Can you totally wear out a lower?

[The Dumb Gun Collector]

Guys,

How many rounds do you think it would take to totally wear out an AR lower. I have an M16. I shoot it sparingly because I don't want to ruin my investment. On the other hand, I don't care about it being mint. Is it possible to shoot the lower so much that it is unreliable and irreparable?

[Stickman]

Very unlikely, especially when you consider how many rebuilds the USAF has done on many of their lowers.

[BlueApocalypse]

Very unlikely, especially when you consider how many rebuilds the USAF has done on many of their lowers.

.

Last week I was OPFOR for an ORE at Gulfport and the rifles we used were A2's from at least the late 70's.

[bkb0000]

has anyone ever actually seen egged out FCG holes? i have to wonder if that isn't just a great theory that doesnt happen.

i imagine in hundreds of thousands of rounds you might start to egg out the holes. if i had an M16 and could afford the ammo to do so, i'd most definitely shoot it as much and as often as i could... with abandon.

and keep in mind- there's nothing you can do to that receiver that isn't repairable. a good shop could weld and re-drill holes.

[Iraqgunz]

The plug gage to check the holes is marked reject at .163. Milspec holes are .155. The only time I canm see them getting screwed up is when people improperly disassemble the lower and damage them. Otherwise it's a non-issue IMHO.

My basic issue M16A1 was a GM/ Hydro and I am sure that it was at least 10 years old.


has anyone ever actually seen egged out FCG holes? i have to wonder if that isn't just a great theory that doesnt happen.

i imagine in hundreds of thousands of rounds you might start to egg out the holes. if i had an M16 and could afford the ammo to do so, i'd most definitely shoot it as much and as often as i could... with abandon.

and keep in mind- there's nothing you can do to that receiver that isn't repairable. a good shop could weld and re-drill holes.

[Col_Crocs]

Ive seen a couple of egged out FCG holes. Not too severe IMHO but definitely noticeable. How and how long it took to get to that state is unknown. Although both weapons did and probably still do function properly.
From what Ive seen I think it would have to be quite an egg out to really cause malfunctions.

[dwhitehorne]

We have had about 150 M16A1 rifles at work for the past 7 years. Some look brand new and others have some serious finish wear. Most are 40ish years old. Losts of minor spring/extractor issues over the years but non of the lowers are worn to where they don't function. David

[Robb Jensen]

When I've seen worn out lowers it was on very high round counts usually on 9mm submachineguns but once in a great while on a 5.56mm lower tens of thousands of rounds.

Where the wear occurs is at the trigger and hammer pin holes in the lower that sometimes get oblong or too large. The pins then can move and in turn allows the trigger or hammer to move laterally and causes problems.

[Artos]

Aren't there companies out there that do some specialized work on class iii lowers for civi's when they do have damage from accident or otherwise?? I heard of a lower that had been welded up one side due to the gun getting squashed?? Anyway, they said the workmanship was first class and the gun ran fine.

Kinda hard to give up on a 5 figure lower.

[BadgerMan]

A substantial fraction of the M-16s that my unit has are on lowers with an Auto selector setting, the lowers are still fine though the A2 uppers, not so much.

[Nathan_Bell]

has anyone ever actually seen egged out FCG holes? i have to wonder if that isn't just a great theory that doesnt happen.

i imagine in hundreds of thousands of rounds you might start to egg out the holes. if i had an M16 and could afford the ammo to do so, i'd most definitely shoot it as much and as often as i could... with abandon.

and keep in mind- there's nothing you can do to that receiver that isn't repairable. a good shop could weld and re-drill holes.

Yes, my M16's were severely egged. Unknown number of rounds through it before I owned it, but it had to have been a large amount as the auto-sear was also worn-out. Replaced the FCG and that is when I found that the holes were egged. KNS pins were used for their original designed usage. Speaking to a local old school C3 guy he said they saw it pretty often, he couldn't give me numbers but he was unsurprised to see a 25+ yo F/A weapon being WDFO.

