LWRC Factory Video

[Addax]

I'm old fashioned as well and feel the DI system is fine. However, I'm really glad the piston system is starting to pick up traction. If you can make it better, why not? With companies like LMT getting into the fold, you know it's just a matter of time before piston becomes more mainstream.

+1

LMT is in the Gas Piston market, CMMG is currently working on a design, and I I heard some development rumors that Stag, RRA and Noveske might all jump into the fold in the next year.

LWRC and POF are the main leaders of the AR Gas Piston pack right now, but I think that LMT might give them a good run for the money.

I heard from one AR mfg. that there were a couple of small companies walking around at the Shot Show who have developed AR Gas Piston Systems that they were trying to sell to several mfg's at the show...

[ar15barrels]

LMT is in the Gas Piston market, CMMG is currently working on a design, and
I I heard some development rumors that Stag, RRA and Noveske might all jump into the fold in the next year.

...because people will buy them, not because there is a specific need that's being filled.
We are reaching a technilogical stalemate in the AR world after the last few years of massive growth in new products.
The gas piston system represents a very profitable idea that has all the buzz right now.

Remember, people buy 22" rims for their cars and fake cans for their guns too.

[buffybuster]

I find this gas piston revival rather ironic. The DI system is in fact the "new" system and not the "old" system. Prior to the DI system, which was initially used by the Swedes in the Ljungman and the French in the MAS49 and later adopted and refined by Stoner, all other gas operated rifles used a long piston, piston with intermidiate op rod or gas tappet design. Stoner's refined DI system was the "new" design to replace all that reciprocating hardware with a simple gas tube. Providing: reduced weight, greater intrinsic accuracy and simplified manufacturing.

The original AR15 rifle was initially conceived for the USAF for use in guarding Air Bases/runway security which required a light weapon that could be easily carried, had very good intrinsic accuracy and excellent ergomonics to facilitate accurate shooting at longer ranges found in the runway areas. High durability or reliabilty under extreme conditions was not considered a necessity since USAF airbases worldwide were rather well groomed and the Security Polices forces did not operate in severe environments or mission requirements.

Only later, with McNamara and the "whiz kids" desire to use economies of scale to standardize across all services was the AR15 platform modified into the M16 and ultimately into the A1/A2/A3/A4. During this time frame there was a specification for a smaller M16 to be issued to tank crews, drivers and other applications that were not primarily direct combat arms. Since this carbine was destined for support troops it had a lower duty cycle than the M16A1/2. Unfortunately no one told that to the SOCOM community who latched onto the M4/M4A1 due to it's more compact size and reduced weight. SOCOM used these M4's like they used everything else and that is when all these issues started to surface with many band-aid fixes like the heavier rubber bumper in the extractor spring, then the O-ring/D-ring around the extractor spring, then the lobster tail double spring, etc. Also reports of lugs chipping and failing and from my earlier statement, gas tube failure.

All the "new" gas piston designs to retrofit primarily the M4A1 platform does address the issues of the DI, however no manufacturer seems to be trying to address these other issues through a thorough redesign and would rather provide some other band-aide solution.

We seem to have come full circle in gas operated weapon design, but those first gas piston rifles, before the AR did not have these extractor/ejector issues.

[BHPFan]

We seem to have come full circle in gas operated weapon design, but those first gas piston rifles, before the AR did not have these extractor/ejector issues.

If you all may recall, Armalite did develop a gas piston rifle shortly after adoption of the M16. It is called the AR-18. It had a proven system (gas-piston) plus it was cheaper to manufacture, but the same top brass bean counters decided to not go with it.
I imagine what would have happen if we have go with the AR-18 after Vietnam.

[aplinker]

Ummmm...

All the "new" gas piston designs to retrofit primarily the M4A1 platform does address the issues of the DI, however no manufacturer seems to be trying to address these other issues through a thorough redesign and would rather provide some other band-aide solution.

I find this gas piston revival rather ironic. The DI system is in fact the "new" system and not the "old" system. Prior to the DI system, which was initially used by the Swedes in the Ljungman and the French in the MAS49 and later adopted and refined by Stoner, all other gas operated rifles used a long piston, piston with intermidiate op rod or gas tappet design. Stoner's refined DI system was the "new" design to replace all that reciprocating hardware with a simple gas tube. Providing: reduced weight, greater intrinsic accuracy and simplified manufacturing.

