I have all direct impegment ar 15s, I was think of adding one of the Adam arms piston systems. Is it really worth it?

I have three piston uppers......all PWS

I have nine DI uppers.

I like them for different reasons. If I could have only one, it WOULD be a PWS Mod2

I love my BCM DI, but I dig piston operation just as much. Adams make a good rifle (I have two), and they also offer a pretty generous MIL/LEO discount for those that qualify. Buy with confidence.

I purchased my first piston AR a few weeks ago, a LMT MARS rifle, 16" barrel.  It shoots great, you cant argue LMT reliability, I really like it, more than likely will not purchase another one, as I have one and one is enough, the rest of my collection are DI rifles.

77

Yes its worth it. Lots of my buddies have Adam Arms uppers including my dad and they have nothing but praises for it. My dad was a solider in Vietnam and he loves his Adams Arms (if that means anything). I think they are a tad top heavy, but nothing crazy. I personally have a few PWS and a LWRCi. I like PWS as it just as balance as my DI and reminds me of my AK. Been thinking about getting a POF Puritan upper lately. You can't convince me to go back to DIs.

Don't listen to all the haters. Some people are set in thier way about DIs and will always bash piston ARs by saying it wasn't designed for it, bla bla bla. Just look at the HK416, its an AR platform and being adopted my many Nations now. The writing is on the wall for DIs, but a lot of people don't see it or refuse to accept it.

Only you can decide that.  My piston guns need a lot less cleaning than my DI guns ever did.  The bolt carriers are just as clean and shiny as the day I bought them, and that's with no cleaning at all.  I only need to clean the bolt face from that component.  They do cost more, though, and parts are proprietary.  You have to weigh reliability and time vs. money.  I made the plunge and I'll never go back, but I'm not everyone.

Thank you for all the great advice, I'm gonna add a piston system to this build.  Any recommendations for which kit I should add?

For a factory upper I am partial to lwrci. For a add on kit I have had good experiences with Adams arms.

Superlative Arms has an adjustable gas block.  That'd be my route.

I've alway wanted to try the OSPREY DEFENSE OPS-416 GAS PISTON kit. Out of all the kits I've see they look the simplist with the least amount of parts. Only downside is they don't fit under many rails.

I have six piston rifles, three are SBRs (all PWS), the other three are 16" carbines (PWS, LMT, and Adams Arms). All function great, I definitely prefer the PWS long-stroke system over the short stroke.

That being said, I also have nine DI rifles (one SBR), mostly BCM uppers on Spikes lowers. At this point I'm am still undecided as to which I prefer in the DI vs Piston debate, but since I got my 12.5" PWS SBR going with my Surefire SOCOM RC2 I haven't shot the other rifles much, so it appears I'm starting to lean towards the piston system a little more.

If I had the choice to take any of them on my next trip to the two-way range I would not hesitate.

Anyone considered Wolf A1? I mean it's designed as a piston from the ground up and it's a military rifle.

For me, it would be a few steps backwards. I prefer the long stroke action,
smaller diameter handguards that are available in keymod and MLOK as well as modern styling.

The Wolf is a bit behind in many areas.

If you are only looking for a rock solid performer, a bit like an archaic AK, this upper would be a wise choice

Superlative Arms has the best piston kit on the market with the largest aftermarket rail compatibility IMO.

I own a LWRC upper and a DI upper as well and prefer the Superlative Arms system.

I have 3 DI AR's and 2 Adam Arms piston AR's.  I don't like cleaning the DI's any more, before I had the pistons I just was used to the cleaning process (I do not like to not clean a gun after shooting it) and with the pistons, can clean the BCG with a cocktail napkin.  I see a lot of die hard DI AR lovers saying the piston is just a fad, but the M1, M1 carbine, M14, AK, SKS, etc are all piston guns.  As I understand the development of the AR, it was originally meant to be a piston gun, but cost cuts made it become DI.  And, in the middle 60's my M16 was a POS, no thumb assist, initially told you did not need to clean it, they finally came out with a "comic booklet" explaining how to clean it.  Wrong twist, wrong power, bad chamber, etc.  I resisted getting an AR for years after my M16 experience, went with a Mini 14, because it always worked.  Then saw the new AR's are a completely different gun so they are reliable, I used to hear they didn't jam, but just thought that was because guys were sitting on a chair, covered, no rain, no chopper dust, mud, etc.  Then found they are way better.  And, I can not remember when in the past 50 years I "needed" to swap out a part from a battle buddy.  In fact, none of us carried any spare parts in the bush.  So having it a little different does not bother me, and I do carry spare springs in my grip compartment.  And, for strictly old fart reasons, a broken shell extractor as well.  Now that one is really a lame thing to have these days with the modern AR platform, but, I do carry one.

my SBR is adams arms evo 11.5". I bought mine before the lightweight gen 2's were available. I love mine. Never going back.

