Why are Russians and Israelis so consistent in keeping AK action in their modern rifles? Short-stroke (AR-18 style) theoretically provides same independence from temperature, gas pressure etc, but without making half of the barrel stiff (which leads to uneven harmonics and inferior accuracy on longer ranges).
Short-stroke systems literally has pros of both long-stroke and direct impingement without their respective cons. That's why all modern armies are switching to rifles based on that system.
Or is there something I'm missing in here?
Longstroke systems are generally more robust but that's about it
>Longstroke systems are generally more robust
I've heard that, but why? How is piston attached to the bolt more robust when gas is pushing on it? How is spring more robust when it pushes back on both bolt and the piston? Can one extra spring (for the piston) really make gun less reliable when it's made by modern industry?
more momentum.
Entirely dependent on the gun, not specifically the type of gas system or weight of the BCG. A SCAR BCG weighs ~20oz, an AR15+Carbine Buffer is ~15oz, an AK BCG is ~18oz, an XCR BCG is ~12oz. The cyclic rate and, indirectly, the momentum of the reciprocating mass, is affected more by how much the system is gassed and how far the BCG can cycle backwards before it must stop.
>but why?
They aren't. All of the most reliable small arms in the world are short stroke.
The ar15 isn't short stroke though. Nice try gay.
The only thing I can think of is that adding a spring to the op rod adds another point of failure.
But in practice I don’t think the spring on an op rod has ever been a failure point on any short stroke piston gun.
Longstroke is simpler mechanically. But realistically everything nowadays is an AR-18 clone so it's not like gun designers don't agree with you.
This is true. Also recall that the majority of israelis with an IQ around or above body temperature are basically just russians whose maternal grandmother was maybe israeli (so, like Putin) so they still have Russian tastes.
Putin doesn't have israeli grandparents.
Well, yes, not anymore
Long stroke pistons can incorporate the recoil spring in front of the chamber and make the action as compact and simple as possible. The added weight also reduces total mass needed in the bolt carrier. You can theoretically knock an inch or more off your gun's total length withe the right implementation of a long stroke piston.
You could do that with SSR as well. Just have a guide rod like an AUG.
Why would you choose either when you could just get rid of the piston entirely and save a frickton of weight?
Pistons are obsolete and serve no purpose unless you're using the gun as an LMG. AR-10 style DI is the way to go for pretty much any civilian or military use excepting the role of a squad machine-gunner.
Because DI is very dependent on gas pressure and that is very dependent on weather and million other, random factors. Even Stoner knew this and that's why he designed AR-18, where putting piston between gas and a bolt seemed like most obvious solution for DI's problems.
Stoner didn't design the AR-18 lmao
AR-18 was based on Stoner's AR-16. Short stroke piston was his idea.
Any gas-operated weapon is reliant on gas pressure. This is easily remedied with the addition of a gas regulator. The issue of gas pressure is only really an "issue" in the first place if you're firing something like 60-year-old ammo of the absolute lowest quality, or are in subzero temperatures. Which again, gas regulator.
>Even Stoner knew this and that's why he designed AR-18, where putting piston between gas and a bolt seemed like most obvious solution for DI's problems.
Also this is a straight up lie. Stoner put a piston in the AR-18 because Armalite held the patent for the AR-10/15's DI system, and they in turn sold it to Colt.
>Stoner put a piston
This should say "Armalite", not "Stoner". Previous anon's autism infected me momentarily.
DI is not as reliable. Or do you think it's by some grand historical mistake that DI arms were a tiny minority in the world's militaries until the AR-15 reached 50+ years in development? And even then most new adopters have gone with a piston variant.
>half of the barrel stiff
Long stroke systems don't make the
barrel stiff though, if they did then they would improve accuracy. The op rod isnt attached to the barrel but to the carrier, and there's nothing that requires the oprod cover to be rigidly attached to the barrel or receiver, or indeed any requirement for an oprod cover at all.
>if they did then they would improve accuracy
Nope. When half of barrel is stiff whole energy transfers to other half making it shaking and bending twice as much. Watch AKs shooting in slomo.
>there's nothing that requires the oprod cover to be rigidly attached to the barrel or receiver, or indeed any requirement for an oprod cover at all
Russians tried real hard to marry long stroke with free floating barrel and they ended up with a system that's much worse than old AK.
The Tavor is a long stroke, but not like how you would picture it. If it was like an Ak the gas in the face wouldn't be an issue
Doesn’t the barrel still have to be equally stiff with short stroke? Cause while the piston and carrier are in contact and both being pushed back, the forces are still the same as if it were a long stroke piston setup.
DI is king
Lighter, straight back recoil, no carrier tilt, and relieves some pressure off the bolt lugs for unlocking
>no carrier tilt
Your brain when you think every rifle is subject to the issues that rifles with buffer tubes are.
Ah shit, you’re right