Fast moving thread....
|
||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Fast moving thread....
That's not an AK system either.
In a piston/cylinder system either the piston can move and the cylinder can move (or both, but let's ignore that for the minute). That means if you take the cylinder and put it where the piston is and vice versa, the system still works.
Look at a Ljungman or a MAS, would it look more like a piston system if the hole in the bolt carrier where a post and the tube sticking out from under the handguard a deep hole?
I don't think we would be having this discussion if that were the case.
Certainly, the gas tube is cylindrical and therefor a cylinder. But the AR gas tube is not used as a cylinder-for-piston type of cylinder. It is a cylinder that is being used as tubing type of cylinder. Common dictionary definitions often do not fit the technical or legal definition of a word. While the gas tube is cylindrical, it's not used as a "cylinder". It's used as a tube.
As far as your example of the Warfighter slamming his rifle down saying the piston is broke, that's a strawman argument. What [i]really happens is the Internet Commando demands that his "DI" AR be "upgraded" to a "piston upper" because of the design deficiencies of the DI system when A) since the typical AR is NOT a DI system, the deficiencies as stated do not exist and B) the deficiencies of the typical AR does have are overblown C) the typical AR already has the strengths of a "piston" upper because it already has a piston and D) has certain advantages because the piston is in the carrier instead of being directly impinged on by the gases coming straight into the gas block. However, none of this can be explained to said Internet Commando because he has bought into the whole "AR is DI, not piston, therefor it SUCKS" thing
INSIDE PLAN OF BOX
- ROAD-RUNNER LIFTS GLASS OF WATER- PULLING UP MATCH
- MATCH SCRATCHES ON MATCH-BOX
- MATCH LIGHTS FUSE TO TNT
- BOOM!
- HA-HA!!
-WILE E. COYOTE, AUTHOR OF "EVERYTHING I NEEDED TO KNOW IN LIFE, I LEARNED FROM GOLDBERG & MURPHY"
I am American
So you took elements from two systems, flipped them around to support your argument, and came up with a really bad design for a gas system? Got it.
INSIDE PLAN OF BOX
- ROAD-RUNNER LIFTS GLASS OF WATER- PULLING UP MATCH
- MATCH SCRATCHES ON MATCH-BOX
- MATCH LIGHTS FUSE TO TNT
- BOOM!
- HA-HA!!
-WILE E. COYOTE, AUTHOR OF "EVERYTHING I NEEDED TO KNOW IN LIFE, I LEARNED FROM GOLDBERG & MURPHY"
I am American
Yes, because the only thing holding a boltless carrier in place is pressure and mass from the spring and buffer (OMG ANOTHER PISTON!), and some friction, which would be overcome by the gases forcing the carrier rearward. It probably wouldn't cycle all the way rearward, but I have no way to test that. And the bolt is part of the system that creates the firing cycle, so it's really not important if the bolt adds some pressure to the cycling area. Any moving bolt adds friction, which will affect the cycling of the system, regardless of op rod or not.
Bookmarks