View Full Version : .223 Chambered Oly Arms
A forum member contacted us about some extraction issues with his Oly Arms and asked if we could take a look at it and maybe ream the chamber with a 556 NATO reamer.
So the we get the upper in and the barrel is marked 556. We attempt to stick our reamer in it, but cannot get the alignment ring on the reamer to fit into the upper receiver. :confused: Puzzled by this we gently forced the ring into the receiver and then twisted it. The Oly receiver started to remove material from the delrin ring.
Working our way into the receiver, we got the reamer into the barrel and started to turn it. The amount of material we got back from the this barrel was amazing! To date, we have never seen this amount of material come back.
So not only was the chamber out of spec, the receiver was too. :rolleyes:
Moral of the story, DO NOT BUY OLY ARMS!
C4
http://www.gandrtactical.com/images/archive/Oly_Reamed.jpg
Ooooh!! I can't wait to add this to my OLY nightmare story collection.
I used to post stories like this on TOS. And booger eaters would still advise shooters to ignore my replies since I didn't actually own an OLY.... as though I was just making this stuff up because I had nothing better to do in life. :rolleyes:
Ooooh!! I can't wait to add this to my OLY nightmare story collection.
I used to post stories like this on TOS. And booger eaters would still advise shooters to ignore my replies since I didn't actually own an OLY.... as though I was just making this stuff up because I had nothing better to do in life. :rolleyes:
I knew that this thread would brighten your day!
C4
decodeddiesel
12-13-08, 15:32
Thanks for posting that Grant, it's a real eye opener!
Thanks for posting that Grant, it's a real eye opener!
You are welcome!
C4
Ooooh!! I can't wait to add this to my OLY nightmare story collection.
I used to post stories like this on TOS. And booger eaters would still advise shooters to ignore my replies since I didn't actually own an OLY.... as though I was just making this stuff up because I had nothing better to do in life. :rolleyes:
I had an Oly. It worked OK. For a casual, two-box-a-year shooter it would work OK. That being said, I now know much more about the AR platform and wouldn't buy another one...
Spooky
Grant,
Thanks for that pic. I would say that the amount of material I am pulling out of our Bushmasters is approx. half of that.
decodeddiesel
12-13-08, 16:39
Grant,
Thanks for that pic. I would say that the amount of material I am pulling out of our Bushmasters is approx. half of that.
Dude, you should take a pic of that next time you ream a Bushmaster. It would be nice to be able to show something like that to the Bushmaster fan club.
I am going to do more tomorrow and will try. Unfortunately I am photographically challenged and my pics won't look that good. :D
Dude, you should take a pic of that next time you ream a Bushmaster. It would be nice to be able to show something like that to the Bushmaster fan club.
Dude, you should take a pic of that next time you ream a Bushmaster. It would be nice to be able to show something like that to the Bushmaster fan club.
After viewing this thread, it got me off my ass and out to the workbench to make a cerrosafe cast of my BM's chamber.
I just took the measurements after waiting the required one-hour cool down time, and my throat/freebore diameter is right at .2265. Neck diameter is .2553 ( about 1:15 after making cast). It's very difficult to make a measurement of the freebore length because it's difficult eyeballing exactly where the rifling begins, but it looks very consistent with the example that Ned posted on his .223 vs 5.56 article in the Sep issue of SWAT (pg 68, chamber cast pics). This barrel was purchased in spring of 03. Round count is approx 3,000 but that's just a WAG.
Now I wonder if Grant reamed it whether or not any metal would come out, but hypothetically speaking, if it did remove some metal, what would be the conclusion?
Our BM's have been in country since late 2004 and they have unknown rounds put through them. Thus far almost evry one that has been reamed has resulted in material being removed. We als ohave semi auto guns that are as of yet unfired and when I reamed two them a significant amount came out.
It's my belief that the tight chambers are a contributing cause of the popped primers, blown anvils and failures to extract that we have had with the Prvi Partizan and Bulgarian 5.56 SS109 ammo. In fact, in most of the guns that I reamed the problem was reduced though not 100% eliminated.
After viewing this thread, it got me off my ass and out to the workbench to make a cerrosafe cast of my BM's chamber.
I just took the measurements after waiting the required one-hour cool down time, and my throat/freebore diameter is right at .2265. Neck diameter is .2553 ( about 1:15 after making cast). It's very difficult to make a measurement of the freebore length because it's difficult eyeballing exactly where the rifling begins, but it looks very consistent with the example that Ned posted on his .223 vs 5.56 article in the Sep issue of SWAT (pg 68, chamber cast pics). This barrel was purchased in spring of 03. Round count is approx 3,000 but that's just a WAG.
Now I wonder if Grant reamed it whether or not any metal would come out, but hypothetically speaking, if it did remove some metal, what would be the conclusion?
Heavy Metal
12-13-08, 18:46
After viewing this thread, it got me off my ass and out to the workbench to make a cerrosafe cast of my BM's chamber.
