Spec Ops Command Cancels New Rifle - Page 2

REVN556 · 09-04-2010, 18:05

Quote:

Originally Posted by Iraqgunz

Would that be 20K rounds with no repalcing of parts or 20K with stuff getting replaced? I have seen Colts that have had thousands of rounds through them as well. But, of course parts wear out.

There may be some merit to the whole piston fad, but DI is proven. If you take care of your weapon and keep it lubed it will run.

According to the LWRC website, "Our barrels can handle 20,000 rounds before replacement, as compared to 6,000-10,000 rounds on a standard M4." Other parts on the weapon wear as normal.

http://www.lwrci.com/t-technology.aspx

LWRC has a whole list of "features" on their website. Many reliability tests have been done and many editors are impressed. As far as combat use, I haven't read a review thus far. Torture tests reveal heat remains in the piston, as in the HK416. As far as DI being proven, yes you are correct. However I may add that piston is proven as well, just on other weapon platforms (AK variants, M14, etc.). This is one review I found online: http://www.lwrci.com/t-technology.aspx

Iraqgunz · 09-05-2010, 03:18

Bushmaster also states that they build quality guns. In my experience Bushmaster is crap. Sorry I don't drink the Kool-Aid from manufacturers.

The Hk416 has a track record but I have also recently heard that they are having some bolt issues.

Comparing piston systems that were designed from the ground up a la AK47, FAL, etc... is much different from a weapon that is essentially being redesigned/ retrofitted.

A perfect example of that is carrier tilt. No one really thought about it until it started becoming an issue.

I also don't give a rats ass about editors at gun rags. Many times they are given the weapons to do an evaluation and they also pay to advertise their stuff in the magazines.

Everyone is looking for the "wunderwaffen" when in reality all they need to do is practice good maintenance, replace parts and properly lube the weapon. You'd be surprised how many people still don't know how to properly lubricat their weapon.

Quote:

Originally Posted by REVN556

According to the LWRC website, "Our barrels can handle 20,000 rounds before replacement, as compared to 6,000-10,000 rounds on a standard M4." Other parts on the weapon wear as normal.

http://www.lwrci.com/t-technology.aspx

LWRC has a whole list of "features" on their website. Many reliability tests have been done and many editors are impressed. As far as combat use, I haven't read a review thus far. Torture tests reveal heat remains in the piston, as in the HK416. As far as DI being proven, yes you are correct. However I may add that piston is proven as well, just on other weapon platforms (AK variants, M14, etc.). This is one review I found online: http://www.lwrci.com/t-technology.aspx

dr. mabuse · 09-05-2010, 07:22

Alhtough having no military background or LEO experience, I do understand advertising tricks.

If given a choice between considering the experience of a seasoned QP vs the marketing department for a firearms manufacturer, which would you bet your life on?

Fiercely Loyal · 09-05-2010, 07:34

Well the SCAR-L has hit the civilian market and I finally got to check it out locally. I was astonished at how little it actually weighed. Had I not just purchased a Ruger SR 556 i would have seriously contemplated saving another thousand bucks to buy the SCAR. Hopefully they catch on and come down in price. I wouldn't mind owning one in 556 and one in 762. I better start buying lottery tickets until then.

Justinmd · 09-05-2010, 10:08

The Scar-L is light because it uses a pencil thin barrel, and a stock made of something slighter stiffer than paper mache. Seriously though, the bolt carrier on the thing is massive, so the weight savings comes from the barrel, lower receiver and stock. Also, the railed handguard is pretty short.

There are many downsides to the above compromises, of course.

**The Reaper** · 09-05-2010, 13:13

Hell, I saw a couple of the Bushmaster ACRs at some gun shows recently and they cost almost as much as the SCAR.

I thought they were supposed to be a lower cost alternative?

Unless you just think you are the shit for owning one, why anyone would pay that much for a carbine when there are good, solid M-4s out there for less than half as much is a mystery to me.

Hmm, I could score an LMT or Bravo Company M-4, kitted up with an EoTech or Aimpoint, a weapons light, all of the bells and whistles, cleaning gear, several dozen mags, and a thousand rounds of ammo for less than the cost of the stripped SCAR or ACR.

