Re: PISTON AR10 CONVERSION
<div class="ubbcode-block"><div class="ubbcode-header">Originally Posted By: buffetdestroyer</div><div class="ubbcode-body">I agree that the piston is unnecessary for a large number of civilian AR15's out there. They are reliable and not typically subjected to the kind of environments and conditions that a piston system might have an edge.
However, full auto fire and suppressed fire is where I see a definite advantage, as well as in crappy dusty or muddy environments.
Regarding the dust test check out
http://www.armytimes.com/news/2007/12/army_carbine_dusttest_071217/
<span style="font-style: italic">Officials tested 10 each of the four carbine models, firing a total of 60,000 rounds per model. Here’s how they ranked, according to the total number of times each model stopped firing:
• XM8: 127 stoppages.
• MK16 SCAR Light: 226 stoppages.
• 416: 233 stoppages.
• M4: 882 stoppages.</span>
This works out to 1.47% failure rate in the M4 vs. .39% failure rate in the HK416. Neither is horrible, but if I had to bet my life 100 times, I would go with the piston.
Edit: Also important to note that magazine stoppages were responsible for 239 of the 882 stoppages. I would guess that the two HK's used proprietary HK mags ($40-$50 each in the civilian market). Even taking that out, you are still over 1% failure rate that is weapon related. I am wondering if they did the test with PMags, would it still be as bad?</div></div>
Did you also read the part where they said that this test was not designed to replicate real-world conditions? Further, did you notice that this was actually the 3rd dust test they conducted, and in the second test, which they repeatedly reference, the results were significantly better for the M4.
Straight from the test report:
"Significant difference between EDT II and EDT III in results for M4
296 stoppages (EDT II) vs 863 stoppages (EDT III)
This indicates that test protocol may not be repeatable
Interaction of technical variables not fully understood at this point in time"
It's amazing how people are always so quick to bring this dust test up, but don't seem to bother to actually understand what the test was about.