Egypt purchased tooling for the Swedish AG-42 Ljungman in 1952, and adapted it to their 8mm Mauser caliber as the Hakim rifle. Later, they scaled the rifle down to 7.62x39mm as the Rasheed, and manufactured about 7,300 of them between 1966 and 1968. These rifles were issued to the District Ward Reserve Army (essentially a National Guard) and saw service in the Six Day War and the Yom Kippur War. Production ended in favor of AK pattern rifles, but the Rasheed is a very interesting and fairly rare Cold War rifle.
The Rasheed is one of only a few true direct gas impingement actions, with a tilting bolt to lock. It uses a 10-round detachable magazine, but was intended to be reloaded with stripper clips (interchangeable with SKS clips), and was not issued with extra magazines. The folding bayonet is very similar to that of the SKS as well. An adjustable gas regulator allows three different gas settings plus a cut-off position for firing rifle grenades.
A note on production numbers:
George Layman gives a number of 8,263 total produced, and this matches almost perfectly with the serial number database created by GunBoards forum members. However, that database shows no guns numbered under 1,000, and I suspect that numbering began at 1,000 and Layman’s source was reporting the highest serial number instead of the total production. This would mean that approximately 7,300 were produced in total. Layman also reports 3,731 of the rifles were lost in combat and Egypt retained approximately 4,000 after the Yom Kippur War. These numbers also fit pretty well with a total production of 7,300.
The tooling seems to have ended up in Iraq to manufacture a small number of copies called the “Baghdad” rifle.
Just to be clear.
The AR10 / AR15 system is as much as a “real direct gas impingment system” as this one. Only the point of application of the pressure of the gas changes (from the top of the bolt carrier to directly behind the chamber), not, in any way, the way the gas is used, pushing directly the bolt carrier.
In the AR, like here, in the bolt carrier, there is a cup, a “blind hole” where the gas ends and the pressure applies. If you call the one of the AR “a cylinder”, then that “cup” of the Rasheed is a cylinder as well and, if you call the back of the bolt head of an AR a “piston” (that is not) then what you call in the Rasheed an “open gas tube” is a piston as well.
No. Words mean things, and you don’t get to change those meanings willy-nilly because you want to.
“Direct gas impingement” means that the gas is directed to the bolt carrier and then that’s it: The gas impinges on the carrier, and it actuates.
The Stoner system, which is manifestly not “direct” nor “impingement” puts a piston with piston rings into the bolt carrier, formed by the bolt. That serves several positive purposes, not the least of which is boosting the mechanism without adding additional weight, and using the gas itself to blow dirt and fouling out of the mechanism.
Whatever name you want to give the Stoner system, it is emphatically NOT a “direct impingement system”. Even the original patent application says that…
No, sorry.
“Direct gas impingement” means that the gas is directed to the bolt carrier and then that’s it: The gas impinges on the carrier, and it actuates.
And that’s exactly how the AR action works. The gas is directed to the bolt carrier and then that’s it: The gas impinges on the carrier, and it actuates.
According to Stoner, the AR action “is a true expanding gas system instead of the conventional impinging gas system”. Unfortunately that’s EXACTLY how the Rasheed, or the MAS 49, actions work. Thanks to gas expansion. Have you noticed how the “open gas tube” of the Rasheed, or of the MAS 49, enters INTO the bolt carrier, instead of simply resting against it’s flat face? It’s because, to work, EXACTLY like in the AR action, they need pressure build and gas expansion for a certain time. Not simply a supposed “kick” of the gas against the bolt carrier. So, or all of those system are direct gas impingement, or none of them is.
The presence of ribs or rings doesn’t mean anything in defining a piston. Many TRUE gas pistons don’t have either (IE the one of the M1 Garand. is a simple button). The bolt head of the AR instead, is not a piston (Cambridge dictionary “an engine part, usually a short, solid tube or round, flat object, which moves up and down or forward and backward inside a cylinder, and causes other parts of an engine or machine to move”). It doesn’t compress anything, it doesn’t move, and it doesn’t move anything. Until it’s unlocked by the bolt carrier, it’s fixed to the receiver. If it’s something other than a bolt head, it’s a stopper.
Let’s look at the words themselves, not your fantasies:
Impingement
noun
1. The act or fact of encroaching or infringing:
This is an impingement on the fundamental right of free speech.
2. The act or fact of striking or touching something, or the effect produced by this:
The impingement on the diamond’s hard crystal surface is due to oxygen in the air.
3. Medicine/Medical. the act or fact of interfering with something, especially a nerve, through contact or pressure:
Impingement on the nerves can be relieved by removing the portion of the bone compressing the neural structures.
With regards to firearms design, we’re using the second definition.
If you’ve got any understanding at all about what is going on inside a Stoner system, the raw fact is that it’s not just “striking” something; there is actual mechanical work being performed by the gas in the bolt and bolt carrier mechanism.
If you’d bother to read sources like the Wikipedia article, you’d find the following:
Stoner bolt and carrier piston system
Stoner internal piston action system
The original AR-10 action designed by Eugene Stoner (later developed into the ArmaLite AR-15, M16 rifle, and M4 carbine) is commonly called a direct impingement system, but it does not actually utilize a direct impingement mechanism. In U.S. Patent 2,951,424, the designer states: ″This invention is a true expanding gas system instead of the conventional impinging gas system.″ Gas is routed from a port in the barrel through a gas tube, directly to a chamber inside the bolt carrier. The bolt within the bolt carrier is fitted with piston rings to contain the gas. In effect, the bolt and carrier act as a gas piston and cylinder. The subtleties involved in ArmaLite’s patent on the gas system significantly diverge from classical direct impingement; upon firing, the pressurized propellant gasses exit the barrel via the gas port and travel the length of the gas tube, but instead of simply applying the inertia necessary to cycle the weapon directly to the bolt carrier, the gas is funneled inside the bolt carrier wherein the increase in pressure results in the bolt itself acting as a piston, forcing the bolt carrier away from the barrel face.
