View Full Version : McFarland Gas Ring vs. Standard
I have been using a McFarland gas ring for the past 500 rounds without a problem; I have heard since boot camp "never let those 3 gaps in the gas rings line up otherwise you will have problems"...5 years using standard 3 gas rings and never had a problem.
I would like to acknowledge that many of you know a lot more about this subject than me.
Can anyone tell me if using the McFarland has downfalls or any other negative effects?
Thanks,
Dave
I don't have any experience on the McFarlane rings.
I will say that the alignment issue is bullshit, and I have successfully fired hundreds of rounds in succession with only two rings on the bolt.....don't know where that third ring went. :confused:
We had some professional user guns that had the McRings installed, they did not run well. We did a once over and replaced the rings with 3 piece unts and all was good. I have an SP1 Carbine that I ran the crap out of when I was young, well before I knew what gas rings were, when I finally got around to replacing them they were sharp half moons...totally worn, gun still ran well though, I call BS on the alignment issue.
militarymoron
01-22-07, 18:40
i tried them years ago, and they were very tight, and caused some problems when dirty (bolt not going into full battery), which didn't happen with regular rings. didn't loosen up much even after half a case of ammo. ditched them and went back to regular gas rings.
Please wait: Ditching has Commenced - ditching MF gas ring complete.
Thanks for all the info,
Dave
As Pat Rogers pointed out in a recent SWAT article and here (https://www.m4carbine.net/showthread.php?t=31)
The carbine will run with one gas ring
I am not impressed that McFarland perpetuates that rumor in their advertising
Submariner
01-25-07, 17:07
Colt Armorer Instructor Dean Caputo makes the same point in his class: all three spaces lining up lining up is a non-issue as it will run on one ring.
“It ain't what you don't know that gets you into trouble. It's what you know for sure that just ain't so.” Mark Twain
We all know that a weapon will run with only gas ring. What I like about the McFarland rings is that quality of the materials and that I don't have to change them out like I do standard gas rings.
I don't have many rounds downrange with them installed (yet), but so far so good.
C4
So what material is the McFarland ring made from?
Never had much use for them... The Stock 3 rings always worked well.
If some one gave me a few for free .. but for me to pay for them.... Homie don't think so....:p
Submariner
01-26-07, 07:04
Never had much use for them... The Stock 3 rings always worked well.
If some one gave me a few for free .. but for me to pay for them.... Homie don't think so....:p
Homie, you're cheap!:D
Robb Jensen
01-26-07, 07:16
Submariner,
You make your own gas rings don't you. :p ;) :D
Submariner
01-26-07, 09:55
No, I buy them like everyone else. Just because something costs more doesn't necessarily mean it is better. I learned how to tell when the rings need to be replaced in Dean Caputo's class and follow his counsel. He recommends standard gas rings. He also thinks the standard Colt action spring is sufficient. (Some here think it's "cheap.") The fifty Colt Commandos he cares for in his department even use standard weight carbine buffers.
Never had much use for them... The Stock 3 rings always worked well.
If some one gave me a few for free .. but for me to pay for them.... Homie don't think so....:p
Just as an FYI, they are the same price as standard gas rings.
C4
No, I buy them like everyone else. Just because something costs more doesn't necessarily mean it is better. I learned how to tell when the rings need to be replaced in Dean Caputo's class and follow his counsel. He recommends standard gas rings. He also thinks the standard Colt action spring is sufficient. The fifty Colt Commandos he cares for in his department even use standard weight carbine buffers.
They are the same price or cheaper, so your incorrect in your ASSumption.
There are lots of things that are "sufficient", but who wants that? If we did, we would all be running Model 1 AR's.
C4
Submariner
01-26-07, 10:16
Did you stop reading after the first sentence? His department seems to think Colt Commandos with standard buffers, Colt action springs and gas rings are sufficient for their needs. They don't use model 1 products. They also don't see the need for H, H2, H3, 9mm buffers, CS action springs or McFarland gas rings. People other tham me asked these questions in class (except for the CS spring issue which I asked in class.) Why? He said they tested these things and found out what worked made those carbines run best.
So what material is the McFarland ring made from?
Sorry, missed your question. They are made out of 300 series, heat treated SS.
Standard gas rings are made out of stamped sheet metal.
C4
Did you stop reading after the first sentence? His department seems to think Colt Commandos with standard buffers, Colt action springs and gas rings are sufficient for their needs. They don't use model 1 products. They also don't see the need for H, H2, H3, 9mm buffers, CS action springs or McFarland gas rings. People other tham me asked these questions in class (except for the CS spring issue which I asked in class.) Why? He said they tested these things and found out what worked made those carbines run best.
That's funny, as Colt Commandos come from the factory with H2 buffers (if I remember correctly). Interesting that they removed that buffer and put a lighter one in.
As far as PD's go, they generally barely have any money to even buy the weapons, let alone upgrade springs and such.
I have been talking to Dean the last couple days and will ask him why they switched from the FACTORY INSTALLED buffer to the lighter one and IF they have ever tested ISMI buffer springs. I imagine they have not and were most likely looking at some lower grade CS springs (if at all).
C4
Gas rings? Oh you guys must still be using DI uppers. Gotcha.:p
Grant,
With respect to CS springs, the claimed benefits are pretty well understood. Then it's up to a user to decide whether or not these claimed benefits are truly beneficial for their application and whether or not to pay the added premium.
Having said that, what's the benefit to the McFarland gas ring? I understand the design differences, continuous one piece vs three pieces, but what is the benefit? Better gas seal? Longer term relaibility?
Grant,
With respect to CS springs, the claimed benefits are pretty well understood. Then it's up to a user to decide whether or not these claimed benefits are truly beneficial for their application and whether or not to pay the added premium.
Having said that, what's the benefit to the McFarland gas ring? I understand the design differences, continuous one piece vs three pieces, but what is the benefit? Better gas seal? Longer term relaibility?
As I stated at the top of this thread, they use better materials which translates into them lasting longer (less PM's). This is generally the same reason why we go to CS springs for our extractor and buffer.
C4
As I stated at the top of this thread, they use better materials which translates into them lasting longer (less PM's). This is generally the same reason why we go to CS springs for our extractor and buffer.
C4
How often do you replace the existing three-piece ring setup? Is the McFarlnd really that big of an advantage?
The CS spring argument to me makes a lot more sense -- longer lifetime and much greater consistency in performance across it's life. But given that a
weapon will run with a single ring in a three-ring setup, you have double redundancy built into the design. And the replacement test is simple to perform, so it's not as if diagnosing when rings need repalcement is difficult.
I'm not knocking McFarlnd rings, but to me it sounds more like a convenience justification than a performance justification, that's all.
How often do you replace the existing three-piece ring setup? Is the McFarlnd really that big of an advantage?
The CS spring argument to me makes a lot more sense -- longer lifetime and much greater consistency in performance across it's life. But given that a
weapon will run with a single ring in a three-ring setup, you have double redundancy built into the design. And the replacement test is simple to perform, so it's not as if diagnosing when rings need repalcement is difficult.
I'm not knocking McFarlnd rings, but to me it sounds more like a convenience justification than a performance justification, that's all.
If I remember correctly, proper PM's are supposed to be done on gas rings (cheap ones) every 3K. The same goes with cheap extractor and buffer springs.
Yes, a weapon will work with a single gas ring, but no one does that on purpose because it isn't the most reliable way to run your weapon.
