Piston vs. DGI AR
In a recent post we discussed the merits of a piston (upgrade) or direct impingement (standard) gas system in an AR.
The topic, sad to say me included, got off on what I consider the politics behind it rather than what it really means.
So, getting back to the original topic I will say that a good gas/piston system will be cleaner than a direct impingement system. The direct system, however will be functional for most civilian end purposes. I can't honestly imagine, other than serious testing of it, that the system would ever be taxed hard enough to start failing where it needed to be cleaned thoroughly that it could function again.
Bottom line: a standard DGI will be sufficient for your uses. Unless you want an already mostly clean rifle to clean when you are done shooting it.
The topic, sad to say me included, got off on what I consider the politics behind it rather than what it really means.
So, getting back to the original topic I will say that a good gas/piston system will be cleaner than a direct impingement system. The direct system, however will be functional for most civilian end purposes. I can't honestly imagine, other than serious testing of it, that the system would ever be taxed hard enough to start failing where it needed to be cleaned thoroughly that it could function again.
Bottom line: a standard DGI will be sufficient for your uses. Unless you want an already mostly clean rifle to clean when you are done shooting it.
0
-
quote:sandwarrior
Advanced Member
USA
3471 Posts
Posted - 01/25/2010 : 9:17:59 PM
In a recent post we discussed the merits of a piston (upgrade) or direct impingement (standard) gas system in an AR.
The topic, sad to say me included, got off on what I consider the politics behind it rather than what it really means.
So, getting back to the original topic I will say that a good gas/piston system will be cleaner than a direct impingement system. The direct system, however will be functional for most civilian end purposes. I can't honestly imagine, other than serious testing of it, that the system would ever be taxed hard enough to start failing where it needed to be cleaned thoroughly that it could function again.
Bottom line: a standard DGI will be sufficient for your uses. Unless you want an already mostly clean rifle to clean when you are done shooting it.
SANDWARRIOR
No need to apologize for any thing. I think the point was made on both sides of the issue.
I would like to take a couple of my AR's and put them through a torture test per say to see just how many rounds it would take to gum up one of my AR's to actually making the gun stop. And then try to make it shoot again say within 30 seconds or so.
I think it would take a lot. A lot more than in any scenario that would apply to me.
Like I said before I just don't think it's worth the added cost. Since I'm pretty much stuck shooting at public ranges this could easilly take all day.
I agree 100% at what your saying as far as the DGI goes and the extra cost involved with the piston gun doesn't justify it IMHO.0 -
quote:Originally posted by sandwarrior
In a recent post we discussed the merits of a piston (upgrade) or direct impingement (standard) gas system in an AR.
The topic, sad to say me included, got off on what I consider the politics behind it rather than what it really means.
So, getting back to the original topic I will say that a good gas/piston system will be cleaner than a direct impingement system. The direct system, however will be functional for most civilian end purposes. I can't honestly imagine, other than serious testing of it, that the [ordinary gas] system would ever be taxed hard enough to start failing [to the point] where it needed to be cleaned thoroughly [so] that it could function again.
Bottom line: a standard DGI will be sufficient for your uses. Unless you want an already mostly clean rifle to clean when you are done shooting it.
Well said. I think that really sums it up nicely.
If regular gas systems "sucked" they wouldn't have been in continuous use around the globe for the last 40 years. If piston systems were THAT much better and cost efficient, there would be no debate. . .the gas guns would be obsolete and everyone would convert to piston actions.
I think the question isn't whether or not piston-driven AR-15 guns are potentially better, its whether or not the real world advantage is worth the extra cost (and possible other disadvantages). Ultimately, that's going to depend on the application in question, and individual budgets.
I think this cost/benefit issue is what the military is up against. The military doesn't have to deal with just tactical issues, but also economic, political, and legal. Retrofitting or entirely replacing literally hundreds of thousands of old guns in active service isn't trivial in terms of costs, time, effort, and neither is writing new manuals, training armorers and recruits, etc.
Even stipulating that the military can get ordinary gas systems to fail 2-3x more often in torture tests involving dirt and hundreds of rounds fired without cleaning, what does that really "mean" for Joe Schmoe on the range, farm, or even in the patrol car? Most shooters aren't going to ever stress their gun that hard.
Assuming you're going to actually clean your gun every 300-400 rounds, is a failure rate of 2 rounds in 1000 really worse than 1 round in 1000?
As additional consideration, a potential additional cost of up to $400-500 for a good piston type action isn't negligible. For the extra money spent, you could probably buy a nice optic, 1000 rounds or ammo, or heck, even an entirely separate gun!
Alternatively, considering the cost of piston-operated AR-15s, it may make more sense to just buy a gun designed around a piston-type system to begin with (eg a SIG rifle, Kalashnikov or M14 derivative, etc). The military really can't just go out and do that, but as an individual civilian, you probably can.0 -
If one lives in or near a desert or in other adverse climates, I can see the advantages of less picky gun, but that means loser tolerances in the right place as much as anything else IMHO.
Don,
none of the ones that I know of do. I think it would make em more reliable.. The M14 or AK for instance, they got that slop in em for a reason.. I have heard that working over the locking lugs and the bolt a minute mount will make a DGI AR more reliable.0 -
quote:Originally posted by quickmajik
If one lives in or near a desert or in other adverse climates, I can see the advantages of less picky gun, but that means loser tolerances in the right place as much as anything else IMHO.
Agreed, though I do not believe the GP ARs have looser tolerances between the bolt and receiver than the Gas Tube variety. I have a couple Gas Piston and a few Gas Tube ARs, and the difference in cleanliness of the action after even 20 - 30 rounds is remarkable. One cannot help but think that prolonged usage between cleanings will show the Gas Piston to be more reliable.
That said, I would think the Gas Piston would have almost as much trouble in a truly dirty environment as does the Gas Tube, unless, the residue deposited by the Gas Tube provides sand, dust, dirt, etc. something to which to stick.0 -
The main thing that concerns me about the piston drive mutations of the AR is that everybody and his brother is bringing one out and they all Know Best. That will lead to a wilderness of incompatable uppers. Heaven help you on spare parts if you like Brand X and their superior system is crowded out of the market by the Big Names. 0
Please sign in to leave a comment.
Comments
5 comments