Bufferless?

[FMJ556]

It seems that ZM will restart production of the rifle:

However, the production and marketing of new rifles using the DIGS operating system will be resumed by Al Zitta, the original developer of the rifle.

Para Press Release

Yes, I believe we are. Almost every gun reviewed by a gun mag gets stellar reviews. Seriously, when was the last time you saw a negative review? It also happens to be the same gun that is now discontinued, FYI.

Do you own one? Do you have first hand experience you'd like to share (positive or negative)?

[DeltaSierra]

This is slander plain and simple. You are besmirching the reputations of the presumably good folks at Para. You should be ashamed. You are entitled to your opinion but you are not entitled to lie.

Wait! I want to get on board with the other slandering naysayers...


The presumably good folks at Para decided that this thing was junk, and that they would go back to producing a less-than-stellar line of handguns...

Tim, I think that you are waaaay to concerned with this... If you don't want to discuss this hacked ARbortion, just step away from this discussion.

I really don't understand your overly emotional attachment to this so-called rifle. You have NOT yet given ONE good reason why this should be lauded as a wonderful invention...

To be a good invention, an item needs to bring some drastic improvement over the old system to be considered worthy of praise.

This ZM/Para brings no improvement, and actually increases the risk of your weapon failing you.

If you like weird designs, just say so, but the mindless defense if this undeniably ridiculous "invention" is bordering on the insane.

[Ando]

The ZM system has some legitimate design innovations. Most of the complaints around here seem to be more a reaction to the ugly fit and finish of the system rather then it's performance. The mounting of a folding stock on an AR is an innovation and is desired by some. Anyone ever read an AR vs. AK thread? There is a legitimate if limited desire for shorter length ARs, specifically in the Mech Infantry dismount role. The long operating rod attached to the bolt carrier is another innovation. As far as I can recollect, this was the first application of this system in an AR and the current fad piston guns could take it as a lesson. The attached rod system basically eliminates the problems with carrier tilt. The light weight carrier system is another innovation. Lighter reciprocating mass means less upset to the rifle and less felt recoil. The system is basically a gas cylinder design, and the long overlapping gas key creates a large gas chamber that can more smoothly push the light carrier for longer period of time. Gas is then vented out the hand guard. Less gas and heat in the upper receiver? Anyone consider that an innovation? The system allows the elimination of the buffer weight and spring, saving half a pound.
These all represent legitimate innovations of design.

The real question should be "DOES IT WORK?" not "I don't like the looks"

To my eye there are some unanswered questions about this design.
#1 Is there enough mass to prevent bolt bounce?
#2 If bolt bounce is not an issue, then is there enough energy in this system to feed under "dust box" type conditions?
What do we know about the rifle?
Rob Leatham has one. That's not exactly a point against the rifle. Todd Jarrett as Para spokeshooter has numerous videos out there extolling and demonstrating the advantages of this rifle. Take that for what it's worth. He's paid to shoot Para, but he needs to have a competitive rifle to win.

Para bought the design from ZM for use primarily as a practical shooting competition rifle, and I think they failed with this rifle commercially for two reasons. First they really didn't go after the tacticool market. If your rifle fails in a USPSA stage you don't die, but you don't win either. Show some ninjas crawling through the sand shooting 10,000 rounds without rest and we would be having Gas Cylinder vs. Gas Piston flame wars. Para instead went after the game crowd, which is a much smaller group, and is will to pay only if you have quality. Which leads to the second reason why this gun is not commercially successful. At $2400 retail, it is literally the most expensive AR made. A custom JP starts at only $2000, and they are quality rifles. Para pistols are crap. No way would I risk that much with a company that produces such low quality pieces.

Finally, I love reliability, durability, and simplicity, and as such I only shoot BCM and Glock. I have no love for Para or ZM, and I have not shot or even seen the Para TTR or the the ZM LR-300, however, I think they have some very REAL if UNPROVEN design advantages certainly more then the fad piston guns being made today. Also, I would appreciate any critique of my thoughts on this design.

[Thomas M-4]

The ZM system has some legitimate design innovations. Most of the complaints around here seem to be more a reaction to the ugly fit and finish of the system rather then it's performance. The mounting of a folding stock on an AR is an innovation and is desired by some. Anyone ever read an AR vs. AK thread? There is a legitimate if limited desire for shorter length ARs, specifically in the Mech Infantry dismount role. The long operating rod attached to the bolt carrier is another innovation. As far as I can recollect, this was the first application of this system in an AR and the current fad piston guns could take it as a lesson. The attached rod system basically eliminates the problems with carrier tilt. The light weight carrier system is another innovation. Lighter reciprocating mass means less upset to the rifle and less felt recoil. The system is basically a gas cylinder design, and the long overlapping gas key creates a large gas chamber that can more smoothly push the light carrier for longer period of time. Gas is then vented out the hand guard. Less gas and heat in the upper receiver? Anyone consider that an innovation? The system allows the elimination of the buffer weight and spring, saving half a pound.
These all represent legitimate innovations of design.

