Just like the title states. Why? I always hear or read of people downing this rifle. I guess I just think if it is so bad than why do the IDF use it and why is it the main battle rifle of the British SAS. A lot of countries adopted this rifle. So why are we so bent on replacing it? I am just curious. I don’t know if it is true or not, but you always read of the government or other government doing test on other rifles and the M16 platform almost always wins.
I would be very disappointed to hear of our military saying the rifle is good enough and calling it quits. If they are always looking for something better, sooner or later they will find it, and we will switch. That is progress.
I think anytime a new design is worked over, everyone that dislikes the system will say it is for X reason or Y reason over the older gun.
You also have the fact that this weapon system has been around twice as long as many troops using it. It has been tweaked and worked on up till it’s present day. Memories of long ago solved problems can be very strong.
Well the IDF use it as its given to them by our government for free or next to nothing. They cannot compete with that on there market.
The SAS, both British and Aussie, use it as its more adaptable compared to the oh so successful L85 and Aussie AUG.
The IDF use it because like most of what is in their armament it is “GIVEN” to them by you the American TAX PAYER.
The Brit’s have a “plethora” of reasons for using it. Keep in mind that there TIER 1 organizations has perhaps the largest array of small arms of any SOF organization in the free world.
It’s usually just idiots who don’t even own an AR, or have a DPMS and don’t lube it, or are “AK guys” whatever that means.
I’m quite taken with the AR, and there are some guys here that would describe me as an “AK guy”
I think it has to do with the fact that the AR15/M16/M4 type weapons have been on the top of the heap for so long, that people are actually getting bored with the same old thing.
Only problem is, nothing can beat it.
As for the IDF, it seems to be the common response that they only use it because we give it to them.
However, if we gave them Jenning’s .22 pistols or Hi-point carbines, I don’t think they’d be using those guns on the front lines.
The truth is they’d be using the M16/M4 whether we give them to them or not, because it’s the best weapon available.
Some of the more recent bashing and attempts to question the platform, come from gun manufacturing competitors who need to unseat the M4 from its throne. If the M4 stays in place, the competition doesn’t make any money from US gov’t contracts. There is alot of political lobbying(by gun makers from another country) going on right now to try to get the M4 out of service.
I dont have a problem with this, even though its a simplification and ignores the fact that ultimately funds end up back with American defense contractors and their American skilled workers.
I tend to agree, but I am by far an expert. And I know that we give the IDF guns, and other ordanance (I think we should) but they have made their own weapons in the past and are quite capable of making good weapons. However they choose to use ours. I just think that says something. And you are right about your first point also. I am getting about sick and tired of HK. They make SOME great stuff. But they have also put out some real crap too. I just don’t like the arrogance that ooozzes out of their pores.
I for one feel the AR15/M16/M4 platform is excellent, but needs just ONE more “tweak” to keep it on top.
Coincidentally, Hk has done it, with the gas piston system (and now others are following suit). Yeah, I know the gas piston has been around for much longer, but Hk is finally bringing it to the table (at least to the military table).
As someone stated above, WHY settle for “good enough”, when you can have BETTER, or MORE RELIABLE.??? Nothing wrong with the rifle. It just needs to be AS RELIABLE AS ANY OTHER ASSAULT RIFLE IS. DI guns have NEVER been known to be “RELIABLE AS HELL”.
How many times in your life have you heard how reliable an AK47 is? How many times have you heard how UN-reliable the AR15 is? (regardless of which statement is exaggerated), I think the gas piston will finally get the AR platform where it needs to be.
All of the manufacturers who are now making gas piston guns, didn’t decide to do so for the hell of it. (now Colt just needs to hurry up so we can enjoy their offering damnit…)!
And yet with all that said… I still feel like a One Man wrecking crew every time I sling up my AR…
I have the utmost faith in it and my Knowledge of it’s Strengths and weaknesses… and if called upon to do so… I have supreme confidence in my ability to bring great wrath and fury upon anyone who requires it… (Damn… that kinda sounds good…
)
$$$
I’d guess Colt’s main reason was to offer a choice to the mil/leo agency customers who were looking at the HK for its gas piston system. With the rest- I have a feeling that the money to be made in the civilian market had a lot to do with it.
I’ve experienced zero problems attributed to the AR’s gas system, and the ones I have seen were all from people who have deviated from factory specifications (cut down barrels, fat-boy and pigtail gas tubes, no-name SBR uppers, “home-made”/illegal full auto conversions).
I love my AR, and it is my first choice to grab in an emergency. If my enemy hates it, that’s fine with me. If my enemy also loved the AR, I would be a little more worried.