I just took the measurements after waiting the required one-hour cool down time, and my throat/freebore diameter is right at .2265. Neck diameter is .2553 ( about 1:15 after making cast). It's very difficult to make a measurement of the freebore length because it's difficult eyeballing exactly where the rifling begins, but it looks very consistent with the example that Ned posted on his .223 vs 5.56 article in the Sep issue of SWAT (pg 68, chamber cast pics). This barrel was purchased in spring of 03. Round count is approx 3,000 but that's just a WAG.
Now I wonder if Grant reamed it whether or not any metal would come out, but hypothetically speaking, if it did remove some metal, what would be the conclusion?
You used the 3000 step reaming process:D
decodeddiesel
12-13-08, 18:48
Our BM's have been in country since late 2004 and they have unknown rounds put through them. Thus far almost evry one that has been reamed has resulted in material being removed. We als ohave semi auto guns that are as of yet unfired and when I reamed two them a significant amount came out.
It's my belief that the tight chambers are a contributing cause of the popped primers, blown anvils and failures to extract that we have had with the Prvi Partizan and Bulgarian 5.56 SS109 ammo. In fact, in most of the guns that I reamed the problem was reduced though not 100% eliminated.
That is impressive that this was able to fix those problems you were having. I remember reading about them and thinking, it's one thing if some guy is having problems like that in a class in CONUS it's something entirely different when it happens in theater...
uscbigdawg
12-13-08, 19:44
Wow! I've had good luck with Oly barrels. One of the few places to get a stainless 1:8 barrel. THE top 3-Gun shooter in the world swears by them, but is quick to say don't fall in love with them.
Rich
After viewing this thread, it got me off my ass and out to the workbench to make a cerrosafe cast of my BM's chamber.
I just took the measurements after waiting the required one-hour cool down time, and my throat/freebore diameter is right at .2265. Neck diameter is .2553 ( about 1:15 after making cast). It's very difficult to make a measurement of the freebore length because it's difficult eyeballing exactly where the rifling begins, but it looks very consistent with the example that Ned posted on his .223 vs 5.56 article in the Sep issue of SWAT (pg 68, chamber cast pics). This barrel was purchased in spring of 03. Round count is approx 3,000 but that's just a WAG.
Now I wonder if Grant reamed it whether or not any metal would come out, but hypothetically speaking, if it did remove some metal, what would be the conclusion?
If it removed a little bit of metal, I wouldn't think anything of it. If it removed the amount of material like the above pic, you would have a .223 chamber.
C4
Wow! I've had good luck with Oly barrels. One of the few places to get a stainless 1:8 barrel. THE top 3-Gun shooter in the world swears by them, but is quick to say don't fall in love with them.
Rich
He is also most likely shooting .223 ammo.
Nothing Oly does is high quality and am not sure why anyone would buy their stuff. Even if it was given to me, I still would not use it.
One last thing, your sig line should also read "Gun games also create a lot of bad habits that can get you killed in a real gun fight."
"Speed is great, Accuracy is final!"
C4
Don Robison
12-13-08, 20:50
He is also most likely shooting .223 ammo.
Nothing Oly does is high quality and am not sure why anyone would buy their stuff. Even if it was given to me, I still would not use it.
One last thing, your sig line should also read "Gun games also create a lot of bad habits that can get you killed in a real gun fight."
"Speed is great, Accuracy is final!"
C4
Come on Grant, you know Oly is "just as good.":eek::eek:
Sorry couldn't resist:D:D:D
Robb Jensen
12-13-08, 20:54
Olympic typically works very good and accurate with .223 Rem ammo, but put some 5.56mm NATO ammo (M855, Canadian IVI, MK262 or XM193 ammo, IMI ammo) and then all the sudden popped primers, failures to extract etc.
I've reamed at least 50 Oly barrels with my Ned Christiansen 5.56mm NATO reamer and it's ALWAYS fixed these problems........
I've reamed at least 50 Oly barrels with my Ned Christiansen 5.56mm NATO reamer and it's ALWAYS fixed these problems........
That's my experience as well. Oly 5.56 chambers...aren't.
I've removed material from Bushmaster chambers, but it was substantially less to minimal. Bushmaster chambers, for the most part, are okay.
Our BM's have been in country since late 2004 and they have unknown rounds put through them. Thus far almost every one that has been reamed has resulted in material being removed. We also have semi auto guns that are as of yet unfired and when I reamed two of them a significant amount came out.
It's my belief that the tight chambers are a contributing cause of the popped primers, blown anvils and failures to extract that we have had with the Prvi Partizan and Bulgarian 5.56 SS109 ammo. In fact, in most of the guns that I reamed the problem was reduced though not 100% eliminated.
If using Ned's throating reamer, you are probably aware that it is machined to dimensions more generous than standard 5.56 NATO dimensions. So it wouldn't surprise me if you used one on a NATO chamber that was in spec, you'd still remove some material. But if using a full-chamber NATO reamer, I really don't have any insight how much, if any, additional material might be removed from an "in-spec" NATO chamber.
