The Firing Line Forums

Go Back   The Firing Line Forums > The Hide > The Art of the Rifle: General

Reply
 
Thread Tools Search this Thread
Old May 13, 2011, 09:00 PM   #1
SPUSCG
Senior Member
 
Join Date: January 25, 2008
Posts: 3,004
Other direct impingment rifles?

So is the ar-15 it? Just wondering, i see all the di vs piston debates and the ar 15 stands out as the only di? What else is there?
__________________
Check us out: www.imfdb.org. Fun site for people who love gun movies.
SPUSCG is offline  
Old May 13, 2011, 09:14 PM   #2
Willie D
Senior Member
 
Join Date: June 24, 2007
Posts: 1,149
There were others (MAS-44, Daewoo k1, uh...help me out) but we'll probably never see a new design based on DI. It's just an unnecessary liability without any real advantages.
Willie D is offline  
Old May 13, 2011, 09:38 PM   #3
bigghoss
Senior Member
 
Join Date: September 15, 2006
Location: Pueblo, Colorado
Posts: 2,664
the m16 family is the most prolific but it wasn't the first. just might be the last though.

the concept is over 100 years old according to this and the first successful use of it was in 1940
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Direct_impingement
__________________
I don't collect guns, I accumulate them.
bigghoss is offline  
Old May 13, 2011, 09:38 PM   #4
Scorch
Senior Member
 
Join Date: February 13, 2006
Location: Washington state
Posts: 15,248
Other DI rifles? A few, Daewoo, Armalite AR180, AR10. But why bother developing one when you can buy the best directly from the US Government?

Quote:
It's just an unnecessary liability without any real advantages.
Yeah, that's why it hasn't been very successful. Or copied.

Liability? What liability?

Advantages? Lots. Fewer moving parts than gas piston designs, lighter, less material required for manufacturing, better accuracy due to lower vibration and fewer moving parts, ease of maintenance and repairs, higher cyclic rate of fire.

Heck, even the guys at the Pentagon can't find any advantages to gas piston systems, the advantage is all on the Internet.

Not that I'm a fan of DI, but until you can show me something better . . .
__________________
Never try to educate someone who resists knowledge at all costs.
But what do I know?
Summit Arms Services
Scorch is offline  
Old May 13, 2011, 09:49 PM   #5
Crosshair
Senior Member
 
Join Date: December 16, 2004
Location: Grand Forks, ND
Posts: 5,333
The Ljungman/Hakim Rifle was a very good DI rifle. Instead of venting into a largely enclosed action/bolt carrier the Ljungman effectively vents to the atmosphere after impinging on a small cavity in the bolt carrier. Unlike an AR the carbon buildup wipes right off easily as the gas vented expands and cools quite quickly.

I honestly like my Hakim more than my Garand.
__________________
I don't carry a gun to go looking for trouble, I carry a gun in case trouble finds me.
Crosshair is offline  
Old May 13, 2011, 09:58 PM   #6
Pinky Carruthers
Senior Member
 
Join Date: December 2, 2004
Location: Rocky Mountains
Posts: 649
Quote:
Other DI rifles? A few, Daewoo, Armalite AR180, AR10.
The AR 18 was designed after Armalite sold the patent rights to the Ar 15 to Colt, and was designed to not infringe on the Ar 15 patent. The AR 18 uses a short stroke piston and has been heavily copied (HK G36, Bushmaster ACR etc).

For DI there is the Ljungmann(original), French Mas 36 (I think thats the model number) and the Egyptian Hakim.
__________________
"Love lost, fire at will
Dum Dum bullets and shoot to kill
I hear dive bombers, and Empire down."
SOM
Pinky Carruthers is offline  
Old May 13, 2011, 11:54 PM   #7
kozak6
Senior Member
 
Join Date: June 16, 2005
Location: AZ
Posts: 3,113
The MAS-36 is a bolt action rifle .
The AR-18 is NOT DI.
The Daewoo K2 is NOT DI.


The AR-10 is DI.
The Ljungman/Hakim are DI.
The MAS-49 and 49/51 are DI.
The Rasheed is DI.
The Daewoo K1 is DI.


Am I the only one here who has google? Sheesh.

Quote:
Heck, even the guys at the Pentagon can't find any advantages to gas piston systems, the advantage is all on the Internet.
Really? Then what about M249, M14, and M27 IAR?