Most weld shops will not touch a M16 lower. I recall that when I was trying to correct the problem mine had I couldn't find anyone reputable that was the least bit interested in the job.

[Skyyr]

So, with this in mind, what is the consensus on KNS Anti-Rotational pins?

On TOS, I got the distinct feeling they were a marketing ploy, but based on the reports here, it would seem they may actually serve a purpose (although the actual benefit of using them may not be seen until 50,000+ rounds).

[Thomas M-4]

Aren't there companies out there that do some specialized work on class iii lowers for civi's when they do have damage from accident or otherwise?? I heard of a lower that had been welded up one side due to the gun getting squashed?? Anyway, they said the workmanship was first class and the gun ran fine.

Kinda hard to give up on a 5 figure lower.

Yea http://users.zoominternet.net/~picplace/pivotpinbushings.htm

[The Dumb Gun Collector]

What about carrier tilt from piston uppers? Would that be anything to be concerned about?

[Skyyr]

What about carrier tilt from piston uppers? Would that be anything to be concerned about?

Carrier tilt isn't an issue as far as the lower receiver itself is concerned; it only affects the receiver extension. Carrier tilt wear usually starts off severe and then levels out after the initial damage/gouging is done. The only way it would be an issue is if you let it wear completely through the receiver extension, at which point you'd have more important issues than simply worrying about your lower receiver.

[JeepDriver]

Most weld shops will not touch a M16 lower. I recall that when I was trying to correct the problem mine had I couldn't find anyone reputable that was the least bit interested in the job.

M60 Joe did work on a friends RDIAS host Colt 9mm lower. He had the hammer pin holes egged out, M60 Joe installed bushings (I think he drilled the lower to fit the bushings, not 100% on that though) and KNS pins. He also ramped the bolt to smooth things out. The gun runs perfectly now.

[Killjoy]

When I was in the Air Force stationed in South Korea in the early 90's, we were issued M16s, not M16A1s, but no forward assist M16s, probably made in the 1960s. They were old, but functioned well, with no noticeable lower receiver damage; only some the triangular handguards replaced by the round handguards.

[.45fmjoe]

When I was in the Air Force stationed in South Korea in the early 90's, we were issued M16s, not M16A1s, but no forward assist M16s, probably made in the 1960s. They were old, but functioned well, with no noticeable lower receiver damage; only some the triangular handguards replaced by the round handguards.

It's a good assumption since Colt's Model 601 was first fielded in 1961, and the M16A1 was adopted as the standard rifle in 1967. ;) You should really only find non-FA rifles in the Air Force as the Army adopted the Model 603 as the XM16E1 in 1964 at the same time the Air Force adopted the model 604. Tho difference was the Army ordered rifles with forward assists, and the Air Force did not. There could be a couple Model 601s and 602 in Army arsenals somewhere, but they never ordered many.

[Nathan_Bell]

It's a good assumption since Colt's Model 601 was first fielded in 1961, and the M16A1 was adopted as the standard rifle in 1967. ;) You should really only find non-FA rifles in the Air Force as the Army adopted the Model 603 as the XM16E1 in 1964 at the same time the Air Force adopted the model 604. Tho difference was the Army ordered rifles with forward assists, and the Air Force did not. There could be a couple Model 601s and 602 in Army arsenals somewhere, but they never ordered many.

That would make sense except that the Air Force armorers seem to get bored and look at what parts they have lying around and then put together another configuration whenever you allow them the time.

[.45fmjoe]

That would make sense except that the Air Force armorers seem to get bored and look at what parts they have lying around and then put together another configuration whenever you allow them the time.

Yeah, I know. But the Army shouldn't have non-forward assist uppers in their inventory except a few 601 or 602 uppers.

[Nathan_Bell]

Yeah, I know. But the Army shouldn't have non-forward assist uppers in their inventory except a few 601 or 602 uppers.

Gotcha