View Full Version : Self propelled Gas Piston System
http://img146.imageshack.us/img146/7602/m4sdesign.png
Advantages of this concept:
1. Same level of complexity as the standard AR gas piston system
2. Zero to Minimum modification required for installing this piston system to any standard AR platforms.
3. The installation of a folding stock on a standard AR is now possible.
4. A custom BCG may be provided so owners would not have to saw off the last part of their standard BCG.
Wow,you keep trying to reinvent the wheel.You should just get an AR and enjoy it! :smile:
El Pistolero
05-29-11, 17:16
So the only real advantage is the ability to have a folding stock while in return adding more parts that can fail?
:confused:
Or am I missing something? I understand how it works, very simple but I'm not sure what it brings to the table.
By "same level of complexity as the standard AR gas piston system" are you referring to the direct impingement system or the gas piston system? Because if it's the former you are replacing the gas tube and roll pin of the DI system with multiple parts and springs. Not exactly simpler!
Also, is the gas key attached to the oprod in some solid way where the two will reciprocate together ala long-stroke piston? Because eliminating the receiver extension to allow for a folding stock will require the back half of the BCG to be cut off so it can reciprocate inside the upper, therefore the recoil springs will have to be up front to pull the bolt forward. I'm just saying this because the area in your diagram where it says "carrier key cup" makes it look like this is supposed to be some kind of drop-in that will work with the standard BCG which it most certainly will not. If it works at all.
Failure2Stop
05-29-11, 17:20
It wasn't interesting that HK designed a piston driven AR, it was interesting that they delivered working models to the user groups that needed them.
Understand?
It wasn't interesting that HK designed a piston driven AR, it was interesting that they delivered working models to the user groups that needed them.
Understand?
Sorry, I don't understand. Would you please explain?
I meant "The same level of complexity as the standard piston systems.
You are correct that the BCG may need to 'saw' away the last half. I did say minimum modification.
Basically this is the same design as the standard piston, except I rearrange the buffer tubes at the front.
So the only real advantage is the ability to have a folding stock while in return adding more parts that can fail?
:confused:
Or am I missing something? I understand how it works, very simple but I'm not sure what it brings to the table.
By "same level of complexity as the standard AR gas piston system" are you referring to the direct impingement system or the gas piston system? Because if it's the former you are replacing the gas tube and roll pin of the DI system with multiple parts and springs. Not exactly simpler!
Also, is the gas key attached to the oprod in some solid way where the two will reciprocate together ala long-stroke piston? Because eliminating the receiver extension to allow for a folding stock will require the back half of the BCG to be cut off so it can reciprocate inside the upper, therefore the recoil springs will have to be up front to pull the bolt forward. I'm just saying this because the area in your diagram where it says "carrier key cup" makes it look like this is supposed to be some kind of drop-in that will work with the standard BCG which it most certainly will not. If it works at all.
Are you an engineer?
No. I thought the stone-age diagrams should be obvious enough about that.
El Pistolero
05-29-11, 17:56
I know you are trying but do you think this is a marketable item? Who's going to see a perceived need to buy this? The AR-15 has reached a new era of maturity and direct impingement will always reign supreme, from Olympic Arms to Noveske and everything in between. Why not focus your efforts elsewhere where it might be more beneficial? Like another poster said, why are you trying to reinvent the wheel?
How exactly could you have a folding stock? When the BCG is fully inserted it is flush with the rear of the upper receiver. When it cycles, it has to physically move backward (IE: Into the buffer tube).
So, unless you have some truncated carrier design ala' ZM/Para or Oly, a folding stock isn't happening.
It is a draft concept/idea, nothing more.
I know you are trying but do you think this is a marketable item? Who's going to see a perceived need to buy this? The AR-15 has reached a new era of maturity and direct impingement will always reign supreme, from Olympic Arms to Noveske and everything in between. Why not focus your efforts elsewhere where it might be more beneficial? Like another poster said, why are you trying to reinvent the wheel?
I am afraid some level of modification is still needed. A gunsmith would have to saw away the last part of the BCG.