The Israelis could not build the Galil for what it cost them to buy M16’s from us using US aid that had to then be spent on US gear. A forged and milled steel receiver is much more expensive to build when you can just place an order with credit we give them.
The M16 and M4 systems are very good ones, but they aren’t the be all end all either (neither is the AK), and without evolution of a system, you never get anywhere. The M16 wasn’t so much revolutionary as it was evolutionary. The construction materials were the most revolutionary thing about it.
Since the M16 came out though, I can only think of ONE modern direct gas impingement system that made it to market and it’s only used in S. Korea. Everything else uses a piston (or delayed blowback).
Gas pistons have been around longer than direct gas systems, but not by much. I can’t see anything new ever being brought to market though that wasn’t piston operated.
That might actually turn out to be true, which would be a crying shame.
Gene Stoner knew what he was doing.
He was certainly quite aware of the fact that the Stoner Gas System was going to leave carbon residue in the carrier in his design. But, that was one of the compromises that he needed to make, in order to get the other things that he wanted.
As any engineer/designer knows, ALL designs are a set of compromises, based on what is desired to achieve as a final result. Decisions between “this and that” are made all the way along the process.
I guarantee that Gene Stoner knew more about weapon design, than anybody on this board. He solved the problems of the overhead piston design, by moving the piston into the bolt carrier. Carbon residue in the bolt carrier group area was the compromise. He solved more than he sacrificed. Excellent design decision.
Perfect? No.
Excellent choice? Yes.
Now a group of “Johnny come lately” critics want to try to second guess Gene, and say that he shouldn’t have done that. They will learn the hard way that Gene was right.
It’s great to have a variety of weapon types out there on the market, so that people can get their favorite type.
But, anybody who actually believes that they are getting something(by changing something as critical as gas system type), without giving something up in the process, does not have a grasp on the intricacies of the design/engineering science.
I’m all for “evolving” weapons systems.
I’m not for calling a “devolution” an “evolution”.
Let’s just say that I’m standing up for Gene Stoner, because I think he made the right decision, and that he’s still right today.
My 2 cents, as I see it.
I am interested to know what exactly you mean, by “they will learn the hard way”.
What is going to happen to persons who choose piston rifles???
They added a few ounces to the OA weight of the weapon? They sacrificed a minute bit of accuracy MAYBE?
Not doubting you at all, but I’d like to know what exactly you are talking about…
Agree. If you understand how to do proper PM’s, how to lubricate the weapon, and to stay away from spent/bad mags, the AR/M16 is a fantastic weapon.
The problem with the majority of the AR shooters out there is that they buy the cheapest AR, the cheapest mags, the cheapest ammo, never do PM’s, never lube it and then fault the weapon when it doesn’t run.
C4
Although it isn’t in the Ar-15s class, I believe the British are developing a DI .50 “sniper rifle,” The guy on Futureweapons was testing it out. I don’t remember the exact specs now.
Perhaps “the hard way” was a little brusque for a word selection.
You hit on some of the points, but there are many more.
What I’m meaning is that when doing things of a relatively large scale change, such as changing gas systems, other things are affected, which may not be readily apparent to the consumer who is not a gun designer.
In cases of design decisions, generally we “give something to get something”. If we do well, we get more than we give away, and that would be considered a successful decision.
Now, since we are discussing overhead piston systems vs Stoner Gas System here, it can be somewhat confusing because the various overhead piston systems have different designs, and so it’s hard to make sweeping generalizations because it may not be fair to all the competing designs.
However, to generalize somewhat, the main advantages of the Stoner Gas System come from a “by-product” of moving the gas piston into the carrier area. All of the moving masses in the Stoner System operate in-line or axial with the boreline(except the trigger and hammer). As a result, all these forces generated by the recoil and moving masses are easy to resolve with their linear movement characteristics. They don’t generate multiple-direction force vectors to the extent that overhead piston systems do. That’s one big advantage to the Stoner System.
Somewhat related is an issue involved with the reciprocating masses which are pretty significantly above the boreline in the piston and op-rod of the overhead piston system. These can cause controllabilty issues during firing, and also introduce hammering effects on the FSB(and thus the barrel) which potentially affect reliability of these parts and also barrel harmonics. Different overhead piston systems deal with these issues differently, so some are going to be better than others in some/all of these respects.Generally also, since the overhead piston requires more room above the barrel than the gas tube, then the sight plane is raised to fit the piston system in there. None of these issues is present in the Stoner System.
