piston AR

>>31351609
The bore length is not condusive to proper alignment of the shooters shoulder, thereby inducing an improper trajectory of the bullet.

File: 786729a410243845e4e62f1cd97e76d9.jpg (57KB, 736x525px) Image search: [Google]

57KB, 736x525px

>>31351609

>>31351609
Used to have a cmmg version. Over time I might have seen some increased wear in the buffer and at long range or precision competition it will underperform but it was reliable clean and functional so no worries my way before I moved and sold it

>>31351609
>Why do you guys hate pistons on AR?
They perform poorly and have durability and reliability issues.

>I mean, seems pretty easier to clean than direct systems.
No.

>Is it because it's not the original AR system?
Yes it is. The design was made for the inline internal piston stoner invented.

>Or is it for more technical reasons?
Off axis forces imparted on the BCG forcing it downward into the receiver of the weapon. It's literally destroying the weapon and no, the "fixes" aren't fixes over high round counts.

The receiver is simply not designed to accommodate those forces. The MCX is a good look at what needs to be done for an external piston "AR" to be successful.

File: '65 Riviera.gif (991KB, 500x281px) Image search: [Google]

991KB, 500x281px

>>31351609

It would be cool if manufacturers would come together and decide on a standardized piston AR configuration like with direct impingement. Right now you have easily a dozen manufacturers just doing their own thing. Kind of makes one of the big selling points of ARs moot.

It seems that hk is doing good with their piston system.

Retards still think piston ARs are worthwhile?

Where did the idea of a piston came from?
Was it to facilitate maintenance?

Added weight with no actual benefit.
Kind of like quad rails, govt profile barrels, and rifle stocks.

Not enough of an advantage for me to give a shit.

>>31351676
> Off axis forces imparted on the BCG forcing it downward into the receiver of the weapon. It's literally destroying the weapon and no, the "fixes" aren't fixes over high round counts

Define high round count? 3000? 5000? 10000?

Were you the salty guy ranting how the Marines were going to die because of the IAR?

>>31351676

How many rounds did you put through your rifle before you noticed buffer tube wear? Never heard of receiver wear, but how many there too?

i have only had positive experiences with an (M27) HK416. compared to an FN M16A4 its reliability and accuracy is unmatched after thousands of rounds. reliability without regular cleanings was also amazing. I have shot over 2000 rounds with it and have not had a single malfunction with tan follower magazines.

File: fucking_hot.jpg (21KB, 600x600px) Image search: [Google]

21KB, 600x600px

>>31352940
> Rifle stocks

You take that back, you damned philistine.

>>31353493
20"ers with carbine stocks are better.

File: clutches_pearls_in_british.jpg (25KB, 300x250px) Image search: [Google]

25KB, 300x250px

>>31353569

File: 1406515130121.gif (1MB, 400x288px) Image search: [Google]

1MB, 400x288px

>>31351609
Because memes are for the internet, not my gun safe

>>31351609
>they aren't easier to clean
most of the chamber, external bolt and receiver fouling is blow back, most waste gas and fouling that is sent back from the gas tube is vented through the bolt and out of the receiver. the only thing that will be decidedly cleaner in a piston system is the bolt's internals which self scrape anyway (not to suggest they should not be maintained).
>they aren't more reliable
>they introduce new issues
so unless you need either a quickly adjustable gas system or to be able to shoot quickly without clearing water from the gas tube (only really applicable for those who need to shoot while still mostly submerged), it's pointless and detrimental.

File: ballistol.jpg (13KB, 450x290px) Image search: [Google]

13KB, 450x290px

>>31353752

> Self scrape away

I get that it does not affect operation in any way, but let's not act like pic related doesn't happen with normal use in a DI system.

