Piston gun myths or realities ??

[8'Duece]

Having owned a piston rifle for over a year now I've been very pleased with the results of the rifle. It works as advertised !! The only breaking I've experience is the holes in paper and ping sound on steel down range.

However I see many a board that knocks the Piston gun and there seems alot of BS or myth in the reasons why.

1. Carrior tilt: This has to be the most overhyped, over talked issue with piston guns. LWRC practically eliminated all carrier tilt from the outset with it's carrier design, for just this purpose. LMT and POF have done the same. I've got about 700 rounds through my LWRC and there is absolutely no chewing on the buffer as a result of this hype about "carrior tilt"

2. Barrel degradation: Really ? Anymore barrel degradation than any other rifle that has thousands and thousands of rounds through the bore ?? LWRC uses their propietary NICOR treatment I cant find nor see on paper any degradation of the barrel after 700 rounds (not exactly enough to see but you get my meaning) All barrels whether Mil Spec or Cold forged hammer are going to degrade over time. It's the laws of physics.

3. Gas keys breaking : Uhhh, most carriers are now a one piece forged steel without a true gas key like a DI gun. This also helped in reducing the suppossed carrier tilts issue.

4. Broken Op rods: I've yet to hear of this on a mass scale so it's certainly not some kind of apocolyptic pandemic of any sort. I remember hearing of one op rod breaking a few years back on a POF rifle during a carbine class. The op rod was replaced and the shooter whent back to putting holes in paper.

Anymore reasons that others have had to pleasure to read from the piston rifle haters ??

 

[policemedic]

I love the guys at LWRCi, and their rifles are shit hot. In fact, I've been trying to get my boss to trade our Colts for LWRCi M6 systems (partially, but not totally, due to the piston design). And no, he's not going for it :-|

But then again, I've never had a problem with my DI rifle even when it's dirty. Good lubrication (not dunking it in CLP :eek: ) helps.

My disclaimer is that my AR is well-cared for and is used in a non-sandy urban environment (although it does get jostled around in the car).

 

[Diamondback 2/2]

Having owned a piston rifle for over a year now I've been very pleased with the results of the rifle. It works as advertised !! The only breaking I've experience is the holes in paper and ping sound on steel down range.

However I see many a board that knocks the Piston gun and there seems alot of BS or myth in the reasons why.

Are these 82nd think they are myths or do you have some supporting information from sanctioned tests?

1. Carrior tilt: This has to be the most overhyped, over talked issue with piston guns. LWRC practically eliminated all carrier tilt from the outset with it's carrier design, for just this purpose. LMT and POF have done the same. I've got about 700 rounds through my LWRC and there is absolutely no chewing on the buffer as a result of this hype about "carrior tilt"

700 rounds is hardly something to judge longevity by.

2. Barrel degradation: Really ? Anymore barrel degradation than any other rifle that has thousands and thousands of rounds through the bore ?? LWRC uses their propietary NICOR treatment I cant find nor see on paper any degradation of the barrel after 700 rounds (not exactly enough to see but you get my meaning) All barrels whether Mil Spec or Cold forged hammer are going to degrade over time. It's the laws of physics.

It’s not overall degrading of the barrel life that is the issue; it is the degrading of measured accuracy that is the issue between DI vs Piston. I am pretty sure that I have posted about this in the past in Piston vs DI threads.

3. Gas keys breaking : Uhhh, most carriers are now a one piece forged steel without a true gas key like a DI gun. This also helped in reducing the suppossed carrier tilts issue.

Interesting, and good to know.

4. Broken Op rods: I've yet to hear of this on a mass scale so it's certainly not some kind of apocolyptic pandemic of any sort. I remember hearing of one op rod breaking a few years back on a POF rifle during a carbine class. The op rod was replaced and the shooter whent back to putting holes in paper.

I think I have heard about the op rod issue on piston kits (people who remove the DI system and put the piston kit in.

Anymore reasons that others have had to pleasure to read from the piston rifle haters ??

I don’t think I have ever said I hate piston AR’s, I do think they have their place. I would opt for a piston rifle if my mission was focused around CQB or if I need to run suppressed. However, if I was running full spectrum missions where I would have to make accurate long range shots, CQB, general purpose ect, I would opt with DI due to the accuracy testing I was involved with in the past. Our testing showed that DI maintains its accuracy longer than Pistons and are more accurate out of the box, granted we are talking the difference between 1.5 to 3 MOA but that is substantial at 500 yards. All in all I would say if “you” love your piston, then stick with it. However, I would also say that you should have some substantial testing and data to back up a claim that one is better than the other (each of them have benefits and down sides).;)

 

[HOLLiS]

Gas pistons have been around for a long time. Only probably I have seen with gas piston guns, is the pistons don't get clean. M16, M1 Garand, SVT 40, etc.

