Page 8 of 17 FirstFirst ... 678910 ... LastLast
Results 71 to 80 of 170

Thread: Stoner AR Operating System Technical Detail

  1. #71
    Join Date
    Jun 2011
    Posts
    76
    Feedback Score
    2 (100%)
    Quote Originally Posted by lysander View Post
    I will define it for you.

    Direct impingement is when a gas flow alone, without the aid of being confined to maintain pressure is used to move an object.

    If you blow on a fan and it turns, that is direct impingement.

    Like I stated above the MAS and the Ljungman are actually piston systems, in the case of the MAS, the piston is almost as long as an AR-180's piston.

    It is just that they, like Stoner's design, have a long gas tube between the gas port in the barrel and the actual piston.
    So you are saying direct impingement rifles don't exist?

  2. #72
    Join Date
    Jun 2011
    Posts
    76
    Feedback Score
    2 (100%)
    Quote Originally Posted by JC5188 View Post
    I've been watching this back and forth, and my comment is purely theoretical and not practical....but my main thought would be that if it were solely the carrier being impinged by the gas, it would cause the carrier to cycle even if the bolt is removed. I don't think that would be the case, would it? Conversely, on an op rod gun, the carrier WOULD move with the bolt removed?

    Not a scientist or an SME, so I'm truly curious if this is correct?


    Sent from my iPhone
    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.

  3. #73
    Join Date
    Mar 2015
    Posts
    1,022
    Feedback Score
    0
    Quote Originally Posted by azoutdoorsman View Post
    So you are saying direct impingement rifles don't exist?
    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.

  4. #74
    Join Date
    Apr 2015
    Location
    Oklahoma
    Posts
    569
    Feedback Score
    0
    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.

  5. #75
    Join Date
    Mar 2012
    Posts
    50
    Feedback Score
    0
    Never mind, this is a lost cause.
    Last edited by thx997303; 10-22-15 at 15:38.

  6. #76
    Join Date
    Apr 2015
    Location
    Oklahoma
    Posts
    569
    Feedback Score
    0
    Quote Originally Posted by thx997303 View Post
    Why would we identify parts on that? There's not even enough information to tell what is going on.
    Seriously? We're going to play that game?

  7. #77
    Join Date
    Mar 2015
    Posts
    1,022
    Feedback Score
    0
    What picture?

  8. #78
    Join Date
    Jun 2011
    Posts
    76
    Feedback Score
    2 (100%)
    Quote Originally Posted by lysander View Post
    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?.
    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:
    Attached Images Attached Images

  9. #79
    Join Date
    Jun 2011
    Posts
    76
    Feedback Score
    2 (100%)
    Quote Originally Posted by azoutdoorsman View Post
    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:
    Is it really a MK18? Depends on who you ask. But DD produces it, and that is the model name they chose to give it. Same with DI systems.

    ETA Quoted myself like a tard, when I meant to edit. Oh well.

  10. #80
    Join Date
    Apr 2015
    Posts
    2,287
    Feedback Score
    0
    Quote Originally Posted by azoutdoorsman View Post
    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.
    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

Page 8 of 17 FirstFirst ... 678910 ... 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
  •