AR Sponsor
Posted: 8/22/2011 4:30:35 PM EDT
|
I'm a HUGE fan of the AR15 platform - in any caliber. Personally I don't want any other type of rifle but an AR15. I currently have 2 AR15 rifles - 22LR and 5.56 Both are DI rifles. I'm really interested in a piston AR15 rifle, but have a question that someone may be able to shed some light on. From my reading (and learning) of the AR15 platform it seems the majority of rifles are "mil-spec" and on the same platform with interchangeable parts.
However, please correct me if I'm wrong, but currently there's no "mil-spec" for any piston rifles today. All the piston systems for the AR15 platform are all different, according to the manufacturer's specs. I know there's been talk the government is talking about testing and going to a piston rifle as the main battle rifle for the US fleet, so wouldn't it be "wise" for me or anyone buying a piston rifle to wait until the government decides and establishes a "mil-spec" platform the the piston AR15 platform? This way all the piston manufacturers will build mil-spec AR15 rifles? What are your thoughts? |
I'm an Osprey fan but there have been others I own/owned that were fine too.
| It is not true that piston systems are not Milspec. If it is being used by the military/govt. in a combat capacity, you bet your ass that it is milspec. With that said there are two companies with piston rifles being used in combat, LWRC and HK. Plus I hate that phrase, milspec. Some rifles are built above the military's standards and thus are not milspec. Sometimes the difference between a milspec part and a non milspec part is just some dummy in a warehouse's stamp. So was that part not milspec standards before he looked at it? See what I am getting at? |
|
Quoted:
It is not true that piston systems are not Milspec. If it is being used by the military/govt. in a combat capacity, you bet your ass that it is milspec. With that said there are two companies with piston rifles being used in combat, LWRC and HK. Plus I hate that phrase, milspec. Some rifles are built above the military's standards and thus are not milspec. Sometimes the difference between a milspec part and a non milspec part is just some dummy in a warehouse's stamp. So was that part not milspec standards before he looked at it? See what I am getting at? Yep. Me personally I don't make a big deal about mil spec. You have to remember mil spec is the minimum level of acceptance. What I look at is industry standard. That is something to pay attention to. Another thing I look at is above or exceeding industry or mil spec standards. Why take the bare minimum when you can have the best I say? I can tell you the rifle I own and rifles I plan on owning will be superior to ANY issued weapon I will receive in the Army. |
|
Quoted:
Quoted:
It is not true that piston systems are not Milspec. If it is being used by the military/govt. in a combat capacity, you bet your ass that it is milspec. With that said there are two companies with piston rifles being used in combat, LWRC and HK. Plus I hate that phrase, milspec. Some rifles are built above the military's standards and thus are not milspec. Sometimes the difference between a milspec part and a non milspec part is just some dummy in a warehouse's stamp. So was that part not milspec standards before he looked at it? See what I am getting at? Yep. Me personally I don't make a big deal about mil spec. You have to remember mil spec is the minimum level of acceptance. What I look at is industry standard. That is something to pay attention to. Another thing I look at is above or exceeding industry or mil spec standards. Why take the bare minimum when you can have the best I say? I can tell you the rifle I own and rifles I plan on owning will be superior to ANY issued weapon I will receive in the Army. While I may be wrong I *think* the OP was referring to "mil-spec" not so much as in the acceptance/standards of parts but more in a parts commonality sort of way. i.e. that there is no standard piston system used by .gov and therefore interchangeability is not possible. |
|
An Osprey conversion kit is under $300 ($292.41 from Brownells) and simply replaces the gas tube with a piston system and new bolt carrier.
