Why Has No One Else Used the AR DI System?

Status
Not open for further replies.
":scrutiny:"
Nice. Literally no criticism of the AR or any constituent part may be tolerated, however measured or realistic.

Yes, Mach. The AR15 cannot be adapted much beyond 223 at all without significant redesign, nor much below it, either; you're pretty much stuck with an intermediate cartridge absent major changes to the gas system (long-stroke SIG MPX or DI with large port 1/2" from the chamber) or a wholesale scaling to a different design regime (AR10). Adapting to a 14" barrel vs. an 18" barrel (along with swapping lots of gas & buffer components) is not the height of flexibility. Frankly, the fact that the AR readily allows 2/3rds of the gun to be removed & replaced as a unit (the upper) does not make that 2/3rds chunk particularly flexible, itself.

The AK is readily built to run on 7.62x25 with only a gas port being opened up & a drop-in magwell. The AK is stretched into PSL/PK platforms by lengthening the bolt tail & receiver at the magwell. The lugs are overkill for x39, and the gas system is overkill to operate it, so it can 'reach' further beyond that original cartridge than many designs. It's also a 'jack of all trades, master of none' as a result.

The true pinnacle of modularity, such that there can be one, is probably the HK roller guns, though I hate to admit it; short to long barrels, pistol cal to belt fed LMGs, suppressed SBRs, and even a sniper rifle --and they can pretty much all take eachothers' stocks, trigger groups, and in some cases BCG components, differing only insofar as needed to perform their niche roles. The one thing they didn't do well was swappable magwells, sighting arrangements & end-user serviceability, though the clamp-on scope mount across all models was sort of a progenitor of standardized modular optics mounts. Even still, the SMG was rather heavy/large among its peers, the sniper fundamentally handicapped by the sheet metal receiver requiring reinforcement, and the LMG by its need to feed from the bottom.

I'd expect a designer of your caliber to realize that when something is engineered precisely to the leanest possible solution for a given task, you are intrinsically limited in pushing it farther for some application without a lot of work un-doing that precision engineering. There's a whole world of 'AR stuff' out there, but the small DI guns are all ultimately doing the same thing; lobbing intermediate cartridges from light carbines, and the large DI guns are all ultimately doing the same thing with full-power cartridges from mid-weight rifles (accurately). Alligators are so perfectly evolved to their job they don't need to change, but they don't exactly aspire to anything beyond that one job, either (although one did hold up a fast food joint in Florida, recently :D)

TCB
 
Yes, Mach. The AR15 cannot be adapted much beyond 223 at all without significant redesign, nor much below it, either; you're pretty much stuck with an intermediate cartridge absent major changes to the gas system (long-stroke SIG MPX or DI with large port 1/2" from the chamber) or a wholesale scaling to a different design regime (AR10). Adapting to a 14" barrel vs. an 18" barrel (along with swapping lots of gas & buffer components) is not the height of flexibility. Frankly, the fact that the AR readily allows 2/3rds of the gun to be removed & replaced as a unit (the upper) does not make that 2/3rds chunk particularly flexible, itself.
Kind of forgetting that the design started out as the 7.62x51mm AR-10 aren't you? It worked rather well in that configuration too.
 
The AR15 cannot be adapted much beyond 223 at all without significant redesign, nor much below it, either; you're pretty much stuck with an intermediate cartridge absent major changes to the gas system

The platform is chambered in a plethora of cartridges from .22 LR to powerful mid bore magnums to big bore thumpers that rival the .45-70. If you want to limit it only to the smaller AR-15 platform (and exclude rounds that won't fit the magwell), you still have:

.17 HMR
.17 Winchester Super Magnum
.22 Long Rifle
.22 Winchester Magnum Rimfire

.17 Remington
.17×223
.204 Ruger
.223 Remington/5.56 NATO
.243 Winchester Super Short Magnum
.25 Winchester Super Short Magnum
.25-45 Sharps
.270AR
.277 Wolverine (6.8×39mm)
.30 Carbine
.30 Herrett (.308-6.8)
.30 Remington AR
.300 AAC Blackout (7.62×35mm)
.300 Whisper
.375 Reaper
.40 S&W
.45 ACP
.450 Bushmaster
.458 SOCOM
.50 Beowulf
.50 Action Express

5.45×39mm
5.56×42mm(5.56-6.8)
5.56x45mm NATO
6mm-223 Remington
6mm Fat Rat (6mm Grendel AI)
6mm AR Turbo
6mm BRX
5.7×28mm FN
6.5mm BRX
6.5mm Grendel
6.5mm Patriot Combat Cartridge
6.8mm Remington SPC
7.62×37mm Musang
7.62×39mm
7.62×40mm Wilson Tactical
9mm Parabellum
10mm Auto

Seems pretty flexible to me.......

