lol..  Some people's kids.

Had LMT Defender 2000 and traded it in for a LWRC M6A2. That was the first time out. My buddy has a Bushmaster 6.8SPC DI gun. It's nice but it becomes a shop rag after 250 rounds. Dirty as hell! Of all the BS "change" going on in the American government. This is the only change I welcomed. DI is outdated and dirty. Get over it.

those were GREAT articles, but that was known info before.
the AR is a great system IMO.

I'm in the process of selling a 556 and RRA di gun to get a LWRC. I can read unlike some of you clowns and everyone from special forces to private security has raved about the piston system. If spending a third of the time cleaning my gun wasn't enough the lowered recoil will be. Don't be haters. Get over it. Gas piston guns are the future and LWRC has a patent on their system which shows they didn't put lipstick on an AR. Change is good except in the oval office.

Lowered recoil? How bad is the recoil on a DI AR-15? And we're the clowns?

Enjoy your futuristic AR-15, Buck Rogers.

The gas piston design isn't spritzing the gas into the atmosphere, it's still in the gun, just in a different location. I've never seen a piston gun run bone dry, despite POF's allegations.

As far as recoil goes, I thought that gas piston rifles had MORE recoil than a DI gun?

I have a LWRC M6A1, the recoil impulse is not less just different, it feels like you are under recoil longer.

To me, I think it takes you longer to get back on the target with a LWRC than it does with a standard M4.  


I cannot talk for contractors, but the SF and SOF guys I worked with last year all had standard carbines/CQBRs no pistons were being used by even the tier 1 guys.

Me as well

It's still WAY cleaner. I didn't really believe it until I experienced it myself. The parts that need it on a gas piston LMT take about 30 seconds to clean. And I'm OCD when in comes to cleaning my guns. I shot it side by side with my DI middy not too long ago and the LMT does indeed recoil  less. I can't speak for other brands though.

ETA: Also, you still need to keep the bcg well lubed. Like I said before, it may not be everybody's cup of tea but there's definately more positives to a well-designed gas piston system liek LMT's or POF's than there are negatives.

Keith_J and others saved me from an expensive mistake.

Pistons are a solution to a non existent problem. But variety is good!

I hear ya. I've read every piston thread in this forum since I joined here, and it's obvious who knows what they are talking about. I tend to listen to people who build uppers, and shoot a lot more than I do. I also listen to people who understand the physics of what happens to the BCG when the action is cycled. If the "special forces" are running pistons, that's fine and dandy but that does not mean pistons are the future of AR's. I am not in the special forces, and I don't want a piston gun. All of my uppers wear gas tubes, and I have replacement gas tubes for each one. I do believe pistons have their places, fortunately I will never own an upper that could benefit from one.

Pistons help an existing problem called jamming.  That is when the rifle suddenly stops working.
Probably not necessary for range shooters, but necessary for a war like Iraq.

Good, that's less of wait I will have when I order my second piston upper.

Actually no, that is called a malfunction, a jam is when it requires tools to correct the problem.  In almost all cases "jams" in M16s are caused by 1) incorrect ammo, chamber issues or 2) bad magazines releasing too many rounds or rounds at the wrong angle.  Rarely you will get a jam involving a ejected round bouncing back into the weapon, causing a non-magazine induced double feed.

This is the best one yet. How many "gas tube related jams" have you actually experienced.

Me, 0 cause im not fighting in Iraq, with fine dirt and debris everywhere.  They aren't evaluating the HK416
because they love the gas tube.  But then again, i don't consider you an expert.

http://www.armytimes.com/news/2007/02/atCarbine070219/

That's good, cause I never claimed to be an expert. You are the one making ridiculous statements like "pistons prevent jamming" when you have absolutely zero proof.

I doubt anyone here is going to consider you an "expert" after posting shit like that.

ETA: that's great that you want to own the same rifle used by "special forces" but I have news for you. Putting a piston on your AR does not give you an HK416.

