Page 5 of 7 FirstFirst ... 34567 LastLast
Results 41 to 50 of 68

Thread: Colt 6940P--Piston Parts Pics

  1. #41
    Join Date
    Nov 2009
    Location
    Norway
    Posts
    1,476
    Feedback Score
    0
    Of course, the more complex the machine, the more complex the parts. A machinegun has more small parts than an infantry rifle and an aircraft has more small parts than a machinegun. I agree training is an excellent answer. My point is, other op-rod conversions get raked over the coals for adding complexity to the AR. This one has even more parts than other AR op-rod systems that I've seen, yet that's ok.
    It probably gets a pass because it's a Colt.

    I make no claims about wear or early failure on this one. I can tell you from long experience, small parts constantly get mis-placed & lost and the more parts there are, the more likely they get lost. That's why as a technician, it's very important that I keep the work area and the parts neat, organized and tagged. A soldier in the field does not always have that luxury
    You stated that parts could get boogered, I read that as failing or breaking.

    I can also tell you from experience that what you are describing regarding soldiers losing parts for their guns during field maintenance is not the rule, rather an exception. Sure, it happens every once in a while, but people aren't losing parts all the time. Also, we usually do not field strip our weapons during firefights, although the one time it did happen for us, our interpreter (local national) did it in the dark, while taking fire (Minimi). He fixed the malfunction and got the weapon running again. I think you give people less credit than they deserve.

    I cannot tell you how many times I've read a post about a FAL that won't function only to find out it's due to the gas regulator being out of adjustment, most times because someone had finger fiddled it. I find it interesting that it's not ok to have sights a soldier will fiddle with throw and change zero but it's ok to have a regulator to fiddle with that can turn the rifle off
    I don't have any experience with the FAL, so I cannot comment on that particular AGR syste,. I have had no bad experiences with the adjustable gas system weapons I have used; HK416, HK417, FN MAG, Minimi. Like I said, the system needs to work properly. I am not caliming that there are AGRs with less then stellar designs out there.
    And I guess I'm not privvy to the discussion about soldiers fiddling with sights, so I don't understand your example.

    I like changes that make my gadgets operate better, easier to maintain or improve safety. This innovation doesn't do any of those. As a technician, I see potential problem areas on this new piston/op-rod that I would be keeping a close eye on until they've proven themselves
    Well, can you quantify that with hard numbers? Or is it just conjecture? It should be very easy to test in this case, by running a side-by-side comparison of a regular 6940 and the 6940P. They are identical, except for how they unlock the bolt.

    I'm not critical because I simply want to hold on to what I like. I'm critical because historically op-rod systems in ARs bring no practical improvement over the original. What does this do that the traditional AR gas system does not? What advantage does making the op-rod in several pieces have over a single piece? Nearly every good improvement makes a machine simpler, especially when talking about mature technology. The Colt op-rod system is NOT simpler
    Again, where is the quantifiable data that supports your statement? Stating that a piston system is not simpler than direct gas impingement is not fact, it's an opinion. If it does lead to less wear, if it does lead to less time required for maintenance etc, would not that be considered a simpler system?
    And I don't know the reason for the three piece system, but they call an "articulating link piston system" on their home page. I am sure that they designed it that way for a reason.
    It's not about surviving, it's about winning!

  2. #42
    Join Date
    Mar 2010
    Location
    Maine
    Posts
    7,868
    Feedback Score
    0
    Hey. Can somebody post a pic of the 6940P disconnector?

    Or the whole trigger group?

    I'm curious as to weather or not it mimics the HK trigger group.
    We miss you, AC.
    We miss you, ToddG.