Adapting to a 14" barrel vs. an 18" barrel (along with swapping lots of gas & buffer components) is not the height of flexibility. Frankly, the fact that the AR readily allows 2/3rds of the gun to be removed & replaced as a unit (the upper) does not make that 2/3rds chunk particularly flexible, itself.

WTH are you talking about??? We run my SOT friend's FA M-16 lower with uppers from 7.5-20", suppressed and unsuppressed, 5.56 & .300 BLK, all using a carbine buffer & spring. It even rocked and rolled flawlessly with my ultralight upper, in which I milled away nearly 3 ounces of the carrier. No bolt bounce, no hiccups of any kind.

When going to different barrel lengths, the only thing that changes is (sometimes) the gas tube length. Same FSB or GB used; the port in the barrel determines how much gas is vented. They all use the same BCG with the same gas key. The way Stoner designed the gas system, it is really quite forgiving. My .300 BLK even runs subsonics unsuppressed without any issues, as well as hot 110 & 125 gr loads.

The ridiculous debates people get into about the "right buffer" are just that. Except for my rifles with rifle receiver extensions, all of mine are running standard carbine buffers with barrels from 7.5"-18", and they all work just fine. And plopping my 22" bull barrel upper on a carbine lower creates no issues whatsoever, aside from poor balance.

The true pinnacle of modularity, such that there can be one, is probably the HK roller guns, though I hate to admit it; short to long barrels, pistol cal to belt fed LMGs, suppressed SBRs, and even a sniper rifle --and they can pretty much all take eachothers' stocks, trigger groups, and in some cases BCG components,

Sure sounds a lot like the AR, don't it?
 
Last edited:
The platform is chambered in a plethora of cartridges from .22 LR to powerful mid bore magnums to big bore thumpers that rival the .45-70. If you want to limit it only to the smaller AR-15 platform (and exclude rounds that won't fit the magwell), you still have:

.17 HMR
.17 Winchester Super Magnum
.22 Long Rifle
.22 Winchester Magnum Rimfire

.17 Remington
.17×223
.204 Ruger
.223 Remington/5.56 NATO
.243 Winchester Super Short Magnum
.25 Winchester Super Short Magnum
.25-45 Sharps
.270AR
.277 Wolverine (6.8×39mm)
.30 Carbine
.30 Herrett (.308-6.8)
.30 Remington AR
.300 AAC Blackout (7.62×35mm)
.300 Whisper
.375 Reaper
.40 S&W
.45 ACP
.450 Bushmaster
.458 SOCOM
.50 Beowulf
.50 Action Express

5.45×39mm
5.56×42mm(5.56-6.8)
5.56x45mm NATO
6mm-223 Remington
6mm Fat Rat (6mm Grendel AI)
6mm AR Turbo
6mm BRX
5.7×28mm FN
6.5mm BRX
6.5mm Grendel
6.5mm Patriot Combat Cartridge
6.8mm Remington SPC
7.62×37mm Musang
7.62×39mm
7.62×40mm Wilson Tactical
9mm Parabellum
10mm Auto

Seems pretty flexible to me.......



WTH are you talking about??? We run my SOT friend's FA M-16 lower with uppers from 7.5-20", suppressed and unsuppressed, 5.56 & .300 BLK, all using a carbine buffer & spring. It even rocked and rolled flawlessly with my ultralight upper, in which I milled away nearly 3 ounces of the carrier. No bolt bounce, no hiccups of any kind.

The ridiculous debates people get into about the "right buffer" are just that. Except for my rifles with rifle receiver extensions, all of mine are running standard carbine buffers with barrels from 7.5"-18", and they all work just fine. And plopping my 22" bull barrel upper on a carbine lower creates no issues whatsoever, aside from poor balance.



