View Full Version : Couple of projects!
Mall_Ninja
07-14-13, 19:32
So as I wait for my Noveske Gen 2 Chainsaw to arrive I have been trying to decide on which stock setup I want to use.
I currently have 2 "SHTF" rigs (lowers), as I have not yet decided which path I like better and need to carry each of them a lot more in the real world and decide.
Lower #1 has a Magpul MOE (or CTR as I have both) and a Gieselle SD3G, Noveske QD butt plate:
http://i112.photobucket.com/albums/n169/JoeDaddy_05/AR/2012-12-22_12-03-01_887_zps661a278d.jpg
Lower #2 has Cav Arms A1 length A2 "style" stock and Gieselle SSA-E (please ignore the fact these are complete rifles as I swap uppers all the time)
http://i112.photobucket.com/albums/n169/JoeDaddy_05/AR/IMG_20130323_190339_760_zpsd8de1072.jpg
My issue is I like the idea of storage for a cleaning kit, batteries, etc. but I like adjustable for obvious reasons. Im just not convinced yet which is the best path for a survival weapon. I also have handled and like the Magpul rifle stock. Im thinking that an A2 receiver extension coupled with Magpul rifle stock would be the strongest when it comes to tossing around, falling or butt striking?
Personally I think for a survival gun the ability to bring spare parts and batteries outweighs having an adjustable stock or any high speed toys. A lot of people have done a lot of good things with an A1/A2 stock. Not knocking your choices at all, just my thoughts. Otherwise those seem like good choices. Nice rifle(s)!
Mall_Ninja
07-14-13, 20:20
Thanks!
The main issue for me is portability in tight confines. I have 3 different uppers I have been swapping around:
BCM 18" (rifle gas) Ion Bond SPR with GG&G QD SPR mount w/3-10x40 scope
DD 16" mid gas cold hammer/chrome lined EoTech 553
BM 14.5 carbine gas (shortened further with pinned on QD for 16.1" overall
I prefer rifle gas for suppressed (for cleaner running and best reliability) but even just 18" barrel makes for a LOOOONG rifle. The 16" middy was a good compromise and is actually quite surprisingly 95% as accurate! Which led me to my newest upper, a 9.5" 300 BLK. Should wind up around the same overall length (suppressed) as my 16" middy (unsuppressed).
hotrodder636
07-14-13, 20:47
So as I wait for my Noveske Gen 2 Chainsaw to arrive I have been trying to decide on which stock setup I want to use.
I currently have 2 "SHTF" rigs (lowers), as I have not yet decided which path I like better and need to carry each of them a lot more in the real world and decide.
Lower #1 has a Magpul MOE (or CTR as I have both) and a Gieselle SD3G, Noveske QD butt plate:
http://i112.photobucket.com/albums/n169/JoeDaddy_05/AR/2012-12-22_12-03-01_887_zps661a278d.jpg
Lower #2 has Cav Arms A1 length A2 "style" stock and Gieselle SSA-E (please ignore the fact these are complete rifles as I swap uppers all the time)
http://i112.photobucket.com/albums/n169/JoeDaddy_05/AR/IMG_20130323_190339_760_zpsd8de1072.jpg
My issue is I like the idea of storage for a cleaning kit, batteries, etc. but I like adjustable for obvious reasons. Im just not convinced yet which is the best path for a survival weapon. I also have handled and like the Magpul rifle stock. Im thinking that an A2 receiver extension coupled with Magpul rifle stock would be the strongest when it comes to tossing around, falling or butt striking?
What is that muzzle device?
Mall_Ninja
07-14-13, 21:07
Its a Yankee Hill QD suppressor mount with a thread protector (the bottom pic). Top pic is same QD without the thread protector...
Well going off of what you want out of the rifle Im sure a 14.5" or 16" will be plenty accurate with quality parts.
For my range/HD gun I went with a 14.5 pinned to 16.1, mid-length gas, and a LMT SOPMOD stock. I have some room for battery/small part storage between the stock and MIAD grip. It's a compromise but I would just really think on all of your options and see what is most important.
Mall_Ninja
07-15-13, 00:47
Agreed.
I have the Magpul bolt and firing pin holder inserts on the way. I have been convinced a certain path was the way to go before building a rifle just to turn around and change my whole plan after dragging the rig around rough terrain for 20 miles!
