View Full Version : FN Contracted Bolts
When? How much? M16 carrier?
When? How much? M16 carrier?
Bolts are $50. Bolt Carriers are $79 & BCG's are $128. Bolts are in now and ready. Carriers are about a week out.
C4
not often that the consumer gets a better product for less money. kudos to you grant.;)
not often that the consumer gets a better product for less money. kudos to you grant.;)
Well I guess I could price gouge on these (as no other dealer has them), but that would be wrong. ;)
C4
Very nice Grant!
I know what BCG I'll be using for my next build ;)
Are these bolt full mil-spec & MP tested?
Are the carriers M16?
When you say "BCG's are $128", is that a complete BCG?
If so, that's a deal. Those are good looking parts.
Grant if they are full auto carriers and "MP" tested bolts's hold two BCG's for me I will take them as soon as you get them in.
Ross
Are these bolt full mil-spec & MP tested?
Are the carriers M16?
When you say "BCG's are $128", is that a complete BCG?
If so, that's a deal. Those are good looking parts.
Per the TDP, the bolts are batch tested.
The carriers are M16. BCG = all the parts needed for it to work in your AR.
C4
Grant if they are full auto carriers and "MP" tested bolts's hold two BCG's for me I will take them as soon as you get them in.
Ross
Hey Ross, see my answer above.
C4
Good put me in line for two!
Good put me in line for two!
Will do.
C4
How come no MOACKS?
Great deal, nonetheless.
I'll want two full BCG's as well!
How come no MOACKS?
Great deal, nonetheless.
The carrier key IS staked using a MOACKS tool.
C4
RAM Engineer
12-29-06, 13:05
Just placed my (back)order for two BCGs and misc other items!
I'll want two full BCG's as well!
You can order off the web site if you like and I will ship them as soon as they come in (next week).
C4
You can order off the web site if you like and I will ship them as soon as they come in (next week).
C4
Thanks,
Done!
Looks like a good alternative to Colt BCG's - I think I'm going to order a pair to try out. Thanks Grant!
Now if only we saw some complete FN uppers coming out into the civy market.... ;)
Nathan_Bell
12-29-06, 23:41
These BCG's are nice looking, was in Grant's shop Friday and got a chance to look at them side by side with a BCG outa a Colt.
The Colt's gas key was staked correctly, but in doing so Colt had smooshed the allen head bolts. I am not sure if they would have accepted a wrench. The torx had gas key metal pushed over them, but they had not been visibly deformed by the staking.
Extractor passed the patented, "Push on it and hurt my thumb" tension checking method. For those unfamiliar with that test, it involves me trying to push the extractor and hurting my thumb cause the extractor tension is high.
Nice piece, I will be buying a couple for my RR (when the ATF lets me go get it)
There is the, its late, Nate's tired but can't fall asleep, product review.
Been on the road all day today heading to NM. Call you tomorrow in reference Grant.
Cool stuff.
Carriers=Microbest? IM me. I think we talked about that before.
Now if only we saw some complete FN uppers coming out into the civy market.... ;)
No Chit! :D I did hear that they are going to release a limited number of 249 (in semi only) to the public though! :D
C4
Cool stuff.
Carriers=Microbest? IM me. I think we talked about that before.
Nope. Another producer.
C4
The carrier key IS staked using a MOACKS tool.
C4
The pic at the top must just be an example picture then, right? Just making sure (as that pic is NOT MOACKS'd.) :D
The pic at the top must just be an example picture then, right? Just making sure (as that pic is NOT MOACKS'd.) :D
Not sure I follow. The carrier keys are all installed using the MOACK's tool.
C4
http://www.gandrtactical.com/images/archive/FN%20Contracted%20parts/Torx%20bolts%20close%20up.jpg
This is MOACKS? Where are the counter stakings? Maybe I'm missing something.
This is MOACKS? Where are the counter stakings? Maybe I'm missing something.
Yes. The counter staks is something Ned likes to do with his carrier key.
C4
Grant, Payment sent this a.m.:cool:
Thanks!
Mark
Grant,
Have you heard anything on getting the torx screws for sale as well, or maybe pair a couple screws up with an extra key as a repair kit?
Grant,
Have you heard anything on getting the torx screws for sale as well, or maybe pair a couple screws up with an extra key as a repair kit?
With SS coming up and everyone running around like a chicken, I have not followed up on it. I am sure I could offer a spare carrier key/Torx bolt setup.
C4
With SS coming up and everyone running around like a chicken, I have not followed up on it. I am sure I could offer a spare carrier key/Torx bolt setup.
C4
That would be a nice addition for spare parts.
That would be a nice addition for spare parts.
Huge +1
I'd buy a couple sets to throw in the bin.
Huge +1
I'd buy a couple sets to throw in the bin.
This is the big goal this year-spare parts, lots of them.
This is the big goal this year-spare parts, lots of them.
My problem is that spare parts seem to turn into spare guns. Then I need more spare parts because I suddenly have more guns...
My problem is that spare parts seem to turn into spare guns. Then I need more spare parts because I suddenly have more guns...
BUy so much that you simply can't afford the big pieces.
BoyScout4Life
01-03-07, 21:02
Are they shot peened like the LMT? Does the supplier/manufacturer offer MP tested and stamped bolts allso. Thanks...
Are they shot peened like the LMT? Does the supplier/manufacturer offer MP tested and stamped bolts allso. Thanks...
Nobody shot peens AR bolts.
The TDP doesn't call for every bolt to be tested or marked so the answer is no they do not.
If you would like a LMT bolt, I will GLADLY sell you one for $17 dollars more! :)
C4
BoyScout4Life
01-03-07, 23:06
Nobody shot peens AR bolts.
The TDP doesn't call for every bolt to be tested or marked so the answer is no they do not.
If you would like a LMT bolt, I will GLADLY sell you one for $17 dollars more! :)
C4
LMT and Colt bolts are shot peened and MP tested as per TDP. They may not be required to be marked as such? But Colt and LMT do. Batch testing is far inferior to individual testing which costs more. "About $17.00 I've read".
You answered my question as to why in another post. You stated that you would have to wait 6 months to a year for the bolts that meet TDP specs. and get in line behind the big guys, pay more and have to issue a very large purchase order. And that this manfacturer did'nt have time for "dealers".
I love Colt Bolt Carrier assys. Have used them for 30 years. They are expensive and sometimes hard to aquire. Hence I have purchased a couple LMT assemblies and have been pleased so far. They are the closest I've found to Colt short of USGI FN used ones I've purchased.
Coordially, BoyScout4Life...
LMT and Colt bolts are shot peened and MP tested as per TDP. They may not be required to be marked as such? But Colt and LMT do. Batch testing is far inferior to individual testing which costs more. "About $17.00 I've read".
You answered my question as to why in another post. You stated that you would have to wait 6 months to a year for the bolts that meet TDP specs. and get in line behind the big guys, pay more and have to issue a very large purchase order. And that this manfacturer did'nt have time for "dealers".
I love Colt Bolt Carrier assys. Have used them for 30 years. They are expensive and sometimes hard to aquire. Hence I have purchased a couple LMT assemblies and have been pleased so far. They are the closest I've found to Colt short of USGI FN used ones I've purchased.
Coordially, BoyScout4Life...
I would have to disagree. I have spoken at length to the manufacturer that won the SOLE SOURCE for spare parts to the Military. They advise that the TDP DOES NOT REQUIRE IT. Some manufacturers might do it, but it isn't required.
The reason that the TDP doesn't require that every bolt be tested is because the stress that the 5.56 puts on them isn't that great. On larger calibers, the bolts ARE required to be tested.
If you believe that every manufacturer is testing every bolt, I have some land to sell you. :D
I would advise you that, as long as you bought a FN contracted bolt, Colt bolt, LMT bolt, you are good to go for sure.
C4
Grant,
Are you saying that Colt bolts supplied as original components (not spare parts) of complete Colt carbines are NOT shot peened and NOT individually proof-fired and NOT individually magnetic-particle inspected?
What about LMT?
I suppose if one had access to the data that showed the rejection rate of bolts due to MPI of every one, a bean counter might be able to do a cost/benefit analysis that showed that statistical sampling rather than testing every single one was a better approach financially, but from an engineering viewpoint I think it's false economy. Statistical sampling of "batches" only uncovers problems with process. It will not expose every defective part. Critical parts like barrels and bolts, the failure of which are a safety issue, should ALL be inspected for defects that could lead to premature/catastrophic failure (preferrable after proof testing).
There has been lots of bashing of Shrubmaster for batch MPI of their barrels. This is no different IMO.
Grant,
Are you saying that Colt bolts supplied as original components (not spare parts) of complete Colt carbines are NOT shot peened and NOT individually proof-fired and NOT individually magnetic-particle inspected?
What about LMT?
I suppose if one had access to the data that showed the rejection rate of bolts due to MPI of every one, a bean counter might be able to do a cost/benefit analysis that showed that statistical sampling rather than testing every single one was a better approach financially, but from an engineering viewpoint I think it's false economy. Statistical sampling of "batches" only uncovers problems with process. It will not expose every defective part. Critical parts like barrels and bolts, the failure of which are a safety issue, should ALL be inspected for defects that could lead to premature/catastrophic failure (preferrable after proof testing).
There has been lots of bashing of Shrubmaster for batch MPI of their barrels. This is no different IMO.
I am not going to go down this rabbit hole a say so and so does this and so so does that.
What I do know is that the company that holds the .Mil contract for re-supplying spare parts (bolts) advises me that the TDP does NOT require every bolt to be tested (only batches). I have also confirmed with a couple companies that hold a valid TDP that this is correct. These same companies also temm me that other companies that make bolts do NOT do every bolt either as the Govt. doesn't require it on 5.56 bolts.
So if you think about it, why would a company spend the extra money on the proof load, and MP testing if the Govt. said they didn't have too? No company I am aware of spends money without a valid reason (especially if they don't have to).
I believe that if the company is using proper steel (158) and is doing batch testing (per the .Gov spec) then the bolts are GTG IMHO.
Colt states that they test every bolt and barrel right? So what if I told you that someone on this forum took a new Colt barrel and had it sent off to be MP tested and it came back with flaws in it (cracks). This in fact DID happen and leads to a whole other list of questions like:
If Colt does MP test, what is their exit criteria (acceptable flaws)?
Does Colt do batch testing?
Does Colt pass off barrels and bolts that fail MP testing to LE/Civy sales?
BM got a bad rap IMHO because they LIED about what they did and got caught. I also don't think they do much QC on their bolts and or use the proper steel either (which is why we see so many of them break).