I view the McFarland as a convenience thing as well (less PM's). I don't know about you, but I forget to do proper PM's on my weapon so having components that don't need to be changed out as often (or if at all) are big plus one in my book.
I would also like to state, that I could care less if anyone buys the McFarland gas rings from me. I bought them so I can add them to my bolts.
C4
Heavy Metal
01-26-07, 13:11
I suspect the McFarland would be less prone to having an end break off of it.
And as far as regular rings go, I visuallyy inspect and see if the carrier will collapse over the bolt under its own weight. I have had gas rings go well beyond the 3K interval, much beyond it. And you do have some reserve capacity so if one fails, you have time to fix it later.
I strongly suspect agressive full auto fire greatly shortens their life as well as very short barreled carbines and AR pistols.
I also keep the inside of the bolt carrier well lubed and that seems to do more to keep the rings alive than anything else.
Pat_Rogers
01-26-07, 15:39
Grant- why are you stating that Dean changed buffers on his department guns? Do you have the source for that or is it an assumption?
You may want to reconsider what you state as fact on this.
Grant- why are you stating that Dean changed buffers on his department guns? Do you have the source for that or is it an assumption?
You may want to reconsider what you state as fact on this.
Hey Pat, the info came from Paul (which he posted in this thread) and is what I went off of. I thought it strange as well that they would alter a Factory weapon (especially for LE work).
Submariner: Did you stop reading after the first sentence? His department seems to think Colt Commandos with standard buffers, Colt action springs and gas rings are sufficient for their needs. They don't use model 1 products. They also don't see the need for H, H2, H3, 9mm buffers, CS action springs or McFarland gas rings. People other tham me asked these questions in class (except for the CS spring issue which I asked in class.) Why? He said they tested these things and found out what worked made those carbines run best.
C4
Submariner
01-26-07, 16:59
ee
His department seems to think Colt Commandos with standard buffers, Colt action springs and gas rings are sufficient for their needs.
That is what was stated in class (from my contemporaneous notes, not memory): standard carbine buffers, Colt action springs and gas rings. Given all the bandwidth prior to that time (July 2006) on heavier buffers and such for short barrels, his statement was noteworthy. (ETA: So I made a note of it. He did not state, nor do I recall anyone asking, how the guns came from the factory. I corroborated this with two other people who were actually there. Could it be that is how they came from the factory? Could they have been purchased some time ago? Since you are talking to Dean, you might ask him.)
I think your recollection on periodicity of checking the gas rings is is faulty. Here is the TM: TM9-1005-319-23 (http://www.ar15.com/content/manuals/TM9-1005-319-23.pdf). Check out Section 2-7 dealing with Preventive Maintenance Checks and Services. PM's are Quarterly, not every 3000 rounds. (Crane hasn't finished its shot counter yet.) While a good idea, it requires the user to maintain a gun book. And that notion, also very good, is not a requirement of the TM. So they schedule it quarterly.
Pat_Rogers
01-26-07, 17:47
OK, copy on all Paul and Grant.
I speak w/ Dean about daily. I just had a telcon with him a few minutes ago.
He has stated that he has never changed the buffers. His patrol rifle program is 11 years old (and may be one of the most successful in the country- how many cops on motorcycles have a Commando mounted?).
That may account for the information confusion.
I have first hand knowledge of his program (and more importantly, the results) and can talk about the quality of the arms and the training (as recently as last weekend).
I take Dean's word as an authority on this stuff but am of course open minded about a lot- as is he. I have worked with Dean for about 10 years now, and consider him an SME.
Plus he is a genuine gunfighter...
OK, copy on all Paul and Grant.
I speak w/ Dean about daily. He has stated that he has never changed the buffers. His patrol rifle program is 11 years old (and may be one of the most successful in the country- how many cops on motorcycles have a Commando mounted?)
I take Dean's word as an authority on this stuff but am of course open minded about a lot. I have worked with Dean for about 10 years now, and consider him an SME.
Plus he is a genuine gunfighter...
Roger Pat. The next time you talk to him, please ask him what buffers they are running in their 11.5's. I would be curious to know as we now have two different opinions on what they run.
Side note, Commando's on Motorcycles??? :D Would love to see a pic of that going down the road!
C4
Sorry, missed your question. They are made out of 300 series, heat treated SS.
Standard gas rings are made out of stamped sheet metal.
C4
Which 300 series CRES (Corrosion-REsistant Steel)? 321? Heat-treated to what temper?
Sheet metal? You do realize that 3xx CRES comes in sheet form? Sheet is a material form, like rod, bar, plate... Sheet form is not necessarily "cheap" or inferior. It may, in fact, be the logical choice for a part. Sheet-metal parts may also be heat-treated and otherwise processed to meet requirements. Best-value designs utilize cost-effective materials and manufacturing processes AS APPROPRIATE. If more-expensive materials and/or processes are required to meet requirements, then they are appropriate. However, if less-expensive materials and/or processes meet the requirements, then the customer gets a less-expensive product and/or the manufacturer enjoys a higher profit margin.
Now if one product form allows greater reliability or service life (increased requirements) than that allowed by another, then additional material or processing cost may be justifiable.
Are the McFarland gas rings more reliable? Do they last longer? Has anyone actually documented any testing to verify this? I read on the errornet that the SOPMOD kit that included the Crane O-ring and 5-coil extractor spring also included the McFarland gas rings. Is this still the case? Can anyone share test data with us that might demonstrate that these parts are indeed superior?
Pat_Rogers
01-26-07, 17:54
Stock buffers Grant. I saw that this weekend.
Yup, every vehicle has a Commando. He has it set up so that they can sling up and deploy from the car.
The bike look great with the Commandos, and the use policy is dead on.
His program pre dates the N. Hollywood incident. He was a clear thinker.
Roger Pat. The next time you talk to him, please ask him what buffers they are running in their 11.5's. I would be curious to know as we now have two different opinions on what they run....
C4
So you trust Pat to get it correct from Dean but not Submariner?
ee
That is what was stated in class (from my contemporaneous notes, not memory): standard carbine buffers, Colt action springs and gas rings. Given all the bandwidth prior to that time (July 2006) on heavier buffers and such for short barrels, his statement was noteworthy. (ETA: So I made a note of it. He did not state, nor do I recall anyone asking, how the guns came from the factory. I corroborated this with two other people who were actually there. Could it be that is how they came from the factory? Could they have been purchased some time ago? Since you are talking to Dean, you might ask him.)
I think your recollection on periodicity of checking the gas rings is is faulty. Here is the TM: TM9-1005-319-23 (http://www.ar15.com/content/manuals/TM9-1005-319-23.pdf). Check out Section 2-7 dealing with Preventive Maintenance Checks and Services. PM's are Quarterly, not every 3000 rounds. (Crane hasn't finished its shot counter yet.) While a good idea, it requires the user to maintain a gun book. And that notion, also very good, is not a requirement of the TM. So they schedule it quarterly.
From what I have been told, Colt M4's are now being issued with H2 buffers and I have seen 6920's come with them as well. The 6520 I have in the shop currently has an H buffer. So I would think that the 11.5's would come with at least an H or H2.
As far as the 3K, that number is useful or you can do quarterly PM's (doesn't really matter what you do as long as you do something).
C4
So you trust Pat to get it correct from Dean but not Submariner?
I trust the person that contacts Dean and replies back to this thread with what he said.
