PDA

View Full Version : piston uppers


rcschummers
01-31-2010, 11:50 AM
whats everybody's take on them, are they worth the few hundred extra bucks?
Im looking to assemble an ebr with one, and have heard mixed reviews. Heard they were both very reliable, but the piston seems impervious to fouling. :popcorn:

NapaCountyShooter
01-31-2010, 12:15 PM
If it were me, I'd spend the extra money on ammo and clean my gun. JMHO.

X-NewYawker
01-31-2010, 2:27 PM
Jesus! Where's that beating a dead horse icon?
The pros and cons have been played out on these pages since the first day I got here.

IMHO, the gas piston upper (from ADDAX or LMT or SIG --) is the way to go!
If you WANT ONE. If you can afford one.

Alls I know is that at the SHOT Show it appeared EVERY single AR manufacturer now has one -- and every army is falling all over themselves to adopt one or retrofit their old rifles (if they can afford them)

More accurate? No. Randall's match guns will shoot tighter.
Unacceptable accuracy? No. MOst shooters won't be able to tell the difference.

I like mine. They shoot cleaner.
I don't like to clean my guns
When they get dirty enough --
I sell them.

http://i125.photobucket.com/albums/p54/Fasanoland/_MG_6354.jpg

IsaacGlass
01-31-2010, 2:35 PM
Jesus! Where's that beating a dead horse icon? :beatdeadhorse5:
The pros and cons have been played out on these pages since the first day I got here.

IMHO, the gas piston upper (from ADDAX or LMT or SIG --) is the way to go!
If you WANT ONE. If you can afford one.

Alls I know is that at the SHOT Show it appeared EVERY single AR manufacturer now has one -- and every army is falling all over themselves to adopt one or retrofit their old rifles (if they can afford them)

More accurate? No. Randall's match guns will shoot tighter.
Unacceptable accuracy? No. MOst shooters won't be able to tell the difference.

I like mine. They shoot cleaner.
I don't like to clean my guns
When they get dirty enough --
I sell them.

http://i125.photobucket.com/albums/p54/Fasanoland/_MG_6354.jpg

I fixed it for you

aplinker
01-31-2010, 2:36 PM
whats everybody's take on them, are they worth the few hundred extra bucks?
Im looking to assemble an ebr with one, and have heard mixed reviews. Heard they were both very reliable, but the piston seems impervious to fouling. :popcorn:

There are pros/cons, but...

The bottom line is, unless you're running an SBR, MG or suppressed, there's no compelling argument for it.

The main reason every AR manufacturer builds them is because customers buy them. Selling products is why manufacturers exist.

If you're really excited about one, there's no compelling argument against buying one, outside the money hole.

This is the distilled summary.

Josh3239
01-31-2010, 3:06 PM
ARs don't need to be cleaned.

Pistons don't run cleaner, they just put the dirt elsewhere.

The US military is not "falling overthemselves" to get a gas piston, if anything they have rejected every single gas piston put in front of them including the SCAR, OICW, and XM8 in favor of the direct impingment. The AR was chosen over both of them and replaced a previous piston rifle called the M14. As for foreign militaries, many still use Colt's DI rifles, easily more than 20 militaries around the world continue to use AR15s plus many LE agencies in and outside the US. However, since far more small arms are operated by a piston than DI it only makes sense that more pistons are out there.

All these new companies making pistons are just jumping on the money train created by the piston craze.

Pistons are nothing new. Colt had several rifles that utilized a piston and none were near as sucessful as the AR15. Rhino developed a piston in something like the 70s or 80s that was also unsucessful. Piston craze seems to have come back when HK, who is held in very high regard, make the HK416. Even so not one of these pistons are as prolific, successful or experienced as the AR15.

Gas pistons are not self lubricating, they will not ensure your magazine is seated properly, they are not free from failures to feed, fire, extract, or eject. The gas piston does not stop double feeds. The gas piston is not self cleaning. The gas piston introduces more moving parts, which means more complicated and more parts that can break or will need replacing.

My $12 gas tube will do what any $400 gas piston kit will do.

I've said it before, they have their place but they are not a replacement for the AR15. They are just a different option that shine on suppressed shooting and short barreled rifles.

rcschummers
01-31-2010, 9:40 PM
IsaacGlass,
thanks for putting things into perspective! LOL

$P-Ritch$
01-31-2010, 10:20 PM
ARs don't need to be cleaned.

Pistons don't run cleaner, they just put the dirt elsewhere.

