The only good part of the ayy arr is the inline recoil

variety of caliber choices, accurate, modular, cheap, reliable, easy upkeep

The point is that the reason why it's so widely used isn't because it's the best rifle, it's because it was sold dirt cheap to anyone who wanted it. It's good, it's just not as good as you think it is. The reason why it was chosen for the US military in the first place was because of lobbying from McNamara and his buddies, none of them being military men or having any experience with gun design at all.

>everyone should just switch over to piston because raisins
Cool, already invested in a rifle that is ten millionths of a percentage less reliable. You footing the bill for the complete arsenal swap?
>picatinny rails and stanag are better on other rifles because I said so
Wow.
>the design of the rifle
Does it do what is intended and expected of it? Yes? Fucking magical, stop making these threads.

>it's just not as good as you think it is

nobody in this thread has said anything beyond "its effective"
you know what goes great with being effective? being cheap.
but hey MUH 1962 VIETNAM PROBLEMS

>it's just not as good as you think it is
actually you think it's worse than it really is

Butthurt commie detected. Ar15 is the pinnacle of small arms design

>>everyone should just switch over to piston because raisins
>Cool, already invested in a rifle that is ten millionths of a percentage less reliable. You footing the bill for the complete arsenal swap?
What? I never said you should do anything. I'm not even the guy you initially replied to, but all he said was that it's less reliable.
>>picatinny rails and stanag are better on other rifles because I said so
What? When did i even say that? You're tripping man.
>Does it do what is intended and expected of it?
We were discussing was why it's cheap, can you even stay on topic?
>Yes? Fucking magical, stop making these threads.
So we can't discuss guns on the gun discussion board?

I love my mini 14 too and I admit that the AR blows it out of the water. I do however feel like the AR is a little overengineerred for its own good. For example, questionable material choices like polymer lowers and an aluminum BCG that could wear down in contact with steel. It was probably worse when it first came out since they wanted pants on head retarded shit like composite-reinforced barrels (back when composites were new tech so not like the carbon fiber barrels we have today).

>adopted by nearly every modernized military and police force on the planet.
The implication is that it's because it's the best rifle out there. The real reason is because it's was sold dirt cheap.

It’s raised sights allowed it to mount sights even before the existence of the picatinny rails, and not have to worry about the need for a riser on the stock. It’s easy to convert to new calibers, and just as easy to change handguards. The A1 stock length is the perfect length of pull for a rifle, and the bolt design is more accurate than a 2 lug, or roller delayed system due to its repeatability of it’s locking, optics can be kept on the rifle when put into a takedown mode without needing to re zero. Also the gas system if the gun is covered in mud blows mud off the gun, although you should still clean the gun. Finally it’s got due to the service it’s had around 50 years of service and it still works with small changes, most if not all the problems are fixed. Except the charging handle, but that is a easy one that companies do often.

I don't, i think it's a good rifle, i just think it's not better than any other modern rifle.

so tell us what you think is a better rifle than a AR

Speaking of overengineering there's also the copious amounts of lube the design has always needed to function.

*and its effective

cheap and effective is a unbeatable combination
a caseless high capacity space gun would probably be pretty effective if you couldn't buy ARs at a 1000:1 ratio

So are you just flapping your gums for no reason about pistons then?
>other rifles do modularity better
And?
>functions as intended
It's cheap AND reliable, please try to follow along.
>can't discuss guns
Ahh yes, the 5,000 "lol ars suck" threads a week sure are riveting. They've gotten to the point that having 5,000 /arg/ threads in their place would be leagues more entertaining and provide more quality to this board.

The trigger group is simple and well designed. It is often used as a replacement in home built parts kit in place of the open bolt sears.

Then why did the ones who made their own design take the bolt head design from it (or it’s cousin, the ar18?) Or the magazine well over rock and lock like the m14 and AK series?

wow what a completely pointless statement then
considering the carbines in production that are any better than the ar aren't better by much
ts not like the SCAR has a +4 reliability stat and a ambidextrous mag release adds +2 dexterity (which can be added to a AR easily)

if by that you mean post silly pictures and insinuate one another's alleged homosexuality while becoming even more entrenched in our own view, then game on!