It is 100% possible that the 11.5's are issued with carbine buffers. This would mean that BOTH Pat and Paul are correct.
C4
Which 300 series CRES (Corrosion-REsistant Steel)? 321? Heat-treated to what temper?
Sheet metal? You do realize that 3xx CRES comes in sheet form? Sheet is a material form, like rod, bar, plate... Sheet form is not necessarily "cheap" or inferior. It may, in fact, be the logical choice for a part. Sheet-metal parts may also be heat-treated and otherwise processed to meet requirements. Best-value designs utilize cost-effective materials and manufacturing processes AS APPROPRIATE. If more-expensive materials and/or processes are required to meet requirements, then they are appropriate. However, if less-expensive materials and/or processes meet the requirements, then the customer gets a less-expensive product and/or the manufacturer enjoys a higher profit margin.
Now if one product form allows greater reliability or service life (increased requirements) than that allowed by another, then additional material or processing cost may be justifiable.
Are the McFarland gas rings more reliable? Do they last longer? Has anyone actually documented any testing to verify this? I read on the errornet that the SOPMOD kit that included the Crane O-ring and 5-coil extractor spring also included the McFarland gas rings. Is this still the case? Can anyone share test data with us that might demonstrate that these parts are indeed superior?
I am not anal enough to ask them which of the 300 series SS they were using (sorry).
I asked them about standard gas rings and what they thought. Their comment to me was that they were cheap sheet metal so take it for what its worth.
My POV on the subject is that if you have ever taken your gas rings off, they are VERY flimsy and cheap feeling items. If you have ever handled the McFarland rings, you would have the exact opposite opinion. That is the easiest way for me to describe it.
I have seen early Crane upgrade kits with the McFarland Gas rings. I don't know if they still include them or not though.
C4
Stock buffers Grant. I saw that this weekend.
Yup, every vehicle has a Commando. He has it set up so that they can sling up and deploy from the car.
The bike look great with the Commandos, and the use policy is dead on.
His program pre dates the N. Hollywood incident. He was a clear thinker.
Roger Pat that is interesting to say the least. Do you know if the 11.5's were stock Colt's?
I believe I read on Advanced Armament's web site that they recommended heavy buffers for supressed Commando's. A can of course does increase back pressure, but not enough to warrant an H3 buffer though.
C4
As I posted on Grant's FN B&C discussion, I don't think the McFarland gas rings are an improvement.
As far as I'm concerned, 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 that's what they did in my experience. (Mil-spec parts and good lube, BTW)
I know I dumped mine for standard gas rings that are easy to check for wear, are inexpensive to replace, function fine, and last long enough.
Just my experience- YMMV.
As for Commando buffers...
We have a total of one, early 90's vintage, and it has a standard buffer. Many, many thousands of rounds and I can't ever remember a malfunction.
A properly built and maintained Commando (or M4, M16, etc.) shouldn't need anything special to work correctly.
As I posted on Grant's FN B&C discussion, I don't think the McFarland gas rings are an improvement.
As far as I'm concerned, 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 that's what they did in my experience. (Mil-spec parts and good lube, BTW)
I know I dumped mine for standard gas rings that are easy to check for wear, are inexpensive to replace, function fine, and last long enough.
Just my experience- YMMV.
As for Commando buffers...
We have a total of one, early 90's vintage, and it has a standard buffer. Many, many thousands of rounds and I can't ever remember a malfunction.
A properly built and maintained Commando (or M4, M16, etc.) shouldn't need anything special to work correctly.
The McFarland gas ring might not be an upgrade (I think it is simply for the materials used). The other kicker is that they aren't any more expensive than standard gas rings. I also don't think they will need as much replacing as standard rings do either.
All AR's will run with a car buffer. What we are seeing though is a trend with manufacturers using heavier buffers (like when Colt went from H buffers to H2 buffers in the M4 and 6920). There is a reason for this.
C4
Does anyone know how Ken Elmore sets up his Commando's?
Steel_Weasel
02-01-07, 19:54
I've used Mcfarland gas rings on both a 16" carbine and 20" rifle for years with no problems whatsoever. If you think/feel you need them go ahead, otherwise standard rings work.
With regard to what buffers are come in Colt Commandos, I have seen standard, H, and H2 in USG 11.5" Colts. Who knows in what configuration they came from the factory...??
The US military now supplies(new stocks) all H2 buffers for the m4 series. I have seen this in US Army & USN repair shops.
Of note, sometimes a H2 buffer will impead function in extreme cold at extreme altitude. Perhaps a function of the above & new weapon with tight gas port. Probably only a handful of people in some units have experienced this.
With regard to what buffers are come in Colt Commandos, I have seen standard, H, and H2 in USG 11.5" Colts. Who knows in what configuration they came from the factory...??
The US military now supplies(new stocks) all H2 buffers for the m4 series. I have seen this in US Army & USN repair shops.
Of note, sometimes a H2 buffer will impead function in extreme cold at extreme altitude. Perhaps a function of the above & new weapon with tight gas port. Probably only a handful of people in some units have experienced this.
I have some friends that have some Commandos and they came with H buffers (which is why I was surprised to hear that they come with carbine buffers). I sometimes wonder if Colt just doesn't stick whatever they have in stock in them at the time.
C4
I knew I could find it:
http://www.dtic.mil/ndia/2003smallarms/john.ppt
CQBR PPT from Crane. It DOES show what looks to be a 1 piece gas ring.
Two points I guess I'd make thou:
1. who knows if the rings were ever implemented
2. people are allways LOOKING for a better mousetrap, however
that doesn't mean they allways FIND one.
From what I've heard about Dean Caputo I would trust his advice to save my ass in a fight, so there ya be.
Dano, good to see you here man!
I knew I could find it:
http://www.dtic.mil/ndia/2003smallarms/john.ppt
CQBR PPT from Crane. It DOES show what looks to be a 1 piece gas ring.
Two points I guess I'd make thou:
1. who knows if the rings were ever implemented
2. people are allways LOOKING for a better mousetrap, however
that doesn't mean they allways FIND one.
From what I've heard about Dean Caputo I would trust his advice to save my ass in a fight, so there ya be.
Dano, good to see you here man!
Good find on the PPT! Hadn't seen that one in a long time.
That is a McFarland gas ring. I also called them and asked if the Military purchased them and they said yes (tons). So they went somewhere for sure.
I personally don't think that there is an issue with standard gas rings. My point is if the McFarland gas rings are the same price as standard gas rings and are made out of better materials why not use them? You just might get a more reliable weapon because of not having to PM that part as much.
I have now shipped 20 of my FN contracted BCG's out. All of them have the McFarland gas rings. We shall see how they run for folks.
C4
Pat_Rogers
02-03-07, 07:59
FWIW- i have seen a bunch of the Reliability Enhancement Kits and all have had 3 piece gas rings and "O" rings. None have had defenders ot the one piece gas ring, which leads me to believe that what you see in any particular kit is the result of when you saw it.
FWIW- i have seen a bunch of the Reliability Enhancement Kits and all have had 3 piece gas rings and "O" rings. None have had defenders ot the one piece gas ring, which leads me to believe that what you see in any particular kit is the result of when you saw it.
Makes sense Pat, as a lot of this stuff is COTS so the Govt uses what the Govt can find.
C4
Pat_Rogers
02-03-07, 09:52
While it is COTS, my sources tell me it was a change based on their feedback.