Things that make you go Hmmmmm.
C4
Last bit of good intel I got is that Colt buys their bolts from LMT! :eek: No proof in hand, but is the rumor I got today.
C4
...So if you think about it, why would a company spend the extra money on the proof load, and MP testing if the Govt. said they didn't have too? No company I am aware of spends money without a valid reason (especially if they don't have to).
I believe that if the company is using proper steel (158) and is doing batch testing (per the .Gov spec) then the bolts are GTG IMHO.
Colt states that they test every bolt and barrel right? So what if I told you that someone on this forum took a new Colt barrel and had it sent off to be MP tested and it came back with flaws in it (cracks). This in fact DID happen and leads to a whole other list of questions like:
If Colt does MP test, what is their exit criteria (acceptable flaws)?
Does Colt do batch testing?
Does Colt pass off barrels and bolts that fail MP testing to LE/Civy sales?...
C4
A company might spend the extra resources doing the tests because they believed them to be value-added (i.e., tests found defective parts at a sufficient frequency, which wouldn't have to be often for critical parts). Just because the customer doesn't require it explicitly doesn't mean it's not good business practice. As a business, a manufacturer may choose to deliver the best possible product so that a) they can take pride in building the best, b) their customers will be satisfied, and c) their customers will become repeat customers. Believe it or not, there may still be a few US companies whose management is not motivated strictly by profits. In addition, in our litigious society, not taking every practical precaution for safety could lead to massive liabilities, so it could be a risk-management measure of another sort (e.g., like why we have so many "unnecessary" safety devices on commercial firearms?).
Did the person suspect that the Colt barrel was defective before having it tested? Did the testing facility/technician have relevant inspection criteria (i.e., allowable flaw size) to determine pass/fail? There are cracks, and then there are CRACKS!
I don't KNOW what Colt does, but there is much anecdotal evidence posted on this forum and others by people that I trust to indicate that their bolts are the current standard by which others are judged.
I do know this: On the weapon systems programs that I am involved with, we do non-destructive testing on EVERY machined part. These tests are not expensive; failures are. Visual inspection only is not considered sufficient to detect defects that may lead to premature failure. Safety-critical and mission-abort-critical parts undergo tests with more strigent pass/fail criteria, but even the durability-critical parts are tested.
Why would a "dealer" solicit a manufacturer to do additional non-destructive tests on AR bolts that they do not normally do, then sell these to their customers at a very modest upcharge (e.g., MPI CMT/Stag bolts)? Would that dealer be motivated to do this because they thought there were value added, or would the dealer merely be responding to customer demands to increase sales volume?
BTW: I applaud you for finding quality alternatives for your customers. I have no reason to doubt that the government is not requiring MPI on spares. I do, however, disagree on the issue of NDT on a sampling basis for critical parts. It would be like airport security only making every 50th person go through the metal detector and declaring that nobody carried a weapon into the terminal. It's just not conclusive IMO.
A company might spend the extra resources doing the tests because they believed them to be value-added (i.e., tests found defective parts at a sufficient frequency, which wouldn't have to be often for critical parts). Just because the customer doesn't require it explicitly doesn't mean it's not good business practice. As a business, a manufacturer may choose to deliver the best possible product so that a) they can take pride in building the best, b) their customers will be satisfied, and c) their customers will become repeat customers. Believe it or not, there may still be a few US companies whose management is not motivated strictly by profits. In addition, in our litigious society, not taking every practical precaution for safety could lead to massive liabilities, so it could be a risk-management measure of another sort (e.g., like why we have so many "unnecessary" safety devices on commercial firearms?).
Some companies do go overboard on things and that is just fine. The Govt just says that it is isn't madatory (that's all).
Did the person suspect that the Colt barrel was defective before having it tested? Did the testing facility/technician have relevant inspection criteria (i.e., allowable flaw size) to determine pass/fail? There are cracks, and then there are CRACKS!
The person suspected nothing except for it to be perfect. This person is a manufacturer and their exit criteria is ZERO flaws. So apparently Colt's exit criteria is something different.
I don't KNOW what Colt does, but there is much anecdotal evidence posted on this forum and others by people that I trust to indicate that their bolts are the current standard by which others are judged.
Their and LMT 's bolts (which might be the same) are of the highest quality. I also think that these contracted bolts I got an absolute high quality and a steal at the price I got them for.
I do know this: On the weapon systems programs that I am involved with, we do non-destructive testing on EVERY machined part. These tests are not expensive; failures are. Visual inspection only is not considered sufficient to detect defects that may lead to premature failure. Safety-critical and mission-abort-critical parts undergo tests with more strigent pass/fail criteria, but even the durability-critical parts are tested.
Why would a "dealer" solicit a manufacturer to do additional non-destructive tests on AR bolts that they do not normally do, then sell these to their customers at a very modest upcharge (e.g., MPI CMT/Stag bolts)? Would that dealer be motivated to do this because they thought there were value added, or would the dealer merely be responding to customer demands to increase sales volume?
Dealers will do things that they believe the consumer will buy. They also might do it because they are into AR's and want the best for themselves as well. :D
BTW: I applaud you for finding quality alternatives for your customers. I have no reason to doubt that the government is not requiring MPI on spares. I do, however, disagree on the issue of NDT on a sampling basis for critical parts. It would be like airport security only making every 50th person go through the metal detector and declaring that nobody carried a weapon into the terminal. It's just not conclusive IMO.
There is a theory that HPTing bolts only shortens their lives and there is a MUCH better way to check them. Performing rigid QC on the steel (by XRAYing it) at the early stages appears to be a better option to some. That way you catch bad steel early on and don't waste any money making them.
A couple peoples opinion that I trust, tell me that by using the proper steel, heat treating and testing batches, will insure a quality bolt with a high round count.
C4
...
There is a theory that HPTing bolts only shortens their lives and there is a MUCH better way to check them. Performing rigid QC on the steel (by XRAYing it) at the early stages appears to be a better option to some. That way you catch bad steel early on and don't waste any money making them...
C4
Non-destructive testing of raw material via processes such as ultrasonic or radiographic ("X-ray") tells you whether or not you have raw material with defects in it before you have invested expensive processing in it. However, processing such as forming, machining, welding, etc. can also cause problems with parts (that may lead to premature failures). Defective parts do not all originate with defective raw material; some are caused by poorly-controlled processes or just plain bad luck. These types of problems can only be found by post-processing inspection.
Proof-pressure testing is typically testing at some multiple of the maximum normal operating pressure (example: 1.5 x normal or 1.1 x max. single-failure pressure, whichever is greater). Proper designs should have sufficient margin of safety (i.e., material thickness and material properties) to withstand such proof pressures for a very finite number of cycles with NO significant permanent affect. This does not mean that such parts should be subjected to numerous cycles of such higher-than normal pressures. This does mean that proof testing a system for one cycle without failure is an indication that the system/part performs as designed and is safe to operate as intended.
I do not buy into the theory that proof-pressure firing of AR barrels/bolts shortens their service life by any significant measure IF the proof loads are within pressure tolerance and if the metallurgy of the parts is sound. Service life expectancy of such parts is a function of fatigue, which is a function of the number of load cycles a part is subjected to. If a part cannot take one proof cycle, then it is inadequately designed/manufactured for its intended purpose.
BTW: Radiographic (X-ray) inspection is a can of worms that is best avoided if practical. You WILL find voids/inclusions/cracks when you X-ray parts. It requires much expensive labor to sort out the good material/parts from the bad with this process.
ETA: If inferior barrel/bolt steels with lesser strength properties are substituted and then machined to the same dimensions that a design specified for the original (superior-property) material, then one might expect that these parts may or may not have sufficient margin of safety to withstand proof-pressure testing. Why is this important? What if one were to fire ammunition (remanufactured?) that had a double-charge of powder in their weapon? What if one were to not be aware of an obstruction in their barrel (mud, a bullet from a squib load...) and then fire said weapon?
From Dir. Product Engineering At Colt, Mike LaPlante:
"Bolts marked "C" have also been proof/magnetic particle inspected. The lack of "MPC" indicates that it was manufactured specifically for a commercial rather than a military order. Depending on supply and demand, we occasionally use military bolts in commercial rifles, but never the other way around."
ETA: If they are marked they have been tested. Every Colt bolt I have seen has been marked.
Non-destructive testing of raw material via processes such as ultrasonic or radiographic ("X-ray") tells you whether or not you have raw material with defects in it before you have invested expensive processing in it. However, processing such as forming, machining, welding, etc. can also cause problems with parts (that may lead to premature failures). Defective parts do not all originate with defective raw material; some are caused by poorly-controlled processes or just plain bad luck. These types of problems can only be found by post-processing inspection.
Proof-pressure testing is typically testing at some multiple of the maximum normal operating pressure (example: 1.5 x normal or 1.1 x max. single-failure pressure, whichever is greater). Proper designs should have sufficient margin of safety (i.e., material thickness and material properties) to withstand such proof pressures for a very finite number of cycles with NO significant permanent affect. This does not mean that such parts should be subjected to numerous cycles of such higher-than normal pressures. This does mean that proof testing a system for one cycle without failure is an indication that the system/part performs as designed and is safe to operate as intended.
I do not buy into the theory that proof-pressure firing of AR barrels/bolts shortens their service life by any significant measure IF the proof loads are within pressure tolerance and if the metallurgy of the parts is sound. Service life expectancy of such parts is a function of fatigue, which is a function of the number of load cycles a part is subjected to. If a part cannot take one proof cycle, then it is inadequately designed/manufactured for its intended purpose.
BTW: Radiographic (X-ray) inspection is a can of worms that is best avoided if practical. You WILL find voids/inclusions/cracks when you X-ray parts. It requires much expensive labor to sort out the good material/parts from the bad with this process.
ETA: If inferior barrel/bolt steels with lesser strength properties are substituted and then machined to the same dimensions that a design specified for the original (superior-property) material, then one might expect that these parts may or may not have sufficient margin of safety to withstand proof-pressure testing. Why is this important? What if one were to fire ammunition (remanufactured?) that had a double-charge of powder in their weapon? What if one were to not be aware of an obstruction in their barrel (mud, a bullet from a squib load...) and then fire said weapon?
To date, I don't know of anyone XRAYing bolts, but I do know companies that are doing the barrels.
You can have bolts that can handle multiple HP hits and ones that might only handle one (never know). By taking one, you might be leaving yourself with none. Is just a thought.