In my opinion, a survival rifle should go along with a survival pack. Keep the spares in the pack. I have found it's easier to carry spares, ammo, cleaning gear, what have you, in a pack instead of on the rifle.
I am not military or LE but I believe if you needed to use your rifle as a melee weapon, it would be much better to jab your opponent with the muzzle rather than try to club him with the buttstock. When all is said & done, the final determination as to which stock to use is shooting it. Build the rifle to be shot. Don't worry so much about building it to be used as a club. Even so, if you want an adjustable stock to rival the toughness of a fixed stock, get the Magpul UBR.
Forum rules call for you to explain what role the rifle is built to fill and why you picked the parts you did. I think you covered the rifles role. Now you just need to list what parts you used and why you chose them
Mall_Ninja
07-15-13, 18:09
In my opinion, a survival rifle should go along with a survival pack. Keep the spares in the pack. I have found it's easier to carry spares, ammo, cleaning gear, what have you, in a pack instead of on the rifle.
I completely agree and thats how I roll. I have a Spec Ops bag for that. But there are always contingencies...
I am not military or LE but I believe if you needed to use your rifle as a melee weapon, it would be much better to jab your opponent with the muzzle rather than try to club him with the buttstock. When all is said & done, the final determination as to which stock to use is shooting it.
Agreed, I never intended anyone to think that was a primary use, its far from it. But there are other things that break receivers and extensions that are more probable. Especially in Mountainous terrains.
Build the rifle to be shot. Don't worry so much about building it to be used as a club. Even so, if you want an adjustable stock to rival the toughness of a fixed stock, get the Magpul UBR.
The problem with the UBR is weight, if I recall correctly its one of the heaviest available.
Forum rules call for you to explain what role the rifle is built to fill and why you picked the parts you did. I think you covered the rifles role. Now you just need to list what parts you used and why you chose them
Well to be more specific in that sense the SD3G/Carbine stock combo was designed to compliment a very short and light upper, for maximum portability and maneuverability. A "run and gun" designed to get you to a safe place as fast as possible in a very "dynamic" situation. Not designed at all for maximum accuracy, but speed. This is why I chose the EOTech no magnifier setup.
The SSAE/rifle stock with SPR QD/scope setup has been primarily coupled with the 18" SPR BCM barreled upper as a light weight, yet far more "precise" rig designed to fill the gap between the super light/fast setup mentioned above and the way heavy 7.62 setup I have.
I wanted something that could still be used reasonably well in a CQB situation, yet be better serving in a survival situation where it would be needed to also put dinner on the table.
I have been building my own rifles for years now since I tend to be VERY picky about my setups and its impossible for a rifle to be "right" for me from the factory. So I just build them from the ground up. This Noveske Gen 2 that is due in the next few days will be somewhere in between the two I mentioned above as it will wear my 300 BLK upper first, then I will mod it from there.
This is why I asked the question why carbine setups "absolutely must be peened or it WILL come loose and fail" yet A2 rifle buffer setups dont ever seem too. I have been reading through archives for WEEKS and have never found a single instance of any military or civilian issues with A2 setups coming loose. I DID however find many instances where people where told NOT to Loctite extensions and to peen them. I was subsequently called an idiot by a moderator and another member, then the thread was locked without me being able to say anything. So, anyone ever have issues with an A2 coming loose? Do you locktite or not? I have seen A2 buffers come from the factory with a dry loctite spot on them. I dare mention this here without putting on some kevlar! :bad:
This has contributed to me being unsure if a carbine or rifle extension is the most durable/reliable as I dont peen my carbines, I change things around way too much. I have never had one come loose, nor an A2?
SeriousStudent
07-15-13, 21:21
Mall_Ninja - the thread was locked because you were rude to an Industry Professional, who also happens to be a Moderator. You could have been given an infraction for that behavior, which would give you a vacation.
Waving that particular flag AGAIN is not going to win you any friends here. Dial back the rhetoric if you wish to remain at M4C. That is about as clear as I can be.
Mall_Ninja
07-15-13, 22:22
Is there some sort of past here with regards to the A2 topic im not aware of? It seems like no one will answer a very simple question I have? Its really weird!
