Page 11 of 22 FirstFirst ... 91011121321 ... LastLast
Results 101 to 110 of 217

Thread: Colt LE6940P!

  1. #101
    Join Date
    May 2011
    Posts
    65
    Feedback Score
    1 (100%)
    Quote Originally Posted by sinlessorrow View Post
    1. You dont know much about pressure pins huh?
    This is an example of a press-fit pin, granted they are made of diff materials but you get the idea. If the pin is made correctly it will be nearly unbreakable.


    One of the most common uses of press-fit pins are in these

    I have yetto see a press-fit pin fail in those bad boys.

    2.i agree the Type-C was def better built.

    4. I doubt the NiB coating helped the Type-C, i have yet to see tangible proof that NiB is a better coating than phosphate. The SCAR does not use NiB and it won the The competition, the HK416 does not use a NiB bolt carrier, i have yet to see a proven general issue combat rifle that uses NiB bolt carriers. In 2003 when colt was working on the Type-C NiB was the new wiz bang gun coating, now most dont use it.

    You also have to think, bright, shiny, reflective coatings are generally counter productive for a combat rifle when it may give away your position.

    My experiences with NiB was that the coating sucks and causes more harm that good.
    Good diesels and 99% of racing motors use free floating wrist pins. Cars with motors that use press fit usually die within 200k.

    Not sure what material Colt uses for their pins, but there are specific alloys piston manufacturers use, generally tool steel. Also worth noting is that there aren't any high impact forces on the piston/con rod/crank. But there are on Colt's gas key.

  2. #102
    Join Date
    Jun 2007
    Location
    WA
    Posts
    454
    Feedback Score
    5 (100%)
    All this press fit pin crap is nice, well, and dandy, but it's simply not necessary.

    If colt is making all of their carriers common for ease of manufacture, why add extra steps with a press pin that makes things more complicated?

    Wouldn't it be easier to manufacture them all as one piece piston carriers and then on the ones needed for piston guns, they remain unchanged, and for the ones needed for DI guns, they mill the tombstone off and drill and tap for the carrier key prior to heat treat/temper/finish?

    Logically, this shit isn't necessarily tracking. It's actually adding in steps, introducing more parts, creating another possible weak point (can you guarantee that every press pin will be perfectly treated and hardened prior to installation?)

    I just love it when neophytes drink the koolaid and argue just to argue, even when the people they're arguing against have experience to back up their position.

    Sigh.
    It is missing the point to think that the martial art is solely in cutting a man down; it is in killing evil. It is in the strategem of killing the evil of one man and giving life to ten thousand -Yagyu Munemori

  3. #103
    Join Date
    May 2009
    Posts
    458
    Feedback Score
    21 (100%)
    I think everyone can agree that a one piece carrier would be the strongest. The question though should be, is the pinned connection strong enough? I would assume that they have have cranked through multiple endurance tests with this system. If there turns out to be a problem, I am sure they will change it.

  4. #104
    Join Date
    Jan 2012
    Location
    CLASSIFIED
    Posts
    84
    Feedback Score
    0
    Quote Originally Posted by GrumpyM4 View Post
    All this press fit pin crap is nice, well, and dandy, but it's simply not necessary.

    If colt is making all of their carriers common for ease of manufacture, why add extra steps with a press pin that makes things more complicated?

    Wouldn't it be easier to manufacture them all as one piece piston carriers and then on the ones needed for piston guns, they remain unchanged, and for the ones needed for DI guns, they mill the tombstone off and drill and tap for the carrier key prior to heat treat/temper/finish?

    Logically, this shit isn't necessarily tracking. It's actually adding in steps, introducing more parts, creating another possible weak point (can you guarantee that every press pin will be perfectly treated and hardened prior to installation?)

    I just love it when neophytes drink the koolaid and argue just to argue, even when the people they're arguing against have experience to back up their position.

    Sigh.
    My thoughts exactly, it IS adding more unnecessary steps that they will eventually find has weak points in the carrier due to this ridiculous process they have decided to use. It would be much easier as well as more effective to manufacture a solid one piece carrier since it's machined out of one solid piece which is one step. It's a wast of time to go threw the process of manufacturing a two piece carrier then heating & cooling pins that then need to be press fit in to a carrier that still requires standard staked hex screws on top of all that shit. Also it's a fact that a one piece carrier machined out of a solid piece of steel is stronger than a two piece carrier (no matter what kind of neat pins they use).

    I have been waiting for Colts APC (Advanced Piston Carbine) P0923 & the civvi semi-auto version: LE6940P & from what I have seen i'm disappointed that Colt couldn't use commonsense & manufacture a one piece carrier, until they do I think I may hold off on purchasing it, or get it & wait until they start having carrier recalls to be replaced with a one piece design. Either way, I have my LWRCi M6A2 that I have used in many advanced carbine classes & have yet to experience any type of malfunction with my M6A2.

    I am going to call Colt Defense today (Monday 7/2) & asking them about the carrier, piston system & if they have had any complants about the APC or LE6940P's carrier, i'll post what ever I find out from Colt after speaking with them.

