Warning

 

Close

Confirm Action

Are you sure you wish to do this?

Confirm Cancel
Member Login

Posted: 4/18/2010 7:57:50 AM EDT
i hear a lot of hype about gas piston modifications to AR-15, M-16, and M-4 rifles, and what i wonder is are theyll really the greatest thing in the world, are they really worth it?.. do they really provide that much more reliability over a direct gas system?... it seems to me the direct gas system will last an entire day of heavy combat needing to only be cleaned before bed... is it really that difficult for someone to actually clean their gun atleast once every couple thousand rounds?

i dont know what to believe.. i havent had the chance to work on or play with both systems, so im hoping some people here well informed on both operations will have a more informed, unbiased comparison of the two, and whether or not the gas piston systems make that much of a difference?
Link Posted: 4/18/2010 8:01:57 AM EDT
Do a search. This has been discussed tons of times and all have about the same outcome.
Piston guns have not been proved more reliable than DI guns. Both get dirty, just in different places.
Link Posted: 4/18/2010 8:02:26 AM EDT
This topic has been discussed a million times before, and one more AR15.com thread won't settle it.
Link Posted: 4/18/2010 8:14:39 AM EDT
Originally Posted By mathecb:
Do a search. This has been discussed tons of times and all have about the same outcome.
Piston guns have not been proved more reliable than DI guns. Both get dirty, just in different places.


Geez, that's just not true. Look at the tests the military recently performed that compared the M4, FN SCAR, HK 416, and various other rifles. The M4 did the worst, with 800 something stoppages vs. 200 something stoppages with the SCAR and 416 (both piston rifles) out of 60,000 rounds (however most of the problems occured in the latter half of the 60,000 rounds fired, for obvious reasons).

Having said that, I'm about to sell my Sig 556, which as you know is a piston rifle. I accept the fact that DI AR's are slightly less reliable than their piston-op counterparts, however I believe that the unbeatable ergonomics of an AR more than offset this very minor issue. DI AR-type weapons are used all around the country by federal, state, and local LE agencies, and they don't show signs of diminishing their dominance of the tactical rifle market.

I like the Sig 556 (one of the most popular piston rifles out there), but adding a piston system invariably adds weight, changes the balance of the rifle, and alters the way you feel recoil. High quality DI systems are more than reliable enough for even the most serious business, which is why I'm keeping my AR and selling my Sig. I've never experienced one malfunction with my AR. Of course, I've never experienced one with my AK either, and I'll NEVER sell my AK...
Link Posted: 4/18/2010 8:17:27 AM EDT
[Last Edit: 4/18/2010 8:17:53 AM EDT by mathecb]
Originally Posted By Bizzarolibe:
Originally Posted By mathecb:
Do a search. This has been discussed tons of times and all have about the same outcome.
Piston guns have not been proved more reliable than DI guns. Both get dirty, just in different places.


Geez, that's just not true. Look at the tests the military recently performed that compared the M4, FN SCAR, HK 416, and various other rifles. The M4 did the worst, with 800 something stoppages vs. 200 something stoppages with the SCAR and 416 (both piston rifles) out of 60,000 rounds (however most of the problems occured in the latter half of the 60,000 rounds fired, for obvious reasons).

Having said that, I'm about to sell my Sig 556, which as you know is a piston rifle. I accept the fact that DI AR's are slightly less reliable than their piston-op counterparts, however I believe that the unbeatable ergonomics of an AR more than offset this very minor issue. DI AR-type weapons are used all around the country by federal, state, and local LE agencies, and they don't show signs of diminishing their dominance of the tactical rifle market.

I like the Sig 556 (one of the most popular piston rifles out there), but adding a piston system invariably adds weight, changes the balance of the rifle, and alters the way you feel recoil. High quality DI systems are more than reliable enough for even the most serious business, which is why I'm keeping my AR and selling my Sig. I've never experienced one malfunction with my AR. Of course, I've never experienced one with my AK either, and I'll NEVER sell my AK...


And were off....

OP was talking about AR's, not all piston guns in general.
Link Posted: 4/18/2010 8:23:52 AM EDT
Originally Posted By Bizzarolibe:
Originally Posted By mathecb:
Do a search. This has been discussed tons of times and all have about the same outcome.
Piston guns have not been proved more reliable than DI guns. Both get dirty, just in different places.


Geez, that's just not true. Look at the tests the military recently performed that compared the M4, FN SCAR, HK 416, and various other rifles. The M4 did the worst, with 800 something stoppages vs. 200 something stoppages with the SCAR and 416 (both piston rifles) out of 60,000 rounds (however most of the problems occured in the latter half of the 60,000 rounds fired, for obvious reasons).

