I've bought the same bolts from him before. They look fine and run fine in my rifles
This dealer has sold too much stuff he would have been called out if he sold junk
Printable View
for the gas rings, these two options are essentially the same thing?
is one preferred over the other?
https://dsgarms.com/upper-receiver-parts-dsg-4102-0009
and
https://dsgarms.com/upper-receiver-parts-armeb0120-3
According to Wikia.org/Military, they did for the CQBR/Mk18 upper receiver assembly. https://military.wikia.org/wiki/Clos...attle_Receiver
Quote: "The short 10.3 in (262 mm) barrel length requires special modifications to reliably function. The gas port is opened from 0.062 to 0.070 in (0.16 to 0.18 mm). A one-piece McFarland gas ring replaces the three-piece gas ring set. The standard four-coil extractor spring is replaced with a commercial off-the-shelf (COTS) five-coil spring. An O-ring surrounds the extractor spring. The standard M4 flash hider has been replaced with the M4QD flash hider for suppressor compatibility."
This is a good read:https://www.m4carbine.net/showthread...your-gas-rings
The standard rings just plain work.
It's hard to argue changing them for something less proven that may potentially cause issues.
IIRC, most of the problems with McFarland rings were due to improper sizing, material, and treatment. Process issues, mostly. Not all one-piece rings are the same ("parts is parts"). And because it's a wizbang part, a quality unit does cost 3x more than a perfectly good set of regular rings. So, while it could be a viable enhancement, I think distrust overran the concept. One could say that they are a solution looking for a problem, however, as linked above, Crane deemed them worthy for a fairly harsh application.