Unkown when/ what etc.
My experience with the Macfarland vice standard gas rings has been poor. The Macfarlands seem to seal much better than the GI rings, which brings problems after you've blown out or dirtied-up the lube in the carrier -- drag increases in as few as 20 rounds. Add a suppressor and you can pretty much guarantee you've hosed yourself.
In competition M16s and SPRs they caused enough alibi stoppages that it wasn't worth it, and you almost had to put a couple of drops of lube in the carrier lube hole for each ten-shot string in the national match course.
Strangely, though, they seem to work great in the AR-10.
sininster, nice to see your here. Thanks for your input! that settles the issue for ME at least.
Grant sayeth:
Side note, Commando's on Motorcycles??? Would love to see a pic of that going down the road!
Here ya go! :)
[Oops, file name should've been "Arcadia".]
I haven't seen the one piece ring on any operational weps.. except DOS AR10T's.
I have been watching this discussion. So, I decided to try the Macfarland rings. I installed it on a CMMG mid-length. My initial impression was not positive. The bolt was extremely tight. Many people ‘flip’ the bolt carrier group to cause the bolt to slide forward so that you can insert it back into the upper receiver. With the Macfarland installed, you could not flip it to cause the bolt to move. You had to pull the bolt forwarded by hand.
I fired 320 rds (Guatemalan ‘99) through the rifle today. I had no malfunctions of any kind. After cleaning the rifle, the bolt carrier group can now be ‘flipped’ to cause the bolt to go forwarded. However, the bolt is still very tight in the bolt carrier just not as tight as before firing.
This is not an extensive test, but just thought I would share.
I have been watching this discussion. So, I decided to try the Macfarland rings. I installed it on a CMMG mid-length. My initial impression was not positive. The bolt was extremely tight. Many people ‘flip’ the bolt carrier group to cause the bolt to slide forward so that you can insert it back into the upper receiver. With the Macfarland installed, you could not flip it to cause the bolt to move. You had to pull the bolt forwarded by hand.
I fired 320 rds (Guatemalan ‘99) through the rifle today. I had no malfunctions of any kind. After cleaning the rifle, the bolt carrier group can now be ‘flipped’ to cause the bolt to go forwarded. However, the bolt is still very tight in the bolt carrier just not as tight as before firing.
This is not an extensive test, but just thought I would share.
"Flipping the bolt" is a new one on me. It also doesn't prove anything either way. I pull every bolt by hand before I insert it into the receiver. Guess I am just "old school."
C4
"Flipping the bolt" is a new one on me. It also doesn't prove anything either way. I pull every bolt by hand before I insert it into the receiver. Guess I am just "old school."
I was just trying to describe how much tighter the bolt was in the bolt carrier.
Maybe I should revise my statement to simply:
In my particular rifle, it takes more force to move the bolt with McFarland rings than standard rings. I fired 320 rds with no malfunctions.
I was just trying share my experience because
I have now shipped 20 of my FN contracted BCG's out. All of them have the McFarland gas rings. We shall see how they run for folks.
One of the purposes of these forums is to share experiences – learn from others. To Sinister & MASP7 having negative experiences to Steel Weasel having good experiences. Add in information when it becomes available from the folks that received your BCG’s, a trend from data might start to development.
When I see a post asking does brand X work? If there is only one reply (positive or negative), it does not carry much weight for me unless I know the person who replied. If a post asks for info on Brand Y & there are hundreds of replies saying stay away, I listen (Hesse/Vulcan comes to mind).
That is what makes the internet so great, you can learn from other mistake!
:)
I have been using a McFarland gas ring for the past 500 rounds without a problem; I have heard since boot camp "never let those 3 gaps in the gas rings line up otherwise you will have problems"...5 years using standard 3 gas rings and never had a problem.
I would like to acknowledge that many of you know a lot more about this subject than me.
Can anyone tell me if using the McFarland has downfalls or any other negative effects?
Thanks,
Dave
McFarland One-piece Gas Rings
Perhaps it's a solution without a problem, but for many, reassembling an AR-15 involves aligning the gaps in the gas rings to make sure they are as far apart as possible. We do this to avoid all sorts of problems and malfunctions. Finally, there's a solution that eliminates the need to adjust the rings' alignment, and lessens the chance of jamming.
How It's Supposed To Work
Upon firing, as the pressure of the gas generated by the burning propellant drives the projectile down the barrel and past the gas port, a small quantity of the gas is bled off through the gas port, gas tube, and bolt carrier key into the cylindrical section in the bolt carrier where it expands and drives the bolt carrier rearward. During the first rearward travel of the carrier, the bolt is rotated by the cam pin acted on by the bolt carrier cam slot. This rotation disengages the bolt lugs from the barrel extension lugs and so the bolt is unlocked. The carrier then continues rearward with the unlocked bolt. At this point, the gas used to drive the bolt carrier rearward is allowed to bleed out through two holes on the right of the bolt carrier.
The Problem
In order to install the rings on the bolt, they must be split and thus a "gap" on each ring is unavoidable. The problem arises because these gaps can become aligned, and cause too much gas to escape too early in the cycle. This can result in short-stroking and possibly jamming the rifle, so manuals and instructors enforce the proper alignment of the rings when reassembling the AR-15 rifle.
The Solution
The McFarland one-piece gas rings solves the problem of "aligned" gaps by eliminating the gaps. As a one-piece helical ring, you are guaranteed to never have the problem with the gaps.
Replacement
The 3 individual rings can be removed one at a time starting with the rearmost ring first. Lift one end of the open ring up and over the edge of the ring groove (towards the rear of the bolt) and then work the other end over. Repeat this for the remaining two rings, and you should be able to remove them without damage. As a single piece of metal, the McFarland ring is wound onto the groove on the bolt's rear. Start one end over the edge, and then work the remainder of the ring over that edge; the easiest way to accomplish this is without trying to turn the ring itself.
Every AR-15 should have the one-piece ring installed, and it's owner should keep a couple of spares around. While I have never experienced the dreaded "gap-alignment" syndrome, the theory appears sound and a little extra insurance can't hurt (at least I no longer have to worry about aligning, or mis-aligning, the rings each time I assemble the rifle!).
I was just trying to describe how much tighter the bolt was in the bolt carrier.
Maybe I should revise my statement to simply:
In my particular rifle, it takes more force to move the bolt with McFarland rings than standard rings. I fired 320 rds with no malfunctions.
I was just trying share my experience because
One of the purposes of these forums is to share experiences – learn from others. To Sinister & MASP7 having negative experiences to Steel Weasel having good experiences. Add in information when it becomes available from the folks that received your BCG’s, a trend from data might start to development.
When I see a post asking does brand X work? If there is only one reply (positive or negative), it does not carry much weight for me unless I know the person who replied. If a post asks for info on Brand Y & there are hundreds of replies saying stay away, I listen (Hesse/Vulcan comes to mind).
That is what makes the internet so great, you can learn from other mistake!
:)
Your post made it sound like it was a negative that the bolt is tighter in the carrier. A loose bolt in a carrier generally means that your gas rings are worn out (bad thing). So having a tighter bolt and carrier fit is good IMHO.
So if your weapon ran perfectly for 350rds, then I would say that the BCG with the McFarland gas rings worked perfectly.
C4
Quartersticknick
02-27-07, 19:15
Mcfarland gas rings is all I use.I'll change them out about every 3,000 rounds.I have never had any problems with them in my Bushmasters.