Having said that, I'm about to sell my Sig 556, which as you know is a piston rifle. I accept the fact that DI AR's are slightly less reliable than their piston-op counterparts, however I believe that the unbeatable ergonomics of an AR more than offset this very minor issue. DI AR-type weapons are used all around the country by federal, state, and local LE agencies, and they don't show signs of diminishing their dominance of the tactical rifle market.

I like the Sig 556 (one of the most popular piston rifles out there), but adding a piston system invariably adds weight, changes the balance of the rifle, and alters the way you feel recoil. High quality DI systems are more than reliable enough for even the most serious business, which is why I'm keeping my AR and selling my Sig. I've never experienced one malfunction with my AR. Of course, I've never experienced one with my AK either, and I'll NEVER sell my AK...




http://i176.photobucket.com/albums/w176/huyu12345/facepalm2.jpg
Link Posted: 4/18/2010 8:23:59 AM EDT
Originally Posted By Bizzarolibe:
Geez, that's just not true. Look at the tests the military recently performed that compared the M4, FN SCAR, HK 416, and various other rifles.

Repeat that test with a properly configured "DI" rifle and let's see the results.

There's nothing wrong with gas piston operation per se, when used in rifles properly designed and configured for piston operation, but there's nothing wrong with "DI" either when set up correctly.
Link Posted: 4/18/2010 8:27:27 AM EDT
[Last Edit: 4/18/2010 8:28:12 AM EDT by acman145acp]
I know i saw 2 different LWRC piston rifles stop running week before last in a 5 day class.
Granted one was due to a lot of dirt getting in the action this could cause any~ rifle to stop.

But i think the people who believe piston guns are mythical unstoppable beasts are kidding themselves.
Link Posted: 4/18/2010 9:31:57 AM EDT
[Last Edit: 4/18/2010 9:32:39 AM EDT by diaz_aa]
bcm or colt
Link Posted: 4/18/2010 9:56:50 AM EDT
I own both and I enjoy shooting both. Apples to oranges comparison.

That is all I have to say.

Link Posted: 4/18/2010 10:05:06 AM EDT
Link Posted: 4/18/2010 10:12:11 AM EDT
Link Posted: 4/18/2010 10:28:41 AM EDT
Only 3 responses before someone who doesn't understand what the dust test was about took it out of context and made conclusions based on their misunderstanding.
Link Posted: 4/18/2010 10:31:33 AM EDT
Originally Posted By Bizzarolibe:
Originally Posted By mathecb:
Do a search. This has been discussed tons of times and all have about the same outcome.
Piston guns have not been proved more reliable than DI guns. Both get dirty, just in different places.


Geez, that's just not true. Look at the tests the military recently performed that compared the M4, FN SCAR, HK 416, and various other rifles. The M4 did the worst, with 800 something stoppages vs. 200 something stoppages with the SCAR and 416 (both piston rifles) out of 60,000 rounds (however most of the problems occured in the latter half of the 60,000 rounds fired, for obvious reasons).

Having said that, I'm about to sell my Sig 556, which as you know is a piston rifle. I accept the fact that DI AR's are slightly less reliable than their piston-op counterparts, however I believe that the unbeatable ergonomics of an AR more than offset this very minor issue. DI AR-type weapons are used all around the country by federal, state, and local LE agencies, and they don't show signs of diminishing their dominance of the tactical rifle market.

I like the Sig 556 (one of the most popular piston rifles out there), but adding a piston system invariably adds weight, changes the balance of the rifle, and alters the way you feel recoil. High quality DI systems are more than reliable enough for even the most serious business, which is why I'm keeping my AR and selling my Sig. I've never experienced one malfunction with my AR. Of course, I've never experienced one with my AK either, and I'll NEVER sell my AK...


Do you know how the tests were conducted? Have you read the report on the tests? If you had you would know that those who ran the test said the results were not repeatable and the conditions unrealistic. You would also know that the rifles were all lubed per appropriate manuals. Assuming this means the military field manual on the m4, m4s in the test had at best a very light coat of lube. Anyone who has been paying attention knows that little to no lube is the opposite of what keeps an AR running.
Link Posted: 4/18/2010 10:33:09 AM EDT
Originally Posted By Market_Garden:
Only 3 responses before someone who doesn't understand what the dust test was about took it out of context and made conclusions based on their misunderstanding.


THIS IS ARFCOM! hmmmm I need to photo shop dude from 300 saying that in a poster. It speaks the truth.
Link Posted: 4/18/2010 10:36:32 AM EDT
Originally Posted By TexAg10:
Originally Posted By Bizzarolibe:
Originally Posted By mathecb:
Do a search. This has been discussed tons of times and all have about the same outcome.
Piston guns have not been proved more reliable than DI guns. Both get dirty, just in different places.


