Forums
New posts
Search forums
What's new
New posts
New media
New media comments
Latest activity
Classifieds
Media
New media
New comments
Search media
Log in
Register
What's New?
Search
Search
Search titles only
By:
New posts
Search forums
Menu
Log in
Register
Navigation
Install the app
Install
More Options
Advertise with us
Contact Us
Close Menu
JavaScript is disabled. For a better experience, please enable JavaScript in your browser before proceeding.
You are using an out of date browser. It may not display this or other websites correctly.
You should upgrade or use an
alternative browser
.
Forums
The Range
Rifle & Shotgun Discussion
Empirical Evidence for AR Supremacy ???
Search titles only
By:
Reply to Thread
This site may earn a commission from merchant affiliate links, including eBay, Amazon, and others.
Message
<blockquote data-quote="KurtM" data-source="post: 891358" data-attributes="member: 6064"><p>This is a recomended procedure from Crane Naval Weapons facility, for Dev group, and is recomended SOCOM procedure as well ( replacing the bolt ). I didn't say it wasn't a good idea, it was meerly used to show that even Mil Spec parts can and do fail, at a high rate, to get a memo from Crane. this last June while I was doing some shooting with the A.M.U. at Ft Benning I was shown a 3 pound coffe can of broken M-16 Bolts from just the few the A.M.U. uses in teaching.</p><p></p><p>I don't have a "hatred" of mil spec. What I have a distaste for is that when ever any one new to ARs who just wants a rifle to shoot a bit with askes what would be a good lower priced rifle...the answer form some here is "ONLY BUY MIL SPEC" or it won't be any good. I, you, or anyone can buy bucket fulls of mil spec parts and assemble an AR all day long ( Fulton Armory, LMT parts Bravo parts...etc), but when they are assembled by some of these "high end" builders you would swear that the parts were made of Platinum, and yet we tell these poor new shooter guys that you need to spend cubic dollars to get a Mil Spec gun. Your average shooter will never come close to burning out an AR, those who do soon realise that as long as it hasn't kaboomed in the last 2000 rounds it will most likely keep shooting for quite a few barrels, gas rings, extractors, and gas tubes worth of fun, no matter whether the parts are "mil spec" or not. </p><p></p><p>When you see a truely High End custom rifle Like J.P. or Firebird with great fire control systems, custom made bolt carriers, truely STRONG upper and lower receivers with built in mag wells, true match grade barrels like Hart, Krieger and Lothart Walther and then see the same price tag attached to a conglomerate of "Mil Spec" part....well I think you see were I am coming from. </p><p></p><p>As for Shot Peening, there are two schools of thought on it, some say it is the only way to go, others Like Reed Knight ( which is no recomendation ) and J.P. don't like the process. I myself care not one way or the other, as it only SURFACE stress releives and does nothing for the bolt other than MAYBE stop a crack from propagating....BUT since we already MPIed the darn thing...cause you can't shot peen before MPI, we already know it isn't cracked....so why???</p></blockquote><p></p>
[QUOTE="KurtM, post: 891358, member: 6064"] This is a recomended procedure from Crane Naval Weapons facility, for Dev group, and is recomended SOCOM procedure as well ( replacing the bolt ). I didn't say it wasn't a good idea, it was meerly used to show that even Mil Spec parts can and do fail, at a high rate, to get a memo from Crane. this last June while I was doing some shooting with the A.M.U. at Ft Benning I was shown a 3 pound coffe can of broken M-16 Bolts from just the few the A.M.U. uses in teaching. I don't have a "hatred" of mil spec. What I have a distaste for is that when ever any one new to ARs who just wants a rifle to shoot a bit with askes what would be a good lower priced rifle...the answer form some here is "ONLY BUY MIL SPEC" or it won't be any good. I, you, or anyone can buy bucket fulls of mil spec parts and assemble an AR all day long ( Fulton Armory, LMT parts Bravo parts...etc), but when they are assembled by some of these "high end" builders you would swear that the parts were made of Platinum, and yet we tell these poor new shooter guys that you need to spend cubic dollars to get a Mil Spec gun. Your average shooter will never come close to burning out an AR, those who do soon realise that as long as it hasn't kaboomed in the last 2000 rounds it will most likely keep shooting for quite a few barrels, gas rings, extractors, and gas tubes worth of fun, no matter whether the parts are "mil spec" or not. When you see a truely High End custom rifle Like J.P. or Firebird with great fire control systems, custom made bolt carriers, truely STRONG upper and lower receivers with built in mag wells, true match grade barrels like Hart, Krieger and Lothart Walther and then see the same price tag attached to a conglomerate of "Mil Spec" part....well I think you see were I am coming from. As for Shot Peening, there are two schools of thought on it, some say it is the only way to go, others Like Reed Knight ( which is no recomendation ) and J.P. don't like the process. I myself care not one way or the other, as it only SURFACE stress releives and does nothing for the bolt other than MAYBE stop a crack from propagating....BUT since we already MPIed the darn thing...cause you can't shot peen before MPI, we already know it isn't cracked....so why??? [/QUOTE]
Insert Quotes…
Verification
Post Reply
Forums
The Range
Rifle & Shotgun Discussion
Empirical Evidence for AR Supremacy ???
Search titles only
By:
Top
Bottom