Warning

 

Close

Confirm Action

Are you sure you wish to do this?

Confirm Cancel
Member Login
Site Notices
1/25/2018 7:38:29 AM
Posted: 7/31/2002 8:54:38 PM EST
Well, a big thanks to all the people who got my thread locked.

Now, I still don't get the point of a Dissipator. If you want a CQB weapon get a carbine, if you want a medium to long range weapon get a 20" barrel. Maybe I don't get it because I cant afford to buy a dozen different rifles, one for every little niche.

So, if you have anything to add, please jump in. If you just want to make personal comments, please take it somewhere else. Thanks, Ben
Link Posted: 7/31/2002 11:20:36 PM EST
The ONLY real advantage the Dissipator offers is the longer sight radius that promotes better accuracy at distance.

But if you are shooting at distances where the longer sight radius and potentially enhanced accuracy make a noticeable difference, you probably shouldn't be using a carbine anyhow as at such distance bullet performance and terminal effect will be substantially compromised.

In short, I find the Dissipator to be an unworthy tradeoff. In return for potentially better accuracy at distances beyond what is practical for a carbine, you must accept a weapon that is heavier, more complex, ungainly, and has less cooling capacity. Not a smart move in my book. That the thing is hideously buttf@#*%!$ ugly doesn't help, either.

And for the guys who burn themselves on standard carbine barrels, I hope you are not allowed in the vicinity of traditional rifles with fully exposed barrels or stoves and open flames.
Link Posted: 7/31/2002 11:31:16 PM EST
Because for those that like, or "trained" on a 20" rifle, the grip/stance, sight picture etc. is what they are familiar with.

Yes there are trade-offs, like slower cooling because more of the rifle is cover by handguards, altho the worst handguards for airflow have got to be double insulated M-4 types.

Aside from the longer sight radius, the reason for rhe rifle would be personal preference.
Link Posted: 7/31/2002 11:38:14 PM EST
Well, maybe I'm the only schmuck on the boards that doesn't care for the standard CAR-type carbine or M4gerys, but I prefer the dissipator style better. So I'm wierd. I can deal with that.

I think its a combination of being used to a certain grip/stance and sight picture. Since I don't hold my AR right at the base of the barrel, I have to change my grip when using a standard carbine. I'm also used to the sight radius of a full-sized AR. Unless I find out that the next LEGP will be an A1 clone, complete with the triangular foregrip, I'll probably get a dissipator-type next.

Yes, it is ugly. But in my opinion, its better than a M4gery (bracing for the flaming).

As for the weight issue, well, most of my rifles are target type, so picking up a 7-8 pound dissipator is still 7-8 pounds LIGHTER than my other rifles.

FOTBR
Link Posted: 8/1/2002 4:12:02 AM EST
Link Posted: 8/1/2002 4:39:34 AM EST
I like nice heavy AR's. Not a lot of people have Dissi's, so it can give you something a little different than the average AR.


Maybe I don't get it because I cant afford to buy a dozen different rifles, one for every little niche.


Thats exactly what the Dissi is good for. More compact than a fullsize, yet can reach out and be accurate a tad further than a carbine. It gives you the good points of both a carbine and a fullsize.
Its just different. Some love it, some hate it.
Some people love AK's, some love AR's. Etc.....
Link Posted: 8/1/2002 4:40:41 AM EST
[Last Edit: 8/1/2002 4:47:27 AM EST by estoner]

Originally Posted By Boomer:

In short, I find the Dissipator to be an unworthy tradeoff. In return for potentially better accuracy at distances beyond what is practical for a carbine, you must accept a weapon that is heavier, more complex, ungainly, and has less cooling capacity. Not a smart move in my book. That the thing is hideously buttf@#*%!$ ugly doesn't help, either.

And for the guys who burn themselves on standard carbine barrels, I hope you are not allowed in the vicinity of traditional rifles with fully exposed barrels or stoves and open flames.



What he said.....Very similar to my original comments in the previous thread before I was brutally verbally assaulted.


Originally Posted By estoner:

In other words " you get a rifle with all the bulk and mass of 20", but you do not get the benefit of the increased velocity"

Why would a company "BM" sell a CQB weapon with an increased sight radius. It will simply increase the time to aquire target.