I don’t think you can get much more authoritative than the friggin’ patent documents. Stoner’s system is NOT direct gas impingement, no matter how many people use the terminology incorrectly.
Technically, it’s not even an impingement system at all; it’s entirely its own thing, a unique and quite brilliant concept that Stoner originated all by himself, so far as I can tell. And, while it “sh*ts where it eats”, it also blows all the crap out of the action while it is doing that.
The rifle would have wound up with a much different reputation than it earned, had the morons running the program done a proper developmental fielding on it, and not mucked about with the ammo the way they did. The fact that the weapon overcame what amounted to outright sabotage is a testament to how much Stoner got right.
And, frankly, I can’t believe that I’m actually defending the M16 family, here. Forty-odd years ago, my attitude was that they were complete POS weapons that should never have been procured, but after spending most of my life carrying them, working on them, and administering their maintenance? I’ve got a different view, entirely: The M16 may well be the small arms success story of the late 20th Century, because there are still more nations adopting it or its derivatives some sixty years after its initial disastrous fielding. Which is pretty damned impressive, when you think about it…
Let’s look at what I already wrote, that you evidently didn’t read or understand, not your delusions (I don’t usually argue this way but, if you are more comfortable like that, I can adapt).
“Direct gas impingement” means that the gas is directed to the bolt carrier and then that’s it: The gas impinges on the carrier, and it actuates.
And that’s exactly how the AR action works. The gas is directed to the bolt carrier and then that’s it: The gas impinges on the carrier, and it actuates. THE GAS DOESN’T HAVE ANY POSITIVE EFFECT ON THE BOLT HEAD (the pretended piston), THAT’S LOCKED TO THE RECEIVER (like the “open gas tube” on the Rasheed. or MAS 49), ONLY ON THE BOLT CARRIER. In the AR system THERE ISN’T ANY PISTON.
IN NO “DIRECT GAS IMPINGMENT SYSTEM” the gas “simply apply the inertia necessary to cycle the weapon directly to the bolt carrier” IN A WAY DIFFERENT THAN IN THE AR.
According to Stoner, the AR action “is a true expanding gas system instead of the conventional impinging gas system”. But Unfortunately that’s EXACTLY how the Rasheed, or the MAS 49, actions work. Thanks to gas expansion. Have you noticed how the “open gas tube” of the Rasheed, or of the MAS 49, enters INTO the bolt carrier, instead of simply resting against it’s flat face? It’s because, to work, EXACTLY LIKE IN THE AR ACTION, they need pressure build and gas expansion for a certain time IN THAT CYLINDER. Not simply a supposed “kick” of the gas against the bolt carrier. So, or all of those system are direct gas impingement, or none of them is.
Had you ever bothered to read other sources than Wikipedia, you would have known that, in a patent, you can write ANYTHING YOU WANT. It’s not the first not the last time a patent wrongly describes the working principle of what’s patented. Even the Blish lock had been patented.
This is a 2009 patent from Colt where the AR system (specifically, that of the M16 and M4) is described (and in much more details than in the original Armalite patent) as a “direct gas impingement operating system”) and the cilinder into the bolt carrier is described as an “impingement cylinder” (that’s EXACTLY what the Rasheed, or the MAS49 have) while there is NO reference to a “piston” AT ALL. https://patents.google.com/patent/US8245626B2/en
The bolt having ribs or sealing rings doesn’t make it a piston. The presence of ribs or rings doesn’t mean anything in defining a piston. Many TRUE gas pistons don’t have either (IE the one of the M1 Garand. is a simple button). The bolt head of the AR instead, is not a piston (Cambridge dictionary “an engine part, usually a short, solid tube or round, flat object, which moves up and down or forward and backward inside a cylinder, and causes other parts of an engine or machine to move”). It doesn’t compress anything, it doesn’t move, and it doesn’t move anything. Until it’s unlocked by the bolt carrier, it’s fixed to the receiver. If it’s something other than a bolt head, it’s a stopper.
THERE IS NO NEED TO DEFEND ANYTHING. NONE IS ATTACKING THE AR. The definition of the AR action as a direct gas impingment system, or not, HAS NOTHING TO DO WITH ITS EFFECTIVENESS. Do you think that Colt wanted to discredit the M16 and M4 whan it described their working principle as a “direct gas impingment” in the 2009 patent?
You’re an idiot, to be polite.
Your position would be that the piston rings and the action of the gas being directed into the interior of the bolt carrier have no effect on the weapon’s function? Have you ever had to work on an M16 with a clogged gas key, or one where the user has lost or forgotten to put the gas rings back in?
No? Then, shut up. I have, and I know what that does to the system. The weapons will still function without rings, to some degree, but nowhere near the authority or reliability. The bolt will be sluggish and prone to jamming. If you block the gas key entirely, as with a primer (rare, but something I’ve seen multiple times running ranges)? You’ve got a straight-pull bolt action rifle on your hands.
It’s ironic that you want to repeat the errors of decades of other dumbasses that can’t read. Stoner himself stated that this system was not “direct impingement”, and any rational person can look at the classic systems like the MAS-49 or the Ljungman and see that the two words “Direct” and “Impingement” actually describe what is going on: The gas hits the bolt carrier and drives it rearward. On the Stoner system, the gas goes into the piston chamber in the carrier and expands, driving the carrier and the bolt apart. Whatever that would be termed, it ain’t “Direct” and it ain’t “Impingement”. You block the gas system at the carrier, you get a weapon that either barely functions or doesn’t function at all.
