View Full Version : "Take off Barrel" question. Who and why would you take the barrel off a new rifle?
I have been looking for a replacement barrel, preferably a complete barrel assembly, for a Colt 6721.
I noticed several barrels listed on Gun Broker with descriptions such as:
"This Colt Barrel Assembly is a new take off from a Colt AR6721"..... "This assembly was test fired at the Colt factory. It has been removed from a complete M4 rifle assembly and is presented as shown. The born on date is 10/16".
I sent an email asking the seller how they came by the barrel but being the weekend, I haven't heard back from them yet.
My question is why would someone disassemble a new rifle and part it out? Is there any reason to be concerned the barrel is from a stolen gun? The seller had nearly 10,000 reviews with only a small number being unfavorable.
HansTheHobbit
02-05-17, 11:24
That's interesting. Is it an M4 or M4A1 profile? If he's that big of a seller, he must be dealing with liquidators or something. My guess, and this is just a guess mind you, is that the barrel failed one of the mil-spec inspections and was rejected. It may have been that a batch of M4s delivered by Colt didn't meet the inspection requirements, so they took them off and replaced them, then liquidated the rejects as factory seconds. My guess would be that they failed the accuracy requirements, or that some of the chambers had burrs, or something like that.
In any case, I would be very curious to hear the seller's story, so be sure to let us know how it ends.
ETA: For the record, though, I wouldn't touch a 14.5'' barrel with a ten foot poll. I've been down that road, and it's a royal pain in the ass if you ever need to work on it or want to upgrade it. Saving that half inch of length just isn't worth it.
3ACR_Scout
02-05-17, 11:24
I bought a complete Colt LPK (including FCG) for $100 off GB from a dealer in MD who was parting out 6920s, and then I went back later and got a complete 6920 lower from him. I would guess he may have been having trouble moving rifles after MD instituted their ban, but I'd also bet that he found that he could make a little more by parting out the rifles than by selling them complete. Colt parts aren't that easy to get and are often expensive when you find them (e.g. SAW). In the case of your seller, he (or another customer) probably wants to put a mid-length or some other barrel of his preference on the 6721 and knows that he can recover some of his cost by selling a Colt barrel that isn't readily available elsewhere. I see people do this pretty often with Colt parts, so I wouldn't be too concerned about something fishy going on, as long as you can get photos to confirm is authenticity and condition.
HansTheHobbit
02-05-17, 11:36
Okay, 3ACR's post made me go back read the op again. So is it an AR6721 barrel, or an M4 barrel?
"This Colt Barrel Assembly is a new take off from a Colt AR6721"..... "This assembly was test fired at the Colt factory. It has been removed from a complete M4 rifle assembly and is presented as shown. The born on date is 10/16".
Something's fishy here. Perhaps he meant to say it's a take off for a Colt AR6721? Either way, it doesn't make much sense...
It would help if you could provide a link to the listing.
It's an HBAR barrel. The add had pics and the markings appear to all be correct - C MP 1/9 Nato 5.56.
Does Colt release their "rejects" for resale? That seems like a poor business practice - people buy a "Colt" marked part, it doesn't work and blame Colt. I would think they would destroy their failed parts in order to protect their reputation and avoid liability issues.
Item description in the ad:
This Colt Barrel Assembly is a new take off from a Colt AR6721. This barrel is the Colt H-Bar, it is 16” long and includes the bird cage flash hider, “F” marked front sight with gas block, gas tube with pin, sling ring, bayonet lug, barrel-receiver delta ring, and Colt handguard. Please note this has the yellow inspection mark under front sight tower. The barrel is chrome lined, has the M4 feed ramps and 1/9” twist. This assembly was test fired at the Colt factory. It has been removed from a complete M4 rifle assembly and is presented as shown. The born on date is 10/16.
This is a genuine Colt Barrel assembly in new condition ready for that AR project you have in mind or stash this one for the future and burn up some ammo.
What if the barrel was removed as the person who bought the rifle had other plans and just wanted all the other Colt components?