I was simply making a critique of the nonsensical functionality of the design, but since you mention it, I agree. Dissipators are about the ugliest ARs I have seen.




DISCLAIMER
I hope my post does not attract the same dim-witted and mindless aggresion this time, but for some people certain habitual behaviors are engrained and therefore impossible to change.
If the troll activity begins as a result of this post I will promptly erase my comments as I have recently on other threads

Link Posted: 8/1/2002 5:28:32 AM EST
I have a dissipator length upper with an A1 barrel. It is as light as an M4 upper and has the advantage of the longer sight radius. it is no longer than a 16 inch barreled M4 type barrel. As far as cooling, it is not an issue since the part that you grab is going to be just as hot as short handguards. The benefit is that the barrel is not exposed where you would bump it. I would say since the rifles are the same length, and can be made the same weight, what benefit do you get from the short sight radius? As to the complexity, they are no more complex than a standard upper. If you can figure one out, the other works the same way. If you are only going to have one barrel configuration, the dissipator is the best of both worlds. The only negative is that there is no bayonet that will fit. Most of us could care less about one anyway.
Link Posted: 8/1/2002 5:36:14 AM EST
Here's the way I see it. The Dissipator gives you the sight radius of a 20" weapon in a 16" package. Mine is a little heavier than a carbine weapon but if you're concerned about weight you can get a M4 profile barrel. Since its Post Ban, a collapsible stock is not a option but once again if weight is a factor you get get a pinned collapsible stock. While it is true velocities of the projectile at longer distant targets out of a 16" barrel do not fragment as well as they would out of a 20" or 24" they will still be accurate. And lets face it fragment or not, is anybody here willing to stand 300 yards down range and see if you can survive when a 16" weapon is fired at you? I doubt it. But don't forget this is a carbine length weapon not a sniper rifle.
Link Posted: 8/1/2002 5:47:21 AM EST
[Last Edit: 8/1/2002 5:49:49 AM EST by estoner]

Originally Posted By Dr-Dremel:
As to the complexity, they are no more complex than a standard upper. If you can figure one out, the other works the same way.



As you can see in the diagrams below it is clear that the dissipator is more complex and heavy. It has twice as many gas blocks (and mounting holes in the barrel) although only one functions as a gas block. It's hand guards and barrel are heavier, it has more parts than the MIL-spec. It's an abortion.



Dissipator barrel assembly




M4 pattern barrel assembly


You decide which is lighter and more simple.
Link Posted: 8/1/2002 6:00:00 AM EST

Originally Posted By Diss_ipator:
While it is true velocities of the projectile at longer distant targets out of a 16" barrel do not fragment as well as they would out of a 20" or 24" they will still be accurate. And lets face it fragment or not, is anybody here willing to stand 300 yards down range and see if you can survive when a 16" weapon is fired at you?



The accuracy will more reflect the shooter's skill, than the weapon design. Only slight advantage will be realized, and only with open sights. Most users are using some type of optics on their carbines, which makes the sight radius argument a moot point.

Do you have optics on your Dissipator????

Link Posted: 8/1/2002 6:11:11 AM EST
The info you need to make a decision is here. But you will have to make the choice and live with it. Don't be jaded by everyone else's opinions.

Taste Great - Less Filling
Ford - Chevy
Colt - Bushmaster

whatever

I have no personal preference between colt or bushmaster. Neither one of them sends me a check. The Dissipator is a sweet post ban rifle. But if you end up settling on a 16" then colt also has a new post ban M4 that's pretty sweet too. But in the end its going to be your rifle so you make the choice.
Link Posted: 8/1/2002 6:34:50 AM EST
There are positives and negatives to both rifles. One must decided what is right for them personally. I personally find even the heavist of AR's to be quite light for me, so weight is not a factor. Again, each has trade offs. There are some things that a Dissi is better at than a carbine, and some things a carine is better at than a Dissi. It all personal preference, so there is no wrong choice.
Link Posted: 8/1/2002 6:52:45 AM EST

Originally Posted By estoner:
Do you have optics on your Dissipator????