I just got the Wolf A1. The thing eats cheap steel cased ammo very well with zero failures. I doubt the DI's are that reliable especially with dirty steel cased stuff. I also don't have to clean the thing so religiously.

Get both!

Get one. I went with the wolf a1 . I'm not calling it a fad.  But I will stick to DI's for the heavy work. I got a piston to check it out.It's been 100% reliable  The only thing it has going for it is it's not dirty when you clean the bolt/carrier . But you do swap that for now having to clean a piston area. Your gain isn't 100% . If my memory is clear. Questionable ha ha , the M16 got the DI due to weight. The US Military had a set standard  of what they wanted out of there next generation rifle. Weight was  a big factor and the rifle could only weight X amount or it didn't pass . Piston took it over the weight set . Fairchild  aerospace  did a great job of mixing materials and action to get it under the required weight .Due to us being on this site everyone should know by now about Fake news . The DI does not need to be cleaned to run and run and run. Just a little lube every now and then. DI just makes it dirty . Not unreliable. The  post about HK416... The same company who brought you the Piece of Shit G36 . They didn't come up with nothing new. Piston M16's was created long ago. Colt , Taiwan, and many many more. HK just caught some governments with shitty  old weapons  and money in the check book . They should be thanking Fairchild Engineering and Mr. Stoner and maybe Colt for there rifles. They haven't created nothing , they just have a very good marketing dept.  This is just my opinion, we all have one Wardawg

Weights of  piston uppers today are very comparable to DI.

As for cleaning, the recommended piston cleaning interval is 3000 rounds.  This is rather easily accomplished by soaking in a carbon remover. No scraping needed, happy happy joy joy

Look at your hands after cleaning.  

That is just one of the reasons, but my favorite.

Nope.

Yeah buddy.

I get this question a lot from friends, below is how I address it.

To answer the question for those that may ask “Can I benefit from a piston AR over a DI”, I humbly request you consider and answer these three questions.

1. Will I ever run my AR suppressed?
2. Will I run a barrel shorter than 14.5” on a pistol or SBR AR?
3. Am I left handed?

If you only answer YES once to any one of those questions, stick with DI.
If you answer YES twice to any of those three questions, a piston rifle may benefit you, especially a short barrel and suppressor combo. But again, probably stay with DI.
If you answer YES to all three questions, you should have already considered a piston AR after you put 500 or more rounds through your AR on any given range trip.

As a lefty who shoots a 10.5" suppressed rifles often, a piston systems benefits me greatly. However, please keep in mind the DI system was designed to move the BCG with a push of gas, a piston system no matter how advanced, is still hitting the BCG designed for "air" movement, with the equivalent of striking the carrier with a pin driver and ball peen hammer. Yes it may run cleaner, but it requires more inspection and careful monitoring of additional internal parts.

I have been running SBR pistons for at more than ten years now. Only because I am left handed and shoot suppressed, after 500-600 rounds at the range, my eyes and face regret it if its a DI gun. If I am not running suppressed, or SBR, meaning shooting a standard length AR, They are always DI.

If you pan to build your own, the Osprey system is nice for fewest moving parts. It is best for standard length 16" rifle barrels. A fail zero package is best, cleaner. The only other option for DIY in my opinion is the Superlative Arms models. I am not knocking Adams arms, I have owned 4 kits, I just prefer the SA for these reasons. 1. SA has a forward off bleeding adjustable gas block, a big help for suppression. 2. If you buy the set screw model, there is a relief for pinning the gas block to the barrel (this is extremely important).  

Unless you are using the upper for fun range time only and a failure via shift of piston gas block or other "loosening" parts due to set screws and clamp blocks, is not an issue for you, I strongly suggest you PIN YOUR GAS BLOCK TO YOUR BARREL!!!!! Osprey requires this for a reason, non adjustable, but even with an adjustable block, PINNING is the safest way to ensure your rifle will continue to function. Especially if it is a tool your life may depend on.

For those that like piston uppers for the cleaning benefits, yes, they do run cleaner. But an NiB coated BCG and FCG pretty much get the job done just as easy without concern for additional failing parts. Now days with parts being less expensive, one can find a brand new BCG coated in NiBX by WMD, Fail Zero, Spikes, or even AIM, and a FCG from tons of vendors for less than $200 bucks.

This post is so full of it on so many levels, it's embarrassing.  AR's are awesome and have been for many years.  Piston guns are good too.  I have both. I have used M16's on the battlefield and they rocked.  At least make your post believable.

