DI cant be that bad

the DI system is a good one and works better than a lot of people might have you believe. it's not perfect but no system is.
 
I've been shooting DI rifles since 1975. No problem that I can see. My current AR is a DI rifle and has several thousand rounds through it.

Piston rifle vs DI rifle is a debate designed to sell new rifles. If it isn't new and improved, then it's old and undesirable.
 
There are a lot on going torture tests going with the AR15, some with as high as 40k rounds with nothing but some CLP every 500 rounds. DI works fine.
 
Piston systems are quite likely a solution to a problem that very few recognized, likely never will. Good point about the marketing angle, PawPaw. I'm thinking the piston system is good for business and not much else, but that's just my opinion.
 
Always had a tube or two of LSA, (affectionately called duck snot) in my pocket and I ran my gun wet. When everybody else was locking up I kept shooting. Trick is to be absolutely anal about cleaning as soon as possible and to get the carbon out of there before it turns to diamond hard junk. Not my favorite gun by any stretch of the imagination but in the service you shoots what they put in your hand and its up to you to keep it shooting.

I will never look down on an improvement but even bad systems can be run if you know how to play their game.
 
This is no proof at all DI is suitable for combat rifles. Let's bear in mind that the previous new introduction in the UK army, the SA-80 jammed a lot too. Sure, DI has advantages, being less weight and less recoil and yes, I do agree that they function flawlessly when cleaned and lubed, but combat arms aren't always cleaned and lubed.

IMO, every single piece of carbon residue that comes into my receiver and could have been prevented is a piece too much. Modern short-stroke gas piston designs are just as heavy as their DI counterparts, recoil may be a tiny bit harder, but as we're talking about a DMR, that wouldn't really matter that much.

Piston rifle vs DI rifle is a debate designed to sell new rifles. If it isn't new and improved, then it's old and undesirable.
Click to expand...

Wouldn't that be the reason why DI came into existance? Garand and Tokarev used pistons in 1936, pistons continued to prove themselves until this day. Why would piston rifles be considered more modern then DI?

Also, I've never seen a gas piston rifle with a cracked gas tube... DI rifles on the other hand.
 
I've owned exactly 2 AR 15's. Owned being past tense lets you know both have been sold. I don't have a dog in this fight but I enjoy reading the different threads about the different gas systems because I just like learning about guns. As an outside observer, it seems to me that both systems have their flaws; both have their advantages. Pick your poison and go from there. Learn how to deal with what your preferred system throws at you and understand from the get-go that you will have to deal with some problems. Firearms are simply a mechanical tool. Tools wear down, wear out, and need repaired or replaced if they are used enough. There are exactly zero firearms of any design which can escape that truth.
 
One of my most epic gun purchasing FAILURE's was the purchase of two M&P Piston guns. Worst crap ever. Di is really the way to go in an AR.
 
It's hard to put things into perspective without knowing firsthand what kind of fire rate/ammunition expenditure these rifles can and have gone through in a firefight. Someone who has served can hopefully chime in, but without knowing details on that it's hard to visualize what the rifle can theoretically go through in combat before it will fail. I mean, even an AK will burn up or melt after after enough rounds.

Can someone chime in and describe the nature of what a DI service rifle could go through in an intense military engagement? Rounds fired, rounds per minute? ETC...is this information out there?
 
And I've never seen a DI with carrier tilt.
Click to expand...
That is more of a design fault of the AR carrier. In other designs carrier tilt is not the issue it is in the AR. The Ljungman type of DI has no issue whatsoever with carrier tilt as it was designed to ride on receiver rails while the AR carrier is far more free to wobbles about in the upper receiver, making carrier tilt an issue.

It would be very doable to convert many piston guns to a DI system of operation with no issues other than gas timing. The SKS would simply have a Ljungman type DI system, the M1 Carbine would exchange the piston for a short gas tube, the AK could have a gas tube impinging directly on the carrier, which would have a forward guide rod in lieu of a piston for the carrier to ride on and remain properly aligned.

You could also simply and cleanly implement an AR-18 style of bolt carrier for DI and eliminate carrier tilt issues as well as gain the ability to have a folding stock.

Picture-22-3-tm.jpg
 
I think the adaption of this rifle says more for the potential accuracy of the AR-10 platform than it does for DI.

I also think that DI means less for a marksman's rifle that is likely to be fired less and meticulously maintained.

The article linked to above said:
If fighting in Iraq was mostly about Close Quarters Battle, experience on the ground in Afghanistan is driving home the opposite imperative: marksmanship and lethality at range. US studies like the influential “Taking Back the Infantry Half-Kilometer” are driving that point home, and the trend is leading to shifts like fielding more 7.62mm M240 machine guns in place of 5.56mm M249 Minimis, and doubling the number of 7.62mm M14 EBR rifles per infantry squad to 2.
Click to expand...

Hmm. All of those guns have a piston.

You could also simply and cleanly implement an AR-18 style of bolt carrier for DI and eliminate carrier tilt issues as well as gain the ability to have a folding stock.
Click to expand...

Ah, but then you would need to design and tool up for a new carrier and a new upper receiver, and find a new stock ;).

I think the biggest problem with AR piston conversion systems is that they are designed by bean counters or lazy engineers to maximize parts compatibility at the expense of function.
 
DI works perfectly well in the rifles it was designed to be in. There are several types of DI and piston gas systems. I wish they would just ****ing ban people from talking about it as 90% of the debate is hurr durr my ak is so reliable.
 
Hey go easy, no need to be offended. Nobody is talking about AK's over here. I think there are plenty of guys who enjoy discussing the gas operation of their rifles. Speaking for myself, I surely do. I enjoy reading other persons opinions about the subject, if you don't then you shouldn't read this thread I guess?
 
Piston systems are good for super short carbines and suppressed rifles. If it helped solve some imagined reliability issue, other piston weapons such as the G36 wouldn't be having the same environmental issues, but they do.

I think most people don't understand how the DI system works. The idea that it drops huge amounts of gas and carbon into the the receiver is a myth. Most of that gas is shot out those two little holes on the side of the bolt.
 
IMO, every single piece of carbon residue that comes into my receiver and could have been prevented is a piece too much.
Click to expand...

In my own observations shooting AKs, SKSs and ARs with dirty Wolf ammo, all wind up with about the same degree of crud in the receiver after shooting the same number of rounds. Not enough difference to really notice. Comparatively little powder residue is coming down the gas tube in an AR platform; most spews right out of the case and straight into the action, something that is going to happen, piston or DI.

Most of the AR's bad rap originates with the plethora of !@#$ magazines available. AKs OTH have generally good mags, at least in 7.62x39. Put a bad mag on an AK and it'll eff up too.
 
I think the biggest problem with AR piston conversion systems is that they are designed by bean counters or lazy engineers to maximize parts compatibility at the expense of function.
Click to expand...
I think the same applies when people are designing replacements for the AR. Like designs that use the AR magazine. Everyone agrees that it's a flimsy design and a crippling weak point in the system, STOP USING IT. Any design team or any administrator who seriously considers the AR mag over a new and improved design that has greater durability and longer max COL should be made to go sit in the corner. We spend more money on jet engines the military doesn't want than it would cost to just buy all new magazines. The AR magazine is to guns what Internet Explorer 6 is to computers.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top