Thirdly, is the issue of direct mechanical connection between the piston in the FSB and the bolt carrier without “buffering”, or in the case of a short stroke piston there is an accelleration of the op-rod that then whacks the bolt carrier forcefully. In both of these cases, there is a pretty fast and hard attempt to drive open the bolt carrier into unlocking the bolt rapidly and vigorously, potentially ripping a case head or causing other extraction problems. These have been reported on at least several of the brands of overhead piston conversions. Additionally, and related to the first 2 paragraphs, there is a carrier-tilting force imparted by pushing the carrier at the nose of the gas key, instead of pressure being applied directly rearward from the center of the bolt/carrier/bore axis such as the Stoner System operates. And the Stoner System applies a moderate forward force on the bolt which may somewhat mitigate some of the forces which are applied during the rotating unlocking of the bolt lugs.
There are other things, but those are probably the “biggies”.
Some overhead piston makers have designed things into their systems which are aimed at solving/mitigating these issues, and some have not.
However, they all have these issues and how much effect they have on the performance of the gun will be directly related to how well the maker dealt with these inherent issues.
With the Stoner System, there are none of these issues to be dealt with. They were dealt with in the basic design of the gun.
The issues with the Stoner system are primarily related to the residual carbon deposits in the bolt carrier group, which is a by-product of it’s method of cycling. Nothing is perfect, and the Stoner System is not perfect either.
So, while this is not a simplistic topic, and cannot be discussed in “broad stroke” because of the variances in designs that I mentioned earlier, there are some things that come to the fore, and the primary one in my mind is the inline force management which is inherent in the Stoner Gas System design. As an aside, if you try to put a folding stock on there(which people often are irritated that they can’t have one added to an AR15), and then move the recoil spring and buffer somewhere else, it gets even more convoluted, because then you lose the inline operation of the recoil spring and buffer system, introducing a whole 'nuther set of issues that might be similar to what happens with the overhead piston. If you do both overhead piston and folding stock(moving the recoil spring and buffer somewhere else), then you have forces all over the place that you have to deal with, and every force needs to be dealt with properly, or you will have issues resulting from not dealing with them properly. So, 2 of the things people are clamoring about, an overhead piston and a folding stock, both can cause problems that go well beyond what people might initially think, and trying to get both of them together on an AR15 really makes it an entirely different gun in terms of operation.
The AR15/M16/M4 is not perfect, as we all know. It does get dirty and requires some cleaning. But, it will operate, and has operated for over 40 years within the military requirements for MRBF(with the exception of the early '60s when there was an ammo powder bungle). And it does provide excellent handling and controllability characteristics because of its inline force management, and costs less than piston systems, is lighter and less complex, and more accurate(given equivalent barrels).
The primary claim of the overhead piston manufacturers is that the overhead piston system will be more reliable because the carbon and heat is not introduced into the bolt/carrier group. This is partly true, depending on how you view it.
For example, HK has stated that their 416 will do 15k rounds MRBF. The US Army states that the M4 has been tested to do 5k rounds MRBF. On the surface, it appears that the HK416 is 3x more reliable. However, up to 5k rounds, they are equal. So, IMO this “advantage” is theoretical because nobody shoots more than 5k rounds at a time without looking inside their gun or cleaning(in the real world).
Another issue of not dumping hot carbon-laden gas into the receiver, is that overhead piston systems still dump it somewhere. There are some overhead piston systems which dump it under the handguards, where it can impair the cooling of the barrel. So, it makes the bolt less hot, but it makes the barrel hotter. To be fair, not all overhead piston systems do this, and some vent elsewhere.
So, as you can see, there’s alot more to this whole subject than might meet the eye initially.
And alot can depend on what is most important to the consumer who is buying the gun. Some people just hate to clean the action area, and they are happy as hell with their overhead piston system. Also, some people aren’t concerned with pinpoint accuracy, nor do they even notice any deficiency in handling characteristics(for whatever reason). If the overhead piston gun makes you happy, and doesn’t make you sad, then that’s what counts.
Some people are advanced operators who can really feel every little aspect of the gun’s operation, and appreciate the inherent design advantages of the AR15 with the Stoner Gas System.
It’s all in what you want, and how your needs stack up.
People want different things, and that’s why there are choices in the market.
The Stoner System has alot going for it. It is an exemplary design.
It’s going to take quite an effort to actually better it, and IMO the system that can better it(in an overall performance context) has not been produced yet, as of this time.
I also have some friends and acquaintances in this industry who make overhead piston guns, and I try to be fair in my assessments, even though I am biased toward the Stoner Gas System. They all know that I have this opinion, and that I have no axe to grind with them or their products.
I just have my opinions, and I try to present why my opinions are the way they are.
Again, IMHO.
So because I have a DPMS lower I’m An idiot.
Do you lube your DPMS?
C4
What he said.