I like to keep the guns operating as they were designed. So DI for AR-15 for me.
Armalite did make the AR-18, a fully piston designed rifle with folding stock. The US military should have gone with that.
" The AR-18 was designed at ArmaLite in California byArthur Miller, George Sullivan, and Charles Dorchester in 1963 as an improved alternative to the AR-15 design, which had just been selected by the U.S. military as the M16."
If the AR-18 was made 1 year earlier, we would all be having AR-18s instead of AR-15s. And life would be good since it is a much better design.
In fact, Eugene Stoner did make the AR-16, which was a piston design firing 7.62x51, and highly influenced the later AR-18.
So I think Eugene Stoner was probably as disappointed as a lot of other people about the DI system, considering all his other designs. But that being said, the AR-15 was not designed for piston operation.
Armalite did make the AR-18, a fully piston designed rifle with folding stock. The US military should have gone with that.
" The AR-18 was designed at ArmaLite in California byArthur Miller, George Sullivan, and Charles Dorchester in 1963 as an improved alternative to the AR-15 design, which had just been selected by the U.S. military as the M16."
If the AR-18 was made 1 year earlier, we would all be having AR-18s instead of AR-15s. And life would be good since it is a much better design.
In fact, Eugene Stoner did make the AR-16, which was a piston design firing 7.62x51, and highly influenced the later AR-18.
So I think Eugene Stoner was probably as disappointed as a lot of other people about the DI system, considering all his other designs. But that being said, the AR-15 was not designed for piston operation.
Last edited:
