I didn't know there were unlined carriers available.
I didn't know there were unlined carriers available.
I got home, and I pulled the bolt out to check, it is chrome lined. Teaches me to trust my buddy that I got it from...
You cannot see the chrome as well as you can on other carriers, so I guess he assumed it didnt have it. I also verified his weight on one of my scales, and they match up, so I guess he just plain missed it.
Thanks for the thoughts, since it is chrome lined, and a couple grams heavier, I will shelf the S&W.
I'll take it off your hands if you're not planning on using it.
US Army Infantry 2008-2012
LEO 2012 - Current
First question: Have you fired the weapon with both of the carriers in question?
Second: If so was there any noticible difference which may cause you concern? If not, go shoot them and see whats happening.
If not, use whichever one you want. The benefit is that you know you have a tested spare awaiting you if the need arises. Don't overthink it. I don't get hung up on F/A or semi carriers as long as the rifle keeps chugging along I'm happy.
Buffers are cheaper than BCG's so you can address any cycling issues in that manner.
Well said.
Edit to add: I would still stick to the F/A carrier, as stated in previous posts, because it does seem to be easier to address gassing issues with a BCG of correct or near correct weight. On that note, as aguila stated, I would range test the S/A carrier for function so that you know it will or will not run should the need arise for you to use it over your Toolcraft BCG.
This pretty much sums up my thoughts as well.
Last edited by viperashes; 02-23-13 at 09:58.
Ill be keeping it as a spare until political/supply&demand settle down, and I know I can get another. Thank you though
aguila/viper - Didnt think about shooting before putting it in the parts box, ill do that. I do not anticipate any issues, especially with it being so close in weight, and I have heavy buffers, so I should be good, but I will do that.
Thanks to all for the help!
Matt
Bookmarks