View Full Version : anyone willing to test a Bolt Carrier
I'm having (5) bolt carriers manufactured using HY-100 steel. This is the same material US submarines are made from and are virtually indestructible and resistant to corrosion. The steel is certified MIL-S-21952 C/D and T9074-BD-GIB-010/0300 and rated at 100,000psi. You can read more about it here: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/HY-80. Our company manufactures replacement parts for the Ohio Class Submarines and I had some material left over, the material I have has been ultra sound, X-RAY, gamma irradiated and stress test.
Having said that, I am wanting to know if anyone would want to test these out for me. Possibly a few thousand rounds should provide enough feedback. Basically I'm wanting someone to try to destroy these bolt carriers through heavy firing, wet/humid conditions, carbon build up, different types of ammo etc. I don't know if there is a market for these considering these would probably cost around $400-$500 but perhaps last a lifetime. Anyways, let me know if you have interest or wanting more information.
I’d be willing to test one out, unfortunately right now I can’t see myself putting a round count of that magnitude through it, maybe in a few months, I could but right now I wouldn’t be much help.
How are these being manufactured, will the carrier key be made of the same material? Is there even a carrier key, or is it just the stripped carrier?
Would a metal of that composite have any adverse effect on the aluminum receivers over use? I’m not a metallurgist, but have read a few books on alchemy :sarcasm:
I could get some rds. through one for you.
No bolt, just carrier?
It probably wouldnt work well since it has 75% of the yield strength as c158. Im assuming the numbers i found were both untempered, but neither was specified.
It probably wouldnt work well since it has 75% of the yield strength as c158. Im assuming the numbers i found were both untempered, but neither was specified.
I am no expert but it looks like HY-100 is used for pressure vessels, piping and hull plating on submarines. I couldn't find an example of it being used for bearing surfaces. I wonder if the OP has the ability to chrome the bore? I'd like to know how using HY-100 would offer an advantage over a conventional milspec carrier.
Except in the event of a kaboom, always thought carriers were lifetime purchases.
EzGoingKev
02-10-18, 09:40
I don't know if there is a market for these considering these would probably cost around $400-$500 but perhaps last a lifetime.
With the exception of a rifle blowing up due to an ammo issue I have never seen someone break a bolt carrier.
If a $45 bolt carrier will last a lifetime IDK who would spend $400-500 on one.
yeah^^ has anyone worn out a carrier?
After posting I just remembered I do have a well used Colt M16 carrier with pitting on the outside and chrome flaking off the bolt recess, never fired it and it might still work but I would class it as worn out, likely would eat bolt rings.
If a $45 bolt carrier will last a lifetime IDK who would spend $400-500 on one.
Yeah. $400 is a huge juice/squeeze gap to bridge. Even if a carrier lasted half a lifetime, just buy two, and you're still hundreds of dollars ahead.
For the sake of discussion, what might the unobtanium be put to better use for? Triggers, cam pins, parts for another firearm? Just wondering...
Sent from my SM-G955U using Tapatalk
EzGoingKev
02-10-18, 11:07
After posting I just remembered I do have a well used Colt M16 carrier with pitting on the outside and chrome flaking off the bolt recess, never fired it and it might still work but I would class it as worn out, likely would eat bolt rings.
Shoot the shit out of it, you never know.
hotrodder636
02-10-18, 11:16
I am just surprised you were able to source the leftover HY-100...
I’ve never worn out or broken a carrier, and I can’t recall ever seeing one get broken. I did see yesterday what looked like pitting or chipping of the chrome bore of a M16A2 carrier, but I would assume its from 30 years of knuckleheads using crazy $&!% to clean it. The gun does not appear to be having any malfunctions today.
So, yeah, it would take me forever to destroy a carrier. I can break a bolt for you, though.
HY-100 is lighter than 8620 carbon steel, Carpenter 158 and Super Duplex. I know that machining HY-100 is not easy, but doing some research and talking to our engineers, I have found that HY-100 is perfectly suitable for a bolt carrier. The reason is because HY-100 is used primary because it is resistant to corrosion, light weight and stronger than other bolt carriers on the market. It would cost me $400-500 to manufacture (5) total, not each.
I don't have the capabilities to manufacture the gas key, bolt, ejector, firing pin or anything else for that matter. I am just going to do a run on the bolt carrier itself and then buy the parts needed to build a complete BCG.
I also don't have the capabilities to chrome line the bore so I will most likely use Ceramax which is a coating that we invented and later sold to Rexroth, more info here:https://www.airlinehyd.com/literature_catalog/Bosch%20Rexroth/Hydraudyne%20Ceramax%20Engineered%20Coating.PDF
its stronger than chrome, more heat resistant and self healing.
this is a drawing I did on AutoCAD Inventor
50414
I have a drawing for the bolt itself, just too complex to manufacture.
Isn't lightening the bolt carrier generally considered a negative?
I am just surprised you were able to source the leftover HY-100...
Manufacturing anything for the military is kind of a pain in the ass. Sometimes we cant buy exactly what we need, say we only need 60 inches of material, we have to buy a minimum of 100 inches. That 100 inch bar stock come with ISO documentation and certifications. The docs and certs go with the 60 inches worth of material leaving us with the rest of the 40 inch bar stock with no paperwork. So if the government orders an additional part, we cant use the 40 inches that was left over because it has no certs or docs. BTW, this is a company that I have an ownership in, my dad who is now gone, was the owner.
The one thing I consistently see with carrier bodies are damaged/loose keys. Damage is usually from dropping carrier, keys coming loose and slamming into gas tubes, people sticking shit into carrier keys attempting to clean magical carbon fairies out which results in things like cotton tip heads breaking off (wooden type) inside.
The one thing I consistently see with carrier bodies are damaged/loose keys. Damage is usually from dropping carrier, keys coming loose and slamming into gas tubes, people sticking shit into carrier keys attempting to clean magical carbon fairies out which results in things like cotton tip heads breaking off (wooden type) inside.
50416
Looking at this drawing I made doesn't look hard to manufacture, but in reality, I think these are forged into there primary shape and then machined finished.
50417
same with the bolt itself, I think these are forged into shape then machined finished using maybe a broach, lathe or a mill , I don't have the tools to machine the lugs.
what I have is CNC lathes and CNC mills and a broaching machine for making keyways
HY-100 is lighter than 8620 carbon steel, Carpenter 158 and Super Duplex. I know that machining HY-100 is not easy, but doing some research and talking to our engineers, I have found that HY-100 is perfectly suitable for a bolt carrier. The reason is because HY-100 is used primary because it is resistant to corrosion, light weight and stronger than other bolt carriers on the market. It would cost me $400-500 to manufacture (5) total, not each.