The US military is not "falling overthemselves" to get a gas piston, if anything they have rejected every single gas piston put in front of them including the SCAR, OICW, and XM8 in favor of the direct impingment. The AR was chosen over both of them and replaced a previous piston rifle called the M14. As for foreign militaries, many still use Colt's DI rifles, easily more than 20 militaries around the world continue to use AR15s plus many LE agencies in and outside the US. However, since far more small arms are operated by a piston than DI it only makes sense that more pistons are out there.

All these new companies making pistons are just jumping on the money train created by the piston craze.

Pistons are nothing new. Colt had several rifles that utilized a piston and none were near as sucessful as the AR15. Rhino developed a piston in something like the 70s or 80s that was also unsucessful. Piston craze seems to have come back when HK, who is held in very high regard, make the HK416. Even so not one of these pistons are as prolific, successful or experienced as the AR15.

Gas pistons are not self lubricating, they will not ensure your magazine is seated properly, they are not free from failures to feed, fire, extract, or eject. The gas piston does not stop double feeds. The gas piston is not self cleaning. The gas piston introduces more moving parts, which means more complicated and more parts that can break or will need replacing.

My $12 gas tube will do what any $400 gas piston kit will do.

I've said it before, they have their place but they are not a replacement for the AR15. They are just a different option that shine on suppressed shooting and short barreled rifles.

I wouldn't say that the US Army has rejected the SCAR, they are fielding it to US Special Operations Forces now and are being used overseas. Will they eventually have everyone switch over? Who knows? They won't phase out a successful weapon system overnight, though. If anything it would be a slow process that would take years to totally switch out a standard service rifle.

technique
02-01-2010, 4:49 AM
whats everybody's take on them, are they worth the few hundred extra bucks?
Im looking to assemble an ebr with one, and have heard mixed reviews. Heard they were both very reliable, but the piston seems impervious to fouling. :popcorn:

Personally, I think they are great.

Sadly, as mentioned, everyone is jumping on the piston bandwagon. Some companies that make poor quality ARs have even jumped in to making pistons.
Unfortunately, they still haven't improved their own DI guns that don't measure up in the DI world, and are now crapping in the piston market as well.

Point being, if you feel you really need a piston gun and want to spend the money for a piston gun...know what you're getting into. Some helpful advice here...stay away from retro fit piston systems. In other words, don't buy a direct impingement gun and a drop in piston kit.

This is just my own opinion, take it as such. These are the piston guns/uppers I think are worth while in terms of quality of parts and design.
These are in order of preference:

Addax Tactical
LWRC
LMT

Good luck on your build.

X-NewYawker
02-01-2010, 6:32 AM
Look: the piston AR is the GLOCK of 1989.
"Plastic pistols? Never" cried the old guard.
Now everyone has a freaking polymer framed pistol.
NOT just because
"They can sell them"
But because in some cases they work better.
My XD-9 Tactical outshoots my S&W 5914
My XD-45 outshoots my Novak Kimber

One of the reasons that the US Army hasn't run to adopt the piston retrofits is that they already OWN TENS OF MILLIONS of DI M16s and M4s. It takes a LOT to switch an army over. My point is that all NEW development in rifles systems is headed towards piston guns, so to continue to say this is only a "fad" or a marketing ploy (as his been stated on this forum many times) is to be the guy at the range in 1990 saying "Glock? Scmock is more like it. It'll never catch on!"

BTW -- the US Army didn't ****can the M-14 because the gas system didn't work -- wooden stocks fit to high tolerances didn't do well in the humid climes of Vietnam, and the 308 round was pretty uncontrollable on full auto. If that same gun had been issued as an SA with a fiberglas stock., we might have kept it.

Pistons?
Purists hates them. Newbies want them.

fliparch
02-01-2010, 6:48 AM
Look: the piston AR is the GLOCK of 1989.
"Plastic pistols? Never" cried the old guard.
Now everyone has a freaking polymer framed pistol.
NOT just because
"They can sell them"
But because in some cases they work better.
My XD-9 Tactical outshoots my S&W 5914
My XD-45 outshoots my Novak Kimber

One of the reasons that the US Army hasn't run to adopt the piston retrofits is that they already OWN TENS OF MILLIONS of DI M16s and M4s. It takes a LOT to switch an army over. My point is that all NEW development in rifles systems is headed towards piston guns, so to continue to say this is only a "fad" or a marketing ploy (as his been stated on this forum many times) is to be the guy at the range in 1990 saying "Glock? Scmock is more like it. It'll never catch on!"

BTW -- the US Army didn't ****can the M-14 because the gas system didn't work -- wooden stocks fit to high tolerances didn't do well in Vietnam. If that same gun had been issued with a fiberglas stock., we might have kept it.

Pistons?
Purists hates them. Newbies want them.

