Shooting AR with no gas rings (video)

[Doc Safari]

The first half of the video concerns overlubrication myth.

The second half he evidently shoots the gun successfully with no gas rings installed on the bolt.

Thoughts?

[artoter]

Well, if someone was just trying to find out for themselves, then ok, but I guess I just don't understand why people do things with a firearm, just to prove you can shoot said gun outside of it's design standards. Like I said, if it floats his boat, then ok, but I will operate mine within it's design capabilities. JMHO

[markm]

So does it run? I don't want to give him a view. Lol

[Doc Safari]

So does it run? I don't want to give him a view. Lol

Yes. He even holds the bolt up to the camera so you can see it doesn't have any bolt rings before he puts it back in the bolt carrier.

I've watched the video a couple of times looking for signs of an edit or where "one continuous shot" is not really an uninterrupted shot, but I haven't seen signs that the camera was stopped. Maybe someone else can catch an edit.

What prompted me to watch this video and start this thread is that I keep running across these posts on various forums where someone says "I've shot my AR for 20 years without replacing the gas rings" and similar posts. I thought it couldn't possibly be true (you know how people on the innernetz tend to exaggerate).

[ucrt]

.

Whatever floats your boat but without safety glasses ...why?

Maybe it's just me....

.

[Doc Safari]

My thought was that the purpose of the bolt rings is to compensate for a less-than-precise fit between the bolt and bolt carrier. In other words: his demonstration might work for some rifles and not others. A good fit between bolt and carrier might not necessitate having gas rings, but a bolt and carrier combo with just a few thousandths of slop in the fit might cause gas pressure problems.

Of course, I'm not an engineer, but it seems like common sense.

[Kdubya]

To a certain extent, I get why people do this; and I appreciate their efforts. It helps to know what the system is capable of, even in some very unrealistic scenarios. I think Pat Rogers actually discussed the idea of no gas rings in his final speech. He made a comment that even with no rings, an AR can run. Appears he was correct.

[tom12.7]

It's been long known that M16A1's would run without gas rings, given warm climates+ lube+ proper ammo+ clean base gun among a few other things. Take one variable away or more, then reliability goes away. I didn't watch the video, the info is old and known. The earlier predecessors did not have gas rings to begin with. The gas rings were added to improve reliability overall.

[Pikey]

My thought was that the purpose of the bolt rings is to compensate for a less-than-precise fit between the bolt and bolt carrier. In other words: his demonstration might work for some rifles and not others. A good fit between bolt and carrier might not necessitate having gas rings, but a bolt and carrier combo with just a few thousandths of slop in the fit might cause gas pressure problems.

Of course, I'm not an engineer, but it seems like common sense.

I always thought the rings where there for the same reason rings are on a piston in an engine. You can get a good seal without to much friction.

[ScottsBad]

I'm just guessing but think the rings also keep the carbon from building up on the inside walls of the carrier making for a consistent stroke and reliable seal. I think carbon build up might be a problem without rings after awhile. Seems like you'd also get a lot of carbon blown up into the barrel extension/lug area.

The dumbest thing about the video was shooting a rifle filled with grease and no eye protection. Wow, that is really not smart.