AR suggestions

@tirod: So army times is totally BSing all of us (source)? They mentioned that the reliability improved to only 307 stoppages... when they used more lubrication.

The testing conditions seem dubious. But in the FIRST test (earlier in the summer) the M4 only had 307 stoppages. Then later in the summer (it probably got hotter and they didn't use more lubrication to compensate for the time of year) the M4 had 882 stoppages. Because the DI design burns off its own lubrication more than the piston design does. So I suppose I will just carry around a big jug of lubricant to ensure my rifle doesn't burn off its own lubricant by feeding the gas used to cycle the bolt back into the action itself.

Conclusions:
1) Apparently the magazines didn't affect anything because it was found that increased lubrication improved the reliability of the M4 (not different magazines). Even if you don't count the magazine induced failures from the second test the M4 still had 643 stoppages.
2)Even with the crutch of additional lubrication the M4 still arrived in last place. It still trailed by 74 stoppages on the "good" test. The difference between the HK416 and the SCAR was 7 stoppages. And the difference between the SCAR and the XM8 was 99. But the XM8 was cancelled.
 
why ask for advice when your mind is already made up? you're looking for your first AR and you have a complete list of features you want that you won't budge off of. people try to give you advice and you argue.


forget piston, and get a Rock River for your first AR.
 
Wow. It sounds like a pretty scientific study when someone takes the liberty to "Dramatically Increase Lubrication in only the M4" right in the middle of the testing trials. Surely it must have been performed by those well-versed in the effects and inaccuracies incurred by intentionally introducing confounding variables, thus negating any findings you obtain. I sure hope none of MY tax dollars went toward conducting an entirely pointless study.

I look forward to basing my next pistol purchase on the LordTio3 Independant Pistol Trials which feature the Beretta PX4 Storm, Sig P226, Glock 17 Gen.4, and Hi-Point C9 9mm pistols in my own structured torture test.

Results- Hi-Point C9 out performed all other models.

Irrelevant information- Round 2 consisted of the experimenter Dramatically Increasing Gorilla Glue levels in the Beretta, Glock, and Sig pistol trials, while ignoring treating the C9 the same way.

OBVIOUSLY the C9 is the way to go as long as you ignore all of the irrelevant information.

-DERP!...

Honestly, that the people making the decisions can, and DID, recognize these inaccuracies and flaws should be a Clue. They've got much more experience with this than you do.

~LT
 
@colostomyclown: I am asking for a brand that people wish to recommend that has the features I listed. There are many many companies that provide the exact features I listed. So between THOSE companies I would like to get some opinions/recommendations.

It isn't much of a surprise that since I desire a piston AR that an argument breaks out due to the die-hard anti-piston AR guys showing up. I have no problems with people who wish to run DI. I don't think DI ARs are crap. It has just been shown that piston ARs are indeed observably more reliable.

But even that fact itself is up for debate right now. I will address that in my response to LordTio3.

@LordTio3: You lack reading comprehension skills. They did not dramatically increase the amount of lubrication in ONLY the M4. They decided to add more lubrication to all of the rifles in consecutive rounds of testing. They found that when lubrication was increased across the board the M4 improved in reliability (they didn't say how much it improved) and the others remained about the same (probably because they already had more than enough lubrication for their designs). And, I'm sure they left some of the 10 examples from each manufacturer with minimal lubrication just for reference (but that is speculation).

But, if you are discrediting the study then you can't draw conclusions either way. If you really believe the trials were botched so badly then you can't draw a conclusion as to which designs were better or worse. So you have no legs to stand on if you completely discredit the study altogether.

Also, you claimed that the magazines were the problem. The article clearly doesn't mention that "important issue". So apparently you are making stuff up. Unless you would like to provide a source.

The only incongruity is why there is such a giant difference in the M4's performance between the early summer trials and the late summer trials. But in BOTH trials the M4 lost (last place). I attribute the larger amount of failures in the late summer trials to the increased temperature.

@ All readers: I just would like to know what brands of ARs you guys would recommend that have the features I listed in the first post. I don't have a massive beef with DIs. I just want the more reliable design.

We can discuss the trials at length in another topic or PM. But this one is getting off track.