The original patent application says it all:
Patent 2951424A
https://patents.google.com/patent/US2951424
“It is a principal object of this invention to utilize the basic parts of an automatic rifle mechanism such as the bolt and bolt carrier to perform a double function. This double function consists of the bolts primary function to lock the breach against the pressure of firing, and secondarily, to act as a stationary piston to actuate the automatic rifle mechanism. The primary function of the bolt carrier is to lock and unlock the bolt by rotating it and to carry it back and forth in the receiver. The secondary function of the bolt carrier is to act as a movable cylinder to actuate the automatic rifle mechanism. By having the bolt carrier act as a movable cylinder and the bolt act as a stationary piston, the need for a conventional gas cylinder, piston and actuating rod assembly is eliminated.
It is an object of this invention to provide a gas system which is lighter and less expensive to produce because of its simplicity than the present gas systems now used in automatic rifle mechanisms.
It is another object of this invention to utilize the energy of the expanding gas developed by the firing of the weapon, for actuating the automatic rifle mechanism directly by use of a metered amount of the gas coming from the barrel. This invention is a true expanding gas system instead of the conventional impinging gas system. By utilization of a metered amount of gas from the barrel, the automatic rifle mechanism is less sensitive to different firing pressures caused by variations in the propelling charge. It is therefore still another object of this invention, to provide a rifle mechanism which is not affected by variations in the propelling charge.
A further object of this invention is to provide smoother operation and longer life of the working parts of the automatic rifle mechanism. Since, in this invention, the actuating force is transmitted directly down the center line of the barrel and the bolt mechanism to the shoulder of the shooter, all of the of the center loads found in most other types of gas actuated Weapons are eliminated. It will therefore be obvious because of this factor that another object of this invention is to cut down on climb which occurs during automatic firing operations.”
What you’re basically arguing here is that a.) the US Patent Office approved a patent on prior art, and that b.) Fairchild and Colt were parties to fraud. Also, ohbytheway, that the AR-16 and 18 were unnecessary, because Stoner’s patent would have been invalid, again due to prior art.
You do not know what you’re talking out of your ass about. The “direct impingement” fallacy has been used by idiots in and around the military for decades, but that does not make it factually correct. You’re arguing “authority” when the supposed “authority” is factually wrong, documentably so.
I’m not really sure what the hell else you need, aside from Stoner’s patents. The weapon does not work when the gas system in the carrier is blocked; if it’s merely degraded, then it functions sluggishly, if at all. Having worked on a few thousand of these things, I’ve got personal experience, and if your fantasy theory about “direct gas impingement” were true, I’d have saved myself a lot of time diagnosing and repairing problems with those rifles. Repair would have been entirely unnecessary.
It’s quite evident you don’t have enough brain to read plain English, and I’m being too nice.
The gas enters in the AR carrier exactly like it enters in the Rasheed or in the MAS 49 carrier. It entering a little deeper doesn’t change ANYTHING in the definition of the action, like a gas piston action is not defined by the lenght of the piston.
The presence of ribs and sealing rings doesn’t define a piston AND INFACT MANY REAL GAS PISTON DON’T HAVE EITHER AS YOU ARE EVIDENTLY TOO DUMB TO UNDERSTAND EVEN WHEN IT’S PATIENTLY EXPLAINED TO YOU TWO TIUMES (while many stopppers have either), I clearly explained that, and tellimg me to “shut up” only makes more evident how clueless you are.
It’s ironic that you want to repeat the errors of decades of other idiots who only needs a supposed autority to say something to repeat it like a mantra, without even undrstanding what they are saying. The way you describe the working principle of the Rasheed, or MAS 49, simply because your guru told you to think a certain way, IS NOT HOW IT WORKS. EXACTLY like in the AR action, they need pressure build and gas expansion for a certain time in the impingment cylinder. Not simply a supposed “kick” of the gas against the bolt carrier.It’s “direct” because the gas pushes the carrier without being mediated by a piston placed between the carrier and the gas, and it’s “impingement” because it acts into an impingement cylinder. If you change the bolt assembly it doesn’t work any more? What a surprise. Do you think that, changing the lenght of the impingement cylinder, or of the gas plug, in the Rasheed, or MAS 49, they keep on working?
The 2009 Colt patent, that you are evidently too stupid to understand, says it all.
A direct gas impingement operating system for an automatic or semi-automatic rifle. The direct gas impingement operating system has a gas block fitted to a barrel having a bore, the gas block in communication with the bore. A gas sleeve is located in the gas block, the gas sleeve in communication with the bore through the gas block. A bolt assembly having an impingement cylinder and a gas line is fitted to the sleeve in communication with the bore through the sleeve and the gas block, the gas line further in fluid communication with the impingement cylinder. Gas discharged from a fired cartridge displaces the impingement cylinder displacing the bolt assembly. The sleeve and the gas line are removable from the gas block without removal of the gas block from the firearm.
There are conventional semi-automatic or automatic firearms that are gas operated via a gas tube or operating rod in the case of an indirect gas operating system. In each case, gas ports are provided that can become fouled, for example, with carbon buildup or may suffer erosion over time with firing. As such, there is a desire to eliminate or clear such variances in gas ports that may adversely affect operation of the firearm.