    HERE is a video of an operator replacing his auto/SBR LWRCi M6A2 two piece carrier with a one piece carrier, that he recieved from LWRCi. He mentions that his 4 year old M6A2 that has 14K+ rounds threw it, with little maintenance & never having cleaned the gas block, piston or op rod, he has gone threw several of the two piece carriers due to them breaking/ coming loose, other than that he says he has had no other problems. Also it show the benefits of a carrier/ internals coated in NP3/ NiB, which the Colt Type-C used, but now doesn't on the LE6940P... I know it's not a Colt or the LE6940P but it's interesting:

    http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=kUwrfcXzxI4
    Last edited by Hungarian_Legionnaire; 07-02-12 at 08:49.

  5. #105
    Join Date
    Jul 2010
    Location
    ND
    Posts
    260
    Feedback Score
    4 (100%)
    The reason that Colt is using standard carriers and then pinning the tombstone on is that they have a limited number of mills available (The reason that it was so hard for so long to get Colt 1911s) and they need as many direct impingement parts as they can get for their standard direct impingement rifles (Military and LE contracts have precedence obviously and they are almost entirely DI). Additionally, if they were to have to mill off the tombstone on every carrier for the gas key then the amount of wasted steel would begin to add up, especially due to the fact that Colt's DI line outsells its piston line. Finally, in the event that the military does pick up the 6940P, Colt will immediately have carriers available, even if they have to scrounge from their DI lines in order to get them.
    "Every normal man must be tempted at times to spit on his hands, hoist the black flag, and begin to slit throats." - H. L. Mencken

  6. #106
    Join Date
    Jan 2012
    Posts
    36
    Feedback Score
    0
    The fake gas key on the piston carrier sticks up above the carrier right? So to manufacture a one-piece system you have to start with a bar of steel that is large enough in diameter so that you can machine away all of the excess. You would need to start with a much larger bar to make a one-piece carrier. That costs money in terms of material machined away, time spent on the machine, and in tool wear. Colt is going to design this as if they were going to build 100k or more of them a year. They have to take production costs into consderation more than the boutique piston upper manufacturers. Further if it is going to have any hope of replacing the DI system it will have to be something that could be manufactured in the millions/yr if necessary.

  7. #107
    Join Date
    Jan 2012
    Location
    LA
    Posts
    1,151
    Feedback Score
    0
    Quote Originally Posted by windellmc View Post
    The fake gas key on the piston carrier sticks up above the carrier right? So to manufacture a one-piece system you have to start with a bar of steel that is large enough in diameter so that you can machine away all of the excess. You would need to start with a much larger bar to make a one-piece carrier. That costs money in terms of material machined away, time spent on the machine, and in tool wear. Colt is going to design this as if they were going to build 100k or more of them a year. They have to take production costs into consderation more than the boutique piston upper manufacturers. Further if it is going to have any hope of replacing the DI system it will have to be something that could be manufactured in the millions/yr if necessary.
    I agree with you, and say to the other "engineers" here that if you are so much smarter than Colt and others you need to hire yourself out as consultants.
    Todd
    Colt/BCM

  8. #108
    Join Date
    Mar 2007
    Location
    EU
    Posts
    837
    Feedback Score
    2 (100%)
    keeping one carrier with just 2 different gas keys makes a lot more sense for a company... same raw materials, same tools, same machines, etc.
    *** Damn Proud to Be an American Ally ! ***

    The Armory:
    Colt 6601 - Colt 6731 - Colt 613 - Steyr StG.58 - M1 Carbine - Galil SAR - CZ Scorpion EVO - Franchi PA8 - Glock 17 - Pietta/Colt SAA 1873 - SA 1911A1 Mil Spec - Ruger LCP

  9. #109
    Join Date
    May 2011
    Posts
    3,095
    Feedback Score
    7 (89%)
    Quote Originally Posted by Todd00000 View Post
    I agree with you, and say to the other "engineers" here that if you are so much smarter than Colt and others you need to hire yourself out as consultants.
    one thing to note is that LWRCI dropped out of the IC because they couldnt make the 4,000 rifles per month. they did not have the machine capabilities.

    Colt does and building a carrier like they are allows for faster manuf. 4,000 rifles per month is a whole lot of rifles.

    thats 133 rifles per day. if building a two piece carrier and using pins that have shear strengths of 600-10,000lbs makes it easier and faster then so be it.

    its not like your going to break a pin, why isnt hungarian complaining the AK uses a press fit pin in its barrel.....wont it break to? when was the last time you heard of a AK barrel breaking off.

  10. #110
    Join Date
    Mar 2010
    Location
    Maine
    Posts
    7,868
    Feedback Score
    0
    Does anybody know what the **** the Hybrid Piston system is?

    That's the million dollar question, and I'm 100 times more interested in that than the piston system.
    We miss you, AC.
    We miss you, ToddG.

Page 11 of 22 FirstFirst ... 91011121321 ... LastLast

Bookmarks

Posting Permissions

  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts
  •