I ain't no expert, but I believe a chamber cast is the way to go to understand what you're dealng with. In a perfect world we'd have a chamber cast made of the "as manufactured chamber", then ream it and note the amount of material removed, then a second chamber cast to see where you end up in the end.
I'll concede that the pic that Grant posted certainly suggests a significant amount of material was removed, but you still don't know from where: the shoulder, the neck, and the throat, just the neck and throat? That's the beauty of the cast, it lets you know where critical shoulder diameter, neck diameter, freebore diameter dimensions run, and gives you a visual of the throat length so you have an informed understanding of if you have a .223 style throat or a 5.56 style throat. And if you made enough casts, pretty soon you'd have a good ability to be able to correlate the amount of material removed to predicting how tight things were before reaming.
If you have the opportunity you might try taking some chamber casts of your BM's in your posession and see where you stand. It would be interesting to get some good data to see if indeed BM's are manufactured closer to .223 SAAMI specs or closer to 5.56 NATO specs.
I have a pretty old oly arms barrel..around 4,000 rounds of mil ammo through it ( full auto) and no prb. Knock on wood. lol..
Unfortunately I live in an imperfect world so a chamber cast isn't in my future. Having said that this ammo worked very well in the Colt barreled upper, and the 3other MILSPEC 1/7 twist barrels that I was able to use for testing. Again, of those carbines that had issues almost all of the problems were solved when using the reamer.
I have since taken the Bushamster upper off of my gun and replaced it with the Colt barreled upper I put together. In reality we shouldn't be having to do any of this had the weapon(s) been made to standards.
On a side note. I spoke with an acquaintance of mine who helped broker the deal with BM and the Georgian military. The feedback that he has received was less than stellar and I got the feeling that they regret the purchase.
If using Ned's throating reamer, you are probably aware that it is machined to dimensions more generous than standard 5.56 NATO dimensions. So it wouldn't surprise me if you used one on a NATO chamber that was in spec, you'd still remove some material. But if using a full-chamber NATO reamer, I really don't have any insight how much, if any, additional material might be removed from an "in-spec" NATO chamber.
I ain't no expert, but I believe a chamber cast is the way to go to understand what you're dealng with. In a perfect world we'd have a chamber cast made of the "as manufactured chamber", then ream it and note the amount of material removed, then a second chamber cast to see where you end up in the end.
I'll concede that the pic that Grant posted certainly suggests a significant amount of material was removed, but you still don't know from where: the shoulder, the neck, and the throat, just the neck and throat? That's the beauty of the cast, it lets you know where critical shoulder diameter, neck diameter, freebore diameter dimensions run, and gives you a visual of the throat length so you have an informed understanding of if you have a .223 style throat or a 5.56 style throat. And if you made enough casts, pretty soon you'd have a good ability to be able to correlate the amount of material removed to predicting how tight things were before reaming.
If you have the opportunity you might try taking some chamber casts of your BM's in your posession and see where you stand. It would be interesting to get some good data to see if indeed BM's are manufactured closer to .223 SAAMI specs or closer to 5.56 NATO specs.
Unfortunately I live in an imperfect world so a chamber cast isn't in my future. Having said that this ammo worked very well in the Colt barreled upper, and the 3other MILSPEC 1/7 twist barrels that I was able to use for testing. Again, of those carbines that had issues almost all of the problems were solved when using the reamer.
I have since taken the Bushamster upper off of my gun and replaced it with the Colt barreled upper I put together. In reality we shouldn't be having to do any of this had the weapon(s) been made to standards.
On a side note. I spoke with an acquaintance of mine who helped broker the deal with BM and the Georgian military. The feedback that he has received was less than stellar and I got the feeling that they regret the purchase.
I've noticed you mention your organization uses BM's before, and somehow have never bothered to ask- what happened? you work for a PMC, right? how was it ever decided that bushies were the right choice?
The laws of supply and demand along with bean counters who want to save money and think that a carbine, is a carbine is a carbine. The gov't only supplies weapons on certain contracts. Otherwise the contractor has to do it. Prior to these BM's arriving we used AK's, RPK's, RPD's, etc...
Try being a non-Gov't entity purchasing a few hundred M4's from Colt. Not going to happen. So someone put together a "package" and sold it as these are the next best thing, blah, blah, blah and this is what you end up with.
It doesn't happen now for the most part as we have people on the ground with knowledge and the recommendations from here carry weight in the rear.
I've noticed you mention your organization uses BM's before, and somehow have never bothered to ask- what happened? you work for a PMC, right? how was it ever decided that bushies were the right choice?
Grant,
So when will you post the Oly Arms Pre-order thread, I need 10 ;)
You'll need 10 just to get enough good parts together to build one that will work half way right. ;)
Grant,
So when will you post the Oly Arms Pre-order thread, I need 10 ;)
Unfortunately I live in an imperfect world so a chamber cast isn't in my future. Having said that this ammo worked very well in the Colt barreled upper, and the 3other MILSPEC 1/7 twist barrels that I was able to use for testing. Again, of those carbines that had issues almost all of the problems were solved when using the reamer.