You are right on with this post

There is an article in Small Arms Review, by Dan Shea,  where he interviews C. Reed Knight, Jr.

In this article they discuss Eugene Stoner's original balanced AR-type gas system, bolt, and carrier.

After you read this article (Google will find it, just use the keywords I've already typed so far) then you
will understand why Knight, who worked very closely with Eugene Stoner, doesn't offer a piston system
based off the AR platform.

You will also have a clearer understanding of the way the gas system works in an AR.  

Stoner was also quite well informed about gas piston systems.  He could have designed the original system
with a piston.  He chose not to.

This is all documented and searchable.

I personally will defer to the greatest authorities on the AR system, the designer and his disciple.

I have no interest in gas piston systems combined with the AR type action for those explicit reasons.

I'm not saying piston systems are bad.  But they do "break" the designed operating functions of the AR gas, carrier, and bolt system,
as they do not provide for a means for the bolt to be held firmly into the chamber by gas pressure behind the gas rings for a few
milliseconds while chamber pressures taper off.

Piston ARs are, at least in their current conceptions, a solution to the problem of getting a super-short weapon to run reliably at high round counts in full auto.

Given that that role is far outside of the originally conceived "operating envelope," both tactically and mechanically of the AR15/M16, the piston was A solution.

Ultimately, super-short subcompact ARs are not as much of a "done deal" as many would have you believe--you just need to look at the teeth gnashing and debate over 11.5" versus 10.5 (10.25/10.3/10.4/etc.)" carbines, and the "Great Gas Port Debates" over DD's 10.3" "MK18" barrels.

While the 10" CQB upper has provided admirable service to the military, it is and always has been a compromise solution, the short length of the CQBR ("MK 18") comes at a greatly degraded lifespan for military weapons.

The piston system provided a way for a super-short AR to essentially "beat itself into submission" despite being far outside of the original design parameters for the weapon, this of course led to yet more problems once suppressors were introduced into the equation that had to be dealt with later, but that is neither here nor there.

Certainly piston ARs have been around for a long time before the HK M4/HK416, but this is what it took for the concept to really "catch on." Subsequent market entries have tried to capitalize on this and locked on to one feature/perceived benefit/design paradigm or another, backwards adapted it to systems where the original function was fine, and done all this with varying degrees of success, but this is the "bitter reality," if you will, of the piston AR in the greater scheme of the AR's developmental history--to get a gun to do things it was never intended to do, sometimes you need to step outside of the previously established solutions.

The AR is a wonderfully balanced, and also extremely adaptable system, as has long been proven--but that also means that once you've deviated too much beyond a certain point, it requires even more drastic changes--one of the huge points of genius of the original AR was that not only has it been technically revolutionary, but also ergonomically revolutionary (and arguably more so than the technical merits of the design), to the point where even weapon systems that by all accounts could/should be considered entirely new, nevertheless emulate the ergonomics, if not re-using a large portion of functional parts in order to retain those ergonomics.

The "is it worth it?" question is really a matter of your own needs and desires. To the implied "which" question, the number of manufacturers whom I would trust/spend my money on for a piston gun is much smaller than the number that produce them, and I would not, under any circumstances, choose a "retrofit" system.

~Augee

Yeah, your right, he was very well informed about gas pistons....he went on to create the Stoner 63.
Which IMHO, was much better....

It was only better as a MG. If it was that great, it'd still be in production.

lol...I knew that would get someones ass hair up....but like I said...IMHO....

lol Hey, they're really cool and all. Nostalgic/iconic. I'd love to own one. It was a very interesting and innovative concept as a multipurpose system.
It's just outclassed in every individual category by dedicated purpose-built designs (after the FN Minimi was introduced, anyway).

Stoner couldn't use the direct impingement system he designed anymore, because ArmaLite owned that intellectual property, and then sold it to Colt.

Depends on what you're going to use it for.

Happy blasting? Sure.  diversify and have fun.

Real work or SHTF?  Not so much.

Can you collaborate?

You mean elaborate?
About the Stoner 63?

I don't agree with you that it was better than the AR-15, except in the category of LMG/MMG.

Nevermind that the US DoD was already invested in the AR (which is one factor). As an assault rifle, the AR is lighter, less complicated, simpler to produce on CNC equipment (which, unlike the Stoner, is required for its production), and less likely to rust/corrode (especially once both bore and chamber were chrome lined). The Stoner 63 is mostly stamped sheet steel, so there are many places for rust to develop.