I don't have the capabilities to manufacture the gas key, bolt, ejector, firing pin or anything else for that matter. I am just going to do a run on the bolt carrier itself and then buy the parts needed to build a complete BCG.
I also don't have the capabilities to chrome line the bore so I will most likely use Ceramax which is a coating that we invented and later sold to Rexroth, more info here:https://www.airlinehyd.com/literature_catalog/Bosch%20Rexroth/Hydraudyne%20Ceramax%20Engineered%20Coating.PDF
its stronger than chrome, more heat resistant and self healing.
this is a drawing I did on AutoCAD Inventor
50414
I have a drawing for the bolt itself, just too complex to manufacture.
Not that lighter is a good thing but how much lighter is lighter? 1%, 10%, 50%. Is corrosion a problem with the common phosphated carrier? Last ?. Tell me about this self healing Ceramax. Does self healing mean if I wear it off today it will grow back tomorrow? Kinda like a skink's tail. Sorry if I sound skeptical, but I am.
Not that lighter is a good thing but how much lighter is lighter? 1%, 10%, 50%. Is corrosion a problem with the common phosphated carrier? Last ?. Tell me about this self healing Ceramax. Does self healing mean if I wear it off today it will grow back tomorrow? Kinda like a skink's tail. Sorry if I sound skeptical, but I am.
its not significantly lighter, maybe not even noticeable. Ceramax is a ceramic coating that we use in nuclear cylinders and catapults for US aircraft carriers. We grind material down, build up with a laser clad weld and then add ceramax using high heat. Ceramax does NOT wear off nor will it ever wear off. It has become one with the material when applied. It does not scratch, nor does it chip. Self healing means that if another piece of material slides up against it, it wont scar it up. The idea for using ceramax in the bolt carrier is that in theory, you would never had to worry about carbon build up, you could simply just wipe it off with a paper towel since nothing sticks to ceramax. This is yet to be tested, that's why I insist on someone running a few thousand rounds through it. Once I get these made, I plan on giving a little more information on the manufacturing process and the material.
Deleted due to low knowledge base.
the entire bolt carrier, the drawing I posted is roughly 3% smaller than original, that takes in account for laser clad/ceramax coating. Once its on, I can grind it to MIL dimensions. Doing some thinking and looking around, I think I could possibly make the actual bolt along with cam using HY-100. This would mean I would be able to make a total of (3) bolt carrier groups minus the extractor assembly, gas rings, roll pins, springs, firing pin and gas key. I could purchase those things separately from a preferred supplier and assemble using grade 8 SHCS for the gas key. I don't know how to stake the gas key but I'm sure someone on here knows how. The only problem with that is that I would literally have 1 shot at making the bolt and if my attempt ended in failure, I would regret not making 5 bolt carriers instead of 3 and I'm still not 100% on how to manufacture the bolt. Nothing on YouTube. I am assuming that it is made from bar stock, hammered into shape and then machined to spec. The lugs look like they are made using a broach on an vertical indicator or a mill using a proprietary end mill. Any thoughts?
I would be willing to test. I will shoot several thousands rounds of rifle ammo each, and I have a spare lightweight Barrel and spare ALG rail to start a build with. I could have the other members of my shooting group put their ammo through it when we shoot together. No promises, but I tend to "under-commit and over-deliver" when I commit to things.
the entire bolt carrier, the drawing I posted is roughly 3% smaller than original, that takes in account for laser clad/ceramax coating. Once its on, I can grind it to MIL dimensions. Doing some thinking and looking around, I think I could possibly make the actual bolt along with cam using HY-100. This would mean I would be able to make a total of (3) bolt carrier groups minus the extractor assembly, gas rings, roll pins, springs, firing pin and gas key. I could purchase those things separately from a preferred supplier and assemble using grade 8 SHCS for the gas key. I don't know how to stake the gas key but I'm sure someone on here knows how. The only problem with that is that I would literally have 1 shot at making the bolt and if my attempt ended in failure, I would regret not making 5 bolt carriers instead of 3 and I'm still not 100% on how to manufacture the bolt. Nothing on YouTube. I am assuming that it is made from bar stock, hammered into shape and then machined to spec. The lugs look like they are made using a broach on an vertical indicator or a mill using a proprietary end mill. Any thoughts?
I would stick to only making bolt carriers from the material. Bolts of known quality could be used which would narrow down potential issues.
Mr. Goodtimes
02-10-18, 19:55
https://uploads.tapatalk-cdn.com/20180211/fe1062ad22829f641ad9393e890ec708.jpg
Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk
I would be interested in doing a test and generally run about 600 rounds a month through various AR15 platforms.
It would be beneficial if you were to establish some sort of protocol to help monitor qualities you think are worth exploring.
TactiCool1976
02-11-18, 00:51
I am down for this, i have a couple thousand rounds of ammo i can burn thru this summer..... or when ever you have these bolt carriers made....
Heck I'd give one a run could stick in my SBR I run suppressed and burn though a few thousand 5.56 and nasty 223 rnds. With my just add more oil cleaning cycle. I got a few carpenters bolts to run. One could get ran by a few of us that burn though a bunch of ammo pass to next then send you it to inspection to see how it's holding up. The thing that should happen is to log amount and firing rates. I think a few of us have shoot out a carrier key here.:blink:
https://uploads.tapatalk-cdn.com/20180211/fe1062ad22829f641ad9393e890ec708.jpg
Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk
WTF does this mean!??
Making fun of people with Autism??
Eurodriver
02-11-18, 07:11
I have an affinity for abusing rifles in humid dirty environments.
But I’m not sure how you’d measure the effectiveness of a bolt carrier. Nor do I think the carrier itself is subjected to that much stress anyway.
same with the bolt itself, I think these are forged into shape then machined finished using maybe a broach, lathe or a mill , I don't have the tools to machine the lugs.
I don't believe the bolts are forged. There are some pretty good videos showing an automated lathe/mill pumping bolts out. "Wire" bigger than the bolt lug OD feeds through the headstock, then the lugs broached, face turned, then body turned, if I recall.
As Bill Alexander has said more than once... "It's all in the heat-treat". Good material is the starting point, but even very good materials fail in bolts without proper heat treat. That applies to C158, 9310, whatever.
I don't believe the bolts are forged. There are some pretty good videos showing an automated lathe/mill pumping bolts out. "Wire" bigger than the bolt lug OD feeds through the headstock, then the lugs broached, face turned, then body turned, if I recall.
As Bill Alexander has said more than once... "It's all in the heat-treat". Good material is the starting point, but even very good materials fail in bolts without proper heat treat. That applies to C158, 9310, whatever.
