Look at this http://www.brownells.com/.aspx/n=y/p...T_BOLT_CARRIER . What do you guys think? I always thought the M16 bolt carrier could use some debris grooves in it like the sand grooves in the L1A1.
Printable View
Look at this http://www.brownells.com/.aspx/n=y/p...T_BOLT_CARRIER . What do you guys think? I always thought the M16 bolt carrier could use some debris grooves in it like the sand grooves in the L1A1.
Looks like marketing/branding to me.
The mil spec carrier has only four places it touches the upper.. the rest of it is clearanced significantly so it would take some serious fouling before crap in the upper will stop the carrier.
My first thought is that this is a solution looking for a problem.Quote:
What do you guys think?
Given that it's the same folks who gave us this piece of ridiculousness (double the price of a standard RE and in craptastic 6061 to boot), I'd say it's exactly that.Quote:
Originally Posted by Eric
For some reason PWS seems determined to reinvent every wheel they can get their hands on. While their Muzzle Devices are pretty good, the rest of their efforts are much less impressive.
OP: I'm not qualified to say whether or not the BC is better or worse.
I applaud their efforts and I look for vendors trying to do things better. I like their piston systems. The fact they took a proven, successful system and improved it with modern technology kicks butt. In fact, you illustrate my point with your FH comment. Without their efforts and efforts from folks like AAC, we'd still have the A2 birdcage.
Different doesn't mean better. Neither their buffer tube nor BCG achieve anything the mil-spec parts don't already provide for much less cost with higher-grade materials. When PWS comes up with something that actually solves a problem, instead of just redesigning something for the hell of it, they can have their props.Quote:
Originally Posted by czydj
Are you kidding me? The first piston-driven autoloader was patented by JMB in 1895, almost 60 years before Stoner's DI design. There's nothing the least bit modern about piston systems.Quote:
Originally Posted by czydj
As I've stated before, the only thing of actual use I think PWS produces is their muzzle devices. That said, they were hardly innovators in that market, as there were literally dozens of alternative AR MDs available before PWS showed up.Quote:
Originally Posted by czydj
So no, I don't illustrate your point at all, because outside of some functional MDs, all PWS makes is useless junk that's different just to be different.
Snake Oil
A solution looking for a problem!!