From a user perspective, it's cool to be able to reconfigure the Stoner (as a system) into different classes of weapon, but this just isn't a feature militaries want or need. They want to keep things simple for people who only need to perform in one role.

Obviously SEALs and SF guys are highly skilled, and frequently perform multiple roles, but even they kept their Stoners configured for the LMG/MMG role pretty much all the time. They could have simply used a dedicated 5.56mm belt fed weapon. They finally got that, as a replacement for the Stoner, in the form of the Minimi (US M249 and MK46 family).

If you want to compare later designs of piston operated carbines and infantry rifles, the Beretta AR70, Swiss SAN SG 55x series, and FN CAL/FNC all have equal or better performance than the Stoner, but with less complexity, because they were only made to do one thing.

The AR is lighter than all of them, although it likely cannot fire as long between cleanings under battlefield conditions.
I think the above piston weapons are likely to last longer than a Stoner 63A though. 

I'd put the SAN SG 551 at the top for jungle carbine use, especially compared to the Stoner carbine (gas port too close to muzzle on the Stoner carbine). Obviously the SG 550 family wasn't around at the time, and has the advantage of being designed later.

The FN CAL was first produced in 1966. I can't elaborate on that one because I have no experience with it, but Google says it weighs less than a Stoner rifle.

All those individual piston designs outclass the Stoner at whatever rifle/carbine you want to configure it as. The FN Minimi outclasses it as a 5.56mm MMG.

The only advantage of the Stoner was that it could be reconfigured into different things. That wasn't really a feature the US military users needed or used to much effect though. 
For a civilian user, that was its best feature. Sales were poor, however, and it was discontinued.

For a long time, however, it was the best (and one of the only) 5.56mm LMG/MMG weapons around. The only weapons available as alternative LMGs in Vietnam were the M14A1 (which fired 7.62 NATO and was extremely difficult to control), and the Russian RPD, which saw use with unconventional US forces as well.

If I was looking for a piston AR, I'd get the HK416. The HK is more money than other options (and with less availability), but the longevity of adoption/support is there.
For most, however, the performance increase just isn't worth the additional expense and weight.

I use a MK18 with 10.3" barrel, suppressed, full auto, and it works just fine. Sure I have to clean it more often than a 416, but I don't do high volume full auto CQB all day for multiple days in a row. Delta and DEVGRU have weapons reflective of the roles they perform.

IMHO, offerings from L'dub and others have a lot more bang for the buck than what's available from HK.

And I'm an HK fan.

Are the LWRC uppers cheaper? HK416 upper is about $1,400 for LE/government. I realize they're more on the secondary market.

Honest question: since you brought up "bang for the buck," if the cost were the same would you feel the same way?

(I'm assuming you're talking about the cost of an HK416 upper on the commercial retail market and/or costs associated with purchasing and converting an MR556)

~Augee

lol...I thought reading is for Faggots.....But who am I to judge...?

"Nevermind that the US DoD was already invested in the AR"....Well why the hell should we? It wouldn't the first time we seen a superior concept kicked to the curb because the role was already filled.....  Corrosion?? Really??

"but this just isn't a feature militaries want or need."  Logistics....Yes, they need it, but where balls deep in M16.

"because they were only made to do one thing."....Imagine filling multiple roles....with one.

"The AR is lighter than all of them, although it likely cannot fire as long between cleanings under battlefield conditions."......Gee, I wonder why...

"I think the above piston weapons are likely to last longer than a Stoner 63A though".....Irrelevant.

I'd put the SAN SG 551 at the top for jungle carbine use, especially compared to the Stoner carbine (gas port too close to muzzle on the Stoner carbine). Obviously the SG 550 family wasn't around at the time, and has the advantage of being designed later.".................Irrelevant.

"The only advantage of the Stoner was that it could be reconfigured into different things. That wasn't really a feature the US military users needed or used to much effect though.".....God, I need a drink.

Oh...and Deutschland über Alles grammer Nazi.

I'm not sure if you're complaining about the length of my post, or changing your mind about faggotry after expending all that effort. lol

Yes, corrosion is a valid concern. You'll notice it was last on my list, after weight, simplicity, and production concerns.

Of course they need logistics. What they don't need are a bunch of expensive weapons where the extra cost and production effort is wasted on the 75% of them which will remain configured as rifles and carbines. Also, they were balls deep in the M16.

Whatever is adopted as the primary weapon system is going to be extensively mass produced, regardless of what it is, so they'll always have logistics.

They imagined filling multiple roles before, with the M14. Yes, the Stoner would have worked out much better, had it been around to be considered for adoption then. If so, who knows?

You want me to elaborate on the Stoner being outclassed, but then consider my statements irrelevant? Why don't you share something relevant then?