I'm not sure exactly if the kit will work on "pencil" barrels (to include the M4 profile). If you can field strip the rifle, punch out the little roll pin in the front sight base, and remove the gas tube you can install this system. In the interest of full disclosure I do not have this system but I'm looking at it. (I have two LWRC carbines.) –– Chuck |
| I have the osprey system. It was very simple to install EXCEPT I could not get their provided roll pin into my FSB...I tried tapping it in and actually bent it. Cory from customer service sent me a couple more and told me to drill it (I don't remember what size he told me) but after that it went in and everything was a breeze...gun has been perfect...It is a Bushmaster M4. |
|
Quoted:
While I may be wrong I *think* the OP was referring to "mil-spec" not so much as in the acceptance/standards of parts but more in a parts commonality sort of way. i.e. that there is no standard piston system used by .gov and therefore interchangeability is not possible. YES! I was referring to the "standardization' of parts for piston systems, like there's a standard for most DI rifles. I realize piston systems are relatively "new" compared to the original DI rifle. I'm wondering when the parts will be standard to use from one rifle to another if needed. I was using "mil-spec" term earlier as a standard which most DI rifles are compatible, not really talking about the quality- of course quality is one of the utmost importance, just not what I was referring to in my original post. |
|
Quoted:
YES! I was referring to the "standardization' of parts for piston systems, like there's a standard for most DI rifles. I realize piston systems are relatively "new" compared to the original DI rifle. I'm wondering when the parts will be standard to use from one rifle to another if needed. I was using "mil-spec" term earlier as a standard which most DI rifles are compatible, not really talking about the quality- of course quality is one of the utmost importance, just not what I was referring to in my original post. I do not think there will be a standardization of piston AR's. Some are better than others. What might happen is that a company will start buying out the competition and there will be a dominant presence of one design in the market. I will say this: The big dogs like POF and LWRC will not be at the top due to thier price. I can easily see Adams Arms not being the standard, but a dominant force in the piston AR market in the future. Look at how many companies are using thier systems in thier branded piston AR's. |
|
Quoted:
I think if you wait on the military to decide on anything but the M4, then you're going to be waiting a while. People are afraid of change. You sure may be right...although I do have time- waiting to save the ca$h for a new rifle! One of the reasons for wanting a piston rifle is because the cleaning is much less work. i am absolutely anal with everything i own. everything is cleaned to 100%. I did find this cool tool on the web for cleaning DI rifles...looks very promising! Link- http://www.tacticalaccessories.com/products/viewproduct.php?id_product=458 |
|
Fear of change? Yeah, we're conservative.
But say we could convert all the M4s to piston at unit level for say $200 each –– quantity discount. 2,000,000 M4s x $200 = $400,000,000. And just to change from a proven system to something that's functionally no better for 99% of the Army. –– Chuck |
| Thus the reason why LWRC is working on the PIP and not on selling the Army individual rifles. If you haven't heard, we are scaling back our defense spending and if all you are going to do is send 5.56 down range, then there is no need to outfit everyone with a new system. I did see a Ranger video today that had an LWRC M6A2 being handled by one of those brave gentlemen. |
- I'm still learning about these toys! Thanks
|
Quoted:
Thus the reason why LWRC is working on the PIP and not on selling the Army individual rifles. If you haven't heard, we are scaling back our defense spending and if all you are going to do is send 5.56 down range, then there is no need to outfit everyone with a new system. I did see a Ranger video today that had an LWRC M6A2 being handled by one of those brave gentlemen. What is PIP? I looked on the net and found hundreds of possible acronyms for 'PIP" - thanks |
|
Quoted:
M4 Performance improvement program.
Quoted:
Thus the reason why LWRC is working on the PIP and not on selling the Army individual rifles. If you haven't heard, we are scaling back our defense spending and if all you are going to do is send 5.56 down range, then there is no need to outfit everyone with a new system. I did see a Ranger video today that had an LWRC M6A2 being handled by one of those brave gentlemen. What is PIP? I looked on the net and found hundreds of possible acronyms for 'PIP" - thanks |
|
IMO I wouldn't wait the decision on a piston system.
Look at it this way, regardless of the piston, I'd look at the manufacturers that will supply you with replacement parts. I think thats what we all want is the ability to replace the individual parts if they fail. As long as I have a part that I can replace in the field or bench, then I'm set. |
|
I went with Ruger purely because I'm sure the SR556 will be in their catalog for 30 years, along with spare parts, as long as you can get parts from the factory, why worry? Even if it goes tits up and no parts are available anymore, you could still slap a DI upper on it and get back in the game. |
|
Quoted:
It is not true that piston systems are not Milspec. If it is being used by the military/govt. in a combat capacity, you bet your ass that it is milspec. With that said there are two companies with piston rifles being used in combat, LWRC and HK. Plus I hate that phrase, milspec. Some rifles are built above the military's standards and thus are not milspec. Sometimes the difference between a milspec part and a non milspec part is just some dummy in a warehouse's stamp. So was that part not milspec standards before he looked at it? See what I am getting at? What US units/services have adopted the LWRC? |
|
[/quote]I know the DEA has approved them for personal purchase and duty use by agents, anyone else using LWRC?[/quote]
I know Fairfax County PD, VA. uses their uppers and have some full rifles for the patrol and K9 units. They were the first PD to go all LWRC piston rifles, as far as I know. They really like there system. |
|
Quoted:
I know the DEA has approved them for personal purchase and duty use by agents, anyone else using LWRC?[/quote]
I know Fairfax County PD, VA. uses their uppers and have some full rifles for the patrol and K9 units. They were the first PD to go all LWRC piston rifles, as far as I know. They really like there system. [/quote] Thanks for the reply... I love my LWRC... |
AR Sponsor