IMHO, it boils down to the shooter............. Also it helps if she/he had a Gunny to insure they knew who to clean/maintain the rifle.

 

[policemedic]

Our testing showed that DI maintains its accuracy longer than Pistons and are more accurate out of the box, granted we are talking the difference between 1.5 to 3 MOA but that is substantial at 500 yards.

Which rifles did you test?

 

[Diamondback 2/2]

HK416 upper, M16A4 and M4.

The 416 performed excellent and outperformed both the M16 and M4 in malfunctions. M16/M4’s would go roughly 750 rounds without stoppages (mostly due to not cleaning) the 416 started to have some feeding issues around 2500 rounds without cleaning. Accuracy wise, the M16 performed the best maintaining 1-1.5 MOA throughout the entire tests. The M4’s varied from 1-2 MOA and both the M16 and M4 improved over increased round count (without cleaning). The 416 held steady at 1.5-3 MOA until roughly 2500-3000 rounds. Accuracy would diminish from there to as bad as 5 MOA. All testing was done with M855 and cross tested with production lot numbers. We also tested MK262 and few other hand loads. We also tested environmental condition (uncontrolled) where the 416 performed better.

Our conclusions were that the gas port in the barrel of the 416 was causing diminishing affects on the accuracy. The gas port of the 416 allowed more gases and carbon to build up into the barrel than the M16/M4’s. We believed this to be caused by the piston system. So we concluded at the end that the 416 and the M4 would not be a good replacement for the Squad Designated Marksman Rifle (SDMR) that was currently the M16A4.


Now outside of the testing I was involved with, I have a few friends who also have piston AR’s and they have also experienced the same problem of diminishing accuracy. It is pretty commonly talked about in the precision rifle community.

 

[policemedic]

Thanks!

 

[8'Duece]

The 416 held steady at 1.5-3 MOA until roughly 2500-3000 rounds. Accuracy would diminish from there to as bad as 5 MOA. All testing was done with M855 and cross tested with production lot numbers. We also tested MK262 and few other hand loads. We also tested environmental condition (uncontrolled) where the 416 performed better.

I'll let ya know if I see similar results out of my LWRC after 2500 rounds. I have yet clean the barrel of this particular rifle. Upon inspection, it just doesn't seem to need it. :-/;)

Actually the op rod system is what is filthy, not any of the other operating components of the rifle. My BCG is still pretty clean. It's only been wiped down and relubed.

J.A.B. I was asking questions, although in a sarcastic manner. It just seems that the whole "Carrier tilt" thing and barrel degradation seem to go unfounded unless I see actual results on paper from a reputable source claiming the issue/s

 

[HOLLiS]

I would question the methodology. A gas piston AR and a Gas impingement AR, where the only difference was the gas system would be valid. Introducing a completely different firearm would introduce externalities. All other things needs to be equal.

 

[8'Duece]

I would question the methodology. A gas piston AR and a Gas impingement AR, where the only difference was the gas system would be valid. Introducing a completely different firearm would introduce externalities. All other things needs to be equal.

Exactly my point. If the 416 sucks it does not equate to POF or LWRC sucking also. LWRC uses a unique bolt carrier and Advanced Combat bolt system that negates the carrier tilt issue in it's entirety. Look at their carrier design and their advanced bolt. There is no tilt nor lift from the front of the carrier so that issue is mute with LWRC.

Degradation of accuracy ? Jeff Gonzalez put an LWRC M6A2 through 12,000 rounds before the spring on the op rod broke. They replaced the spring and then proceeded to shoot up too 19,000 rounds. At that point they fired for precision. Sub MOA groups out of a barrel with 19,000 rounds ? It's his quote, not mine but I believe Jeff G. any day of the week.

As Hollis said, any piston system thrown into a standard AR platform probably sucks ass because piston rifles are not just another AR with an OP rod, at least from LWRCi.

Are your results anywhere in any Army findings with the 416 that we can see printed ??

 

[pardus]

JAB, couple of questions, A, at what range was this testing done? And B, who was the retard that though an M4 with a 14.5" barrel could ever be a contender for a DM weapon? lol
Sounds like someone wanted an excuse to just use a lot of ammo (not that that is a bad thing!). :)

I really don't understand accuracy arguments when we are talking carbines that are desinged to shoot to 300m.

The M16 was a brilliant design, it is a design with some flaws that have needed addressing over the years (just like any weapons system).

