|
||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Neither could fire a cartridge to create the gas pressure that operates the system, since the bolts also contain the firing pin, which detonates the cartridge. If you blew the same pressure and amount of gas through an AR gas tube without a bolt in the carrier, the carrier would move since it is not locked into place by the bolt rotated against the lugs of the barrel extension.
However, cycling without a bolt is not a criterion for any gas operated rifle system. If you start deleting parts to define a system, it is no longer the original system.
To my knowledge, yes.
The problem is that for so long, (maybe since the original patent drawings) the Ljungman and the MAS have been erroneously called "Direct Impingement" systems, they aren't.
Look at the thing poking out from under the handguard, on the MAS-49, it looks just like the piston of an Adams Arms piston kit.
If the gas flow is confined so the pressure is maintained or controlled, it is a piston and cylinder....
Another true 'direct impingement' design is a sail boat, any guns out there with a sail?.
Last edited by lysander; 10-22-15 at 15:02.
di piston.jpg
Someone, anyone, please identify the piston in this drawing. I'm going somewhere with this, so please just humor me for a moment.
Last edited by HansTheHobbit; 10-22-15 at 15:14.
Never mind, this is a lost cause.
Last edited by thx997303; 10-22-15 at 15:38.
What picture?
Perhaps if you only use the term in the most literal sense, not it's intended usage. However, the words are now used together for a specific type of gas system rifle. I've never seen the term direct impingement outside of the context of firearms. Can you point to other sources that do?
The point is that any moving cylinder can be called a piston. But just because a rifle has a part that can be called a piston doesn't mean it's a piston operated rifle, in the ubiquitous usage of the terms.
It's like Daniel Defense's MK18. People want to argue that it's not a MK18, because only Crane produced whole weapons named designated as a MK18. But guess what? Daniel Defense calls it a MK18, and engraves MK18 on the side of the receiver. So it's a ****ing MK18. Anyone who sees a Daniel Defense MK18 and says it's really a CQBR is also mistaken because a true CQBR is only an upper receiver issued for the M4/A1 lower receiver. But ask ten people what this is, most will say it's a MK18:
![]()
Fair enough, and I understand about the gas required by the fired cartridge. My point, and what I was trying to figure out for sure, is whether it matters if the bolt being removed would affect (again, theoretically) the action being cycled, and if so, that would at the very least say that the bolt acts as a piston. Given that it's presence is required for the work to be performed via the gas impingement. If you're telling me that it would cycle regardless, then the point is moot.
Sent from my iPhone
Bookmarks