It was designed to run on a 20inch barrel.  That's not the issue.  The issue is the shorter barrels.

Why don't you look it up!!!   The 416 had way less jams than the m4 in a head to head run off.  So yes, I would say given the worst conditions, it would jam less.
I own both, Im calling it like I see it. Some people just hate things they don't have or just hate it cause it something new.

Your piston upper is not an HK416. Your whole argument is pointless.

Both systems are accurate and reliable. PIstons are cooler and cleaner. I can understand why people wouldn't want to pay a premium over a DI rifle, but I don't understand where all the hate is coming from. A well designed gas piston AR doesn't suffer from carrier tilt or poor accuracy. Aside from being more expensive, the only real downside is that there is no standardized piston system yet.

No it's an LMT which I would put against a 416 any day.  Just stop now your ridiculous and your last statement proves it.

Actually, my last statement proves that I have a clue, unlike you. Your fancy LMT MRP piston isn't an HK416 either. Why don't you do some research before posting.

Why don't you put down your kool aid watch this and learn something.

Link: http://hosted.ap.org/specials/interactives/wdc/military_rifle/index.html

Actually, you don't even have to watch it, I will post the results for you:

XM8: 127 stoppages/malfunctions
Mk16 SCAR-L: 226 stoppages/malfunctions
HK416: 233 stoppages/malfunctions
M4 Carbine: 882 stoppages/malfunctions

I actually do own a MRP piston, is it better???  I can say, to be honest after the excitement of it wore off its been in the safe, and uess what, I'm back to my 16" middy di.  Hell it might even end up on the EE before the week is out so I can build another middy. The DI prolem really with 14.5's and 10" barrels is related to the gas pulse iirc.  Colts building a piston for a propsed rifle, (and to get some more $$$ in sales) that I doubt will be the next rifle we get, I see a SCAR more likely.  The other jamming issue is still a hold out from the first M16's in Vietnam which were corrected.  HK also built a new and improved mag which IIRC is the number one problem with all M16's.  Now lets be honest how many fire fights are we going to be in with our AR's?  The DI really is a non issue as its a problem with 14.5's and shorter, which is a gas impulse problem more than a actual problem with DI.  Yea its dirtier but again it works in combat, and well were not.  Cleaning has always been something a soldier is supposed to do anway from all through history. IIRC Colt actually said way back when that the M4 should have been a middy, but for some odd DOD reason (I cant remember why) didnt want it that way.  I'm not here arguing the merits of the 2 but to convert one and say its waaaaaaaay better without acutally having it proven over say many, many years of use is insane, what happens when you modify anything from its original design?  You get all new problems.

ETA, I wished I hadnt drank the piston kool aid

Do you have a 416?  What were all of the paramaters of the test?  My problem with most tests are usually its slanted to favor one, and we all know the DOD wants a new whiz bang, oh and yea I have a MRP Piston that as of yet has not proven its any better, and to be honest at this point its more of a liabilty as if something breaks I'm screwed waiting for "special" parts.

Bullshit. I've seen a carbine go 5000 rounds with absolutely no cleaning with ZERO malfunctions. I've seen another that is going on a couple thousand without cleaning but has had range sand dumped in the action. It is a local manufacturer's demo gun and is fuck nasty. There is noticable resistance in racking the CH and a nice grinding noise accompanying it along with sand falling out of the magwell, but it still runs and runs. All the guys out there running nasty ass DI guns must just be lucky that they don't jam, huh?

Saying that the benefits of a piston gun are unnecessary doesn't mean there's anything wrong with it.

Read my post again.  5000 rounds at a local range maybe.  I said the war in the middle east.

V12, I didnt say it was wrong just a stupid move by me, "to be the first"  The only thing worng, right now is specialized parts availabilty, down the road a few years?  Who knows?  How long have pistons really been out in use?  Just because SF uses it doesnt mean its the shitz,  give it to the grunts and then see what happens. remember the Stoner 63 worked great, what happened?  