How exactly could you have a folding stock? When the BCG is fully inserted it is flush with the rear of the upper receiver. When it cycles, it has to physically move backward (IE: Into the buffer tube).
So, unless you have some truncated carrier design ala' ZM/Para or Oly, a folding stock isn't happening.
Why do we need an AR with a side folding stock arrangement?
We have been deploying the AR15/M16 for what 40 years give or take and collapsible stock variants for close to that. During that time they have been successfully deployed from vehicles, helicopters, fixed wing aircraft (airborne), armored vehicles, etc all without a side folding stock.
If you want to refine/improve this system (which is already pretty damn refined) you need to identify a mission critical need and then work on a solution to that. Something that decreases weight, improves accuracy, enhances capacity, lethality, or reliability, etc.
"Necessity is the mother of invention" right? A side folding stock is not a necessity. A desire for some maybe, a necessity no (obviously as this weapon system has been successfully fielded in just about every continent and environment in the world without one).
What Failure2Stop is saying is that H&K provided a working sample (actually several) for military testing and subsequent adoption, not freehand conceptual drawings.
If you are serious about your pursuits (which I'm not too sure about) I would suggest you keep your ideas, and drawings/designs to yourself as these would potential be lucrative intellectual proprietary and subject to theft. Build a working prototype. Test the hell out of it. Refine it, and repeat the process until you have a reliable, durable, and economically feasible product. Then contact a patent attorney and have them research your product. If everything is good to go apply for a patent and then either begin production or pursue selling the rights to your product to an existing manufacturer.
Good luck. I admire your desire and drive, but suggest you spend more time shooting the current system to determine what may need to be addressed, listening and reading, talking to end users, etc. Good products are rarely designed on a cocktail napkin overnight.
Just buy a kel~tec PLR16, slap a folder on it and be done with it.
Thanks for your advice. I absolutely love AR but I could not afford one (plus a place to store, accessories and utilities..etc). So.. I entertain myself with my imagination.
Why do we need an AR with a side folding stock arrangement?
We have been deploying the AR15/M16 for what 40 years give or take and collapsible stock variants for close to that. During that time they have been successfully deployed from vehicles, helicopters, fixed wing aircraft (airborne), armored vehicles, etc all without a side folding stock.
If you want to refine/improve this system (which is already pretty damn refined) you need to identify a mission critical need and then work on a solution to that. Something that decreases weight, improves accuracy, enhances capacity, lethality, or reliability, etc.
"Necessity is the mother of invention" right? A side folding stock is not a necessity. A desire for some maybe, a necessity no (obviously as this weapon system has been successfully fielded in just about every continent and environment in the world without one).
What Failure2Stop is saying is that H&K provided a working sample (actually several) for military testing and subsequent adoption, not freehand conceptual drawings.
If you are serious about your pursuits (which I'm not too sure about) I would suggest you keep your ideas, and drawings/designs to yourself as these would potential be lucrative intellectual proprietary and subject to theft. Build a working prototype. Test the hell out of it. Refine it, and repeat the process until you have a reliable, durable, and economically feasible product. Then contact a patent attorney and have them research your product. If everything is good to go apply for a patent and then either begin production or pursue selling the rights to your product to an existing manufacturer.
Good luck. I admire your desire and drive, but suggest you spend more time shooting the current system to determine what may need to be addressed, listening and reading, talking to end users, etc. Good products are rarely designed on a cocktail napkin overnight.
I am afraid some level of modification is still needed. A gunsmith would have to saw away the last part of the BCG.
Unacceptable. A new carrier would need to be provided. Go sawing half the carrier away and you are removing a significant portion of the reciprocating mass altering dwell time, the feed cycle, etc. You are also removing the buffer itself, or do you have it in your design (I don't see it labeled). I fit is absent you are even further reducing the reciprocating mass. Unless you have taken this into account with spring rates, gas port sizes, etc. Change the gas port though and it's not "drop in".
Also dual buffer tubes requires, dual springs, buffers, etc increasing the parts count and complexity of the system.