Nothing to it with the right machine. https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Nkn3P2Z5m5U
Nothing to it with the right machine. https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Nkn3P2Z5m5UThere is another one like that that even does the bolt face. Has two spindles, which grabs the tail of the bolt, then the face is done.
Ned Christiansen
02-11-18, 13:04
I'd love to test one but with several rifles needing shooting I'm not sure I could do it, however after a little testing by me I might be able to runt it in some students' rifles this summer and get potentially much more than 1000 rounds on one.
jackblack73
02-11-18, 13:26
I think if you ran 10,000 rounds with one of these you'd see very little wear...just like with every other carrier out there.
ArtoftheGun
02-11-18, 13:55
I'm having (5) bolt carriers manufactured using HY-100 steel. This is the same material US submarines are made from and are virtually indestructible and resistant to corrosion. The steel is certified MIL-S-21952 C/D and T9074-BD-GIB-010/0300 and rated at 100,000psi. You can read more about it here: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/HY-80. Our company manufactures replacement parts for the Ohio Class Submarines and I had some material left over, the material I have has been ultra sound, X-RAY, gamma irradiated and stress test.
Having said that, I am wanting to know if anyone would want to test these out for me. Possibly a few thousand rounds should provide enough feedback. Basically I'm wanting someone to try to destroy these bolt carriers through heavy firing, wet/humid conditions, carbon build up, different types of ammo etc. I don't know if there is a market for these considering these would probably cost around $400-$500 but perhaps last a lifetime. Anyways, let me know if you have interest or wanting more information.
Would you put up the $1,000 required for me to put a "few thousand rounds" through it?
LockenLoad
02-11-18, 14:05
Would you put up the $1,000 required for me to put a "few thousand rounds" through it?
really?
ArtoftheGun
02-11-18, 14:07
really?
Sure, if the guy is looking for beta testers and asking them to put a few thousand rounds downrange using his BC, why not?
Sure, if the guy is looking for beta testers and asking them to put a few thousand rounds downrange using his BC, why not?
Im sure he would if you purchase his $1,000 bolt carrier.
vicious_cb
02-11-18, 14:25
Would have been perfect for my 5.45 AR shooting corrosive ammo. Too bad I killed the barrel on it already.
Sure, if the guy is looking for beta testers and asking them to put a few thousand rounds downrange using his BC, why not?
Always fun to watch new people around here... Sometimes the end result is apparent 19 posts in.
I'd be lying if I didn't say that the coating is more interesting to me than the BC, but that's because I have never had a carrier fail. I do have a few thousand rounds of 5.45 corrosive ammo left over and a fresh bolt and barrel. Could be interesting to see how the coated carrier holds up.
Right now I have around 60,000 rounds of M855 and another 20,000 rounds available to me. I am not willing to pay $1000 to anyone, but would be willing to donate 2-3,000 rounds to the few people that I chose to do some test trials. I'm not looking for just anyone. I'm investing a lot of money in this and time trying to bring something to the market.
This is kind of important to me that I get good or bad feed back, this bolt is to be used in conjunction with another component that is patent pending. I patented a "Riser Lifting Tool" a few years ago and it took several thousand dollars and almost 14 months to be awarded the patent. This might take longer because of what it is.
The "component" is a cushion unit that replaces the buffer and spring and is a self contained unit that is adjustable. The idea behind this invention was to be able to reduce felt recoil as well as reduce the forward momentum of the bolt as it slams against the barrel extension. This component is based on a larger design that our company came up with for use in hydraulic cylinders to keep the piston from slamming against the gland and blind end. The new buffer component would work similar to the conventional buffer/spring but would use spring/hydraulic force to minimize the felt recoil as well as limit the bolt's forward speed.
I don't really want to go into a lot of detail but I can give you an idea of what it is:
50438
Basically the BCG would operate normally except this devise would slow the rate of speed at the last possible second reducing the felt recoil, similar to a shock absorber, the BCG would then chamber a new round normally but would slow its rate of speed at the last possible second minimizing the sound the bolt makes when it slams up against the barrel extension. This works by forcing hydraulic fluid through a adjustable port that slows the rate of speed. The adjustable port would be indexed to allow the shooter to adjust between 556 and 300blk. I think this would be a great addition to a suppressed weapon. And I feel strongly that this could reduce the felt recoil up to 30%
The reason for the HY-100 is because it is strong and I can remove a little more material than I could using carpenter steel- that why I said it was lighter. I could possibly get by removing as much as 10-15% more material thus having less mass. Less mass would mean the BCG would travel faster and this buffer component works better when the bolt is traveling faster.
But this test is to make sure the weapon cycles consistently and efficiently and I figured a couple thousand rounds would give enough data.
really?
I don't think that is unfair at all. Why should someone burn 2K rounds plus wear and tear to test a carrier for a guy who owns two planes? 2K rounds is nothing and the OP cannot control the test if Bubba in Georgia has the part. Elephant seems like a nice enough guy but I am not sure this idea isn't along the lines of reinventing sealing wax. It may be a good idea but how much demand is there for it. What the OP needs to do is pay someone who does this kind of testing for a living and is respected throughout the industry. If it shows promise with documented results that's when you start calling people like KAC. People that don't care what it cost within reason if it gives them an advantage over their competitors.
ArtoftheGun
02-11-18, 16:47
I don't think that is unfair at all. Why should someone burn 2K rounds plus wear and tear to test a carrier for a guy who owns two planes? 2K rounds is nothing and the OP cannot control the test if Bubba in Georgia has the part. Elephant seems like a nice enough guy but I am not sure this idea isn't along the lines of reinventing sealing wax. It may be a good idea but how much demand is there for it. What the OP needs to do is pay someone who does this kind of testing for a living and is respected throughout the industry. If it shows promise with documented results that's when you start calling people like KAC. People that don't care what it cost within reason if it gives them an advantage over their competitors.
Thanks, precisely my point. As far as I'm concerned, the OP's product is a classic case of a solution in search of a problem.
LockenLoad
02-11-18, 17:17
I don't think that is unfair at all. Why should someone burn 2K rounds plus wear and tear to test a carrier for a guy who owns two planes? 2K rounds is nothing and the OP cannot control the test if Bubba in Georgia has the part. Elephant seems like a nice enough guy but I am not sure this idea isn't along the lines of reinventing sealing wax. It may be a good idea but how much demand is there for it. What the OP needs to do is pay someone who does this kind of testing for a living and is respected throughout the industry. If it shows promise with documented results that's when you start calling people like KAC. People that don't care what it cost within reason if it gives them an advantage over their competitors.
he has been here a not even 2 weeks, what are his credentials had it come from someone else a bit more valid, as far as how many airplanes OP owns not aware of his personal life. The rest I agree with.