Completely discount the other gun because it contradicts your statement! Call back when you have something intelligent to contribute. Many service members and contractors here have espoused that their M4's ran fine even when dusty or insufficiently lubed and cleaned, but don't let that get in the way of your idea!

Have you been there?  I see range rifles pushed harder and abused like you have never seen.  I know of a Bushy (mine) thats has 10,000 with NO cleaning other than a spray down with Break Free when it goes out, its a rifle I bought from Bushy from Tom Barr when he still answered phones way back when.  Its been abused just to see how far it will go, is it a mess hell yea, would I trust it as a SHTF?  Dont know without a inspection, I do know it still goes bang.

Thanks for your service and sorry to hear about the M4 failures in combat. But if you read the KAC Reed Knight article he would lay the blame for the failure squarely on your shoulders as he says all the bugs have been worked out of the M4 and failures are due to improper maintenance issues.

QUOTE from Reed Knight:



Knight is saying its your fault and therefore I think he is full of shit and his word should not be taken as gospel.

As far as the DI/piston debate goes, I am equivocal. I know for a fact two real world operator groups are having trouble with their HK416 rifles.

Further, Knight says the only reason you want a Piston upper is because its essentially something new and shiny.



How condescending. How about people want something new because the AR15 design is over 40 years old and firearm design has stalled.

Just my humble opinion.

So you guys like things the way they were designed? Hmmm!!!
The car was designed many years ago. How many of you are still driving the Model T?

Look at my avitar, I'm the worst modifier, but allot of mods caused more or new problems.  Remember a mod that has to fit within the original designs are a comprimse at best.

What were the exact cause of the malfunctions?  Bad mags, bad ammo, excessive wear on the bolt or carrier, head space issues?

eta, most if not all malfunctions with the di are placed not where they belong, but on the di operating system itself

And you're driving an upgraded model T right?

Yes, let's trust the Associated Press, Army Times, and a politician about weapons instead of Chris Bartocci (researcher, and notably, author of TBR II), Colt (~40 years experience designing and building and experimenting with these rifles) and Reed Knight (of KAC, whom, by the way Gene Stoner worked for before he passed).  

The facts -

- Piston ARs are not a new design, the concept has existed since at least the 1960s
- Both Colt and KAC have a long history with the AR system, Colt has not only manufactured them, but also experimented with just about every imaginable variation on the system, including piston operation
- Colt has been working on this recent generation of piston ARs for several years, and even while their design passed a Government trial, they can't seem to make a piston that they feel is worth selling.  It's not as if they haven't been trying, and it makes no sense for them to trash a design that they've dumped so much R&D time into
- KAC has other piston operated designs (PDW), but has not yet tried to shoehorn a piston into an AR.  Yet they seem to have no aversion to the system, nor do they seem to lack the design capacity to innovate on the AR platform (SR15E3)  
- The winner of the SCAR program was the FN submission, not any of the pistol flavored ARs submitted, a weapon designed from the outset to use a piston operating system  

My interjections -

Am I saying I am rabidly opposed to piston actions in military rifles?  NO.  Am I saying that the HK 416, LMT MRP Piston, or LWRC are poor rifles?  Again, a hearty NO.  Do I feel the necessity to shoehorn a piston system into the AR?  Once more, say it with me, NO.  If and when I want a piston operated weapon, I will buy one that was designed that way, like the SCAR, or the ACR, if it should ever make it to market.  

If you want a piston operated carbine, why don't you go buy a SCAR?  They're available now, and according to the dust test you quote, it's more reliable than either of the AR based system, DI or piston in the test.  Or why not mod an SL8 into a G36, which is basically what the XM8 is anyways.  Or why not start with the Sig556 as your base platform.  Don't you dare say cost while you try to accuse DI proponents of being too cheap to put pistons in their ARs when they're "clearly superior."   The ergonomics of the SCAR are supposed to be excellent, and is much newer, and reflects a lot of advancements in the last forty years into its design, train to use that, why don't you?  