I have since taken the Bushamster upper off of my gun and replaced it with the Colt barreled upper I put together. In reality we shouldn't be having to do any of this had the weapon(s) been made to standards.
On a side note. I spoke with an acquaintance of mine who helped broker the deal with BM and the Georgian military. The feedback that he has received was less than stellar and I got the feeling that they regret the purchase.
What issues remained? Were you still getting popped primers? If so, to what remaining manufacturing defect would you attribute that to, given by that point you ensured your chamber was reamed to NATO spec?
If using Ned's throating reamer, you are probably aware that it is machined to dimensions more generous than standard 5.56 NATO dimensions. So it wouldn't surprise me if you used one on a NATO chamber that was in spec, you'd still remove some material. But if using a full-chamber NATO reamer, I really don't have any insight how much, if any, additional material might be removed from an "in-spec" NATO chamber.
I ain't no expert, but I believe a chamber cast is the way to go to understand what you're dealng with. In a perfect world we'd have a chamber cast made of the "as manufactured chamber", then ream it and note the amount of material removed, then a second chamber cast to see where you end up in the end.
I'll concede that the pic that Grant posted certainly suggests a significant amount of material was removed, but you still don't know from where: the shoulder, the neck, and the throat, just the neck and throat? That's the beauty of the cast, it lets you know where critical shoulder diameter, neck diameter, freebore diameter dimensions run, and gives you a visual of the throat length so you have an informed understanding of if you have a .223 style throat or a 5.56 style throat. And if you made enough casts, pretty soon you'd have a good ability to be able to correlate the amount of material removed to predicting how tight things were before reaming.
If you have the opportunity you might try taking some chamber casts of your BM's in your posession and see where you stand. It would be interesting to get some good data to see if indeed BM's are manufactured closer to .223 SAAMI specs or closer to 5.56 NATO specs.
Couple things. My reamer from Ned is not oversized as I have reamed Colt, LMT and BCM and gotten ZERO material back.
Where the reamer removes material from will tell you a lot about where the issue is in the barrel.
C4
This is pulled straight from Ned's website, and it shows the deltas between sectioned SAAMI chambers, NATO chambers and a chamber reamed with his throating reamer. As you can see, the pic of his chamber shows additional material removed compared to the previous NATO chamber.
http://www.m-guns.com/galimg/aeq.sized.jpg
Link to a larger picture showing greater detail (http://www.m-guns.com/galimg/aeq.jpg)
Also, from the text on his website:
This reamer is designed as an easy, quick and sure way to know. You just open the upper receiver, remove the bolt group, drop in the reamer with some oil, and slowly turn it in (clockwise only, never reversing it), using a lot of turns and very little pressure. The handle centers itself in the upper receiver. When ithe reamer bottoms out on the chamber's shoulder it will spin freely-- it has stopped cutting and you are done. When you have done this, you know for sure you have a chamber with proper 5.56-plus dimensions in the critical freebore and throat area. Primer popping due to pressure spikes in a short leade will cease, but be advised there can be other factors in popped primers such as hot ammo, hot chambers, and improperly loaded ammo.
I'm wondering if some manufacturers have figured out along the way that the way to go is with a "plus-dimensioned" NATO chamber from the start. Maybe Colt and LMT are producing NATO chambers on "the high side" straight from the factory, and that's why you're not getting any material removal.
We still had an occasional popped primer as well as a cases that would stick in the chamber. Basically Bushmasters are crap and they cut corners and sell a product that they claim is a good as the next guys and they clearly are not.
Bottom line is I should not have to ream a chamber to make it fire ammunition that has worked in other 5.56 MILSPEC uppers, as well as the Bulgarian 5.56 AK's that we have.
I also agree with Grant in that I also put the reamer in the other MISLPEC guns to see what would happen and basically took crumbs out (almost nothing at all). WhenI put it into a new carbine that I had I got a lot of resistance for the first 4-6 revolutions.
What issues remained? Were you still getting popped primers? If so, to what remaining manufacturing defect would you attribute that to, given by that point you ensured your chamber was reamed to NATO spec?
Can we resize this pic it's killing this page.
We still had an occasional popped primer as well as a cases that would stick in the chamber. Basically Bushmasters are crap and they cut corners and sell a product that they claim is a good as the next guys and they clearly are not.
Bottom line is I should not have to ream a chamber to make it fire ammunition that has worked in other 5.56 MILSPEC uppers, as well as the Bulgarian 5.56 AK's that we have.
I also agree with Grant in that I also put the reamer in the other MISLPEC guns to see what would happen and basically took crumbs out (almost nothing at all). WhenI put it into a new carbine that I had I got a lot of resistance for the first 4-6 revolutions.