Geez, that's just not true. Look at the tests the military recently performed that compared the M4, FN SCAR, HK 416, and various other rifles. The M4 did the worst, with 800 something stoppages vs. 200 something stoppages with the SCAR and 416 (both piston rifles) out of 60,000 rounds (however most of the problems occured in the latter half of the 60,000 rounds fired, for obvious reasons).

Having said that, I'm about to sell my Sig 556, which as you know is a piston rifle. I accept the fact that DI AR's are slightly less reliable than their piston-op counterparts, however I believe that the unbeatable ergonomics of an AR more than offset this very minor issue. DI AR-type weapons are used all around the country by federal, state, and local LE agencies, and they don't show signs of diminishing their dominance of the tactical rifle market.

I like the Sig 556 (one of the most popular piston rifles out there), but adding a piston system invariably adds weight, changes the balance of the rifle, and alters the way you feel recoil. High quality DI systems are more than reliable enough for even the most serious business, which is why I'm keeping my AR and selling my Sig. I've never experienced one malfunction with my AR. Of course, I've never experienced one with my AK either, and I'll NEVER sell my AK...


Do you know how the tests were conducted? Have you read the report on the tests? If you had you would know that those who ran the test said the results were not repeatable and the conditions unrealistic. You would also know that the rifles were all lubed per appropriate manuals. Assuming this means the military field manual on the m4, m4s in the test had at best a very light coat of lube. Anyone who has been paying attention knows that little to no lube is the opposite of what keeps an AR running.


Not to mention the time they conducted the test before the often referenced one, the M4 did very well, and in their conclusion for the test this guy is talking about they said that they could not explain the results where the M4 did poorly in light of the previous test.
Link Posted: 4/18/2010 10:47:00 AM EDT
LOL....why do people call it the D.I. vs. Piston debate........so many refer to that dust test, it should be M4 vs. HK416: SHOWDOWN IN THE DUST!
Link Posted: 4/18/2010 7:30:44 PM EDT
Originally Posted By Gamma762:
Originally Posted By Bizzarolibe:
Geez, that's just not true. Look at the tests the military recently performed that compared the M4, FN SCAR, HK 416, and various other rifles.

Repeat that test with a properly configured "DI" rifle and let's see the results.

There's nothing wrong with gas piston operation per se, when used in rifles properly designed and configured for piston operation, but there's nothing wrong with "DI" either when set up correctly.


what would you consider to be a "properly" configured DI?... installation of that gas tube and block seems rather straightforward and simple

Link Posted: 4/19/2010 2:31:35 AM EDT
Originally Posted By megadeth22885:
Originally Posted By Gamma762:
Originally Posted By Bizzarolibe:
Geez, that's just not true. Look at the tests the military recently performed that compared the M4, FN SCAR, HK 416, and various other rifles.

Repeat that test with a properly configured "DI" rifle and let's see the results.

There's nothing wrong with gas piston operation per se, when used in rifles properly designed and configured for piston operation, but there's nothing wrong with "DI" either when set up correctly.


what would you consider to be a "properly" configured DI?... installation of that gas tube and block seems rather straightforward and simple



Different gas port location, different weight spring/buffer perhaps, different magazines, different lubricant.
Link Posted: 4/19/2010 5:25:28 AM EDT
[Last Edit: 4/19/2010 5:26:56 AM EDT by Bizzarolibe]
Originally Posted By Gamma762:
Originally Posted By Bizzarolibe:
Geez, that's just not true. Look at the tests the military recently performed that compared the M4, FN SCAR, HK 416, and various other rifles.

Repeat that test with a properly configured "DI" rifle and let's see the results.

There's nothing wrong with gas piston operation per se, when used in rifles properly designed and configured for piston operation, but there's nothing wrong with "DI" either when set up correctly.


Huh. Maybe you should phone the US military and let them know that they've got their rifle "configuration" all wrong. Perhaps they'll hire you to conduct new tests for them! That would be fun.

Seriously though, don't you think it's a bit silly to claim that there is absolutely no difference––not even a .000001% difference––between a GP system rifle and DI in terms of reliability? The simple fact of the matter is this: the military performed an exhaustive test. The M4, a DI system rifle, did the worst. All of the piston rifles did better. You can make all the irrational, illogical excuses all you want (you actually couldn't use your argument in a formal debate––it is a fallacy), but the fact remains.

