Page 5 of 17 FirstFirst ... 3456715 ... LastLast
Results 41 to 50 of 170

Thread: Stoner AR Operating System Technical Detail

  1. #41
    Join Date
    Apr 2015
    Location
    Oklahoma
    Posts
    569
    Feedback Score
    0
    Quote Originally Posted by LRRPF52 View Post
    The Stoner patent for the AR10 and AR15 gas system specifically contrasts it with older direct impingement systems, where the gas directly acts on the cup attached to the carrier.

    The AR10 and AR15 gs system is absolutely NOT direct impingement. This has been a misnomer among amateur gun enthusiasts and even experts for many years. The AR15 gas system is an in-line, internal expansion system, as described in the Stoner patents.

    The piston is located on the rear of the bolt, complete with gas rings. The carrier is a floating cylinder for the piston if you're trying to relate it to a car engine, even though there are stark differences in the work done by internal combustion engines and gas operated firearms.

    Go read the Stoner patent, and you will then understand that the AR15 is NOT a Direct Impingement system, and the patent specifically says that.



    From the patent linked several posts above.
    We've been over that already, many times. First of all, Armalite was trying to get patents. You do that by demonstrating that your design is fundamentally different than anything else out there. They also had to use terminology that would be easily decipherable to the patent office staff. Hence we get terms like stationary piston. Secondly, Armalite and Stoner aren't the final authority. They don't get to decide what the definition of DI is, or what it's scope is. They can put anything in the patent application they want, but that doesn't mean we have to start using different terminology. Everyone is reading way too much into this. All the terminology used in the patent application was meant to demonstrate that the AR was unique, which it is, but it still falls well within the scope of direct impingement. Anything that pipes gas directly to the carrier is DI. What happens to the gas after it gets to the carrier is another matter entirely. So first and foremost the AR is a DI rifle.

    I've said from the beginning that the AR is a unique type of DI. But calling it a piston gun is wrong on so many levels. If we're going to start torturing the semantics, then they will lose all meaning. Like I've said a dozen times already, every gas operated gun has something that can be called a piston, including the supposed holy grail of DI, the Ljungman. So if we say that the AR has a piston, then even more so must we say that the gas key portion of the Ljungman's carrier is a piston. Unless you want to say that the gas tube is a stationary piston, of course.

  2. #42
    Join Date
    Dec 2012
    Location
    Rocky Mountains
    Posts
    378
    Feedback Score
    0
    There are three different types of operating systems being discussed here:

    1. Op-rod driven guns (which can be broken down into floating interrupted, or direct attach pistons)

    2. Direct Impingement guns, like the MAS-49 and Ljungman Ag m/42

    3. Internal Expansion Stoner System


    This is why I don't refer to the op rod driven guns as piston guns, even though they all have pistons. Simply ID'ing them as piston operated isn't detailed enough to understand the method of operation.

    All of them are gas operated.

    All of them have gas directly acting on some mechanical part to cause inertia on the bolt carrier. If you get loose with the terminology, what you are talking about becomes less precise, and more vague.

    The primary difference between a true Direct Impingement gun and the Stoner Internal Expansion system is that gas acts on a disconnected cup on top of the bolt carrier with the MAS and Ljungman.

    With the Stoner, it flows down into a chamber formed by the stationary piston, gas rings, and bolt carrier bore and bolt tail aperture. I made a drawing to illustrate this, since it is probably the most overlooked aspect of how the Stoner system really works.



    The difference is in how the gas acts on the operating parts. In the Ljungman, it directly impinges on the internal surfaces of the cup, forcing the carrier rearward. The problem with the MAS and Ljunman are that gas and debris can only vent out of the front, and onto the bolt face, right in the action. Stoner routed the gas through the carrier, originally on the side of the early tool room AR10's, with vent holes on the ejection port side, so once the carrier had moved enough rearwards, it allowed timed venting past the gas rings.

    In the Stoner system, it expands and is trapped in all directions, which is why Stoner described it as such in the patent:

    This invention is a true expanding gas system instead of the conventional impinging gas system.
    If you want to use the word "direct" for the Stoner system, then it would be appropriate to call it a Direct Internal Expansion system, not Direct Impingement. You would also call the AK a Direct Gas Piston system.
    Last edited by LRRPF52; 10-22-15 at 12:03.

  3. #43
    Join Date
    Apr 2015
    Location
    Oklahoma
    Posts
    569
    Feedback Score
    0
    Quote Originally Posted by LRRPF52 View Post
    There are three different types of operating systems being discussed here:

    1. Op-rod driven guns

    2. Direct Impingement guns, like the MAS-49 and Ljungman Ag m/42

    3. Internal Expansion Stoner System


    This is why I don't refer to the op rod driven guns as piston guns, even though they all have pistons. Simply ID'ing them as piston operated isn't detailed enough to understand the method of operation.

    All of them are gas operated.

    All of them have gas directly acting on some mechanical part to cause inertia on the bolt carrier. If you get loose with the terminology, what you are talking about becomes less precise, and more vague.

