TexasCHLforum.com

74novaman wrote:

gigag04 wrote: All you anti piston guys are funny. Having run a piston gun and a DI gun through days and cases of ammo in training classes, I love the piston. Runs cooler and cleaner. If you look at failures in the AR/M4 platform it is usually from dirt and debris. Mitigating those factors would serve to INCREASE reliability, not decrease it..

Well, I did admit to not being an AR guru so everything I know is based off of something I read.

Continuing that tradition, the other reason I've heard cited against a piston system is a slight decrease in accuracy from the fact you have more parts moving around when you fire when you add a piston to an AR. Have you noticed any difference in accuracy between a DI and a piston AR in your experience?

None - there really isn't "more parts" - there is A piston that is activated by the gases from the fired cartridge that cycles the bolt, as opposed to the gases themselves cycling the bolt. It looks like a long spring with a metal core. None of this affects accuracy. The piston resides where the gas tube used to - so it's a direct swap. I hear the "it's more complicated" rhetoric all the time. However, when you strip my rifle down, I find that it is simpler, cleaner, and the bolt makes more sense. I also feel that a piston will run faster than DI, but I have no real basis for that opinion - it's just my hunch.

NcongruNt wrote: It's a solution to a problem that only existed with improperly prepared batches of military ammo during the Vietnam war. The AR design is very simple and very elegant.

74novaman wrote:Other ar gurus will be along shortly but I don't think there's any reason to get a piston system. You're adding weight and fixing something that frankly isn't broken.

All you anti piston guys are funny. Having run a piston gun and a DI gun through days and cases of ammo in training classes, I love the piston. Runs cooler and cleaner. If you look at failures in the AR/M4 platform it is usually from dirt and debris. Mitigating those factors would serve to INCREASE reliability, not decrease it.

For most casual uses DI vs Piston would be personal preference. The difference is further less pronounced when you take select fire out of the equation. That said, my piston gun is my first choice for a working gun. Most people that I have discussed the issue with have never heavily used a piston AR - they just repeat some heavily repeated mantra that they read on ARF or M4C. The piston ARs that are out there were made famous by the top tier, well respected, companies: POF, LWRC, LMT, SCAR, HK, et al. Bushmaster and others soon followed suit.

For the OP's needs, this discussion seems to be a moot point, however, as any respectable piston gun is out of the original budget. I don't recommend building your own AR for the first gun, headspacing can be a pain. I think the M&P (specifically MOE is one of the best out of the box guns for the price).


Oh and to be more conflicting, I prefer the Aimpoint to the Eotech. Battery life is way better, and my eyes just like it better. Can't go wrong either way. The Eotech reticle has a great standoff feature for close in surgical shooting. I run an Aimpoint Comp ML3, but I'm really leaning towards an Aimpoint T-1 Micro. Again - that is a later discussion.