Which brands of ARs do you guys recommend that have the following:
-piston gas system
-rails
-flip up iron sights
-adjustable stock

If you believe that DI is fine and I don't need a piston system then tell me what you recommend. I will consider all of your suggestions.

I'm liking:
Ruger SR556
Sig Sauer SIG516 Patrol
Stag Arms Model 8

Does anyone have gripes, complaints, praise, or recommendations about these or any other ARs?
 
Between the three you like get the cheapest.

Cause unless you are going to Mall Ninja Academy you'll never shoot it enough to break any of those three.

Jimro
 
Of the three you mentioned above I would be inclined to choose the Ruger SR556. Good luck with what ever you choose.
Dallas Jack
 
First of all... I do not lack comprehension skills. In fact, in my thorough reading and comprehension of the article you provided as proof that the M4 is an inferior design I was able to grasp a trend. Perhaps you will too. The newer rifles used in the test weren't just piston driven, they were different rifles. And the closer you get to the true AR 15 or M4 internal design that is retro-fitted to cycle a piston action, the less reliable the weapon system becomes. And NO true AR 15/M4 piston rifles were used (like the ones you've listed), so trying to make an association between this pseudoscientific analysis and your weapons list is loose at best.

Furthermore, if you consider that the rate of stoppages increases as the experiment progresses, and consider that you probably won't be exposing your rifle to a desert sand storm environment for 30 minute periods at a time, you can expect to have one stoppage in every thousand rounds or more, conservatively. No "jug of lubricant" or smarmy attitude required. Just clean it when you're done.

I'm not saying piston ar 15's are bad. I'm just saying that they aren't what piston ar15 fanboys think they are. And they solve no more problems than they cause. Hence the M4 continuity.

As your first AR, you would honestly be better served spending less on a DI rifle and more on ammo to practice. Or, if you're still all gung-ho about getting a piston ar, then hang out and do enough research to understand that the only reason for a civilian to get one would be the "coolness factor" to those who think they're cool. And from my experience, that number is dwindling as more people experience them.

Salut...

~LT
 
@LordTio3: Not comprehension just reading comprehension. Unless you can point out how they are different the HK416 is very much a piston AR. And it performed quite favorably. Unless you can point out major differences in design between a "real" piston AR and the HK416 then I believe a piston AR was indeed in the trials and it is an apples to apples comparison of piston AR (HK416) to DI AR (Colt M4).

Now my comparison of rifles is pretty spot on considering that the HK416 is a piston AR and the ARs I have listed are indeed piston ARs. I can expect similar performance due to similar design. Unless one of the ARs I chose differs in design from the HK416 in an unvaforable way (lower quality control, cheaper materials, et cetera) then I see no reason why I can't project that the rifles I have chosen wouldn't have similar performance.

Why does a weapon become more unreliable the closer it gets to the AR 15/M4 design? I'm pretty sure that design just has a set range of reliability. But that range can be modified depending on tweaks in design (HK416 or any piston AR is a good example).

I agree with you. I always do a good job cleaning the pistols I own. I always take care of them. I will do no different with my rifle when I get it. I just want the added reliability and the price difference is very small unless I plan on getting the absolute cheapest DI AR on the market (which I wouldn't bother getting anyway due to its cheapness). I doubt a piston AR will greatly outperform a DI AR in realistic conditions (even in combat you don't sand blast your AR all day). I just like the fact that the lubricant around the bolt isn't going to get mixed with carbon and burn off faster like in a DI gun (which really doesn't make a big difference). I just prefer how the piston design cleans to the DI design.

I think they solve the problem of blowing carbon and hot gas into the area of the weapon that you would want to be cleanest (not that it makes a big difference thus the M4s still being used). And there really isn't a downside to it besides the rifle being a little more front heavy (again, not a big difference).

I'm not into the coolness factor. I'm into keeping the carbon and hot gas in the front of the rifle away from the stuff I want to stay clean, cool, and lubed (not that this makes a huge difference).

Sorry for upsetting you.
 