    The primary difference between a true Direct Impingement gun and the Stoner Internal Expansion system is that gas acts on a disconnected cup on top of the bolt carrier with the MAS and Ljungman.

    With the Stoner, it flows down into a chamber formed by the stationary piston, gas rings, and bolt carrier bore and bolt tail aperture. I made a drawing to illustrate this, since it is probably the most overlooked aspect of how the Stoner system really works.



    The difference is in how the gas acts on the operating parts. In the Ljungman, it directly impinges on the internal surfaces of the cup, forcing the carrier rearward.

    In the Stoner system, it expands and is trapped in all directions, which is why Stoner described it as such in the patent:
    I'm not trying to be snarky, but you really need to read the thread. Everyone is well aware how the AR works, as we've been discussing the fine details ad nauseam. We're way past this point. Nice job on the drawing though.

    Look, the bottom line is that the gas is routed directly to the carrier. That's the definition of DI. It's not possible to get away from that definition. So the AR is a special kind of DI, but it's still DI.

  4. #44
    Join Date
    Jan 2012
    Location
    Ohio - GO BUCKS!
    Posts
    593
    Feedback Score
    5 (100%)
    It goes "bang!", and that makes me happy. I'm gonna go shooting this afternoon, and so should everybody else.

    God bless Eugene Stoner and his friends.

  5. #45
    Join Date
    Dec 2012
    Location
    Rocky Mountains
    Posts
    378
    Feedback Score
    0
    Back to the OP regarding cam pins.

    Funny thing about roller cams is that the ArmaLite/Colt AR10A has one on its BCG. They started to tool up for mass production of the AR10A in 1959, but ceased once they received feedback from their international sales broker that everyone wanted AR15's, mostly foreign armies in Southeast Asia. This was well before US Involvement in Vietnam, by the way.


  6. #46
    Join Date
    Sep 2015
    Posts
    374
    Feedback Score
    2 (100%)
    Quote Originally Posted by HansTheHobbit View Post
    First of all, Armalite was trying to get patents. You do that by demonstrating that your design is fundamentally different than anything else out there. They also had to use terminology that would be easily decipherable to the patent office staff. Hence we get terms like stationary piston.
    My God you have NO IDEA at all, do you? You spout things as gospel but do not know of what you speak. You are so full of s#%t that you should quit being a shooter and take up golf ... and then you can argue over whether or not you're truly holding a club or a shaft whilst golfing.

    For the record, I forwarded your 'patent and patent review' comments to my older brother who cut his teeth as a researcher in the US Patent Office. He is now one of the top 100 intellectual property rights lawyers in the world - as rated by the international profession ... he says you are SO WRONG THAT IT ISN'T WORTHY OF COMMENT. Sure, there are some inventors - or wannabees - who intentionally try to 'game' the system, but to cast dispersions on the entire patent process and reviewers is redonkulous!

    But you gave him a good laugh! So give it up ... will ya'? Go beat another dead horse somewhere and enjoy your golf game ...
    Last edited by Lefty223; 10-22-15 at 12:11.

  7. #47
    Join Date
    Dec 2012
    Location
    Rocky Mountains
    Posts
    378
    Feedback Score
    0
    The really important step that the Ljungman gave us was that it got rid of a failure-prone op-rod or piston. It was a major leap in self-loading firearms technology, getting away from the op rod breakage and bending seen on the 1920's designs, which plagued the SVT-38/40, and the Garand. Army Ordnance didn't learn much from those lessons, and coughed up the T44/M14 abortion, while forward thinking minds looked elsewhere. It should be no surprise that the AR15 beat the hand-selected M14's in the Fort Benning trials in both accuracy and reliability.

    You can really call the Ljungman Direct Impingement system pistonless.

    The Stoner system re-introduced the piston by blending it with the bolt tail and making it stationary when locked. This is the critical distinction between the two, which is why it uses internal gas expansion to operate the system. It wasn't a way to game the patent system over the Ljungman, but an unexpected evolutionary and significant improvement over Direct Impingement, by reintroducing the piston in a way that solved the problems with earlier piston guns, while capitalizing on the advances of the Ljungamn's elimination of the op-rod.
    Last edited by LRRPF52; 10-22-15 at 12:22.

  8. #48
    Join Date
    Apr 2015
    Location
    Oklahoma
    Posts
    569
    Feedback Score
    0
    Quote Originally Posted by Lefty223 View Post
    My God you have NO IDEA at all, do you? You spout things as gospel but do not know of what you speak. You are so full of s#%t that you should quit being a shooter and take up golf ... and then you can argue over whether or not you're truly holding a club or a shaft whilst golfing.

    For the record, I forwarded your 'patent and patent review' comments to my older brother who cut his teeth as a researcher in the US Patent Office. He is now one of the top 100 intellectual property rights lawyers in the world - as rated by the international profession ... he says you are SO WRONG THAT IT ISN'T WORTHY OF COMMENT. Sure, there are some inventors - or wannabees - who intentionally try to 'game' the system, but to cast dispersions on the entire patent process and reviewers is redonkulous!