Yes I do have a Aimpoint and I love it. But we all know that you can't count on anything that uses batteries when it comes to a cluster fuck!
Link Posted: 8/1/2002 10:54:42 AM EST
I like my Dissipator ...even the way it looks....great rifle...but I like them all.
Link Posted: 8/1/2002 1:32:09 PM EST
estoner, I think you missed the part in my thread about having one made from an A1 barrel. Also their site mentions that they have a lightweight version as well. Again as to complexity, if two extra pins to completely dissasemble is complex to you then don't take it apart. Still, overall length is the same. I also have one without the second gas block, using an a1 barrel and having it cut and threaded with a 16 inch overall length. It works flawlessly. With an A1 upper it is extremely light. To the guy that posted that he only uses optics, that is kind of off topic.
Link Posted: 8/1/2002 4:41:01 PM EST
What about mid-length hand guards on a 16-inch barrel?

Any thoughts?
Link Posted: 8/1/2002 5:43:41 PM EST
[Last Edit: 8/1/2002 5:49:55 PM EST by CitizenSoldier]
I have been using M16 based weapons for only about 14 years of military service. I have carried M16 A1 and A2 and as of recently, my unit has acquired M4A1's. Personally I have owned shorties and 20in barrels. Ilike my Dissipator clone because I prefer the longer sight radius of the A2s I have carried. Yet I also like the compact package of the Dissy. In all truth I think it is a matter of personal taste as to what you use combined with your needs more importantly. I recently started shooting service rifle competition and got a DCM upper from Rock River. I like that my carbine feels a bit more like a full rifle.

Jon
Link Posted: 8/1/2002 6:10:03 PM EST

Originally Posted By estoner:

Originally Posted By Dr-Dremel:
As to the complexity, they are no more complex than a standard upper. If you can figure one out, the other works the same way.



As you can see in the diagrams below it is clear that the dissipator is more complex and heavy. It has twice as many gas blocks (and mounting holes in the barrel) although only one functions as a gas block. It's hand guards and barrel are heavier, it has more parts than the MIL-spec. It's an abortion.


Mil-spec??? No such thing as a "mil-spec" ar15 part.


http://www.bushmaster.com/shopping/barrel-assemblies/Images/16disbbl_small1.gif

Dissipator barrel assembly

How doesw this have "twice as many gas blocks?" It has 1 and a front sight housing.


http://www.bushmaster.com/shopping/barrel-assemblies/Images/pbbl16m4a.gif

M4 pattern barrel assembly

This is not a "mil-spec" barrel assembly

You decide which is lighter and more simple.

Link Posted: 8/1/2002 6:49:35 PM EST

Hey, LOOK!!! A PISSING CONTEST!!!

Geez, you guys. "If you have a Dissipator --- well, well, you're a WEINER!!! NEENER!"

Every thread turns into an insult clinic.

The_Emu is of the opinion one should get either this one or that one.
A carbine or a full size.
Some people only want one or can only get one.
The Dissipator has unique features that are desirable to some folks' situations, whatever they are.
Kinda like your car or your woman.
You just gotta go and tell someone how ugly their car or woman is to truly appreciate your insight when you insult a man's choice in firearms, too.

The Dissipator has the same sight radius as the full size rifle and 1.5" more bbl. than a carbine. It's a good design.
You don't have to like it just 'cuz it works.

Rant mode off.
If you don't like my choices, OTAY.
Link Posted: 8/1/2002 7:49:43 PM EST
I have a Bushy Dizzy with an AK compensator.

I also have several other ARs.

If I could only have one AR it would not be the Dissipator.

However, I enjoy having and shooting the Dissipator. If I didn't already have one I would want to go out and get one. It actually is a sturdy and great shooting weapon. It is kinda like having a American made .223 AK.
Link Posted: 8/1/2002 8:05:29 PM EST
I built a dissapator on a Colt lower. I had the 20" barrel cut to 16" and added a AK-74 muzzle brake. I got around the bushy gas block by having the smith open up the gas port. It doesn't feel much heavier than our M4's at work, plus I get the advantage of the full sight radius and no loss of velocity. The AK74 MB significantly reduces muzzle climb and recoil. So in short, full sight radius, no loss of velocity, no funky gas block, reduction of recoil/climb and IMHO, she looks great. M2CW.
Link Posted: 8/1/2002 8:36:55 PM EST
I have a 20 inch AR, M4gery, 24 inch varmint AR, and a Dissipator. I cannot give you guys any factual information, but I can tell that my Dissipator is my favorite gun to shoot. I just like it. Here's a pic if you're interested.