Yes, faggotry and relevancy.....
"It's just outclassed in every individual category by dedicated purpose-built designs."........what exactly outclassed it in the early 1960's...?

Oh, I forgot.......die fuhrer....

The AR-15 and probably the RPD as well.
I wasn't limiting the discussion to the early 1960's, but apparently you are.

Not sure if this is response to me, if not then please disregard...

Well, yeah….you’re not going to compare the Stoner 63 to more modern designs and point out obvious problems…..are you? Are you telling me that the Stoner 63 wouldn’t have progressed over time…?
IMHO….Both the FN 249 and M27 (and the whole 416 family) would not exist if the Stoner 63 came before the M16.

Anyone who can’t see the genius of the Stoner 63 and the potential it offers is stoned..,.

The Stoner 63 did progress over time. Eugene Stoner and KAC continued to develop the LMG concept. Several of the weapons I mentioned earlier are based upon the Stoner 63.

ARES Stoner 86




Stoner 96 / KAC LMG


Now with keymod:

https://www.knightarmco.com/portfolio/stoner-lmg/

I'm surprised you don't know more about what appears to be your favorite gun.

You're not going to imagine an alternate timeline and then purport it as fact... are you?
Sure, it had great potential. It was an ingenious design. That doesn't make it the best.

If you only want one 5.56mm long gun, which can perform in every role, in the early 1960's, then yes it was amazing. It was best at being a belt fed LMG. The AR-15 continues to be better at being an assault rifle.

The last time I looked at this was around the time the 416/556 were about to be released. Prices were higher then.

From what I remember the barrel for the 416 was chrome lined, the MR was button rifled?

The L'dubs have nitride barrels, nickle-boron BCG's and with the introduction of the IC models, a true ambi lower, and they are pretty nice. The A5's, adjustable gas block, longer handguard, good choice for suppressor fans.

Check out the Black Friday sale on the uppers, usually 20% off. They do have .mil-LE pricing also.

I've not had enough time to play with a 416 (upper) to form a solid opinion on them. My first impression was positive.  If the price were somewhat similar I would probably buy one, like everyone else, I really need to live with it for quite a while to see if it really fits me.  

First world problems we have. There's a lot of solid rifles on the market if you are willing to spend a few bucks.

You're talking about two different things, a button rifled barrel can be chrome lined--the HK416 has a chrome lined, hammer forged barrel. The MR556 also has a hammer forged barrel, but it's not chrome lined. Both have tapered bores that are matched to the specific barrel length, but I've owned, and know many other people that own cut down MR556 barrels, and no one that I know has reported any real practical difference in accuracy from cutting down a 16" MR556 barrel to another length. Cut down MR556 barrels can also be nitrided without issue.

Things like nickle-boron coatings are, IMHO, more of a marketing benefit than a practical improvement, and though it's not available on the commercial market, the "IC" version of the HK416, i.e., the HK416A5 also features full ambi controls, as well as the adjustable gas block, though I'm not an AGB fan personally. Handguards in multiple lengths, including 9", 10", 11", and 13/14" are all available for the HK416 as well, and the 416 has more aftermarket options in those lengths.

I was just curious as to whether you were asserting that one was technically superior to the other, or if you were simply approaching it in terms of "value" based on pricing, which is quite inflated for the HK416 on the commercial market. You can piece together an HK416/MR556 without spending "too" much, but it takes some patience and effort, versus simply buying a rifle "off the shelf."

As I've stated elsewhere, my opinion is that the HK416 has already won the "piston platform" race, not even as a matter of technical superiority, but its widespread adoption and use and institutional momentum--the market just hasn't fully realized it yet, but that is neither here nor there. HK's pricing and limited availability will nevertheless keep other manufacturers going at least for a little while, for folks who have bought into the "piston" idea, but aren't willing to spend the money and effort to get an HK.

~Augee

The taper of the bore is within approx. 1.5" of the bore past the chamber in the 416 and 1.75" to 1.8" of the bore past the chamber on the MR556.

The difference between the two is caused simply by the chrome lining.

Chrome is a finishing process that adds material to the barrel bore.

Button rifling is a manufacturing process used to create the lands and grooves inside the bore in a spiral pattern.

Three major types of barrel manufacture are 1:hammer forging 2:button 3:broach  All three can be chrome lined or nitride after the fact.

Forgive me, it was a little early and it's been a bit since I was looking into it.

Like many, I was highly interested and waiting for them to be released into the wild. While I have faith they are jam up, I was disappointed to see what was going to be sold to the public. From my understanding the 556 barrels are not nitrided?

I could not justify that price point, just because it was HK, piston operated.