SUMMARY OF THE EXEMPLARY EMBODIMENTS
In accordance with one exemplary embodiment, a direct gas impingement operating system for an automatic or semi-automatic rifle having a barrel connected to a receiver is provided. The direct gas impingement operating system has a gas block fitted to the barrel, the gas block in communication with a bore in the barrel. A gas regulating sleeve removably is provided located in the gas block, the gas sleeve in communication with the bore through the gas block. A bolt assembly is provided having an integral impingement cylinder and a gas line is fixed to the sleeve in fluid communication with the bore through the sleeve and the gas block, the gas line further in fluid communication with the impingement cylinder. Gas discharged from a fired cartridge displaces the impingement cylinder displacing the bolt assembly relative to the receiver. The sleeve and the gas line are removable from the gas block without disconnecting the barrel and receiver and without removal of the gas block from the barrel.
In accordance with another exemplary an automatic or semi-automatic rifle is provided. The automatic or semi-automatic rifle has a receiver and a bolt carrier having an impingement cylinder, the bolt carrier and impingement cylinder being enclosed within the receiver. A barrel is provided having a bore, the barrel coupled to the receiver. A gas block is fixed to the barrel, the gas block in communication with the bore. A gas sleeve is removably located in the gas block in communication with the bore. A gas line is provided fixed to the sleeve fluid in communication with the bore through the sleeve and the gas block, the gas line further in fluid communication with the impingement cylinder. Gas discharged from a fired cartridge displaces the impingement cylinder displacing the bolt carrier relative to the receiver. The sleeve is configured so that it defines a gas flow regulator regulating gas flow volume through the bore and is removable from the gas block without removal of the gas block from the barrel and without removal of the barrel from the receiver.
In accordance with another exemplary embodiment, a black rifle type automatic or semi-automatic rifle is provided. The black rifle type automatic or semi-automatic rifle has a receiver assembly enclosing a bolt carrier and a barrel assembly having a bore, the barrel assembly removably coupled to the receiver. A gas block is provided mounted to the barrel, the gas block having a passage extending through the gas block in communication with the bore. A direct gas impingement operating system is provided having a gas sleeve located in the passage of the gas block, the gas sleeve in communication through the passage with the bore and a bolt assembly and an impingement cylinder disposed in the bolt carrier and enclosed within the receiver assembly A gas line is provided joined to the sleeve in communication with the bore through the sleeve and the passage, the gas line further in fluid communication with the impingement cylinder. Gas discharged from a fired cartridge displaces the impingement cylinder displacing the bolt assembly. The sleeve has an orifice arranged in the passage, so that it forms a gas flow regulator in the passage regulating gas flow volume from the bore through the passage to the gas line is removable from the gas block without removal of the gas block from the firearm.
Claims (18)
Hide Dependent
1. A direct gas impingement operating system for an automatic or semi-automatic rifle, comprising:
a barrel connected to a receiver;
a gas block fitted to the barrel, the gas block in fluid communication with a bore of the barrel;
a gas regulating sleeve removably located in the gas block, the gas sleeve in fluid communication with the bore of the barrel;
a bolt assembly configured for movement between a first position and a second position, the bolt assembly having an integral impingement cylinder; and
a gas line fixed to the sleeve, the gas line being in fluid communication with the bore via the sleeve and the gas block, and wherein a portion of the gas line is received within the impingement cylinder when the bolt assembly is in the first position and the impingement cylinder moves away from the gas line when it moves from the first position to the second position; and
wherein gas discharged from a fired cartridge moves the impingement cylinder from the first position to the second position displacing the bolt assembly relative to the receiver, and wherein, the sleeve and the gas line are removable from the gas block without disconnecting the barrel from the receiver and without removal of the gas block from the barrel.
A direct gas impingement operating system for an automatic or semi-automatic rifle, comprising:
a barrel connected to a receiver;
a gas block fitted to the barrel, the gas block in fluid communication with a bore of the barrel;
a gas regulating sleeve removably located in the gas block, the gas sleeve in fluid communication with the bore of the barrel;
a bolt assembly configured for movement between a first position and a second position, the bolt assembly having an integral impingement cylinder; and
a gas line fixed to the sleeve, the gas line being in fluid communication with the bore via the sleeve and the gas block, and wherein a portion of the gas line is received within the impingement cylinder when the bolt assembly is in the first position and the impingement cylinder moves away from the gas line when it moves from the first position to the second position; and
wherein gas discharged from a fired cartridge moves the impingement cylinder from the first position to the second position displacing the bolt assembly relative to the receiver, and wherein, the sleeve and the gas line are removable from the gas block without disconnecting the barrel from the receiver and without removal of the gas block from the barrel.
2. The system of claim 1, wherein the sleeve is coupled to the gas block with a removable pin, wherein the pin provides a camming surface to seal the sleeve to a gas port in the gas block.
3. The system of claim 1, wherein the impingement cylinder disengages from the gas line during operation.
4. The system of claim 1, wherein the gas block is in fluid communication with the bore through a first gas port in the gas block, and wherein the sleeve is in fluid communication with the bore of the barrel through a second gas port in the sleeve, and wherein the second gas port is smaller than the first gas port.
5. The system of claim 1, wherein the bolt assembly further comprises a bolt carrier and a key coupled to the bolt carrier, and wherein the bolt carrier contains the impingement cylinder.
6. The system of claim 1, wherein the sleeve comprises external rings disposed about the sleeve, wherein the external rings are configured to seal a communicating port between the sleeve and the gas block.