C4
From Dir. Product Engineering At Colt, Mike LaPlante:
"Bolts marked "C" have also been proof/magnetic particle inspected. The lack of "MPC" indicates that it was manufactured specifically for a commercial rather than a military order. Depending on supply and demand, we occasionally use military bolts in commercial rifles, but never the other way around."
What is interesting about that statement, is the Colt (on purpose) ID bolts that go into a Civy weapon VS a .Mil weapon. This plays into my theory about the bolts and barrels that the Civy populace gets (.Mil rejects go to the LE/Civy side of the house).
C4
Grant
Any ETA on the complete FN bolt/carrier sets?
Paul
Grant
Any ETA on the complete FN bolt/carrier sets?
Paul
Carriers are on their way to me.
C4
Thanks. I'm going to order few things soon:D
Heavy Metal
01-05-07, 10:49
I have a funny feeling that Grant has stumbled onto what will prove to be a real popular item. I suspect once word gets out, the world is going to start beating a path to his door.
I have a funny feeling that Grant has stumbled onto what will prove to be a real popular item. I suspect once word gets out, the world is going to start beating a path to his door.
One of the things that I am in constant pursuit of, is who make what for whom. Most Companies do NOT make their own parts and if you can track down where they get them from, you can cut out the middle man. This of course cuts cost (which I try and pass along to the consumer) and gives us a quality product.
C4
What is interesting about that statement, is the Colt (on purpose) ID bolts that go into a Civy weapon VS a .Mil weapon. This plays into my theory about the bolts and barrels that the Civy populace gets (.Mil rejects go to the LE/Civy side of the house).
C4
We need to start calling you Oliver Stone.;)
Seriously, just sounds to me like when Colt does a Civ run they don't bother testing them afterwards. It's a cost control thing, I don't think it equates to Mil bolts that fail test get tossed into the Civ bin. They might, but they just as easily could be turned in for scrap.
But if the consensus is Civ bolt are untested and/or Mil rejects, how does that play into the advice to go with Colt? What does an untested/rejected Colt bolt have over a CMT/LMT or any other bolt?
We need to start calling you Oliver Stone.;)
Seriously, just sounds to me like when Colt does a Civ run they don't bother testing them afterwards. It's a cost control thing, I don't think it equates to Mil bolts that fail test get tossed into the Civ bin. They might, but they just as easily could be turned in for scrap.
But if the consensus is Civ bolt are untested and/or Mil rejects, how does that play into the advice to go with Colt? What does an untested/rejected Colt bolt have over a CMT/LMT or any other bolt?
Read the info I posted about the flawed barrel that was tested. This should give you an idea why I think the way I do.
There is more than one instance where a DoD supplier that has pushed parts that wouldn't cut it for their .Mil contract onto the Civy side of the house. It does happen and believe it happens more than we think.
C4
Aubrey,
Sometimes, I'm suprised or confused by the fact they we work for the same company, even if we are in different states. If anything, you give me new faith, as the coneheads around here, can't seem to walk thru a turnstile w/o hurting themselves.
I do have a question, is it possible, that even though two manufacturers/assemblers recieve parts from the same vendor, that those partsa do not meet the same standard? IE: The two companies specify different standards or have a seperate in-house inspection?
Bob
Aubrey,
Sometimes, I'm suprised or confused by the fact they we work for the same company, even if we are in different states. If anything, you give me new faith, as the coneheads around here, can't seem to walk thru a turnstile w/o hurting themselves.
I do have a question, is it possible, that even though two manufacturers/assemblers recieve parts from the same vendor, that those partsa do not meet the same standard? IE: The two companies specify different standards or have a seperate in-house inspection?
Bob
That is a good question Bob. To make it more interesting, lets throw in the fact that the TDP doesn't require the bolts to be marked in any way.
So here you have Colt that has a box of bolts. They take the bolts and mark them one of two ways (civy or military). Then they send them off to be HPT/MP tested and such. Does that make sense?? I don't think it does.
Let's look at it another way. Bolts come in and they test them. The ones that have inclusions (flaws) are marked for the Civy side and the ones that don't go to the .Mil side. Possible? I think it is.
I have already seen this theory proven true in a Colt barrel. Anyone want to send me a Colt Civy bolt to be tested (you won't get it back by the way). :D
C4
That is a good question Bob. To make it more interesting, lets throw in the fact that the TDP doesn't require the bolts to be marked in any way.
So here you have Colt that has a box of bolts. They take the bolts and mark them one of two ways (civy or military). Then they send them off to be HPT/MP tested and such. Does that make sense?? I don't think it does.
Let's look at it another way. Bolts come in and they test them. The ones that have inclusions (flaws) are marked for the Civy side and the ones that don't go to the .Mil side. Possible? I think it is.
I have already seen this theory proven true in a Colt barrel. Anyone want to send me a Colt Civy bolt to be tested (you won't get it back by the way). :D
C4
Grant,
Then do you think Mr LaPlante's explanation, "that unmarked bolts are manufactured specifically for civilian orders" is genuine or is he fibbing?
Submariner
01-05-07, 13:56
From Dir. Product Engineering At Colt, Mike LaPlante:
"Bolts marked "C" have also been proof/magnetic particle inspected. The lack of "MPC" indicates that it was manufactured specifically for a commercial rather than a military order. Depending on supply and demand, we occasionally use military bolts in commercial rifles, but never the other way around."
Here is the right guy answering the question. What is the source of the quote?
Perhaps someone should invite him to the discussion.
ETA: Grant, you sell Colts, don't you? How hard would this be?
Grant,
Then do you think Mr LaPlante's explanation, "that unmarked bolts are manufactured specifically for civilian orders" is genuine or is he fibbing?
Here is the golden question, why would they go to all the trouble to make bolts JUST for Civy sales? Having two part numbers just complicates things and raises costs.
I also think this is BS because I have intel that says that Colt buys bolts from LMT.
C4
Here is the right guy answering the question. What is the source of the quote?
Perhaps someone should invite him to the discussion.
ETA: Grant, you sell Colts, don't you? How hard would this be?
I do sell Colt, but don't have any of their bolts.
C4
Submariner
01-05-07, 14:19
I do sell Colt, but don't have any of their bolts.
C4
This is about asking the man who gave the quote to JLM to participate in the forum, since you have contact with Colt and sell their carbines, not whether or not you have Colt bolts.:rolleyes:
This is about asking the man who gave the quote to JLM to participate in the forum, since you have contact with Colt and sell their carbines, not whether or not you have Colt bolts.:rolleyes:
Sorry, I misunderstood the question. I have zero POC's at Colt. To be painfully honest, I don't know if the answer we would get would be 100% accurate either.
C4
Here is the golden question, why would they go to all the trouble to make bolts JUST for Civy sales? Having two part numbers just complicates things and raises costs.
I also think this is BS because I have intel that says that Colt buys bolts from LMT.
C4
I think the delta between the two is Colt ensures that Mil bolts are inspected/tested, but for Civ sales they just accept bolts, as manufactured without going through the added expense of testing them. That's MY GUESS based on the referenced post. If by dumb luck they are out of non-tested bolts but they have some tested Mil bolts around, and they are going through a Civ production run, you may end up getting a tested bolt. But again, that's just due to dumb luck.
I swear, you need a program to keep up, but I don't have a clue anymore about who manufactures what. It all sounds to me like there's there some subs out there who manufacture parts and sell them to the gun companies and the gun companies end up being high production armorers. And if that's the case it makes it even harder to make informed decsions about quality between manufacturers.
Submariner
01-05-07, 15:02
Colt states that they test every bolt and barrel right? So what if I told you that someone on this forum took a new Colt barrel and had it sent off to be MP tested and it came back with flaws in it (cracks). This in fact DID happen and leads to a whole other list of questions like:
If Colt does MP test, what is their exit criteria (acceptable flaws)?
Does Colt do batch testing?
Does Colt pass off barrels and bolts that fail MP testing to LE/Civy sales?
BM got a bad rap IMHO because they LIED about what they did and got caught. I also don't think they do much QC on their bolts and or use the proper steel either (which is why we see so many of them break).
C4
The barrel you cite was flawed. OK Are you asserting that it was passed into the market after "failing" magnetic particle testing? Can you do that without knowing what size flaw is acceptable? What is the TDP standard? Does Colt have a different standard?
I did the GIA course long ago. Here is an industry standard for flaws:
Diamonds are graded for clarity under 10x loupe magnification. Clarity grades range from Internally Flawless, diamonds which are completely free of blemishes and inclusions even under 10x magnification, to Imperfect 3, diamonds which possess large, heavy blemishes and inclusions that are visible to the naked eye.
FL: Completely flawless
IF: Internally flawless; only external flaws are present, which can be removed by further polishing the stone
VVS1 - VVS2: Only an expert can detect flaws with a 10X microscope. By definition, if an expert can see a flaw from the top of the diamond, it is a VVS2. Otherwise, if an expert can only detect flaws when viewing the bottom of the stone, then it is a VVS1
VS1 - VS2: You can see flaws with a 10X microscope, but it takes a long time (more than about 10 seconds)
SI1 - SI2: You can see flaws with a 10X microscope
Was the barrel returned to Colt with an indignant note stating that the buyer had it tested and flaws were noted? What was Colt's response?
You ask very good questions here. As a stocking Colt dealer, why should you not have standing to ask the questions?
According to the POC, they test them ALL regardless of how they are marked. Couldn't tell ya about acceptance criteria. Then they are marked depending upon the intended destination I guess.
The ? seems to be: "why do it at all"? Well, why do the Europeans require that EVERY firearm be proof tested? My P226 has a proof mark on it.
Are you saying LMT has the portion of the TDP relating to bolt manufacture?
We need to start calling you Oliver Stone.;)
Nah, based on the way he's latched on to this and won't let go, we should call him Tenacious G. ;)
Last bit of good intel I got is that Colt buys their bolts from LMT! :eek: No proof in hand, but is the rumor I got today.
Grant (or Tenacious G :D), does the intel suggest that all Colt bolts are sourced from LMT, or just some, or was the intel not that specific?
Mark
I think the delta between the two is Colt ensures that Mil bolts are inspected/tested, but for Civ sales they just accept bolts, as manufactured without going through the added expense of testing them. That's MY GUESS based on the referenced post. If by dumb luck they are out of non-tested bolts but they have some tested Mil bolts around, and they are going through a Civ production run, you may end up getting a tested bolt. But again, that's just due to dumb luck.
I swear, you need a program to keep up, but I don't have a clue anymore about who manufactures what. It all sounds to me like there's there some subs out there who manufacture parts and sell them to the gun companies and the gun companies end up being high production armorers. And if that's the case it makes it even harder to make informed decsions about quality between manufacturers.
From what I know, your last comment is very accurate. There was a guy on GT that contacted and stated that he has toured a factory in MD that did NOTHING but build AR's for Colt. :eek:
C4
The barrel you cite was flawed. OK Are you asserting that it was passed into the market after "failing" magnetic particle testing? Can you do that without knowing what size flaw is acceptable? What is the TDP standard? Does Colt have a different standard?
As I stated earlier, one of three things is possible:
Flaws were found in the barrel and was sent to the Civy side.
Colts accepts a certain degree of flaws in their barrels.
Colt doesn't actually MP test all their barrels so they don't know if some have flaws or not.
I will tell you that the flaws acceptance policy of the manufacturer that had the Colt barrel tested is ZERO. IMHO, that's they way it should be (especially for the what Colt barrels cost).
I did the GIA course long ago. Here is an industry standard for flaws:
Was the barrel returned to Colt with an indignant note stating that the buyer had it tested and flaws were noted? What was Colt's response?
Colt was never contacted (as the barrel was in pieces).
You ask very good questions here. As a stocking Colt dealer, why should you not have standing to ask the questions?
I am a fan of the truth no matter if it is a product I sell or not. Truth be told, If Colt comes out tomorrow and states that they make NOTHING in house (which is the current rumor) and follow the TDP to the letter (meaning do not MP every bolt and barrel) I stil lbelieve they make on of the best AR's on the market today.
C4
According to the POC, they test them ALL regardless of how they are marked. Couldn't tell ya about acceptance criteria. Then they are marked depending upon the intended destination I guess.
The ? seems to be: "why do it at all"? Well, why do the Europeans require that EVERY firearm be proof tested? My P226 has a proof mark on it.
Are you saying LMT has the portion of the TDP relating to bolt manufacture?
I 100% believe that LMT has the official TDP (for everything).
C4
Nah, based on the way he's latched on to this and won't let go, we should call him Tenacious G. ;)
Grant (or Tenacious G :D), does the intel suggest that all Colt bolts are sourced from LMT, or just some, or was the intel not that specific?
Mark
Hey Mark, the info I got said that Colt makes very little in house anymore and buys their bolts from LMT. So I imagine that means all.
C4
Just so people do not perceive me as Bashing and or Attacking Colt, I am a fan of their products, stock their AR's and think they make one of the best factory built, AR's on the planet. I do not however, drink their cool aid and or own any of their AR's.
C4
Hey Mark, the info I got said that Colt makes very little in house anymore and buys their bolts from LMT. So I imagine that means all.
Thanks Grant.
Submariner
01-05-07, 19:59
As I stated earlier, one of three things is possible:
Flaws were found in the barrel and was sent to the Civy side.
Colts accepts a certain degree of flaws in their barrels.
Colt doesn't actually MP test all their barrels so they don't know if some have flaws or not.
What size/quantity of flaw(s) is permitted by TDP? That is the standard and you weasel-worded the issue ["Colts accepts a certain degree of flaws in their barrels."].
I will tell you that the flaws acceptance policy of the manufacturer that had the Colt barrel tested is ZERO. IMHO, that's they way it should be (especially for the what Colt barrels cost).
It's nice that the person having it tested has a higher standard. Can he consistently put that product on the market at a price better than Colt and still make a profit? If so, he will get rich. BTW, Colt can charge whatever it wants; people don't have to buy.
Colt was never contacted (as the barrel was in pieces). Why not give Colt a chance to respond instead of speculating? You have not because you ask not. Are you afraid to ask them? Sorry, presupposing they will lie to you doesn't cut it.
I am a fan of the truth no matter if it is a product I sell or not. Truth be told, If Colt comes out tomorrow and states that they make NOTHING in house (which is the current rumor) and follow the TDP to the letter (meaning do not MP every bolt and barrel) I stil lbelieve they make on of the best AR's on the market today.
"If the minimum wasn't good enough, it wouldn't be the minimum." The TDP is the minimum standard. Agreed?
One might think Italian suppositories were being promoted here (innuendos) rather than truth. What happened to the notion of the accused having the right to speak in their defense? Has Colt been invited to this 'proceeding" or is it simply a bitch session to promote your product?
We have rumors (hearsay reported by you) that we are to accept as truth while the other hearsay is treated as something less than truth because it differs from your rumors. Bias?
Why speculate? Ask Colt rather than damning them with faint praise about what great guns they make while speculating that stuff that fails .mil standards is sold to civilians.
Bottom line: If your FN Contracted Bolts are as good a Colt's and cost less, great! But please don't expect us to accept this simply because you say so. Show us the standard. Then prove your product meets or exceeds the standard. Then charge less and still make a profit. All will be right with the world.
I'll give you an "MPC"-marked bolt that you can send in for testing provided that, should it be found to have flaws, you contact Colt, report the results and ask what size flaw is permissible and how many are permitted, under the TDP, for the bolt to still be in spec. Then determine if the bolt met the spec. Maybe they will tell us what they produce in house and answer all the other good questions, if we treat them decently here.
Deal?
What size/quantity of flaw(s) is permitted by TDP? That is the standard and you weasel-worded the issue ["Colts accepts a certain degree of flaws in their barrels."].
When has Grant ever said that he knew the acceptance standards? AFAIR, he hasn't said that. However, in order for the barrel to make it to market it must have passed correct?
Or the alternative is the QC dropped the ball and let that one out. Which leads to a series of other questions, like how often does that happen?
Also, I doubt anyone is going to reveal what the standards are in the TDP. Start revealing that particular information and the value of holding the TDP rapidly declines.
I 100% believe that LMT has the official TDP (for everything).
C4
Which one, the M4 TDP?
http://www.thegunzone.com/556dw-5.html
Tons of info there about ARDEC screwing the pooch and releasing the M4 TDP to Crane, who subsequently released it to others. Colt sued and won (personally I think its all a bit silly but). Oly was one of those companies, and had to give it BACK.
What size/quantity of flaw(s) is permitted by TDP? That is the standard and you weasel-worded the issue ["Colts accepts a certain degree of flaws in their barrels."].
It's nice that the person having it tested has a higher standard. Can he consistently put that product on the market at a price better than Colt and still make a profit? If so, he will get rich. BTW, Colt can charge whatever it wants; people don't have to buy.
Why not give Colt a chance to respond instead of speculating? You have not because you ask not. Are you afraid to ask them? Sorry, presupposing they will lie to you doesn't cut it.
"If the minimum wasn't good enough, it wouldn't be the minimum." The TDP is the minimum standard. Agreed?
One might think Italian suppositories were being promoted here (innuendos) rather than truth. What happened to the notion of the accused having the right to speak in their defense? Has Colt been invited to this 'proceeding" or is it simply a bitch session to promote your product?
We have rumors (hearsay reported by you) that we are to accept as truth while the other hearsay is treated as something less than truth because it differs from your rumors. Bias?
Why speculate? Ask Colt rather than damning them with faint praise about what great guns they make while speculating that stuff that fails .mil standards is sold to civilians.
Bottom line: If your FN Contracted Bolts are as good a Colt's and cost less, great! But please don't expect us to accept this simply because you say so. Show us the standard. Then prove your product meets or exceeds the standard. Then charge less and still make a profit. All will be right with the world.
I'll give you an "MPC"-marked bolt that you can send in for testing provided that, should it be found to have flaws, you contact Colt, report the results and ask what size flaw is permissible and how many are permitted, under the TDP, for the bolt to still be in spec. Then determine if the bolt met the spec. Maybe they will tell us what they produce in house and answer all the other good questions, if we treat them decently here.
Deal?
I will see if I can find out what the TDP says about "acceptable" flaws. I know of a manufacturer that does NOT accept flaws and if they can do it so can Colt.
The barrel was not mine and I did not pay for the test so it wasn't up to me to call Colt and ask WTF over. ;)
If send me a MPC marked bolt, then I will send it to be tested and post the results here. If it comes back with flaws then you will have to call me master for awhile. :D
C4
Which one, the M4 TDP?
http://www.thegunzone.com/556dw-5.html
Tons of info there about ARDEC screwing the pooch and releasing the M4 TDP to Crane, who subsequently released it to others. Colt sued and won (personally I think its all a bit silly but). Oly was one of those companies, and had to give it BACK.
In my previous life, I had access to the SIPRNET (classified military internet). I had the official Crane catalog sent to me. In it, was just about every product LMT made.
I am 100% certain that Crane gave the M4 TDP to LMT as they make a lot of weapons for them.
C4
"3.4.4 Hiqh pressure resistance. Each barrel assembly end
bolt shall withstand the firing of one Government standard M197,
5.56mm high pressure test cartridge conforming to MIL-C-46936.
After proof firing, parts shall be free of cracks, seems and
other injurious defects as evidenced by visual and magnetic
particle inspection."
Unless the MILSPEC for the weapon has been changed, that's the standard.
In my previous life, I had access to the SIPRNET (classified military internet). I had the official Crane catalog sent to me. In it, was just about every product LMT made.
I am 100% certain that Crane gave the M4 TDP to LMT as they make a lot of weapons for them.
C4
Somebody must be getting some licensing money then I reckon, and authorized the release because the last time that happened the shit hit the fan.
"3.4.4 Hiqh pressure resistance. Each barrel assembly end
bolt shall withstand the firing of one Government standard M197,
5.56mm high pressure test cartridge conforming to MIL-C-46936.
After proof firing, parts shall be free of cracks, seems and
other injurious defects as evidenced by visual and magnetic
particle inspection."
Unless the MILSPEC for the weapon has been changed, that's the standard.
So no cracks are allowed. Interesting.
I do imagine however that the Govt. changes the TDP (updates it) so it is hard to say if something has changed or not.
C4
Somebody must be getting some licensing money then I reckon, and authorized the release because the last time that happened the shit hit the fan.
Have no idea, but Crane is well known for giving out the TDP. :D
C4
Let's forget the TDP for a minute. It describes how the parts are to be made, the materials, tolerances, drawings etc.
What matters is the spec for the weapon itself. Unless THAT has been changed then 3.4.4 is the word.
Joe Blow makes the parts according to the 'secret sauce' from the TDP, and FN and Colt do the required testing in the spec to ensure the weapons meet the standards. They both have .gov inspectors on
their floors looking over their shoulders.
I would rather have a tested/stamped bolt, regardless of who makes it (assuming their criteria is the one in the spec) than one that isn't stamped/tested.
The Europeans have a long tradition of proof testing weapons. There is a rationale behind that.
BM has made a lot of claims about meeting the 'spec' over the years, and look how well their bolts hold up in Pat's classes. I'm sure you've seen the pics :eek: DPMS bolts too.
Look, I think its great that you were able to source these, don't get me wrong, but (unless the current MILSPEC for the weapons has been allowed to slacken off) then the only way to make sure you have a good part (at least in the eyes of the .gov) is to follow 3.4.4.
I bet you FNMI is HPTing/MPI'ing and then stamping those bolts before they go in their weapons. Some of them will get rejected obviously.
Grant,
My question wasn't specifacly about Colt or bolts.
What I'm getting at is,
Company A "assembles" a product
Company B "assembles" the same product
Company C manufactures and supplies parts to both A and B,
Is it possible that companies A and B specify different materials, tolerances etc. for the same part? Is it possible that the two companies have different acceptance standards?
I here alot of internet/gunshop BS about who makes what for who, what I care about is who's name is on the box, who is going to stand behind the product, etc. Colt, Noveske, LMT, make good guns, others are proving to be not so good, I'm sure your product will be good, where they got what, isn't as important, as who fixes it.
Just today in a gunshop, a guy was looking at a Taurus 9mm, clerk is talking about how Taurus improved the Beretta design, etc. customer now thinks Taurus=Beretta, one of them makes it for the other, they set the guy straight, but you can see how this can turn into "Taurus makes them for Beretta".
As far as bolts.
Is it possible Colt gets a batch of bolts, tests them all, disposes of the ones that fail, then seperate appropriate quanities for both civillian and military sales, mark them appropriately, to Id them, then send them to production?
Just asking, I don't work at Colt, or any other manufactur, and don't know anything about production. I do know, what makes sence, is not always, whats done.
Bob
Grant,
My question wasn't specifacly about Colt or bolts.
What I'm getting at is,
Company A "assembles" a product
Company B "assembles" the same product
Company C manufactures and supplies parts to both A and B,
Is it possible that companies A and B specify different materials, tolerances etc. for the same part? Is it possible that the two companies have different acceptance standards?
I here alot of internet/gunshop BS about who makes what for who, what I care about is who's name is on the box, who is going to stand behind the product, etc. Colt, Noveske, LMT, make good guns, others are proving to be not so good, I'm sure your product will be good, where they got what, isn't as important, as who fixes it.
Just today in a gunshop, a guy was looking at a Taurus 9mm, clerk is talking about how Taurus improved the Beretta design, etc. customer now thinks Taurus=Beretta, one of them makes it for the other, they set the guy straight, but you can see how this can turn into "Taurus makes them for Beretta".
As far as bolts.
Is it possible Colt gets a batch of bolts, tests them all, disposes of the ones that fail, then seperate appropriate quanities for both civillian and military sales, mark them appropriately, to Id them, then send them to production?
Just asking, I don't work at Colt, or any other manufactur, and don't know anything about production. I do know, what makes sence, is not always, whats done.
Bob
Absolutely two companies could have different acceptance standards, and difference specs for the same parts, you bet.
BoyScout4Life
01-06-07, 01:13
[QUOTE=C4IGrant]That is a good question Bob. To make it more interesting, lets throw in the fact that the TDP doesn't require the bolts to be marked in any way.
So here you have Colt that has a box of bolts. They take the bolts and mark them one of two ways (civy or military). Then they send them off to be HPT/MP tested and such. Does that make sense?? I don't think it does.
Let's look at it another way. Bolts come in and they test them. The ones that have inclusions (flaws) are marked for the Civy side and the ones that don't go to the .Mil side. Possible? I think it is.
I have already seen this theory proven true in a Colt barrel. Anyone want to send me a Colt Civy bolt to be tested (you won't get it back by the way). :D
I think the same premise would have to apply to unmarked untested so called FN bolts.
If the rummor you heard about LMT making Colt bolts and carriers is true. I say GREAT, they can be purchased marked and MP tested for $129.00 complete and shipped from Rainer Arms. I received another yesterday and did a side by side comparison and they are identical to Colt. Thanks for the tip, I off to order more before they sell out...Scouts Honor
BoyScout4Life
Semper Fi...
The ones that have inclusions (flaws) are marked for the Civy side and the ones that don't go to the .Mil side. Possible? I think it is.
Could be...but, as liability adverse as Colt has been in the past over various things, would they take such a chance? After all, they might have to answer for a catastrophic failure in court, under oath, after the Plantiff's attorney discovers how they do things during the discovery process.
I don't know if this would a scientifically valid test, but it would be interesting to take a bunch of identical test guns, with bolts of various manufacturer's and shoot them to high round counts and see which crap goes south first. You'd have to get a good sample size thou.
Submariner
01-06-07, 05:38
I will see if I can find out what the TDP says about "acceptable" flaws. I know of a manufacturer that does NOT accept flaws and if they can do it so can Colt.
The barrel was not mine and I did not pay for the test so it wasn't up to me to call Colt and ask WTF over. ;)
If send me a MPC marked bolt, then I will send it to be tested and post the results here. If it comes back with flaws then you will have to call me master for awhile. :D
C4
But this bolt will be yours because I am giving it to you. You will have the standing to question Colt and you will do it, right? Not just post the results here and bitch and moan. That's the deal, Grant. If it comes back with unacceptable flaws, per TDP, maybe I'll call you "master" for a while.
How many barrels and bolts do you have in stock for sale by the gentleman who accepts no flaws? They must sell like hot cakes.
I don't disagree that having a standard of no flaws is better. But is Colt's standard good enough? If not, maybe you could mount a hostile take over and set things right.:D
But is Colt's standard good enough?
I recommend you never ask the "good enough" question around here, especially when applied to standards. I tried a week or two ago on a different topic and was pelted with rocks and garbage.;)
Grant,
My question wasn't specifacly about Colt or bolts.
What I'm getting at is,
Company A "assembles" a product
Company B "assembles" the same product
Company C manufactures and supplies parts to both A and B,
Is it possible that companies A and B specify different materials, tolerances etc. for the same part? Is it possible that the two companies have different acceptance standards?
I here alot of internet/gunshop BS about who makes what for who, what I care about is who's name is on the box, who is going to stand behind the product, etc. Colt, Noveske, LMT, make good guns, others are proving to be not so good, I'm sure your product will be good, where they got what, isn't as important, as who fixes it.
Just today in a gunshop, a guy was looking at a Taurus 9mm, clerk is talking about how Taurus improved the Beretta design, etc. customer now thinks Taurus=Beretta, one of them makes it for the other, they set the guy straight, but you can see how this can turn into "Taurus makes them for Beretta".
As far as bolts.
Is it possible Colt gets a batch of bolts, tests them all, disposes of the ones that fail, then seperate appropriate quanities for both civillian and military sales, mark them appropriately, to Id them, then send them to production?
Just asking, I don't work at Colt, or any other manufactur, and don't know anything about production. I do know, what makes sence, is not always, whats done.
Bob
Knowing what I know and how hard it is for companies that make mil-spec parts to keep up with the demand, I don't think they would change gears and make a lesser grade bolt. The cost alone to keep them seperate would be a nightmare and God forbid, if you sent the cheaper bolt to the company expecting the better bolt.
Now is a company gets in a product that doesn't meet the spec to go to the military, they could pass it off to the Civy side as they typically do not run their weapons as hard. Just a thought.
C4
[QUOTE=C4IGrant]That is a good question Bob. To make it more interesting, lets throw in the fact that the TDP doesn't require the bolts to be marked in any way.
So here you have Colt that has a box of bolts. They take the bolts and mark them one of two ways (civy or military). Then they send them off to be HPT/MP tested and such. Does that make sense?? I don't think it does.
Let's look at it another way. Bolts come in and they test them. The ones that have inclusions (flaws) are marked for the Civy side and the ones that don't go to the .Mil side. Possible? I think it is.
I have already seen this theory proven true in a Colt barrel. Anyone want to send me a Colt Civy bolt to be tested (you won't get it back by the way). :D
I think the same premise would have to apply to unmarked untested so called FN bolts.
If the rummor you heard about LMT making Colt bolts and carriers is true. I say GREAT, they can be purchased marked and MP tested for $129.00 complete and shipped from Rainer Arms. I received another yesterday and did a side by side comparison and they are identical to Colt. Thanks for the tip, I off to order more before they sell out...Scouts Honor
BoyScout4Life
Semper Fi...
FN doesn't have a Civy side, so your theory doesn't work. The company that makes the bolts that I buy from also won the sole source for small parts to the Military. So to them, there is only one standard.
I sell LMT BCG's as well as their Bolts (most likely stock more than any dealer) and use them in a lot of my weapons. Here is the problem with LMT products. They are VERY hard to get and there can be dry spells where you don't see a single bolt and or carrier for months on end. That is why me getting these FN contracted bolts is such a big deal (as now we have another source for quality bolts).
C4
But this bolt will be yours because I am giving it to you. You will have the standing to question Colt and you will do it, right? Not just post the results here and bitch and moan. That's the deal, Grant. If it comes back with unacceptable flaws, per TDP, maybe I'll call you "master" for a while.
How many barrels and bolts do you have in stock for sale by the gentleman who accepts no flaws? They must sell like hot cakes.
I don't disagree that having a standard of no flaws is better. But is Colt's standard good enough? If not, maybe you could mount a hostile take over and set things right.:D
The company that accepts no flaws cannot keep ANYTHING in stock. The funny thing is that no one even knows that they didn't allow flaws in their products and they still sold out of everything! ;)
We don't do "good enough" around here, especially when there are companies to do it better for less.
C4
The company that accepts no flaws cannot keep ANYTHING in stock. The funny thing is that no one even knows that they didn't allow flaws in their products and they still sold out of everything! ;)
We don't do "good enough" around here, especially when there are companies to do it better for less.
C4
To Sub: flaws per the TDP, or flaws per the MILSPEC?
Grant: no offense, but 'the company that accepts no flaws' kinda sounds like "No Such Agency" to me :o Who are these mysterious Men In Black?
To Sub: flaws per the TDP, or flaws per the MILSPEC?
Grant: no offense, but 'the company that accepts no flaws' kinda sounds like "No Such Agency" to me :o Who are these mysterious Men In Black?
You have heard of them and might even own one of their products! :eek:
C4
Heavy Metal
01-06-07, 14:42
*cough*BravoCompany*cough*
Submariner
01-06-07, 16:48
To Sub: flaws per the TDP, or flaws per the MILSPEC?
Great question! Since the concern is parts not meeting .mil standards being foisted at outrageous prices to unsuspecting and trusting .civ purchasers, which would be the appropriated standard?