Not too long ago, another gun forum member bought a BCM KMR upper and I replace the barrel with a Sionics reduced gas port size for him that he wanted. He specifically liked the BCM setup, but preferred the port sizing of the Sionics barrel as he was going to shoot it suppressed nearly the entire time, so he opted to just buy the complete upper, swap the barrel, and then sell the unfired out side of factory barrel, which he got good money for.
After selling the factory BCM barrel, it was about a wash to have the exact upper he wanted at a good price and saved him time on sourcing the parts individually due to stock availability at the time (build a few months before the election).
HansTheHobbit
02-05-17, 11:42
It's an HBAR barrel. The add had pics and the markings appear to all be correct - C MP 1/9 Nato 5.56.
Does Colt release their "rejects" for resale? That seems like a poor business practice - people buy a "Colt" marked part, it doesn't work and blame Colt. I would think they would destroy their failed parts in order to protect their reputation and avoid liability issues.
No, not to my knowledge. But everything I said goes out the window because that's not an M4 barrel. I think 3ACR probably has it right.
Okay, 3ACR's post made me go back read the op again. So is it an AR6721 barrel, or an M4 barrel?
Something's fishy here. Perhaps he meant to say it's a take off for a Colt AR6721? Either way, it doesn't make much sense...
It would help if you could provide a link to the listing.
It's an HBAR barrel. Says it is off a 6721. It has a 1/9 twist to which to the best of my knowledge is only available on a 6721. 6721's do have an "M4" marked upper receiver. I cut and pasted their description in this thread.
Some people prefer a 1:7 twist and it would not be unusual for them to pull a new barrel and replace it.
HansTheHobbit
02-05-17, 12:01
It's an HBAR barrel. Says it is off a 6721. It has a 1/9 twist to which to the best of my knowledge is only available on a 6721. 6721's do have an "M4" marked upper receiver. I cut and pasted their description in this thread.
Gotchya, it just threw me where he said it was from a "complete M4 rifle assembly." All Colt uppers are marked M4, but M4 feed ramps does not a "complete M4 rifle" make. I don't know if it was his intention, probably not, but the way he's wording it leads one to believe the barrel came off an actual M4.
ETA: But it looks like a good barrel, so I would snatch it up if the price is right. If you're okay with the weight of an HBAR and the carbine length gas system, that is. The 1:9 twist is a huge plus in my opinion. M855, and especially M197, are going to be substantially more accurate from a 1:9 than a 1:7.
This happens quite often and I wouldn't worry about it whatsoever. Many people buy & part out factory Colts. They might be only after the lower or just want a different barrel than the factory one.
3ACR_Scout
02-05-17, 12:16
Just to add to my previous comments, I see nothing in the description to indicate that this came from Colt as a "take-off" barrel. I read his description to mean that he himself took it off a 6721 for whatever reason. The possibilities are endless. Just as another example, before Colt introduced their 6921CK, I was planning to buy a complete 6920 and a 14.5" M4-profile barrel, swap them out to build an M4gery (as people used to call them), and then sell the 16" barrel. With the release of the 6921CK, I instead found the complete 6920 lower that I mentioned previously and have now been procrastinating on buying the upper (which will get a pinned A2X).
Colt parts always seem to be in demand, or at least sellers think they are. I noticed that people are now listing Expanse lowers on GB for the same price that I paid for my 6920 lower a couple years ago.
Maybe he wanted a precision hard use gun? Getting a colt and throwing a match grade barrel and ff tube on it would be a good way to do that imo. Just a thought on why. The possibilities are endless.
StevieJ309
02-05-17, 12:44
This happens quite often and I wouldn't worry about it whatsoever. Many people buy & part out factory Colts. They might be only after the lower or just want a different barrel than the factory one.
This.
It's not that uncommon especially with Colt's. Sometimes the parts are worth more than a complete rifle.
This.
It's not that uncommon especially with Colt's. Sometimes the parts are worth more than a complete rifle.
What Stevie said^^^ A lot of people make a living parting out guns.
The 1:9 twist is a huge plus in my opinion. M855, and especially M197, are going to be substantially more accurate from a 1:9 than a 1:7.