Another thing on cost, a lot of people here have rifles that are worth $5K+ once you combine the various optics, ect.  This is before NFA taxes.  Not to mention the money spent on associated gear, ammunition, ect.  Whether or not they need them is irrelevant, the point is there are clearly people who are willing to pay for the best, through the nose, if need be.  Some use pistons, but just as many don't, and are perfectly happy with DI.  Nevertheless, you cite cost as the reason that people don't like pistons, do you honestly think that for someone who'll spend the cash for a Noveske or LaRue upper, a Schmidt and Bender Short Dot, an Elcan Spectre DR, DBAL-2, ect. ect. ect. would have any troubles paying a few extra hundred dollars for an LWRC or LMT upper if they were the unquestioned best thing since sliced bread?  

If you really think the AR is flawed, and needs a piston to make it functional, then go buy something else, because the AR was not designed for one, and doesn't need one in my opinion.  If you want something whizz-bang, then have at it.

~Augee

The problem with the above?

Piston operation pre-dates the AR design

It's not an improvement, it's a step backwards....

WTF are you talking about??  Your either just really stupid, or didn't read what I said.  If you had a brain, you would see that I stated that the local ranger shooter wont see any benefit from a piston AR.
It was designed for bad sandy conditions like the middle east.  

Oh your right, I haven't been there.  So that means the problem doesn't exist. It's just all made up BS buy many military experts.  Your the man, people should trust what you have to say over any expert.
All rifles like the SCAR are going to piston set ups because todays battle field has changed since the Vietnam era.  Future wars are expected to take place in the middle east.  Hence all the piston set ups.
The DI M4 had the most failures in the test between the HK416 the XM8 and the SCAR.  But of course you will think the test was a biased because it didn't have the outcome that you liked.  If the M4 came out on
top, you wouldn't question anything now would you?

Are you ever gonna be in an environment similar to Iraq?

Have you ever personally experienced a failure that was a direct result of your gas tube?

Do you honestly think you will ever be in a situation where you need to shoot 1000 rounds before you can sit down and give your upper a 10 minute cleaning?

Can you even carry enough ammo to foul up a DI rifle?

(Are you seeing a pattern here?)

You're putting way too much faith in articles that you've read on the internet. Instead of talking shit to the members here who have actual time in the sandbox, maybe you should listen to what they have to say. You might learn something.

Now how many times have I stated that the piston set up wouldn't benefit the local range shooter?  I can't help that you can't retain the information.  By the way my brother is in the Army's infantry unit, the M4 is his standard issue rifle.  So I get first hand knowledge.

So if it doesn't benefit you, why do you need one?

You just admitted that you paid extra for something that you will never need.

Brilliant.

If you look into the testing you will see there were some additional information that is not often cited.  For some reason 10 rack grade M4 (some were very old ones at that) were tested against some guns provided by the factory for the testing.   Even with that, very high number of the M4s malfs were magazine induced.  The next trend was that as round counts increased there was a increase in bore wear causing increased malfunctions in all weapons.  The M4s, the only guns with non-hammer forged barrels, starting see increasing number of issues sooner.  All the weapons were found to have issue with barrel erosion that increased the malfunction rates, not just the M4 being the non-hammer forger barrel M4s started seeing them first.  The results of this testing were a program to develop a new magazine and second a proposal to change the specifications to using a hammer forged barrel.

No hes still stuck on what he read and if its on the news or on the internet it has to be true.  Funny thing is I hear more on the inability of the round itself than I do of failures.  When a failure is actually documented it almost always come back to......................wait for it.................................wait for it......................................................................................
Magazines, ammo or op error.  I'am NOT saying anything bad about LWRC, LMT or HK, but when you have a comprimise design, guess what, you get a comprimise.  Basicly what we are seeing is soulution for a non existant problem.  If JS308 is so sure of his facts why dont you put a poll out for vets here to get their opinions?

I will never need my 1919A4 either, but it sure is fun to have.