I reacted in a way I felt was no different than the way I was treated. I asked a question and got told I was an idiot!
Why will no one answer the question? This whole thing is so bizarre!
Do you guys think im some guy from the past that asked a similar question or something? I really dont get it...
Failure2Stop
07-15-13, 22:28
Is there some sort of past here with regards to the A2 topic im not aware of? It seems like no one will answer a very simple question I have? Its really weird!
I reacted in a way I felt was no different than the way I was treated. I asked a question and got told I was an idiot!
Why will no one answer the question? This whole thing is so bizarre!
Do you guys think im some guy from the past that asked a similar question or something? I really dont get it...
I don't know the back story on your previous posts, can only assume that's the issue. I'm sure someone will let you know.
As far as the A2 stock goes, the locking method between the lower receiver, receiver extension, and the stock preclude rotation, which eliminates the need to stake the receiver extension. There can be an issue with the buttstock retainer screw, but loosening from proper torque requires a tool, which means that as long as it is installed correctly and nobody monkeys around with it, you'll be fine.
Typos brought to you via Tapatalk and autocorrect.
SeriousStudent
07-15-13, 22:37
Is there some sort of past here with regards to the A2 topic im not aware of? It seems like no one will answer a very simple question I have? Its really weird!
I reacted in a way I felt was no different than the way I was treated. I asked a question and got told I was an idiot!
Why will no one answer the question? This whole thing is so bizarre!
Do you guys think im some guy from the past that asked a similar question or something? I really dont get it...
If you had a question about that mod's behavior, then contact them via PM, or another staff or mod. Public drama does not bring positive attention. And no one used the word "idiot".
If you want to publicly call people out here, then you are likely to receive a public correction. If you have a problem, contact someone via PM and it will be answered. That is the point of this interchange.
Mall_Ninja
07-15-13, 23:30
I don't know the back story on your previous posts, can only assume that's the issue. I'm sure someone will let you know.
As far as the A2 stock goes, the locking method between the lower receiver, receiver extension, and the stock preclude rotation, which eliminates the need to stake the receiver extension. There can be an issue with the buttstock retainer screw, but loosening from proper torque requires a tool, which means that as long as it is installed correctly and nobody monkeys around with it, you'll be fine.
Typos brought to you via Tapatalk and autocorrect.
Thank you!
The problem I have is looking at them side by side, I dont see how the A2 would be any less able to come loose. The "butt plate" on a carbine setup is a steel version of the polymer front of an A2 stock. It fits into the recess in the lower receiver just the same as the A2. When you say that it is "precluded from rotation", wouldnt both of these assemblies be precluded the same why by the detent in the lower receiver?
The only thing I can think of is that if the carbine assembly is not properly installed, most likely due to someone who doesnt fully understand how to install it, then it makes sense.
So that leads me to my next question, do you think that the A2 trap door screw (the hollow upper one that bolts into the RE tube) that is loctited is more responsible for keeping things correct than the tube itself? Or is it just that the whole setup is simpler in regards to noobs trying to do their own gun smithing? Essentially no special tools required, unlike a carbine?
If you had a question about that mod's behavior, then contact them via PM, or another staff or mod. Public drama does not bring positive attention. And no one used the word "idiot".
If you want to publicly call people out here, then you are likely to receive a public correction. If you have a problem, contact someone via PM and it will be answered. That is the point of this interchange.
I did PM and it made no difference, I really dont care anymore, I just wanted an answer to my simple question which "Failure2Stop" was kind enough to step up to.
In all fairness I will admit I was up late having trouble sleeping when I read those 2 smart ass responses, which rubbed me the wrong way. For that I apologize, but I stand by my opinion that both responses were not only uncalled for, but unprofessional (from a mod no less!!). Especially towards a brand new person to the forum!
No one was being a smart ass. You made an statement that was ill-informed and then prefaced it with stating that you have read all sorts of information and and you couldn't figure it out.
If you think that you are going to then come in here and start some crying campaign then you are wrong.
The reason that the rifle doesn't need to be staked is because the design is different. The sum of the moving parts are different.
I actually did answer your PM in which you were rude and quite frankly an asshole. If you think that I am going to engage in some kind of tit-for-tat back and forth with you because you don't think you got the correct answer or the answer you seek, then that's your problem.
