Vuurwapen Blog

A few years ago, piston/op-rod conversions for AR-15s were all the rage.

We were bombarded with propaganda about how unreliable the standard AR-15 was. We were led to believe that our rifles, which had worked just fine for years, were suddenly obsolete with the introduction of a spigot, op rod, and other parts to replace the gas tube, that we’d have the “reliability of an AK-47″ as a result. Many conversions became available in a matter of months.

And for a while, everything seemed fine. Until, that is, people started putting rounds downrange with them.

Most of the conversions were poorly designed, and quite a few people had broken parts as a result. You see, much more force was being put on certain parts – such as the gas block and the bolt carrier – due to additional reciprocating mass. This also has the effect of increasing felt recoil and in some cases led to barrel whip, decreasing accuracy.

Most people are unaware that every AR-15 is piston-operated. The tail of the AR-15 bolt acts as a piston. What the AR-15 truly lacks is an operating rod. You’ll see me refer to “op-rod AR-15s” in this article – I am referring to what others may call piston ARs.

In order to understand why such a conversion isn’t the best option for a standard AR-15, you need to know how an AR-15 works. I’ll try to distill it to one paragraph.

Gases from the fired case (which expands, by the way) travel back through the gas tube, for a specific amount of time based on the distance between the gas port and the muzzle – we refer to this as dwell time. Does this gas simply “push” the bolt back? Not exactly. Gas travels inside the gas key of the bolt carrier and expands rearward, forcing the carrier back, while it also pushes the bolt forward. As the carrier pulls back, the cam pin moves in its slot in the carrier, causing the bolt to rotate and unlock. At the same time, the gas that’s still in the barrel is keeping the case expanded to fill the chamber. Once that gas is vented out the front of the barrel, the case shrinks, allowing the entire assembly to pull back while the extractor continues to grip the rim of the case.

Now, the piston conversion. Some of these items vary based on the exact conversion, but this is a general overview.

As soon as the bullet passes the gas port, gas enters the gas block and pushes against whatever components the individual manufacturer has decided to place in the way. The effect is that the operating rod pushes against the top of the bolt carrier – and instead of having the gas enter the carrier and exert pressure parallel to the bore fore and aft, the rod hits the carrier key – or modified one piece carrier – which has the effect of causing the bolt carrier to move at a tail-down angle. There isn’t any gas pushing the bolt forward while the carrier unlocks, so the carrier just pulls the bolt back and forces it to unlock from the locking lugs of the barrel. The piston/op-rod assembly, which is under spring pressure, starts to move forward to its “at rest” position, however, in some cases it will slam forward with enough force to shear any pins holding the spigot in place – that’s why you won’t see many standard FSBs on piston conversions any more.

I mentioned the carrier moving back at an angle – why is this bad? Well, it rubs against the buffer tube at the 6 o’clock position. No big deal, right? Well, my Ares conversion had enough carrier tilt, as it is called, to knock the unstaked castle nut loose, which allowed the buffer tube to rotate out of position when I twisted the rifle while the stock was still in my shoulder, which caused the buffer retaining detent and spring to fly out from their normal position – which stopped the weapon from functioning. This was obviously an extreme case, and a very compelling reason for a staked castle nut, but it was disconcerting, to say the least.

Several manufacturers have addressed these issues – replacement, one-piece carriers to prevent sheared gas key bolts, redesigned gas blocks to eliminate broken roll pins or solid pins, and the nifty patented anti-carrier-tilt buffer, which essentially locks into the rear of the carrier and prevents it from traveling in anything but a rearward manner. Other manufacturers have added “skis” on the carrier to gently ramp it up and over the bottom of the buffer tube. HK did the piston design right by having a spring-loaded bolt to take the place of gas holding the bolt in place. Other companies like Adams Arms have copied this design. LWRC and Ruger, two manufacturers of factory op-rod AR-15s, offer nothing but heavy barrel profiles, to address the additional mass moving fore and aft just above the barrel. While the weight of the piston and op rod is often negligible, the additional weight of the barrel is not. A heavier buffer may help with recoil, but the weapon still won’t shoot like a standard AR-15.

So, the problems are solved, and now we can all enjoy rifles that you could eat off of after burning through a case of ammunition, right? Well, not exactly. All of these items are simply band-aids in order to shoehorn an op-rod into the AR-15 platform. The one manufacturer of piston AR-15s that has managed to mitigate the most factors associated with the op-rod AR is LWRC, and as a result their products command a high price.