Last edited by kozak6; May 14, 2011 at 03:13 AM.
kozak6 is offline  
Old May 14, 2011, 12:08 AM   #8
Crosshair
Senior Member
 
Join Date: December 16, 2004
Location: Grand Forks, ND
Posts: 5,333
Quote:
Really? Then what about M249, M14, and M27 IAR?
and why are all newer designs around the world not using DI? Several actually seem to be borrowing the AR-18 action.

It seems to me that all the "good" DI guns are tilting bolt designs.
__________________
I don't carry a gun to go looking for trouble, I carry a gun in case trouble finds me.
Crosshair is offline  
Old May 14, 2011, 02:41 AM   #9
Evil Monkey
Senior Member
 
Join Date: November 2, 2005
Posts: 812
lol internet people still are complaining about DI vs piston.



One the subject of DI, the only TRUE DI rifles that I know of is the M16 family and the Daewoo K1. Both of these designs use the rear of the bolt body as a piston. The other rifles mentioned do not use the bolt body as a piston and therefore cannot be considered true DI rifles.

The other rifles like the mas49 and egyption rashid use a female carrier that connects to a male gas tube extension. The male extension acts as a stationary piston. lol
Evil Monkey is offline  
Old May 14, 2011, 08:54 AM   #10
Jim243
Senior Member
 
Join Date: January 5, 2009
Location: Just off Route 66
Posts: 5,067
Quote:
Not that I'm a fan of DI, but until you can show me something better . . .

Scorch, I know you are, and I am a fan of DI, it allows me to afford to purchase a military style rifle. All of the piston designs are beyound what I can afford. I know I could do a conversion kit, but why should I. The DI system works, does what I need and everyone should clean their rifle DI or not, semi or bolt.

What get's me is the argument on is my hammer better than your hammer, who cares?

Jim
__________________
Si vis pacem, para bellum
Jim243 is offline  
Old May 14, 2011, 09:46 AM   #11
chris in va
Senior Member
 
Join Date: December 26, 2004
Location: Louisville KY
Posts: 13,805
They're certainly lighter, that's for sure. I compared $800 DI's with piston designs and guess which one was two pounds more?
chris in va is offline  
Old May 14, 2011, 11:45 AM   #12
Crosshair
Senior Member
 
Join Date: December 16, 2004
Location: Grand Forks, ND
Posts: 5,333
Quote:
One the subject of DI, the only TRUE DI rifles that I know of is the M16 family and the Daewoo K1. Both of these designs use the rear of the bolt body as a piston. The other rifles mentioned do not use the bolt body as a piston and therefore cannot be considered true DI rifles.

The other rifles like the mas49 and egyption rashid use a female carrier that connects to a male gas tube extension. The male extension acts as a stationary piston.
Ummmm, OK, you say to the effect that the Ljungman type DI system really isn't DI because it uses the carrier as a moving cylinder and the AR series is DI because it uses the carrier as a moving cylinder.

You then try to differentiate this by word-smiting about the "piston" being the rear of the bolt, AR, vs the gas tube itself, Ljungman, trying to conclue that these are both vastly different methods of operation. This is like arguing that a 1972 VW Beetle and a 1983 Ford Ranger aren't both rear wheel drive vehicles because one has the engine in the front and one in the rear.
__________________
I don't carry a gun to go looking for trouble, I carry a gun in case trouble finds me.
Crosshair is offline  
Old May 14, 2011, 02:38 PM   #13
Rob3
Registration in progress
 
Join Date: January 2, 2011
Posts: 218
Rob3 is offline  
Old May 14, 2011, 04:39 PM   #14
Pinky Carruthers
Senior Member
 
Join Date: December 2, 2004
Location: Rocky Mountains
Posts: 649
Quote:
The MAS-36 is a bolt action rifle
My bad, it was the MAS 49 I was thinking of. Thanks Kozak.
__________________
"Love lost, fire at will
Dum Dum bullets and shoot to kill
I hear dive bombers, and Empire down."
SOM
Pinky Carruthers is offline  
Old May 15, 2011, 12:53 AM   #15
tINY
Senior Member
 
Join Date: April 26, 2005
Location: Orygun
Posts: 2,589


Before the lock...

The DI is a great design for some uses. However, there are no new military designs using the concept - and there is probably good reason for it.

But, I can't buy a new machine gun, so the DI is fine for me. I also have plenty of time and a good place to clean my rifles.



-tINY

tINY is offline  
Old May 15, 2011, 01:17 AM   #16
44 AMP
Staff
 
Join Date: March 11, 2006
Location: Upper US
Posts: 28,673
Not a huge fan of the M16/AR15 rifles....

And DI is a decent system, when done right, there's nothing wrong with it. Same goes for gas piston systems, too, IMHO.