ArtoftheGun
02-11-18, 17:46
I would be willing to donate 2-3,000 rounds to the few people that I chose to do some test trials. I'm not looking for just anyone. I'm investing a lot of money in this and time trying to bring something to the market.
Now that makes sense. I'm sure you'll have plenty of qualified RD consultants with that offer. Good luck on your venture. Sorry if I offended you and others. Seems an honest question to me. I'm still not convinced there is a need for a BC, but then again...who knows? Maybe!
Ned Christiansen
02-11-18, 18:00
I concur that 5.45X39 can be a good way to "overtest" AR-ish things that are part of the gas stream / BCG due to its skankiness (the surplus stuff anyway).
In the OP you say HY100 and link to HY80.
I have worked extensively with both when employed at PSNS (DoD) on both subs and surface vessels.
Ohio class are not HY100 hulls, or any other structural component.
Corrosion resistance out of HY yield steels is greatly overstated. They are not CRES or stainless. HY steels are chosen for their toughness, ability to flex under pressure and they rust pretty easily all things considered. Also, for those who are curious, they are NOT armor rated steels by any stretch of the imagination (I know this wasn't stated, i'm just making this clear). I've had the opportunity to shoot several pieces of HY80 with a wide variety of ammunition and the results were less then impressive. 5.7mm out of a P90 burned through 3/8" plate %50 of the time at 25 yards. Most 5.56mm did not penetrate (M193 or M855) at any distance, but caused severe cratering and some deformation on the back plate. Multiple hits same location would eventually burn through. Anything .30 cal and above went through it like shit through a goose (furthest test distance was 200 meters).
Because of this, these materials exhibit more "springback" during forming and use then Ordinary Steels (OS). They also experience a fair amount of expansion/contraction during heating and cooling and require special treatment prior to welding on heavy sections (pre-heat for any and all hull components) or the base material will suffer micro-cracking. On sub-safe surfaces, this is a bad thing. Naval controls for working on these materials are pretty stringent, especially on the newer class subs for various reasons, most of which I cannot elaborate on. Having worked with multiple grades of HY, I'd rather work with 80 than 100 any day of the week. 60, not so much.
My biggest concern for HY carriers is the fact that HY comes pre-heat treated and tempered..... which is pretty soft all things considered (see the above regarding it's lack of armor plate qualities), which could be cause for concern regarding its impact resistance in applications such as being a bolt carrier. Were it to be heat treated and tempered (hardened to a more appropriate hardness for an application such as this), it would lose it's properties that make it HY80 or 100.
The fact that it has the yield strength it does comes not just from the alloy, but also from how it's processed (treat and temper). Having drilled on copious amounts of HY steel and having ATTEMPTED to drill a standard bolt carrier with the same type of drill bits out of sheer curiosity some years ago, I can definitively say that HY is much, much, much softer, yet has more inherent springback. Basically it's like a soft spring. Which may lead to more bolt bounce as well as deformation through constant impact.
I would be willing to test a carrier (I would attempt Parkerizing it as well), and you would get a very unbiased opinion that's backed up by prior experience with the material.
Regarding the above idea to slow the BCG prior to impact on the barrel extension, unless the buffer system is "attached" or locked to the BCG, it won't make a difference. It will only change how the buffer interacts with its force on the BCG, not the interaction between the BCG and extension.
Remember how a short stroke piston driven system works. The op-rod only pushes the BCG rearward for approx. 3/8" and the resultant energy transferred to the BCG is enough to carry it through the remainder of the rearward stroke of the cycle. When the buffer pushes the BCG forward, in theory it only needs to travel far enough to impart enough energy on the BCG to overcome stripping the next round, chambering, and locking the bolt into position. If you slow the buffer just before the BCG impacts, the buffer will slow, but the BCG already has that energy and will continue with the same force while the buffer slows.
Changing the amount of force imparted on the BCG by the buffer *may* have unexpected consequences in feeding or overcoming fouling.
Now that makes sense. I'm sure you'll have plenty of qualified RD consultants with that offer. Good luck on your venture. Sorry if I offended you and others. Seems an honest question to me. I'm still not convinced there is a need for a BC, but then again...who knows? Maybe!
I don't think there's any need at all for a new BC. What we will only learn by trying different things, so my interest is piqued.
As far as I'm concerned, the OP's product is a classic case of a solution in search of a problem.
A little bit about me:
I co-own and work for a company that manufactures the catapults for 6 US aircraft carriers, dive, trim and steering cylinders for the entire Ohio Class submarine fleet, launch pad leveling cylinders and missile erection cylinders for the entire Minuteman II & III missile program. We also manufacture and the OEM for 60% of the US steel mills including Nucor, Arcelor Mittal, and Gerdau Ameristeel. We also provide motion compensation, riser tensioners, crown mounted tensioners and drill string compensator to the worlds largest offshore oil rigs. This company was founded by my dad in his garage in 1976. I have worked here and only here since I was 12. We own several companies, Hannon Hydraulics, Remco Hydraulics (currently in a $3 Billion dollar law suit that goes back before we bought them), ABEX, Brown Brothers (part owned by Rolls Royce) and Motion-Pro. We have locations in Dallas, Houston, San Antonio, Singapore, Scotland and Australia.
Having said that, my dad passed back in October from a neurological disorder and it was decided that we (my mom and board of directors really) would shut down the business and sell off the assets or wind down and try to sell the business. I have since been let go which has been really hard on me because that company is the only thing I know. I have never worked for another company, I have only done one thing my whole life. So now I am working on the things that I have been putting off for a couple of years.
I have money and I have contacts in every industrial industry from Dallas Texas to planet Mars. I wouldn't be doing this if I felt that I would just be throwing money away. This product, as I went a little more into detail, has come from about 2 years of research and design. I have several 3D printed working models that have been evaluated and reviewed by engineers that specialize in fluid power and fluid dynamics. I'm not in the sealing wax business and this is NOT a classic case of a solution in search of a problem.
This is a classic case of developing something new and hoping to bring it to the market and possibly starting a business. I asked if there would be anyone interested in reviewing and testing my product. And I stated earlier that I would be happy to donate the ammo needed. This would be a preliminary test to see if actual gun guys thought this product sucked or had potential and get general feedback from a non-control test. I think that is the best feedback to get and I think most people on this forum are honest enough to tell me if this product sucks.
BTW: I don't own 2 airplanes, I co- owned (2) airplanes at 2 different times. And when my dad lost his ability to walk, we sold them.
In the OP you say HY100 and link to HY80.
there is no link for HY-100
I have worked extensively with both when employed at PSNS (DoD) on both subs and surface vessels.
