It probably gets a pass because it's a Colt.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.
You stated that parts could get boogered, I read that as failing or breaking.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
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 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.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
And I guess I'm not privvy to the discussion about soldiers fiddling with sights, so I don't understand your example.
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 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
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?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
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.


Reply With Quote




Bookmarks