7. An automatic or semi-automatic rifle comprising:
a receiver;
a bolt carrier having an impingement cylinder, the bolt carrier and impingement cylinder being enclosed within the receiver and being configured for movement between a first position and a second position;
a barrel having a bore, the barrel coupled to the receiver:
a gas block fixed to the barrel, the gas block in fluid communication with the bore;
a gas sleeve removably located in the gas block and in fluid communication with the bore; and
a gas line fixed to the sleeve and in fluid communication with the bore via the sleeve and the gas block, a portion of the gas line being received within the impingement cylinder when the bolt carrier is in the first position and the gas line is in fluid communication with the impingement cylinder; and
wherein gas discharged from a fired cartridge displaces the impingement cylinder from the portion of the gas line and moves the bolt carrier from the first position towards the second position, and wherein, the sleeve regulates gas flow from the bore into the gas line and the sleeve is removable from the gas block without removal of the gas block from the barrel and without removal of the barrel from the receiver.
8. The automatic or semi-automatic rifle of claim 7, wherein the sleeve is secured to the gas block with a removable pin, wherein the removable pin provides a camming surface to seal the sleeve to a gas port in the gas block.
9. The automatic or semi-automatic rifle of claim 7, wherein the impingement cylinder is completely separated from the gas line when the impingement cylinder is in the second position.
10. The automatic or semi-automatic rifle of claim 7, wherein the gas block is in fluid communication with the bore through a first gas port in the gas block, and wherein the sleeve is in fluid communication with the bore through a second gas port in the sleeve, and wherein the second gas port is smaller than the first gas port.
11. The automatic or semi-automatic rifle of claim 7, wherein the bolt carrier has a key, and wherein the key contains the impingement cylinder.
12. The automatic or semi-automatic rifle of claim 7, wherein the sleeve further comprises rings located of an exterior surface of the sleeve the rings being configured to seal the sleeve to the gas block.
13. An automatic or semi-automatic rifle comprising:
a receiver assembly enclosing a bolt carrier;
a barrel assembly having a bore, the barrel assembly removably coupled to the receiver;
a gas block mounted to the barrel, the gas block having a passage extending through the gas block and in fluid communication with the bore;
a direct gas impingement operating system comprising:
a gas sleeve located in the passage of the gas block, the gas sleeve in fluid communication with the bore;
a bolt assembly and an impingement cylinder disposed in the bolt carrier and enclosed within the receiver assembly, the bolt assembly and the impingement cylinder being configured for movement between a first position and a second position; and
a gas line joined to the sleeve and in fluid communication with the bore through the sleeve and the passage, a portion of the gas line being received within the impingement cylinder when the impingement cylinder is in the first position; and
wherein gas discharged from a fired cartridge displaces the impingement cylinder from the portion of the gas line thereby displacing the bolt assembly by moving the bolt assembly from the first position towards the second position, and wherein, the sleeve is configured to regulate gas flow from bore to the gas line, and wherein the sleeve is removable from the gas block without removal of the gas block from the firearm.
14. The automatic or semi-automatic rifle of claim 13, wherein the sleeve is coupled to the gas block with a removable pin and wherein the pin provides a camming surface to seal the sleeve to a gas port in the gas block.
15. The automatic or semi-automatic rifle of claim 13, wherein the impingement cylinder is completely separated from the gas line when the impingement cylinder is in the second position.
16. The automatic or semi-automatic rifle of claim 13, wherein the sleeve is in fluid communication with the bore through a first gas port in the gas block, and wherein the sleeve further comprises an orifice in fluid communication with the first gas port, wherein the orifice is smaller than the first gas port.
17. The automatic or semi-automatic rifle of claim 13, wherein the bolt carrier comprises a key, and wherein the key contains the impingement cylinder.
18. The automatic or semi-automatic rifle of claim 13, wherein the sleeve further comprises rings located on an exterior of the sleeve wherein the rings are configured to seal the sleeve to the passage.
And I have spared you another dozen times they claim the action being a direct gas impingement.
What you are too stupid to understand is that:
a) You can patent anything. You can patent chopped chicken feathers as cartridge propellant if you want. NONE will control if it works, or if it works the way you claim it does. “It’s not the first not the last time a patent wrongly describes the working principle of what’s patented. Even the Blish lock had been patented.”
b)none had been frauded. Because the direct impingement patent expired long before Fairchild and Stoner submitted their own.
c) what fairchild and Stoner patented IS NOT THE PRINCIPLE. They patented a bolt that works EXACTLY that way. What they patented is: 1) the impingement chamber directly behind the bolt head. 2) the combination of “1” with the dedicated exhaust port of the chamber that opens after expansion. 3) the combination of “1” with the sliding gas intake. 4) the combination of “1” with a rotating bolt head. 5) the combination of “1” with the gas tube from the barrel to the carrier.
What they patented is THE AR BOLT ASSEMBLY, non a new principle.
You so do not know what you’re talking out of your ass about that you even states I’m talking “autority”, when you are the one that’s simply repeating the words of your guru without having a clue what you are saying.
You are so clueless that you even can’t understand THE ar BEING A DIRECT GAS IMPINGEMENT MAKES NO DIFFERENCE IN THE WAY YOU FIX IT.
Now, let’s pretend you are able to understand what I’m writing, and make a simple mental experiment.
We are in 1960. Stoner’s patent is still valid.
And we introduce on the market a bolt assembly that’s NEARLY IDENTICAL to that of stoner BAR A SINGLE DETAIL.
The “static piston” is not the bolt. It’s a stud attached to the trunnion.
For the rest, it’s all identical. There are the ribs, the sealing rings, the gas that goes into the recesses of the carrier, the expansion chamber, the venting holes…
The operating principle is the same.
Only, the gas is not in direct contact with the bolt.
Would that have been enough to circumvent Stoner’s patent?
The answer is “yes”.