The real question should be "DOES IT WORK?" not "I don't like the looks"

To my eye there are some unanswered questions about this design.
#1 Is there enough mass to prevent bolt bounce?
#2 If bolt bounce is not an issue, then is there enough energy in this system to feed under "dust box" type conditions?
What do we know about the rifle?
Rob Leatham has one. That's not exactly a point against the rifle. Todd Jarrett as Para spokeshooter has numerous videos out there extolling and demonstrating the advantages of this rifle. Take that for what it's worth. He's paid to shoot Para, but he needs to have a competitive rifle to win.

Para bought the design from ZM for use primarily as a practical shooting competition rifle, and I think they failed with this rifle commercially for two reasons. First they really didn't go after the tacticool market. If your rifle fails in a USPSA stage you don't die, but you don't win either. Show some ninjas crawling through the sand shooting 10,000 rounds without rest and we would be having Gas Cylinder vs. Gas Piston flame wars. Para instead went after the game crowd, which is a much smaller group, and is will to pay only if you have quality. Which leads to the second reason why this gun is not commercially successful. At $2400 retail, it is literally the most expensive AR made. A custom JP starts at only $2000, and they are quality rifles. Para pistols are crap. No way would I risk that much with a company that produces such low quality pieces.

Finally, I love reliability, durability, and simplicity, and as such I only shoot BCM and Glock. I have no love for Para or ZM, and I have not shot or even seen the Para TTR or the the ZM LR-300, however, I think they have some very REAL if UNPROVEN design advantages certainly more then the fad piston guns being made today. Also, I would appreciate any critique of my thoughts on this design.

Underlined part^

If you like reliability and durability the ZM is not it.
Just a few thoughts off the top of my head. From watching this video of one being disassembled http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=0fmY1...eature=related
The addition of more small parts that can get lost in the field notice the clip holding the recoil spring.
I have more concern's over the recoil spring and its arrangement.
1st is the very long gas key the short GI version is known to get bent if dropped and lands on the wrong spot. The very long ZM version would have a greater chance of this happening.
2nd and 3rd concern would be the recoil spring they have replaced the nice large dia buffer spring with that narrow dia recoil-spring And they wrapped it around the hottest part of the entire rifle the gas system. Both of these conditions would make for a unhappy spring.
I would also be interested in how or even if they deal with bolt bounce with out a buffer. I have a few other small quibbles but those are the ones that stand out the most to me at this time.

[Suwannee Tim]

....I really don't understand your overly emotional attachment to this so-called rifle. You have NOT yet given ONE good reason why this should be lauded as a wonderful invention.......

I don't have a bit of emotional attachment to the Para or any other firearm. My only emotional involvement is mild irritation with folks making plainly false, juvenile and over the top remarks on a forum that aspires to serious discussion. I would suggest you and Justin take the nonsense to TOS but I know you won't so I won't.
Suwannee Tim, over and out.

[justin_247]

My concern is the fact it has far less recoiling mass. Half the carrier and all the buffer is missing.

How does it work when really dirty?

The lack of a buffer and the missing weight from the carrier is made up by the fact that there's a pretty strong spring attached to the op-rod under the handguard.

The fundamental trouble here is the perfection of the AR. It is the only perfect rifle, given to us by the Angel Eugene Stoner. This perfection evokes a strong spiritual response from many owners. These owners regard any adaptation or innovation as a sacrilege.

The AR is far from perfect, but it is an excellent platform nonetheless.

This is slander plain and simple. You are besmirching the reputations of the presumably good folks at Para. You should be ashamed. You are entitled to your opinion but you are not entitled to lie.

Good lord, dude. What have I said that's a "lie?"

FACT: the bolt carrier is not custom designed - it's sawed in half.
FACT: it had a tiny little ring on the recoil system that, if damaged, causes the entire system to fail.

If you think this abortion is so great, why don't you go buy one and fire a few thousand documented rounds through it to prove us all wrong?

[armatac]

Alan had a decent design that isn't exactly a booming seller yes, if Knights had made it like many of their one offs then the attitude would be different. It is a novel design. Failure of weapons is usually tied to manufacturing when you are this close to the AR. If you have some thing in your head telling you something is "inherently" wrong with the carrier or other parts of the design, you should look at more weapons than your AR15. Bufferless guns do very well with reliability, they usually have more reliable round stripping energy because a mass isn't floating somewhere within a buffer and its reciprocating mass is driving directly into a round to chamber. AR18, ARX160, G36,XM8, you don't need a 1" in diameter spring to get amazing stored power.

For some reason things take time for design acceptance for many reasons, but if a big company with a million fanboys had made this the whole story would be different.


If you had a long stroke piston on this, it would be pretty sweet. (then it would have more reciprocating mass and make you feel better)