This myth has been soundly laid to rest.
Excerpts from a post by Molon
By definition,
The following demonstration compares the results of firing four 10-shot groups of the same lot of 55 grain Prvi Partizan M193 ammunition from two different barrels; one barrel with a 1:9” twist, the other barrel with a 1:7” twist. The first barrel used in testing was 16” Colt HBAR with chrome lining, a NATO chamber and a 1:9” twist. This is the barrel found on the Colt 6721. All of my free-floated Colt 6721 barrels have turned in sub-MOA 10-shot groups at 100 yards when using hand-loaded 55 grain Sierra MatchKings.
The second barrel used in testing was a 20” Colt HBAR, also with chrome lining, a NATO chamber and of course a 1:7” twist. I've owned three of these barrels and they have all turned in 10-shot groups at 100 yards that hover just above one MOA when free-floated and using hand-loaded 55 grain Sierra MatchKings. The longer barrel with the 1:7” twist was purposely chosen for the increased muzzle velocity coupled with the 1:7” twist.
Accuracy (technically, precision) testing was conducted from a distance of 100 yards following my usual protocol...
http://www.box.net/shared/static/mzaeeq0v50.jpg
Four 10-shot groups of the PPU M193 were fired from the 1:9” twist barrel. Those groups were over-layed on each other using RSI Shooting Lab to form a 40-shot composite group. The mean radius of that composite group was 1.08”.
As with the 1:9” twist, four 10-shot groups were fired from the 1:7” twist barrel. Those groups were also also over-layed on each other to form a 40-shot composite group; the results were nearly identical to those obtained from the 1:9” twist barrel. The composite group had a mean radius of 1.01”. The two composite groups are shown side by side for comparison...
A 1:7” twist rate does not have a negative effect on the terminal ballistic properties of M193 and M855. From Dr. G.K. Roberts . . .
"The U.S. Army Wound Ballistic Research Laboratory conducted terminal performance testing using 5.56 mm 55 gr M193 FMJ ammunition fired in 20” barrels of 1/14, 1/12, 1/9, and 1/7 twist rates. No difference in terminal performance was noted between shots made with the different twists. Similar testing was conducted with 5.56 mm 62 gr M855 FMJ ammunition fired in 1/9 and 1/7 twist barrels. Again, no difference in terminal performance was noted."
Link to original post- https://www.m4carbine.net/showthread.php?177537-55-Grain-Bullets-Fired-From-AR-15s-with-1-7-quot-Twist-Barrels&p=2228619#post2228619
556BlackRifle
02-05-17, 15:01
Visit the Equipment Exchange (https://www.m4carbine.net/forumdisplay.php?111-AR-Parts-amp-Furniture-(EE)). These barrels pop up there from time to time. I recently bought a Colt take off barrel from a forum member. Great barrel at a great price. :)
HansTheHobbit
02-05-17, 15:13
This myth has been soundly laid to rest.
Excerpts from a post by Molon
Link to original post- https://www.m4carbine.net/showthread.php?177537-55-Grain-Bullets-Fired-From-AR-15s-with-1-7-quot-Twist-Barrels&p=2228619#post2228619
The last Army test I saw showed that 1:7 had a detrimental effect on accuracy. And we all know that 1:7 is excessive for a 62gr bullet, and way excessive for a 55gr one. Hell, it's even excessive for an 80gr bullet. Something isn't adding up here.
ETA: Here's the first result that came up on Google. Apparently the twist rate issue is being carried over to the new M855A1 as well. 1:7 is just too tight for .223. A bullet long enough to favor that twist rate simply won't fit in a .223 case and still load into a mag.
https://www.americanrifleman.org/articles/2014/5/21/testing-the-army-s-m855a1-standard-ball-cartridge/
Thank you for all the feedback. I appreciate it.
......... If you're okay with the weight of an HBAR .............
I don't have much say in the matter. Only HBAR AR's are legal to be sold in Maryland after October 2013.
If you owned one prior to that, you are grandfathered.
