Comments on: The Failed Promise of the “Piston” AR-15 Conversion http://vuurwapenblog.com/2009/10/21/the-failed-promise-of-the-piston-ar-15-conversion/ Concise, impartial gear reviews Mon, 15 Mar 2010 14:56:56 +0000 http://wordpress.com/ hourly 1 By: gunblobber http://vuurwapenblog.com/2009/10/21/the-failed-promise-of-the-piston-ar-15-conversion/#comment-203 gunblobber Sat, 06 Feb 2010 20:41:40 +0000 http://87gn.wordpress.com/?p=77#comment-203 Nice post. Thanks for explaining everything so well. I never realized the full path that the gas takes inside the AR-15 bolt carrier -- I thought that it was more or less just a piston system without a piston. Nor was I aware of all the issues with the op-rod AR's now being offered. As somebody who just bought a Sig 556, I am relieved to find out that I made the right choice. The 556 operating system is pretty much pure AK (look at my latest post for a comparison of the bolts and carriers; I will be doing a more detailed post about the takedown of the 556 soon) despite the external similarity of the lower to the AR-15. Anyway, I just read your entire blog over the past couple of days. Nice work! Your posts have been very informative. Nice post. Thanks for explaining everything so well. I never realized the full path that the gas takes inside the AR-15 bolt carrier — I thought that it was more or less just a piston system without a piston. Nor was I aware of all the issues with the op-rod AR’s now being offered. As somebody who just bought a Sig 556, I am relieved to find out that I made the right choice. The 556 operating system is pretty much pure AK (look at my latest post for a comparison of the bolts and carriers; I will be doing a more detailed post about the takedown of the 556 soon) despite the external similarity of the lower to the AR-15.

Anyway, I just read your entire blog over the past couple of days. Nice work! Your posts have been very informative.

]]> By: rachid http://vuurwapenblog.com/2009/10/21/the-failed-promise-of-the-piston-ar-15-conversion/#comment-185 rachid Mon, 18 Jan 2010 00:07:35 +0000 http://87gn.wordpress.com/?p=77#comment-185 I was wondering what you think of the PWS piston system? I understand the piston (with piston) vs gas key/carrier as the piston, but the PWS system has a piston that is attached to the key like the AK. So I'd assume the carrier would not tilt if the piston is still inside the tube for a long stroke. I was wondering what you think of the PWS piston system? I understand the piston (with piston) vs gas key/carrier as the piston, but the PWS system has a piston that is attached to the key like the AK. So I’d assume the carrier would not tilt if the piston is still inside the tube for a long stroke.

]]> By: 87gn http://vuurwapenblog.com/2009/10/21/the-failed-promise-of-the-piston-ar-15-conversion/#comment-176 87gn Wed, 30 Dec 2009 07:57:50 +0000 http://87gn.wordpress.com/?p=77#comment-176 Feel free to highlight any errors, I'm not looking to spread misinformation, especially about a quality manufacturer. Prices, as you know, have been fluctuating. I'm still unable to find a NIB M6A2/M6A3 for under 2 grand, save a brief sale by one vendor. Is there substantial data that shows "revised" LWRC weapons will outperform their 07/08 counterparts from a longevity standpoint? I do believe that I implied 20,000 trouble free rounds as being nothing to sneeze at... Feel free to highlight any errors, I’m not looking to spread misinformation, especially about a quality manufacturer. Prices, as you know, have been fluctuating. I’m still unable to find a NIB M6A2/M6A3 for under 2 grand, save a brief sale by one vendor.

Is there substantial data that shows “revised” LWRC weapons will outperform their 07/08 counterparts from a longevity standpoint? I do believe that I implied 20,000 trouble free rounds as being nothing to sneeze at…

]]> By: 87gn http://vuurwapenblog.com/2009/10/21/the-failed-promise-of-the-piston-ar-15-conversion/#comment-175 87gn Wed, 30 Dec 2009 07:52:51 +0000 http://87gn.wordpress.com/?p=77#comment-175 LWRC has apparently changed their barrels a number of times. Regardless, it's still significantly heavier than comparable non-piston/op-rod carbines in the price range. LWRC has apparently changed their barrels a number of times. Regardless, it’s still significantly heavier than comparable non-piston/op-rod carbines in the price range.