  3. #43
    Join Date
    Apr 2007
    Location
    SE Pennsylvania
    Posts
    83
    Feedback Score
    20 (100%)
    Quote Originally Posted by sinlessorrow View Post
    What revision was it? The newly modded ones or the older ones.
    I don't know what revision it is. I purchased the rifle from my local dealer earlier in 2012. If I were to go off of serial numbers, it's pretty low, just past the 1K mark

    Having worked on service rifles for the past 10 years got me torqued that I couldn't just fix it

    For me its an $1800 novelty and will only get recreational use out of it once it returns from the factory. Or maybe I just got a friday afternoon gun and it'll all be better when it comes back

  4. #44
    Join Date
    Dec 2009
    Location
    Utah
    Posts
    8,421
    Feedback Score
    3 (100%)
    Arctic1,

    As an experienced aviation technician, I can tell you that fewer parts to do the same job is simpler. Retrofitting a fully developed and mature machine with more parts to do the same job adds complexity. This is not an opinion, it's a scientific, quantifiable fact. Whether or not the added parts are worth the added complexity is theory until proven.

    I cannot prove with hard numbers that an op-rod system does nothing the original system cannot. However, no one has produced hard numbers that it does. The lack of evidence that the op-rod system is an improvement is evidence that it is not, that it simply does the same thing but with added parts.

    I do realize that soldiers do not lose parts every time they field strip a weapon. I don't lose parts every time I pull an aircraft apart for inspection & maintenance. If I did, I'd be fired. But it can happen and it does happen, especially with small parts (panel fasteners have a way of disappearing frequently) even after our best efforts to prevent it.

    I used the word buggered as in "something can go wrong with the part". It's not always about wear. Sometimes it's due to the guy working on the machine doing something stupid because they are inexperienced, complacent, tired, or plain hamfisted. Again, it does not happen every time, but it happens. Technicians constantly have it pounded in their heads to be careful to avoid such things because He Who Shall Not Be Named (Murphy) is always lurking.

    The "fiddling with sights" thing is something that kept popping up during forum discussions involving iron sights. My comment comparing adjustable regulators to iron sights is an observation about our ability to apply one standard to one aspect of our rifle and another standard to another aspect.

    In fact, my whole point is about that. I have read and participated in several discussions about AR op-rod systems. In nearly every discussion, the op-rod system gets severely thrashed because
    1) It's more complex
    2) Contains proprietary parts in a system critical to function
    3) Does nothing the original system does not already do

    Yet this op-rod system has immediate fans simply because it's introduced by Colt even though it has even more parts than other op-rod systems and looks to do the very same job.

    I may be overly skeptical. But if Robinson Helicopters did the same thing, say offer a retrofit kit that installed adjustable lead/lag links to the main rotor hub of the R44, I would wonder what the heck they were smoking. The current system is simpler, needs no adjusting when set up right, is easy to set up and works. Changing the hub to use adjustable lead/lag links would just add unnecessary complexity for no gain.

    Whether or not the additional parts of the Colt op-rod system is worth the added complexity remains to be seen. In either case, I remain very amused on this subject
    INSIDE PLAN OF BOX
    1. ROAD-RUNNER LIFTS GLASS OF WATER- PULLING UP MATCH
    2. MATCH SCRATCHES ON MATCH-BOX
    3. MATCH LIGHTS FUSE TO TNT
    4. BOOM!
    5. HA-HA!!

    -WILE E. COYOTE, AUTHOR OF "EVERYTHING I NEEDED TO KNOW IN LIFE, I LEARNED FROM GOLDBERG & MURPHY"

    http://i115.photobucket.com/albums/n289/SgtSongDog/AR%20Carbine/DSC_0114.jpg
    I am American

  5. #45
    Join Date
    Nov 2009
    Location
    Norway
    Posts
    1,476
    Feedback Score
    0
    @MistWolf:

    That is a bit of a stretch, isn't it, claiming that lack of evidence on this matter, equals that a piston system in an AR-15 does nothing better? Like you state yourself, no data has ever been produced. However, and yes I'm gonna use this card, your military's top hostage rescue units use a piston AR. Out of every weapon they have available, they choose that gun. That is anecdotal, at the least.