I purchased this Colt, which is a Wisconsin Police Department trade-in, a couple months ago. Since it was an HBAR, it was legal for me to buy as a Maryland resident. Now I want to re-barrel it. Since I purchased it after October 2013 I MUST put an HBAR barrel on it to remain within the law. In all reality, I could have probably just put a 6920 upper on it and went on my way and never had an issue, but by the letter of the law, that would be illegal.
Had I purchased this rifle BEFORE Maryland's latest gun laws went into effect in Oct 2013, I would be free to put any barrel available on it.
Ridiculous, but thats the law in Maryland.
HansTheHobbit
02-05-17, 15:26
Thank you for all the feedback. I appreciate it.
I don't have much say in the matter. Only HBAR AR's are legal to be sold in Maryland after October 2013.
If you owned one prior to that, you are grandfathered.
I purchased this Colt, which is a Wisconsin Police Department trade-in, a couple months ago. Since it was an HBAR, it was legal for me to buy as a Maryland resident. Now I want to re-barrel it. Since I purchased it after October 2013 I MUST put an HBAR barrel on it to remain within the law. In all reality, I could have probably just put a 6920 upper on it and went on my way and never had an issue, but by the letter of the law, that would be illegal.
Had I purchased this rifle BEFORE Maryland's latest gun laws went into effect in Oct 2013, I would be free to put any barrel available on it.
Ridiculous, but thats the law in Maryland.
I didn't know any state had barrel weight requirements. So you can't have a pencil barrel? Do they actually say it has to be an HBAR, or are there just minimum weight requirements? Either way, I would like to hear their reasoning behind that one.
I didn't know any state had barrel weight requirements. So you can't have a pencil barrel? Do they actually say it has to be an HBAR, or are there just minimum weight requirements? Either way, I would like to hear their reasoning behind that one.
I cut and pasted this from a local gun forum - this guys explains it better than I can.
The statute itself states AR-15 as banned, except when in the configuration of a Colt Sporter HBAR. It doesn't define what is and is not an "AR-15". Maryland State Police has interpreted the law to mean that any HBAR-equipped AR-15 falls under the exception to the ban.
This is a cut & paste of the Colt Section of their whats allowed and whats not website.
Colt
Colt AR-15, CAR-15, and all imitations except Colt AR-15 Sporter H-BAR rifle
Banned Enumerated in Statue 10/1/2013
Colt
Colt LE6940P
Banned Copy of an enumerated banned assault weapon 8/31/2016
Colt
Colt LE6920
Banned Copy of an enumerated banned assault weapon. 9/9/2016
Colt LE901 16S
Not Banned Not Regulated By Statute 4/29/2015
Not cosmetically similar to an enumberated firearm and not a copycat weapon
Colt AR901 16S
Not Banned Neither a "Copycat" nor cosmetically similar to anything on the current enumerated banned weapon list 4/16/2015
Colt LE901 16SE
Not Banned Neither a "Copycat" nor cosmetically similar to anything on the current enumerated banned weapon list 4/16/2015
This is a link to a Maryland State Police which listed BANNED rifles.
http://mdsp.maryland.gov/Organization/Pages/CriminalInvestigationBureau/LicensingDivision/Firearms/FirearmSearch.aspx
The last Army test I saw showed that 1:7 had a detrimental effect on accuracy. And we all know that 1:7 is excessive for a 62gr bullet, and way excessive for a 55gr one. Hell, it's even excessive for an 80gr bullet. Something isn't adding up here.
ETA: Here's the first result that came up on Google. Apparently the twist rate issue is being carried over to the new M855A1 as well. 1:7 is just too tight for .223. A bullet long enough to favor that twist rate simply won't fit in a .223 case and still load into a mag.
https://www.americanrifleman.org/articles/2014/5/21/testing-the-army-s-m855a1-standard-ball-cartridge/
Shoot more. Test what you read. I've never had problems with inaccuracy with short bullets in tight twists. In fact, I'm getting good precision from a 14.5" Colt SOCOM barrel with XM193. I haven't wrung out the barrel yet, but while sighting it in with a 4 moa Aimpoint, I got a couple of 3 shot .35" groups at 50 yards. Not proof of precision by any means, but the SOCOM is showing consistency and makes me hopeful.