Since the time of the picture, I have fluted the barrel.
Link Posted: 8/1/2002 9:04:54 PM EST
[Last Edit: 8/1/2002 9:19:47 PM EST by The_Emu]
first of all I don't think you should only own one AR. I just don't see why you would want a dissi if you already have a carbine and a fullsize.

As far a burning your hand on a hot barrel, I could see how that could happen in a odd tactical situation. personally I hold my rifles as close to the magazine as I can. sometimes I even use the mag'well and magazine as a vertical grip.

I guess what I want to know is, what problem was colt (or whoever) trying to solve when they designed it?

edited to add:
This is a good discussion, lets try to keep it civil so it doesn't get locked again.
Thanks, Ben
Link Posted: 8/1/2002 9:05:20 PM EST
Doh!! No loss of velocity relative to a build I did for my brother (11.5 w/4 inch brake). Nice weapon hoosier!
Link Posted: 8/2/2002 12:42:40 AM EST
Make that a 4.5 inch brake... :)
Link Posted: 8/2/2002 3:25:18 AM EST
[Last Edit: 8/2/2002 3:41:29 AM EST by estoner]
73easting, Boy you sure screwed up my post....It took me a while to see your comments embedded in the original text. I followed your arcane format ( with some highlights) in order to directly address your comments.


Originally Posted By 73easting:

Originally Posted By estoner:

Originally Posted By Dr-Dremel:
As to the complexity, they are no more complex than a standard upper. If you can figure one out, the other works the same way.



As you can see in the diagrams below it is clear that the dissipator is more complex and heavy. It has twice as many gas blocks (and mounting holes in the barrel) although only one functions as a gas block. It's hand guards and barrel are heavier, it has more parts than the MIL-spec. It's an abortion.


Mil-spec??? No such thing as a "mil-spec" ar15 part.

DUH!!! Come back when have a little experience




Dissipator barrel assembly

How does this have "twice as many gas blocks?" It has 1 and a front sight housing.

Obviously your reading comprehension is on Par with your experience level. Re-read my post ....you will see that I said.... "It has twice as many gas blocks (and mounting holes in the barrel) although only ONE FUNCTIONS AS A GAS BLOCK"..... the front sight tower has an integrated ,non functioning gas block



M4 pattern barrel assembly

This is not a "mil-spec" barrel assembly

You got me on this one....Of course it is not MIL-Spec.....It's a damn Bushmaster...Only Colt builds a mil-spec M4 barrel/handguard assembly

You decide which is lighter and more simple.


Link Posted: 8/2/2002 6:33:55 AM EST
From the Maryland AR15 site:
groups.msn.com/TheMarylandAR15ShootersSite/theseriousar.msnw?pgmarket=en-us

The last of the Big Three is Bushmaster. Bushmaster is also the ONLY one to offer all of the desirable features, and is the closest to the rifles used by the US military. You want to select a model that has a chrome lined bore (this leaves out the DCM rifle and the new Varmint rifle). Bushmaster also offers several ‘lightweight’ barrel options for post ban rifles (16” M4 barrel {best}, the M4/AK barrel, and the M4 Dissapator [16” barrel with rifle sight radius]).
Link Posted: 8/2/2002 7:24:32 AM EST
If I was in a Tactical Unit or in the bush where I had to shoot, run, climb or grab the weapon a Dissipator is better. There is another thread about it from someone who uses it. Less chance of getting burnt and we all know they get hot. Yes put it to your side or have to climb and hat barrel can cause a problem.

I was going to buy one with a 16" Fluted barrel and get an ACE skeleton Stock for it. Hopefully I will get out of the money mess I am headed for and do it. I have shot one and find it a reliable and accurate weapon. That's if I had to use it for a close fight situation. And you know what out to 150yds it was also accurate.

Link Posted: 8/2/2002 7:26:21 AM EST
Let's not turn this into a Bushmaster vs Everyone else thread. It's about the Dissipator concept, which has already been shown to have been conceived well before Bushmaster even existed.


Originally Posted By BusMaster007:
and is the closest to the rifles used by the US military



That's the key statement. If one is concerned with closeness to what is use by the military, they should be aware that the Dissipator is NOT used by the military and is thus not mil-spec.

