Riddle me this Batman
- Thread starter HKGuns
- Start date
The heat is much over played. Yes Op Rod's run cooler at the bolt face.......... but a DI bolt face won't even burn your skin... generally the DI bolt will be ~40-60 degree's hotter than a Op Rod one. However the Op Rod's were high heat on the barrel, higher than a DI rifle.
It is pretty much a non issue. Even still breaking it down to cost.... More parts in Op Rod design = more things to break.
They already shot the SCAR down once.... yet people keep clinging to the concept.
I have no dog in this fight, but let's get away from specific rifles, and ask ourselves a few questions.
1. How many companies are trying to improve the AR design by adding a piston.?
And...
How many companies are trying to improve the AK by converting it to direct impingment?
2. Out of all the successful gas-operated rifles in the world, what is the ratio of piston vs. DI?
3.On the other hand; if the DI system is inferior, why have so many other countries, special operations, and police forces chosen the Stoner design?
The Piston vs DI debate will rage long after we are atomizing each other with deathrays and master blaster lazer poodle shooters.
1. How many companies are trying to improve the AR design by adding a piston.?
And...
How many companies are trying to improve the AK by converting it to direct impingment?
2. Out of all the successful gas-operated rifles in the world, what is the ratio of piston vs. DI?
3.On the other hand; if the DI system is inferior, why have so many other countries, special operations, and police forces chosen the Stoner design?
The Piston vs DI debate will rage long after we are atomizing each other with deathrays and master blaster lazer poodle shooters.
There are/where more piston rifles made than DI rifles. Seems no-one pays any attention to history. AK, SKS, Garand, M-14, G-3, Cetme, H&K 91, Mini-14, Mini-30 amoung others.
Eugene Stoner made a lightweight rifle that used less parts than the ones that required more metal and larger ammo.
So isn't it silly to just add more weight (and mfg time) back onto the rifle???
You want a good piston rifle, just buy a M-14, Garand, G-3 or FAL.
Jim
No-one seems willing or able to answer the question; Why would 3/4 of these companies submit Piston rifles as their best design alternatives?
I think I've addressed and dismissed the only potentially valid response posted thus far. (MFG cost, capacity and ability to compete with Colt on Price.)
I think I've addressed and dismissed the only potentially valid response posted thus far. (MFG cost, capacity and ability to compete with Colt on Price.)
I did answer your question, and in fact, pointed out it has no value in how the Army is choosing a weapon platform.
1) Companies submit piston because a) its cheaper to develope, and b) Colt will sue them from infringing on the TDP they've developed. Liability for copying a design verbatim is avoided, even though they all have in nearly every other area.
2) How the Army picks a weapon has to be done by identifying important criteria, and then measuring them in a fair and unbiased way to prove the requirement that there is a significant difference.
I'll ask again, what significant difference has a piston operated M4 demonstrated vs a DI M4? Where is the clear and definitive difference that so obviously hasn't been seen yet?
What does the piston do so much better? Barrel heat ISN'T it, the gas cylinder on a piston gun heats the barrel 400 degrees higher at that location over a DI gun. The bolt face on DI is about 50-80 degrees higher, and you can shotgun the bolt carrier and disassemble it bare handed.
Quit ducking the statements and give us the superior tested significance of piston, because we're gonna get killed using those darned old jammomatics otherwise, right?
1) Companies submit piston because a) its cheaper to develope, and b) Colt will sue them from infringing on the TDP they've developed. Liability for copying a design verbatim is avoided, even though they all have in nearly every other area.
2) How the Army picks a weapon has to be done by identifying important criteria, and then measuring them in a fair and unbiased way to prove the requirement that there is a significant difference.
I'll ask again, what significant difference has a piston operated M4 demonstrated vs a DI M4? Where is the clear and definitive difference that so obviously hasn't been seen yet?
What does the piston do so much better? Barrel heat ISN'T it, the gas cylinder on a piston gun heats the barrel 400 degrees higher at that location over a DI gun. The bolt face on DI is about 50-80 degrees higher, and you can shotgun the bolt carrier and disassemble it bare handed.
Quit ducking the statements and give us the superior tested significance of piston, because we're gonna get killed using those darned old jammomatics otherwise, right?
Well you have certainly dismissed it, but you did not really address it. In 1997 FN claimed they could compete with Colt on price, and yes they did file suit against the US DOD. But that has nothing to do with the current environment, and whether or not anyone could compete price-wise with Colt today.
After reading your link HKguns (thanks for the link, very informative), and doing some additional research, I believe that the terms of the current competition, and the terms of the licensing of the Colt TDP, provide a very strong dis-incentive for the other three competitors to offer an AR-15 clone. Offering to the US DOD a piston design gets them out from under the restrictive licensing terms, and would allow them to pursue commercial sales.