Because what’s patented is at the section “what I claim” and it’s:
“In a gas operated system for a firearm, the combination of: a receiver; a bolt carrier slidable in said receiver; expandable chamber; and means for carrying the explosive gases resulting from the firing of said firearm to said expandable chamber whereby the gases operate within said chamber directly on said bolt and said bolt carrier to retract said bolt carrier relative to said bolt.”
And what’s listed attached to this particular setup in the subsequent paragraphs (venting holes, etc…)
If the gasses are not in direct contact with the bolt, the first element falls, and all the rest fall with it.
That’s what Stoner patented.
Why didn’t he patent also the slight variation I just described?
Because that’s what Erik Elkund patented in 1943 (the patent used for the Ljungman 42 rifle). https://patents.google.com/patent/US2388396
“A rearm including a barrel having an outtake for the powder gases, a loading mechanism comprising a breech block and a movable member having a rectilinear path and being adapted directly to actuate said breech block, and a pipe conduit leading from said gas outtake on the barrel to said movable member of the loading mechanism, the opposed ends of said pipe conduit and said pipe conduit and said movable member being provided with a bevelled portion in order to convey the escaping driving gases therethrough in a predetermined direction, said Working cylinder and said driving piston being of’such a small length relatively to each other that that one of them which is movable with the movable member of the loading mechanism leaves the other behind it on having performed a portion of its stroke thereby uncovering a direct outlet to the atmosphere for the driving powder gases.”
So Stoner couldn’t patent nor the “working cylinder”, nor the “static piston” by themself. Those were already contained in Erik Elkund’s patent.
Would love to see a video of the Rasheed compared to the SKS in a shooting contest.
“(…)Battle Carbine(…)”
What is this? Was Rasheed only such weapon in history? If not which else do belong to said category?
In the history of the deal to provide tooling and license…
I’m guessing that the financing arrangements were also a key factor.
The reason for the British invasion and conquest of Egypt, had been the kingdom’s slackness in debt and bond coupon payments to British investors
The British navy and marines were sent along as debt collectors on behalf of private interests – with the British tax victims getting to pay the costs.
After prompting payment, the British empire then took another 80 years to remember to leave again.
I’m guessing that there was a Swedish bank offering somewhat sweeter customer service, and probably some even sweeter kickbacks to the old king and his Generals.
Who was it who commented in the past about the hot Danish chicks on Madsen’s sales team?
“The reason for the British invasion and conquest of Egypt, had been the kingdom’s slackness in debt and bond coupon payments to British investors”
Let’s try this: “The excuse for the British invasion & conquest of Egypt…
agreed
its an interesting choice
To have simplicity along with heat, gas, soot, grit…?
Or,
To add a piston rod, with its extra weight, cost (it’s more expensive to make finish and heat treat than a pipe) and chances of getting bent or mis aligned, in order to get that heat, soot and gas blast away from the nicely oiled bolt and receiver, and the fire’s face and eyes?
The AR10 and AR15 add some other interesting quirks to the choice
for example the AR bolt and carrier are balanced during opening
the gas acts to push the bolt head forward off its locking seats, with equal force to pushing the bolt carrier backwards.
If everything else could be kept constant in terms of materials, tolerances, surface finish…
it would be interesting to know whether an AR with gas in the bolt, was more or less reliable, long lived and as pleasant to fire as one with a seperate piston up front
See the patent quote, above.
You block the gas at the carrier key, you wind up with a straight-pull rifle. You degrade the performance by taking out the piston rings, you get a sluggish and very unreliable weapon that does not function “with authority”.
I’ve seen a bunch of different issues with these rifles, and I’m here to tell you that the gas system in the bolts is critical to their function. A fully-stopped up gas key is basically going to stop the weapon from working; one that’s got something that doesn’t quite block all the gas? May still function, but you’re going to know you’ve got a problem because it will be jamming incessantly.
The reason why an AR with the gas blocked at the carrier key doesn’t work is that the force that pushes the carrier rearward (that, by design, is the correct one to make the rifle cycle) is proportional to the base area of the space filled with gas (the area facing the direction of the movement) multiplied for the pressure.
If you block the gas at the carier key, you lose all the area beyond that point, so proportionally reducing the force.
If you remove the sealing rings, you’ll reduce pressure.
Any gas action, indipendently from it being long stroke piston, short stroke piston, or direct impingement will jam if you reduce enough one of those terms.
It’s the reason why the Rasheed impingement cylinder is larger than the AR gas key (it’s almost the diameter of the cartrige base). It neeeded area to apply the pressure and move the bolt. https://images.gunsinternational.com/listings_sub/acc_472/gi_101342000/Egyptian-Rasheed-Carbine_101342000_472_B640D4EE180D1CC11.jpeg
The Rasheed, or MAS 49, gas setups are good for open receivers, because the grit, heat, etc, pretty much are dispersed in open air. They are not that good for closed receivers, because all those things would end up in the receiver, more than in the AR action, where they are mostly vented laterally. So the solution would be, like in the AR, to open some vent hole into the bolt carrier, (it remains the problem of the bolt heating more than in a piston system) or use an “hybrid” system, with a very short piston, like that of the Perun X-16. A little more weight, but much less heat and no fouling into the receiver.
From all indications, other than the Egyptian variants, there is only one other gas-operated small arm that works on the AG42 system. And oddly enough, it originated in the Middle East, as well, on the opposite side of the Suez Canal.
The IMI Desert Eagle self-loading pistol.
clear ether
eon
MAS-49? Did we forget about that? The Rossignol rifles?