Again, in summary, the Dissipator:

A) Uses additional parts and require addition machining, making it heavier and more complex than a standard carbine.

B) Has longer handguards that retain more heat and offer less cooling capacity than a standard carbine.

C) Have the sight tower way out on the end of the barrel where it is more prone to snagging or getting hung up.

The only gain from these compromises is potential ability to shoot more accurately at distances beyond what is practical for a carbine. And even then the accuracy may suffer if the extra machining and parts unfavorably affect barrel harmonics. So it could all be for naught.

If non-standard, odd looking rifles are your thing, hey, have at it. The concept has likely already been reviewed and rejected by the military, with very good reason.

If you want a carbine that is the closest to the rifles used by the US military, the Dissipator comes nowhere close to making the list.
Link Posted: 8/2/2002 4:36:43 PM EST

Originally Posted By Boomer:
Let's not turn this into a Bushmaster vs Everyone else thread. It's about the Dissipator concept, which has already been shown to have been conceived well before Bushmaster even existed.


Originally Posted By BusMaster007:
and is the closest to the rifles used by the US military



That's the key statement. If one is concerned with closeness to what is use by the military, they should be aware that the Dissipator is NOT used by the military and is thus not mil-spec.

Again, in summary, the Dissipator:

A) Uses additional parts and require addition machining, making it heavier and more complex than a standard carbine.

B) Has longer handguards that retain more heat and offer less cooling capacity than a standard carbine.

C) Have the sight tower way out on the end of the barrel where it is more prone to snagging or getting hung up.

The only gain from these compromises is potential ability to shoot more accurately at distances beyond what is practical for a carbine. And even then the accuracy may suffer if the extra machining and parts unfavorably affect barrel harmonics. So it could all be for naught.

If non-standard, odd looking rifles are your thing, hey, have at it. The concept has likely already been reviewed and rejected by the military, with very good reason.

If you want a carbine that is the closest to the rifles used by the US military, the Dissipator comes nowhere close to making the list.



Nag. Nag. Nag.
The red letter edition is only to show that the article said Bushmaster is the closest to the military specs, not the Dissipator version of a Bushmaster.
Bushmaster rifles may be the only ones made with the ability to be made into a military firearm because they didn't do away with the parts necessary to do so, ala COLT.
You get the whole rifle with a Bushmaster, rather than a Civilian version. I believe that to be true. I could be wrong...oh, well.
Also, it wasn't a Bushmaster vs. everyone else comment; only a comment to add to the discussion.

As for why the military wouldn't use the design, I imagine the lack of a way to hang a bayonet on it is only one reason.
It wasn't designed for the military 'per se'.
You "Dissipator Haters" (reminds me of the "Raider Haters" here in the old Kingdome...)
aren't going to convince me or anyone else that appreciates the design that it isn't a good one.
Sorry. You can get cranked all you want!
You don't like it? SO WHAT?

No personal digs on anyone in particular, mind you. Get what you like and SHUT UP! kiddin'

Link Posted: 8/2/2002 4:55:35 PM EST
I'm a big fan of the dissipator with a 38-inch barrel. It gives me the sight radius I need for those 1700 meter shots.

Link Posted: 8/2/2002 7:11:13 PM EST
First of all Dissies were used In country. So were anything that you can get to work and wasn't Bob--Trapped. There were times you picked up what came floating along with a body or in thoes Tunnels that were never there. Like not being in Cambo...Country.
Now I don't know about these new fangled devices. Laser that HUD this. Stealth Light You picked up what worked and had bullets in it. That was it. Any of you guys know about this big Looked like a mini Satellite Dish on top of M16. God bless the guy who carried and went out with that.
There were some Dissy and Short Barreled Shot guns and the pride side arm of the Alabama boy who took his GreatGrandfarthers gun to use.
The only bad gun was the one when you pulled the trigger and went OH SHIT. you found out what a bayo lug was made for. GOD DAM THOSE DAYS.
We in the general public should be happy we can enjoy talking and comparing our weapons around a campfire or on the net. Better this way than having to be up close and personal 24/7 365 days till you became short. I'm sure some understand my point But I might be wrong
Top Top