    I'm not saying that all piston designs are equal, but to reject the concept without any data to back it up isn't very open minded.

    In this case, it shouldn't be hard to quantify and produce some hard data, seeing as you can get two identical rifles, only with different operating systems.

    Since this is about piston ARs, the "golden" standard of piston ARs is the HK416. It really has no more parts than a DI AR-15, when it comes to the way the operating system works. If you are strictly counting parts that is. If you only look at the op-rod and piston, it has one more part, that being the piston itself, than the AR-15 using a gas tube. I find it to be a stretch to say that this difference suddenly makes it a more complex system. Same with the articulating link piston system introduced by Colt in the 6940P. I'm sure that design is there for a reason.

    I could always make the argument a piston system is simpler than a DI system, or equally complex as the DI system:

    -Simpler, because there is no need for a carrier key, carrier key screws, staking of carrier key screws, no gas rings or bolt tail on bolt to facilitate seal needed to start unlocking the bolt.

    -Equally complex as it consists of mostly the same parts, doing the same function, but in different places in the cycle.

    Based on my experience, and based on feedback from armorers working on both the C8 and the HK416, the HK416 is more durable. Less parts in need of replacing, less frequently. I think the piston system, among other features, contribute to that. The HK416 is also easier to maintain. This means less time spent on field maintenance, for example, and more time to eat, rest, sleep.

    Wether or not these things count as beneficial or not, will always be a matter of perspective. Also, this is not saying that a DI weapon isn't cut out for the job. It clearly is.

    The fact that small parts are easier to lose than larger ones still doesn't make it a huge issue, and like I stated earlier, the cotter pin is A LOT smaller than the parts of the piston system the 6940P. I have seen more weapons non-op due to parts breakage than to losing parts.

    And yes, people sometimes do things they should not. I think removing the human aspect of this is impossible, you cannot safguard against every thinkable occurrence. That is why we use checks and inspections, and properly supervise these in order to reduce the likelyhood of unwanted occurrences happening.

    And why should people not be allowed to be exited about this product? Colt is regarded as a known quality on this board. Should they not be allowed to hope that Colt puts out a product that works well? Surely people are allowed to change their minds on different subjects?

    One thing that has caught my eye is that many detractors of the piston AR has probably never even fired one. Many people default to the standard arguments that you have listed, and just parrot what they have read others state on the internet. People are of course allowed to be critical, but being critical on principle rather than basing criticism on either hard data or personal experience is narrow minded, in my opinion.

    I would sincerely like to see an identical head to head test of two very similar weapon systems, like the 6940 and the 6940P carbines. Everything documented, with intervals for checking certain features like wear, parts breakage, accuracy etc, and logging all malfunctions and causes. Identical lube and cleaning intervals.

    Although I have contributed to this in this thread, I think it is a shame that whenever a piston gun thread shows up, it always turns into a piston-bashing fest or piston vs. DI discussion, rather than discussing the weapon the thread is about. No need to rehash the anti-piston argument in every thread.
    Last edited by Arctic1; 02-26-13 at 13:14.
    It's not about surviving, it's about winning!

  6. #46
    Join Date
    May 2011
    Posts
    3,095
    Feedback Score
    7 (89%)
    I think a 6940 vs a 6940P would be one of the best piston vs DI comparisons as the ONLY difference is opersting system unlike some systems that use stronger materials, different costing, ect.

    While Delta and DEVGRU use the HK416, which I am sure is for a reason they also use the Eotech 551 whcih again is for a reason.

    I point this out to show that without numbers just saying oh this group uses this does not really end the discussion, we all know Eotech sucks, we all know the 551 sucks even harder, yet the 551 was used to slay OBL.(this is not me sayig the 416 sucks so dont twist my words if someone planned to).

    Once the IC finishes we can finally see how DI stands up to a piston sytem, from what I hear there is also more competiting that what Matthew Cox(lol) has said.