Am not doubting at all that you didn't experience this, but I'd love to know how many thousandths of material was reamed away and from where in the chamber. We all can look at pics of reamers with metal shavings on them, but we still don't know how much material we're dealing with from a dimensional standpoint. At best we're making comparative assessments between manufacturers (e.g., Colts yield nothing/minute shavings, Brand X yields more). That's why I like the idea of chamber casts, you know what you're dealing with in an absolute sense when measuring a cast.
The only other thing I'd like to toss out for discussion, does overgassing exacerbate any tendency to pop primers? I only bring this up because conventional wisdom seems to be that BM drills their gas ports larger than Colt/LMT spec (.063" IIRC). At first thought I would think overgassing wouldn't contribute to primer popping, because I would assume that peak pressure is experienced well before the bullet passes the gas port. But then I recalled seeing an ad for David Tubbs' Carrier Weight System, and just like a heavier buffer, the advertised benefit is ensuring bolt lockup lasts just a tad longer and allows pressures to subside prior to initiating bolt unlocking and extraction.
One of the additional benefits advertised though is less wear and tear on caseheads and primer pockets. He includes photos of gas leakage around a primer using a hot load in a case where the CWS was not utilized, and another photo of the same load, but w/the CWS, and there's no gas leakage. Maybe as long as the casehead is firmly seated against the bolt face, everything is well supported, but once extraction starts, the support is lost and pockets can then expand? I'm wondering if by using a heavier buffer (H2, 9mm) in a carbine that may be overgassed, could you achieve the same benefit?
Do you know what buffers you were running in your BM's, the ones that you reamed and still had popped primers? Also, have either of you gauged BM gas ports to know what size they use?
I'm a bit stumped in that you still experienced primer popping after reaming out your chambers. Something still has to be causing this, and I'm simply curious what the added issue is? I highly doubt it's the chamber body being out of spec since there's really no deltas between SAAMI and NATO spec for the body dimensions, headspace is the same, there's only only 1.5 thousandths delta in base dimensions, etc.
We are using standard BM "H" buffers in our carbines. I have not removed the gas blocks and am unsure if the any of the gas ports are eroded. Whenever we shoot true M855 ammo we do not have these issues. Only when shooting the PP and Bulgy SS109 ammo.
This is pulled straight from Ned's website, and it shows the deltas between sectioned SAAMI chambers, NATO chambers and a chamber reamed with his throating reamer. As you can see, the pic of his chamber shows additional material removed compared to the previous NATO chamber.
http://www.m-guns.com/galimg/aeq.sized.jpg
Link to a larger picture showing greater detail (http://www.m-guns.com/galimg/aeq.jpg)
Also, from the text on his website:
I'm wondering if some manufacturers have figured out along the way that the way to go is with a "plus-dimensioned" NATO chamber from the start. Maybe Colt and LMT are producing NATO chambers on "the high side" straight from the factory, and that's why you're not getting any material removal.
I know EXACTLY what it says. Remember that I have been using Ned's 556 reamer since DAY ONE and have reamed tons of barrels. What I am saying to you is that MY reamer is NOT over sized as I do NOT get material back from companies that follow the TDP.
IF my reamer was on the large side of the 556 NATO spec, I would get just some light dusting from reaming a Mil-Spec chamber. The material you see in the pic above is a metric truck load and is NOT what you are going to get if the chamber is a true 556 NATO.
C4
PhotomanM4
12-14-08, 13:44
Any experience regarding this issue and Stag uppers?
Any experience regarding this issue and Stag uppers?
Yes. Have reamed their barrels and gotten material back, but nothing like the above pick.
C4
M4tographer
12-14-08, 14:17
Yes. Have reamed their barrels and gotten material back, but nothing like the above pick.
C4
Hate to beat this into the ground, but any experience with CMMG? Have a flattop M4, 1:9 twist, 5.56 NATO, WASP finish going into a build currently.
Hate to beat this into the ground, but any experience with CMMG? Have a flattop M4, 1:9 twist, 5.56 NATO, WASP finish going into a build currently.
I do not believe that I have reamed one of their barrels yet. I did have a lot of other issues though (soft FSB pins, alignment of FSB, threads off center).
The general rule of thumb that I follow is that if it has a 1/9 twist, the chamber is most likely NOT a true 556 NATO chamber. So far this theory has held true.
C4
RogerinTPA
12-14-08, 15:54
After reading this thread, it's hard to believe that there are so many firearms manufacturers out there falsely stamping there barrels, knowing the chambers are not 5.56. There ought to be a law (Truth in Advertising) and buyers should be able to sue them for fraud. This should serve as a wake up call for anyone not in the know.
After reading this thread, it's hard to believe that there are so many firearms manufacturers out there falsely stamping there barrels, knowing the chambers are not 5.56. There ought to be a law (Truth in Advertising) and buyers should be able to sue them for fraud. This should serve as a wake up call for anyone not in the know.
Actually it is easy to believe (at least for me). A lot of these companies are no better than used car salesman.
To play devils advocate for a second, I believe that one of the reasons why companies use 223 chambers is because they do not want the customer coming back saying that the gun only shoot 3-4MOA. These companies are also making the assumption that the majority of the people that buy their weapons aren't actually to shoot them and so a tight chamber matters not.