I have shipped a lot of my products to PSNS Bremerton and San Diego
Ohio class are not HY100 hulls, or any other structural component.
I manufacture the dive, trim and steering cylinders for the entire Ohio Class Fleet and we use HY-100, the NAVSEA requirements state HY-100
Corrosion resistance out of HY yield steels is greatly overstated. They are not CRES or stainless. HY steels are chosen for their toughness, ability to flex under pressure and they rust pretty easily all things considered. Also, for those who are curious, they are NOT armor rated steels by any stretch of the imagination (I know this wasn't stated, i'm just making this clear). I've had the opportunity to shoot several pieces of HY80 with a wide variety of ammunition and the results were less then impressive. 5.7mm out of a P90 burned through 3/8" plate %50 of the time at 25 yards. Most 5.56mm did not penetrate (M193 or M855) at any distance, but caused severe cratering and some deformation on the back plate. Multiple hits same location would eventually burn through. Anything .30 cal and above went through it like shit through a goose (furthest test distance was 200 meters).
I hope no one assumes this is armor rated, the corrosion resistance is on par with Super Duplex and Inconel which I work with both daily. I resistant to pitting, erosion and cracking due to erosion.
Because of this, these materials exhibit more "springback" during forming and use then Ordinary Steels (OS). They also experience a fair amount of expansion/contraction during heating and cooling and require special treatment prior to welding on heavy sections (pre-heat for any and all hull components) or the base material will suffer micro-cracking. On sub-safe surfaces, this is a bad thing. Naval controls for working on these materials are pretty stringent, especially on the newer class subs for various reasons, most of which I cannot elaborate on. Having worked with multiple grades of HY, I'd rather work with 80 than 100 any day of the week. 60, not so much.
I don't have 80, I have 100 MIL-S 16216-K and this came from American Alloy Steel which is a provider for General Dynamics, Bath Iron Works and Eclectic Boat
My biggest concern for HY carriers is the fact that HY comes pre-heat treated and tempered..... which is pretty soft all things considered (see the above regarding it's lack of armor plate qualities), which could be cause for concern regarding its impact resistance in applications such as being a bolt carrier. Were it to be heat treated and tempered (hardened to a more appropriate hardness for an application such as this), it would lose it's properties that make it HY80 or 100.
Quench and Tempered isn't a bad thing, HY has titanium, copper, nickel, carbon, manganese, silicon and other elements that makes this ideal
The fact that it has the yield strength it does comes not just from the alloy, but also from how it's processed (treat and temper). Having drilled on copious amounts of HY steel and having ATTEMPTED to drill a standard bolt carrier with the same type of drill bits out of sheer curiosity some years ago, I can definitively say that HY is much, much, much softer, yet has more inherent springback. Basically it's like a soft spring. Which may lead to more bolt bounce as well as deformation through constant impact.
I would be willing to test a carrier (I would attempt Parkerizing it as well), and you would get a very unbiased opinion that's backed up by prior experience with the material.
I have a proprietary method that has in my knowledge never been used on weapons
Regarding the above idea to slow the BCG prior to impact on the barrel extension, unless the buffer system is "attached" or locked to the BCG, it won't make a difference. It will only change how the buffer interacts with its force on the BCG, not the interaction between the BCG and extension.
The BCG and buffer will be attached as (1) unit, the method of how that is done is what is being patented right now so I cant go into detail
Remember how a short stroke piston driven system works. The op-rod only pushes the BCG rearward for approx. 3/8" and the resultant energy transferred to the BCG is enough to carry it through the remainder of the rearward stroke of the cycle. When the buffer pushes the BCG forward, in theory it only needs to travel far enough to impart enough energy on the BCG to overcome stripping the next round, chambering, and locking the bolt into position. If you slow the buffer just before the BCG impacts, the buffer will slow, but the BCG already has that energy and will continue with the same force while the buffer slows.
Changing the amount of force imparted on the BCG by the buffer *may* have unexpected consequences in feeding or overcoming fouling.
A steel with 5.4% ni+cr has the same corrosion resistance as a ni-cr alloy (not steel)?
Im skeptical.
[QUOTE=elephant;2597101]
there is no link for HY-100
I have shipped a lot of my products to PSNS Bremerton and San Diego
I manufacture the dive, trim and steering cylinders for the entire Ohio Class Fleet and we use HY-100, the NAVSEA requirements state HY-100
Like I said, no "structural" component. I worked structural steel (read: hull, launch systems, etc.) Your stuff is used by the outside machinery mechanics. I've assisted them a few times on missile tube work and I've had to crawl around/over/under your cylinders to access various work sites.
I hope no one assumes this is armor rated, the corrosion resistance is on par with Super Duplex and Inconel which I work with both daily. I resistant to pitting, erosion and cracking due to erosion.
Like I said, I know you didn't say so. I've experienced many times when discussing hull plating that the first thing someone says is that it's armor, so I decided to nip that in the bud right off the bat.
Unfortunately I am going to have to disabuse you of the corrosion resistance statements. I have worked with Inconel on launch systems and had to remove perfectly non-corroded Inconel grounding blocks that were welded to corroded HY.
I've seen Inconel and other nickel and copper alloys (such as Monel) survive salt water quite well, but the amount of corrosion removal I've done on HY80 and HY100, even in areas that were NOT submerged in salt water and were protected by paint (shaft alley), has been great and varied. Atmospheric resistance may be slightly above par, but real world use puts it at marginally better then OS and nowhere near CRES or Inconel.
The machine shop is a very different ride than the deckplates.
I don't have 80, I have 100 MIL-S 16216-K and this came from American Alloy Steel which is a provider for General Dynamics, Bath Iron Works and Eclectic Boat
Quench and Tempered isn't a bad thing, HY has titanium, copper, nickel, carbon, manganese, silicon and other elements that makes this ideal
This remains to be seen. Alloy isn't everything. In high impact uses (such as a BCG), hardness and temper are very important. Please do not assume that because a material is good for one thing that it'll be good for another. Especially if it comes in a pre treated form to achieve the properties necessary for a specific use that's unlike the intended use that's being discussed.
A quick comparison of HY alloys vs. inconell vs. stainless and the comparative levels of nickel, chromium, etc. shows that HY is nowhere near the same levels.
Don't get me wrong, it's absolutely worth testing, but without any assumptions.
I have a proprietary method that has in my knowledge never been used on weapons
Give it a shot. See what happens. Keep an open mind.
The BCG and buffer will be attached as (1) unit, the method of how that is done is what is being patented right now so I cant go into detail
That's the way to do it.
