I know that the mil is looking to possibly get a piston system but does anyone know or think that they will adopt the middie at some point?
Nope. They’ve made up their mind that they want a piston gun. And I think that’s okay but retrofitting the AR platform is not the way to go about it IMO.
It’s very unlikely in my opinion. Institutional inertia is very hard to overcome and the middy will be viewed just like every other possible M4/M16 replacement, a little bit better but not “better enough” to warrant the cost of replacing the current inventory.
I heard they were going all 300 BLK!
strictly opinions here… does anyone think that the piston AR will ever be “officially” adopted by the mil?
IMO it makes since. They can just replace the uppers.
But everything will be just speculation unless someone with some “inside” knowledge joins us. Hell, even the military might not know at this point.
No. Especially with the budget being rolled back, personnel being cut, and Iraq deployments ending…
There’s only one piston retrofit that meets military specifications - the HK416 - and it doesn’t do much now that the current M-4 doesn’t.
Oh, and the HK416 has its own share of problems, too. There’s a thread on this…
Everything is about priorities, and all priorities come down to available budgets.
No. I think the main reason is because there is no set standard on gas port position, gas port size AND I do not think that middy gassed guns run all that well on FA.
I know of one .Mil contract holder that had a problem getting a mid-length gun to run well on FA.
C4
I cant seam to figure out what the heck they are going to do or why they are going to do it.
I would advocate for a scraping of the whole issue and a re interpitation of the Hagues declaration III. Wide scale issue of new ammo with 70g Barnes TSX bullets or something along thouse lines. We dont need a new rifle we need a new bullet to fight an enemy that this treaty never applied to they did not sign it.
Isn’t it just a matter of getting the same amount of force (gas) on the carrier key as the carbine? I know, everything else equal, the cyclic rate would naturally be a little slower but not sure how that could be the deal breaker. Just curious on what went wrong (talking issues unsuppressed right?)
Middies run better on full auto in my experience. The standard M4 cycles so fast that it’s harder to control.
Suppressed full auto with a middy runs like an M4 unsuppressed.
This. No need to spend more money on a weapon system that does “good enough”. If a few specialized units wanna run HK’s or SCAR’s or whatever…noones gonna care. But for wholesale issue to big Army, I doubt you will see anything differant than more of the same.
I don’t know exactly what the problem was, but my guess it was a combination of gas and the extra dwell time.
C4
So exactly who are these mil guys you speak of? AFAIK USMC, USA, and USAF never really saw eye to eye as to the M16/M4 platform, and now all of them are switching to piston - in unison? :blink:
I think Red Jacket will take care of it.
vince left (harhar) and the “general” scooted off without a solid endorsement. that crap was all hollywood. did anyone actually think that was a legit eval???
i mean didn’t they just use adams arms retrofit parts and a hydro-buffer? all of us here could have a government contract if we can crank them out then…
(A historian would be better) but my take is large-scale platform changes only happen alongside large-scale caliber changes, e.g. M14 and M16. We are not abandoning 5.56.
Now if they’re smart they’d have congress authorize to register and stamp the lowers for the civilian market. With the $ you could have brand new shit everywhere.
Roger. Yeah I know if you are talking about barrel after port consistent with a M4/M16, midlength would need 16.5".
it only took two weeks to build it too.
Cool yeah I certainly am out of my expertise but feel like if you can run a 10.3 on carbine gas, a 14.5 midlength should be like you described.