 

[Diamondback 2/2]

Your right S, I have no idea what the fuck I am talking about and I am simply making shit up to have something to post on ShadowSpear.com

I never said that the 416 or any other gas piston AR sucks, or that they are bad or anything of that sort. I only posted my opinions based on testing that I was privileged enough to take part in. My response to your original post is that you should have some sanctioned testing or data from such to imply that things are in fact myths.

As for printed reports of our tests, I am sure they are somewhere, I'll look around in my crap and see if I have it (that way you wont think I am a liar).

 

[Diamondback 2/2]

JAB, couple of questions, A, at what range was this testing done? And B, who was the retard that though an M4 with a 14.5" barrel could ever be a contender for a DM weapon? lol
Sounds like someone wanted an excuse to just use a lot of ammo (not that that is a bad thing!). :)

I really don't understand accuracy arguments when we are talking carbines that are desinged to shoot to 300m.

The M16 was a brilliant design, it is a design with some flaws that have needed addressing over the years (just like any weapons system).

Our unit was looking to establish data on current systems and the M4 was the great idea of some Maj/O4 who I won’t name. The 416’s were being tested by the Army at the time as a replacement for the current M16/M4’s, so we got a few to include into our tests (our tests were for the SDM Rifle). Testing was conducted at Camp Bullis, Camp Swift and Ft Hood during 2007 . ;)

 

[HOLLiS]

JAB, was the test for a better rifle or a comparison of gas piston VS gas impingement? If you ever need a round waster (shooter) I would be glad to volunteer. That is about 99.9% of my shooting now anyways, killing dirt clods.

 

[Diamondback 2/2]

JAB, was the test for a better rifle or a comparison of gas piston VS gas impingement? If you ever need a round waster (shooter) I would be glad to volunteer. That is about 99.9% of my shooting now anyways, killing dirt clods.

No it was actually originally to gain data for an improved load for SDM to use in country. However it got twisted when the staffer’s got involved and they wanted to test anything they could get their hands on. We were only going to test the M16A4 and a few M16A4 Mod (match barrel and trigger), but we ended up with a few weapons systems to test as well. These evolved into what all can we test (reliability, accuracy, cleaning, ect) to give our instructors better data to present to soldiers they trained. We also tested optics, ELCAN, ACOG, AIMPoint, EOTech, and Mk4’s for durability, usability and trainability. Long story short it was a hell of a good time…

82nd, take a look at this video. Not that it means much, but again the info is out there.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=v57gQ4-VEYw

 

[HOLLiS]

Thanks for the information. I am not sure if it is communication is part of the issue. When I was in, we took what they gave us. Anything (with exceptions) that was not used in WWII was newer and greater than anything before. Maybe there just was not all the choices back then. Even in the civilian market. We had Smith and Colts and the odd 1911. I still think that with all the new stuff, it is the shooter that really matters.

 

[Diamondback 2/2]

I would agree that it is shooter choice as far as competition or civilian uses, but for the military I would say it is mission choice. You can still clear buildings with a M16, but if you had an option of using an M4 it would make things easier in tight hall ways and small rooms. However if you have an M4 and you are going to be working as a SDM where you will need to make a precision shot at say 500 meters, you would probably opt for an M16 with better accuracy and ballistic results at that range. The same argument can be made for all weapon systems in the military, there is no need for a M2 or MK19 in a city you are not allowed to use heavy crew served weapons, if you’re fighting mountain to mountain you may wan’t a M107 or some 60mm Mortars, if you’re fighting in a jungle you might not want that M107…

Personally I think the HK416 ended up right where it needed to be, SOF. Conventional did not need the capability that HK416’s bring to the table (suppressers and high round counts before cleaning).

 

[HOLLiS]

The neat thing for me is, I am no longer in the loop. Needs should dictate the choice and from my POV, give our people the best training possible. That is where the shooters comment comes in. Training, training and more training. The more one sweats in training..... the more......... Also as far as choice, keep the civies out of the loop. A common thought among my peers was that in one day in the Bush they learned more than what they learned in the states. I think we need the best soldiers trained and the best weapons choices available. It is a combination of training and weapons systems.

If I was emperor, I would have a area glassed before I put boots on the ground.

 

[Diamondback 2/2]

I could not agree more with you on that, training should always be the primary focus and too many times it is pushed to the side for new cool kit.

 

[swordsman]

my mr223 shoots after about 5000 rounds and 750 round uncleaned this group at 100meters ->



i cant agree the barrels getting bad or anything else after 5000 rounds, malfunctions are all operater based :-"!