Do I believe that this negligible difference in reliability matters? No. I've already said that. I *DO NOT* believe that there's anything "wrong" with a quality DI rifle. The AR is still my favorite platform, and I have built and owned many an AK, and also have a Sig 556. I just think it's a bit absurd, as someone whose degree is in a statics-heavy field, to claim that there is absolutely 0% difference between quality DI and GP rifles as it pertains to reliability.
Link Posted: 4/19/2010 5:28:19 AM EDT
[Last Edit: 4/19/2010 5:32:18 AM EDT by 87GN]
Originally Posted By Bizzarolibe:
I just think it's a bit absurd, as someone whose degree is in a statics-heavy field, to claim that there is absolutely 0% difference between quality DI and GP rifles as it pertains to reliability.


There's far more to reliability than the simple presence of an op-rod (or a gas tube, for that matter).

As to your other, rather snide, comments, the military makes lots of weird weapon decisions for weird reasons.

Such as maintaining compatibility with bayonets or maintaining the capability for drill with combat rifles.

Or the Commandant of the USMC stating that the M4 is more like a pistol than a rifle (I'm paraphrasing).

Or, going way back, making the M1 Garand in .30-06 just because they had a lot of said ammunition instead of the .276 that it was designed for.

Or going not so far back, making the M1A in .308 just because they were used to a 30 cal projectile instead of the .27X rounds the British were pushing at the time.
Link Posted: 4/19/2010 5:47:24 AM EDT
First off good for you in getting rid of the sig 556 it has the ergonomics of a sheet of 5/8 ths plywood in a twenty mile wind. The mag release is to far forward and the saftey to far back and the rear rear sight leaves much to be desired all for about 1800 bucks

Here is my qualm on pistons. It's not standerdized between manufactures. So if it you own a bushmaster, sig, barret, stag, para, whoever then you have to go to that company for support. And there is still burning carbon gas going thru there , no it's not going in the chamber but there is still carbon accumulated somewhere, which if not removed will lead to malfunctions. And have they got that carrier tilt thing figured out yet? I met a guy who said his chamber isn't as hot when he goes out shooting and my response to that is

So


I not scared of inovative technology but only if it makes sense. Which at this point you are spending another 300-800 dollars in a system that works just as good as the system that the goverment has been researching for the last 30 years
Link Posted: 4/19/2010 5:48:38 AM EDT
I wonder why Noveske...KAC....Colt(as of this min).....BCM are just sticking with that ole D.I. thing
Link Posted: 4/19/2010 6:09:55 AM EDT
Originally Posted By TRIDENT1982:
I wonder why Noveske...KAC....Colt(as of this min).....BCM are just sticking with that ole D.I. thing

You forgot DD and LT
Link Posted: 4/19/2010 6:13:51 AM EDT
Originally Posted By TCBA_Joe:
Originally Posted By TRIDENT1982:
I wonder why Noveske...KAC....Colt(as of this min).....BCM are just sticking with that ole D.I. thing

You forgot DD and LT


Figures......i knew i was going too, but was too lazy to ponder any longer
Link Posted: 4/19/2010 6:28:11 AM EDT
[Last Edit: 4/19/2010 6:29:25 AM EDT by Bizzarolibe]
Originally Posted By 87GN:
Originally Posted By Bizzarolibe:
I just think it's a bit absurd, as someone whose degree is in a statics-heavy field, to claim that there is absolutely 0% difference between quality DI and GP rifles as it pertains to reliability.


There's far more to reliability than the simple presence of an op-rod (or a gas tube, for that matter).

As to your other, rather snide, comments, the military makes lots of weird weapon decisions for weird reasons.


I think it's pretty clear from the context of this discussion I was referring to the GP rifles that were involved in the tests (SCAR, 416, and I forgot the others).

And where was I snide? I think you might have misinterpreted my tone. Playful sarcastic maybe? In any case, I'm fully aware of the level of technical ignorance present in the military, but keep in mind that this ignorance would also affect the other rifles tested. In other words, if you wanted to argue that the testers didn't maintain the M4 properly or set it up right (which cannot be claimed since no one was there for the testing), you could also make the same argument concerning the other rifles in the test. If the M4's performance was adversely by the testers' technical ignorance, then couldn't the SCAR and 416's performances have been adversely affected as well? So wouldn't that cancel out the negative effect on the M4?