I guess for some people, looking good/cool is more important than actually being good.

TR

Justinmd · 09-05-2010, 14:47

The original projected cost on the ACR was 1400-1600. This was before Rem's involvement. I personally wouldn't spend 2k+ on a 5.56 carbine. They do, however, offer some advantages, i.e. folding stocks, greatly improved ergonomics and controls (user pref), switchable barrels/calibers, a piston system which was designed integral to the rifle, adjustable gas systems for suppressor use, claimed enhanced reliability (in the case of the SCAR), etc.

Justin

dr. mabuse · 09-05-2010, 16:45

Quote:

Originally Posted by The Reaper

Unless you just think you are the shit for owning one, why anyone would pay that much for a carbine when there are good, solid M-4s out there for less than half as much is a mystery to me.

...
I guess for some people, looking good/cool is more important than actually being good.

TR

TR, you mean the David Crane certified CDI rating?

REVN556 · 09-05-2010, 21:06

Quote:

Originally Posted by Iraqgunz

Bushmaster also states that they build quality guns. In my experience Bushmaster is crap. Sorry I don't drink the Kool-Aid from manufacturers.

The Hk416 has a track record but I have also recently heard that they are having some bolt issues.

Comparing piston systems that were designed from the ground up a la AK47, FAL, etc... is much different from a weapon that is essentially being redesigned/ retrofitted.

A perfect example of that is carrier tilt. No one really thought about it until it started becoming an issue.

I also don't give a rats ass about editors at gun rags. Many times they are given the weapons to do an evaluation and they also pay to advertise their stuff in the magazines.

Bolt carrier tilt is the reason why the carrier slightly over-sized in LWRC rifles. It prevents it from happening. It is true that some editors may be payed to advertise, which may result in a biased review. However it is reasonable to say that if a majority is stating the same qualities about a product, there is a great chance this is true. How else would you gauge the quality of a product if not through reviews of consumers and editors alike? I know many consumers would not be willing to purchase a firearm initially and find out what they purchased was crap.

Justinmd · 09-05-2010, 23:07

Do not believe anything you see in gun magazines. Much of it is true, but you don't know which parts. This is coming from someone who's rifles have been reviewed by gun mags.

For carrier tilt, there's several ways that companies try to deal with the off-axis force resulting from pistons on an AR. That took a lot of companies by surprise, I'm not sure if LWRC is included. Remember, LWRC used to be Leightner-Weis and was a small player. My buddy has an early one which broke some time ago, but I'll ask him if there's wear from carrier tilt. It's not the only issue in retrofitting a piston to an AR, and really a piston is a fix for a relative non-issue. Major improvents could have been made to the bolt, extractor, and recoil system, but that requires much more effort and R&D money.

**The Reaper** · 09-06-2010, 08:43

Quote:

Originally Posted by Justinmd

The original projected cost on the ACR was 1400-1600. This was before Rem's involvement. I personally wouldn't spend 2k+ on a 5.56 carbine. They do, however, offer some advantages, i.e. folding stocks, greatly improved ergonomics and controls (user pref), switchable barrels/calibers, a piston system which was designed integral to the rifle, adjustable gas systems for suppressor use, claimed enhanced reliability (in the case of the SCAR), etc.

Justin

I'm with you on that, brother.

TR

Justinmd · 09-06-2010, 10:58

TR,
haha no doubt. You would think I'd have been able to get ahold of one for minimal cost, sadly no such luck. Oh well, I've got AR's and a Sig 556 to keep me from spiraling into depression

Barn Owl · 09-06-2010, 15:13

Quote:

Originally Posted by Justinmd

Remember, LWRC used to be Leightner-Weis and was a small player. My buddy has an early one which broke some time ago, but I'll ask him if there's wear from carrier tilt. It's not the only issue in retrofitting a piston to an AR, and really a piston is a fix for a relative non-issue. Major improvents could have been made to the bolt, extractor, and recoil system, but that requires much more effort and R&D money.

Justinmd,

I shoot an M6A2 in multigun. Last year LWRC fielded a new one-piece bolt/bolt carrier that improves the bolt and the extractor.