Piston ARs are retarded. You're deviating from the original design to gain..... fractionally more expense, significantly more wear on the gun, more cleaning trouble because the dirt gets into the gas system instead of just the BCG, worse accuracy in full-auto... and what actual benefit?

The rotating bolt that locks into the barrel extension is pretty fuckin' sweet, too.

>So are you just flapping your gums for no reason about pistons then?
I didn't, but that guys point was that it's more reliable.
>other rifles do modularity better
I never said that though
>It's cheap AND reliable, please try to follow along.
You said it's cheap, the other guy replied it's because of mass production. You called him a retard and i explained that the point is that it's not because of the design of the gun that it's cheap. Then you went off topic and started talking about it's effectiveness, which was not the discussion. Get it now?
> Ahh yes, the 5,000 "lol ars suck" threads a week sure are riveting. They've gotten to the point that having 5,000 /arg/ threads in their place would be leagues more entertaining and provide more quality to this board.
Everything is better than /arg/, opinion discarded. Honestly though, i'm just trying to inspire discussion about the actual design of guns. I'm not even saying ARs suck, i'm saying the only thing that sets it apart from other modern designs is the inline recoil and i'm inviting you to try to change my mind instear of getting defensive.

> polymer lowers and an aluminum BCG
no military Ar on the planet uses these.

>I'm not even saying ARs suck, i'm saying the only thing that sets it apart from other modern designs is the inline recoil and i'm inviting you to try to change my mind instear of getting defensive.
You're only pretending to be open to having your opinion changed. In reality, you'll claim victory once everyone else's points have been ignored and they stop replying.
PS - This is my last reply, say something insulting quick.

>it's better to have all the carbon fouling blow straight into the receiver than for it to get vented in a part that can be left uncleaned forever with no issues

Or you're just projecting and i want to see people discuss this topic with eachother to see what points people can bring to the table. What "victory" is to be gained in an internet debate in the first place?

>more reliable
In what facet? Give me quantifiable numbers. More reliable enough to spend trillions on refitting the entire U.S. arsenal?
>gun is cheap to produce and is reliable on top of being cheap
What's the issue here?
>inspire discussion
For the umpteenth time about the same topic? The horse has been dead and beaten into a fine paste fertilizing the grass that a new horse is now eating, want to beat this one? His name is Dave.

Most modern military guns are either AR18 based or piston AR15

I wouldn't know since I can't own a "real" one. If I could, I would try to build a lookalike of pic related.

Attached: Colt-AR-15-Model-601-SN-000115.jpg (800x269, 25K)

Good points, agreed. How would you say the AR trigger group and locking mechanism compares to other popular designs like the AK, SCAR, FAL or G3 for example

Piston ARs are a thing user.

In not fouling the receiver
>>gun is cheap to produce and is reliable on top of being cheap
>What's the issue here?
Read the previous replies
>For the umpteenth time about the same topic?
How many times has this specific discussion been had here?

It has proven itself very modular and reliable enough if you maintain it and don't have shit mags.
The lockup/gas system is pretty clever.
Plus everything this guy said And this is neato too. You should still check headspace but it makes barreling the ayy arr a hell of a lot easier than other guns and miles ahead of guns designed around the same time back in the day.

The fact that new designs were made that take certain aspects from it is proof that it's not the best, or new designs wouldn't have been made.

just because a new design comes out doesn't mean it's better

>fouling the receiver
List 3.7 movies and 5 radio broadcasts where this is a prevalent issue leading to the entire genocide of a modern military.
>previous replies
So you don't like things being reliable while also not breaking the bank, got it.
>how many times
This year alone? I'd say upwards of 600 threads and untold number of comments inside various other threads where the topic of conversation wasn't warranted.

people say the same about glocks

It's probably the most accurate gas system in a mass produced rifle. It's gas system also makes it among the lightest mass produced rifles

Where does the lube meme come from? Do you own an ar15? I've shot thousands of rounds of steel case without malfunction between cleanings in two ar15s now

No that can't be true. Vidya told me that AR 15s had a lower reliability rating to make up for their higher base accuracy level.