Perhaps a more important aspect of this would be controlling rate of fire, moreso then attempting to reduce felt recoil or wear on the weapon.
hotrodder636
02-11-18, 20:43
Being a Navy guy, I would really be interested in a BCG or carrier made of HY100...I am that kind of nerd.
Condolences regarding your father and sorry to hear about the hard times at the business.
Leaveammoforme
02-12-18, 00:18
I've been part of a few Forum Guinea Pig groups here before. Nothing has permanently maimed me thus far, so I'm up for the next. Holler if you need me when the time arrives.
Your stuff is used by the outside machinery mechanics. I've assisted them a few times on missile tube work and I've had to crawl around/over/under your cylinders to access various work sites.
That's awesome that they let you inside and crawl around. I have sets of blueprints to certain parts of the Ohio Class but a lot of the information contained in those drawings has been blacked out. They wont provide any documentation, photos or much information except the print that they give us.
This is from my collection of NAVSEA books given to me by the Dept of the Navy. This is what I am going off of.
50449
Unfortunately I am going to have to disabuse you of the corrosion resistance statements. I have worked with Inconel on launch systems and had to remove perfectly non-corroded Inconel grounding blocks that were welded to corroded HY.
I'm not denying your statement, but the Department Acquisition University, DoD, DNR, DTIC and congress says to use HY-100 because it is resistant to corrosion. I think Inconel and other super alloys is just too difficult to work with.
This remains to be seen. Alloy isn't everything. In high impact uses (such as a BCG), hardness and temper are very important. Please do not assume that because a material is good for one thing that it'll be good for another. Especially if it comes in a pre treated form to achieve the properties necessary for a specific use that's unlike the intended use that's being discussed.
That kind of why I'm doing this, I have no other way to see if this will work in those conditions. I would be lead to assume that HY would be perfect for a BCG, but I could be horribly wrong. I know that HY can expand and contract under a lot of heat, but I doubt an AR can achieve that kind of heat.
A quick comparison of HY alloys vs. inconell vs. stainless and the comparative levels of nickel, chromium, etc. shows that HY is nowhere near the same levels.
Inconel is hard to machine unless you use induction heat and for some reason, Inconel doesn't like carbide tools and its not martensitic, so I cant do magnetic particle inspections, otherwise Inconel 718 would be my first choice for material.
I want to sent you a small sample of Ceramax, so you can tell me what you think. It has a titanium, greyish silver tone to it and has a mirror like finish. I think you will like it.
thehammer69
02-12-18, 02:09
Having spent the early part of my adult years on Submarines, this project interests me. I have a rifle or 2 that wouldn't mind being a test bed.
Btw, The subs I was on all used HY80 in their hulls. Not sure how it's corrosion properties compare to HY100, but that stuff would rust.
Op, you had me at free ammo. PM me for credentials, shipping address, and testing protocols.
... carpenter steel...
Bolt carriers are made from 8620 not C158.
I'm concerned if you can case harden like the 8620. There is a lot of stress and friction in the cam pin slot, if not hardened it may deform or gall.
Bolt carriers are made from 8620 not C158.
I'm concerned if you can case harden like the 8620. There is a lot of stress and friction in the cam pin slot, if not hardened it may deform or gall.
a lot of bolt carriers are made from C158, but most are made from 8620
C158 is not to print, and more expensive. On a part that never fails.
I would suspect poor advertisements of BCG's incorrectly listing the bolt and carrier as C158 instead of just the bolt.
That's awesome that they let you inside and crawl around. I have sets of blueprints to certain parts of the Ohio Class but a lot of the information contained in those drawings has been blacked out. They wont provide any documentation, photos or much information except the print that they give us.
This is from my collection of NAVSEA books given to me by the Dept of the Navy. This is what I am going off of.
50449
[/COLOR]
Lulz! It wasn't a case of them "letting" me crawl around that stuff, it was a case of the foreman coming to me and saying "You drew the short straw today, Here's your TGI, get up to the _______ (insert mud tank or sail) and do _______ (corrosion inspections/repair structure "X"/measure layout for "Y"/Install foundation "Z")....".... I'm a big dude (6'2", getting stuck doing mud tank work or sail work wasn't exactly my favorite part of the job. ;-)
I'm not denying your statement, but the Department Acquisition University, DoD, DNR, DTIC and congress says to use HY-100 because it is resistant to corrosion. I think Inconel and other super alloys is just too difficult to work with.
Those parts get enough attention that the need for NiCu type alloys really isn't necessary. Especially since the protective paints are durable enough to make 2 year maintenance cycles and the use of zincs are many and varied. I WISH hy100 were as corrosion resistant as the books say it is.... People don't think things be like they be, but they do... ;-)
Biggest issue with NiCu alloys in most uses is flexing. NiChroCu alloys work harden way too easily and I wouldn't use them in any kind of capacity that required flex with possibility to strain harden and develop fatigue cracking. The best thing about them is corrosion and wear resistance.
That kind of why I'm doing this, I have no other way to see if this will work in those conditions. I would be lead to assume that HY would be perfect for a BCG, but I could be horribly wrong. I know that HY can expand and contract under a lot of heat, but I doubt an AR can achieve that kind of heat.
Expansion chamber inside the bolt just might constrict enough to seize the bolt/gas rings. But you are correct, don't know until you try.
Have you ever coated a piece of HY rod or tube with this nifty coating of yours and then intentionally heated the steel to see if the expansion properties of the steel would cause cracking of the coating? I for one, am all about the DT and NDT....
Inconel is hard to machine unless you use induction heat and for some reason, Inconel doesn't like carbide tools and its not martensitic, so I cant do magnetic particle inspections, otherwise Inconel 718 would be my first choice for material.
Would be interesting. Can't say that i'm super familiar with all aspects of Inconel outside of the missile tube work I've done with it. That being said, my personal experience with it says it lends itself to being too soft for BCG work.
Considering that NiCu alloys do not lend themselves to traditional hardening techniques, and age hardening simply doesn't get them as hard as they should be, Any kind of NiCu alloy would probably be discounted for this type of application.
Traditional 718 is in the mid 40's on the RC scale(at its hardest), whereas a 8628 carrier is hardened to approx. 58-60rc, That's quite a variance. Might be a good idea to find out just how hard HY100 can be made before it stops being hy100, or if it can even be hardened appropriately at all.
I want to sent you a small sample of Ceramax, so you can tell me what you think. It has a titanium, greyish silver tone to it and has a mirror like finish. I think you will like it.
Based of what I've read earlier, correct me if i'm wrong but you plan on sending the carriers to the testers with the ceramax coating applied fully to the pieces? Or did I read wrong and you just plan on coating the internal bore? Will you also apply the coating in the carrier key threaded holes or leave those unfinished?
