Page 1 of 10 123 ... LastLast
Results 1 to 10 of 98

Thread: Why not more DI guns?

  1. #1
    Join Date
    Aug 2009
    Posts
    606
    Feedback Score
    1 (100%)

    Why not more DI guns?

    I actually really like the DI system and appreciate its benefits.

    So, why don't we see more guns using it?

    In particular I would love to see a DI bullpup.

    TED

  2. #2
    Join Date
    Jun 2015
    Location
    Georgia
    Posts
    3,102
    Feedback Score
    2 (100%)
    My best guess is that the buffer tube/receiver extension part of the system that DI seems to necessitate is not nearly as popular as the DI part of it. There are more compact ways to make the rifle cycle in other words.

  3. #3
    Join Date
    Feb 2012
    Posts
    432
    Feedback Score
    46 (100%)
    Easy - any new DI gun will be immediately compared to the AR, which is proven, likely much cheaper, and enjoys the broadest aftermarket support in gun history.

    Plus the popular view is that pistons are more sexy than DI. There isn't any money in a new DI design.
    Last edited by bruin; 03-12-18 at 11:26.

  4. #4
    Join Date
    Mar 2012
    Posts
    564
    Feedback Score
    6 (100%)
    DI does eliminate the need for an op rod and moves the gas system back to the BCG. It’s not compatible with corrosive ammo (try to get the gas block and inside of the tube clean) for field use and does require a BCG that can be pressurized, eliminating using a fixed ejector, for example.

    DI also wouldn’t work with weapons that need quick barrel changes as you’d have another point for gas to leak out of.

    As far as a DI bullpup goes, the Tavor is about halfway there. Gas is ported back 3~4” from the barrel tap to the long stroke piston head. From there back it’s pretty much AK like, with improvements.

    H
    Last edited by halmbarte; 03-12-18 at 12:54.

  5. #5
    Join Date
    Dec 2010
    Location
    Philadelphia, PA
    Posts
    360
    Feedback Score
    21 (100%)
    Not sure of the history, but Stoner moved away from it. Aside from that I can only think of 2 or 3 other DI gas designs. I think the piston system is a generally more forgiving system and easier to work around. For example, discussion of gas port sizes are almost unheard of in discussions of piston operated systems. In a DI gun, gas port size is vital.
    Quote Originally Posted by RichDC2 View Post
    That rifle has won trophies for its game face alone!

  6. #6
    Join Date
    Sep 2007
    Posts
    3,751
    Feedback Score
    22 (100%)
    Quote Originally Posted by halmbarte View Post
    DI does eliminate the need for an op rod and moves the gas system back to the BCG. It’s not compatible with corrosive ammo (try to get the gas block and inside of the tube clean) for field use and does require a BCG that can be pressurized, eliminating using a fixed ejector, for example.

    DI also wouldn’t work with weapons that need quick barrel changes as you’d have another point for gas to leak out of.

    As far as a DI bullpup goes, the Tavor is about halfway there. Gas is ported back 3~4” from the barrel tap to the long stroke piston head. From there back it’s pretty much AK like, with improvements.

    H
    DI is absolutely compatible with corrosive ammo. Many of here have shot out 5.45 uppers with corrosive ammo with no cleaning of the gas tube or FSB.

    DI quick change barrel uppers exist and work just fine. Look up the Dolos AR-15, there just no need for it.

    DI bullpups? Im sure theres a conversion kit out there somewhere but theres not really a growing market for bullpups.

  7. #7
    Join Date
    Dec 2008
    Posts
    981
    Feedback Score
    0
    Why would DI prevent the use of a fixed ejector?

  8. #8
    Join Date
    Jul 2009
    Posts
    33,988
    Feedback Score
    3 (100%)
    Quote Originally Posted by amd5007 View Post
    Not sure of the history, but Stoner moved away from it. Aside from that I can only think of 2 or 3 other DI gas designs. I think the piston system is a generally more forgiving system and easier to work around. For example, discussion of gas port sizes are almost unheard of in discussions of piston operated systems. In a DI gun, gas port size is vital.
    Unless it's a US SIG rifle.
    It's hard to be a ACLU hating, philosophically Libertarian, socially liberal, fiscally conservative, scientifically grounded, agnostic, porn admiring gun owner who believes in self determination.

    Chuck, we miss ya man.

    كافر

  9. #9
    Join Date
    Dec 2009
    Location
    Florida Gulf Coast
    Posts
    1,432
    Feedback Score
    5 (100%)
    Quote Originally Posted by amd5007 View Post
    Not sure of the history, but Stoner moved away from it. Aside from that I can only think of 2 or 3 other DI gas designs. I think the piston system is a generally more forgiving system and easier to work around. For example, discussion of gas port sizes are almost unheard of in discussions of piston operated systems. In a DI gun, gas port size is vital.
    Gas port size discussions are also virtually unheard of in circles of people who actually just shoot their guns and don’t worry about asinine crap.


    Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

  10. #10
    Join Date
    Mar 2012
    Posts
    564
    Feedback Score
    6 (100%)
    Quote Originally Posted by Aries144 View Post
    Why would DI prevent the use of a fixed ejector?
    All the fixed ejector guns I’m familiar with need to have a slot cut into the bolt body and bolt carrier, preventing them from being used as a Stoner type gas cylinder and piston.

    Gas port size is critical for pretty much any gas operated gun. I think the reason you hear about it so much with ARs is because of the popularity of home built guns and the possible combinations of barrel length, gas port locations, and gas port sizes.

    H

Page 1 of 10 123 ... LastLast

Bookmarks

Posting Permissions

  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts
  •