I have used McFarland rings for a very long time in all my AR's, match guns and otherwise. Good rings, no problems feeding or otherwise, at all.
If I was doing high altitude extreme cold work, the whole system comes into play and I would evaluate springs buffers lubes (or no lube) etc anyway. High altitude extreme cold shooting I have done says it's a different ball game.
So far, my Sig and AK's have done well in the extreme cold, my AR's are just more sensitive or so it seems.
I am talking well below zero high altitude cold.
Paul
4 years, 5 months.
That's quite a necropost!
Since I'm here...
I haven't used a McFarland gas ring since my last post in this thread.
I always meant to try it in my AR10, as suggested by sinister (and he's a guy worth listening to), but it's seemed to struggle by without one just like it's smaller brothers.
wayne in boca
07-16-11, 13:03
Armalite puts McFarland rings in all AR10s now.I don't know if they are using them in their 5.56 rifles or not.
MacFarland rings may work in theory, but the half-dozen I ordered from Brownell's were all grossly undersize and got sent back. For what it's worth, I have yet to come across an out-of-spec conventional gas ring.
I can tell you this: undersized MacFarland rings allow a heck of a lot more gas blowby than standard rings even with the 3 gaps lined up.
Had one piece in my cmt bolt in a bcm upper for 3000+, no problem. Same with standard rings. Curiosity gets the best of me and I get burned sometimes. This was not the case here. Either type has treated me right, never had a gas ring alignment issue with any rings.
I have put 5K rounds through my SBR with McFarland rings- no issues at all. I have used them in other AR's as well. Again ZERO problems. YMMV.
IG, you've thrown a lot more lead than me, so a question. Have you ever had a gas ring problem with any rings?
Standard gas rings are 302 or 304 stainless (either is ok).
Thomas M-4
07-16-11, 22:03
MacFarland rings may work in theory, but the half-dozen I ordered from Brownell's were all grossly undersize and got sent back. For what it's worth, I have yet to come across an out-of-spec conventional gas ring.
I can tell you this: undersized MacFarland rings allow a heck of a lot more gas blowby than standard rings even with the 3 gaps lined up.
There has been more thane a few threads on undersized mc,farland gas rings. If my memory is correct most of them came from brownell's.
wolf_walker
07-17-11, 08:38
Gapless rings on a piston is not even remotely a new idea. Manufacturing defects aside, they will seal better than gapped rings. This in and of itself seems to be a problem, hence the bolt drag comments. There longevity should be based on material, not design.
I have had MacFarland rings on a couple 6920's for the past four years. No problems and very little wear.
There has been more thane a few threads on undersized mc,farland gas rings. If my memory is correct most of them came from brownell's.
So, any reliable sources of MacFarland rings?
I took a chance with Brownell's, even after reading of the problem a couple months before placing my order. I (wrongly) assumed they would have fixed the problem.
Lo and behold, they sent me undersized rings. I returned them with a letter explaining WHY they were unacceptable, and HOW to measure their existing inventory of rings to cull the rejects.
It's been about a year since then. Maybe I'll order another couple rings from Brownell's just to see if they've taken any remedial actions.
All 200-ish that I purchased back in 2008 when I was in Iraq came from Brownells. They all worked.
http://www.lmgtfy.com/?q=McFarland+gas+rings
http://dsgarms.com/ProductInfo/ARMEB0121.aspx
http://www.armalite.com/ItemForm.aspx?item=EB0121
http://www.midwayusa.com/viewproduct/?productnumber=163933
http://www.gandrtactical.com/cgi-bin/commerce.cgi?preadd=action&key=GR-AR15&reference=/cgi-bin/commerce.cgi%3Fsearch%3Daction%26keywords%3D%26searchstart%3D0%26template%3DPDGCommTemplates/FullNav/SearchResult.html%26category%3DMFAR
So, any reliable sources of MacFarland rings?
I took a chance with Brownell's, even after reading of the problem a couple months before placing my order. I (wrongly) assumed they would have fixed the problem.
Lo and behold, they sent me undersized rings. I returned them with a letter explaining WHY they were unacceptable, and HOW to measure their existing inventory of rings to cull the rejects.
It's been about a year since then. Maybe I'll order another couple rings from Brownell's just to see if they've taken any remedial actions.
Thomas M-4
07-17-11, 16:39
So, any reliable sources of MacFarland rings?
I took a chance with Brownell's, even after reading of the problem a couple months before placing my order. I (wrongly) assumed they would have fixed the problem.
Lo and behold, they sent me undersized rings. I returned them with a letter explaining WHY they were unacceptable, and HOW to measure their existing inventory of rings to cull the rejects.
It's been about a year since then. Maybe I'll order another couple rings from Brownell's just to see if they've taken any remedial actions.
Has best as I can tell .503" seems to be the correct size. The ones that were reporting undersized were under the .503" mark. I don't think that all of the brownell gas-rings are undersized but it seems that they got a bad shipment at some point. Picked up mine from Grant.
BufordTJustice
07-18-11, 00:20
I have been using McFarland rings from Grant for several years now.
I have had ZERO issues with his and consider them a HUGE plus. My old BCM 16" middy had issues running 55gr tula .223 using new gas rings. The gun, otherwise, ran perfectly. Upon switching to MF rings from Grant, the issue disappeared and the gun just ate everything I put in it.
I've found that with the prevalence of heavier buffers (H, H2, H3, A5, etc) and more attention being paid to the strength of the buffer/action spring, the 'increased friction' of the rings is easily overcome by the strength of the action spring and the inertia of the BCG/Buffer.
My 14.5" BCM middy is nearly 2K rds deep with zero issues on my MF ring....and no wear is detectable.
I see no downside.
I had bad luck with MF rings from Brownells (same issues described above). Every ring I got from Grant has been perfect. Now all my buddies run MF rings from Grant and their rifles are so far, literally perfect in reliability. Prolly 6k rds between my rifle and all of theirs so far (and climbing).
I will keep using them with complete confidence. If you buy from Grant, you won't have any issues at all. :D
I guess I've just been lucky. No problems with ANY rings so far. Thank God, knock on wood, etc... Maybe I need to shoot more... What a great excuse! Research!
I've watched the head armorer for Navy Small arms at Crane toss them aside while working on match guns while on the van at Perry, Interservice and the Navy Matches. If he does that with them I'd say a no go for me.
Dan
BufordTJustice
07-18-11, 05:03
I've watched the head armorer for Navy Small arms at Crane toss them aside while working on match guns while on the van at Perry, Interservice and the Navy Matches. If he does that with them I'd say a no go for me.
Dan
Institutional inertia.
It doesn't necessarily mean anything. I bet he still keeps his guns white-glove clean.
That's so 10 years ago!!! ;)
Seriously...he may have his specific reasons (or feelings) for doing so...I won't try and speculate why he does that. There are simply too many people running quality AR's (and heavy buffers) that are running 100% for there to be an issue with the rings alone. I still think it's a tolerance stack between the combo of a carbine buffer and weak buffer spring to prevent the BCG from returning to battery properly. My gun does it even when bone dry. That's just my observation so far....
I know guys in the military that still clean their M16's with white gloves and strip the weapon down and clean them so much that they remove the finish.
All that means is that they still haven't gotten it. Also, since I have worked directly with Navy weapons personnel I can tell you first hand they are the most inflexible personnel I have met due to Navy regulations.
