Other direct impingment rifles?

DI is just ONE feature of the AR design - and a lot of other companies have slavishly copied other parts, right down to the straight mag well. The AR mag design isn't the best one out there, either. It's just market dominance that keeps it alive.
Exactly. The most infuriating thing about new designs is the continued use of the AR magazine well. The one part that most everyone agrees is a bad design. It is a prime example of being penny wise and pound foolish.

Originally envisioned to be disposable like the stripper clip it turns out that military and civilians reuse magazines and does not accept them to be disposable, thus need to be durable. Mikhail Kalashnikov took the route of making the magazine more durable than the rifle. Bill Ruger took the route of making the magazine as durable as the rifle. The AR continues to be hobbled by a magazine design significantly less durable than the gun.

The AR mag could be redesigned to simply use thicker, and thus more durable, metal/plastic/whatever but then it would not be compatible with the existing ARs that are out there. If you are going to go to the expense of a new rifle then there is no reason not to ditch the flimsy magazine.
 
If you are going to go to the expense of a new rifle then there is no reason not to ditch the flimsy magazine.

Actually, just the opposite figures into many people's thinking. Look at all the "new" rifles designed to use the M16 mag! Govts using M16s (whether they bought them, built them, or were given them) have a large investment in their stock of magazines, and a "new" rifle that uses magazines they have already paid for and have on hand is "cheaper" than one that doesn't.


That difference to the bean counters just might be the difference between adopting a new rifle, vs sticking with what they already have, or buying the current version of what they are already using.

I agree, if you are designing a better rifle, a better magazine ought to be part of it. But militaries are seldom about getting the best thing available, they are about getting what they believe is the best thing they can afford. And if its not the best, as long as its good enough, it gets the nod.

Doesn't anybody remember all the "teething troubles" the M16 design had during its first couple decades of use? It wasn't nearly as good then as it has become today.
 
AR is more of an indirect impingment to me. Wouldn't direct impingment be classified as a blowback operation?
 
Wouldn't direct impingment be classified as a blowback operation
Both use the energy of the gas to cycle the action, but DI vents a portion of the exiting gas via a second tube from the barrel back towards the action to directly push the bolt carrier.
There's no venting via a second pipe in any blowback design that I can think of. Someone with scads more knowledge will probably think of 8 before I finish my coffee, though...

I loved my Hakim, but I sometimes had powder fly out and hit me in the face, though. Somehow that 48" monster missed the "lighter" boat as well! :)
 
This is what finally convinced me to order my BCM upper.

http://www.bravocompanymfg.com/v/vsp...hy14_oct10.pdf

I think I saw a report that its over 40,000 rounds now.

I was there when Filthy 14 went over the 40,000 round mark.
15720604563_1_Filthy_14_2_LF.jpg

The rifle is still accurate and reliable.
 
Filthy 14 is a AR15 used as a carbine class loaner gun, for students who brought a firearm not up to putting out 1K rounds or more in a weekend. It's already past 50K rounds as of the last show display it was featured.

Lots of firearms are blowback - they work off the inertia of the bolt holding the cartridge in place long enough the bullet leaves the barrel. By then they have absorbed enough energy to start cycling. Most pistol rounds over 9mm, and most rifle calibers over .22, don't use it. The gas pressure at that threshold is usually enough to move the bolt open before it's low enough to safely expose the brass case in an unsupported position.

What's interesting is the public pays no attention to the fact a self loading action can and does extract the brass while there is still some residual barrel pressure left, and gas residue blows past the case into the action. ALL blowbacks do that, the HK roller lock bolt does it, and so do all piston and DI guns. When you find gas residue on the bolt lugs of a piston gun - even M1's do that - it's gas from the chamber.

Piston guns are not immaculately cleaner, moot point, gas residue doesn't jam the action. Mike Pannone ran a test, firing 2400 rounds + from a dry AR15 until it jammed, about 10 basic combat loads. Nobody in combat could shoot that much ammo, and not do some basic maintenance like add oil or wipe it down, over a period of at least seven days that it would take.

If your combat firearm is jamming from gas residue, no doubt you can keep up the fight until you are knee deep in grenade pins, too. :cool:

What causes weapons to malfunction is 1) a bad or damaged magazine, 2) dirty or damaged ammo. What caused the 18 Month difficulty with the issue M16 circa 1968 was a) repurposed powder that precipitated binder residue in the loading process, making some bad ammo, b) a sudden 400% increase in production, which allowed a number of subcontracted barrels with tight chambers to be fielded, c) budget cutters eliminated the chrome chamber spec that had existed since the Garand, d) an oversell that the M16 was maintenance free - something a draftee with no firearms experience would naively accept to get out of doing work, e) the weak magazine design, which added another 10 rounds and made the result a curved mag feeding a straight mag well.

We are still dealing with that last mistake - non tilt followers, teflon coated mags, polymer construction. If you can drop a loaded mag on the feed lips and render it unserviceable, as many have experienced, THAT's a weak link. Not the gun. It's relevant to note the M16 uses 8+ mags as a combat load, the AK is issued 3 - three - for the duration of the enlistment. Completely different logistic philosophy - and expectations of survivability.

There certainly were much fewer issues after 1970, but the damage to the gun's reputation was already done, and millions of non service experienced citizens with no firearms training think the gun has been flawed for decades. Not so much. I never had a malfunction in the 22 years I served in the Reserves - issued a GM Hydramatic, FN, or Colt, blanks or live fire.