Because of the incentives at work here, it is logically incorrect to claim that since the other 3 competitors are offering a piston system, that is evidence that the piston system is superior.
Just for sake of debate
It is a recorded issue.
Don't believe me? Read this.
http://www.defenseindustrydaily.com/the-usas-m4-carbine-controversy-03289/
It is a recorded issue.
Don't believe me? Read this.
http://www.defenseindustrydaily.com/the-usas-m4-carbine-controversy-03289/
Colt has removed the CM901 from contention in the carbine competition.
http://www.armytimes.com/news/2011/11/army-carbine-bidding-colt-smith-wesson-out-112511w/
http://www.armytimes.com/news/2011/11/army-carbine-bidding-colt-smith-wesson-out-112511w/
Who wins or what system wins is more a political solution than which is the better or most reliable system. As long as the winner hasn't fallen on it's face in the test, it will be the politicians that decide who will get the funding for any new system. Which States get the jobs and how much is spent on helping the Senators and Congressmen in keeping their jobs will be the determining factor.
Jim
Jim
Art Eatman
Staff in Memoriam
From Jo6pak's post: "One of which is heat build-up and gas from its operating mechanism that dries out some lubricants, and helps open the way for sand damage."
I got out of the Army in 1958. Haven't had this problem, ever since. Not likely to, in the future.
So, I don't really understand the issue.
I got out of the Army in 1958. Haven't had this problem, ever since. Not likely to, in the future.
So, I don't really understand the issue.@ Blackops and Art
Did you read the article in the link?
Tirod asked "what significant difference has a piston operated M4 demonstrated vs a DI M4? Where is the clear and definitive difference that so obviously hasn't been seen yet?"
I'm just offering a reference in response to his inquiry.
It's not my opinion. And although I love a healthy debate, I'm not just pulling things out of my ass to bash the system. There are documented issues with the M4.
Are they as bad as the interenet keybaord commandos would have us believe? No.
Are they "jamomatics?" No.
But stating that there is no room for improvement is not doing anyone any favors.
Personally, I want our future soldiers, sailors and marines to have the best combat rifle available, I don't give a flying fart is it is DI, Piston, blowback or even blow-forward for that matter.
My fear, and the truth of the matter has alot to do with Jim243's last post. It's the beareucrats who usually make the decisions
Did you read the article in the link?
Tirod asked "what significant difference has a piston operated M4 demonstrated vs a DI M4? Where is the clear and definitive difference that so obviously hasn't been seen yet?"
I'm just offering a reference in response to his inquiry.
It's not my opinion. And although I love a healthy debate, I'm not just pulling things out of my ass to bash the system. There are documented issues with the M4.
Are they as bad as the interenet keybaord commandos would have us believe? No.
Are they "jamomatics?" No.
But stating that there is no room for improvement is not doing anyone any favors.
Personally, I want our future soldiers, sailors and marines to have the best combat rifle available, I don't give a flying fart is it is DI, Piston, blowback or even blow-forward for that matter.
My fear, and the truth of the matter has alot to do with Jim243's last post. It's the beareucrats who usually make the decisions
A newsmagazine article written by a non expert isn't really documentation of anything.
1) SOCOM has already written off the SCAR, and isn't buying any more of the 5.56 version. As quoted on many sources at the time of the decision, it didn't demonstrate any special advantage over the M4's being given to the command for free - so rather than spend budget money for nothing, they gave it up. The .308 version remained on the table because they needed them and weren't about to downgrade to old refitted M14's with their relic action.
2) The use of the HK is for a specific high intensity gun, firing large capacity magazines in special operations work. Just because it's a Delta gun doesn't mean it's optimum for the average soldier, and doesn't answer the question why with any detail whatsoever.
So what HK has a special contract for a few thousand guns? The Army's keeping the door open, after all, Congress is trying to placate the American public and their misperception the M4 is a jammomatic. When Joe Voter writes a letter asking why his son was killed using a gun that cannot possibly be perfect or completely protected from operator error, His Honorableness joins in to protect his political stature and raises issues with the Joint Chiefs. They respond with weapons test.
Nobody has yet fixed the first three documented areas of stoppages, which are magazines, ammo, and operator incompetence. We're buying Pmags, but it's the straight mag well that's really the problem. Civilians use cheap fodder and create feeding issues with the AR15, but the military isn't having a major problem, and nobody wants to blame the soldier for getting his panties in a wad and abusing the weapon with near full auto fire. IT'S NOT A MACHINE GUN, but it seems everyone wants it to be one.
My question remains unanswered, what does piston do that is so much better? Be specific, post links to tests, please highlight the language in the report or graph that's been hidden to us for 45 years.
A quote from a media source aint going to cut it. It has about as much weight as the State of the Union address.