Believe me, as a person heavily involved in naval equipment professionally, a coating such as the one you describe sounds very promising. I can definitely see its utility in hydraulics, but the real test will be impact resistance, direct heat resistance, and thermal expansion resistance in this application.
I think it's great to try and use up-to-date materials and methods -one of the reasons I like Duffy and his company. I would love to run on of these carriers for you, and I just got a range membership, but don't know if I have the ammo to do it right. Best of luck!
I'm skeptical, but what the hell. I'll be in Lewisville up from Houston this weekend for a basketball tournament and I'm off all next week. I'll pick up a BCG and ammo if you're ready. If it matters, I've worked as a quality consultant and QMS auditor for O&G for the last few years, most recently quality manager at a machine shop.
Grendelsnap
04-16-18, 08:48
I'd be happy to document the use of one of these Carriers. I think the material and the coating process sound super intriguing.
I have a private range and could run the carrier as hard as you wanted. Would probably drop a BCM bolt in it and source Colt parts for the key.
Love the idea.
Cheers,
Hey Elephant, I’m trying to PM you about some stuff you have for sale and your box is full. Can you contact me?
Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk
As a retired submariner, I would want one just for the nostalgia factor. Testing, sure, that would be a plus if you're still looking for people to test.
Sent from my SM-G950U using Tapatalk
.......................................
You do realize that AISI 8620 steel, heat treated in accordance with the drawing, has a yield strength of 128,000 psi.
And, HY-100 IS NOT a corrosion resistant steel. It is more resistant to sea water corrosion than most high strength steels (4xxx, 8xxx steels), but it is subject to corrosion. Which is why chipping paint is a Navy tradition.
Steel choice is more than just - strength = good.
The HY series was developed for high strength (yield and ultimate), good ductility, notch toughness, atmospheric corrosion resistance, and weldability. With a bolt carrier excellent hardness and wear properties are far more important, which is why surface carburized 8620 is used. It can be hardened to Rockwell C 63 to 64.
Quite honestly, a case hardened 1080 steel carrier would probably work quite well for several thousand rounds, as long as the bore was chrome plated and properly Parkerized. There is no reason why HY-100 wouldn't be perfectly adequate, but I doubt it would be "better" than 8620.
I have decided to call this Reactive™ Buffer System.
Since I sold my company, the HY100 has been difficult acquiring in small batches. I have since decided to use 9310. A. its cheaper, B. no minimum purchase and C. Everyone here seemed to not like the HY100 idea.
The research/development, testing and design phase is 100% complete.
Autodesk Inventor Pro 2018 software was used for 100% design and assembly.
Autodesk Finite Element Analysis software was used for mechanical stress analysis (mechanical stress, mechanical vibration, linear statics, heat transfer and fatigue) Looks promising!
Autodesk Feature CAM software was used to covert my design drawing into NC code and to create the most efficient tool paths for faster machining.
Since I sold my company I no longer have access to any machines or tooling. But will choose a vendor to manufacture the individual parts using my supplied material. I will assemble each unit myself.
I found a supplier for the gas key/SHCS fasteners.
I have NOT found a supplier for the complete bolt assembly.
I believe that this technology can reduce the felt recoil from 12-14lbs to a manageable 5.5-6lbs in a .308 and 5.9-6.4lbs to 2.8-3.5lbs in a 5.56.
Just a sneak peek:
51877
51878
51879
51880
Simply fascinating, I do wish you the best with this project.
I'm glad to see technical innovation regarding AR platform and firearms in general.
If you ever create a prototype make some videos of shooting with it and post it on youtube. I'd like to see how it works in real life.
Dang! I love the design plans.
Would love to test this out, would be happy to put a few thousand down range for TnE; and wouldn't mind chipping in what I can for materials cost.
Keep me in mind, good sir. This looks like an awesome endeavor.
Very interesting. Not where I thought this was going, but good to see it's still going.
Dang! I love the design plans.
Say no more! Years ago, I was manufacturing the hydraulic cylinders and central power unit for the Patriot Missile System as well as the missile erection cylinders and launch pad leveling cylinders for the Minuteman III program and got a chance to bid on a manufacturing package. The DOD was requesting a parts replacement program for some of there current inventory. I will let you guess what these are.
51881
51882
51883
51884
51885
So it’s this a one piece receiver extension or a drop in system into milspec buffer tubes?
Either way I love the design and would love to try it, could we use any carrier with this system? If not I would love to see a carrier with extra gas ports to bleed excess gas like the LMT enhanced carriers.
So it’s this a one piece receiver extension or a drop in system into milspec buffer tubes?
Either way I love the design and would love to try it, could we use any carrier with this system? If not I would love to see a carrier with extra gas ports to bleed excess gas like the LMT enhanced carriers.
It slides into a milspec buffer tube, this replaces your buffer and buffer spring. Only one modification needed, remove buffer detent and buffer detent spring. You can use your existing bolt carrier, I have decided not to reinvent the wheel.
Say no more! Years ago, I was manufacturing the hydraulic cylinders and central power unit for the Patriot Missile System as well as the missile erection cylinders and launch pad leveling cylinders for the Minuteman III program and got a chance to bid on a manufacturing package. The DOD was requesting a parts replacement program for some of there current inventory. I will let you guess what these are.
51881
51882
51883
51884
51885
If I had to guess, and it's a poorly educated guess, it looks like a munitions loading system. Otherwise, it's a component within a system I just don't know. The mechanical nature of it has my mind analyzing every bit. From the gear segments to mounting system.
Nonetheless, I have always had an obsession with CAD. Coming from the graphic designer education background, and a modeling background from Valve/STEAM based game engines, (as a hobby ), it amazes me the beauty and art behind those intellectual property.
It's something that friends have looked at designs and gone: Oh, thats kinda cool. Looks interesting.
And I nerd out about polygon count and texture profiling, design time, and manufacturing options.
I have one of the original Defense Distributed CAD packs, just waiting for the day my brother and I invest in a 3D metal printer. He's spending his 67k enlistment bonus on such when he gets back after basic and AIT. He really wants to do something Manufacturing wise with 3D Printers. Entrepreneurs at heart, which means masochism follows closely behind. Haha.
If I had to guess, and it's a poorly educated guess, it looks like a munitions loading system. Otherwise, it's a component within a system I just don't know. The mechanical nature of it has my mind analyzing every bit. From the gear segments to mounting system.
Ill give you a hint:
51886
51887
Ill give you a hint:
51886
51887
Hey, I was on the right track!
Never realized the simplicity of the mounting systems for components like that. I suppose the easier to service the more likelyhood it stays in rotation. The square port and gear mechanisms had me sure it had to be something that handled loading.