I'd follow kraigwy's advice.
Also:
"students have 31,165 rounds downrange through Filthy 14. During this evaluation period, it was cleaned once (as in one time), at 26,245
rounds."
www.bravocompanymfg.com/v/vspfiles/assets/images/filthy14_oct10.pdf

http://www.defensereview.com/the-bi...pingement-gas-system-makes-the-m4-unreliable/
"fired 2400 rounds of M193 through a 14.5” M4-type upper receiver from Bravo Company Manufacturing (BCM) with no lubrication, and without any rifle-caused malfunctions"

IBTL
 
@LordTio3: Not comprehension just reading comprehension. Unless you can point out how they are different the HK416 is very much a piston AR. And it performed quite favorably. Unless you can point out major differences in design between a "real" piston AR and the HK416 then I believe a piston AR was indeed in the trials and it is an apples to apples comparison of piston AR (HK416) to DI AR (Colt M4).

Now my comparison of rifles is pretty spot on considering that the HK416 is a piston AR and the ARs I have listed are indeed piston ARs. I can expect similar performance due to similar design. Unless one of the ARs I chose differs in design from the HK416 in an unvaforable way (lower quality control, cheaper materials, et cetera) then I see no reason why I can't project that the rifles I have chosen wouldn't have similar performance.
Click to expand...

I think you need to make a distiction between "Piston AR" and "Piston AR-15" AR and AR15 are not interchangeable.

Piston AR-
300px-Rifle_AK-47.jpg


Piston AR-
300px-Xm8_sideview.jpg


Piston AR-
300px-Mini14GB.jpg


Piston AR15-
ruger-ar-sr-556-autoloading-rifle-2.jpg


Piston AR's inherrently don't have much wrong with them. Ask Mikhail Kalashnikov. The trouble starts when you put a piston system into a model "AR15" that wasn't designed for it. It's like putting a Ram 2500 Diesel Engine in a Nissan 350Z. Sure you solve that lower-end torque problem, but you create others like exhaust management, fuel filtering, air intake, etc... Just like in a Piston AR15 where you get problems like damage to the bolt carrier key and premature wear caused by fricton from the increased key angle. If you want the diesel, you should probably get the platform it was designed for. Come to think of it... have you considered getting a Mini-14 or other proprietary Piston AR design rather than a piston AR15? That would completely negate this issue.

Just curious; as Mini-14's are Boss like a 429. And they can be had with a forward mounting rail; and can be found all day for under $800.
650_mini14_04aug07a_T_C.jpg




~LT
 
I am not experienced in the AR world
Click to expand...

Based on this statment alone.... I would recommend a DI AR15. Skip the piston it just causes more problems in the long run.


It seems like you already have your heart set on piston gun, and have already made up your mind. (I have no problem with that)

But if you really do want advice, then trust the people that do have experiance with AR's and just go buy a DI rifle.
 
Stag is a good quality rifle. There is nothing wrong with any of the Stag firearms. The piston operated vs. non-piston (direct impingement) systems becomes moot if you keep any and all of them clean. You don't have to keep them immaculate, just decently clean. In the long run even piston operated systems can break down too if you fail to keep them reasonably clean. It's your call. Good luck in any decision that you make.
 
@RT: Thanks for citing your sources. But those tests paled in comparison to the "dust tests". They fired 60,000 rounds with 30 minute periods of exposure to fine dust. But, you are right, we lack information showing how a piston AR-15 might fare in just raw shooting till it breaks situations without dust and cleaning involved.

I think I will be getting a non-piston AR-15 though. As long as I can get three magazines, troy iron sights, rails, and an adjustable stock for less than what the SR556 costs. I will probably try to build one with those features after this post.

@LordTio3:

Like I said before the HK416 = AR = AR-15. If it isn't please inform me how the HK416 isn't an AR-15

lg_hk416_5.jpg


I don't know how the SIG516 and the Model 8 are designed, but the SR556 has integrated the key with the bolt carrier in one solid piece. The SR556 has a piston designed to gradually (relatively) apply the force of the piston to the bolt carrier key in order to prevent carrier tilt.

I don't know how well any of that pulls it off though because I don't know anyone who has any of these rifles to inform me if their carrier keys are being damaged or if their rifles are suffering from carrier tilt.

I have considered getting a Mini-14 but I prefer the larger aftermarket for the AR-15s and the AR-15 style safety. I do like the Mini's (and the "biggies" lol) garand action, though. Is that a picture of your mini? I would really like to have one like that sans the bipod and with a red dot. But, just looking at the picture it doesn't look like you can mount a red dot very close to your eye because their doesn't seem to be rail above the ejection port.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top