I recommend you never ask the "good enough" question around here, especially when applied to standards. I tried a week or two ago on a different topic and was pelted with rocks and garbage.;)
Ooops, damn. I did it again. MIL-SPEC may not be flawless but it may be "good enough."
But Grant sells Colt guns. Must be flawless or they wouldn't be on the shelf, right?:D Why are we even having this discussion? Oh, yeah, to demonstrate that FN Contracted Bolts are the equal or better of Colt bolts.
I guess my point would be:
Is the contracted bolt, made to the TDP standards, the same as a bolt that's been delivered to FN, and then subsequently inspected to make sure it meets the (mil)spec. In most the cases the answer COULD very well be yes.
Great question! Since the concern is parts not meeting .mil standards being foisted at outrageous prices to unsuspecting and trusting .civ purchasers, which would be the appropriated standard?
Ooops, damn. I did it again. MIL-SPEC may not be flawless but it may be "good enough."
But Grant sells Colt guns. Must be flawless or they wouldn't be on the shelf, right?:D Why are we even having this discussion? Oh, yeah, to demonstrate that FN Contracted Bolts are the equal or better of Colt bolts.
Make no mistake, I have never said that the bolts are have are better than anything else. I simply stated that quality bolts are only available from a couple sources and they can be either over priced, hard to get or both.
C4
ar_mcadams
01-06-07, 20:01
From Dir. Product Engineering At Colt, Mike LaPlante:
"Bolts marked "C" have also been proof/magnetic particle inspected. The lack of "MPC" indicates that it was manufactured specifically for a commercial rather than a military order. Depending on supply and demand, we occasionally use military bolts in commercial rifles, but never the other way around."
I have never seen a Colt bolt with only a c on it. All the ones I have seen have mpc on them. Commercial being the LEO rifles I assume?? I have a hard time believing that Colt would put lesser quality bolts in guns that are "law inforcement" rifles.
I have never seen a Colt bolt with only a c on it.
I have several like this, most from 2004 purchases of LE6920s.
http://i76.photobucket.com/albums/j18/Skintop911/IMG_0742.jpg
Another one in this M4C thread. (https://www.m4carbine.net/showthread.php?p=30275&posted=1#post30275)
ar_mcadams
01-06-07, 22:09
well Ill be dang, makes you wonder. I quess Im glad all mine are mpc. What about CMT bolts, I wonder how they compare to the bolts in question in this thread.
Voodoochild
01-07-07, 17:57
Grant you have an ETA on the BCG's?
Grant you have an ETA on the BCG's?
The bolts are in stock and the carriers should be on the big brown truck headed my way.
C4
It appears that some folks believe that I am selling bolts that I got from FN. This is not correct and have never said that. FN does NOT make their bolts in house and buys them from the same company I do. They (FN) buy their bolts in the white and perform HPT/MP testing in house.
The company that makes the bolts, also won a sole source contract to the Military for the re-supplying of parts (like bolts).
The reason that I have not used the name of the company is becuase very few people (if any) would have ever heard of them and we like to keep some things a secret for as long as possible. ;)
I hope this clears up any confusion and please feel free to contact me with any questions.
C4
Working out issues in private.
Working out issues offline.
Grant, rogo. I certainly never thought that, I thought you were pretty clear from the beginning.
Straight from the Pony's mouth this morning: no bolts from LMT, and LMT does NOT have the TDP.
Grant, rogo. I certainly never thought that, I thought you were pretty clear from the beginning.
Straight from the Pony's mouth this morning: no bolts from LMT, and LMT does NOT have the TDP.
I know, but I wanted it to be crystal clear.
As we know, LMT fills the Crane catalog. I would BE VERY surprised if they didn't "lend" one to them.
C4
I know, but I wanted it to be crystal clear.
As we know, LMT fills the Crane catalog. I would BE VERY surprised if they didn't "lend" one to them.
C4
I guess today is your day to be very surprised then :o
I guess today is your day to be very surprised then :o
Well, I have asked a certain LMT employee in the past if they had the TDP and the answer is yes. Don't know how they got it or if it was through proper channels, but they got it they said.
I also think just about every AR manufacturer has a boot leg copy of this thing.
Heck, I have even known kitchen table dealers to get sections of it.
C4
Bushmaster responded. As promised:
Hello,
We manufacture our bolts from Carpenter 158 steel alloy.
Thank you,
Jim Eden
Technical Support
Bushmaster Firearms International, LLC
Office: 1-800-883-6229 ext. 277
Fax: 207-892-8068
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
From: webserver@bushmaster.com [mailto:webserver@bushmaster.com]
Posted At: Friday, January 05, 2007 12:07 PM
Posted To: Tech Support Email
Conversation:
Subject:
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
FirstName: John
LastName: Martin
Title:
Organization:
WorkPhone:
Email: jbandblmartin@adelphia.net
RMA:
Product:
Remote Name: 131.15.48.59
Remote User:
Question
Do you manufacture your bolts our do you outsource them? What alloy are they made from?
Bushmaster responded. As promised:
Hello,
We manufacture our bolts from Carpenter 158 steel alloy.
Thank you,
Jim Eden
Technical Support
Bushmaster Firearms International, LLC
Office: 1-800-883-6229 ext. 277
Fax: 207-892-8068
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
From: webserver@bushmaster.com [mailto:webserver@bushmaster.com]
Posted At: Friday, January 05, 2007 12:07 PM
Posted To: Tech Support Email
Conversation:
Subject:
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
FirstName: John
LastName: Martin
Title:
Organization:
WorkPhone:
Email: jbandblmartin@adelphia.net
RMA:
Product:
Remote Name: 131.15.48.59
Remote User:
Question
Do you manufacture your bolts our do you outsource them? What alloy are they made from?
That holds true with what I had heard (that they make their own bolts). Some believed that they bought their bolts from the same place that FN does.
C4
Interesting. I wonder why they seem to crack at the cam pin hole in Pat's classes. Maybe HPT works? ;)
Interesting. I wonder why they seem to crack at the cam pin hole in Pat's classes. Maybe HPT works? ;)
No, I think they break because they don't always heat treat them (or do it right).
As far as bolts go, I have learned that SOME flaws (cracks) ARE acceptaple, IF they are in certain areas. So the question really comes down to BM acceptance criteria (since they don't have to follow the TDP) on their bolts.
C4
No, I think they break because they don't always heat treat them (or do it right).
As far as bolts go, I have learned that SOME flaws (cracks) ARE acceptaple, IF they are in certain areas. So the question really comes down to BM acceptance criteria (since they don't have to follow the TDP) on their bolts.
C4
Re: flaws IIRC I seem to remember Tweak stating that on TOS. Sounds familiar.
ar_mcadams
01-11-07, 21:17
I know, but I wanted it to be crystal clear.
As we know, LMT fills the Crane catalog. I would BE VERY surprised if they didn't "lend" one to them.
C4
here is a dumb ? for you, who or what is Crane. What do they make? Are they some sort of Gov. contractor?
here is a dumb ? for you, who or what is Crane. What do they make? Are they some sort of Gov. contractor?
http://www.crane.navy.mil/default.asp
UPDATE!
I have now added the McFarland one piece gas ring to these bolts! :D
C4
http://www.gandrtactical.com/images/archive/FN%20Contracted%20parts/McFarland%20Gas%20ring%20on%20bolt.jpg
Heavy Metal
01-24-07, 16:19
Any word on the carriers yet Grant?
Are they really necessary? The Pat Rogers Cleaning & Lube sticky thread (which gets referenced a lot around here, and rightfully so) points out that ring misalignment is not really an issue and the gun should run with only one ring if necessary.
Any word on the carriers yet Grant?
Should have them in by Friday.
C4
Are they really necessary? The Pat Rogers Cleaning & Lube sticky thread (which gets referenced a lot around here, and rightfully so) points out that ring misalignment is not really an issue and the gun should run with only one ring if necessary.
If you have ever removed the gas rings from your bolt, you would realize that they are pretty cheap. I like the McFarland rings because they are just higher quality. Whether or not they needed is debatable, but its just one more way to improve the AR's reliability.
C4
Are they really necessary? The Pat Rogers Cleaning & Lube sticky thread (which gets referenced a lot around here, and rightfully so) points out that ring misalignment is not really an issue and the gun should run with only one ring if necessary.
I don't think they're an improvement.
They fall into the "excellent solution to a non-existent problem" category.
In my experience they add additional drag (friction) to the system and the only payoff is the marginally better gas seal that's not really needed. After a couple of hundred rounds without additional lube they start to bind and drag more than standard gas rings. Perhaps this is a function of the coiled ring being fouled and increasing tension, but I don't know for sure.
I know I dumped mine for standard gas rings that are easy and inexpensive to replace, function fine, and last long enough.
Just my experience, YMMV...
I don't think they're an improvement.
They fall into the "excellent solution to a non-existent problem" category.
In my experience they add additional drag (friction) to the system and the only payoff is the marginally better gas seal that's not really needed. After a couple of hundred rounds without additional lube they start to bind and drag more than standard gas rings. Perhaps this is a function of the coiled ring being fouled and increasing tension, but I don't know for sure.
I know I dumped mine for standard gas rings that are easy and inexpensive to replace, function fine, and last long enough.
Just my experience, YMMV...
I did ask the manufacturer if they had any problems with them and they advised that guys with out of spec BCG's had binding issues, but that was about it. Maybe was what you saw. They make a much tighter fit for your bolt (that is for sure).
I loaded some of these on my own bolt and seemed to work pretty well. At any rate, they use vastly better materials and don't need to be changed out like the standard ones do.
C4
...
I loaded some of these on my own bolt and seemed to work pretty well....
C4
How many rounds have you fired with one of these installed on your bolt?
For those that don't want the McFarland gas ring, I can leave the orig. gas rings on there (no big deal).
C4
For those that don't want the McFarland gas ring, I can leave the orig. gas rings on there (no big deal).
C4
Fair enough, I didn't intend to try and call you out on it or anything, just wondering what the impetus for adding them was. More options is almost always better :D
Fair enough, I didn't intend to try and call you out on it or anything, just wondering what the impetus for adding them was. More options is almost always better :D
I have only only run 100rds through them currently. As it warms up, I hope to get some more.
The reason for adding the McFarland gas rings is that they are higher quality and don't need to be changed out like the cheaper gas rings do. I am always trying to build a better, more reliable weapon and these looked like a good option that I could add to the bolts.