    But you gave him a good laugh! So give it up ... will ya'? Go beat another dead horse somewhere and enjoy your golf game ...
    Take a chill pill. I wasn't accusing anyone of anything, so drop the whole self righteous attitude. I was simply saying that Stoner had to explain to the patent office why his design was different, and thus deserving of a patent, which it does. I wasn't suggesting that he was trying to trick anyone. Furthermore, I really don't give a crap what your brother thinks. We're talking about guns here, not the legalities of patents.

  9. #49
    Join Date
    Jun 2011
    Posts
    76
    Feedback Score
    2 (100%)
    Quote Originally Posted by LRRPF52 View Post
    There are three different types of operating systems being discussed here:

    1. Op-rod driven guns (which can be broken down into floating interrupted, or direct attach pistons)

    2. Direct Impingement guns, like the MAS-49 and Ljungman Ag m/42

    3. Internal Expansion Stoner System


    This is why I don't refer to the op rod driven guns as piston guns, even though they all have pistons. Simply ID'ing them as piston operated isn't detailed enough to understand the method of operation.

    All of them are gas operated.

    All of them have gas directly acting on some mechanical part to cause inertia on the bolt carrier. If you get loose with the terminology, what you are talking about becomes less precise, and more vague.

    The primary difference between a true Direct Impingement gun and the Stoner Internal Expansion system is that gas acts on a disconnected cup on top of the bolt carrier with the MAS and Ljungman.

    With the Stoner, it flows down into a chamber formed by the stationary piston, gas rings, and bolt carrier bore and bolt tail aperture. I made a drawing to illustrate this, since it is probably the most overlooked aspect of how the Stoner system really works.



    The difference is in how the gas acts on the operating parts. In the Ljungman, it directly impinges on the internal surfaces of the cup, forcing the carrier rearward. The problem with the MAS and Ljunman are that gas and debris can only vent out of the front, and onto the bolt face, right in the action. Stoner routed the gas through the carrier, originally on the side of the early tool room AR10's, with vent holes on the ejection port side, so once the carrier had moved enough rearwards, it allowed timed venting past the gas rings.

    In the Stoner system, it expands and is trapped in all directions, which is why Stoner described it as such in the patent:



    If you want to use the word "direct" for the Stoner system, then it would be appropriate to call it a Direct Internal Expansion system, not Direct Impingement. You would also call the AK a Direct Gas Piston system.
    So according to Stoner's patent, it's an unconventional impinging gas system. The patent does not say it is not impinging, it says it is not a conventional impinging gas system. If we are going to dissect the patent you are quoting, that's how it is.

    Also, every gas system under pressure expands. That's how it imparts force. Stating a system is a "true expanding gas system" is also redundant, since all gases under pressure will expand to the ambient pressure of the environment if they are allowed to dissipate from the vessel which is pressurized. Just like the AK gases expand after the piston begins to move rearward, which serves to self-regulate the amount of force imparted upon the action of the rifle.

    And no one calls the AK a "direct gas piston system" because that's redundant and unnecessary. Piston driven is enough to adequately describe how it functions. The term "gas operated" which encompasses both piston and DI systems already covers the gas part.

    Direct Impingement doesn't exclude the system from venting the gases inside the carrier, and the two ideas are not incompatible. I think we all know what the word direct means, but let's look at impingement:

    "impinge
    /ɪmˈpɪndʒ/
    verb
    1.
    (intransitive; usually foll by on or upon) to encroach or infringe; trespass: to impinge on someone's time
    2.
    (intransitive; usually foll by on, against, or upon) to collide (with); strike
    Derived Forms
    impingement, noun
    impinger, noun
    Word Origin
    C16: from Latin impingere to drive at, dash against, from pangere to fasten, drive in"

    To collide (with); strike.
    That is how the gases interact with the bolt/carrier assembly. The gases collide and strike the BCG. There is no mention of how the gases dissipate or expand after the direct collision with the BCG that exclude the system from the definition of direct impingement.

  10. #50
    Join Date
    Jun 2011
    Posts
    76
    Feedback Score
    2 (100%)
    Quote Originally Posted by Lefty223 View Post
    My God you have NO IDEA at all, do you? You spout things as gospel but do not know of what you speak. You are so full of s#%t that you should quit being a shooter and take up golf ... and then you can argue over whether or not you're truly holding a club or a shaft whilst golfing.

    For the record, I forwarded your 'patent and patent review' comments to my older brother who cut his teeth as a researcher in the US Patent Office. He is now one of the top 100 intellectual property rights lawyers in the world - as rated by the international profession ... he says you are SO WRONG THAT IT ISN'T WORTHY OF COMMENT. Sure, there are some inventors - or wannabees - who intentionally try to 'game' the system, but to cast dispersions on the entire patent process and reviewers is redonkulous!

    But you gave him a good laugh! So give it up ... will ya'? Go beat another dead horse somewhere and enjoy your golf game ...
    Oh yeah, well MY BROTHER is in the top 10!

Page 5 of 17 FirstFirst ... 3456715 ... 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
  •