rounds) and how they have handled on our range (Page 6 of 43)
AR Sponsor