As with any product, I tried to do a lot of research to see if there were any issues with these. I couldn't find anyone saying anything bad about them and found a lot of people stating that they fixed a problem they had. I also found out that companies like Armalite use them in their AR's! I imagine if there were wide spread problems with them, manufacturers wouldn't use them and people would be bitching up a storm.
C4
Voodoochild
01-24-07, 18:12
Grant I want the upgraded Gas ring on both of the BCG's I ordered. BTW I sent an email to you stating that I wanted to switch back to the DD 9.0 lite rail last time I swear..
I have been to the FN factory in SC. and observed the whole 1.5hrs it takes to make an m16a4, as well as the m249/mk46/mk48, m240, and other lines.
All bolts arrive in the white, each one it proof fired and magno-whatever tested in two planes, those that pass are marked (currently MPF with a little line under the F), and then parkerized. I did see a stack of bolts that didn't pass.
Most current Navy replacement bolts(m4a1, cqbr, m16a4) are FN production for the m16a4, and a switch to the proper extractor spring is recomended on the shorter weapons.
...wanted to switch...last time I swear..
I'm glad I'm not the only one.
I may have missed it in the thread but are the bolts MPI'd? By whom?
Robb Jensen
01-25-07, 07:27
Yes, from the same supplier that FN gets theirs from.
nevermind, GotM4 beat me to it!
I have been to the FN factory in SC. and observed the whole 1.5hrs it takes to make an m16a4, as well as the m249/mk46/mk48, m240, and other lines.
All bolts arrive in the white, each one it proof fired and magno-whatever tested in two planes, those that pass are marked (currently MPF with a little line under the F), and then parkerized. I did see a stack of bolts that didn't pass.
Most current Navy replacement bolts(m4a1, cqbr, m16a4) are FN production for the m16a4, and a switch to the proper extractor spring is recomended on the shorter weapons.
This is correct. FN buys them from the same place that I do (in the white) and does their testing in house and finishes them. I take the bolt's and install the proper extractor insert, CS spring, Crane O-Ring and a McFarland gas ring in them.
The bolt carriers that we use come from the same factory where FN buys theirs. AA then installs heat treated, aircraft certified Torx screws and properly stakes the carrier key. IMHO, these are a superior carrier to anything you can buy (from anybody) and is cheaper!
C4
As a blacksmith here is my 0.02s worth. Todays iron has a crystalin structure with a tensil strength of 65,000 lbs per sq inch. Steel is iron that has had all the carbon removed in the furnace. Then a specific ammount of carbon , chrome , nickle, manganese, etc. are introduced to make a particular steel with certian capabilities. Cutting, spring,or repetative pounding/shock . In our railroad shop when I forge a new part for the locomotives I have to use certfied steel. The entire bar has been tested before I do anything to it. Does FN ,Colt etc. start with certified steel? Do they forge the bolts or just machine then heat treat. Makes a differance. Forging puts stress in matal. Machining allows molecules to remain in a relaxed state . Also tests are done at room temps. Extreme heat expands molecules making a part softer .Extreme cold shrinks molecules and parts become brittle . So even a tested part could brake. GM ,Ford etc. batch tests. Anyone here had to take a vehicle back for repairs on a new car or truck or gotten a recall notice? Therefor in my opinion each critical part should be tested after manufacturing is complete on that part to remove all reasonable dought as to a parts quality and reliability. It also protects the manufacturer from liability.
As a blacksmith here is my 0.02s worth. Todays iron has a crystalin structure with a tensil strength of 65,000 lbs per sq inch. Steel is iron that has had all the carbon removed in the furnace. Then a specific ammount of carbon , chrome , nickle, manganese, etc. are introduced to make a particular steel with certian capabilities. Cutting, spring,or repetative pounding/shock . In our railroad shop when I forge a new part for the locomotives I have to use certfied steel. The entire bar has been tested before I do anything to it. Does FN ,Colt etc. start with certified steel? Do they forge the bolts or just machine then heat treat. Makes a differance. Forging puts stress in matal. Machining allows molecules to remain in a relaxed state . Also tests are done at room temps. Extreme heat expands molecules making a part softer .Extreme cold shrinks molecules and parts become brittle . So even a tested part could brake. GM ,Ford etc. batch tests. Anyone here had to take a vehicle back for repairs on a new car or truck or gotten a recall notice? Therefor in my opinion each critical part should be tested after manufacturing is complete on that part to remove all reasonable dought as to a parts quality and reliability. It also protects the manufacturer from liability.
Good post (don't see many blacksmith's these days). The bolts are machined and heat treated. FN (for example) shoots a blue pill (high pressure round) and then MP's the bolt. According to a source inside FN, SOME flaws ARE acceptable in the bolt (some are not).
C4
Yes, from the same supplier that FN gets theirs from.
Ok, so lets see if I understand this. The contractor makes the bolts, the ones that go to FN are QC'd by FN. The ones that Grant is selling are being QC'd by the contractor/manufacturer?
Ok, so lets see if I understand this. The contractor makes the bolts, the ones that go to FN are QC'd by FN. The ones that Grant is selling are being QC'd by the contractor/manufacturer?
That is correct. I then add things to the bolt to make it more reliable.
C4
That is correct. I then add things to the bolt to make it more reliable.
C4
Thanks!
Is it possible that the TDP holds different standards for new weapons versus replacement parts? That would explain Colt and FN having to test every bolt put into a rifle/carbine and FN's supplier only having to batch test bolts sold to the military as replacement parts.
Is it possible that the TDP holds different standards for new weapons versus replacement parts? That would explain Colt and FN having to test every bolt put into a rifle/carbine and FN's supplier only having to batch test bolts sold to the military as replacement parts.
No. FN/Colt do the testing on every bolt/barrel because they CHOOSE too. It isn't a requirement by the Govt. though.
C4
from MIL-C-71186, MILITARY SPECIFICATION--CARBINE, 5.56MM: M4A1
3.4.4 Hiqh pressure resistance. Each barrel assembly and bolt shall withstand the firinq of one Government standard M197. 5.56mm high pressure test cartrige conforming to MIL-C-46936. After proof firing , parts shall be free of cracks, seams and other injurious defects as evidenced by visual and magnetic particle inspection.
Grant,
Do you have information that would indicate that the above requirement has been waived?
from MIL-C-71186, MILITARY SPECIFICATION--CARBINE, 5.56MM: M4A1
3.4.4 Hiqh pressure resistance. Each barrel assembly and bolt shall withstand the firinq of one Government standard M197. 5.56mm high pressure test cartrige conforming to MIL-C-46936. After proof firing , parts shall be free of cracks, seams and other injurious defects as evidenced by visual and magnetic particle inspection.
Grant,
Do you have information that would indicate that the above requirement has been waived?
Yes. I have spoken to two different TDP holders that advise that there isn't a req to MP test every bolt and barrel. The other TDP holder has advised me that bolts can have flaws in them (if they are in certain areas).
I wonder if the there hasn't been a revision to the TDP?
To further back this up, a Colt barrel was MP tested and flaws were found in it.
C4
some believe the standard 3 pc gas rings will suffice, some prefer the mcfarland, Grant states he chose the mcfarland because it is of "higher quality". i assume its the material used? so how about a standard 3pc gas rings made of "higher quality" material? Is there such a thing?
some believe the standard 3 pc gas rings will suffice, some prefer the mcfarland, Grant states he chose the mcfarland because it is of "higher quality". i assume its the material used? so how about a standard 3pc gas rings made of "higher quality" material? Is there such a thing?
I did choose them because they are made out of 300 series SS. To the best of my knowledge, no one makes high quality 3 piece gas rings.
I intend to ship the majority of the bolts with the McFarland gas rings and simply include 3 gas rings as well so people don't get upset.
C4
Heavy Metal
01-29-07, 08:38
A Solomon-like choice. I like the win-win scenario.
Submariner
01-29-07, 11:09
Yes. I have spoken to two different TDP holders that advise that there isn't a req to MP test every bolt and barrel. The other TDP holder has advised me that bolts can have flaws in them (if they are in certain areas).
I wonder if the there hasn't been a revision to the TDP?
To further back this up, a Colt barrel was MP tested and flaws were found in it.
C4
The standard isn't "flawless." Did the "flaws" found in the MP tested barrel rise to the level of "cracks, seams and other injurious defects as evidenced by visual and magnetic particle inspection"? If so, what is the standard against which a "flaw" is measured?
The standard isn't "flawless." Did the "flaws" found in the MP tested barrel rise to the level of "cracks, seams and other injurious defects as evidenced by visual and magnetic particle inspection"? If so, what is the standard against which a "flaw" is measured?
The standard isn't flawless, but ANY flaw can lead to premature breaking.
C4
Submariner
01-29-07, 12:01
The standard isn't flawless, but ANY flaw can lead to premature breaking.
C4
But which ones are more likely to lead to failure? Materials engineers help write the specifications. At least on nuclear grade valves, pipes, etc. they specify size/quantity of deformities, i.e. flaws, which are inherent in the manufacturing process but are not likely to cause failure, thus permitting acceptance of the valve for service use. Are barrels different?
On the Colt barrel you cite, were the flaws within what is acceptable per the permitted specification or not? In other words, did they rise to the level of "cracks, seams and other injurious defects as evidenced by visual and magnetic particle inspection" or not.
Also, had the barrel failed due to "cracks, seams and other injurious defects" prior to subsequent visual and magnetic particle inspection?
But which ones are more likely to lead to failure? Materials engineers help write the specifications. At least on nuclear grade valves, pipes, etc. they specify size/quantity of deformities, i.e. flaws, which are inherent in the manufacturing process but are not likely to cause failure, thus permitting acceptance of the valve for service use. Are barrels different?
On the Colt barrel you cite, were the flaws within what is acceptable per the permitted specification or not? In other words, did they rise to the level of "cracks, seams and other injurious defects as evidenced by visual and magnetic particle inspection" or not.
Also, had the barrel failed due to "cracks, seams and other injurious defects" prior to subsequent visual and magnetic particle inspection?
Paul, the only way to know what is allowed and what isn't is to have the TDP in my hand (which I do not). The WHOLE point is that certain flaws are allowed in bolts for sure and maybe barrels (cannot get anyone to confirm this).
My personal opinion is that ZERO flaws should be accepted in either of the two.
C4
Submariner
01-29-07, 12:17
My personal opinion is that ZERO flaws should be accepted in either of the two.
In a perfect world, that would be nice. Have you thought about the cost of having such a standard? You can have it perfect, fast or cheap. Pick any two.
Submariner
01-29-07, 12:22
My personal opinion is that ZERO flaws should be accepted in either of the two.