Sierra tested their 69 gr MK in various twists using doppler radar. They found the bullet was stabilized better with the 1:8 better than the 1:9 and better with the 1:7 twist than the 1:8. What they found is that with a slower twist, the bullet had more precession. The precession increased bullet drag leading to quicker loss of stability as range increases.
Molon is very thorough, his methodology good and his results are accurate. Short bullets are not inherently imprecise when shot from tight twists
HansTheHobbit
02-05-17, 19:53
Shoot more. Test what you read. I've never had problems with inaccuracy with short bullets in tight twists. In fact, I'm getting good precision from a 14.5" Colt SOCOM barrel with XM193. I haven't wrung out the barrel yet, but while sighting it in with a 4 moa Aimpoint, I got a couple of 3 shot .35" groups at 50 yards. Not proof of precision by any means, but the SOCOM is showing consistency and makes me hopeful.
Sierra tested their 69 gr MK in various twists using doppler radar. They found the bullet was stabilized better with the 1:8 better than the 1:9 and better with the 1:7 twist than the 1:8. What they found is that with a slower twist, the bullet had more precession. The precession increased bullet drag leading to quicker loss of stability as range increases.
Molon is very thorough, his methodology good and his results are accurate. Short bullets are not inherently imprecise when shot from tight twists
Please tell me more about those 3 shot groups of yours. Sounds like you need to shoot less and read more.:lol:
Seriously, though, something isn't adding up here. Every competent study I've read on the matter has always found that 1:7 twist rates are detrimental.
BTW, did Sierra actually test the accuracy of those bullets in those various twist rates, or did they just measure the precession? It's a known fact that tighter twist rates stabilize the bullet better, but from what I've read there's a such thing as overstabilization.
The problem here is that the accuracy of M855 in 1:7 twist barrels has been repeatedly demonstrated to be less than in 1:9 twists, and to a large degree. And similar tests have repeatedly shown that it's also true of M197, and as we learned today, now with M855A1. I find it highly unlikely that all those studies I've been reading about for years now were all flawed.
Did you check the seller's other sales? There are quite a few people on Gunbroker who part out Colt rifles because the parts are someone hard to get and worth more than the assembled rifles. I got my 16" SOCOM barrel from one such seller and it's fantastic.
Please tell me more about those 3 shot groups of yours. Sounds like you need to shoot less and read more.:lol:
Seriously, though, something isn't adding up here. Every competent study I've read on the matter has always found that 1:7 twist rates are detrimental.
BTW, did Sierra actually test the accuracy of those bullets in those various twist rates, or did they just measure the precession? It's a known fact that tighter twist rates stabilize the bullet better, but from what I've read there's a such thing as overstabilization.
The problem here is that the accuracy of M855 in 1:7 twist barrels has been repeatedly demonstrated to be less than in 1:9 twists, and to a large degree. And similar tests have repeatedly shown that it's also true of M197, and as we learned today, now with M855A1. I find it highly unlikely that all those studies I've been reading about for years now were all flawed.
So you're expecting to get 3.5 MOA accuracy out of a 1/9 barrel instead of 3.6 MOA out of a 1/7 barrel? M855 is not exactly match ammo you know. :rolleyes:
1. My experience shows 1/7 is more accurate with 55gr ammo.
2. That article you linked to was not a study. The scientific method was applied in molon post, not in that article.
3. A spinoff of 2, he tested very different barrels. To perform a true comparison, you need to eliminate variables, like molon did.
HansTheHobbit
02-05-17, 23:08
1. My experience shows 1/7 is more accurate with 55gr ammo.
2. That article you linked to was not a study. The scientific method was applied in molon post, not in that article.
3. A spinoff of 2, he tested very different barrels. To perform a true comparison, you need to eliminate variables, like molon did.