1. I didn’t know the MAS was direct impingement as I have never had to cope with that one. I stand corrected.
2. Never heard of a rifle named “Rossignol”. To me, that’s either the French word for “nightingale”, a brand of snow skis, or French criminal slang for a lockpick gun.
cheers
eon
You could be forgiven for not having heard of the Rossignol ENT. It was a pre-WW1 experimental rifle; one of the earliest (the very first?) use of a direct gas impingement system.
Having looked it up;
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Rossignol_ENT
I can see that it was another pre-WW1 prototype. Like most back then, the designers seemed to be unsure of the difference between an automatic rifle and a light machine gun.
The Browning M1918 seems to have been the only one that managed to straddle that fence more-or-less successfully. Hence the no-longer-used term “machine rifle”, which accurately describes that entire class of squad support weapon.
cheers
eon
@ eon
Mind that the prototype is of 1900. It was really early in the development of self-loading actions. The Maxim gun had seen a VERY limited adoption and use. Light machine guns were a thing of the future. It was more “we have a self loading rifle, why not giving it a full-auto option?
Sounds like you guys are arguing over a minor difference in semantics. Perun X-16 looks like it “directl impinges on the front end of the bolt carrier. IOW a shorter version of the gas piston installed on the FN FAL.
OTOH Eugene Stoner’s AR-15 uses a 2-piece gas tube to admit gas to a cylinder inside the bolt carrier, then the rear end of the bolt acts as a piston. IOW Stoner’s system directl impinges on the back face of the bolt. When hot gases enter the bolt carrier, they push the bolt carrier backwards and twist the bolt pigs out of battery, etc. The forward part of the Stoner gas tube is fixed to the top of the barrel, while the second part is internal to the boo carrier.
Yes, it’s semantic, and no, because unfortunately semantic affects how people understand things. Infact, no “direct gas impingement” action really works thanks to an “impingement” of the gas, as who only read Stoner patent is inclined to think.
Mind that, in the Erik Elkund patent (the patent used for the Ljungman 42 rifle, and so for the Akeem and Rasheed rifles) the word “impingement” is NEVER used. The words used are “piston” and “working cylinder”. And it’s clearly stated that the action work thanks to the expansion of the gas between the cylinder and the piston, until one has retracted enough to “uncover a direct outlet to the atmosphere for the driving powder gases”. Until that happens, the chamber is sealed enough for that pressure to build up.
The expression “direct gas impingement” is used by Stoner in his patent to differentiate his new action, allegedly based on gas expansion between a cylinder and a “static piston”, from other actions that were equally based on gas expansion between a cylinder and a static piston.
Infact, what Stoner really patented, was the bolt head being the “static piston”. Not the principle, nor the expansion chamber into the receiver. Those had already been used.
Any action where the gasses don’t come in contact with the bolt head,is not covered by Stoner’s patent.
The original patent by Stoner is the thing to look at. Whatever the hell the Stoner system is, it is emphatically not a “direct impingement” system. Despite decades of morons asserting that fact, it isn’t. A direct impingement system has always been defined as something that has the gas brought back and having it impinge on the bolt carrier to operate the mechanism. That’s it; period. There’s nothing going on in any of the other weapons that are defined as “direct impingement” even slightly resembling what goes on in the Stoner-system rifles.
The fact that other patents and a bunch of idiots in the US military have termed Stoner’s system as “direct impingement” is meaningless. If we go by what “the military” says, then we have to accept all of the bullshit “old soldier’s stories” as having some relevance, which they do not. Error is error; you can’t get around that.
The really amusing thing is to have a jackass like Dogwalker cite other patents as authoritative in this. He says that Stoner, Fairchild, and all the rest who approved the original controlling patents were wrong, based on the language in other patents. So… Which is it? Which set of patents is authoritative? Is it the original, wherein the inventor and his assignee term it, or is it the later ones, wherein you have decades of epic dumbassery accrued to screw things up?
This is like the whole debate over “battle rifle”, a made-up term created by the gun rags back in the 1980s. Nobody in any military, anywhere, ever termed a 7.62mm NATO individual weapon as a “battle rifle”. It’s not in any NATO standardization agreement, not in any NATO joint operations dictionary; it’s a bit of pure marketing fluff.
Words mean things. You start calling a dog a cat, and pretty soon, nobody knows what the hell a cat or a dog looks like; with “direct impingement”, that means precisely the sort of mechanism used in the Ljungman and its derivatives, and things like the MAS-49 and its derivatives: The gas is tapped up the barrel, brought back, where it impinges directly on the bolt carrier to actuate the mechanism. There’s nothing else there, literally: It comes out the gas tube, into a cup-shaped receptacle on the bolt, and that’s all there is to it. Simple, direct, impinging on the carrier. That’s what those words mean. That’s why the terminology exists.
With Stoner’s system, whatever the hell you want to call it, the gas is tapped at the barrel, brought back into the bolt and bolt carrier itself, where it actuates the piston formed by the bolt and the gas chamber area. That ain’t direct, and it ain’t impingement: If there were any impingement going on there, as classically understood in the Ljungman and other actual direct impingement systems, then the f*cking bolt and carrier would actuate when the gas key is blocked, now wouldn’t they?
The way that our resident twit would have it, then every piston-actuated gun in the world is actually just another version of “direct impingement”, which thus renders that term essentially useless for describing anything, and utterly pollutes the terminology. Words mean things; you don’t get to reassign terminology because you’re too stupid to understand what they mean. The sad thing is, there’s really no good and separate class of action mechanism to stick Stoner’s design into, other than it being it’s own thing. What it is not, however, is “direct impingement”; that term is solely applicable to the designs like the Ljungman, the MAS-49, and a few others down the years. The entire selling point of those “direct impingement” systems was that they had no piston, and that the gas systems were stupid-simple and easy to clean because of that. None of them have any mechanical action taking place which is driven by the gas, other than blowing the carrier rearwards. In the Stoner system, that gas is acting on both the carrier and the bolt, internally to the carrier, which makes it something else entirely.
