Comments on: AR-15 Pistons: Pros & Cons

By: Kent

Kent — Thu, 25 Apr 2013 00:28:27 +0000

If memory serves, the only other production DI rifle was the French MAS of the 1940′s. The M16 happened twenty years later. I believe that was the only DI rifle Eugene Stoner designed (consider the AR10 family), and no one else has used the DI system since. Stoner went on to design the AR18 and Stoner 63, both piston systems. That said, you would think that if the DI system rifle was all that great, more gun designers would use it, but none did, not even Stoner. That is conclusive.

About accuracy, I have read much conjecture, speculation, and common knowledge, but I have not seen any hard data generated by the scientific method. If the piston system lacked in accuracy compared to the DI, I’d wager that if the pistons got as much attention, tweaking, and tuning as the DI originally did, either system could win it all on any given day, given the right shooter.

As for me, I started with a piston AR and never looked back. Cleaning time is better spent shooting, and I have no accuracy complaints.

By: bhp0

bhp0 — Wed, 24 Apr 2013 02:31:05 +0000

I have personally used some very high grade AR15 guns in competition. I would never use this type of gas system for a serious survival rifle. Other military guns that use this system like the Rashid, Swedish Ljungman etc. all have the same problem, they jam up when not squeaky clean and drowning in lubricants period.

The AR15 was a failure in Vietnam and 40 some years later failed in Iraq as well. Remember the cute little blond who was the only soldier among her group that had an AR that kept on working? I might add even a fine mist of water like a light rain will mix with the burnt power and jam up these guns right quick. Its amazing the U.S. is still using such a worthless weapon in combat.

By: jdmcomp

jdmcomp — Wed, 19 Sep 2012 20:27:32 +0000

I think that the mass in motion in a piston design also need to be considered. Slow motion film of an AK being shot show lots of flex in the parts due in part to the large mass of the piston/bolt carrier assembly. I agree with your conclusion, and find the original design near perfect. All guns need cleaning, so that is never a reason to switch to a piston.