]]> By: Kir http://vuurwapenblog.com/2009/10/21/the-failed-promise-of-the-piston-ar-15-conversion/#comment-174 Kir Wed, 30 Dec 2009 07:40:29 +0000 http://87gn.wordpress.com/?p=77#comment-174 FWIW, the LWRC does not use a 'heavy' barrel. It uses a gov't profile barrel without the M203 notch. FWIW, the LWRC does not use a ‘heavy’ barrel. It uses a gov’t profile barrel without the M203 notch.

]]> By: Neil http://vuurwapenblog.com/2009/10/21/the-failed-promise-of-the-piston-ar-15-conversion/#comment-173 Neil Wed, 30 Dec 2009 00:31:29 +0000 http://87gn.wordpress.com/?p=77#comment-173 Thanks for the article. However, there are a lot of errors regarding the technical aspects and actual use of the systems. Price comparisons are flawed as well. Pat's T&E was done with 2007/2008-era LWRCs. You fail to note that even in the younger stages of life, they still performed well and since then have been modified and upgraded with better engineered parts, coatings, and designs. S/F Thanks for the article.

However, there are a lot of errors regarding the technical aspects and actual use of the systems.

Price comparisons are flawed as well.

Pat’s T&E was done with 2007/2008-era LWRCs. You fail to note that even in the younger stages of life, they still performed well and since then have been modified and upgraded with better engineered parts, coatings, and designs.

S/F

]]> By: Chip H http://vuurwapenblog.com/2009/10/21/the-failed-promise-of-the-piston-ar-15-conversion/#comment-144 Chip H Mon, 30 Nov 2009 21:37:17 +0000 http://87gn.wordpress.com/?p=77#comment-144 Excellent article. I agree 100%. In addition, the tiny locking lugs on the AR bolt were not designed for direct mechanical impingement. The lugs are unlocked while the bolt is pinned in the forward position by gas pressure. If you look at an AR bolt, there is very little wear on the back of the lugs. Re: Brandon's question/comment above. There's nothing wrong with an op-rod gun, but it should be designed from the ground up like the FN Scar, the Robinson Arms, or the Magpul (or whoever makes it now) Masada. Retrofitting Eugene Stoner's design is just a plain bad idea. Excellent article. I agree 100%. In addition, the tiny locking lugs on the AR bolt were not designed for direct mechanical impingement. The lugs are unlocked while the bolt is pinned in the forward position by gas pressure. If you look at an AR bolt, there is very little wear on the back of the lugs. Re: Brandon’s question/comment above. There’s nothing wrong with an op-rod gun, but it should be designed from the ground up like the FN Scar, the Robinson Arms, or the Magpul (or whoever makes it now) Masada. Retrofitting Eugene Stoner’s design is just a plain bad idea.

]]> By: Brandon http://vuurwapenblog.com/2009/10/21/the-failed-promise-of-the-piston-ar-15-conversion/#comment-139 Brandon Thu, 26 Nov 2009 04:56:33 +0000 http://87gn.wordpress.com/?p=77#comment-139 Good points, but I still don't like the idea of a rifle the shoots gas (and dirt) directly into the action. When someone develops a proper op-rod gun (like the HK416) is it at a disadvantage compared to direct gas? assuming costs are equal Good points, but I still don’t like the idea of a rifle the shoots gas (and dirt) directly into the action.
When someone develops a proper op-rod gun (like the HK416) is it at a disadvantage compared to direct gas? assuming costs are equal

]]> By: Mike W http://vuurwapenblog.com/2009/10/21/the-failed-promise-of-the-piston-ar-15-conversion/#comment-12 Mike W Thu, 22 Oct 2009 02:38:35 +0000 http://87gn.wordpress.com/?p=77#comment-12 Awesome article, great reference point. Thanks. Awesome article, great reference point. Thanks.

]]>