I've watched the head armorer for Navy Small arms at Crane toss them aside while working on match guns while on the van at Perry, Interservice and the Navy Matches. If he does that with them I'd say a no go for me.
Dan
I know guys in the military that still clean their M16's with white gloves and strip the weapon down and clean them so much that they remove the finish.
All that means is that they still haven't gotten it. Also, since I have worked directly with Navy weapons personnel I can tell you first hand they are the most inflexible personnel I have met due to Navy regulations.
They were in my First NM gun from Armalite. Never had an issue with that one. I have seen McFarland rings fail on the range. While the principle works great they seem to be having an issue right now. We all know rings seal the area to allow gas pressure to build to cycle the bolt. If they work so well why do engine manufacturers still use several one piece rings when building engines. The guy I know Devgru goes to so I think he knows what he talks about and I'm sure there are a few on here who know him too.
Dan
Like I said. I outfitted about 200 of them in Bushmaster carbines and they worked great. I use them in my personal carbines and they work fine as well.
They were in my First NM gun from Armalite. Never had an issue with that one. I have seen McFarland rings fail on the range. While the principle works great they seem to be having an issue right now. We all know rings seal the area to allow gas pressure to build to cycle the bolt. If they work so well why do engine manufacturers still use several one piece rings when building engines. The guy I know Devgru goes to so I think he knows what he talks about and I'm sure there are a few on here who know him too.
Dan
Ok. Agree to disagree on this one.
Dan
agr1279, I'm interested...what failure did you witness with these rings. I've only seen one years ago(standard rings), and they were beyond worn out.
Also, since I have worked directly with Navy weapons personnel I can tell you first hand they are the most inflexible personnel I have met due to Navy regulations.
Fact.
An unrelated example of that aspect is the difference between the Navy LSRB (I don't work around them any more, so I can talk smack about them, now :D ) and the Army's CHPM and how they deal with laser systems. I don't see how the Navy cats manage to bend, what with that stick jammed where it is......
An excellent example of this are Navy MRC cards. If it says to use Breakfree CLP you better use it. Doesn't matter if there is something better. Since the CG also uses them we had to get an exemption from Atlantic HQ (IIRC) to use other stuff on our weapons while in the ME. We explained and displayed pics of the weapons that were being maintained with CLP and how it was not effective at protecting the weapons.
Fact.
An unrelated example of that aspect is the difference between the Navy LSRB (I don't work around them any more, so I can talk smack about them, now :D ) and the Army's CHPM and how they deal with laser systems. I don't see how the Navy cats manage to bend, what with that stick jammed where it is......
IG, what are you using now in the sandbox that works?
I'll throw a chip in the pot...
My first AR was a frankenbuild that I've since gotten rid of. Got the upper from Tony's at a Northern VA gunshow probably in late 2007. Carrier key was unstaked, extractor insert was blue. Barrel was an 11.5" heavy barrel (manufacturer unknown) with a 5.5" permanent flash hider. Initially I had a few failures to extract. I installed a BCM Extractor Spring Upgrade Kit (including the O-ring) and moved to an H buffer, and used the McFarlane one-piece gas ring (ordered from MidwayUSA). It ran flawlessly after that. During every cleaning/inspection the bolt passed the "gravity" test (bolt did not retract when stood up on workbench or extend when held vertically by the bolt lugs). At least 1000 rounds through it without issue before I traded it for an UZI a few years back.
Last year I built a .300-221 rifle at gunsmith school, and I installed a McFarlane one-piece gas ring (ordered from Brownells) in a BCM M16 BCG. Before shooting it, it passed the gravity test just fine. I have since run exactly 100 rounds (no time to hand load anymore!!! :() through this rifle since it was built, and I robbed the BCG from it to put in a project SBR until I get a dedicated BCG for that rifle. Upon inspection, the bolt would not stay retracted when held vertically from the bolt lugs, and the BCG would drop on the extended bolt when placed on the bench. I did not measure the McFarlane ring, just tossed it in the trash and installed new standard gas rings.
I doubt 100 rounds would have worn it out. I think I'm going to stick with standard rings, they seem to work fine and are widely available.
Yugoslavian M92 and M21. :D
IG, what are you using now in the sandbox that works?
Yugoslavian M92 and M21. :D
To be exact M21 is Serbian, not Yugoslavian :smile:
Did you try wz. 96 Beryl and Mini-Beryl? Those seem to work as well :D
Back to topic: when I got my first AR15 some 5 years ago (Stag) I put McFarlan rings on it (those time I was swallowing everything arfcom like young pelican swallows brick). Never had problem with it and now, some 20-25K rounds later this carbine (works as rental in training/event company) works smooth with same rings set. Got them from Brownells (actually have second set somewhere in my armory, but it does not fit piston HK :lol:).
Ha. Decent choice. Sorry, let me clarify. Lube other than clp, and how are you liking the weapon?
Yes, that is correct. But was also have some that were made prior to the break up. :cool:
To be exact M21 is Serbian, not Yugoslavian :smile:
Did you try wz. 96 Beryl and Mini-Beryl? Those seem to work as well :D
Back to topic: when I got my first AR15 some 5 years ago (Stag) I put McFarlan rings on it (those time I was swallowing everything arfcom like young pelican swallows brick). Never had problem with it and now, some 20-25K rounds later this carbine (works as rental in training/event company) works smooth with same rings set. Got them from Brownells (actually have second set somewhere in my armory, but it does not fit piston HK :lol:).
My personnel AR's all use them and I recommend them. YMMV.
Ha. Decent choice. Sorry, let me clarify. Lube other than clp, and how are you liking the weapon?
Heavy Metal
07-21-11, 14:24
IG,
He wants to know what lube you are using in the desert since you find CLP to not be working.
I haven't used CLP for years. I used WeaponShield and Militec last time I was here 2007-2009 and now I brought a small supply of FrogLube with me.
Since AK's don't need much lube, it's not much of an issue. The reast of the teams are using some standard oil purchased in the U.K.
IG,
He wants to know what lube you are using in the desert since you find CLP to not be working.
The gun was failing to function properly. Exactly what was the cause I am not sure but it came on the van with issues and left working fine. If I remember right they replaced the rings.
Dan
A McFarland set from Brownells went in my DD upper a couple of months ago to replace a set of standard rings (with a tip missing from one ring). The fit was snug despite it measuring a thou or two below what was listed as standard in this thread. It was working fine, but the snug fit went to less than that in short order (noticed it on about the second cleaning).
The bolt failed the gravity test so I replaced with a standard set of rings and went on my merry way.
Thanks IG, HM, agr1279.
To the rings, is 3000rnds an arbitrary number for replacement because of experience, or MIL TM spec? I've been running the same for years and have lost count, guesstimating 8-9000rnds in my bcm beater.
sinlessorrow
05-01-12, 21:24
My personnel AR's all use them and I recommend them. YMMV.
so now that its been 8 months, do you still recommend them?:ph34r:
I have been using them for over 4 years, not 8 months. And yes, I still recommend them.
so now that its been 8 months, do you still recommend them?:ph34r:
sinlessorrow
05-01-12, 21:32
I have been using them for over 4 years, not 8 months. And yes, I still recommend them.
thanks IG, i mean it had been 8 months since the last posting here:secret:
looks ill be ordering some from grant tonight, look forward to trying these gas rings.