Sure sounds a lot like the AR, don't it?
90% of what you just posted was either designed specifically for the AR, or is so small it doesnt even use the AR gas system or rotating bolt but operates as a straight blowback.. barnbwt was right, its a pretty inflexible design and the fact most of the cartridges for it are cartridges designed specifically for it speaks volumes of it

if it had the flexibility to reliably shoot 7.62x39 there likely wouldnt be a 300 blackout or a 7.62x40WT, but since the magazine well prevents tapered rounds from reliably feeding and the bolt is prone to breaking with larger bodies cartridges, these two cartridges as well as more 30 cal wildcats have to be made specifically for the AR instead... even 5.45x39 has its issues

if it was flexible 6.5 grendel and 6.8SPC plus other large bodies cartridges wouldnt have had to be loaded to loader pressures to alleviate stress from higher levels of bolt thrust, its why the 6.8SPC and all that it is is barely any better than the .277 wolverine which can achieve 95% of the performance of the 6.8SPC and do so with significantly less case capacity since the pressures can be higher
 
90% of what you just posted was either designed specifically for the AR, or is so small it doesnt even use the AR gas system or rotating bolt but operates as a straight blowback

41 cartridges listed. 10 of them were not designed for the AR and do make use of the gas system.

.17 Remington
.17×223
.204 Ruger
.243 Winchester Super Short Magnum
.25 Winchester Super Short Magnum
.300 Whisper
.50 Action Express
5.45×39mm
6mm-223 Remington
7.62×39mm

10/41 is one quarter, not one tenth. You need to temper the hyperbole, my friend.

This list I snagged quickly, of course, does not even include numerous other rounds that would obviously be suitable, such as 7.62x25, 9x21, 9x23, 9x25 Dillon, 9mm Win Mag, .45 Win Mag, .400 Corbon, 10mm Mag, .44 AMP, .440 Corbon, or any other round which will physically fit through the mag well. Some would require proprietary bolts, may or may not use the gas system, but will function in the AR-15 regardless.

Could most of these be adapted to other platforms that fire intermediate rounds? Sure. As easily as the AR? Generally no. Some of you contend that "swapping the complete upper doesn't count because it's most of the gun". I submit to you that, while upper swaps make caliber changes a 5 second affair, that doesn't mean most of the upper parts aren't also flexible. Save for odd ducks like the AR-57 or .50 BMG uppers, they are all using the same upper receiver, barrel nuts, hand guards, charging handles, gas tubes, and generally the same gas blocks/FSBs. So, caliber change requires a different barrel (true of any gun), sometimes a different bolt (also true of any gun, but a cheaper and smaller component in the AR than most), and a different carrier for blow back applications. Wow! A whole 1-3 upper parts are different for a range of more than 40 cartridges.

Find me another semi auto rifle that can boast that. Can you take your AK into the garage with just a new barrel and a single tool, and walk out 10 minutes later chambered for a different cartridge? How about your HK? FAL? Galil? The SCAR would be the only one easier, and it has limitations of it's own.
 
41 cartridges listed. 10 of them were not designed for the AR and do make use of the gas system.

.17 Remington
.17×223
.204 Ruger
.243 Winchester Super Short Magnum
.25 Winchester Super Short Magnum
.300 Whisper
.50 Action Express
5.45×39mm
6mm-223 Remington
7.62×39mm

10/41 is one quarter, not one tenth. You need to temper the hyperbole, my friend.

This list I snagged quickly, of course, does not even include numerous other rounds that would obviously be suitable, such as 7.62x25, 9x21, 9x23, 9x25 Dillon, 9mm Win Mag, .45 Win Mag, .400 Corbon, 10mm Mag, .44 AMP, .440 Corbon, or any other round which will physically fit through the mag well. Some would require proprietary bolts, may or may not use the gas system, but will function in the AR-15 regardless.

Could most of these be adapted to other platforms that fire intermediate rounds? Sure. As easily as the AR? Generally no. Some of you contend that "swapping the complete upper doesn't count because it's most of the gun". I submit to you that, while upper swaps make caliber changes a 5 second affair, that doesn't mean most of the upper parts aren't also flexible. Save for odd ducks like the AR-57 or .50 BMG uppers, they are all using the same upper receiver, barrel nuts, hand guards, charging handles, gas tubes, and generally the same gas blocks/FSBs. So, caliber change requires a different barrel (true of any gun), sometimes a different bolt (also true of any gun, but a cheaper and smaller component in the AR than most), and a different carrier for blow back applications. Wow! A whole 1-3 upper parts are different for a range of more than 40 cartridges.