Like I've said a billion times though, I just don't think it matters enough to even consider the negligible difference in reliability when choosing what to buy.
Link Posted: 4/19/2010 6:30:24 AM EDT
Bottom line is this DI runs reliably as long as you lube it..it will run filthy and lubed but eventually dry and filthy will cause problems.I love pistons also and have 3 Osprey converted rifles and the advantage of piston is the rifle will run longer not lubed or neglected to a degree.So for soldiers operating remotely and running the chance of not being supplied or having to use weapons to the extreme that regualar infantry doesnt pistons have the edge.I like that they run cleaner and cooler and that contributes to the M4s overall well ness but if you what your doing and understand the design and the rifles stregnths and weaknesses and how to maintain in different climate conditions DI will run fine as well.
Link Posted: 4/19/2010 6:34:08 AM EDT
the only thing that could make a piston gun more reliable(like an ak) is the much looser tolerances. putting a piston in an ar will increase weight, reduce accuracy, but keep you inerds cleaner. does nothing for chamber heat. I dont get it at all, why basterdize the ar? The DI is what makes it, if i wanted a piston i would(did) get an ak. Got both, my ar is actually "more" relable(shitty ak mags)... Id trust my life to either (if i had better ak mags)
Link Posted: 4/19/2010 6:39:57 AM EDT
Originally Posted By Fields_Overseer:
the only thing that could make a piston gun more reliable(like an ak) is the much looser tolerances. putting a piston in an ar will increase weight, reduce accuracy, but keep you inerds cleaner. does nothing for chamber heat. I dont get it at all, why basterdize the ar? The DI is what makes it, if i wanted a piston i would(did) get an ak. Got both, my ar is actually "more" relable(shitty ak mags)... Id trust my life to either (if i had better ak mags)


B/C people love to fix things that are not broke...time old practice
Link Posted: 4/19/2010 6:47:37 AM EDT
Originally Posted By Fields_Overseer:
the only thing that could make a piston gun more reliable(like an ak) is the much looser tolerances. putting a piston in an ar will increase weight, reduce accuracy, but keep you inerds cleaner. does nothing for chamber heat. I dont get it at all, why basterdize the ar? The DI is what makes it, if i wanted a piston i would(did) get an ak. Got both, my ar is actually "more" relable(shitty ak mags)... Id trust my life to either (if i had better ak mags)


+1. The AK is the best GP rifle out there IMO...although I haven't shot a SCAR yet

So here's a question: should I sell my AR (ST-15 LE M4) *AND* my Sig 556 and get a SCAR?!?!?! The idea of owning one of those sexy, exotic beasts is rather appealing, but I'm just not sure if they're really worth 2500$...
Link Posted: 4/19/2010 6:54:09 AM EDT
Originally Posted By Bizzarolibe:
Originally Posted By Fields_Overseer:
the only thing that could make a piston gun more reliable(like an ak) is the much looser tolerances. putting a piston in an ar will increase weight, reduce accuracy, but keep you inerds cleaner. does nothing for chamber heat. I dont get it at all, why basterdize the ar? The DI is what makes it, if i wanted a piston i would(did) get an ak. Got both, my ar is actually "more" relable(shitty ak mags)... Id trust my life to either (if i had better ak mags)


+1. The AK is the best GP rifle out there IMO...although I haven't shot a SCAR yet

So here's a question: should I sell my AR (ST-15 LE M4) *AND* my Sig 556 and get a SCAR?!?!?! The idea of owning one of those sexy, exotic beasts is rather appealing, but I'm just not sure if they're really worth 2500$...


no, scars are ugly, and wont do anything your m4 wont do. If your spending that much at least get the acr, it looks cool. Ill get one in a few years once the price drops

(im hoping)
Link Posted: 4/19/2010 7:17:20 AM EDT
[Last Edit: 4/19/2010 7:19:59 AM EDT by TRIDENT1982]
Just when i was saying..."wow, you know the AR survived the whole acr, scar, 416 scare"

eta....def. would not sell a spikes rifle that is working most likely perfectly and most likely in the future perfectly for a gun that does not nearly have the reliability as the spikes and yes i know those others are pistons Spikes has been tested by all of us....i know personally that i know jack about the acr, scar and 416
Link Posted: 4/19/2010 7:29:02 AM EDT
Link Posted: 4/19/2010 8:49:01 AM EDT
I don't have any factual data to backup my thoughts but here it goes: if I'm going to take the time to go from DI to piston, the piston design better be a long stroke design cause without alot of mass within the action(a la AK47) I don't think it's worth moving away from DI just for some proprietary short stroke piston design that really doesn't give you all the positives of a piston action.


Link Posted: 4/19/2010 9:17:18 AM EDT
[Last Edit: 4/19/2010 9:27:18 AM EDT by Ermac]
I don't think it's the gas system, it's the rifle perhaps. The MAS-49 had no reliability problems. Gas piston rifles aren't always reliable too. The SVT-40 had quite a few problems in the field.
Top Top