Please don't bother PM'ing me after this because it will be deleted as I don't have time to deal with every little issue.
Thank you!
The problem I have is looking at them side by side, I dont see how the A2 would be any less able to come loose. The "butt plate" on a carbine setup is a steel version of the polymer front of an A2 stock. It fits into the recess in the lower receiver just the same as the A2. When you say that it is "precluded from rotation", wouldnt both of these assemblies be precluded the same why by the detent in the lower receiver?
The only thing I can think of is that if the carbine assembly is not properly installed, most likely due to someone who doesnt fully understand how to install it, then it makes sense.
So that leads me to my next question, do you think that the A2 trap door screw (the hollow upper one that bolts into the RE tube) that is loctited is more responsible for keeping things correct than the tube itself? Or is it just that the whole setup is simpler in regards to noobs trying to do their own gun smithing? Essentially no special tools required, unlike a carbine?
I did PM and it made no difference, I really dont care anymore, I just wanted an answer to my simple question which "Failure2Stop" was kind enough to step up to.
In all fairness I will admit I was up late having trouble sleeping when I read those 2 smart ass responses, which rubbed me the wrong way. For that I apologize, but I stand by my opinion that both responses were not only uncalled for, but unprofessional (from a mod no less!!). Especially towards a brand new person to the forum!
Mall_Ninja
07-16-13, 01:27
No one was being a smart ass. You made an statement that was ill-informed and then prefaced it with stating that you have read all sorts of information and and you couldn't figure it out.
If you think that you are going to then come in here and start some crying campaign then you are wrong.
The reason that the rifle doesn't need to be staked is because the design is different. The sum of the moving parts are different.
I actually did answer your PM in which you were rude and quite frankly an asshole. If you think that I am going to engage in some kind of tit-for-tat back and forth with you because you don't think you got the correct answer or the answer you seek, then that's your problem.
Please don't bother PM'ing me after this because it will be deleted as I don't have time to deal with every little issue.
Can we please stay on topic? I explained my questions and am hoping to get feedback, im far from ill informed.
I am looking for other peoples input, however, on the topic of A2 stocks versus carbines and what the actual reasons are that A2's do not come loose. My opinion as I stated, the "key", may be in the loctited screw. Does anyone disagree?
I am considering using the MagPul rifle stock for my Noveske build as it seems to be very strong, while not overly heavy.
Here is a pic of the BCM SPR upper on one of my "beater" lowers:
http://i112.photobucket.com/albums/n169/JoeDaddy_05/AR/IMG_20130715_210059_050_zps585a998d.jpg
Actually I am on topic since you felt the need to dredge it up with your other post above which was edited by yet another moderator. Here's your answer.
1. A rifle stock only has a tube. That tube is torqued to a specification and when it touches the lower receiver extension it has a shoulder around it that mates up to the rear of the receiver.
Once that has been done and the stock is in place over the tube and you tighten the screw (which has Loc-tite applied) it will hold the stock in place. The stock itself cannot move or rotate because of the detent on the stock that goes into the hole at the rear of the receiver.
2. The carbine is much different in that the tube does not have a limiter or a shelf like the rifle tube. The only thing which prevents the tube from rotational movement is the proper installation of the backplate and the castle nut. The locking tab of the endplate goes into the channel of the lower receiver extension. Once everything is installed and you torque the castle nut into rear of the endplate there is nothing to stop the castle nut from moving. That is where the staking comes in. Peening the metal from the endplate into castle nut prevents the nut from backing out, which in turn prevents the endplate from being able to move away from the receiver, which in turn prevents the tube from being able to rotate. So the sum of the parts on the carbine extension are all interconnected and they work in concert with each other.
Can we please stay on topic? I explained my questions and am hoping to get feedback, im far from ill informed.
I am looking for other peoples input, however, on the topic of A2 stocks versus carbines and what the actual reasons are that A2's do not come loose. My opinion as I stated, the "key", may be in the loctited screw. Does anyone disagree?
I am considering using the MagPul rifle stock for my Noveske build as it seems to be very strong, while not overly heavy.
Here is a pic of the BCM SPR upper on one of my "beater" lowers:
http://i112.photobucket.com/albums/n169/JoeDaddy_05/AR/IMG_20130715_210059_050_zps585a998d.jpg
Mall_Ninja
07-16-13, 13:29
Actually I am on topic since you felt the need to dredge it up with your other post above which was edited by yet another moderator.
