Is this guy for real?
“In his mind” i’m sure what he has to say is very real.:rolleyes:
I have no personal experience with LWRC but,
Here is Frogmans’ opinion on LWRC from the Tactical Forums:
http://www.tacticalforums.com/cgi-bin/tacticalubb/ultimatebb.cgi?ubb=get_topic;f=56;t=001600#000000
The company cannot be trusted to keep your system running, in my opinion. The piston spring will break (when it breaks) with no predictability. when it does it will likely break the piston cup and possibly bend the piston rod.
In combat, the gun is done, at that point.
If you break something you will need to send the whole upper back to LWRCI for repair.
I recommend an HK 416, FN SCAR, or Colt DI gun instead of an LWRCI in 5.56 or 7.62 mm at this time.
I once consulted for LWRCI but cannot recommend their products now. Neither do several other former consultants for LWRCI with actual combat experience.
The company is just too flakey to deal with for serious users. To my knowledge there is no one intimately involved with LWRCI who has actually been in combat that is advising them now. They’re pretty much on their own as far as real experience goes at the company level, (which gives them a sum of “0”) and have a reputation for promoting themseleves through self made sock puppets on the internet (i.e the many personas of Darren Mellors). There have been several failures with the DEA FAST contract (some of them on target and in combat in Afghanistan) which LWRCI has kept very low. It is doubtful that they will see many more future sales to DEA in the wake of these shortcomings. If they do it will be in very small quantities.
Frogman
I was using their products and putting quite a lot of ammo through them (an M6A1 and M6A2 upper).
The SABR/REPR project was executed poorly in my opinion. The 5.56mm M6’s ran pretty good, but there were issues that could only be attributed to work performed at the company that popped up now and again. I was in and out of the company frequently enough that those shortfalls didn’t wear me out, but a normal customer would have had to send their entire weapon back to the company every time something happened, and I’ll bet that would get old real fast.
The actual M6 series is pretty cool and the shortcomings it has with occasional piston spring breakage could probably be sorted out. Their barrels and the nickel boron coating on the bolts are oustanding. The M6 really could be introduced to the military if worksmanship was consistant.
Sadly, I just can’t recommend that a military unit buy them because the company does not embrace basic military values (i.e. punctuality, good communication, well documented testing…etc) and ultimately was just not that great to deal with. There are some awesome individuals there and I wish them well. The company business SOP’s just never improved.
The change of heart really took place almost a year ago; in fact I was last paid by LWRCI for representing them at the 2009 SHOT Show. I haven’t been in a big hurry to put that info out there.
All of that said, my friend, Jeff Gonzales has spec’d a gun out for Trident Concepts and is happy with both the gun and his interaction with the company last I checked.
You’re right about DI guns. They are good to go in my book. I’ve been using a Colt 6920 for most of my training these days. I still shoot my issued 416 and have topped my personal LWRCI SBR lower with an HK 416 upper.
Frogman
Nevermind… :rolleyes:
Hey badness,
I can’t tell you how embarrassing it is to have made a mistake like that, but, that being said, I’ll get back on why I prefer the LMT piston gun over the others.
In short, I love a “quick change” barrel, that’s got no threads to distort from overheating. I love the Mike Rock barrels that are .750” thick under the handguard, not .625 like the standard M4. I love the fit of the uppers to the lower of even the unmatched uppers and lowers (if you buy the gun complete, they have “matched uppers to lowers”. I didn’t believe it either, but the nine complete guns I bought are rock solid, with absolutely no play at all, whereas the other six guns I bought and installed the uppers on later, have a very little bit of play, still, much less that any Colt, Bushmaster, or Yankee Hill gun I’ve ever owned, or “played with”. Of course I also love the one piece monolithic upper, instead of the best alternative of something like the Daniel Defense, which is great, but no nearly as good. And I just really love the quality of the workmanship, compared to something like a Colt, which has greatly degraded, and now seems to just ride on their name.
And the LMT piston 16 IS the “one” I bought, after looking over the HK and Barrett. And actually, I bought fifteen of them, for my son and my own personal use, and of course, for “safe queens”.
Uhm no. The biggest reason why piston guns (all piston guns) are not the best option is because of the lack of available parts. If you break a part on an AR, it is easy to get a spare. Not so much for a piston gun.
This fact alone is a deal killer (without even getting into the increased weight, less accuracy, more felt recoil, cost, etc).
C4
Hello jonconsiglio
Of course, no one “needs” a piston in their AR, nor do they “need” the DI system.
My intention was not to set all the ”experts” (no dought, yourself included) straight, but to voice my opinion that, piston guns are a lot more reliable that DI guns. (and yes, I thought the LWRC was a DI gun)
As you surely know, the carbines, less than 16”, are far less reliable than the rifles, because the hot gases containing all the unburnt powder residues are greatly increased in the carbines. So they run much dirtier. They also run much hotter, because there is much less time for it to cool. The rate of fire is a lot greater too, because of the shorter dwell time, which makes it a lot harder for the greatly overheated bolt carrier group, and extractor, to do their job properly. The short dwell time, and faster cyclic rate make the weapon cycle much harder too. The problems of breakages usually happen to weapons that are run hard, for relatively long periods of time. In addition, you may be interested to know that Special Operations Command asked LMT to design a weapon to address the issue they were having with the barrel threads of their M4 carbines distorting, and throwing the point of impact off, so LMT designed their Piston 16, which has no threads, as it is a quick disconnect type barrel.
