So I'm wondering:
Let's say you have a choice between a direct impingement and a piston AR. For ease of argument, let's say the choices are an HK416/MR556 and a Daniel Defense DDM4V7S.
Both SBRs are identical in configuration, except for the gas system: 11.5" barrels with A2 flash hiders; rail-mounted BUIS; Eotech holo sight, magnifier, and AN/PEQ-15; same model foregrip, pistol grip, and stock; same model suppressor. From a distance they'd be all but indistinguishable from each other.
Is the HK's piston (or any piston AR) really worth it in the end? Does it have any particular advantage over the DI rifle, or are the differences negligible? "Less gunk going back into the chamber and better reliability with a suppressor fitted" is usually how I've seen the debate end in favor of a piston, but is it really justified?
Let's say you have a choice between a direct impingement and a piston AR. For ease of argument, let's say the choices are an HK416/MR556 and a Daniel Defense DDM4V7S.
Both SBRs are identical in configuration, except for the gas system: 11.5" barrels with A2 flash hiders; rail-mounted BUIS; Eotech holo sight, magnifier, and AN/PEQ-15; same model foregrip, pistol grip, and stock; same model suppressor. From a distance they'd be all but indistinguishable from each other.
Is the HK's piston (or any piston AR) really worth it in the end? Does it have any particular advantage over the DI rifle, or are the differences negligible? "Less gunk going back into the chamber and better reliability with a suppressor fitted" is usually how I've seen the debate end in favor of a piston, but is it really justified?