Cleaning isn't the issue. You do not have to clean a properly built AR. They will go thousands of rounds between cleaning as long as they are kept wet.
Pistons are just something else to sell something to fix a problem that does not exist
For clarity the short stroke piston M4 (HK416) was developed for a reason. That being reliability and service life from the military issued CQBR (10.5 inch M4) suppressed and with extremely heavy firing cycles was less then ideal. You have to understand that in 2003-2004 the issued 10.5in upper for certain military users was not the 10.5 inch guns we have now. We didn't have the buffers, springs, adjustable gas blocks, and fully developed barrels that are available. I have been issued and used the original CQBR, HK416, and current issued MK18 10.5 inch guns. The 416 was the piston guns all other were measured against. And truthfully was the gun all SBR's were judged against for military use. For several reasons that is not necessarily the case anymore.
Unless you need a suppressed, short barrel rifle, for heavy firing cycles, most users would be better served with the standard DI AR15/M4.
Problem there as noted, is not that it needed a piston but some design idiot needed to note there are relationships with gas ports, lag time, burn rates, carrier weights etc... and follow the relationship, not simply shorten the barrel basically and expect it all to work just fine.
We can keep Larry Root and all his idiotic blabber and user names on here, but we can't get Ralph back..... Whiskey Tango Foxtrot, over....
I don't know if this has been discussed but wouldn't developing a cleaner burning powder be more productive than developing more piston rifles?
I'm thinking there is more room for improvement with fewer hassles. I like reloading with Alliant RL10 becuase I get velocity with less powder. Less powder means less carbon residue. Can powder be developed that leaves less residue without velocity loss? Just a thought. kwg
I like your thinking but I think it's a hopeless task unless and until there is a drastic change in propellant technology. I looked at the Alliant site for RL-10x recipes and the amount of powder is very similar to what I use with Varget or other powders. You would need a substantial reduction in charge weight to make any perceptible difference and that will bring in reliability issues in the AR because it needs a certain volume of gas to unlock the bolt and move the carrier backward.
One of the reasons the snake eaters need an oprod gun is that, until you can drain it, it will impair the function of a DI gun if you submerge it and the gas tube fills with water. The OpRod keeps 'em from turning into single shot carbines. Myself, I prevent the problem by slipping a finger cot over the muzzle brake before I go scuba diving with a DI AR.
HK has been hard at work for at least 30 years on cleaner burning powder in conjunction with their caseless ammunition weapons platform. Caseless means there's nothing to eject. But it won't be ready for prime time until they create a case that is so nearly completely consumed that the operating mechanism can slough off what remains with no ill effect.
Alle Fähigkeit ist vergeblich, wenn ein Engel in Ihrem Notenloch uriniert -- old German proverb
The whole united states military is wrong, I must get pistons installed, I know my current carbines work just fine and the others I have owned all have worked fine, but this amazing revelation regards how to turn a functioning mil spec carbine into a hobby gun is now at the top of my "to do" list.
you are right. Larry is back with a new handle, he is the only numbnutz on this forum that will take an arcane POS product, label it "good" and actively defend the POS.
I'm putting a .300 AAC AR together next week. I'm probably going piston on this one, as well. The Osprey will work with both sub and supersonic ammo. I expect that you would have to use an adjustable gas block on a DI carbine.