I crimp as I like to seat my projectiles as long as possible so I'm a bit concerned about projectiles getting while knocked feeding from the mag
Printable View
I crimp as I like to seat my projectiles as long as possible so I'm a bit concerned about projectiles getting while knocked feeding from the mag
I don't crimp.
Use normal Redding full length die (and for my .308 semi), didn't need to go to small base dies.
Good info page for semi/service rifle reloading:
exterior ballistics
Anybody brought in a complete upper?
Upper Receiver w/5.56 cal, FT, 20" Std Barrel, Parkerized : AR-15 UPPER RECEIVER ASSEMBLIES | Brownells
Or best to bring it in as individual components?
Don't buy DPMS. I got an import permit for a complete Spikes upper and lower. Haven't bought it yet.
Care to explain why he shouldnt by dpms? I prefer first hand experience than "my uncles cousins sons friends dad heard someone say on the internet..."
But Brownells don't have a Spike 20" rifle upper, only a carbine.
PS Towely, I was helping someone one day at the range with his DPMS, took to the 3rd replacement lower to get it functioning properly.
I use DPMS small parts but wouldn't buy a DPMS assembled rifle. Have witnessed and fired a DPMS rifle that just wouldn't work without lots of fucking around.Quote:
Originally Posted by Towely
Pmed you to learn about the good oil. :thumbsup:Quote:
Originally Posted by Beavis
Have a look at the govt 20" Windham maybe
Sent from my GT-I9195 using Tapatalk
I would ask Rainer Arms to get you one of these.
Better to ask Brownells if they can special order it. Rainer Arms have a $350US fee on ITAR controlled exports over $100.
Shit, i must have the only 3 dpms assembled ARs on this planet without issues.
Well done
.
Much as I like to joke about how DPMS is short for "Doesn't Pass Mil Spec", or "Don't Purchase My Shit", a lot of the Wellington Service Rifle guys have DPMS guns, and the vast majority of them seem to run pretty well, and run accurately. I haven't seen any major failures on the line, or any DPMS gun giving any more problems than any other brand.Quote:
Originally Posted by Towely
Seems to be a bit of a lottery though.
I have been using and assembling AR rifles and more specifically parts for 13 years now (Is that unlucky?) As yet I have had no issues with DPMS. In fact I used DPMS barrels exclusively because they shot so well. Sometimes DPMS parts are not as pretty as others but I have never had a bolt fail and I have seen a few bolts fail especially recently.
Because there are people who make better QC'd rifles for less money with better features.Quote:
Originally Posted by Towely
Which breed has been busting bolts ?Quote:
Originally Posted by Herbmiester
only one Iv seen has been NEA,
I had an Nea break one as well.
What was the cause? After how much use?Quote:
Originally Posted by Towely
Digit might be able to chime in here, but as far as I know it was only the very early 1st gen NEA's that had any issues with this. I know personally of one NEA bolt that spat a bolt lug, but that was at a reasonably high round count, and losing lugs is a hazard with AR bolts from a variety of manufacturers from what I've read online. The great thing is that unlike all the other brands in NZ, NEA has local support so replacement bolts came out overnight under warranty.Quote:
Originally Posted by Rushy
I've got a gen2 NEA and I must have put at least 5,000 rounds through it without any issues at all, and from what I've heard this isn't a problem on their newer rifles.
Thanks Scaggly.
A friend had a bolt lug fail on a Gen 1 NEA after 500 odd rounds maybe, all suppressed. Was replaced quickly. I typically prefer to buy brands that individually high pressure then MPI test their bolts, for that reason. It takes a long time for a brand to shake a bad reputation in the AR world.
The NEA's have MPI and HPT in their specs now
They always claimed "HP and MPI tested" but it was disingenuous as it was only batch testing ie 1 from a batch of however many, which not as good of a QC test as individually testing each bolt (but cheaper!)Quote:
Originally Posted by redbang
Anyone running the Oceania defense samson suppressor and samson rail combo? Having a few issues with massive poi shift 12inch low 5inch left, 6moa after install and only just stopped it contacting due to barrel whip after a big missio with the file taking some meat out from inside the fore end. Any ideas?
Sent from my GT-I8190T using Tapatalk
Is the barrel nut done up properly?
A mate has that setup with no dramas whatsoever and I have another of his cans with no problem
I was under the impression that the HPT process was basically subjecting the bolt to a proof test, which also has the effect of potentially shortening the overall life of the bolt by quite a margin. I read that the US army found that bolts (even HPT/MPI tested) will begin to crack at 5,000 rounds, and will generally break at 10,000 rounds.Quote:
Originally Posted by gimp
If bolts tend to let go at the same time, I'm not sure if the benefits of HPT stack up, but interested in others views.
It picks up the bolts with faults that will fail early, well before end of service life. As I understand it. Failing at a predictable interval after many thousand rounds is ok (wearing out), failing at random with low round counts because of metal/machining flaws isn'tQuote:
Originally Posted by scaggly
MPI only picks up external faults.
It will only identify a fault that would be apparent via failure in the 1st few firings.
It's great for selling things to people...
govt contract, service, sniper and tactical work too.
It prevents that failure in the first few firings - ie you're not buying a pre-broken gun
Interesting stuff. At the gunsmiths yesdy with new toy, borescoped, and found that it had been fired. Not many he thought, perhaps 10 rounds. So maybe some proof/functional testing goes on as well.
Out of curiosity (and having a relatively quiet morning ahead), I went and googled it. The best discussion I found was this one HPT and MPI: still viable and necessary or outdated bureaucracy? - Page 15
In a nutshell, some rate the processes citing mil-spec, some don't. A couple of manufacturers chip in, and their rationale is that if the bolt is manufactured using quality steel, quality manufacturing etc., then there is no benefit to MPI or HPT, and that destructive testing (HPT) only reduces the life of the bolt.
Others (but not other manufacturers that I could tell) disagree with this view, but at the end of the day some fairly big names in ARs don't think either process adds much value.
I'm now better educated than I was an hour ago, and it is pretty much settled for me that the two processes aren't needed as long as you're buying parts from a reputable manufacturer.
Of course, if you're machining your own bolt, then some testing might be in order :)
Yep that is interesting. I got a new AR recently and that had obvious signs of having been fired.Quote:
Originally Posted by redbang
I was under the impression that for lots of manufacturers, each new AR is test-fired before it leaves the factory to check function, accuracy etc. I've read stories from the states (or possibly canada - definitely north america) about manufacturers including the fired brass in the box with the rifle as proof that they've test fired the rifle before sending it out.Quote:
Originally Posted by Rushy
I never got the brass but that was the explanation that I was given when I enquired. Plausible when you are consigning to the other side of the world.Quote:
Originally Posted by scaggly
Not an AR obviously but my AK came with a factory firing report (4 rounds IIRC). I assume that this is industry standard practice?
Yeah my DPMS AR 308 came looking like it had been testfired. Small amount of carbon in the barrel from memory.
Barrel nut was swapped by a gunsmith so im assuming its all kosher. Will have another go this weekend if I get a chance.Quote:
Originally Posted by res
Sent from my GT-I8190T using Tapatalk