Thats weird, I dont see anything that was "edited"? Oh well, doesnt matter, im happy to just finally be getting peoples opinions on the topic! ;)
Here's your answer.
1. A rifle stock only has a tube. That tube is torqued to a specification and when it touches the lower receiver extension it has a shoulder around it that mates up to the rear of the receiver.
Completely agree, but my belief is that a carbine tube, with castle nut achieves the exact same interface. Ill go into more detail later.
Once that has been done and the stock is in place over the tube and you tighten the screw (which has Loc-tite applied) it will hold the stock in place. The stock itself cannot move or rotate because of the detent on the stock that goes into the hole at the rear of the receiver.
Agreed, however, does the backplate on a carbine setup not mimic the exact same anti rotation? After all, its in fact made of steel instead of glass filled composite?
2. The carbine is much different in that the tube does not have a limiter or a shelf like the rifle tube.
As stated above, I feel that a carbine buffer with a castle nut achieves the same end result albeit by slightly different "means".
The only thing which prevents the tube from rotational movement is the proper installation of the backplate and the castle nut. The locking tab of the endplate goes into the channel of the lower receiver extension.
Agreed, and I think this is the "key". Differences in the tolerance of the "lock tab" on the end plate and the slot it interfaces in the carbine "tube" have "slop" in varying amounts. My guess is the properly made parts that have "near zero" (you cant have zero without an interference fit) are the ones much less prone to coming loose. A sloppy fit would allow axial "torque" by the end user (leverage by the stock itself) handling the weapon to cause the lock nut to "work" loose. Im 100% convinced it is NOT the recoil of shooting that loosens it, rather its the "twisting" back and forth of handling that does. So basically round count does not effect the chance directly. Say like someone who has to carry teh rifle all over the place but shoots it extremely rarely. They are far more prone to a loose buffer than someone who just brings their rifle to the range and shoots 5 mags rapid fire then puts it back in a rifle case and takes it home. This would help to explain why a lot of mall ninjas with cheap rifles dont seem to have issues while real deal guys do.
Once everything is installed and you torque the castle nut into rear of the endplate there is nothing to stop the castle nut from moving.
The true reason we "torque" fasteners is to "stretch" them to the proper "clamping force". I have been building engines longer than I have been building guns. I have yet to have a rod bolt, crank bearing cap, harmonic balancer, lug nut, etc. etc. come loose after proper torquing. I use assembly lube or ARP specific (depending on the fastener) to grease everything I torque (yes, even lug nuts, no they wont come loose). What I believe is its a combination of things:
1)People not having a proper spanner wrench to tighten the castle nut.
2)People not properly lubricating the threads prior to torquing, therefore not arriving at the correct torque number.
3) Loose tolerances between the end plate lock tab and the channel in the buffer allowing axial torque to work the castle nut loose.
That is where the staking comes in. Peening the metal from the endplate into castle nut prevents the nut from backing out, which in turn prevents the endplate from being able to move away from the receiver, which in turn prevents the tube from being able to rotate. So the sum of the parts on the carbine extension are all interconnected and they work in concert with each other.
Agreed, however, my opinion is a peen is a backup or "band aide" that is only needed if the above numbered issues exist. The reason I say this is I actually HAVE had an A2 work loose. Now granted it was only the end plate screw (the upper loctited one). The reason this happened is it was an out of spec DPMS A2 stock. The "nub" that sticks out the front that locks into the hole in the lower reciever (thus not allowing axial rotation) was too small and allowed the stock to "wiggle" back and forth. This allowed the loctited screw to work loose enough over time for the detent spring to be visible (rear takedown detent). So, an out of spec A2 part actually "replicated" what can happen on a carbine setup. This is why I like Cav Arms A2 (ish) stocks. Their "nub" is slightly oversized and fits with a nice tight, interference fit.
So in closing my objective was to "improve" upon the design to eliminate having to peen it to make up for poor tolerances. I have a few ideas already in the works for carrier keys for the same reason. As I stated a peen is a bandaide for poor engineering design, in my opinion. Thats all! Simple! ;)
Failure2Stop
07-16-13, 13:39
A few things:
1- It isn't "peening", it's "staking", at least in this industry.