BufordTJustice
05-02-12, 00:33
I have been using them for over 4 years, not 8 months. And yes, I still recommend them.
I've been using Grant's McFarland rings on my AR's since January 2009. In all my buddies' guns since mid 2009.
Many thousands of aggregate rounds (with between 3k and 5k on each individual ring set) and they all still look and function as when they were brand new.
There is a reason that they have been recommended as part of the PIP for the Navy's Mk18 10.5" gun. McFarland's come standard on all new Mk18's and they have already demonstrated superior performance and longevity in Navy testing.
They are the same price or cheaper, so your incorrect in your ASSumption.
There are lots of things that are "sufficient", but who wants that? If we did, we would all be running Model 1 AR's.
C4
wait... you think Model 1 ARs are sufficient???
what boat are you trying to keep from drifting? what door are you trying to keep stopped open?
:haha:
I was wondering why I was selling so many of these recently. :D
C4
sinlessorrow
05-02-12, 14:04
I was wondering why I was selling so many of these recently. :D
C4
Someone had to get the ball rolling.:ph34r:
I've been using Grant's McFarland rings on my AR's since January 2009. In all my buddies' guns since mid 2009.
Many thousands of aggregate rounds (with between 3k and 5k on each individual ring set) and they all still look and function as when they were brand new.
There is a reason that they have been recommended as part of the PIP for the Navy's Mk18 10.5" gun. McFarland's come standard on all new Mk18's and they have already demonstrated superior performance and longevity in Navy testing.
Thats interesting about the MK18, is there any public files to view about this?
Main reason i looked up this thread was because of the 2003ppt. About the CQB-R had these in it.
So a month or so ago one of the rings in my Larue BCG broke so I replaced them with the MacFarland.
It was uber tight to begin with and I expected that. But now after less than 500 rounds the rings will no longer support the weight of the carrier and the bolt nearly falls out under its own weight.
Gun functions just fine though so I am inclined to leave it alone.
Blankwaffe
05-02-12, 16:01
Here are a few previous discussions on the subject:
https://www.m4carbine.net/showthread.php?t=35658&highlight=McFarland
https://www.m4carbine.net/showthread.php?t=32348&highlight=McFarland
https://www.m4carbine.net/showthread.php?t=51904&highlight=McFarland
https://www.m4carbine.net/showthread.php?t=48234&highlight=McFarland
https://www.m4carbine.net/showthread.php?t=60765&highlight=McFarland
See last question of the Armalite FAQ regarding the McFarland ring:
http://www.ar15.com/forums/t_2_27/161436_Some_FAQ_s.html
and
http://www.armalite.com/ItemForm.aspx?item=EB0121&Category=8c79b6d7-df94-4498-9d3e-c76eaa613b0a
http://www.armalite.com/ItemForm.aspx?item=EA1055&Category=8c79b6d7-df94-4498-9d3e-c76eaa613b0a
McFarland's come standard on all new Mk18's and they have already demonstrated superior performance and longevity in Navy testing.
Can you please provide documentation of this.
BufordTJustice
05-03-12, 04:29
Can you please provide documentation of this.
"– CQB Receiver –
M4A1 Carbine with
10-Inch Upper Receiver"
"Presented by Jeff Johnson
Weapons Department
Ordnance Engineering Directorate
Naval Surface Warfare Center – Crane, Indiana"
The PDF is public domain, released by NAVSEA/Crane.
www.dtic.mil/ndia/2003smallarms/john.ppt
Slides 8 & 9
Also here:
https://www.m4carbine.net/showpost.php?p=35992&postcount=44
sinlessorrow
05-03-12, 07:58
"– CQB Receiver –
M4A1 Carbine with
10-Inch Upper Receiver"
"Presented by Jeff Johnson
Weapons Department
Ordnance Engineering Directorate
Naval Surface Warfare Center – Crane, Indiana"
The PDF is public domain, released by NAVSEA/Crane.
www.dtic.mil/ndia/2003smallarms/john.ppt
Slides 8 & 9
Also here:
https://www.m4carbine.net/showpost.php?p=35992&postcount=44
Thanks so much, excellent information.
I've had a little experience with these rings. What I've found is they can be completely different diameters, from the same source.
I know that Armalite sends these out with every AR10 BCG that goes out their door. However, the 308 action is very different - you really almost CAN run an AR10 BCG without gas rings. My AR10 BCG is as loose as it was day one and it's been 100% reliable.
Back to the 5.56 versions, I've even swapped around these gas rings on various BCGs to verify it wasn't the BCG that was different dimensions. I own 5 of them (experiement) - each seems to have it's various dimensions. Some are so tight I have to force the bolt into the carrier, some are so loose it drops right in. I've never taken the time/ammo to do any real testing with them and have pretty much resorted to regular rings on a maintenance schedule.
I still have all of the rings. It's good to hear many are very pleased. Have you all seen this much variance in manufacture between the different rings? I wish somebody would say, it doesn't matter. I know Armalite gives an acceptable variance measurment on their website - 'cept I don't have a micrometer.
Had to order some stuff from DSG last week so I threw a couple McFarland rings on the order based on some of the recommendations in this thread. Both of them have an OD of 0.5025". I'll be PMing my Noveske upper in the near future and installing one.
sinlessorrow
05-08-12, 00:47
mine will be here tomorrow to go on my Bolt with around 1,500 rounds on it so well see how it does
PA PATRIOT
05-08-12, 01:20
I'M going to be switching out standard gas rings shortly on by BushMaster and Colt and will also go with the McFarland rings this time a round.
Will report back later with results.
I have a BCM bolt that has over 7K rounds on it with McFarland rings. My other bolt from a 12.5" has a few thousand through it.
I have one AR (yeah-a cheap one) that ate gas rings. Install new rings and run a couple mags through it---there would be one ring FUBAR with pieces missing. Put a McFarland on it and zero problems since then.
After that, I put them in all my AR15's and will have it on my AR308 soon.
sinlessorrow
05-08-12, 12:05
got my rings today and i was kind of nervous knowing how there have been alot of inconsistencies with their diameter, but the 4 i ordered from Grant all measure .502
BufordTJustice
05-08-12, 16:57
got my rings today and i was kind of nervous knowing how there have been alot of inconsistencies with their diameter, but the 4 i ordered from Grant all measure .502
I only had issues with inconsistent diameter rings from brownells. Grant's rings have always been perfect. I have them on all my bolts; 5 in my house alone. I only buy them from Grant. Stick with him and you will have no issues.
EDIT: I have given away almost ten rings to friends, also purchased from Grant, and they have all been in spec.
Sent from my SPH-D710 using Tapatalk 2
Little bit of a resurrection...
Installed a McFarland ring a couple months ago in a Noveske upper, it measured 0.5025" at the time and it was tight in the carrier. 884 rounds later I swapped out the standard carrier for a LMT Enhanced. Had about as much resistance as a slightly used set of standard rings. 870 rounds after that I pulled the BCG to wipe it down and the bolt fell right out of it. The bolt would drop right into the carrier and wobble around when I shook it. Seems a little odd after 1754 rounds, but the rifle was still running fine. The McFarlands were bought from DSG Arms.
Anyone else have one wear out this quick?
I think mine lasted like 10K, but recently I noticed that mine failed the test, yet the weapon was working 100%.
Little bit of a resurrection...
