Does anyone have any input on going with a piston system for a short barreled rifle in the .223 AR platform, in an under 12" rifle?
I’m considering going this way, but not sure if piston uppers work well in SBR configurations, and if there would be any gains going with a piston system.
The LWRC system seems to work well with 10.5" (10.3?) chrome-lined barrels. I wouldn’t hesitate to buy one if money was no object, though I would NOT buy a longer barreled LW again… They seem to shine as SBR’s, though.
Then again, high quality direct impingement 10.5’s supposedly run fine, too.
i have an 11.5" POF upper. it rocks + it’s easier to clean. the big thing is that they are freaking expensive. i got mine used for $950 and have another on the way from POF [but who knows how long that will be?].
i’ve heard that LMT is releasing one in the fall + i’ve heard that the LWRC SBR uppers are good, too.
In my opinion, SBRs are where piston guns really shine. I have two 10.5" LWRC rifles (6.8mm and 5.56mm) and they alleviate a LOT of the problems of a short barrel and short gas system. Almost zero heat transfer to the operating group, almost zero accumulation of carbon and powder residue in the operating group, increased reliability due to the piston operation (much smaller gas volume required to initiate cycling). I’ve got one of the 8" 6.8mm guns on order and hope to have it in time for a couple of carbine classes this fall.
With a 16" barrel or longer I’d stick with a mid-length DI, but for <16" a piston operated gun has a lot of benefits over a similarly equipped DI carbine. I don’t even own any carbine length DI guns anymore.
Stephen
The advice to go DI for 16+ guns is just to save money since both systems are reliable at that length, right? I’m assuming that if the price were the same, the piston gun would still be preferrable because of the cleaner- and cooler-running design, correct?
In fact SBRs are exactly when you want a piston. For under 14.5 inches, go with piston. DI seems ok for longer barrels. A 16 inch mid-length is nice.
I put 500 rounds through my LMT 10.5" and another 400 the next day with a KAC M4QD NT4 attached. I did not clean it between the two days. All I did was take the BCG out before the start of day two and hosed it down with CLP. I did not have one malfunction. I did learn a lesson though… take the can off at the end of the day. It was a bitch to get off after day two when it cooled down. :eek:
It was pretty dirty when I cleaned it, but who cares. It ran like it was supposed to. The only advantage that I see with the piston system is that they’ll take less time to clean. Big deal, it takes ten minutes (if that) to clean a DI rifle.
As for the heat transfer, again, who cares. I have spare parts if something breaks and can buy 3 LMT uppers with BCG’s to 1 LW upper or ten to one HK416.
IMO… a piston upper is not “needed” for the 10.5"-14.5" uppers as some say.
I never said it was needed, just better. Some folks prefer to have every advantage they can get when it comes to fighting for their lives.
Stephen
The arguement could go both ways I guess - the pistons are relatively new on the scene to be deemed as more advantageous or better, am I wrong?
Also if someone happens to be in an organized unit, what happens if your piston breaks? Do the S4 channels have the ability to replace/fix your piston?
Murphy finger fucks the proprietary bolt carrier group in piston run rifles, can you get a new one?
But the whole idea behind piston setups is that they help preserve these parts mentioned above more so than DIs, so the scenario’s above could be called “moot”
Just thinking out loud, these are all hypotheticals of course, trying to think outside the box
All very valid points. If a unit/department is issueing these weapons they would have no more trouble with replacement parts than with a DI weapon. By my count there are only 7 parts that are different from my LWRC carbine to a DI carbine with none of them likely to wear out before the barrel does.
Stephen
Concur with S-1, the 10.5 LMT or Colt is a very reliable system … and know with personal experiance that with 77gr it is effective out to 300m from that length, I don’t know what anyone could expect more out of a MOUNT, SOUC or CQC weapon system. However, “those who know choose H&K 10.5” … make your own decisions.
I fail to see how the LWRC upper is “better” than a LMT 10.5". The LMT has been proven in combat by some of the best trained men that our nation has to offer, and continues to be a favorite among them, while the LWRC upper hasn’t even been issued, let alone tested in real world situations.
I also fail to see how someone is at an advantage with a piston upper when the LMT works just as well. My life does depend on my rifle, and I feel that with the components (LMT+KAC=Quality) that I choose to use, will not fail me when I need them. I would MUCH rather have a weapon, along with components/accessories, that have been put through the ringer, than have the latest “gucci gear” that hasn’t been.
With all that being said… I would try out a HK416 if they were $1,200 for a upper, as the 416 is a proven design. I have heard some reports of reliability issues with them lately though…
Not entirely accurate. While certainly not issued via the Gov’t supply channel, more than a few LWRC 10.5 guns have gone in harms way via some SFG’s and performed well.
FYI - Let’s try to leave manufacturer marketing claims & Internet forum fairy tales to other forums.
This is HFG type stuff.
The Marine Corps has purchased the IAR candidate submissions from LWRC.
Stephen
I’m glad your LMT runs good. I have shot a lot of 10.5" guns that run good. I also understand if a piston operated M4 style carbine isn’t your cup of tea. I’m not trying to convince anybody here to sell off all their guns, run down to the gun shop, and buy an LWRC Carbine. If your guns run great maybe you’ll never have any problems with them. The original poster asked for opinions on SBR piston guns and I gave it.
Stephen
LOL, you LWRC boys are damn determined to keep spreading the BS aren’t you?
One last time before my Moderator edit function gets a workout:
A few (1-3) prototypes submitted for a program heading down the toilet or 5-6 private sales (at an huge discount I would assume) to military personal DOES NOT constitute a military contract or the much-abused “Used by U.S. Special Forces”.
I’ve noticed these claims don’t get posted on LF forum anymore since Basicload posted his reply about the validity of the claim and basically shot it to pieces. You guys also seem to avoid making them on 10-8 forum. M4C forum should be treated just the same. Enough of us know the real deal and will shoot it down every time.
Does this logo mean Vulcan Armament really has weapons in Special Operations service?
I know Darren and his ½ dozen minions will probably cry that I’m picking on them again but enough is enough. Stop posting these BS claims on M4C and you won’t have a problem.
So am I.
Like I said, I would buy a HK416 if they were more reasonably priced as they are a proven design.
I was just curious of how a design (LWRC 10.5") that hasn’t proved itself in combat, or through extensive testing, is “better” than a system that has (LMT 10.5") and that many HSLD types are happy with.
HAHAHA
I remember that thread over at ARFcom. PLW/HFG posted stating that the LWRC rifles were being “tested” by SF…blah…blah. He then posted pretty pictures of them shooting them in Iraq.
IIRC…The truth came out. He gave a few SF guys a large discount on a couple (5-6) of rifles if they would take pictures of themselves using them overseas.
(This was a few years ago, but that’s how I remember it. Someone correct me if I’m wrong).
Dinger, you didn’t add a single thing except to confirm what I posted with your own bias.
You don’t know me so I can only take the HFG allusion as an insult to my integrity which earns you the same in my eyes.