That's the beauty of having internal piston of Stoner system vs external piston of conventional design where gas force is applied at the same axis as the barrel. True DI system would have approximately the same kick as conventional piston system, because gas force is applied at the axis about an inch higher than bore axis.but properly gassed it is amazing just how light the recoil is compared to most any piston-driven system.
What size GB journal do the Lockhart barrel have?
I’m looking at sourcing my own for a gen 3 build
Thanks
I had the same problem. Not quite as bad as Bartok5's though.Have you sectioned any of these cases? Is so, how is the case thickness through the body? I'd be very concerned with the potential of incipient case head separation and would have stopped as soon as I saw that. It is surprising that a recall wasn't issued by Lockhart....
Here is a photo. Anti-Rotation Tabs should be okay, so long as they don't interface with the rail itself. As far as a DD interface goes, I don't have a RIS example handy. Can you post a pic?
Looks like the anti-rotation tabs might need trimming, the bolt heads that go near the ejection port are questionable.
As to accuracy, they probably all shoot the same.
So a mid lenght GB is more reliable than a Rifle lenght GB?Reliability!!!
So a mid lenght GB is more reliable than a Rifle lenght GB?
On a 19 inch barrel.
Why is that
How is it better? It is not DI, but is as dirty as DI. Being expansion, or hybrid piston/DI it requires perfect timing and quality powder. Having buffer and spring in stock does not allow full feature stock folding. How about screws! in the carrier? The only two good things about this system is accuracy because of piston integrated in bolt and that it is so perfected by after market and available customisations. AR180 as design is more progressive, most modern piston designs are more progressive. I emphasise on systems, designs, not on implementations. Because Canadian implementations of AR180 design should be studied in the book "How to fail in firearm manufacturing".
How is it better? It is not DI, but is as dirty as DI. Being expansion, or hybrid piston/DI it requires perfect timing and quality powder. Having buffer and spring in stock does not allow full feature stock folding. How about screws! in the carrier? The only two good things about this system is accuracy because of piston integrated in bolt and that it is so perfected by after market and available customisations. AR180 as design is more progressive, most modern piston designs are more progressive. I emphasise on systems, designs, not on implementations. Because Canadian implementations of AR180 design should be studied in the book "How to fail in firearm manufacturing".
There's also the slightly less felt recoil, slightly less weight, less front heaviness, less heat on the handguard.
But in my opinion I don't see one being superior to the other. Each have their advantages and disadvantages, but to be perfectly honest all of the difference is marginal at best.
Even in terms of accuracy I think the advantage is marginal. There are short stroke rifles out there that will keep up in terms of accuracy, like the Volquartsen Evolution, HK MR series, even SL8. There's a video on YouTube where a guy shoots multiple 10 shot groups with match ammo between a HK MR762 (short stroke) against some of the best "DI" DMRs like the KAC SR-25 and LMT MARS and also a SCAR. THE HK MR762 was by far the most accurate, leaving the rest in the dust. Although the MR762 was also the only one with a non chrome lined barrel. But anyway at the end of the day, the barrel, the specs of the barrel, the trigger, and how well made the rifle is in general matters far more than simply whether it uses an AR180 derived gas system or a Stoner "DI" system.