    If a piston ends up winning and being adopted I will gladly pick one up, but ATM the data is not there and parts are hard to find for proprietary systems and generally 3 times as much.
    Last edited by sinlessorrow; 02-26-13 at 13:26.
    Quote Originally Posted by C4IGrant View Post
    Colt builds War Horses, not show ponies.
    Quote Originally Posted by Iraqgunz View Post
    This is 2012. The world is going to end this December and people are still trying to debate the merits of piece of shit, cost cutting crap AR's. Really?

  7. #47
    Join Date
    Dec 2009
    Location
    Utah
    Posts
    8,421
    Feedback Score
    3 (100%)
    Arctic1, just to be clear-

    I don't claim the op-rod system is less durable or reliable. I like plenty of rifles that have op-rods. You make a good point about the separate gas key and staking.

    I am asking questions about the articulated op-rod because in my experience, parts that look like that in similar applications are trouble. That is a theory based on experience. I'm willing to have my skepticism proven wrong if the system proves reliable.

    In my line of work, a lack of evidence that retrofitting a more complex system has made an improvement is evidence that there is no improvement. Substituting a three piece brake rotor for a one piece brake rotor with no improvement in braking means the added cost brought no benefit.

    I have no experience with the HK416. I trust your experience and integrity and I trust your observations about the HK416. I hope you understand that. You make very good points and I respect and appreciate that. It makes me think.

    I didn't make my observations to bash the op-rod system. I have my opinion about the op-rod system which are important only to myself. It's not the excitement for a new system that amuses me- that all well and good actually. Just we (myself especially) sometimes need to step back and see if we are looking at something honestly
    Last edited by MistWolf; 02-26-13 at 13:46.
    INSIDE PLAN OF BOX
    1. ROAD-RUNNER LIFTS GLASS OF WATER- PULLING UP MATCH
    2. MATCH SCRATCHES ON MATCH-BOX
    3. MATCH LIGHTS FUSE TO TNT
    4. BOOM!
    5. HA-HA!!

    -WILE E. COYOTE, AUTHOR OF "EVERYTHING I NEEDED TO KNOW IN LIFE, I LEARNED FROM GOLDBERG & MURPHY"

    http://i115.photobucket.com/albums/n289/SgtSongDog/AR%20Carbine/DSC_0114.jpg
    I am American

  8. #48
    Join Date
    Nov 2007
    Location
    New Mexico
    Posts
    3,204
    Feedback Score
    1 (100%)
    Well, guys, I'm happy to say that I got the chance to fire the rifle this morning. Range time was limited and I didn't get to do all I wanted but I should have a good enough zero going that the rifle won't take too much tweaking when I finally do get it on paper.

    Range work consisted of firing for "zero" on a 10” steel plate at 50 and 100 yards and then firing a few distance transition drills on these targets. After this, I stuck the upper on a select-fire lower and finished off the remainder of the first magazine by running a few 2- and 3-rd bursts. I finished off the morning with a 30rd full-auto mag dump.

    Overall, the gun feels smooth and really doesn't feel any different than a Colt 6920. No surprise there. On full-auto, the gun seems gassed appropriately and the cyclic felt and sounded about like it does with a DI gun.

    Total round count so far is only sixty rounds. Ammo used was Wolf 62gr FMJ.

    More to come....

  9. #49
    Join Date
    Nov 2007
    Location
    New Mexico
    Posts
    3,204
    Feedback Score
    1 (100%)
    Here are some photos I stole off gunbroker showing the older piston rod and bolt carrier. Note the two piece bolt carrier.






  10. #50
    Join Date
    Nov 2007
    Location
    New Mexico
    Posts
    3,204
    Feedback Score
    1 (100%)
    As requested. Pics of the new bolt carrier strike face. The impact surface is flat unlike some other designs that use a concave impact point.



Page 5 of 7 FirstFirst ... 34567 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
  •