Running the old bolt, I shot 5000 rounds with zero failures to feed and one failure to extract (Wolf Ammo) which was the result of a primer ignition at 95% battery that jammed the steel casing in the chamber. The weapon did not show carrier tilt, but it did have some heavy cam pin wear. The weapon still functioned perfectly after this incident.

I swapped for the new one-piece bolt assembly in case of any microscopic cracks in the bolt head, and have since fired another 3000 rounds with no malfunctions of any kind. I have looked inside several piston guns, including POF, that exhibit carrier tilt marks inside the buffer spring tube on the bottom 180 degrees of the tube. My rifle does not show any wear from carrier tilt inside the buffer tube or inside the upper reciever. I have 3 friends that also shoot LWRC and their guns run equally well with both the old and new bolt designs.

In my opinion, my rifle and the other rifles I have handled live up to LWRC's marketing promises. In my very limited experience, my LWRC vastly outperforms the issued M4s that I have used, especially in terms of reliability.

Very Respectfully,

Barn Owl

Justinmd · 09-06-2010, 19:16

I'm glad your rifle runs great, however, I'm not following your correlation with a one piece bolt assembly and cracks in the bolt. The bolt has always been one piece on every AR style rifle ever made, one piece plus the ejector and extractor and the gas rings. The bolt carrier, on the other hand, was two pieces and several companies have now made carriers with the gas key cut as integral to the carrier. I personally see this as a waste of material, but for some reason they went with it. Is it a marketing ploy or were they really having problems with the gas key coming loose on the piston guns? If they were really having problems with the gas key coming loose, that undermines your profession of LWRC reliability.

In either case, this has nothing to do with cracks in the bolt head, which I'm assuming you mean to be the bolt lugs. Bolt lug failure has been a problem in just about all the military tests (abusive type tests) I've seen of the AR style rifle. LMT and KAC both came up with a claimed "improved" design with features that prolonged bolt life but I have no first hand knowledge of the veracity of their claims, maybe LWRC also came up with an improved bolt to go along with their one piece bolt carrier. In any case, my M4 and those of my teammates never malfunctioned, so there's precious little room in our case for the LWRC to vastly outperform an M4.

Really, you should ponder for a moment how it could be the case that an M4 with a piston (LWRC) could outperform an M4 with DI with any significance. The bolt, carrier, extractor, ejector, buffer etc etc are all generally the same. Really the main change is what forces the carrier rearward, is it an off-axis push from a steel rod, or is it an on-axis push from expanding gases. Everything else is just tweaks to springs, clearances, chamfers, fillets etc. LWRC has undoubtedly done this, but so has the .mil, at least to SOF rifles. It sounds like you are comparing a relatively new LWRC to a worn out military M4. Be wary of calling an anecdote "proof", not that you are definitively doing so. I guess you would have to give a detailed account of the failings of your M4, which would give us all insight to the root cause of the problem.

As for your out-of-battery, the AR rifles (and others) are designed to not allow this to happen, i.e. the firing pin cannot reach the primer until the bolt is in battery. Just because the carrier wasn't fully forward doesn't mean the rifle was not in battery. An out of battery ignition will do many very bad things to what was once your rifle, not to mention body parts. If there was any significant rotation of the bolt, allowing the bolt lugs to engage the lug abutments, then things should hold for one regular pressure round. Keep in mind the cam rotation on the AR bolt is only 22.5 degrees, meaning even small amounts of rotation will result in at least partial lug engagement.

Keep in mind I'm not saying LWRC (or others) hasn't improved the rifle, as I mentioned before, there was room for improvement. Just don't think that their improvements have interdependency with their re-engineering of the gas system. In fact, the case could be made that their rifle would have been better if they made all their enhancements but kept the DI gas system. Certainly the concerns over localized heat buildup, op rod breakage (other brands), and weight/balance disruption would be nullified.
Justin

**Peregrino** · 09-06-2010, 20:29

Justinmd - Our gunsmith would like you!

Your last post summarized a significant portion of what he's been pounding into my head for years WRT pistons in ARs. That's why I'm with TR - still using M4geries w/DI gas systems (and will be for the foreseeable future).