The original AR15 rifle was initially conceived for the USAF for use in guarding Air Bases/runway security which required a light weapon that could be easily carried, had very good intrinsic accuracy and excellent ergomonics to facilitate accurate shooting at longer ranges found in the runway areas. High durability or reliabilty under extreme conditions was not considered a necessity since USAF airbases worldwide were rather well groomed and the Security Polices forces did not operate in severe environments or mission requirements.

Only later, with McNamara and the "whiz kids" desire to use economies of scale to standardize across all services was the AR15 platform modified into the M16 and ultimately into the A1/A2/A3/A4. During this time frame there was a specification for a smaller M16 to be issued to tank crews, drivers and other applications that were not primarily direct combat arms. Since this carbine was destined for support troops it had a lower duty cycle than the M16A1/2. Unfortunately no one told that to the SOCOM community who latched onto the M4/M4A1 due to it's more compact size and reduced weight. SOCOM used these M4's like they used everything else and that is when all these issues started to surface with many band-aid fixes like the heavier rubber bumper in the extractor spring, then the O-ring/D-ring around the extractor spring, then the lobster tail double spring, etc. Also reports of lugs chipping and failing and from my earlier statement, gas tube failure.

All the "new" gas piston designs to retrofit primarily the M4A1 platform does address the issues of the DI, however no manufacturer seems to be trying to address these other issues through a thorough redesign and would rather provide some other band-aide solution.

We seem to have come full circle in gas operated weapon design, but those first gas piston rifles, before the AR did not have these extractor/ejector issues.

[buffybuster]

uclaplinker,


Reread my post.... RETROFIT of the AR platform. My point was everybody seems to be redesigning the operating system but not the extraction/ejection system.

The SCAR, Bushmaster Masada, HK XM8 may address these areas (I haven't closely examined any of these rifles, so I don't know for certain if they do). But the military is much more ammenable to a retrofit rather than an entirely new platform. The "Big" military has not seriously looked at an replacement for the M16/M4 platform for the past 25 years. The "Big" military has been holding out for the revolutionary replacement of the M16/M4 platform. That is one of the reasons the XM8 program stalled. It wasn't a large enough leap forward for the "Big" military to refine/adopt it in place of the M16/M4. Until this revolutionary weapon system comes, the military is content to make small evolutionary changes to the M16/M4 platform, ie. gas piston conversions, rail interface, etc. This is what H&K did with the 416. Certainly H&K understands the issues I am speaking of but they are under constaints set by the military to maintain maximum parts interchangeability and as a result can only provide band-aide type fixes.

The "Big" military is highly unlikely to change rifles during a shooting war due to the logistics and retraining required. What may be more likely is an entirely redesigned AR upper that while may not have any parts compatibility with its predecessor, would address all the issues of the original design while still using the existing lower.

What is this revolutionary advance I am speaking of? In the 70's it was flechette rounds (3 or more flechettes in each cartridge) to improve hit probability, the 80-90"s was caseless ammunition. Currently is seems an evolution of caseless ammunition to have the bullet inside the propellant column and the propellant be incased by a consumable "case" with a metallic casehead with some type of rim. This hybrid would allow use in beltfeed systems, address chamber sealing issues, improve toughness/waterproofing of the ammunition, reduce ammunition weight and still allow extraction of cartridges.

If this technology becomes widely adopted, cartridge reloading as we know it will not be possible....

[buffybuster]

If you all may recall, Armalite did develop a gas piston rifle shortly after adoption of the M16. It is called the AR-18. It had a proven system (gas-piston) plus it was cheaper to manufacture, but the same top brass bean counters decided to not go with it.
I imagine what would have happen if we have go with the AR-18 after Vietnam.

The AR18 was never pitched to the US miltary. The AR18 was specifically designed to be sold to 2nd/3rd world countries. The beauty of the AR18 was that all that was necessary to manufacture it was basic sheetmetal stamping equipment. No forging, broaching or NC machining was required to mass produce it. Even if these under developed countries got the technical data package for the M16, most did not have the facilities to produce it. Armalite saw this as an opportunity and developed the AR18. If a country could make metal file cabinets or VCR housings, they had all the necessary machinery to make the AR18. It is interesting though that Armalite went with a gas piston system with the AR18 and as a result it addresses the M16 issues. Unfortunately for Armalite, most countries they were marketing to were not interested. The rationale of these countries was that since the USA wasn't adopting it, it must not be as good as the M16.