View Full Version : Post-ban stock
CaptainDooley
06-20-09, 17:52
So I've got a line on a post-ban config Colt M4 (waiting on a model number to know exactly what I'm dealing with) in NY... the pinned flash-hider and lack of a bayo lug don't really bother me, so the only thing I'm worried about is unpinning the stock... Is it just a pin to drive out? Or do you guys typically just replace the RE?
Thanks!
Just replace it. You can get a complete milspec stock assembly from BCM for less than $90.
CaptainDooley
06-20-09, 18:02
That's basically what I was going to do if it needed to be replaced... Just didn't know if that's what was needed.
Thanks for the info!
CaptainDooley
06-21-09, 10:14
Just found out it's a MT6400C Match Target M4 made in 2000 with less than 200 rounds through it.
So it may or may not have a semi, unshrouded carrier and will have a pinned stock and pinned muzzle brake.
Other than that it's basically a 6920, right? I think I'd be a fool to pass up this trade...
$119 for an MOE kit from Rainier, $60 to ADCO to put an A2 on it and $150 to Grant/BC to get a good FA BCG (or can I just get the carrier?) and I'm good to go, right?
Not sure why you need the F/A carrier, the S/A carrier should work fine if you're going to keep it on the same lower receiver.
I had an MT6400C upper that I fired several thousand rounds through before selling it and had no problems with the factory S/A carrier.
You can probably sell the fixed stock assy. to offset some of the cost of your new parts.
CaptainDooley
06-21-09, 14:27
The reason for F/A carrier is that most of the guys in the know on this site recommend the F/A carrier with the carbine gas system for increased reliability. Who knows, maybe the H buffer will be enough to keep it running fine...
What's the story though... can I just replace the carrier or is it better to replace the whole BCG?
the F/A carriers have more mass, and is the part that the system was designed to use, the S/A carrier was a compromise for the civilian market, kind of like the sear blocks and other nastyness that got into the commercial versions.
the F/A carriers have more mass, and is the part that the system was designed to use, the S/A carrier was a compromise for the civilian market, kind of like the sear blocks and other nastyness that got into the commercial versions.
FMF-Doc- I understand the differences between the BCG's.
Just not sure what is gained, if anything, by switching out a factory BCG for another if the new rifle hasn't even been shot yet much less have problems.
I can see if he's planning on mounting the upper to a F/A Lower but it sounds like he's planning to keep the rifle intact except for the stock/muzzle and BCG.
CaptainDooley
06-21-09, 19:36
I'm just of the mindset that if it was designed to run a certain way, that's the way I should run it... I guess since I can't get a straight answer about swapping out the carriers, I could just buy a new BCG and keep the S/A as a back up...
I'm just of the mindset that if it was designed to run a certain way, that's the way I should run it... I guess since I can't get a straight answer about swapping out the carriers, I could just buy a new BCG and keep the S/A as a back up...
Sorry- you should be able to keep the bolt and just swap out the carriers.
I would suggest just getting a new BCG since its a good idea to have an extra bolt anyway.
I'll buy that crappy old s/a bc from you when you are ready.
I just don't get it when people say "thats what it was designed to be used with". Thats mindless dogma.
By the same logic, we should be shunning 30 round mags since the system was designed around 20 round mags.
This is not rocket surgery folks. A certain amount of energy is imparted to the reciprocating parts. The movement is opposed by both the mass of the reciprocating parts and the buffer spring.
Its pretty straight forward newtonian physics. (not even quantum) Nothing that the folks at Colt or LMT couldn't work out in their sleep.
The logic also suggests that the small block chevy should still only be made out of iron and should only be equipped with a quadrajet. Because "thats what it was designed to be used with".
Progress marches on folks. Its ironic that the 3 gun folks put LIGHTER BCs in their guns. They recognize that
1) gas port size
2) reciprocating mass (to include the BCG and the buffer)
3) buffer spring rate and preload
all balance out each other. There are multiple correct answers to this balance. The important part is that whoever comes up with the combination of masses, gas ports, etc understands the variables and also tests things out.
The 3 gun guys also prefer LIGHTER BCs. Why? Because with less gas and lighter springs, the guns run faster with less recoil.
It is my understanding (please school me here if I'm wrong) is that one of the reasons for the heavier BC is to slow down the full auto rate of fire. Well folks, if you shoot semi, then a faster cyclic rate is BETTER. (provided things are properly controlled.)
I just don't get this M16 bolt obsession.
Again, not rocket surgery.
Don
If it is a NY legal post ban rifle it does not have a perm pinned flash hider it has a muzzle brake.
CaptainDooley
06-21-09, 22:58
You are correct of course... either way it's out the window cuz it's ugly and doesn't serve the purpose I'd want (as a flash hider), plus I'd like to de-neuter it as much as possible... I'll likely be sending it to ADCO shortly after arrival.
Punch the pin out yourself and cut of the brake with a dremel and replace with a FH of your choice. I like the SEI Vortex.
You may want to look into brakes. I live in CT and lived with "neutered" guns when our state AWB was instated. But then I realized that everything has a purpose.
My DCM match rifle has a traditional crowned muzzle.
My play rifle wears a brake
My "serious" rifle is built on a pre-ban (non colt because it matters in CT) lower and typically has a brake or a silencer/suppressor on it. Since this lower is pre ban, I can build it any way I want. Actually my play gun is built on a preban lower also. But strangely, its built up in a way that is post ban compliant. Its got a vltor VIS rifle stock. (I love this stock) and a brake on it. The only thing I'd have to do to make it legal on a post ban lower is to permanently affix the brake thats already on it. (Its based on an MRP and does not have a bayonet lug. If it had a lug, that would need to be cut off to make it compliant)
Either way, there's nothing wrong with brakes. Primary Weapons even makes a combination brake/flash suppressor that is reasonably effective as a flash suppressor and is NOT considered to be a flash suppressor by the ATF.
You could have this permanently attached to your bbl end and be legal.
Another thing. Silver soldering is considered to be "permanently attached" and is much less destructive than welding and/or pinning. I suggest you look into affixing whatever muzzle end device you choose with silver solder. A soldered muzzle end device can be non-destructively removed by a skilled person with nothing more than an acetylene torch.
Don
Punch the pin out yourself and cut of the brake with a dremel and replace with a FH of your choice. I like the SEI Vortex.
The muzzle brake on the MT6400C barrel is held in by two pins, the barrel is not threaded so there is no need to dremel it off.
Once the comp is off you would need to thread the muzzle in order to use a regular FH.
CaptainDooley
06-22-09, 06:26
Another thing. Silver soldering is considered to be "permanently attached" and is much less destructive than welding and/or pinning. I suggest you look into affixing whatever muzzle end device you choose with silver solder. A soldered muzzle end device can be non-destructively removed by a skilled person with nothing more than an acetylene torch.
Don
I appreciate the advice, but since I'm in a free state, I'll likely just have the barrel threaded so I can use whatever I'd like to on the end (and be able to swap it out to my heart's desire...
oh sorry, I thought you had to maintain its post ban political correctness
Powered by vBulletin® Version 4.2.5 Copyright © 2024 vBulletin Solutions, Inc. All rights reserved.