File: download.jpg (5KB, 320x157px) Image search: [Google]

5KB, 320x157px

>>31353569
Eat and be merry

>>31352940
>>31353569
>muh 7 ounce difference between a2 and m4 stock/buffer assemblies
i'm pretty indifferent. currently have an a4 upper on a carbine lower and the a2 balances it much better, while it is heavier, it's a good heavier.
>>31353493
fuck the m5 ras though.

>>31353818
i never implied there isn't carbon buildup or that it is entirely self cleaning. carbon build up on certain important surfaces are self regulated by the action of the weapon. it's worth noting though both that these are the primary surfaces a piston gas system will keep cleaner to little avail and is also where the vietnam era self cleaning sales pitch/fallacy arose.

File: 1376282479298.jpg (29KB, 317x357px) Image search: [Google]

29KB, 317x357px

>>31352940
>govt profile barrel
?

File: xinsrc_22204041909495001286199.jpg (93KB, 590x393px) Image search: [Google]

93KB, 590x393px

>>31352178
Before it was the 416, when H&K first was working with the idea with JSOC and Larry Vickers, it was the HK M4 and it was a DI gun.
HK scrapped DI and went to a piston because of a combination of 3 things:

>DI was troublesome with short barrels
A CQBR replacement was the/one of the primary reasons the program began. The HK M4 ran 100% until they got down to the 10.3" barrel length and they started having problems.
>Didn't adjust well between suppressed and unsuppressed
NSWC/C always had trouble setting up the Mk.18 for suppressed and unsuppressed use. Getting it to work with one was easy, but switching between the two without an action spring and buffer swap was problematic and adjustable gas blocks turned out to be shit for hard use.
Part of the reason that NSWC/C and SOCOM put out (and now canned) the SURG program to finally be done with it.
>DI didn't work with OTB testing
Really only useful and a requirement for NSW, and even still not all HK416s are built OTB capable, but it was part of the issue.

Basically, if there's anything we've learned from more than a decade of development coming out of Crane and H&K, it's that the M4 and DI is fine as evidenced by its continued usage and canning of guns like the Mk.16, but that there's room for improvement/replacement with guns like the Mk.18 for users who are shooting high volumes and swapping between suppressed and unsuppressed regularly.
This isn't to say that the piston systems don't come without their own sets of new problems, but obviously they found at least one niche.

File: hkM4-10.jpg (48KB, 809x324px) Image search: [Google]

48KB, 809x324px

>>31354129
Pretty nifty nonetheless and I still want to build a Mk.18/Mod 0 clone once I finish my A4 clone for that early OEF OPERATOR factor.

>>31354004

Not him but it's basically a heavy barrel named something else. When I built my first AR I mistakenly put one on thinking it WASN'T an Hbar.

File: giphy_0.gif (2MB, 400x225px) Image search: [Google]

2MB, 400x225px

>>31354159
What's an hbar? Because I'm looking to buy/build soon, and just when I think I know enough, more info comes to light.

For instance, I have handled some ARs in LGS and at shows that felt nice and light, and some that were heavy as fuck. Sometimes it was because full quad rail but sometimes not. So I'm trying to determine just how heavy of a barrel I need to be durable, without adding too much extra weight. Or is that a simple trade-off where I will need to decide one or the other?

File: ba20gvt-7[1].jpg (21KB, 1000x227px) Image search: [Google]

21KB, 1000x227px

>>31354004
he's trying to imply that the .750 profile section on the end is pointless and honestly it's benefit as a muzzle weight and for improved heat dissipation is fairly minimal.
>>31354159
>govt profile is the same thing as a HBAR
wat

File: Colt-20-inch-HBAR-6601-1556802-007[1].jpg (2MB, 3072x2304px) Image search: [Google]

2MB, 3072x2304px

>>31354208
>What's an hbar?
the exact definition of a heavy barrel may vary by manufacturer some but here is a takeoff colt hbar barrel for comparison. the gas block seats on both government profile and hbar should be .750 so you can see how much heavier this barrel is.
surprised i couldn't find a direct comparison image.