C4
M4tographer
12-14-08, 16:33
Actually it is easy to believe (at least for me). A lot of these companies are no better than used car salesman.
To play devils advocate for a second, I believe that one of the reasons why companies use 223 chambers is because they do not want the customer coming back saying that the gun only shoot 3-4MOA. These companies are also making the assumption that the majority of the people that buy their weapons aren't actually to shoot them and so a tight chamber matters not.
C4
Good call, splitting the difference. I used to see it in the automotive aftermarket industry all the time. Companies market a cheapie 'racing' shock absorber...knowing full well that the guy buying it isn't going to take his F350 over the dunes. :D It's up to the sales folks to screen customers and find out what they're really doing. ;)
Good call, splitting the difference. I used to see it in the automotive aftermarket industry all the time. Companies market a cheapie 'racing' shock absorber...knowing full well that the guy buying it isn't going to take his F350 over the dunes. :D It's up to the sales folks to screen customers and find out what they're really doing. ;)
I do screen my customers for just about everything from optics to guns.
C4
M4tographer
12-14-08, 16:39
I do screen my customers for just about everything from optics to guns.
C4
Yeah, you sound like the type who would...but the others (like you mention in the shotgun thread) don't always do that. I've got shops local to me I only run in and grab stuff from (when in dire need), then others I'll stand and chat with the staff for a good duration. :cool:
Yeah, you sound like the type who would...but the others (like you mention in the shotgun thread) don't always do that. I've got shops local to me I only run in and grab stuff from (when in dire need), then others I'll stand and chat with the staff for a good duration. :cool:
The majority of my fellow gun shop owners are virtually worthless and give the rest of us a bad name. There are a few that you can go to for good info. VA Arms, ADCO, Dennys Guns to name a few.
C4
PhotomanM4
12-14-08, 17:19
Yes. Have reamed their barrels and gotten material back, but nothing like the above pick.
C4
Thank you for the reply Grant. Would it be worthwile to only shoot .223 in a non-reamed Stag upper? The benefit being reliability?
Thank you for the reply Grant. Would it be worthwile to only shoot .223 in a non-reamed Stag upper? The benefit being reliability?
Nah. Shoot whatever you like and see what happens. If it does not work with 556 ammo, let me know. ;)
C4
PhotomanM4
12-14-08, 17:47
OK. Thanks. Will report back later.
Hey C4,
What current M4orgery can I buy for the casual plinking that the 99% of us do out here in the real world?
Not going to the sandpile, not going to the mountains, not fighting zombies or mass hoards of criminalistic Philadelphians - just punchin' paper.
Do I need to spend nearly $2K for that kinda rifle?
Thanks!
This appears to be an excellent rifle according to the specs:
http://www.charlesdalydefense.com/
Not sure the price, but it is not $2000.
Personally I would not get anything less than this rifle. And anything with a 1:9 twist is less than this.
Wow! I've had good luck with Oly barrels. One of the few places to get a stainless 1:8 barrel. THE top 3-Gun shooter in the world swears by them, but is quick to say don't fall in love with them.
Rich
These are some of the last people you should be taking gun advise from.
On a side note. I spoke with an acquaintance of mine who helped broker the deal with BM and the Georgian military. The feedback that he has received was less than stellar and I got the feeling that they regret the purchase.
That thought went through my head when I first saw this on the news/internet.
We are using standard BM "H" buffers in our carbines. I have not removed the gas blocks and am unsure if the any of the gas ports are eroded. Whenever we shoot true M855 ammo we do not have these issues. Only when shooting the PP and Bulgy SS109 ammo.
Have you weighed these to make sure they are actually 3.8 oz.?
The reason I ask is I have run across a number of H marked buffers that weight 3.0 oz.
Where does one have to shop to find a 3.0 oz H-marked buffer? I got all of my H buffers from LMT.
Olympic does not chrome-line their barrels/chambers on 4140 barrels. Was this not the problem that we had in 'Nam? It would seem critical.
Where does one have to shop to find a 3.0 oz H-marked buffer? I got all of my H buffers from LMT.
Olympic does not chrome-line their barrels/chambers on 4140 barrels. Was this not the problem that we had in 'Nam? It would seem critical.
I took a bunch of H marked buffers in one time from an individual on ARFCOM so I don't know the origin. They had the larger H stamped on them.
I also ran across another one of these in a home built gun about two years later.
However, I do know these fake H buffers had never been used. They never had a buffer spring installed on them that leaves a little scrape from the end of the spring. The roll pin in the back also look untampered with.
I don't know if it was a manufacturing mistake or someone intensionally did this but I have never got to the bottom of it. It is my biggest mystery.
Olympic does not chrome-line their barrels/chambers on 4140 barrels. Was this not the problem that we had in 'Nam? It would seem critical.
Olympic uses the excuse that chrome lining makes for bad accuracy.
