Traumatic Brain Injury?

Arco_6 said:
Traumatic Brain Injury... And its really no joke I as well suffer from one
Click to expand...

Sorry wasn't trying to piss anyone off.

To speak the truth I have had 19 concussions in my life time

So no it is no joke I know first hand

I'm just glad I got away with no serious damage
 
I'm up to three ARs now. Not sure how that happenned. The frankenstein AR thing is fairly easy to overcome if you want to build something exactly as you want. The key is to get a matching upper and lower.

One of my rifles came straight from RRA as a standard configuration. Nice gun but ended up not being exactly what I wanted. One of my other guns is a custom jobs. I purchased an RRA lower and upper from Questar and they matched perfectly. No color variance and they are tight. The builds happenned from there with the upper built up for me by ATRS.It shoots sub moa. The other upper was a purchase on the EE, again an RRA upper. This upper too matched pefectly with the stripped received I bought from Questar.
 
Buy this and put in a timney trigger;
http://www.jprifles.com/1.2.2_JP15.php
Your a bolt gun guy and this is as close as you can get to a hyper accurate bolt gun out of the box made from a single maker.
175.jpg
 
Boomer, feel your pain. Why piston? Am deciding between DI Stag R6 and Armalite 10T - but as neither are currently in stock am also open to possibilities (may just end up with Rem/AR R-25 when on clearance again but by the time its what want it to be Stag or Armalite T paid for...).
 
I'm leaning towards a piston gun for a number of reasons, and yes I do understand the arguments that it answers a nonexistent problem. The biggest reason comes back to when I was in the Rangers and we did a bit of shooting with the C-7. I was, shall we say, unimpressed with the degree of carbon buildup on the bolt and carrier, and very impressed by the difficulty required to clean it off. That cannot bode well for the longevity of the component parts subjected to that amount of heat, or from the corrosive effects of the carbon fouling and the subsequent efforts to remove it. The piston keeps this fouling up at the gas block, rather than on intricate moving parts of the bolt, carrier, and trigger group. I doubt if heat will become an issue with the way I intend to use the rifle, certainly not compared to a select fire rifle used by people who think the purpose of full auto fire is to empty magazines as quickly as possible. But there is a temperature component to my choice as well. A DGI action from what I understand requires a wet bolt to cycle reliably, where as the piston gun requires just a light skim of grease on the bolt rails. If this is indeed correct, and despite the availability of very good low temperature lubricants, for my purposes and considering the cold conditions this rifle might be subjected to, the piston might be a better mousetrap, particularly now that issues related to bolt tip, and a free floating forearm have been generally addressed and resolved. There comes a question as well as to the uniformity of the ammunition I might have access to. I wouldn't expect handloads to pose any cycling problem, but if tempted from time to time to purchase lots of non-Nato stamped milsurp ammo from off shore manufacturers, the gas piston action might be advantageous from a reliability standpoint, particularly considering the conditions I might use in.

Piston type actions have proven reliable under all conditions on earlier military auto rifles like the FAL, G-3, and the M-14, so its not like introduction of something that's unproven. The gas piston is simply a component that Eugene Stoner thought could be eliminated in a more modern approach to a fighting gun, and in California's climate, he was likely correct. I'm not so sure if it applies to the accessible arctic in mid-winter.

Still, the jury is out as to which gas system I eventually purchase, and the down side of the gas piston system is that it increases the cost of the rifle by about 30%! I can't ignore that either.
 
Last edited:
Boomer said:
I'm leaning towards a piston gun for a number of reasons, and yes I do understand the arguments that it answers a nonexistent problem. The biggest reason comes back to when I was in the Rangers and we did a bit of shooting with the C-7. I was, shall we say, unimpressed with the degree of carbon buildup on the bolt and carrier, and very impressed by the difficulty required to clean it off. That cannot bode well for the longevity of the component parts subjected to that amount of heat, or from the corrosive effects of the carbon fouling and the subsequent efforts to remove it. The piston keeps this fouling up at the gas block, rather than on intricate moving parts of the bolt, carrier, and trigger group. I doubt if heat will become an issue with the way I intend to use the rifle, certainly not compared to a select fire rifle used by people who think the purpose of full auto fire is to empty magazines as quickly as possible. But there is a temperature component to my choice as well. A DGI action from what I understand requires a wet bolt to cycle reliably, where as the piston gun requires just a light skim of grease on the bolt rails. If this is indeed correct, and despite the availability of very good low temperature lubricants, for my purposes and considering the cold conditions this rifle might be subjected to, the piston might be a better mousetrap, particularly now that issues related to bolt tip, and a free floating forearm have been generally addressed and resolved. There comes a question as well as to the uniformity of the ammunition I might have access to. I wouldn't expect handloads to pose any cycling problem, but if tempted from time to time to purchase lots of non-Nato stamped milsurp ammo from off shore manufacturers, the gas piston action might be advantageous from a reliability standpoint, particularly considering the conditions I might use in.