Installed a McFarland ring a couple months ago in a Noveske upper, it measured 0.5025" at the time and it was tight in the carrier. 884 rounds later I swapped out the standard carrier for a LMT Enhanced. Had about as much resistance as a slightly used set of standard rings. 870 rounds after that I pulled the BCG to wipe it down and the bolt fell right out of it. The bolt would drop right into the carrier and wobble around when I shook it. Seems a little odd after 1754 rounds, but the rifle was still running fine. The McFarlands were bought from DSG Arms.
Anyone else have one wear out this quick?
sinlessorrow
11-19-12, 21:30
I think mine lasted like 10K, but recently I noticed that mine failed the test, yet the weapon was working 100%.
I have one that is up to 5,000 rounds and I must say it is a super durable ring.
I tried one of these in my rifle a while back. A DD upper, barrel, and BCG. The McFarland ring made it noticeably harder to slide the bolt into the carrier. I lubed the bolt with Frog Lube and took it to the range. I had multiple failures with the McFarland ring. I removed it and re-installed the original gas rings and the malfunctions stopped. I don't question that others have had good experience with them, but it didn't work out so well for me. If they have inconsistent dimensions from one ring to the next then I might have better luck with a different one, but I don't think I'll mess with it any more.
sinlessorrow
11-19-12, 22:11
I tried one of these in my rifle a while back. A DD upper, barrel, and BCG. The McFarland ring made it noticeably harder to slide the bolt into the carrier. I lubed the bolt with Frog Lube and took it to the range. I had multiple failures with the McFarland ring. I removed it and re-installed the original gas rings and the malfunctions stopped. I don't question that others have had good experience with them, but it didn't work out so well for me. If they have inconsistent dimensions from one ring to the next then I might have better luck with a different one, but I don't think I'll mess with it any more.
I have 5 from Grant and every one is the same size.
I have 5 from Grant and every one is the same size.
I only have the one (IIRC it came from Grant as well). I just saw someone mention above that their size can be inconsistent but I have no way to know for sure without getting some more to compare to.
sinlessorrow
11-19-12, 23:46
I only have the one (IIRC it came from Grant as well). I just saw someone mention above that their size can be inconsistent but I have no way to know for sure without getting some more to compare to.
Some are but I think Grant takes great pride in making sure the ones he gets are all to the correct spec.
Gas rings? Oh you guys must still be using DI uppers. Gotcha.:p
Oh geez, here we go...
Unless you're running an HK416 then I'd wager that my DI BCM is likely a step ahead of whatever piston system you're running. Get with the times, mang!
Some are but I think Grant takes great pride in making sure the ones he gets are all to the correct spec.
When I said I got it from Grant, I hope that didn't come across as a stab at him. That wasn't the case. I've never gotten anything but top-notch service from Grant, but to be quite honest it's a $3 part and I haven't lost any sleep over it not working out for me.
I may have been able to get a couple thousand more rounds out of that one but I use that upper for HD so I didn't feel comfortable with it. I replaced it with some new standard rings that I had. I may order some McFarlands from Grant and try one of them when these rings wear out. DSG has two different part numbers listed for their rings so its hard to tell what you're getting.
Oh geez, here we go...
Unless you're running an HK416 then I'd wager that my DI BCM is likely a step ahead of whatever piston system you're running. Get with the times, mang!
I run HK and.... it has gas rings :happy:
I actually prefer gas rings to wear out instead of piston or cylinder. They are easy to diagnose before they fail and then easy and cheap to replace.
BTT I had McFarlan ring installed in my Stag (it was only AR15 avaliable in Poland 7 years ago) and zero problems in several K rounds. Next owner also had no problems with it. Initially it was rather tights inside cylinder (bolt carrier), but loosened up a little in first thousand rounds and then stayed this way.
sinlessorrow
11-20-12, 12:49
I run HK and.... it has gas rings :happy:
I actually prefer gas rings to wear out instead of piston or cylinder. They are easy to diagnose before they fail and then easy and cheap to replace.
BTT I had McFarlan ring installed in my Stag (it was only AR15 avaliable in Poland 7 years ago) and zero problems in several K rounds. Next owner also had no problems with it. Initially it was rather tights inside cylinder (bolt carrier), but loosened up a little in first thousand rounds and then stayed this way.
Lol I was about to bring up that the Hk416 had gas rings. Gas ring systems are good for the reasons montrala mentioned, they form the seal not a steel on steel seal.
QuickStrike
11-23-12, 05:32
I run HK and.... it has gas rings :happy:
I actually prefer gas rings to wear out instead of piston or cylinder. They are easy to diagnose before they fail and then easy and cheap to replace.
BTT I had McFarlan ring installed in my Stag (it was only AR15 avaliable in Poland 7 years ago) and zero problems in several K rounds. Next owner also had no problems with it. Initially it was rather tights inside cylinder (bolt carrier), but loosened up a little in first thousand rounds and then stayed this way.
My 6940P has gas rings too. On the bolt in the normal location and also on the piston.
My 6940P has gas rings too. On the bolt in the normal location [...].
This makes prefect sense. Rings on bolt, when do not seal gases in "DI" configuration, also work as a guide to centre bolt tail inside carrier. HK uses modified bolt, with special "guide" surfaces, so does not need ring on bolt any more, but if "piston AR" uses "standard" bolt, then rings are still needed here.
Gapless rings on a piston is not even remotely a new idea. Manufacturing defects aside, they will seal better than gapped rings. This in and of itself seems to be a problem, hence the bolt drag comments. There longevity should be based on material, not design.
From what I understand of combustion engines, rings will press against the cylinder wall under the compression stroke.
Further, with a McFarland, you have only 1 "gap". With the regular gas-rings, you have 3 "gaps". This means to me that the regular rings can have much more variance and still make up for it with expansion that, since each ring has its own "gap", will not harm function nearly as much as an out of spec McFarland---whether through use or manufacture or foreign debris.
Homie, you're cheap!:D
Don't say cheap, say thrifty.
I still rock these. I have never had one issue with the McFarland gas ring and I think I have them in at least 5 or 6 AR's right now.
The only gas rings I buy individually are Colt brand, if they are out, I grab some McFarlands.
Ordered a bunch of the Mcfarlands. Some were so oversized the bolt wouldn't go into the carrier. Chucked them and Now only go with the 3 piece set up from Bravo Company.
What was the id/od of good McRings? I have a few sets still lying around.
Ordered a bunch of the Mcfarlands. Some were so oversized the bolt wouldn't go into the carrier....
Where did you get them?
When did you get them?
What Brand bolt/carrier did they not fit in?
I have only gotten them from Brownells and maybe G&R (I can't remember if Grant carried them).
If I was home I would check my spares.
If I remember it was from Brownells about 2 years ago. Don't remember what brand of bolt I was installing them on.
But the scary thing is when I took out my calipers and measured them they all had differant outside diameters.
I think the manufacture was Dpms of the Mcfarlands.
There are very few companies I trust for parts for my builds now.
Bravo Company I can bet my life on.
Colt Armorer Instructor Dean Caputo makes the same point in his class: all three spaces lining up lining up is a non-issue as it will run on one ring.
“It ain't what you don't know that gets you into trouble. It's what you know for sure that just ain't so.” Mark Twain
They did the same thing when I went through the class. The instructor had us bring any gun out of out vault, put one new ring in it and fired a full 210 round load on burst without an issue.
Powered by vBulletin® Version 4.2.5 Copyright © 2024 vBulletin Solutions, Inc. All rights reserved.