+1,000

Piston AR rifles are here to stay. More and more company will start to adapt and make their own versions or get left behind BUT it's definitely not for everyone especially if you are a die hard DI guy. I love my LWRC upper, I haven't had any single mal with it, except for the double taps, which I fixed by replacing the old CMMG 2 stage trigger with a Timney (I built the lower myself).

...and my XD-9sc outshoots my two Sigs (229 and 226).

engineers101st
02-01-2010, 4:25 PM
I have a dumb question why shouldnt you get a retrofit kit? does that make it less reliable or is there some other problem?The reason i ask is because i just ordered one from bushmaster

coltn46920
02-01-2010, 4:46 PM
My $12 gas tube will do what any $400 gas piston kit will do.



explain/elaborate:)

xounlistedxox
02-01-2010, 5:07 PM
I just wrote a thread in this section regarding my first piston build with an Adams Arms retro fit kit if you wish to read it.

http://www.calguns.net/calgunforum/showthread.php?t=265466

engineers101st
02-01-2010, 5:09 PM
Thanks a bunch i WILL read it

IsaacGlass
02-01-2010, 5:21 PM
Read more here...
http://www.google.com/cse?cx=018149931542195181678%3Apzxbzjzh1zk&ie=UTF-8&q=AR+DI+vs+AR+Piston+&sa=Search&siteurl=www.google.com%2Fcse%2Fhome%3Fcx%3D0181499 31542195181678%3Apzxbzjzh1zk

http://www.google.com/cse?cx=018149931542195181678%3Apzxbzjzh1zk&ie=UTF-8&q=AR+Piston+systems&sa=Search&siteurl=www.google.com%2Fcse%2Fhome%3Fcx%3D0181499 31542195181678%3Apzxbzjzh1zk

aplinker
02-01-2010, 5:56 PM
You're completely missing the argument and then straw-man what is being said.

*Many of the pistons on the market now are mediocre solutions, at best, because companies are seeing that people will buy pistons kits/uppers.

*Pistons rifles are/can be great - it's all about making the PACKAGE run correctly.

*Simply converting the gas system of an AR to a piston is not a "fix." It can introduce more issues

Look. The issue with AR piston uppers is that most people are trying to maintain parts interchangeability. THIS IS KEY as it means the vast majority of piston uppers are non-optimized for the rifle. The bolt system & lugs, the upper shape, the receiver extension are all parts optimized to that of a DI system.

Your Glock analogy is wrong, as no one has built a Glock. They've done the equivalent of trying to make a plastic upper for a 1911. What will truly be the "GLOCK" is when people finally dump a bunch more of the standard AR upper system and bring in design from true piston rifles. The problem is that, at that point, you're talking about a LOT more money, less standardization, less multi-sourcing, more proprietary... which is the opposite of why the AR is a great platform - everyone makes them, they're all to the same basic design and they're cheap.

You'll notice that the better piston makers, especially as their designs progress, are modifying/changing an increasing number of the original AR parts that were once left in place. Look at PWS which has all but abandoned retro-fits. LWRC has started making a lot more in-house parts, as well. This is what we're going to see happening more and more, for better or worse.

The key here is the technology is evolving. For now I'd say you're better off buying a dedicated piston rifle (SIG, Daewoo, SCAR, etc.).

Look: the piston AR is the GLOCK of 1989.
"Plastic pistols? Never" cried the old guard.
Now everyone has a freaking polymer framed pistol.
NOT just because
"They can sell them"
But because in some cases they work better.
My XD-9 Tactical outshoots my S&W 5914
My XD-45 outshoots my Novak Kimber

One of the reasons that the US Army hasn't run to adopt the piston retrofits is that they already OWN TENS OF MILLIONS of DI M16s and M4s. It takes a LOT to switch an army over. My point is that all NEW development in rifles systems is headed towards piston guns, so to continue to say this is only a "fad" or a marketing ploy (as his been stated on this forum many times) is to be the guy at the range in 1990 saying "Glock? Scmock is more like it. It'll never catch on!"

BTW -- the US Army didn't ****can the M-14 because the gas system didn't work -- wooden stocks fit to high tolerances didn't do well in the humid climes of Vietnam, and the 308 round was pretty uncontrollable on full auto. If that same gun had been issued as an SA with a fiberglas stock., we might have kept it.

Pistons?
Purists hates them. Newbies want them.

xounlistedxox
02-01-2010, 6:02 PM
Consider this aplinker. Although not an exact similarity your point sounds somewhat like saying you can't retro fit a mustang with a chevy 350 because it wasn't made for it. In reality many people have and will drop a 350 into a mustang because they are less expensive to build more power. Personally I would never do this because a ford should have a ford engine under the hood, but my point is you can retro fit anything you want to if you have a good r&d team behind it.