I also just noticed the carrier key "cup". Why wouldn't the operating rod fit directly into the carrier key (because it has buffer tubes on either side below it)? Your drawing shows the op rod some distance above the carrier key. Also your barrel is not centered in the delta ring, more like in the lower 1/3. New Delta Ring assembly, new upper receiver. This additional height may also interfere with the receiver accessory rail height requiring new sights of a different height, etc.
Not "drop in".
How do you attach the buffer tubes? To the barrel? To the gas/piston system? Put all the new weight from buffer tubes, springs, buffers (which need to be heavy to make up for lost mass in the system) and you've thrown a lot of weight on the front of the rifle effecting the balance. Attach this weight to the barrel and you are effecting barrel harmonics and accuracy.
Draw/post less, research, test, build, etc more.
Again I appreciate your desire and drive, I'm not trying to piss in your corn flakes. Learn and keep moving, refine, evolve. You'll find lots of ways NOT to do something before you discover a good way TO do it.
Ok ok.. I believe other off-the-shell piston upgrade kits also come with their own BCG... (Adam Arms come to mind).
So if a custom BCG would be provided, then this concept could be considered a drop-in kit, right?
The purpose of the carrier key cup is to secure the carrier key in place so that the rod could push/pull the BCG.
Unacceptable. A new carrier would need to be provided. Go sawing half the carrier away and you are removing a significant portion of the reciprocating mass altering dwell time, the feed cycle, etc. You are also removing the buffer itself, or do you have it in your design (I don't see it labeled). I fit is absent you are even further reducing the reciprocating mass. Unless you have taken this into account with spring rates, gas port sizes, etc. Change the gas port though and it's not "drop in".
Also dual buffer tubes requires, dual springs, buffers, etc increasing the parts count and complexity of the system.
I also just noticed the carrier key "cup". Why wouldn't the operating rod fit directly into the carrier key (because it has buffer tubes on either side below it)? Your drawing shows the op rod some distance above the carrier key. Also your barrel is not centered in the delta ring, more like in the lower 1/3. New Delta Ring assembly, new upper receiver. This additional height may also interfere with the receiver accessory rail height requiring new sights of a different height, etc.
Not "drop in".
How do you attach the buffer tubes? To the barrel? To the gas/piston system? Put all the new weight from buffer tubes, springs, buffers (which need to be heavy to make up for lost mass in the system) and you've thrown a lot of weight on the front of the rifle effecting the balance. Attach this weight to the barrel and you are effecting barrel harmonics and accuracy.
Draw/post less, research, test, build, etc more.
Again I appreciate your desire and drive, I'm not trying to piss in your corn flakes. Learn and keep moving, refine, evolve. You'll find lots of ways NOT to do something before you discover a good way TO do it.
Thanks for your advice. I absolutely love AR but I could not afford one (plus a place to store, accessories and utilities..etc). So.. I entertain myself with my imagination.
Aren't you in Canada?
Aren't you in Canada?
Yes. They are relatively expensive in Canada.
Yes. They are relatively expensive in Canada.
What is expensive for you? 1500$ buys you a high quality AR here, and you can get a 600$ Norinco M4 if you don't care about quality.
How old are you? Do you even have a Firearms Licence?
Thanks for your advice. I absolutely love AR but I could not afford one (plus a place to store, accessories and utilities..etc). So.. I entertain myself with my imagination.
Problem #1. Its good to exercise the mind though....
Some of the problems with this idea have already been pointed out, like the carrier still having to go somewhere....
Additionally, there's no way you're going to fit all that crap on a standard AR upper. You'd need a taller receiver, taller gas block etc.
I pointed this out in your other thread trying to invent a new operating system, but I'll say it again - you have a lack of understanding of how these weapons work and are built. It's clear from your diagrams alone.
So you don't own an AR at all. And you're not an engineer. What is your level of experience with the platform?
What perceived problems are you trying to solve, other than maybe the ability to use a folding stock (which has been done, somewhat unsuccessfully on ARs, and more successfully with other piston designs with similar manual of arms/ergonomics)?