However, even LWRC rifles are not without disadvantages. If we consider a LWRC M6A3 – a 16″ midlength – for $2000, the additional weight of the heavy barrel, the added cost of the weapon, and the (negative) difference in recoil impulse put it at a significant disadvantage compared to, say, a Colt 6940 at roughly $1400. If one simply has money to burn, the Knight’s Armament SR15E3 costs about as much as the LWRC, but weighs a full pound and a half less.

But, you say, but isn’t the LWRC more reliable and longer lasting? Well, useful data on the subject comes from Pat Rogers of EAG Tactical, who has had several T&E LWRCs. Those rifles started to suffer parts breakages at 20,000 essentially trouble-free rounds. Fantastic, right? Well, it is very good, but it’s not anything out of the ordinary. His Colt T&E rifles are chugging right along at approximately 15,000 rounds, and other high volume shooters like Mike Pannone have upwards of 20,000 rounds through Noveske rifles. The Knight’s Armament barrel and bolt lifespan is over 20,000 rounds. In other words, from a longevity standpoint, even the best of the piston guns don’t have anything spectacular to offer over premium AR-15 style rifles.

Reliability – the main argument put forth by the various manufacturers. If an LWRC or HK416 is fed from a bad magazine, will the rifle malfunction? Yes. Are the majority of semiautomatic weapons failures the fault of bad magazines? Yes. An op-rod will do nothing to eliminate magazine problems. Do these rifles run cleaner? Yes. Does that really matter? No. It’s a widespread myth that AR-15s need to be clean to work. In fact, if you leave the ejection port cover of a well-lubricated AR open, with the bolt forward, and pour dirt on the open ejection port, the rifle will function without issue. I’ve done it, and I’ve also fired 3,240 rounds through a S&W M&P15R in one week without a single failure of any kind. That rifle was not cleaned during that week – nor for the 1,080 rounds previous – it was simply lubricated properly.

Heat – some folks make extravagant claims about their rifles running “ten times cooler” than a comparable AR-15. While heat does kill barrels and bolts faster, even a high-volume rifle such as a BCM or Colt used solely in carbine courses can go to 15,000 rounds without breaking a bolt. On full auto, and in some extreme cases, bolt life can be as short as 6,000-7,000 rounds. This is, of course, assuming that quality components are being used. Barrel life, when one compares 16″ midlength hammer forged, chrome lined barrels to one another, is essentially identical. All that heat from the expanding gases has to go somewhere, and in the case of an op-rod rifle, the gas block is the hottest area.

So, do op-rod AR-15s have a place at the table? Yes, they do. You’re probably confused, because it seems like I’ve been bashing them for a long time now. Well, these rifles do work very well in short-barrel configuration, when dwell time isn’t long enough for the AR-15 to work properly. I’ve owned 7.5″ and 10.5″ AR uppers that functioned perfectly, but if I were to do it over again, I’d buy an LWRC if I was going to 10.5″ and under. I believe that 11.5″ SBRs, with properly sized gas ports and proper weight buffers, will offer the same reliability when compared in numbers and over the long term. I do not feel that this is the case with 10.5″ and under barrels. Many folks who shoot SBRs also use suppressors, and those folks tend to migrate towards LWRC and similar brands. It’s not always the case, but a reduction in blowback is a pleasant change for high volume suppressor shooters.

That’s not to say that a suppressed SBR sans op-rod won’t function. Many shooters have reported 0 malfunctions in high round count carbine courses with such setups, and often suppressed LWRC SBRs get just as filthy as their standard counterparts.

Still don’t believe what I’m saying? Well, I’ll defer to those with far more experience than I. I’m unaware of any experienced instructor who oversees carbine courses on a regular basis who is an advocate of piston/op-rod conversions on barrels longer than 14.5″, and most will say 11″ and under. Even those like Larry Vickers, who was heavily involved in the development of the excellent HK416, feels that they are unnecessary for unsuppressed standard carbine applications, and continues to teach classes using, in most cases, a Colt or Daniel Defense rifle without an op-rod.

This article went way longer than I had planned. However, if you walk away with a better understanding of how an AR-15 operates, and a greater appreciation for its exceptional reliability potential, as well as the usefulness of op-rod ARs in niche applications, I’ve met my goals. Thank you for your time.