In a perfect world, that would be nice. Have you thought about the cost of having such a standard? You can have it perfect, fast or cheap. Pick any two.
ETA: Women would prefer flawless white diamonds weighing a carat or more (preferrably more). Have you priced such diamonds lately? Women generally accept less.;)
In a perfect world, that would be nice. Have you thought about the cost of having such a standard? You can have it perfect, fast or cheap. Pick any two.
Perfect world is now. There are companies that accept ZERO flaws in both barrels and bolts.
C4
Submariner
01-29-07, 15:35
Perfect world is now. There are companies that accept ZERO flaws in both barrels and bolts.
C4
Accepting only flawless barrels and bolts and putting them on the market are not the same thing. Haven't folks been waiting for Bravo Company barrels for some time? Untill they are delivered the perfect batch?
Are you asserting that your bolts fall into this perfect category?
Accepting only flawless barrels and bolts and putting them on the market are not the same thing. Haven't folks been waiting for Bravo Company barrels for some time? Untill they are delivered the perfect batch?
Are you asserting that your bolts fall into this perfect category?
Quality takes time, but we will eventually see flawless bolts and barrels.
I make zero assertions that the FN contracted bolts are perfect.
C4
Grant,
I will be first in line for truly "flawless" bolts and barrels if they will priced affordably. Unfortunately, my experience with manufacturing tells me not to hold my breath...
Perhaps we should clarify what is meant by "flaw" in the context of inspection methods and requirements. Again, the criticality of the component should dictate the type of inspection and the criteria for pass/fail. Non-critical parts may justify visual-only inspection. Finding defects via visual inspection may result in a higher manufacturing yield (i.e., less rejections) than other methods of non-destructive inspection such as magnetic particle inspection (dye penetrant for non-ferrous alloys like aluminum), ultrasonic inspection, or radiographic (x-ray) inspection.
No metal part is perfect; all have voids. Only those who have not peered through a microscope of sufficient magnification at these man-made products (and perhaps true idealists) do not realize this.
Some processes (e.g., forging) generally yield fewer voids than others (e.g., casting). Even a quality forging, however, can have micro cracks induced by finish machining. Visual inspection may not reveal these very small "flaws," as they may be smoothed over by the finish machining process. If defects that are sufficient to eventually propogate into failures are not discovered by non-destructive means, then a part that appears "flawless" may indeed result in a premature failure.
Fatigue failures are caused by crack propagation. Micro cracks are transformed from visually-undetectable to evenual failures by cycles of flexure due to loading. Loads can be induced by static inputs, dynamic inputs (e.g., "G" forces), shock, vibration acoustic, or other normal inputs.
Carbine bolts are subjected to repeated extreme dynamic cycles of shock together with pressure and thermal cycles. Carpenter 158 is a case-hardened steel that is dependent upon proper post-machining processing to yield sufficient hardening depth to provide resistance to crack propogation. Unfortunately, it seems that the areas in the small fillet radii at the roots of the locking lugs have the highest stress concentrations and the least likelihood of sufficient case hardening. If the parts were truly flawless, they might have an infinite service life. However, even quality parts with acceptable defects will eventually fail (after thousands of cycles).
Note that a required service life that exceeds that of current specifications would likely necessite design, material, and/or process changes in order to be able to manufacture parts AT AN ACCEPTABLE YIELD RATE.
Grant,
I will be first in line for truly "flawless" bolts and barrels if they will priced affordably. Unfortunately, my experience with manufacturing tells me not to hold my breath...
Perhaps we should clarify what is meant by "flaw" in the context of inspection methods and requirements. Again, the criticality of the component should dictate the type of inspection and the criteria for pass/fail. Non-critical parts may justify visual-only inspection. Finding defects via visual inspection may result in a higher manufacturing yield (i.e., less rejections) than other methods of non-destructive inspection such as magnetic particle inspection (dye penetrant for non-ferrous alloys like aluminum), ultrasonic inspection, or radiographic (x-ray) inspection.
No metal part is perfect; all have voids. Only those who have not peered through a microscope of sufficient magnification at these man-made products (and perhaps true idealists) do not realize this.
Some processes (e.g., forging) generally yield fewer voids than others (e.g., casting). Even a quality forging, however, can have micro cracks induced by finish machining. Visual inspection may not reveal these very small "flaws," as they may be smoothed over by the finish machining process. If defects that are sufficient to eventually propogate into failures are not discovered by non-destructive means, then a part that appears "flawless" may indeed result in a premature failure.
Fatigue failures are caused by crack propagation. Micro cracks are transformed from visually-undetectable to evenual failures by cycles of flexure due to loading. Loads can be induced by static inputs, dynamic inputs (e.g., "G" forces), shock, vibration acoustic, or other normal inputs.
Carbine bolts are subjected to repeated extreme dynamic cycles of shock together with pressure and thermal cycles. Carpenter 158 is a case-hardened steel that is dependent upon proper post-machining processing to yield sufficient hardening depth to provide resistance to crack propogation. Unfortunately, it seems that the areas in the small fillet radii at the roots of the locking lugs have the highest stress concentrations and the least likelihood of sufficient case hardening. If the parts were truly flawless, they might have an infinite service life. However, even quality parts with acceptable defects will eventually fail (after thousands of cycles).
Note that a required service life that exceeds that of current specifications would likely necessite design, material, and/or process changes in order to be able to manufacture parts AT AN ACCEPTABLE YIELD RATE.
I understand what your saying. I guess a better way to say it, is that through normal MP testing, no visible flaws are found. I have not doubt that if you take a microscope to the bolt and or barrel, then you would NEVER pass a bolt or barrel.
Using this philosophy, there are companies that produce flawless products (so it can be done).
C4
I understand what your saying. I guess a better way to say it, is that through normal MP testing, no visible flaws are found. I have not doubt that if you take a microscope to the bolt and or barrel, then you would NEVER pass a bolt or barrel.
Using this philosophy, there are companies that produce flawless products (so it can be done).
C4
Using this philosophy, I believe that MP testing on each and every part, not just "batch testing" (statistical sampling), would be required to find the defective parts that are likely to not meet the expected service life. Is this an added expense? Yes: in terms of both cost and schedule. Is it warranted? Again, the mission drives the requirements.
Is this whole thing worthy of Grant having to fiend off questions about minutia (sp) for three weeks. He is just trying to offer us civys a nice piece of kit. We should just thank him and not run him into the ground with "flawless" questions. It makes my head spin just reading it.:rolleyes:
Mike
Is this whole thing worthy of Grant having to fiend off questions about minutia (sp) for three weeks. He is just trying to offer us civys a nice piece of kit. We should just thank him and not run him into the ground with "flawless" questions. It makes my head spin just reading it.:rolleyes:
Mike
I was beginning to think the same thing. Here I am offering about the best bolt carrier on the planet (at a great price) and a quality Bolt (at a great price) that wasn't available to the general public before.
I am starting to think that I should stop trying to find high quality products for less money.
C4
Since it's the same basic cost as a totally unknown or disreputable part I'm thinking it's a no-brainer. I'm also not going to cry when it breaks just like I don't whine about changing the oil in the car...
Thanks again Grant for working to line up other options for the shooters out there. We appreciate it.
Is this whole thing worthy of Grant having to fiend off questions about minutia (sp) for three weeks. He is just trying to offer us civys a nice piece of kit. We should just thank him and not run him into the ground with "flawless" questions. It makes my head spin just reading it.:rolleyes:
Mike
I agree wholeheartedly. I'm more than a little sick of it.
Since it's the same basic cost as a totally unknown or disreputable part I'm thinking it's a no-brainer. I'm also not going to cry when it breaks just like I don't whine about changing the oil in the car...
Thanks again Grant for working to line up other options for the shooters out there. We appreciate it.
I'll make it even easier for folks, if anyone breaks a bolt in under 6,000rds I will replace it!
C4
I have a question...
Are they here yet?:)
Voodoochild
01-30-07, 18:49
So what are we all talking about here? :p
I have a question...
Are they here yet?:)
I have started to ship them out.
C4
Voodoochild
01-30-07, 18:54
Sweet all I need is the 2 BCG's and my DD 9 lite rail from G&R and I will be able to put Robb to work again. I just know he has nothing else better to do.
Do you anticipate the FN Bolts and Carriers to be a regularly stocked item?
Do you anticipate the FN Bolts and Carriers to be a regularly stocked item?
I hope so.
C4
Just to ask again, do you think you will carry the torx screws and the keys as a rebuild packet, or maybe sell the parts seperately?
Thanks
Is there an advantage to running torx screws over hex, assuming proper staking?
I'll make it even easier for folks, if anyone breaks a bolt in under 6,000rds I will replace it!
C4
That's a safe wager, I'm thinking ;)
Robb Jensen
01-31-07, 07:26
Is there an advantage to running torx screws over hex, assuming proper staking?
The head of them won't distort with torque like allen heads do. Same reason companies like Larue and Leupold use them on scope mounts as well.
Just to ask again, do you think you will carry the torx screws and the keys as a rebuild packet, or maybe sell the parts seperately?
Thanks
Working on that package right now.
C4
I still seem to be getting some feedback from folks about the use of the name "FN" with these bolts and carriers. So to clear things up (even further), here is why I did this the way I did.
The manufacturer of these bolts and carriers is one that 99% of population would have never heard of. When you bring a product out that has not been available before, it is generally hard to sell as the consumer wants to know what companies use said part.
The bolts and carriers are made to Military Spec and then are sent to FN in the white. FN conducts their testing in house and finishes them. This is where the bolts that I sell and the FN bolts differ. The steel and the quality of the machining is the same as a FN BCG. These are the things that make a quality BCG (not the testing). I also believe that the carriers that I am offering are better than what you can get from FN (if you could) because the Torx bolts used are superior to hex bolts.
So to make this is as simple as possible, I felt that it was a good idea to associate these BCG's with FN's name as these are where FN buys them. FN does NOT improve upon the materials used and the machining quality of these BCG. They simply do more testing on them.
I honestly feel that I shouldn't have to go to this level to explain myself, but I am getting e-mails from folks that believe that I am trying to mislead the consumer into thinking they are getting a BCG directly from FN. I know that I have stated several times that this is not true, but the e-mails and PM's still keep coming and it is getting old to say the least.
If anyone wants to cancel their order or exchange it for a LMT part, we can do that without any problems.
C4
This thread will be locked as it has it has run its course of worth.
C4
Powered by vBulletin® Version 4.2.5 Copyright © 2024 vBulletin Solutions, Inc. All rights reserved.