Sixty years of error isn’t authority. The military has called it “direct impingement”, but even inside the service people know better. Talk to an SF weapons sergeant, and while he’ll likely reflexively parrot the terminology he’s heard in training, once you point out the clear differences between the Ljungman-type weapons and the Stoners, he’ll usually acknowledge that the terminology ain’t right and doesn’t work.
No amount of appealing to erroneous authority can fix this issue; a Stoner system weapon is pretty much exactly that, something designed by Stoner, and uniquely its own thing that’s got to have its own separate terminology if we’re to retain any ability to describe these things. If you’re going to term Stoner’s weapons as “direct impingement”, then everything out there using gas to actuate the mechanism is equally as much “direct impingement”, to include pistons and tappets of all varieties.
What I love is being told that one patent is wrong, while citing others as authoritative… Wait; what? How do you pick and choose which patent to accept as your authority, again? The one on the original design, or the one for an as-yet unproduced sleeve on the gas port…?
I’m going to go with Stoner and Fairchild as my authorities; all previous “direct impingement” weapons known to Stoner did not include his internal bolt/carrier piston, which was what he was patenting. If he didn’t describe it as “direct impingement”, that’s good enough for me. And, anyone with a whit of rationality and who has been around these weapons a bit can clearly see that the operating principles are nowhere near the same: If they were, then the Stoner weapons would work perfectly well with blocked gas keys… Which they don’t.
You should look at some other patent besides that of Stoner.
As stated above, in the Erik Elkund patent (the patent used for the Ljungman 42 rifle, and so for the Akeem and Rasheed rifles) the word “impingement” is NEVER used. The words used are “piston” and “working cylinder”. And it’s clearly stated that the
action work thanks to the expansion of the gas between the cylinder and the piston, until one has retracted enough to “uncover a direct outlet to the atmosphere for the driving powder gases”. Until that happens, the chamber is sealed enough for that pressure to build up.
The expression “direct gas impingement” is used by Stoner in his patent to differentiate his new action, allegedly based on gas expansion between a cylinder and a “static piston”, from other actions that were equally based on gas expansion between a cylinder and a static piston.
Infact, what Stoner really patented, was the bolt head being the “static piston”. Not the principle, nor the expansion chamber into the receiver. Those had already been used.
Any action where the gasses don’t come in contact with the bolt head,is not covered by Stoner’s patent.
It’s thank to Stoner that his own, and the previous “direct impingement” actions are called that way.
The really amusing thing is to have an Idiot like Kirk not having still realised that i cited also patents that PRECEEDED the one of Stoner. So no “decades of epic dumbassery accrued to screw things up”. Sorry.
Unfortunately “direct gas impingement” is the expression used by Stoner to try differentiate his new action, allegedly based on gas expansion between a cylinder and a “static piston”, from other actions that were equally based on gas expansion between a cylinder and a static piston. It’s NEVER used by Eric Elkund, that describes an action based on gas expansion in a sealed chamber. Infact, despite his description, Stoner had not being able to patent a sealed chamber for the gas to expand gas into the carrier. Only the use of the bolt as a “static piston”.
Sorry. You are evidently too stupid to understand what your “resident twit” says (“every piston-actuated gun in the world is actually just another version of direct impingement”. LOL!) So you should avoid to try rearranging other people’s concept to your tastes or your comprehension level.
You are the only one that’s appealing to authority.
Unfortunately you are too stupid to understand that I EXPLAINED why Stoner patent is wrong (in describing the working of the pretended previous “direct impingement actions”, that was only a way to promote his own). INFACT, despite the description, he didn’t patent the principle, nor the expansion chamber into the receiver. Only the use of the bolt head as a “static piston”.
You are free to choose your guru and shut eyes and ears to ignore any reason. Your choice.
Unfortunately you are too stupid to understand that I EXPLAINED why an AR with a blocked gas key don’t work.
The reason why an AR with the gas blocked at the carrier key doesn’t work is that the force that pushes the carrier rearward (that, by design, is the correct one to make the rifle cycle) is proportional to the base area of the space filled with gas (the area facing the direction of the movement) multiplied for the pressure.
If you block the gas at the carier key, you lose all the area beyond that point, so proportionally reducing the force.
If you remove the sealing rings, you’ll reduce pressure.
Any gas action, indipendently from it being long stroke piston, short stroke piston, or direct impingement will jam if you reduce enough one of those terms.
It’s the reason why the Rasheed impingement cylinder is larger than the AR gas key (it’s almost the diameter of the cartrige base). It neeeded area to apply the pressure and move the bolt. https://images.gunsinternational.com/listings_sub/acc_472/gi_101342000/Egyptian-Rasheed-Carbine_101342000_472_B640D4EE180D1CC11.jpeg
A Rasheed with the expansion cylinder the dimensions of the AR gas key wouldn’t work either. An AR-14 with the surface area of the piston reduced by 50% wouldn’t work either. You have “been around these weapons a bit” without really understanding how they work.
Gentlemen:
I suggest we play nice on this forum, we are all here because we are students of firearms and their design.
No-one is stupid or an idiot, just because we disagree.
My take is that the Stoner system does not have a piston. The gas is carried straight back into the bolt carrier. The gas in effect acts as a piston. If you strip an AK or a Garand you can see the piston. It is a long piece of metal. Show me that in an AR system. But if Kirk disagrees, I respect that. I live in a country where all of this is banned!