One in one hundred citizens actually enlist and serve in the Army, meaning the other 99 haven't a clue what it's like in training or on duty. Nonetheless, it's America, the one country where you can know absolutely nothing about a subject, and believe your opinion is as good as the next man's.
 
Let's not forget no cleaning rods or 22 cal patches and little information on maintenance.Many were given out with no instruction for use.
 
As demonstrated, 2,400 rounds straight up, or 50,000 rounds over time, no cleaning rods or patches at all.

The M16 IS low maintenance - compared to an iron receiver gun, with wood furniture. You don't have to oil the exterior of an M16 other than the barrel. The furniture won't swell with water if left in the rain. The closed upper with concealed bolt and ejection port cover won't freeze shut with ice like the exposed bolt predecessors. The interior of the upper or lower won't grow rust when neglected a week at a time. The gas rings and piston cylinder don't jam with residue the way a Garand or M14 will. You do NOT have to scrape the bolt tail.

Much better design, but oversold by marketing and then distorted by the unknowledgeable who repeat things out of context. Compare a rack grade Garand to the M16 parts kit guns sold, the Garand suffers from serious surface degradation from rust and corrosion. The M16 suffers from surface abrasion of the anodizing. Completely different animal.
 
The Ljungman/Hakim Rifle was a very good DI rifle. Instead of venting into a largely enclosed action/bolt carrier the Ljungman effectively vents to the atmosphere after impinging on a small cavity in the bolt carrier.
The Ljungman also needed lubricated cases to work properly. You can look it up in the translated Swedish manual for the thing. It is on the web somewhere.

Direct impingement is simple, cheap, and dirty. Dirty is not good as Soldiers have other things to do than spend all their time cleaning their weapons. As a combat system, DI is headed for the ash heap of history. All of the referenced combat weapons, except for the AR series, are out of service and have been replaced with something better. DI is a failed 50’s gas system. None of the recent experimental US rifles, such as the advanced combat rifle, were DI. Even Colt was submitting as gas piston for the Advanced Carbine competition.

No modern combat rifle built by any European, Asia, country for its Army is DI. Just go back to the 70’s and count the number of DI systems since then. Unless one snuck under the door, the number should be Zero.


There are fan boys, but they are not writing the operational requirements, the test conditions, or sitting on the procurement evaluation board.

Just wait and see, like the Dinosaurs and the DoDo birds, the M16/M4 and its filthy gas system are on the way out.

The fans boys will be around a lot longer. :rolleyes:
 
Actually, just the opposite figures into many people's thinking. Look at all the "new" rifles designed to use the M16 mag! Govts using M16s (whether they bought them, built them, or were given them) have a large investment in their stock of magazines, and a "new" rifle that uses magazines they have already paid for and have on hand is "cheaper" than one that doesn't.
True, but magazines cause a large number of the malfunctions that happen in the AR. Not to mention that AR magazines are considered a consumable by the military anyway, so as the transition away from it they will get used up anyway. Even if you include new magazines, the cost still only comes to a couple billion at most for new rifles and magazines. The military throws much more than that into boondoggle weapons programs. The government moved from the 1911 to the M9 without too much trouble.
 
Slamfire said:
DI is a failed 50’s gas system.

Yet, the British, who aren't subject to lobbying, just adopted the LMT308MWS in 7.62x51 as a designated marksman rifle. The first new infantry combat rifle to be issued to MoD forces in 20 years. The rifle in question beat the HK417, the Mk17 SCAR, and another DI entry (XR-10) in trials.

Even Colt was submitting as gas piston for the Advanced Carbine competition.

Colt submitted a dozen different rifles for the M4 replacement trials, including multiple DI variants. I think the only operating system Colt hasn't submitted is roller-delayed blowback. So I'm not sure how much emphasis I'd place on the types of operating systems Colt has submitted and even if you did assign it a lot of emphasis, Colt submitted more DI rifles than anything else.

No modern combat rifle built by any European, Asia, country for its Army is DI.

15 NATO countries (70+ different countries worldwide) use the M16 in its direct gas impingement form. So are you not considering the M16 a modern combat rifle or are you arguing it isn't built in other countries because Elisco is now the only non-U.S., non-Colt affiliated manufacturer of the M16 now that Diemaco is part of Colt?

I think a properly built DI system is capable of beating the best modern piston systems that manufacturers can provide and I'm looking forward to seeing how the ones submitted to the M4 Replacement trials perform against some top notch competition.
 
15 NATO countries (70+ different countries worldwide) use the M16 in its direct gas impingement form. So are you not considering the M16 a modern combat rifle or are you arguing it isn't built in other countries because Elisco is now the only non-U.S., non-Colt affiliated manufacturer of the M16 now that Diemaco is part of Colt?

Is the proliferation of the M16 due to the excellence of the rifle or due to the military and economic hegemony of the United States?

It is wise policy for the Canadian to adopt US service arms. They have this long border with the US, and when the US invades (again) they are going to be able to use captured US weapons without difficulty. The are simply following the Finnish example. The Nagant was inferior to the Mauser, but when it came to who was most likely to invade Finland, it was the Russians.

The M16 is the weapon of choice of the Mexican Drug lords. But that is due to the BATF providing them the weapons. http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/world-latin-america-12660732
 
Back
Top