>List 3.7 movies and 5 radio broadcasts where this is a prevalent issue leading to the entire genocide of a modern military.
What?
>So you don't like things being reliable while also not breaking the bank, got it.
Nice strawman
>how many times
>This year alone? I'd say upwards of 600 threads and untold number of comments inside various other threads where the topic of conversation wasn't warranted.
The speciific discussion we're having now? I doubt it

There is no reliaibility rating in vidya lole

The radial lug bolt design is great, and practically every non-kalashnikov based military rifle these days uses a copy of it. (often vis-a-vis the AR-18). The ergonomics and manual of arms are great. Practically every new design borrows heavily from it, often going so far as to use compatible grips and stocks.

Picatinny rails were made standard for and first used on the M16a2e4 and M4e1, so every gun that uses picatinny rails instead of weaver rails borrows that from the AR-15 platform.

While it may not have been the case at first, AR-15 magazines are great these days. loads of very reliable choices, and very inexpensive.

Also it's a fuckton less of a pain in the ass to work on than many of it's contemporaries.

see: INSAS

>The implication is that it's because it's the best rifle out there. The real reason is because it's was sold dirt cheap.

That's why some banana republics ended up with them yes. But France is buying German made Ar-15s, Canada, Iran, Turkey, Singapore, the Phillipeans, Brazil, and fucking North Korea make their own with our without license, and a bunch of oil-rich arab states buy them at full price because they want to look tacticool.

Special forces in like 50 countries don't use them because they can't afford a modern rifle, they use them because they want to.

Eat shit stupid nigger

Come on, what does your magical piston do over not being DI that would warrant a complete wipe of current military arsenals? When has DI ever been such a grave issue?
>strawman
Nice non argument.
>this specific discussion
Yes, verbatim. Once a day, without fail for the past 15 years.

Doesn't dump all the carbon fouling in the action where it can cause all kinds of issues. Doesn't explode if fired after being dunked in water. A piston can be left uncleaned forever and not cause any issues, where as the action needs to be kept fairly clean.
>Nice non argument.
There is no argument to counter, it's a strawman.
>Yes, verbatim. Once a day, without fail for the past 15 years.
Now that's just not true

Why are you so mad though

>cause all kind of issues
Sure if you fire 30k rounds in one sitting and don't clean your rifle.
>fired underwater
Drain the barrel as instructed.
>left uncleaned
So can most modern firearms DI ones included.
>no argument
Yes, clearly, you are retarded for thinking that something that is cheap and reliable is bad.
>not true
Very true, I'm actually underselling the amount of times it has been discussed by a large degree.

>lets work around this issue rather than just fixing it
Piston is just better. It may not be a world of difference but it is better. That's why the AR is the only modern DI rifle in use and even stoners own newer design, the AR18, uses a piston.
>Yes, clearly, you are retarded for thinking that something that is cheap and reliable is bad.
I didn't say that though, that's why it's a strawman.
>Very true, I'm actually underselling the amount of times it has been discussed by a large degree.
Maybe the piston debate but the only reason we've been discussing that is because you have been picking at it for the last few responses.

>That's why the AR is the only modern DI rifle in use and even stoners own newer design, the AR18, uses a piston.
that AR-18 was just made to be cheap, and it wasn't stoner's design either. And amusingly due to economies of scale, the AR-15 is cheaper anyway.

The big reason there are no other stoner-style DI rifles out there is because if you wanted to build one, you'd just build an AR-15 to your personal specifications. Tell me one thing you'd do differently from the AR-15 in DI that I couldn't just link you some AR-15 compatible parts that do what you need. Even counterproductive stuff like "give it a side mounted reciprocating charging handle and move the recoil spring to the top of the bolt so it can have a folding stock" are available in the AR-15 platform.