2- The carbine receiver extension can be twisted off by rotational force. To twist the A2 stock off, the force would have to shear the plastic nub that interfaces with the recess in the lower receiver. All that holds the carbine tube in proper orientation is the castle nut (installed and removed by rotational force), the little nub of the soft metal receiver end-plate and the thin threads of the aluminum receiver extension.
How many folks out there have ruined their receiver extension/receiver end-plates while trying to tear their carbines down? Lots. Why? Because it's easy to generate enough force to do so. A2s are simply a different (and originally designed) animal. Really, the M4 style collapsible stock is an inelegant solution. Functional, yes, but definitely with room for improvement.
3- Lubrication is not necessary to achieve sufficient torque, and, in fact, dry anodization on anodization torque (with a 3x tightening protocol) will actually be more resistant to loosening. (This is in reference to the specific parts being discussed, not with regard to steel nuts, etc., in which cases I agree that lube is needed)
4- Agreed that handling and incorrect tightening protocols are the primary reason that receiver extension castle nuts and receiver extensions loosen, however, the vibrations associated with firing and recoil definitely assist.
3- Lubrication is not necessary to achieve sufficient torque, and, in fact, dry anodization on anodization torque (with a 3x tightening protocol) will actually be more resistant to loosening. (This is in reference to the specific parts being discussed, not with regard to steel nuts, etc., in which cases I agree that lube is needed)
Assembly lube is often specified when torquing aluminum parts because the anodizing will create a run on torque. This run on torque will give a false reading because full torque value isn't reached and the friction of the anodized parts is NOT a thread locker. Torquing without assembly lube can lead to galling which further increases run on torque and damages the threads. Assembly lube reduces run on torque (and protects against galling, I might add) so true value can be reached. For example, if the specified torque value is 35 in/lbs and the run on torque is 10 in/lbs, the torque wrench must be set to 45 in/lbs. If torqued to 35 in/lbs, actual torque value at the threads is only 25 in/lbs. (That said, the 3x torque technique mentioned is spot on but does not eliminate the need for assembly lube)
Mall Ninja, the reason staking is needed is to act as a thread locker. Torquing the castle nut properly should hold it tight. But experienced AR armorers know it doesn't always work that way. A little extra torque could go a long way to holding the castle nut against vibration and the forces of torque applied to the stock when shouldered by the user but we're talking about aluminum threads here. Aluminum is very unforgiving when it comes to threads. Steel threads have a little elasticity, so a little more torque is less likely to permanently distort them. It's a different story dealing with hardened and anodized 7075 aluminum. There is little elasticity there. The threads won't give, they'll shear. They'll gall.
The receiver plate is, I believe, steel. You can stake it over and over again and it'll take it. If worried about constant removing and re-installation, keep your stakes shallow. You just need enough to push the material a little way into the notch of the castle nut. In particular, use assembly lube. You may get away with installing a part with aluminum threads dry once or twice but they'll soon become useless
PS- Let me also add that IG is a VERY experienced AR armorer, as well as an armorer for other weapon types. Listening to him will save you from plenty of grief
Mall_Ninja
07-16-13, 22:20
Assembly lube is often specified when torquing aluminum parts because the anodizing will create a run on torque. This run on torque will give a false reading because full torque value isn't reached and the friction of the anodized parts is NOT a thread locker. Torquing without assembly lube can lead to galling which further increases run on torque and damages the threads. Assembly lube reduces run on torque (and protects against galling, I might add) so true value can be reached.
Im not sure if that was directed at me, doubtful as its basically the same thing I was speaking about. In fact, lubricating threads that are to be torqued is so common, it should be "inferred" that unless specifically told to do otherwise by a "spec" it should ALWAYS be done. Its so important that ARP actually publishes 2 different torque specs when you use their fasteners. A higher spec with "common, over the counter lubes" and a lower spec for their specific thread torquing lubricant (since its so much more "slipperier").
Mall Ninja, the reason staking is needed is to act as a thread locker. Torquing the castle nut properly should hold it tight. But experienced AR armorers know it doesn't always work that way.