The Army did at least one full scale study, that I believe was mentioned in the article. I believe there were several, in fact. I've been reading about this for years, though. This is the first I'm hearing about there being any controversy over it. I guess I'll have to dig up the original study, and Google isn't my friend when it comes to finding ancient Army documents. Maybe tomorrow...
ETA: Here's a quote form the article. I'm not saying the article is ironclad, but this is how I remember it, too, so I don't believe they're just making it up.
A February 1986 U.S. Army study noted that the M855’s bullet required a “1:9 twist [which] would be more appropriate for the M16A2 rifle, improving accuracy and reliability.” Multiple studies confirmed the 1:9-inch twist requirement.
And again, I don't remember the numbers, but I do remember that there was a substantial difference between the two.
Please tell me more about those 3 shot groups of yours. Sounds like you need to shoot less and read more.:lol:
I use three shot groups for sighting in. I find it gives me a better idea where POI actually is and what kind of first shot dispersal to expect than from firing just one shot
BTW, did Sierra actually test the accuracy of those bullets in those various twist rates, or did they just measure the precession? It's a known fact that tighter twist rates stabilize the bullet better, but from what I've read there's a such thing as overstabilization.
I believe they did test for precision, but my memory is a bit foggy on that part. I couldn't find the article discussing the test and had to go from memory.
"Over stabilization" of a bullet is only a concern for high arc trajectories used in artillery. It's a concern because if a shell is spinning too fast, it won't nose over at the peak of it's arc and will not impact nose first. They will instead hit on their side. It usually takes a very tight twist for a rifle bullet to be spun fast enough to not nose over, tighter than 1:7 for a 5.56/223 and the phenomena won't be noticed unless the bullet is fired at extreme ranges because rifle fire uses the flat trajectory of direct fire
The problem here is that the accuracy of M855 in 1:7 twist barrels has been repeatedly demonstrated to be less than in 1:9 twists, and to a large degree. And similar tests have repeatedly shown that it's also true of M197, and as we learned today, now with M855A1. I find it highly unlikely that all those studies I've been reading about for years now were all flawed.
Bottom line: You cannot make blanket statements about twist rates and bullets. You can only make general statements. If a short bullet is imprecise from a tight twist barrel, it's more likely because the barrel doesn't like that bullet, than the bullet not liking the tight twist. Each barrel is a law unto itself. I also know that I'd never pick a barrel or a twist rate because that's what M855 likes best. There are other, better bullet choices
ETA- Link to Molon's thread about M855 https://www.m4carbine.net/showthread.php?168388-An-Accuracy-Comparison-of-M855-When-Fired-From-1-9%94-Twist-and-1-7%94-Twist-Barrels
I have been looking for a replacement barrel, preferably a complete barrel assembly, for a Colt 6721.
I noticed several barrels listed on Gun Broker with descriptions such as:
"This Colt Barrel Assembly is a new take off from a Colt AR6721"..... "This assembly was test fired at the Colt factory. It has been removed from a complete M4 rifle assembly and is presented as shown. The born on date is 10/16".
I sent an email asking the seller how they came by the barrel but being the weekend, I haven't heard back from them yet.
My question is why would someone disassemble a new rifle and part it out? Is there any reason to be concerned the barrel is from a stolen gun? The seller had nearly 10,000 reviews with only a small number being unfavorable.
When I was searching for Colt parts, it looked like folks have been buying complete Colt rifles and parting them out. I suspect since this was a regular thing, they are somehow profiting from this. There are a lot of take off Colt Expanse uppers and 6920 uppers available on GunBroker.
Myself, I bought a Colt OEM 1 and replaced the barrel with a 14.5 SOCOM. I sold the original barrel for almost as much as I paid for the SOCOM barrel
Getting back on topic, I've seen a few different sellers selling new "take off" Colt parts on gunbroker. I suspect they can make more money parting the rifles out than selling them complete. I always take a look at the feedback of the seller and what other items they are selling, as well as how much buisness they have done. 10,000 positive transactions > 5 positive transactions. Find out if pictures are of the actual item you will recieve and look for any markings. You can always ask the seller questions directly as well. Just use your own judgement OP.