However, there are many different designs, some do things better than others, for certain applications.

I never cared much for the specifics of the AR system, where the gas is vented inside a (mostly) closed receiver, and baked on. AR rifles are a huge PITA to clean. But they do work.

What makes a DI or piston gun interesting to the military is more than just the class of operation, it is how it is executed, and how much it costs. And the military procurement people (when not overrulled by politics) are seldom about the absolute best, more about "good enough" and "within budget."
__________________
All else being equal (and it almost never is) bigger bullets tend to work better.
44 AMP is online now  
Old May 15, 2011, 02:34 AM   #17
HKFan9
Senior Member
 
Join Date: May 3, 2008
Posts: 3,057
Amen to 44 AMP

I like my DI system. Until Gas piston cost about the same I probably wont waste my time with one.

This is what finally convinced me to order my BCM upper.

http://www.bravocompanymfg.com/v/vsp...hy14_oct10.pdf

I think I saw a report that its over 40,000 rounds now.
HKFan9 is offline  
Old May 15, 2011, 06:53 AM   #18
SPUSCG
Senior Member
 
Join Date: January 25, 2008
Posts: 3,004
Gonna ad I dont want a psiton/DI debate since i want thread to stay open, just wondering what other rifles there is since it seems like its always a ar15 representing di and every other gun in the worlds a piston.
__________________
Check us out: www.imfdb.org. Fun site for people who love gun movies.
SPUSCG is offline  
Old May 15, 2011, 08:41 AM   #19
Bartholomew Roberts
member
 
Join Date: June 12, 2000
Location: Texas and Oklahoma area
Posts: 8,462
I keep seeing the "there are no new designs using DI" argument; but actually there are several new designs using DI submitted for recent military rifle competitions. A new version of the M16 was submitted for the IAR competition. LMT submitted the MRP for the Ministry of Defence .308 rifle. And there are something like 6 new DI versions submitted in the M4 replacement trials.

Do all of those "new" DI designs look like a slightly tweaked M16 design? Yes they do; but then again look at all the successful piston entries of late: HK416 for the IAR, LWRC M6 in the M4 replacement trials, even SCAR and Robinson XCR look very AR15-like in their ergonomics and design. The M16 has a great design in its ergonomics and barrel extension. New rifles tend to copy what works whether they are DI or piston.

Everybody here considers the HK416 a new design; but apparently some do not consider the Knights SR16E3 a new design even though it modified the DI gas system of the M16 and uses both a new bolt and barrel extension.

There are lots of new DI designs out there.
Bartholomew Roberts is offline  
Old May 15, 2011, 09:05 AM   #20
tirod
Junior member
 
Join Date: January 21, 2009
Posts: 1,672
It might be asked the other way around - why are there so many different piston gun designs, can't they get it right? After all, 9 million AR's seem to be pretty much good to go without needing a lot of tweaking and changing around.

The AR15/M16 stands out because the American public doesn't know much about firearms, it's history, or even bothers to look at what other countries use. And lots of former piston gun armies have switched to the M16 variants because Colt and others enjoy a 45 year head start on price competition.

DI is just ONE feature of the AR design - and a lot of other companies have slavishly copied other parts, right down to the straight mag well. The AR mag design isn't the best one out there, either. It's just market dominance that keeps it alive.

The ergonomic control layout, two pin takedown, easy bolt removal, stock options, flattop upper, and choice of intermediate caliber have been heavily copied. Most new designs use the barrel extension, too, that is specifically the reason for the light weight. It also allows the use of a polymer lower, and extruded aluminum railed upper in newer designs. The heavy machined receiver with bolt lug lockup and screwed in barrel is basically dead for the future in small arms design. No point to it, a curio and relic.

Of course, the biggest misunderstanding of DI vs. Piston is thinking DI doesn't have one. Look closer, it's in the bolt carrier right there, and actually functions in reverse - the bolt carrier is the cylinder and gets propelled directly back, not thru extra parts. The piston head is the bolt tail itself, with gas rings to prove it.

Just another piston gun, and doesn't really get any more residue than a piston on the barrel. It's just public misconception and ignorance that cloud the view. Understandable, the public aren't firearms designers, just users, like car owners or keyboards punchers posting in threads. No clue.

They specifically are not trained in technical matters, have degrees in mechanical engineering, or even understand how to install a doorknob at home. They don't even fix their own flats - literally remove the tire from the rim, patch, and reassemble. Again, no clue.