1) SOCOM has already written off the SCAR, and isn't buying any more of the 5.56 version. As quoted on many sources at the time of the decision, it didn't demonstrate any special advantage over the M4's being given to the command for free - so rather than spend budget money for nothing, they gave it up. The .308 version remained on the table because they needed them and weren't about to downgrade to old refitted M14's with their relic action.
2) The use of the HK is for a specific high intensity gun, firing large capacity magazines in special operations work. Just because it's a Delta gun doesn't mean it's optimum for the average soldier, and doesn't answer the question why with any detail whatsoever.
So what HK has a special contract for a few thousand guns? The Army's keeping the door open, after all, Congress is trying to placate the American public and their misperception the M4 is a jammomatic. When Joe Voter writes a letter asking why his son was killed using a gun that cannot possibly be perfect or completely protected from operator error, His Honorableness joins in to protect his political stature and raises issues with the Joint Chiefs. They respond with weapons test.
Nobody has yet fixed the first three documented areas of stoppages, which are magazines, ammo, and operator incompetence. We're buying Pmags, but it's the straight mag well that's really the problem. Civilians use cheap fodder and create feeding issues with the AR15, but the military isn't having a major problem, and nobody wants to blame the soldier for getting his panties in a wad and abusing the weapon with near full auto fire. IT'S NOT A MACHINE GUN, but it seems everyone wants it to be one.
My question remains unanswered, what does piston do that is so much better? Be specific, post links to tests, please highlight the language in the report or graph that's been hidden to us for 45 years.
A quote from a media source aint going to cut it. It has about as much weight as the State of the Union address.
I honestly don't get why people get so heated over the whole piston versus DI debate. Someone will say they like one versus the other, and then someone else will act like you just slapped their sister or stepped on their dog.
Seriously - both work, both are reliable, and both have their advantages.
I can think of plenty of instances of piston guns being replaced by DI (Israeli preference of M4/M16 over Galil), and various special operations groups preferring M4/M16 over standard-issue piston guns (UK and Australia immediately come to mind). The DI guns are simple, cheap, and easy to work on.
At the same time it is hard to argue with the benefits of the piston ARs. They run cooler and don't get as dirty as fast. Sure they cost more, but when you are spending somone else's money (i.e. - taxpayers), who cares? If these are the driving attribute the military is looking for, then why not a piston gun, if the military can afford them (which should be the real question we are asking)?
Seriously - both work, both are reliable, and both have their advantages.
I can think of plenty of instances of piston guns being replaced by DI (Israeli preference of M4/M16 over Galil), and various special operations groups preferring M4/M16 over standard-issue piston guns (UK and Australia immediately come to mind). The DI guns are simple, cheap, and easy to work on.
At the same time it is hard to argue with the benefits of the piston ARs. They run cooler and don't get as dirty as fast. Sure they cost more, but when you are spending somone else's money (i.e. - taxpayers), who cares? If these are the driving attribute the military is looking for, then why not a piston gun, if the military can afford them (which should be the real question we are asking)?
Last edited:
Bartholomew Roberts
Moderator
The only way you can arrive at that number is by discounting all of the DI entrants that have since dropped out of the competition (Knights Armament, Smith & Wesson, Stag Arms, etc.)
How can you pretend you want a serious discussion of this topic that stays nice and then open with such a ridiculous statement? No, I'd suggest that trying to design an improved DI rifle that isn't already well-covered by somebody else's patents (Colt, S&W, Knights) is going to be a big challenge, especially since the M16 family of weapons is already at the top of that heap.
And you are behind the times a bit, Colt dropped the CM901 from the competition. The reason why was because the Army is not awarding extra points for a multiple-caliber ability. So Colt would gain no edge by submitting the CM901 and there is also the problem that the winning manufacturers must surrender all technical data rights to advance to Phase II. The Army will then turn over the TDP to two other manufacturers and each manufacturer will produce 1/3 of the weapons used.
I guarantee you that the legal issues (TDP, shared production, patents) played a bigger role in what was submitted for these trials then any perceived superiority of one design over another. And the Army demanding that the Phase II competitors cough up their TDPs is another big wildcard in how companies are going to submit... you'll notice that all of the typical players (HK, FN, Colt) pretty much submitted the same rifles they've been touting for the past decade. Remington is the only company making a new rifle specifically for this competition - and frankly, Remington doesn't have much to lose since it has fairly limited military contracts at this point.
Jo6pak said:
Didn't we just have this discussion? As I recall, I pointed out that the heat difference at the bolt of an M4 was something like 30-50 degrees hotter, with the peak M4 temperature being around 175F after 5 mags.
Maybe someone could advance a theory that explains how that 30-50 degree difference in temperature has an effect on function? Maybe they'll even get crazy and explain to me how lube that doesn't dry off at 145F is drying off at 175F when the flash point of that lube (CLP) is 270F? I keep looking for it in these links to various news stories; but usually I just see the allegation with no facts supporting that diagnosis.
Last edited: