Wolf A1 complete upper $559 shipped

[Shotgun Surgery]

https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/ArmaLite_AR-18

https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/T91_assault_rifle

After Stoner with Armalite developed the AR-15, they went on to develop the AR-18, a short stroke, piston driven rifle incorporating the same high tech materials of its predecessor, the AR-15. Taiwan's military adopted the AR-18 design instead of the AR-15. They made a few improvement tweaks and called it the T91, which is in use to this day by their military. The Wolf A1 is a Taiwanese military full auto T91 upper without the bayonet lug and gas block sling swivel. Its Stoner piston system is no joke and is a bonafide military upper that is in service right now.

The AR-18 was designed to be a less-expensive alternative to the AR15 for poorer countries. Also, Armalite designed this after they had already sold the patent of the AR15 to Colt. In short, it wasn't designed as an improvement upon the AR15 design.

Edit: Also, it was specifically designed to be especially easy to manufacture in these less-developed nations. It made generous use of stamped and pressed parts.

 

[Mrs_Esterhouse]

The AR-18 was designed to be a less-expensive alternative to the AR15 for poorer countries. Also, Armalite designed this after they had already sold the patent of the AR15 to Colt. In short, it wasn't designed as an improvement upon the AR15 design.

Edit: Also, it was specifically designed to be especially easy to manufacture in these less-developed nations. It made generous use of stamped and pressed parts.

The T91 and A1 do not use stamped parts. They are forged uppers with forged gas blocks.

Not an economy rifle by any stretch, the British SA180 was also born from the AR-18.

 

[Shotgun Surgery]

The T91 and A1 do not use stamped parts. They are forged uppers with forged gas blocks.

Not an economy rifle by any stretch, the British SA180 was also born from the AR-18.

And those aren't the AR18. The AR18 wasn't designed as an improvement upon the AR15; it was always the less expensive alternative made because they sold the rights to make the real deal AR15.

Also, there were plenty of nations that made their own designs which were twists of already existing concepts to avoid having to pay the high licensing fees to make AR15s or the even higher fees to buy the rifles outright. Look at South Korea's Daewoo K series of rifles as an example of this. "What is the best possible service rifle." is quite often not the determining factor of which rifle a military ends up using. "What can we afford?" and "What designs are within our manufacturing capabilities?" are often more pressing concerns.

There's also the fact that militaries sometimes just make dumb decisions; look at the bullpup rifle fad which is finally starting to show its end.

 

[Jeddak]

Having a thicker barrel, IE being built to withstand the stress of sustained fully-automatic fire, is the main functional difference between a light-machine gun and an assault rifle.

Both are fully automatic rifles. The assault rifle is a service rifle which is the cross between a sub machine gun and a traditional battle rifle. They're capable of fully-automatic fire to give an advantage over non-fullauto firearms in close range, but the barrel is of a light profile as to not weigh the soldier down. Dump a magazine, maybe two, and you're good to go, but dumping magazine after magazine after magazine isn't what an assault rifle was designed to do.

Light-machine guns are designed to be man-portable fully-automatic rifles designed specifically for sustained fire. They're not light and handy like an assault rifle, but they're also designed to withstand the stress of very large volumes of fire within a short period of time.

The AKM is not a light-machine gun; it's an assault rifle. The RPK is not an assault rifle; it's a light-machine gun.

Sweetheart, I cut my teeth on a Soviet army issue RPK74 when I was 10 years old. Spare me lectures about AKs.

 

[Jeddak]

Having a thicker barrel, IE being built to withstand the stress of sustained fully-automatic fire, is the main functional difference between a light-machine gun and an assault rifle.

Both are fully automatic rifles. The assault rifle is a service rifle which is the cross between a sub machine gun and a traditional battle rifle. They're capable of fully-automatic fire to give an advantage over non-fullauto firearms in close range, but the barrel is of a light profile as to not weigh the soldier down. Dump a magazine, maybe two, and you're good to go, but dumping magazine after magazine after magazine isn't what an assault rifle was designed to do.

Light-machine guns are designed to be man-portable fully-automatic rifles designed specifically for sustained fire. They're not light and handy like an assault rifle, but they're also designed to withstand the stress of very large volumes of fire within a short period of time.

The AKM is not a light-machine gun; it's an assault rifle. The RPK is not an assault rifle; it's a light-machine gun.

You do not have much/any experience with AKs and RPKs, do you?
RPK barrel is .7 inch just past the gas block. AKM barrel is .58". Some difference, yes. But not a whole lot. It helps with accuracy and barrel longevity. That's why in Soviet/Russian armies RPK's secondary role is a DMR.
BTW, can M16 do this? 1400 rounds, full auto, non stop, AK is still usable. Ran out of ammo, so test had to be stopped.

 

[Shotgun Surgery]

You do not have much/any experience with AKs and RPKs, do you?
RPK barrel is .7 inch just past the gas block. AKM barrel is .58". Some difference, yes. But not a whole lot. It helps with accuracy and barrel longevity. That's why in Soviet/Russian armies RPK's secondary role is a DMR.
BTW, can M16 do this? 1400 rounds, full auto, non stop, AK is still usable. Ran out of ammo, so test had to be stopped.

"RPK barrel is .7 inch just past the gas block. AKM barrel is .58". Some difference, yes. But not a whole lot." That is a big difference, especially when you consider there's a roughly 30 caliber hole in the middle of that. That AKM barrel of .58 with a roughly .3 hole drilled through it only has about 60% of the metal a .7 barrel with a roughly .3 hole drilled through it would have.

"BTW, can M16 do this?"
Almost certainly not, but that doesn't matter in the slightest. Neither the M16 nor the AKM is a light machine gun; dumping magazine after magazine after magazine would be a misuse of either rifle. Many things in nature, like the bones in our body, are designed both not to break, but also that if they do break they do so in a way that is easy to repair. The AR15 was initially, and intentionally, designed with a gas tube that would act as a fuse. If the rifle were misused as an impromptu light machine gun then the gas tube would break before permanent damage could be done to more critical components like the gas port or really the barrel as a whole. Even many light-machine guns employ such a concept.

Regardless, none of this matters. Assault rifles are assault rifles and light-machine guns are light-machine guns. Some of the qualities that make a good light-machine gun make a poor assault rifle, and some of the qualities that make a good assault-rifle make for a poor light-machine gun. If that AKM can fire 1,400 rounds non stop without damage then it could likely fulfill its purpose as an assault rifle with slightly less steel in the barrel and would then be a lighter rifle for the soldier carrying it. The long and short of it is that this test doesn't, in any way, make the AK a better service rifle.

Oh, and here's a video of an AK melting down to the point of complete failure after about 600 rounds. It really depends on who makes the AK, just as it depends on who makes the AR or who makes whatever design of firearm.

 

[Jeddak]

Like I said, you have no experience with a AK or piston rifles, long posts do not make up for it.
OP was about Wolf A1. My point was that piston guns are more robust than DI guns, like AR15. Heavy usage demonstrates that DI cannot handle adverse conditions as well as piston rifles do.
Name one other design that uses AR15 DI principle. Start with LMG, please or something not AR15/M16. I gave you M249, that uses a long stroke piston. You gave?.......?
How about HK416? Oh, wait it is also a piston, albeight short stroke (like Wolf A1)
It must be a cheap stamped gun, that's why Socom uses it.
Galil? Wait, it is a long stroke piston. Surely Israelis know nothing about small arms. They make cheapest guns they can to protect themselves. /Sarcasm off

AK15 and AK12? Nope, still long stroke piston. Ancient design, that just now is being fielded.

Funny how nobody fields new DI guns. Unless they get free rifles from Uncle Sam via foreign aid.

 

[bulletpaluza]

Like I said, you have no experience with a AK or piston rifles, long posts do not make up for it.
OP was about Wolf A1. My point was that piston guns are more robust than DI guns, like AR15. Heavy usage demonstrates that DI cannot handle adverse conditions as well as piston rifles do.
Name one other design that uses AR15 DI principle. Start with LMG, please or something not AR15/M16. I gave you M249, that uses a long stroke piston. You gave?.......?
How about HK416? Oh, wait it is also a piston, albeight short stroke (like Wolf A1)
It must be a cheap stamped gun, that's why Socom uses it.
Galil? Wait, it is a long stroke piston. Surely Israelis know nothing about small arms. They make cheapest guns they can to protect themselves. /Sarcasm off

AK15 and AK12? Nope, still long stroke piston. Ancient design, that just now is being fielded.

Funny how nobody fields new DI guns. Unless they get free rifles from Uncle Sam via foreign aid.

Don't forget the

STG44
FAL
M1 GARAND
M14
M1 CARBINE
FN49 series of rifles
SKS
SVT-40

All implement a short or long piston system because it is a superior design.

 

[Shotgun Surgery]

Like I said, you have no experience with a AK or piston rifles, long posts do not make up for it.
OP was about Wolf A1. My point was that piston guns are more robust than DI guns, like AR15. Heavy usage demonstrates that DI cannot handle adverse conditions as well as piston rifles do.
Name one other design that uses AR15 DI principle. Start with LMG, please or something not AR15/M16. I gave you M249, that uses a long stroke piston. You gave?.......?
How about HK416? Oh, wait it is also a piston, albeight short stroke (like Wolf A1)
It must be a cheap stamped gun, that's why Socom uses it.
Galil? Wait, it is a long stroke piston. Surely Israelis know nothing about small arms. They make cheapest guns they can to protect themselves. /Sarcasm off

AK15 and AK12? Nope, still long stroke piston. Ancient design, that just now is being fielded.

Funny how nobody fields new DI guns. Unless they get free rifles from Uncle Sam via foreign aid.

"Like I said, you have no experience with a AK or piston rifles, long posts do not make up for it."

I do have experience with AK pattern rifles. I used to own one. Also, you having shot the rifles doesn't mean you know anything about them. I'm not saying you don't, but owning something doesn't make you an expert about it.

"...piston guns are more robust than DI guns, like AR15. Heavy usage demonstrates that DI cannot handle adverse conditions as well as piston rifles do."

1: The AR15 is not DI.

2: It's funny that you think external piston guns are somehow inherently more reliable considering that the AR15 continually outperforms AK pattern rifles in mud tests.

"Name one other design that uses AR15 DI principle."

Literally 0 rifles on the planet are patterned after the AR15 DI principal because it doesn't exist; the AR15 is not DI. Also, there have been light-machine guns created based on the AR15 design. The Colt Light Machine Gun is one example I can think of. It's essentially just an M16 with a thicker barrel.

Really with how versatile the AR15 design is, it's hard to justify borrowing its action to create a different firearm when the AR15 can so easily be modified to fit most needs. Want it to be an LMG? Use a thicker barrel and drum magazines. Want it to be a long-range precision rifle? Free-float the barrel and scale it back up to the AR10 in an appropriate rifle caliber. There's not much point to re-inventing the wheel.

"It must be a cheap stamped gun, that's why Socom uses it."

Socom using or requesting something doesn't make it better. As an example...

Socom was misusing the M4 as an impromptu LMG until they blew up. They then requested that Colt fix the "problems" and were told that because of the military bureaucracy they weren't allowed to modify the M4 design. Socom then had the SCAR rifle commissioned to be be made to their exact specifications, started using that, and then largely switched back to the M4 once Colt got approval to start making M4 rifles with thicker barrels. Even when socom got exactly what it wanted, it turns out they didn't even know what it was they really wanted all along. They get it in their heads that they want something based on the same misconceptions some of we non-socom people have, such as the AR15 somehow not being as reliable as a piston gun despite this not bearing out in testing.

"They make cheapest guns they can to protect themselves."

Historically that has kind of been the case. The concept of "Israeli carry", IE carrying without a round in the chamber, was created because they sourced pistons from all different makes and manufacturers, mostly second-hand. Instead of training their soldiers for each and every different pistol they got, it was more efficient for them to teach them to carry without a round in the chamber as the common themes between all of the pistols was that they were all safe to carry without a round in the chamber and ready to fire once the slide had been racked.

You could also look at the UZI SMG. It was a great little design for what they intended; they wanted a SMG that was easy and cheap to mass produce and good enough for the use of a SMG. They didn't want or design the very best; they wanted something good enough and affordable.

Why don't they use the AR15 now? I can't say for sure, but my best guess is that back in the day the Galil was designed to be a service rifle they could create without having to pay the excessive licensing fees to Colt to manufacture AR15 rifles. After the requirement to pay such a fee ended, they were likely so invested into the Galil (manufacturing it, training soldiers to use it, etc) that it would be more of a logistical nightmare to switch to something else than it would be worth.

"Funny how nobody fields new DI guns. Unless they get free rifles from Uncle Sam via foreign aid."

Except for special forces units across the globe. Oh, also New Zealand just switched to the AR15.

 

[Shotgun Surgery]

Don't forget the

STG44
FAL
M1 GARAND
M14
M1 CARBINE
FN49 series of rifles
SKS
SVT-40

All implement a short or long piston system because it is a superior design.

What makes it superior? Reliability? An AR15 can go thousands of rounds without cleaning and still be reliable. It also outperforms many external-piston guns, like the AK, in mud tests. The AR15 has less recoil and lower muzzle rise in rapid or fully-automatic fire when compared to external piston rifles. That's an objective advantage. External piston guns seem more reliable in the minds of some people, but testing does not show there to be any increase in reliability. This isn't an objective advantage.