Not sure why this is a mystery. People pull apart guns all the time and sell of components.
This happens quite often and I wouldn't worry about it whatsoever. Many people buy & part out factory Colts. They might be only after the lower or just want a different barrel than the factory one.
Not sure why this is a mystery. People pull apart guns all the time and sell of components.
The correct answer.
The Army did at least one full scale study, that I believe was mentioned in the article. I believe there were several, in fact. I've been reading about this for years, though. This is the first I'm hearing about there being any controversy over it. I guess I'll have to dig up the original study, and Google isn't my friend when it comes to finding ancient Army documents. Maybe tomorrow...
ETA: Here's a quote form the article. I'm not saying the article is ironclad, but this is how I remember it, too, so I don't believe they're just making it up.
And again, I don't remember the numbers, but I do remember that there was a substantial difference between the two.
Regarding the 1986 study, it sounds from your quote that they were comparing against 1/12. That would cause accuracy issues.
Are you sure the tests were 1/7 vs 1/9?
titsonritz
02-06-17, 10:59
When I needed a new barrel for my 6920 I bought a new rifle and took the barrel (& BCG) off, used the "left overs" to build a new rifle.
HansTheHobbit
02-06-17, 11:44
Regarding the 1986 study, it sounds from your quote that they were comparing against 1/12. That would cause accuracy issues.
Are you sure the tests were 1/7 vs 1/9?
Pretty danged sure.
HansTheHobbit
02-06-17, 11:56
I use three shot groups for sighting in. I find it gives me a better idea where POI actually is and what kind of first shot dispersal to expect than from firing just one shot
Don't give me that crap. You were trying to use 3 shot groups as proof of accuracy, and now you're backpedaling. And you tell me to stay in my lane???
Sheesh, at least I'm not telling everyone how accurate my 3 shot groups are....:rolleyes:
I see you're up to your old tricks. Stay out of this thread.
Don't give me that crap. You were trying to use 3 shot groups as proof of accuracy, and now you're backpedaling. And you tell me to stay in my lane???
Sheesh, at least I'm not telling everyone how accurate my 3 shot groups are....:rolleyes:
HansTheHobbit
02-06-17, 13:32
I see you're up to your old tricks. Stay out of this thread.
What did I do? I'm not trying to be a tool here, I honestly don't understand what I did wrong. I just reread the rules, and I still have no idea what I did wrong. If I unknowingly violated a rule I apologize.
What did I do? I'm not trying to be a tool here, I honestly don't understand what I did wrong. I just reread the rules, and I still have no idea what I did wrong. If I unknowingly violated a rule I apologize.
Quite clear to me. Mistwolf even says in his post that his 3-shot groups aren't for precision and you're making claims about a study that you're "pretty danged sure". That doesn't cut it.
Anyway, to the OP it looks as though your carry handle is on wrong(needs moved forward) and that your castle nut isn't staked any more.
What did I do?
In the particular instance I'm gonna point out, you responded to being told to stay out of this thread....
...by posting in this thread. "Stay out of this thread" is pretty difficult to misinterpret, yet you somehow managed to do that.
Quite clear to me. Mistwolf even says in his post that his 3-shot groups aren't for precision and you're making claims about a study that you're "pretty danged sure". That doesn't cut it.
Anyway, to the OP it looks as though your carry handle is on wrong(needs moved forward) and that your castle nut isn't staked any more.
That was the way it was when I picked it up - the gun was checked over by a gunsmith who replaced action spring, extractor and checked the head space. He bore scoped it and pointed out that the barrel would need replaced in the foreseeable future. He also replaced the end plate and castle nut and properly staked it.
I received an email back from the seller:
"Rat Worx disassembles brand new rifles for parts as time permits.
Many customers want just a certain part that is generally not available unless we strip the guns."
Thanks for the help with the question. Unlike some of you, this is nothing but a winter time hobby for me - I don't know all the intricacies of the gun business. Once fishing season ramps up, I won't care again until next winter .
Powered by vBulletin® Version 4.2.5 Copyright © 2024 vBulletin Solutions, Inc. All rights reserved.