Piston type actions have proven reliable under all conditions on earlier military auto rifles like the FAL, G-3, and the M-14, so its not like introduction of something that's unproven. The gas piston is simply a component that Eugene Stoner thought could be eliminated in a more modern approach to a fighting gun, and in California's climate, he was likely correct. I'm not so sure if it applies to the accessible arctic in mid-winter.

Still, the jury is out as to which gas system I eventually purchase, and the down side of the gas piston system is that it increases the cost of the rifle by about 30%! I can't ignore that either.
Click to expand...

Thought it was sunny in the Arctic :) Good point on the the lube / temperature issue. Suppose the piston would also require lubrication but a lot less than then bolt carrier. Given am in the LML likely be DI for me. Cheers.
 
Boomer said:
I'm leaning towards a piston gun for a number of reasons, and yes I do understand the arguments that it answers a nonexistent problem. The biggest reason comes back to when I was in the Rangers and we did a bit of shooting with the C-7. I was, shall we say, unimpressed with the degree of carbon buildup on the bolt and carrier, and very impressed by the difficulty required to clean it off. That cannot bode well for the longevity of the component parts subjected to that amount of heat, or from the corrosive effects of the carbon fouling and the subsequent efforts to remove it. The piston keeps this fouling up at the gas block, rather than on intricate moving parts of the bolt, carrier, and trigger group. I doubt if heat will become an issue with the way I intend to use the rifle, certainly not compared to a select fire rifle used by people who think the purpose of full auto fire is to empty magazines as quickly as possible. But there is a temperature component to my choice as well. A DGI action from what I understand requires a wet bolt to cycle reliably, where as the piston gun requires just a light skim of grease on the bolt rails. If this is indeed correct, and despite the availability of very good low temperature lubricants, for my purposes and considering the cold conditions this rifle might be subjected to, the piston might be a better mousetrap, particularly now that issues related to bolt tip, and a free floating forearm have been generally addressed and resolved. There comes a question as well as to the uniformity of the ammunition I might have access to. I wouldn't expect handloads to pose any cycling problem, but if tempted from time to time to purchase lots of non-Nato stamped milsurp ammo from off shore manufacturers, the gas piston action might be advantageous from a reliability standpoint, particularly considering the conditions I might use in.

Piston type actions have proven reliable under all conditions on earlier military auto rifles like the FAL, G-3, and the M-14, so its not like introduction of something that's unproven. The gas piston is simply a component that Eugene Stoner thought could be eliminated in a more modern approach to a fighting gun, and in California's climate, he was likely correct. I'm not so sure if it applies to the accessible arctic in mid-winter.

Still, the jury is out as to which gas system I eventually purchase, and the down side of the gas piston system is that it increases the cost of the rifle by about 30%! I can't ignore that either.
Click to expand...

It answers a non existent problem as you say mostly due to the improved components, lubes and ammo these days. If you soak your firearms down with G96, allow it to soak in then give it some more along with a decent oil on the contact points you will be simply wiping the carbon off. No scrubbing. I used this stuff on a pistol in the Peace Region where we did hit -50 Celsius. The pistol would still cycle easily after being exposed to those temperatures for 20 minutes (in holster that was exposed). I've also used it in other firearms at -30 and the firearms worked perfectly. That being said shooting in -30 sucked so it was indoor range and practice with the 22LR firearms once it got cold.

Carbon just wipes off. Gone are the days of scrubbing anything except the barrel. Even then I use wipe out to avoid this. I've used CLP and G96 as both were approved for these pistols. G96 was hands down better. It cuts your cleaning time in half.

The only piston system AR currently produced that I have any interest in is the ADCOR. The rest simply have too many potential issues along with trade offs. Until this version came out, I would have stated avoid the piston AR rifle and go DI. Now it's not so clear. That being said the ADCOR is the new kid and there isn't really that much real info out there on it. I like what I've seen online about it. I think it's clever the way they upgraded the AR. I also suspect this hybrid design may keep the AR rifle current for another 10 years or more. But this is just speculation right now.

One other thing the current 1:7 twist for AR rifles was brought in for shooting 55 grain ammo in extreme cold. At least from what I've read that was the rational. They found it stablized the 55 grain ammo better in extreme cold.
 
In the late '90s I got a 1:7 twist .224 barrel for a M-700 and it proved to be the most accurate barrel I'd owned until then. From that point on I was sold on fast twists, even when using short bullets. It wasn't until a bit later that I realized the terminal benefits of fast twists in larger calibers. Thanks for the tips, I appreciate it. It'll be interesting to see where I end up.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top Bottom