And yes the lack of chrome lining contributed to the problem in Vietnam but was not the main cause. Non chrome lined AR15s were used in Vietnam for 8 years before the malfunctioning problem showed up.
The problem in Vietnam was mainly due to the idea that the gun needed no cleaning. Coupled with the change in powder, the early Edgewater buffer, a less than ideal extractor spring, no buttstock drain hole, and no chrome chamber contributed to the problem.
I am sure the fact that the lead time on chrome-lined barrels is much longer has nothing to do with their choice to not use them.
Accuracy is a lame excuse. I am not sure one could measure a difference with 10 examples of each. What matters is reliability and longevity.
Accuracy is a lame excuse.
Its an excuse the industry has perpetuated very well.
Its the reason we have HBAR AR15 barrels.
Its the reason why everyone thinks they need a "match" trigger.
Its the reason why people go crazy over high end, expensive, and custom made 1911s (personally I think this is borderline mental disorder).
Its the first question I get asked when someone asks me how "good" a particular firearm is.
My 416 barrel is too heavy. I know HK moved away from that but mine is older.
A few years ago I started to go with reasonable trigger weights. i.e. my current carry 1911 is about a 5.5 and I would not go below 4.5. My ARs are whatever and I only object if they have creep. I have put in some Jewel triggers in the past but that is not my current way of thinking.
Ned Christiansen
01-27-09, 23:46
Now that the latest issue of SWAT Magazine is out I'd like to share something with you guys that recently came my way (it's in the magazine as is my latest article, Frankenguns Good):
A friend of mine, very analytical in nature, grouped and 'graphed some older Armalite carbines (10 of them) before and after reaming. These particular guns had had the top ends retired at an early age because of chronic primer popping.
No real dif in grouping, statistically..... bearing in mind he was grouping at 25 yards, indoors. Some larger, some smaller. Just like when you shoot 40 groups in the same day with the same gun and ammo and no changes to anything.
But, CRAP! He Emailed me and said that reaming the chambers with my reamer cost him about 170 FPS, and 200-ish in some cases! To say I was dismayed would be like saying Vlad the Impaler "may not have been the nicest of chaps".
But when I saw his spreadsheet with the chrono data-- I was relieved. Pre-reaming velocities were well into the ay, carumba zone. Using XM193 ammo (55 grain FMJBT loaded to NATO speed and pressure), he got up to 3400 FPS..... and that particular one, guess what, lost the primer, which got wedged between the carrier and receiver and tied up the carbine.
So, just to review the formula, 16" barrel, .223-spec or shorter freebore and throat, add hotter, NATO-spec ammo = "who needs a .22/250 with a 24' barrel":D ?
Oh, and, so I don't get fired for leaking this info just as the magazine hits the stands, this issue of SWAT is the best I've seen. It has some really good articles in it, and I am not counting Frankenguns Good here. I am more a fan of Pat Rogers' writing with each issue, and there's plenty of other good stuff too.
Scotty,
No I haven't weighed them and to be honest I don't know if we even have a scale here that would do it. So far though we have had no issues with them as far as I am aware.
Have you weighed these to make sure they are actually 3.8 oz.?
The reason I ask is I have run across a number of H marked buffers that weight 3.0 oz.
warpig-m4's thread http://m4carbine.net/showthread.php?p=318384&posted=1#post318384 got me looking at the Oly fan site, and I was surprised to see this thread:
http://www.oa2.org/forums/viewtopic.php?t=8388
Okay, well not surprised, but you know. :rolleyes:
About halfway down the first page, someone links this thread, and one of the responses to his post included this statement:
"Possibilities:
1) Oly screwed the chamber up
2) It was a tight .223 and a fat 5.56 reamer,
3) C4IGrant lied and the pictured was faked."
Just thought markm would get a laugh out of this.
warpig-m4's thread http://m4carbine.net/showthread.php?p=318384&posted=1#post318384 got me looking at the Oly fan site, and I was surprised to see this thread:
http://www.oa2.org/forums/viewtopic.php?t=8388
Okay, well not surprised, but you know. :rolleyes:
About halfway down the first page, someone links this thread, and one of the responses to his post included this statement:
"Possibilities:
1) Oly screwed the chamber up
2) It was a tight .223 and a fat 5.56 reamer,
3) C4IGrant lied and the pictured was faked."
Just thought markm would get a laugh out of this.
I just read the thread. Boy, there is some serious kool-aid being drunk over there.
I have signed up for an account so that I can respond some of the ignorance.
C4
Rob already tried, I think its pretty much pointless. Although after reading several pages of that drivel, I feel strangely inclined to purchase an Olympic. :rolleyes:
I think I'll go shoot my LMT today to get those thoughts out of my head.
Littlelebowski
02-26-09, 09:23
As an interesting note, gotm4 reamed my Sabre 16" middy with Ned's reamer and was surprised at the amount of material he got out.
As an interesting note, gotm4 reamed my Sabre 16" middy with Ned's reamer and was surprised at the amount of material he got out.
Interesting.