Find me another semi auto rifle that can boast that. Can you take your AK into the garage with just a new barrel and a single tool, and walk out 10 minutes later chambered for a different cartridge? How about your HK? FAL? Galil? The SCAR would be the only one easier, and it has limitations of it's own.
and five of those are based on 5.56 or a nearly identical cartridge (17 remington, 17x223, 204 ruger, 300 whisper, and 6mm-223), two of them suffer reliability issues (the soviet rounds), the two WSSMs require an entirely redesigned upper, and the .50AE might as well

next you'll be telling me its so flexible it can even fire 50BMG, even though those uppers are single short or side mag rifles using the AR lower as nothing more than a trigger group
 
You forgot 510 Reedwhacker;
719482d1358796860-build-thread-510-reedwacker-per-request-woodleigh-weldcore-comparison-2.jpg

You also forgot to read what I wrote. I said intermediate cartridges work fine, but pushing beyond them without major changes to many components is impossible; the bolt & gas systems simply aren't big enough to go bigger without scaling up to an AR10 (which is itself somewhat rooted to its full power rifle caliber, being kinda large and clunky for intermediate rounds, hence the need to scale down in the first place instead of just going shorter)

As I keep saying, there's a lot to like about the DI principle, but it simply doesn't carry over well to applications that aren't directly analogous to the ARs. The same is not true for other systems, which is why you see short/long pistons & recoil guns all over, but not the Stoner DI system. It also has its own quirks like all design choices, making it poorly suited for even some of the roles it is capable of filling.

Mach, I do encourage you to build a DI 50BMG at some point, since I bet it can be done, and I bet it would be very cool. It will probably have fouling or gas/face issues which make it less than practical, though.

TCB
 
and five of those are based on 5.56 or a nearly identical cartridge (17 remington, 17x223, 204 ruger, 300 whisper, and 6mm-223), two of them suffer reliability issues (the soviet rounds), the two WSSMs require an entirely redesigned upper, and the .50AE might as well

Just keep adding those qualifiers :rolleyes:

If you wish to call a weapon inflexible because the ability of that platform to handle dozens of different cartridges requires that a few parts be changed, then I'm afraid not a one meets your criteria. Indeed, the only design that would allow a simple barrel change to cover all cartridges would be a falling block single shot, and the barrels would have to be designed with an integral extractor (so, really, you're still changing more than one part....).

I'm done debating you on the AR's versatility. Many millions of shooters already get it, and you're simply being obtuse and argumentative at this point. There is nothing to be gained here.
 
Nothing gained except an understanding of why DI doesn't seem to appear in any other configuration...

TCB
 
Nothing gained except an understanding of why DI doesn't seem to appear in any other configuration...

What does the gas system have to do with the parts that are altered to accommodate other cartridges? The same parts must be altered in manual action guns as well. Take a Remington 700; the only parts compatible between one chambered in .243 and one in .300 win mag are trigger group components. Not even the stocks or scope mounts swap. Wanna look at the AK based designs? OK; what is comaptible between a standard AK and those chambered in .308 or 7.62x54 like the PSL? The grip and buttstock are all that comes to mind. The HK roller guns? Also just stock and grip/FCG assembly; going from 9mm to 5.56 to 7.62 replaces the entire upper assembly, including magwell. That's more substantial than the AR, and also the serialized part. FAL? Would also require a whole new upper. And, again, the upper "half" of CETME based and FAL designs is not as quickly changed as the AR. With the AK, since the barrel is somewhat permanently attached to the rest of the gun, a caliber change is a major gunsmithing operation. And all of those, because they do not use the barrel extension design, require headspacing to be set after a barrel change.

As has been stated, establishing the merits of an operating system by analyzing the number of designs employing it is a strange metric. No one else uses HK's roller system, unless you count the loosely based design of the VZ-52 pistol, which is a stand-alone. Does that also make it undesireable? The short stroke impinging rod design of the SKS is also not oft copied. Bad? Nobody has employed a long recoil system in a successful new design since J.M.B. died. Is that no good either? Beretta (and Stoeger making Beretta copies) are the only handguns using rotating barrels, so I guess the Cougar and PX-4 are crap, too. And why limit it to semi-auto's? I mean, the novel system in the Schmidt-Rubin rifles is seen in no other, so it must have been deemed unworthy of replication.
 
Wait, I thought this was common knowledge & the subject of countless piston-conversion infrared comparison tests showing reduced temps on operating parts. The impact of this difference is debatable (effects on material properties or burning off of lubricant) but the bolt/carrier are simply hotter --during sustained fire-- than piston designs that keep the hot gas further away.
From what I've seen, the temperature differences are small enough to be irrelevant, and certainly not in the range that would burn off lubricant. And if you shoot a full-auto M16/M4 magazine after magazine after magazine until overheat failure, the bolt and carrier are still fine. In an M4, the first component to fail will be the barrel.