Sorry if I come across as a dick - I appreciate the urge to create something new and different, but I really don't feel like M4C is the place for these kinds of threads. Learn more about the system you're trying to improve upon/re-design, and lay off the MS paint for a bit...
And, finally, to clarify - were you or were you not banned from M4C already with the screen name Zollen?
I don't have any license. I could not afford $1000 just for personal entertainment.
What is expensive for you? 1500$ buys you a high quality AR here, and you can get a 600$ Norinco M4 if you don't care about quality.
How old are you? Do you even have a Firearms Licence?
I think a custom shorter BCG would have to be provided in order for this to be considered a drop-in kit. As I pointed out earlier, there would be zero-to-minimum modification required.
Some of the problems with this idea have already been pointed out, like the carrier still having to go somewhere....
Additionally, there's no way you're going to fit all that crap on a standard AR upper. You'd need a taller receiver, taller gas block etc.
I pointed this out in your other thread trying to invent a new operating system, but I'll say it again - you have a lack of understanding of how these weapons work and are built. It's clear from your diagrams alone.
So you don't own an AR at all. And you're not an engineer. What is your level of experience with the platform?
What perceived problems are you trying to solve, other than maybe the ability to use a folding stock (which has been done, somewhat unsuccessfully on ARs, and more successfully with other piston designs with similar manual of arms/ergonomics)?
Sorry if I come across as a dick - I appreciate the urge to create something new and different, but I really don't feel like M4C is the place for these kinds of threads. Learn more about the system you're trying to improve upon/re-design, and lay off the MS paint for a bit...
And, finally, to clarify - were you or were you not banned from M4C already with the screen name Zollen?
I think a custom shorter BCG would have to be provided in order for this to be considered a drop-in kit. As I pointed out earlier, there would be zero-to-minimum modification required.
A short BC would open up a whole new can of worms.You have a very thoughtful mind,i just don't think firearms are your thing.Maybe i'm wrong :confused:.
I don't have any license. I could not afford $1000 just for personal entertainment.
Do you have any understanding or basic knowledge of the AR-15 or any other firearm for that matter, other than pics from the Internet?
I think a custom shorter BCG would have to be provided in order for this to be considered a drop-in kit. As I pointed out earlier, there would be zero-to-minimum modification required.
Sorry, but I don't believe thats the case. The barrel in your diagram is sitting too low, allowing room for your op rod and "front buffer tubes". There would not be room for all this crap to fit between barrel and the handguard without it being miniature. On a piston AR the op rod lines up with the gas key, one of a modified design with a face for the piston to strike. The op rod does NOT enter the receiver ABOVE the key. Your design works in MS paint because shit isn't correctly proportioned. I don't see any way you could actually produce such a design as drop in. Nor do I believe that it would work as you envision.
AGAIN:
What is your level of experience with this platform?
Were you or were you not banned from M4C already?
I don't have any license. I could not afford $1000 just for personal entertainment.
Then what are you doing here exactly?
Supplying a new BCG still doesn't make it drop in.
The receiver height issues would still need to be addressed as would the issue of how the heck to fit all those parts under a set of handguards without using proprietary ones. There just isn't much room to work with under there.
You can't effectively design components for a system you have no experience with and no model to consult/work from.
Theoretical discussion and mental exercises are fine, but you are going to get a cool reception here from actual users, builders, designers, and other industry experts on continued "cocktail napkin" designs.
Again, if you are serious about developing upgrades or accessories for this weapon system you need a hands on model. This would not be $1K for personal entertainment it would be an investment in your education and preferred career, as would some professional hands-on training with the AR15 series and pursuit of a degree in Mechanical Engineering, classes on machining, CAD, etc. In fact you probably need to buy several, a DI one, and a few of the different piston designs, maybe even study some of the other weapon systems that already incorporate side folders (SCAR, AK, FAL, etc.)
If you are just doing this for personal entertainment, well... that's not why I am here, but I appreciate the heads up and will leave the discussion.
GLOCKMASTER
05-29-11, 20:25
Locked for now.
cptm4 PM sent.
Powered by vBulletin® Version 4.2.5 Copyright © 2024 vBulletin Solutions, Inc. All rights reserved.