C4
Littlelebowski
02-26-09, 11:59
That was when I just couldn't get the darned thing to run. Reaming the chamber kncked down the stuck cases by over 50% but what fixed it like magic was the chromed DPMS bolt. No, I'm not kidding. Now the thing eats Wolf and brass mixed like candy. Sabre 16" middy. Weird, huh?
That was when I just couldn't get the darned thing to run. Reaming the chamber kncked down the stuck cases by over 50% but what fixed it like magic was the chromed DPMS bolt. No, I'm not kidding. Now the thing eats Wolf and brass mixed like candy. Sabre 16" middy. Weird, huh?
How is accuracy?
C4
Littlelebowski
02-26-09, 12:06
Outstanding. I was nailing a piece of metal the size of the palm of my hand at 100 yards regularly using an Accupoint from the standing. This was witnessed by some folks on this board. I've never actually benched it outside of my local indoors 50 yard range where with open sights the AR outshot my scoped FAL. Never really missed with this gun either.
Robb Jensen
02-26-09, 12:29
That was when I just couldn't get the darned thing to run. Reaming the chamber kncked down the stuck cases by over 50% but what fixed it like magic was the chromed DPMS bolt. No, I'm not kidding. Now the thing eats Wolf and brass mixed like candy. Sabre 16" middy. Weird, huh?
It's weird but since this is a sample of exactly 1. Looking at it from a different prospective what we don't know is was the Sabre Defence bolt a bad fit for the barrel extension. Does the Sabre bolt work fine in any other gun that normally runs fine with a regular parkerized bolt?
Littlelebowski
02-26-09, 12:44
Robb, I don't know. The only other AR I have is my 5.45mm. I would be happy to let someone else run it for a while, 5.56 ammo being so cheap and all :D
Robb Jensen
02-26-09, 12:48
Robb, I don't know. The only other AR I have is my 5.45mm. I would be happy to let someone else run it for a while, 5.56 ammo being so cheap and all :D
Bring it by, I'll run it in any of my ARs and see what happens. Actually I'll be at the NRA Range tonight about 8pm.
Littlelebowski
02-26-09, 12:54
Bringing anything nice?
I'll look for your ride :D
http://www.behind-the-scene.com/img/alief%20schoolbus_1.jpg
Robb Jensen
02-26-09, 13:04
Bringing anything nice?
I'll look for your ride :D
http://www.behind-the-scene.com/img/alief%20schoolbus_1.jpg
Yeah it's hard to hide my shortbus, but I have a front seat for you (for the broke-ass arm) near the hydraulic lift :p
http://img.photobucket.com/albums/v408/gotm4/smilies/yay.jpg
Littlelebowski
02-26-09, 13:25
It's good to have friends that care :D
Iraq,
Have you considered popping the roll pin out of one of the buffer on the problem bushies to see id it does in fact have one tungsten and too steal weights?
Scott,
There is no mystery here as to your fake H buffers. Looks like somebody bought them then took the tungsten weights out and replaced them with steal. They sold em to you and built a bunch of H3 buffers and made money.
I am probably the least experienced AR guy here but I have to share my experience with my sample of 1 bushmaster. Being a tightwad it took me a while to get onto the AR bandwagon. They simply did not fit into my budget.
After Katrina I was working security 12 hours a day 7 days a week. I got some great overtime checks and had TONS of time to read lieing gun magazines. I finnally had a day off after 4 months straight and went to the gunshop to get ammo before some range time. Thay had a colt target model used for 1k. I strarted to drool. After the range I went back and they were putting bushmasters out on the rack. There was a new 20inch HBAR ( I thought HBAR was a good thing at the time) for under $800. I could'nt help myself I left with it. I promply bought a decent IOR 6x scope and played with it till my next range session 3 moths later. Man I was pissed at first. Short stroke after shortstroke but after 500 or so rounds it stopped. The trigger was the WORST trigger on any weapon I have ever owned and that includes a cz52. But the cool part was the accuaracy. Understand my mini-14's were starting to convince me I just could'nt shoot anymore. Using fed xm193 the crappy bushmaster HBAR put 30 rounds into an inch at 100. I friend who is a much better shooter than I has made it put 5 handloads into just over a half inch. Ofcourse I took this upper with scope to my first 3 gun match and was humiliated by not being able to hit the A zone at 10 feet. I nailed the 100 yard target from under the car though first try. I later used an ATN holsight to MUCH greater success but still generally sucked as far as weapon handling. I now have about 2k rounds through that upper. It still shoots like a laser and is slow to get hot. It has not failed once since the first 500 rounds. I think a low power wide fov scope and a bipod with a beta C mag combo on this rifle could be a poor mans support weapon to good effect. I will never try to run a 3 gun match with it again though.
zydeco,
That weapon belonged to someone else and I only looked at as I was doing the other stuff. I try not to get wrapped up in stuff like what kind of weights may or may not be present.
Powered by vBulletin® Version 4.2.5 Copyright © 2024 vBulletin Solutions, Inc. All rights reserved.