This is because, like the AR, the AK's gas tube is largely vented into the receiver. Guns with tighter piston tubes (AR70 is my personal exposure) do not have the issue, nor do any of the short-stroke designs which are basically the cleanest non-recoil-operated systems there are. Please go on and explain how an AR10 vents just as much fouling into the receiver/FCG area as my FNAR which remains clean for hundreds of rounds, though. I would also recommend looking over a slo-mo of a MAS49/56, which shows that a large volume of gas is delivered through the gas tube (which is very similar to the AR, the bolt-end of things not so much), without a corresponding 'puff' as the bolt retracts.
And yet the AK is typically cited as the ne plus ultra of semiauto reliability. I guess the minimal powder fouling that blows into the receiver from the gas system isn't a reliability issue with the AK any more than it is with an AR.

And FWIW, I like the AR-15, the AK, *and* the FNAR.

For like the third time, I'm not saying these are issues in practice.
Then we agree.

Please stop taking this as me 'knocking' your baby.
I'm not. I'm taking this as a discussion on the technical merits of DI vs. forward-piston systems. I'm still an AK fan at heart, and shot USPSA carbine for a while with a SAR-1, but I moved away from that platform due to the greater accuracy and flexibility of commercial .223 in the AR platform. The Stoner-style DI system has shortcomings, but they are not in the realm of reliability or durability; they are in the realm of working with really short barrels, or suppressed rifles, without a lot of tinkering.

Gas tube ruptures are not unheard of modes on those moronic 'torture tests' garnering all the Youboob hits. Super hot gas, thin wall stainless tube, blammo. I believe the couple I saw were on heavier barrel wannabe-SAW platforms, FWIW (I agree the barrel is long toast on pretty much every automatic there is given sustained full auto).
I'm citing DoD tests (specifically the M4 vs. M4A1 trials), not some dude on Youtube.

My point in raising this aspect is that the gas system of the AR is ultimately 'weaker' --i.e. more prone to bursting or failing due to overheating-- than piston designs, and this is largely due to the fact that pistons necessarily have beefier parts.
I think that is an assumption. The gas system of a forward-piston design is subjected to far higher temps than the gas system of an AR, and I have yet to see any forward-piston system subjected to a similar heat load test as the Army M4/M4A1 tests. Remember, the piston on a SCAR or an AR piston variant sees the same heat load as the very front of a DI AR's gas tube and gas block.

If you made the AR tube as beefy as an AK/etc's, it would likely be just as durable, but also just as heavy.
No, because it is only the diameter of a pencil, so you could significantly increase the wall thickness without increasing the weight much. But there's no need, because on a civilian rifle there is simply no physical way to get the gas tube hot enough to fail from overheat.
 
Last edited:
And yet the AK is typically cited as the ne plus ultra of semiauto reliability. I guess the minimal powder fouling that blows into the receiver from the gas system isn't a reliability issue with the AK any more than it is with an AR.
There's more variables at play between AR/AK than just the similar action-fouling concern. There's obviously both looser parts and (too much) more empty space in the AK from 'stuff' to fall out of the way. Agree that any fouling/failure mode is generally a non-issue for all gas operating autoloaders invented since the M1, but compared directly to each other the AK can tolerate more 'stuff' being blown into the action area*. The trigger group especially seems more tolerant, if only because there's a much larger way out for debris near the sear.

*I know because I found extreme difficulty in lapping my M76 lugs to proper receiver-engagement; the grit was pushed out of the way and stopped cutting almost immediately, even on the fine grits! There was like a tablespoon of gritty grease in the trunnion I had to scoop out when ready to clean things up :p

As far as the other points of mine you addressed, you are mostly right; they really don't matter for our (or really anyone's) applications. But, seeing as the topic of the thread was "Why isn't DI used anywhere else if it's so popular/dominant/successful in the AR" so I was highlighting what seem to be the only logical/technical explanations that don't involve some secret AR Fanboy Cabal manipulating the arms industry from behind the scenes (oh wait, that's exactly what the DOD is at this point to a large degreee! :D)

TCB
 
There's more variables at play between AR/AK than just the similar action-fouling concern. There's obviously both looser parts and (too much) more empty space in the AK from 'stuff' to fall out of the way.