Agreed, this is why I stated that I believe it to be a bandaide for a poor design. If the end plate tab and the slot in the carbine tube had an interference fit, this would not be necessary, it would in fact be almost as stout as an A2. Due to sloppiness it allows the castle nut to come loose. This has led me to contemplate several design improvements. Its quite obvious the carbine setup was an after thought and they did what they could with what they had at the time. Which leaves little reason NOT to update it to a more technically sound and robust design. After all, polishing a turd, still leaves you with poo! ;)
The receiver plate is, I believe, steel. You can stake it over and over again and it'll take it. If worried about constant removing and re-installation, keep your stakes shallow. You just need enough to push the material a little way into the notch of the castle nut. In particular, use assembly lube. You may get away with installing a part with aluminum threads dry once or twice but they'll soon become useless
In my life I have never installed a threaded fastener, dry, that required a torque setting. I have yet to even come across actual "proof" of a published spec when it was required NOT to lube the fastener. These types of debates run rampant on automotive/powersports forums. When guys like me tell people about using anti seize on lug nuts and people laugh and call us "idiots! your wheels will fall off in 2 miles!!!" HAHAHAHA You always get the response like "you are only supposed to lube a fastener if it specifically tells you too"...
PS- Let me also add that IG is a VERY experienced AR armorer, as well as an armorer for other weapon types. Listening to him will save you from plenty of grief
No doubt, I hope I didnt come across as ignoring advice, that is certainly not me. I was simply looking to respectfully debate disagreeing opinions, nothing more, nothing less...
Mall Ninja, it doesn't look like you need any advice from anyone here. In fact, I think you should just go ahead and start your own website.
Assembly lube is often specified when torquing aluminum parts because the anodizing will create a run on torque. This run on torque will give a false reading because full torque value isn't reached and the friction of the anodized parts is NOT a thread locker. Torquing without assembly lube can lead to galling which further increases run on torque and damages the threads. Assembly lube reduces run on torque (and protects against galling, I might add) so true value can be reached. For example, if the specified torque value is 35 in/lbs and the run on torque is 10 in/lbs, the torque wrench must be set to 45 in/lbs. If torqued to 35 in/lbs, actual torque value at the threads is only 25 in/lbs. (That said, the 3x torque technique mentioned is spot on but does not eliminate the need for assembly lube)
Thanks for this info since it reminded that I assembled both my AR's RE wrong, in that I did not use grease, or assembly lube on them. They are staked though, since I also had nothing to measure inch pounds, I just tried to tighten as tight S&W did on my one lower. I know that makes no sense. :D
S&W did not stake the castle nut and it stayed on there for around 2,500 rounds. I have put another 1,000 since replacing the endplate and it has not backed out.
But without using assembly grease, will the threads be destroyed if I ever need to take the RE off?
Mall_Ninja
07-17-13, 00:03
Mall Ninja, it doesn't look like you need any advice from anyone here. In fact, I think you should just go ahead and start your own website.
Gee, thats a great idea, thanks for the valuable contribution to this thread!
But without using assembly grease, will the threads be destroyed if I ever need to take the RE off?
That all depends on how tight they are. I would certainly spray the threads with a penetrating lube before attempting removal. If your rifle isnt exposed to a particularly corrosive environment (coastal humidity or sea water) you are probably ok from a corrosion standpoint.
T...But without using assembly grease, will the threads be destroyed if I ever need to take the RE off?
Definitely maybe.
I have not had to remove my RE once it was installed. However, I work in aviation and have had years of experience removing and installing threaded aluminum parts on various types of aircraft. Once, I got lazy and didn't use assembly lube as specified by the maintenance manual while connecting a pressure line that used aluminum fittings. Because it was in an awkward place, I had to loosen and retorque it several times to get it positioned right. The last time, the dry threads galled. It was a tough lessen. Since then, I've followed the procedure in the MM and used the specified assembly lube. I've not had that problem again.
Aircraft- and helicopters in particular- will vibrate parts loose. If you don't torque something correctly, it won't take long before you have to do it again. Since I am lazy, I try to make sure I do it right the first time. If it doesn't work, I try to figure out why. Having to do something over is extra work!
I'm not here to tell anyone they are wrong but share what I know according to my training and experience. Using a little assembly lube on aluminum threads can save you a lot of headaches
..In my life I have never installed a threaded fastener, dry, that required a torque setting. I have yet to even come across actual "proof" of a published spec when it was required NOT to lube the fastener...