>wasn't *fully* stoner's design

That diagram is deceptive, implies the gas goes directly against the bolt carrier and group vents into the reviever

The AR15 is not a direct impingement design. It is an in-line gas piston system. The gasses expand behind the bolt, forcing the action to cam open. The excess gasses vent out the side of the BCG through two holes before the gas tube even fully leaves the carrier assembly. This system is highly reliable and solves the issue kf reciprocating mass emdenic to long stroke gas piston systems, yet without the complexity of most short stroke gas piston designs

Attached: 387bf-ar15-gasimpingement.gif (1072x268, 144K)

>The AR15 is not a direct impingement design.
Yes it is.
>It is an in-line gas piston system
And direct impingement.
>The gasses expand behind the bolt, forcing the action to cam open
The gases push the BCG and bolt simultaneously. It's DI.
>The excess gasses vent out the side of the BCG through two holes before the gas tube even fully leaves the carrier assembly
This does nothing to change the definition.
>This system is highly reliable
Agreed.
>solves the issue kf reciprocating mass emdenic to long stroke gas piston systems,
I disagree with it being an "issue".
>yet without the complexity of most short stroke gas piston designs
Short-stroke pistons are hardly more complex than AR-15 direct impingement.

>I love my mini 14 too and I admit that the AR blows it out of the water.
I didn't say that, and I don't think that. They're both fine rifles, and will do you fine in SHTF. Both have their advantages - I'm one of those people who likes the ergos of the Mini way better than the AR, for example. I know that puts me in the minority, but I do. But the AR is more modular and easier to find parts for, which are big advantages.

Like I said, either will do you fine.

long stroke gas piston operation is DI, change my mind.

It's not, since the gases are not pushing directly onto the BCG in the case of long stroke piston.

they literally are, though. In a long stroke piston design, the piston is a protrusion on the bolt carrier.

Short stroke separates the piston from the carrier, making the impingement indirect.

It was ment to be an upgrade while also being cheaper to produce. The two are not mutually exclusive. The only thing that made it cheaper to be produce was that the receiver was made of stamped steel rather than machined aluminum btw.

>The big reason there are no other stoner-style DI rifles out there is because if you wanted to build one, you'd just build an AR-15 to your personal specifications.
But there are NO other modern DI rifles. Not stoner style, not any style. Though there are many guns comparable to the AR15 but none of them are DI. There is a reason why every new rifle uses a piston. I don't see why you're so hell bent on defending DI anyways. Piston is simply better than DI. It's not necessarily a world of difference and it doesn't mean DI guns are garbage, it just means piston is better even if it's not by that much.

>they literally are, though. In a long stroke piston design, the piston is a protrusion on the bolt carrier.
No. There is one degree of separation with a long stroke design. The piston is attached to the BCG, but the gases push the piston and ONLY the piston. Conversely, in an AR-15, the cases inarguably push the BCG itself.

uh, don't uh... buy one then

The reason there are no other DI rifles is because the only way to try and sell a new service rifle is say it's more reliable because of muh piston.
Making a new DI rifle that isn't an AR is equivalent of reinventing the wheel except removing the 60 years of refinement that has gone into the design.

The MAS 49 is an example of a real DI design. The force of the gas vents directly onto the bolt. No expabsion chambers like the AR 15

The AR15 is a linear internal piston design with a long gas tube extention superficially appearing to be a DI system.

Attached: b6659df6f6e92771178b29517ecc3869.jpg (2000x1414, 344K)

>The reason there are no other DI rifles is because the only way to try and sell a new service rifle is say it's more reliable because of muh piston.
So because it's better then? You're saying the reason why new rifles are all piston is because militaries wont adopt another DI rifle. Ever wondered why?

Heres Forgotten aka Gun Jesus explaining the system

youtu.be/qsdvudV7b2Q

The bolt carrier, you mean. And yes, the MAS49 is Direct Impingement, but that does not mean that the AR-15 isn't. AR has a more elaborate design, but it's still DI.

Or perhaps the AR is such a well developed and elegantly refined design arms makers need to push gimmicks like pistons to distinguish themselves and carve out a market share

It doesn't matter. The gases blow directly onto the bcg making it DI, doesn't matter where that gas is going afterwards. Everyone classifies the AR15 as DI because it is DI. It's better than having no expansion chamber but it's still DI.

If the AR15 was a true DI design, the BCG would look like this. The gas key would not be hollow but would instead be a flat surface

Attached: 9MMRMPBCG-2.jpg (1200x800, 129K)

Or piston is just better and the reason why militaries wont adopt a new DI gun. The military even specifically asks for a piston in design ompetitions. Again, why are you so hell bent on defending DI? You know it's just one part of the ar15 that can easily be changed and doesn't really define it, right? You know most new ARs that the military is buying are piston too, right?