ive mentioned most this before in other posts about what makes something like an AK more reliable, there are even more factors than the open space, but the area around the breech is pretty open too, theres no separate lower receiver so the geometry between the magazines and barrel never changes, theres no having to cycle back into an extension on the lower which if out of alignment will cause excessive friction and wear (friction usually leads to a short-stroke), and a bolt carrier group that is much higher mass which provides more momentum to power through something that would otherwise short stroke another rifle

adding on top of that the heavier taper of 7.62x39 lends itself to easier extraction, but the one feature i think adds to the reliability most is that the AK action is longer, the carrier is allowed to travel further back which allows for a much larger margin of error that allows what many would consider an over-gasses gas system which lends plenty of energy into the action to ensure theres enough force to extract and eject even when dirty without causing damage from the impact of the carrier against the rear trunnion

its why i laugh so hard when some company like faxon who comes out with the arak-21, or some other company claims an AR AK hybrid that will improve reliability by doing nothing more than adding a piston
 
As far as the other points of mine you addressed, you are mostly right; they really don't matter for our (or really anyone's) applications. But, seeing as the topic of the thread was "Why isn't DI used anywhere else if it's so popular/dominant/successful in the AR" so I was highlighting what seem to be the only logical/technical explanations that don't involve some secret AR Fanboy Cabal manipulating the arms industry from behind the scenes (oh wait, that's exactly what the DOD is at this point to a large degreee! )

Well, the first DI French rifle I know of was made in 1898, and the system used in the MAS 44, 49, and 49/56 is pretty much took off from another one they made a bit later, either the Rossignol 1900 or the Belthier 1903. So we have to say DI has been with us for quite a while.

Terminology note: if you look at the, say, drawings of the gas system for the Ljungman AG42, the hole in the bolt carrier + end of the gas pie thingie is called an expansion chamber. The same applies on the MAS 49; I guess because the gas tube there gets very thick and there is a little gap between end of the tube (talking about MAS here since the AG42 has a threaded piece in the end of the tube) so the gas has to fill that little chamber. And as the bolt carrier starts to move, the ratio between the diameter of the gas tube over the diameter of the chamber means the pressure drops a lot, which probably smooths things out. Now, I was told the Hakim (AG42's brother from the same mother and a different father) throws gases on the shooter's face. I cannot vouch for that since I've never shot either, but the MAS doesn't.

There's more variables at play between AR/AK than just the similar action-fouling concern. There's obviously both looser parts and (too much) more empty space in the AK from 'stuff' to fall out of the way. Agree that any fouling/failure mode is generally a non-issue for all gas operating autoloaders invented since the M1, but compared directly to each other the AK can tolerate more 'stuff' being blown into the action area*. The trigger group especially seems more tolerant, if only because there's a much larger way out for debris near the sear.

Don't forget the M1 gas system (and bolt, and...) is coincidentally similar to the RSC1917, which did have some fouling issues. Which were solved in the 1918 version.
 
The MAS/AG42 use a much more straightforward system that is much more like a long stroke piston, though. It's just the piston is very short, no longer than needed to drive the carrier before venting occcurs. The carrier is for sure not thrusting against the bolt, but the gas in the gas tube. It only looks similar to an AR, but an AR without a hole under the gas key will supposedly not cycle.

TCB
 
If I had the coin I'd like to give a Nemo .300 Winmag a try.
Not sure what gas system it runs, but it is laid out in AR style platform.
 
Hookeye said:
If I had the coin I'd like to give a Nemo .300 Winmag a try.
Not sure what gas system it runs, but it is laid out in AR style platform.
Unless they changed something recently, all the Nemo .300 Win Mag AR-type rifles are DI and not piston (yes, I know the AR isn't a true DI, but that's the simplest way to differentiate it).
 
if it had the flexibility to reliably shoot 7.62x39 there likely wouldnt be a 300 blackout or a 7.62x40WT, but since the magazine well prevents tapered rounds from reliably feeding and the bolt is prone to breaking with larger bodies cartridges, these two cartridges as well as more 30 cal wildcats have to be made specifically for the AR instead... even 5.45x39 has its issues

The above is just not correct. Being a purveyor of internet gossip is the first indicator of ignorance. Speak from experience and I will listen. The 7.62 39 works great in the ar platform. It gives low cost reliable 30 caliber punch in a lightweight carbine with high capacity. I think ironic that a guy with odd, screwy ideas on firearms is so bent against a great designed rifle.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top