Damnit. Now I want to get my hands on one, just to take apart and reassemble.
Very cool, thanks for sharing such awesome work.
If you have a creative bone in your body or like to design things in your mind, I would recommend learning CAD. Its beneficial and can help you transfer ideas from your mind onto a 3D image. You can learn the basic fundamentals in as little as a week and build on from there. Making a simple part is easy, making 12 parts and having them work together seamlessly is the tricky part. I have taken several 40 hour classes on Autodesk Inventor: Intro to Solid Modeling, Intermediate sketches using offset plane geometry, Intermediate parametric modeling, assembly, Advanced 3d modeling focusing on constraints and surfacing.
Here are some stainless suppressor baffles I designed in CAD based on an idea I had:
51890
The idea was great in my head, but CAD found material weakness issues that I overlooked and helped me resolve those issues and I got a better product than I originally thought of: I was also able to simulate and test this design under the same conditions under normal operation.
51891
I have a Makerbot 3D printer and have made some good rail panels that look similar to the Centurion CMR panels but fit on a KAC URX 3.1. I would rather makes things out of steel than plastic. I badly want to build a small machine shop dedicated to my randomness.
If you have a creative bone in your body or like to design things in your mind, I would recommend learning CAD. Its beneficial and can help you transfer ideas from your mind onto a 3D image. You can learn the basic fundamentals in as little as a week and build on from there. Making a simple part is easy, making 12 parts and having them work together seamlessly is the tricky part. I have taken several 40 hour classes on Autodesk Inventor: Intro to Solid Modeling, Intermediate sketches using offset plane geometry, Intermediate parametric modeling, assembly, Advanced 3d modeling focusing on constraints and surfacing.
Here are some stainless suppressor baffles I designed in CAD based on an idea I had:
51890
The idea was great in my head, but CAD found material weakness issues that I overlooked and helped me resolve those issues and I got a better product than I originally thought of: I was also able to simulate and test this design under the same conditions under normal operation.
51891
I have a Makerbot 3D printer and have made some good rail panels that look similar to the Centurion CMR panels but fit on a KAC URX 3.1. I would rather makes things out of steel than plastic. I badly want to build a small machine shop dedicated to my randomness.
I will keep an eye open for class options either locally or online.
It would really cool to have a small shop, in general. Someday when I have more funds to start sprouting structures up and more property.
Question: How do you get it out (or in)?
Question: How do you get it out (or in)?
That's what she said!
But seriously, this is a plug and play device. Just remove your buffer and buffer spring, remove buffer detent and buffer detent spring, slide the Reactive Buffer System™ into the buffer tube and you are ready to go. There is no indexing required. This devise is designed in a way to allow the BCG to operate inside a Mil-spec buffer tube without any tolerance or alignment issues. You simply add a tablespoon of your favorite lube to this device and change every 2000 rounds or so. The front of this devise has a porous bleeder ring that will keep this device well lubricated as well as use as hydraulic fluid for the Reactive Recoil™ - like a shock absorber. Same technology I used in my nuclear reactor stabilizing cylinders as well as the hydraulic cylinders that were used on the Ohio Class submarines- Motion Pro™
To remove, simply pull the take down pin, grab devise with your fingernail and pull. Its a snug fit, but not press fit. The BCG and Reactive Buffer System™ are 2 separate and individual components. You can use your favorite Mil-spec BCG.
hotrodder636
05-12-18, 09:57
Are you still looking for Beta testers when you get some of these made?
Are you still looking for Beta testers when you get some of these made?
Pretty soon, I have one prototype made already which I am going to do a video comparing my design to the current buffer system. I wont actually show the individual components or sub-assemblies, obviously for trademark and patent reasons but will give people a general idea on how quiet my system is compared to a standard system.
The prototype I have which I refer to as the "X-1", because its my first prototype but mainly, "X-1" just sounds awesome hasn't made it to the testing phase. The Reactive Buffer System™ X-1 has non commercial springs, which I had made from SpringCo., and the hydraulic pistol assembly was made by my company, over a year ago. The piston assembly is a bronze clad stainless- which we did in house and used in many of our hydraulic systems. The bronze overlay design lengthens your operational lifetime almost 200%. Now I am having to find someone who can replicate this. I am hoping to have 20 built this summer and ready for user trial.
Just to give you an idea of how small the check vales are:
51936
The relief valve:
51937
Well, this thread just keeps getting better and better.
Thanks for keeping us up to date. Excited to see where this goes.
Torquetard
05-21-18, 14:45
BCG experts... nitrided bolts gtg or no? I think I read somewhere that nitriding makes the material harder on the surface, but more brittle. I have a piston gun that came with a QPQ carrier & fancy electroless nickeled bolt. Also have a toolcraft nitrided bcg, but the bolt (9310) looks like it has the same finish as well. I'm sure toolcraft knows what they are doing, but just wondering.
everready73
05-21-18, 19:58
I haven't heard of many issues with nitride bolts that I can recall. I have read issues with 9310 bolts breaking because they need to be heat treated correctly or they become more brittle.
QPQ doesn't go very deep. It is also used on airplane, HP engines, and space vehicles.
Pretty soon, I have one prototype made already which I am going to do a video comparing my design to the current buffer system. I wont actually show the individual components or sub-assemblies, obviously for trademark and patent reasons but will give people a general idea on how quiet my system is compared to a standard system.
The prototype I have which I refer to as the "X-1", because its my first prototype but mainly, "X-1" just sounds awesome hasn't made it to the testing phase. The Reactive Buffer System™ X-1 has non commercial springs, which I had made from SpringCo., and the hydraulic pistol assembly was made by my company, over a year ago. The piston assembly is a bronze clad stainless- which we did in house and used in many of our hydraulic systems. The bronze overlay design lengthens your operational lifetime almost 200%. Now I am having to find someone who can replicate this. I am hoping to have 20 built this summer and ready for user trial.
Just to give you an idea of how small the check vales are:
51936
The relief valve:
51937
I’m in if you need a tester
thehammer69
05-21-18, 23:10
BCG experts... nitrided bolts gtg or no? ......... I'm sure toolcraft knows what they are doing, but just wondering.
I'm sure they know what they are doing when it comes to Carriers. However, they do not make bolts. Yes, you can buy a BCG packaged as Toolcraft, but Toolcraft outsourced the bolt portion.
I'm sure they know what they are doing when it comes to Carriers. However, they do not make bolts. Yes, you can buy a BCG packaged as Toolcraft, but Toolcraft outsourced the bolt portion.
So who makes their bolts then?
Powered by vBulletin® Version 4.2.5 Copyright © 2024 vBulletin Solutions, Inc. All rights reserved.