AR Sponsor
Posted: 5/9/2007 1:32:17 PM EDT
|
Why don’t we hear more about ZM Weapon Systems around here? They just had some on Shooting USA and they looked very impressive "design wise". For those that dont know the ZM AR15 has no buffer tube allowing a folding stock assembly, instead of the buffer-tube ZM incorporated a recoil spring directly on top of the receiver, ZM claim their AR15s require absolutely no cleaning. Jim also mentioned that some US Spec-forces units are currently using the SBR ZM model in Afghanistan. So whats the censuses on ZM around here? |
|
Had one back in 2000, sold it in 2003 because I rarely shot it. The ZM design does allow for a folding stock, itself only useful when the rifle is stowed or being transported in a vehicle or slung. The folding stock that's LOP adjustable is rather expensive, it's far more useful than the stock that just folds. As to it needing no cleaning, sorry, that's just not true. I don't know if anyone can make that claim of any firearm. It's no piston design that may require less cleaning of the bolt, it's still a DI system, gas still gets blown directly into the bolt and chamber. The charging handle and bolt carrier are proprietary, the bolt is standard fare AR15/M16. Once the folding stock novelty wears off, it's just another AR15. I've never taken mine apart to work on, I do know how to work on standard AR15s like many people do, so that familiarity is a comfort. The things we'd accesorize a standard AR15 for our liking can't be readily done to a ZM system due to non-standard parts, for instance, a heavier buffer, new barrel, handguards, FSB, gas block, front sight (dunno how these are accomplished on the ZM, but sure ain't how an AR15 is disassembled/assembled) |
|
Hello guys, I'm a newbie with a question, and I think I posted this topic in the wrong section, so I'll repost it here again. I'm seriously considering getting a piston driven AR (let me add at this point that it looks like I didn't have my facts straight, I thought the ZM gas system was as piston driven system). Which system is the most reliable/durable, the ZM or the Para Ordnance system. I would be buying the uppers only, as the complete rifles are too salty for my blood (too expensive). Both systems look awesome, and right now I'm sort of leaning to the ZM based on mostly superficial reasons :), but the Para Ordnance system seems more straight forward/solid. And for a little "appeal to authority" fallacy, reportedly both systems have been tried by high speed snake eaters, and the ZM is supposedly still being used in Afghan/Iraq; don't know about the Para Ordnance. What do you guys think? Which one is the better buy? Thanks ---- so I guess the ZM system just uses the recoil spring around a regular gas tube set up? |
|
Granted, I don't keep a real close tab on what "those who cannot be named" are using, though I've known guys who've been in such units, I have a hard enough time keeping track of what us guys on the line with the sleepy look in their eyes are getting on to, what with RFI these days, ect. That being said, I haven't heard of any of the ZM series weapons being used by combat units, perhaps contractors, but nothing I've seen seems to indicate that they're being used by military units. I could be wrong, though, and I'd be happy if anyone can confirm it, but I suspect that they won't materialize. Sorry I couldn't be more helpful, ~Augee |
|
Stooge, you mean POF, and its piston driven system? The ZM system, as described by Rosenrot, the ZM design puts the recoil spring on top of the barrel, around the proprietary gas tube with the bolt carrier attached, which ZM calls an op rod. The gas tube is floating inside the op rod. The gas tube doesn't extend all the way back to the receiver, it's rather short, maybe couple of inches, gas goes from the gas tube to the op rod, and into the bolt and chamber, similar to the standard AR15. So no, ZM is not a piston driven system, the rearranged recoil spring on top of the barrel allows the system to eliminate the buffer and buffer spring behind the receiver. It is different, but being different doesn't always mean better. As to it being used over there, there seems to be many types of non standard small arms are being used there, you see FAL clones, WWII era SMGs, etc., that ZM is one of them isn't surprising. |
|
I watched Shooting USA last night on the ODC. They had Zitta(the inventer) describing the action as he field stripped one. He said it was a "self cleaning" design. The shortened BC had an attached "piston/gastube" combo that fit over the short gastube that extends rearward from the front gas block. The recoil spring is between the upper reciever and the gas block with the piston/gastube riding inside of it. Zitta never mentioned gas being vented all the way into the upper in his design. His looks likes a piston that rides outside the gastube but completely covers the gastube. Not the "original" design of a piston riding inside the gastube IE..AK, FAL ,Daewoo, etc. shortened transcript of episode another link. American Defense Systems |
|
I saw the show as well. It seemed to have very little muzzle lip and stayed on target very well in rapid fire. They even demonstrated firing it with a one handed light grip. I am a newbie, but I know my rifle does not handle that well. Not sure what the difference is. Clay |
 ALL small arms require cleaning at some point. The only thing the ZM does differently is move the recoil system. Ok so you can have folding stock - big deal, I'd rather have the length adjustable telestock. It's alot of extra dough for a rifle with non standard parts and the only advantage is your stock can fold so the rifle can become 6" shorter. |
I'll bet it does. Technique plays a large part, ammo selection can help. |
Kind of looked as if he was shooting a .22 and not a 5.56 round, I was impressed when I seen that |
|
|
ZM reportedly has mild recoil, while I had mine I honestly never could tell the difference between the ZM and my regular AR15, both had 14.5 barrel and Vortex flash suppressors. The weight could be the issue, the ZM folding stock is heavier than the M4 stock, come to think of it, the entire upper was heavier than an M4 upper with RAS installed. In the hand of an experienced shooter, even a full auto FAL that's notoriously hard to control can look like a piece of cake, so we really can't judge the amount of muzzle climb by watching someone shoot it. Make no mistakes gentlemen, this is not a piston design. If it were, the op rod/gas tube with the bolt carrier attached would be different, i.e. the tube would be solid at some point, instead of hollow all the way through to let gas through to the bolt. There'd be no need for gas rings on the bolt either. I remember scrubbing the carbon fouling from the bolt as I normally do with my DI AR15 bolts. I got over the folding stock in a few days, these days I'd prefer a LOP adjustable stock for body armor and short eye relief scopes. That it's handy while folded is a trade off, at the expense of fixed stock length, unless you have the expensive LOP adjustable folding stock, very well made but heavy, no improvement in cheek weld, and no storage compartment. |
How's he doing? I haven't shot a match with Aldo in over 10 years. Does he still have that little hottie g/f? |
Didn't really talk to him much, seems like a nice guy. No chickie snacks were present. |
Because: A) It's not a piston system, so the DI-haters ignore it... B) It's very expensive for no gain except a folding stock, which you have to extend to fire accurately anyway... |
|
Duffy, yeah I was apparently trying to do too many things at once and mistakenly typed Para Ordnance, instead of Patriot Ordnance. Thanks for clarifying the ZM system. I guess if I want a piston driven AR, I have to look at POF. |
Actually that Shooting USA episode was the culprit in suggesting that ZM rifles were being used by "those that cannot be named" hock.gif |
AR Sponsor