M14 Forum

TheTurtle

Who makes good ones? I'm seriously considering getting one for my new 3-gun build

OR this....
http://www.para-usa.com/new/video_ttr.php

perazziboy

Try these guys, everything I have seen from them piston driven has been awesome!

http://www.lwrci.com/

jdwboy

.

parashooter

The two most popular ones are the Pofusa.com and Lwrc.com

I have a patriot arms(Pofusa) with a 1000 rounds through without any hiccups.

Hgunner

You could also look into the Adams Arms kits and variations.
Ruger and S&W are both running variation of the Adams Arms design. My not have the glamor and sex of LWRCi or POF but the work and are durable.
They offer both converstion kits and complete uppers.

http://adamsarms.net/category.asp

TheTinMan

Anybody have experience with Lewis Machine Tool piston driven uppers?
http://www.lmtstore.com/monolithic-r...s-mrp-cqb.html

mercman

Until the U.S. military standardizes a piston driven upper conversion or complete AR15/M16 style piston rifle purchasers will be at the mercy of the many (many) manufacturers of these variations. That's for unique parts and the itty bitty complex parts that make up these types of systems.

Myself, I believe that these operating systems don't hold much advantage over a properly maintained direct impingement system. I think the the addition of MORE moving parts to an already complex system doesn't make much sense in a SEMIAUTOMATIC firearm. If you're shooting beaucoup rounds from a select fire weapon that MAY be a different story. Also given the fact that there's NO standardization or milspec standard turns me off on this idea.

I'd rather spend the $$$ on ammo or another AR caliber upper assy.

JMHO.

ArmyCPT

Unless you're doing (or thinking about doing) one of the following:

- SBR
- Running a suppressor
- Running Full Auto

You're just as well off with a DI gun. Having said that, there are DI guns and then there are DI guns. Contrary to what some might tell you, all AR's are not made the same.

And until two weeks ago, I owned a LWRC M6A1. Great gun.

CPTKILLER

Actually, back in the 1970's, I had an AR-18 with folding stock and piston operating system. It was accurate and extremely reliable. Since I was at Fort Hood, a lot of buddies provided the ammo (including a case of 5.56 dumped into Cowhouse Creek by a National Guard unit).

It was everything that the M-16 should have been.

SGV

I agree 100%. I'm good w/ the gas tube...

Hgunner

Mercman,
I agree with you until the military adapts or standardizes on a piston system I'll stick with the DI system.

Lionseye

Favoring there charateristics over a direct impingement AR is a personal choice factor. They run much cleaner so you clean far less and use much less lubrication with none of it being burned out besides. They put the highest levels of heat and carbon towards the pistons and gas blocks which are have a more limited functionary role to handle it better without adding feeding and extracting cartridges into that heat and carbon at the same time. Which means they put far less abuse on the receiver componets and leave a much cleaner, lubricated area to disrupt feeding annd extracting and those componets.

Depending on which design you go with some are more accessible and easy to clean the piston system too. I've been running them for years now and won't ever go back to direct impingement. There's no reason for me to. I find the Adams Arms system to be the best bang for the buck these days and their system is used by the most seperate companies because not only is it an exceptional system, well built and ultra reliable, but the company itself has excellent support and is very open to working with other companies and expanding.

Their conversion is simple to convert a DI with whether carbine length, mid or rifle and kits and spare parts are easy to get through various sources. Not only are Smith & Wesson, Sabre Defence, Core rifles ad Huldra Arms using their system to build rifles/uppers with, but Adams also makes their own uppers. They work with Mega Machine Shop on receivers and parts besides. Smith also manufactures the parts they use for their rifles which makes them an additional parts source for most of the system. The only difference is they shortened the gas block on their version, so the plug is shortened also.

As far as price goes, maybe with the exception of the uppers Sabre produces, the rifles/uppers are very close DI prices and even Sabre's are towards your more expensive DI uppers. Sabre has always been more expensive though. I'm not sure what's going on with them though either, they seem to be having government issues.

Adams is the closest to standardizing right now, but regardless you need to buy spare parts, there isn't going to be anyone passing out parts for any rifle if the shtf. You either have them or go without. With their systems, the parts are affordable and easy to get and if you absolutely had to, you could easily switch over back to DI. Running a Adams Arms upper is basically like running an M14, except you've got a closed receiver, with dustcover and a no tools needed, removable plug, from the front system.

http://adamsarms.net/

http://www.smith-wesson.com/webapp/w...4_757784_image

http://megamachineshop.com/armscatalog.php

http://huldraarms.com/

http://core15rifles.com/home.html

bsaubin

Del

Albud3

While the gas piston modification to the AR platform seems to be the best thing since sliced bread, It'll be a long time (if ever) I get one. There are just too many possible problems with the systems now available.
Main problem: They are all MODIFICATIONS to a system that was designed to operate efficiently and reliably (until changed by the Army) using direct gas impingement. The AR, as designed by Stoner, had the barrel, bolt and carrier chromed lined for ease of cleaning and the innate lubrication of the chromed parts. Plus, he specified IMR powders due to the decreased deposits and slower impulse as compared to ball powders. The Army, POed having the AR forced down their throats by McNamara, deleted the chrome barrel (too expensive and difficult to manufacture [regardless of the M-14, M-60 and others]), bolt and carrier (can't have bright parts on a rifle [even if they're covered by the dust cover]) and used ball powder that was very dirty and caused failures due to an increased rate of fire. In other words, they did everything they could to "prove" the AR was a failure. And don't even mention the change in barrel twist from 1/14 to 1/12...what a fiasco! The result; many soldiers and Marines killed by the Ordinance Board trying to get even with SECDEF.
Another problem is the fact that there is no commonality between the systems. If something is lost or damaged, the rifle is down until replacements parts are ordered from the specific manufacturer. And don't tell me you'll never lose or damage a part, Murphy still reigns! With most systems costing hundreds more than a standard GI system, can you afford having another system on hand for repairs/replacement? And aren't some systems incompatible with standard measurement handguards? Another part to inventory and pay more for.
Then, you have the "Carrier Tilt" problem. The standard AR carrier and bolt act as the piston...the driving force is straight to the rear. A GP system has the driving force directed to the upper carrier pad, resulting in a downward tilt to the rear of the carrier. Even with modifications to the rear of the carrier, I think there will be increased wear to the upper receiver as well as the buffer tube over the long run. Plus, the mods decrease carrier/buffer tube clearances increasing the chances malfunctions if anything gets in there.
All my ARs, bought and built, have chromed barrels, bolts and carriers. After thousands of rounds through each of them, I've had very few failures to feed/fire or jams contributable to a dirty weapon. Even after a heavy range session, a couple drops of oil in the gas ports and cycling the bolt a few times ensures dependable functioning if needed before cleaning. And replacement parts are easy to find and low cost.
CPTKILLER: The AR-18/180 was designed by Stoner to be built by countries that did not have the machinery or technical know-how to build the AR-15. Stamped and welded is easier than machined forgings. Stoner went with the GP due to the problems with the M-16 and military ammo. The -18/180 had problems with feeding and parts breakage that led Stoner to design the Stoner 62/63 systems which also had problems. BTW, both Britain and Singapore used the AR-18 as the basis of their service rifles. Unfortunately, neither weapon was as reliable as the M-16A1/A2 until heavily modified into basically different weapons.

TheTurtle

Can the handguards on these piston uppers be swapped out?

I really want the RRA Elite Tac handguard on my upcoming AR build but also want a piston upper..... Too many choices.