In aviation, there are fasteners that must be torqued dry
Mall_Ninja
07-17-13, 03:21
In aviation, there are fasteners that must be torqued dry
Do these also happen to be required to be safety wired afterwards?
If not does the spec call for thread locker?
It depends. Some use self locking nuts. Some get lock wire. Dry means dry so no Loctite
None that I recall use aluminum threads
Mall_Ninja
07-17-13, 12:57
It depends. Some use self locking nuts. Some get lock wire. Dry means dry so no Loctite
None that I recall use aluminum threads
So does that mean that the "dry" spec fasteners all require auxiliary means of retainment? In other words, are there any "dry" spec fasteners that are plain and have no safety wire, lock nut/washer, etc?
It depends on the application.
Most nuts, bolts & screws use some kind of thread locker, usually in the form of a self locking nut. Sometimes it's a cotter key or lock wire. Occasionally it's staking. Robinson Helicopters use what's called a "Palnut"
For a better understanding of the basics, try this book- http://www.amazon.com/dp/156027591X
or this pdf from the FAA http://www.faa.gov/regulations_policies/handbooks_manuals/aircraft/amt_handbook/media/FAA-8083-30_Ch05.pdf
For greater detail, you'll need to look up the manufacturers MMs for specific aircraft. Boeing MMs are among the best
Failure2Stop
07-17-13, 14:30
Assembly lube is often specified when torquing aluminum parts because the anodizing will create a run on torque. This run on torque will give a false reading because full torque value isn't reached and the friction of the anodized parts is NOT a thread locker. Torquing without assembly lube can lead to galling which further increases run on torque and damages the threads. Assembly lube reduces run on torque (and protects against galling, I might add) so true value can be reached. For example, if the specified torque value is 35 in/lbs and the run on torque is 10 in/lbs, the torque wrench must be set to 45 in/lbs. If torqued to 35 in/lbs, actual torque value at the threads is only 25 in/lbs. (That said, the 3x torque technique mentioned is spot on but does not eliminate the need for assembly lube)
There has been quite a bit of testing in the industry that I am discussing, and there are torque values for lubricated parts (barrel nut), non-lubricated parts (A2 receiver extension), and thread-locker "lubricated" parts (suppressor mount muzzle devices).
Torque values needed to apply pressure/retain position are determined during design. Just because one barrel nut requires lubrication and 35-70 ft/lbs of torque does not mean that a different design, utilizing a different installation method, is wrong for calling out a thread locker and 50 (+/- 5) ft/lbs of torque.
Further, none of that means that there isn't a different and possibly superior method/tool to do the job.
Mall_Ninja
07-17-13, 15:15
There has been quite a bit of testing in the industry that I am discussing, and there are torque values for:
lubricated parts (barrel nut)
non-lubricated parts (A2 receiver extension)
thread-locker "lubricated" parts (suppressor mount muzzle devices)
Jack, would you please share these numbers for the above in RED?
There has been quite a bit of testing in the industry that I am discussing, and there are torque values for lubricated parts (barrel nut), non-lubricated parts (A2 receiver extension), and thread-locker "lubricated" parts (suppressor mount muzzle devices).
Torque values needed to apply pressure/retain position are determined during design. Just because one barrel nut requires lubrication and 35-70 ft/lbs of torque does not mean that a different design, utilizing a different installation method, is wrong for calling out a thread locker and 50 (+/- 5) ft/lbs of torque.
Further, none of that means that there isn't a different and possibly superior method/tool to do the job.
As I said, I'm not out to say anyone is wrong, just sharing my training and experience, which is in aviation not firearms.
I agree with your statement above. In regards to using assembly lube on the castle nut because it's aluminum threads, it's a standard practice on Boeing jets because of the problems I outlined earlier. However, if the AR manual specifies the castle nut to be torqued to it's value dry, that is the correct way to do it.
I admit that because it's a common practice to lube aluminum threads in my line of work, I made the mistake of assuming that's how it's always done. My experience with torquing aluminum threads dry backs this up
Powered by vBulletin® Version 4.2.5 Copyright © 2024 vBulletin Solutions, Inc. All rights reserved.