Helpless zombies ....
tirod is offline  
Old May 15, 2011, 10:57 AM   #21
Crosshair
Senior Member
 
Join Date: December 16, 2004
Location: Grand Forks, ND
Posts: 5,333
Quote:
DI is just ONE feature of the AR design - and a lot of other companies have slavishly copied other parts, right down to the straight mag well. The AR mag design isn't the best one out there, either. It's just market dominance that keeps it alive.
Exactly. The most infuriating thing about new designs is the continued use of the AR magazine well. The one part that most everyone agrees is a bad design. It is a prime example of being penny wise and pound foolish.

Originally envisioned to be disposable like the stripper clip it turns out that military and civilians reuse magazines and does not accept them to be disposable, thus need to be durable. Mikhail Kalashnikov took the route of making the magazine more durable than the rifle. Bill Ruger took the route of making the magazine as durable as the rifle. The AR continues to be hobbled by a magazine design significantly less durable than the gun.

The AR mag could be redesigned to simply use thicker, and thus more durable, metal/plastic/whatever but then it would not be compatible with the existing ARs that are out there. If you are going to go to the expense of a new rifle then there is no reason not to ditch the flimsy magazine.
__________________
I don't carry a gun to go looking for trouble, I carry a gun in case trouble finds me.
Crosshair is offline  
Old May 16, 2011, 01:37 AM   #22
44 AMP
Staff
 
Join Date: March 11, 2006
Location: Upper US
Posts: 28,673
Quote:
If you are going to go to the expense of a new rifle then there is no reason not to ditch the flimsy magazine.
Actually, just the opposite figures into many people's thinking. Look at all the "new" rifles designed to use the M16 mag! Govts using M16s (whether they bought them, built them, or were given them) have a large investment in their stock of magazines, and a "new" rifle that uses magazines they have already paid for and have on hand is "cheaper" than one that doesn't.


That difference to the bean counters just might be the difference between adopting a new rifle, vs sticking with what they already have, or buying the current version of what they are already using.

I agree, if you are designing a better rifle, a better magazine ought to be part of it. But militaries are seldom about getting the best thing available, they are about getting what they believe is the best thing they can afford. And if its not the best, as long as its good enough, it gets the nod.

Doesn't anybody remember all the "teething troubles" the M16 design had during its first couple decades of use? It wasn't nearly as good then as it has become today.
__________________
All else being equal (and it almost never is) bigger bullets tend to work better.
44 AMP is online now  
Old May 16, 2011, 03:31 AM   #23
Ryder
Senior Member
 
Join Date: March 2, 2002
Location: Michigan
Posts: 222
AR is more of an indirect impingment to me. Wouldn't direct impingment be classified as a blowback operation?
Ryder is offline  
Old May 16, 2011, 06:42 AM   #24
doofus47
Senior Member
 
Join Date: June 9, 2010
Location: live in a in a house when i'm not in a tent
Posts: 2,483
Quote:
Wouldn't direct impingment be classified as a blowback operation
Both use the energy of the gas to cycle the action, but DI vents a portion of the exiting gas via a second tube from the barrel back towards the action to directly push the bolt carrier.
There's no venting via a second pipe in any blowback design that I can think of. Someone with scads more knowledge will probably think of 8 before I finish my coffee, though...

I loved my Hakim, but I sometimes had powder fly out and hit me in the face, though. Somehow that 48" monster missed the "lighter" boat as well!
doofus47 is offline  
Old May 16, 2011, 07:43 AM   #25
redstategunnut
Senior Member
 
Join Date: February 14, 2009
Location: see name
Posts: 405
Quote:
This is what finally convinced me to order my BCM upper.

http://www.bravocompanymfg.com/v/vsp...hy14_oct10.pdf

I think I saw a report that its over 40,000 rounds now.
I was there when Filthy 14 went over the 40,000 round mark.

The rifle is still accurate and reliable.
redstategunnut is offline  
Reply

Thread Tools Search this Thread
Search this Thread:

Advanced Search

Posting Rules
You may not post new threads
You may not post replies
You may not post attachments
You may not edit your posts

BB code is On
Smilies are On
[IMG] code is On
HTML code is Off

Forum Jump


All times are GMT -5. The time now is 01:36 AM.


Powered by vBulletin® Version 3.8.7
Copyright ©2000 - 2024, vBulletin Solutions, Inc.
This site and contents, including all posts, Copyright © 1998-2021 S.W.A.T. Magazine
Copyright Complaints: Please direct DMCA Takedown Notices to the registered agent: thefiringline.com
Page generated in 0.14659 seconds with 10 queries