Why not more DI guns?

[MegademiC]

Fwiw the french Mas is di

[Clint]

Why do you have to have the buffer tube? I think it is the simplest way to do it and the least bulky,(ETA) for a rifle at least with a stock and gives you the higher sight over bore for a long zone of hits with a fast bullet(?). The gas coming back hits/enters the BCG and by the time it starts moving to be off the gas tubes 'nipple', it isn't getting any more energy from that gas- or not very much? You'd still need some kind of spring system, but why not one like the AK on top? Are the speeds and energies all of the wrong magnitudes and screwing with the timing?

An AK type spring can work, but it introduces off axis forces that need to be resisted with bearing surfaces.

Non-co axial pistons also create off axis forces.

The AR was designed with a co-axial piston system and a co-axial spring/buffer system that simplifies the bearing requirements for the bolt carrier.

A simple cylinder in a tube arrangement is all that's needed when the forces are primarily inline with the center of mass.

Almost all other designs need slide rails or the equivalent to deal with all the off center forces introduced by the spring and piston.

[RetroRevolver77]

An AK type spring can work, but it introduces of axis forces that need to be resisted with bearing surfaces.

Non-co axial pistons also create off axis forces.

The AR was designed with a co-axial piston system and a co-axial spring/buffer system that simplifies the bearing requirements for the bolt carrier.

A simple cylinder in a tube arrangement is all that's needed when the forces are primarily inline with the center of mass.

Almost all other designs need slide rails or the equivalent to deal with all the off center forces introduced by the spring and piston.

The AR18 was the right answer.

[TED]

The AR18 was the right answer.

It is a shame that more development was not done with the AR18.


I'd love to see a DI bullpup. Compact, light, simple. That would be nice.

[joffe]

Why do you have to have the buffer tube? I think it is the simplest way to do it and the least bulky,(ETA) for a rifle at least with a stock and gives you the higher sight over bore for a long zone of hits with a fast bullet(?). The gas coming back hits/enters the BCG and by the time it starts moving to be off the gas tubes 'nipple', it isn't getting any more energy from that gas- or not very much? You'd still need some kind of spring system, but why not one like the AK on top? Are the speeds and energies all of the wrong magnitudes and screwing with the timing?

You don't need to have the buffer tube, the Z-M LR-300 design did away with it.

[RetroRevolver77]

I'd love to see a DI bullpup. Compact, light, simple. That would be nice.

No, that wouldn't work.

[MountainRaven]

The AR18 was the right answer.

Having just shot my father's AR-180 side-by-side with my Brownell's "retro" XM16E1 homage...

I'm not sure about that.

The AR-180 didn't balance as well, felt heavier, had a heavier trigger with a two-stagey reset, the iron sights are simply not as good as those on an M16/A1/A2 or M1/M14 or H&K HK91/G3/MP5/&c., no bolt release (and no way of actuating the bolt catch), magazines don't drop free. Overall, the only benefit I see to it is that it has a folding stock and an ambidextrous safety.

[RetroRevolver77]

Having just shot my father's AR-180 side-by-side with my Brownell's "retro" XM16E1 homage...

I'm not sure about that.

The AR-180 didn't balance as well, felt heavier, had a heavier trigger with a two-stagey reset, the iron sights are simply not as good as those on an M16/A1/A2 or M1/M14 or H&K HK91/G3/MP5/&c., no bolt release (and no way of actuating the bolt catch), magazines don't drop free. Overall, the only benefit I see to it is that it has a folding stock and an ambidextrous safety.

It's a piston rifle with a receiver captured return spring and reciprocating charging handle. Just those points alone makes it a better overall rifle. Sure it's an older design and definitely needs to be updated but all of that could be easily addressed. The SCAR being AR18 esque' could have been that rifle but they dropped the ball with some of the design elements.

[call_me_ski]

DI is just fine. Piston is just fine. The operating system is irrelevant if you buy a quality rifle that meets your demands. If you cheap out, garbage in, garbage out.

Also, the more I tried out large latches or firearms with different charging handles the more I grew to appreciate the AR15's.

The MCX seems to be a good evolution of the AR15 and AR18. Sig did manage to blend a lot of features from both to make a well thought out rifle. They also avoided the trap of messing with the location of the AR15 charging handle. It is perfectly out of the way where Stoner and Sullivan put it.

I dont know if there is space in the market for another DI rifle. The AR15 has had 50 years of refinement at this point and other than lacking a folding stock there is not really much it doesn't excel at. To grab market share, new rifles have to be different, and adding a piston while running a "doesn't shit where you eat" add campaign is an easy(if lazy) way to do it. Remember that it is about giving the customer what they THINK they need.

[patriot_man]

It's a piston rifle with a receiver captured return spring and reciprocating charging handle. Just those points alone makes it a better overall rifle. Sure it's an older design and definitely needs to be updated but all of that could be easily addressed. The SCAR being AR18 esque' could have been that rifle but they dropped the ball with some of the design elements.

What about the Polymer AR-18.

Aka the G36