The conceptual diagram is quite self-explanatory.
Advantage of this concept:
Is this concept workable? Do you think this concept is more efficient?
I will stick with a $10 spring that lasts k’s of rounds.
can you draw the gun around it, with a magazine to help us visualize what it’d look like? from the diagram, it looks more complex, requiring more materials to construct.
please explain in detail why it’s a simpler design.
FWIW, i think that the gas would be vented long before it can ever be used for the feeding cycle.
This…
I can’t tell if this is serious or not.
So you have a standard BCG riding inside this “BCG platform”? so a carrier for a carrier…
I’m really not following the how or the why on this one.
The BCG secured on the BCG platform so the entire assembly move as one. The upper valve of the BCG platform is used to regulate the flow of the gas. It ensures the same gas can successfully push the entire BCG platform back to its original position, and then the upper valve would move back to its original position.
I think this concept may be able to utilize the same gas for the entire cycle, but it is more complex than the conventional AR design. Let me think about this…
I sort of think I understand what you’re envisioning here, but the whole thing seems more than a little half-baked to me… Things like your carrier-within-a-carrier still having a gas key make me think you really don’t know a lot about the functioning of the direct impingement system to begin with…
I see this same post has been made on another forum under the screen name Zollen, coincidentally the SN of a member who was banned from M4C the same day you joined… How very interesting.
Seems like an AR version of the desmodromic valvetrains on Ducati motorcycle engines… links and cams to open and close the intake and exhaust valves with no valve springs.
It works, but has scads of moving parts and is very sensitive to adjustment.
A high-quality spring sure makes things easier.
Or a two stroke w/reed valves. Either way it’ll prolly sound like a bag of bolts when cycling.
Looks awful tedious in general and the ‘valving’ is definitely going to give two or more potential fail points that don’t exist on current models.
I fail to understand what this design does that is any improvement what so ever over the current design. It seems like an answer to a problem that doesn’t exist.
It looks like it takes away the need for a buffer without needing a piston system. Major problem is that if there is any gas left…depending on the ammo used…that hot gas is going to blast your non shooting hand.
That’s some funny stuff right there.
Maybe I’m missing something but the engineering side of me is thinking that a substantially taller and longer upper receiver will be required to house the BCP. The BCP has no place to go as the BCG currently does which will require additional real estate in the receiver. Machining on a mass production basis appears to be far more complex than the current design.
Coming soon to a theater near you: “Rube Goldberg Meets Son Of Stoner”
Looks like it’d be a bigger, bulkier, less efficient, and more complex version of what we have now.
Where I’m from, that’s called Ownage 
what will hold the bolt in battery after the high pressure gas has dissipated? 
from what i gather gas moves the bolt back and forward?
I think you’re not really understanding things like dwell time…
Kind of like a P7, but a lot more complex. Interesting concept, but I think you need to look at pressure curves again for an AR operating system. I think by the time the bolt has moved to the rear and ejected, the pressure in the system will drop, you will then be relying on the momentum of the gas in you tuba to move the bolt back into position.
Interesting design on the delayed gas system, I just think it will run out of steam before getting a new round stripped and chambered.
I could improve the concept with the following:
This should help improve the condition once the bullet leave the barrel and the pressure begin to drop.
As the diagram #3 illustrated, the upper valve should remain open until the lower valve returns at the original position.
With the above improvements, would you all think there would be enough gas pressure to push the lower valve (BCG + BCP) return to the original position?
The design would leak like a sieve
Where would be the leakage(s)?
I still cant picture this beyond the concept of the idea. And as mentioned by MM, I dont think there would be enough pressure on the return cycle to feed and return to battery, it would definitely need a spring assist to provide positive lockup, but if you do that you might as well keep the system exactly as it is. It also seems like it would be filthy, the current DI system utilizes the piston on the bolt, I dont really get how this would work at all. It seems overly complex.