It doesn't matter dude. The gases blow on the bcg, that makes it DI. It's a better design than in your pic, but it's still DI.

Is... Is this gas key backwards? Or is it a recoil based blow back system majjig? I'm confused.

Why would you build an inline action DI design that isn't an AR-15? Seriously. What would you do different that couldn't be done as a modification to the platform? The patents expired in 1977, anyone who wants to make a DI rifle makes an AR-15, because there's literally no reason to make a new special snowflake incompatible design. Well, except the Koreans with the K1 carbine, which is DI, but not AR pattern, for some reason. But aside from them, nobody makes a not-AR-15 DI rifle because they all just make DI AR-15s. 80 nations use it. It's inarguably the 2nd most successful self-loading rifle design of all time.

There is nothing to improve on the AR15 after 60 years of refinement in the design, any new DI rifle design would be pointless because it lacks 60 years of refinement.
The only way to try and differentiate is by adding a piston.
The 416 is fucking amateur hour, any design that requires a fucking firing pin safety to keep from firing out of battery isn't designed well.

This gif made me notice you can just cut the back part of the bcg off and put the recoil spring in the receiver, and thus remove the buffer tube, which would enable folding stocks on AR15s. Why is no one doing this? Is there a downside to it i'm not aware of?

What would propel the bolt forward then?
Give piston rifles a google user.

If the piston is fixed to the bolt carrier group, it is by definition part of the bolt carrier group. So the gas impinges directly upon part of the bolt carrier group. In the case of the AK, it is (usually?) pinned and welded to the bolt carrier forging. The rifle would function identically if the BCG was forged with the piston already on it, it's just more economical to manufacture in pieces. In fact, IIRCthe Kel Tec SU16 bolt carrier group is constructed with the piston milled from the same block as the carrier.

>inline recoil
It makes folding stocks difficult without major modification.

Attached: stock.jpg (880x660, 94K)

been dun befo'

The asking price was too high at the time. not really sure why nobody's made a modern one at a reasonable price, seems like there'd be a market for it.

Attached: lr_300[1].jpg (600x301, 16K)

The US millitary has only adopted one piston AR, the M27 IAR which is an automatic rifle/squad automatic weapon

This sustained fire LMG role was not what Stoner had in mind. The linear inline piston system is designed for semi and bursts of FA fire. Watch any AR meltdown video, they all fail by popping a gas tube. The tremendous heat warps the thin tube after 1k+ rounds of continuous fire

>muh 60 refinement
Why are you just throwing out buzzwords now? What is "60 years of refinement"? Tacticool shit (Picatinny rails) and a forward assist? Because you do realize that there has been no other major change in the AR15 other than that, right?
>any new DI rifle design would be pointless because it lacks 60 years of refinement.
Are you serious? Just because a gun uses the same gas system doesn't mean shit. A gun can be completely different in every imaginable way yet still use the same gas system. Yet according to you there is no difference between them because they use the same gasy system. Get the fuck out of here.
>The only way to try and differentiate is by adding a piston.
Or it's just better, you know. Why can't you just accept this simple fact? Once again, why are you so hell bent on defending DI? Do you jack off to gifs of gas impinging on the gas key? Do you nut in your pants every time you fire your DI gun knowing that all the hot gas is spraying inside your gas key and receiver? Do you have a DI fetish?
>The 416 is fucking amateur hour, any design that requires a fucking firing pin safety to keep from firing out of battery isn't designed well.
That doesn't have anything to do with the gas system though

Exactly this. It's very simple: if the gases impinge directly on the BCG, it's DI.
Probably a piston system.

Stand aside, superior bolt design coming through.

Attached: roller-delayed blowback.png (800x500, 34K)

A challenger approaches

Attached: NW486_4.jpg (1895x1263, 1.24M)

>put the recoil spring in the receiver
What does piston have to do with this btw?

A non issue for most uses, even the SBR's would be acceptable alternative in cases folding stocks are needed.

Can you fire it like that?

How?

Muh fluted chamber