That being said, I’ve got a few LMT 10.5 DI guns, and have had absolutely no problems with them, neither have I had any problems with my Bushmaster 16” carbine. But I don’t run them in the manner in which I am referring to either.
While a DI gun is slightly lighter “up front”, and has a little bit more mass to move upon firing, that, to me, in no way overcomes the major disadvantages of having the action cycled by superheated, grimey gases, that make the weapon run much hotter, harder, dirtier, and faster, that is could if it had a piston, as any Squad Automatic would have. Why do you think all SAWs have pistons?
I guess a DI gun, would, at least in theory, be a little more accurate, since it got less moving mass, and since it’s “a little lighter up front”, you could hold it up a few seconds longer, but, other than that, I can think of no advantages of a DI system over a piston system.
But then, I’m sure you knew all that.
Ah, no and no.
Excellent point!
Interesting thread so far especially when LWRCi built a M6 line specifically from a former Navy Seal- J. Gonzales.
Almost every objection you’re putting out there is only a (potential) issue with automatic fire.
The reason the SAW has a piston is the same reason it has a quick-change barrel. It’s designed for a very high volume of sustained fire. It’s designed with suppression, not accuracy in mind. A SAW isn’t an assault rifle. M4s don’t have a piston for the same reason an M4 doesn’t have a bipod.
Your academic hangup on the theoretical negative effects of “dirty, grimy gases” cycling the bolt has little to no basis in reality. As many forum members far more respected than I have repeatedly reported, the DI system is remarkably reliable in quality weapons. There’s just not much evidence that the scary hot gases making the bolt move fast are a problem in the real world, and there’s even less evidence that piston systems provide a measurable improvement in this regard.
Fast cyclic rates can be addressed a number of different ways, including using a mid-length gas system.
Thanks for your reply. My point was just as you said. That when you “run them in the manner in which I am referring to”, which is rapid fire, over sustained periods of time, a piston (especially one with a quick change barrel) is superior to a DI system, hence the reason all SAWs use them. Pretty straight forward fact. And of course, DI guns run reliably, except when they are run very hard, and long, they are more prone to failures than a piston gun. Those “scary” hot gases are the main reason for the heat related failures. Of course I realize that fast cyclic rates can be addressed in several different ways, but my point is that, the faster cyclic rate, and increased cycling violence, in conjunction with the significantly increased heat, and dirt, produce an environment of reduced reliability. That’s all I’m saying, believe it or not. And thanks for keeping it civil, as many other can’t don’t seem to know enough for an intelligent discussion, and revert to stupid comments instead. Thanks again
Awww hell yeah this is great stuff.
LOL!
Two words for you: PROOF READ.
The only reason why the LMT is better than other piston weapons is because it is easily converted to DI.
I’ve argued this. I’ve gone this route, and I can tell you. After making the switch to DI guns, I cannot ever recommend pistons again. And I run exclusively suppressed short barrelled guns. (11.1’’ + KAC suppressors)
The piston guns I had showed absolutely NO signs of accuracy problems with quality ammunition. They also showed no reliability problems. I’ll start by adding that…
DI guns weigh less, and have more options for barrels, fore ends, and have better options for M203 mounting. DI guns generally have a better recoil impulse, and if the recoil impulse is too much, there are multiple things that can be done to alter it. While at the same time increasing reliability, and optimizing it for the type of ammunition intended. The DI AR-15 is a gunfighters gun, meant specifically to be tailored to the operators needs, and I’ll say the same thing about it as I do a 1911.
All perceived problems of the DI system, are due to improperly built guns, or operator error.
Excessive fouling in the M4 rifle is a complete and total myth/misunderstanding.
Proof? Filthy 14, and Mike Pannone’s experience, and expertise.
‘‘grimy hot gases’’ are not a problem. If you can name a single gun, in a military or civilian role, that was used as it was intended to be used and failed specifically because of the gas system I will admit you are right, and GPs are better and all.
I do have to ask, why do you like heavy barrels more? I used to be in that camp, and will never go back.
I also question the integrity, and validity of your claims that M4 barrel threads burned off, and LMT was asked by a military entity to develop the MRP.
I would like proof.
I get the distinct impression that you are simply trolling here. Consider this notice that you are under the microscope like a biology project.
Not an expert here, but here’s what I get out of this,
An AR-15 or M4 is an assault rifle( or carbine), not a LMG. That is like saying Toyota should replace their Prius’s fuel efficient hybrid engines for something like a 6.6l Duramax Diesel for better towing and hauling capacity!
=========================================
Y’all, Help me fill in the blank…, “One is none and fifteen is ______??”
.
bullshit? 
:D:D:D:jester::jester::jester::jester: