Page 10 of 18 FirstFirst ... 89101112 ... LastLast
Results 91 to 100 of 178

Thread: On loose carrier key screws

  1. #91
    Join Date
    Jul 2006
    Posts
    2,506
    Feedback Score
    7 (100%)
    Sionics does it right!

    MoMO stakes and the replicating at home thereof...... could be done with a hammer and punch if the setup was solid and a guy was careful and kinda artsy about it. Probably sounds sarcastic but I mean it (and kinda would like to try it). The other way of course would be with one of the MOACKS handtools, specifically the MOACKS Plain. SOTAR has been experimenting with the end form on the staking screws of the MOACKS Plain and I think coming very close to replicating the MoMO stake. I might at some point take a closer look at this but for the nonce I'm just too busy to roll any changes in and I just never get complaints about the current form. Chad if you want to comment please do.

    This thread, I don't mean to use it as anything but an information outlet, knowing that guys are interested in how things are done. Although I don't intend it as "advertisement", I can't pretend that to some degree it will not function as that. Thing is, no one else can really write about the stakers and experiments I've done, so..... I do it. Hope it doesn't come across as crass self-promotion.

    Okie, screws coming loose for seemingly no reason..... you have hit on some of the causes for sure. For some reason I can't fathom, a whole lot of companies are using offshore screws. The "YFS" brand (Taiwan) is the most common, and one of the worst, choices. It's probably elsewhere in this thread but the knurling is inadequate and the heads are roundy and shiny at the top where the side of the head meets the top surface. Even good staking won't lock them. Example-- the above MoMo'd carrier that I use for staker testing yesterday had YFS screws and the "one-big-cross-axis-whack" staking where it looks like it was done with sort of a screwdriver-blade shaped punch. They did a neat job of it but most or all of those I have seen, I have seen because it failed and the carrier was brought to me. One screw had already come loose and the other broke free at 47 inch pounds, well under the spec.

    Your over-torquing theory, I think that's likely too. The places where I've delivered my stakers and toured the place or observed how they do things, have taken those torque specs very seriously with some impressive equipment in use to make sure they get it right. Honestly if everything else is right I believe we could get by with very little to almost no torque, as long as the surfaces were touching and the screws couldn't move.

    I have seen a great many carriers where machining burrs prevent a key from seating, or, in the torquing process the torque is all used up in defeating the burrs to get the key down. Also surface imperfections from milling leaving gas escape routes. Everything matters!

    Edit: Another comment on screw brands. I forget who it was or maybe I never even knew, but I've seen carriers offered that had screws marked "TUZ". This is another Taiwanese brand and believe me I'm not disparaging everything Taiwanese because they do make some very good stuff. TUZ and YFS screws are probably fine in any other role besides as carrier key screws although in discussions with one domestic manufacturer who had some inside scoop on one of them, I got the distinct impression that "maybe not". Anyway-- the TUZ brand, this was a few years ago but I tracked it down and found that they had no distribution in the US. But you could get them on Amazon. My conclusion then was, some US outfit was so cheap that they were buying carrier key screws on Amazon.

    Or maybe the whole thing was coming from Taiwan.... who knows. Over the years I have received Emails from maybe a dozen places in China offering to supply (paraphrasing) "M16 bolt and carry make to perfect mil-spec at very pleasant price". I had an Email just this AM from a place in Turkey looking to supply similar. Might be good stuff but dang, there are a lot of people right here doing it, so......

  2. #92
    Join Date
    Jul 2006
    Posts
    2,506
    Feedback Score
    7 (100%)
    OCKS update.

    We are making a changeover to a full-on mil-spec screw with the same twelve locking crenellations that make the OCKS so superior in engaging the staking of the carrier key. What this means for you the end user is a screw with more consistent knurling that comes all the way to the top of the head, which has a minimal chamfer per the mil-spec drawing.

    These are not made by some shop in China "to happy happy mil-spec draw". These come from THE source, in the US, of screws that meet the genuine specs and are, and have been, used by primary Gov. suppliers of everything M16 and M4.
    .
    Almost everything about this change will be transparent to you unless you are testing breaking torque regularly, in which case you will see it go up if anything. The one change that will affect you is that the socket is 1/8" instead of 9/64". This is part of the mil-spec. Why is it different? Because they say so, for one thing. I think it simply goes back to the fact that in 1960, the screw industry changed and upgraded some standards, and one of those changes was that the socket size of 8-32 socket head cap screws (SHCS) changed from 1/8 to 9/64. The mil-spec screw drawing having originated prior to the 1960 changes, the drawing featured a 1/8" socket and it was never changed. That's my theory.

    https://www.fastenerdata.co.uk/1936-...art-difference ...... this is the clearest bit of info I've found on that change-over to "1960 Series" specs.

    Another change that will be transparent to you is that while our cost has gone up, yours stays the same. Any future price changes will reflect only prevailing costs and conditions.

    This change is being phased in over the next several weeks. You can be assured that no orders will contain a mixture of old and new, and orders shipped after today and into the near future will be clearly marked as to socket size.

    Thank you and happy staking!

  3. #93
    Join Date
    Feb 2008
    Location
    Washington
    Posts
    1,224
    Feedback Score
    0
    I'm curious why you never went with TORX Plus for the drive slots on the OCKS screws? Those are what really had caught on before the OCKS screws came along, so I always thought that combining the OCKS along with TORX Plus drive slots made sense.

  4. #94
    Join Date
    Jul 2012
    Location
    Elkton, Maryland
    Posts
    109
    Feedback Score
    0
    Quote Originally Posted by Ned Christiansen View Post
    OCKS update.

    We are making a changeover to a full-on mil-spec screw with the same twelve locking crenellations that make the OCKS so superior in engaging the staking of the carrier key. What this means for you the end user is a screw with more consistent knurling that comes all the way to the top of the head, which has a minimal chamfer per the mil-spec drawing.

    These are not made by some shop in China "to happy happy mil-spec draw". These come from THE source, in the US, of screws that meet the genuine specs and are, and have been, used by primary Gov. suppliers of everything M16 and M4.
    .
    Almost everything about this change will be transparent to you unless you are testing breaking torque regularly, in which case you will see it go up if anything. The one change that will affect you is that the socket is 1/8" instead of 9/64". This is part of the mil-spec. Why is it different? Because they say so, for one thing. I think it simply goes back to the fact that in 1960, the screw industry changed and upgraded some standards, and one of those changes was that the socket size of 8-32 socket head cap screws (SHCS) changed from 1/8 to 9/64. The mil-spec screw drawing having originated prior to the 1960 changes, the drawing featured a 1/8" socket and it was never changed. That's my theory.

    https://www.fastenerdata.co.uk/1936-...art-difference ...... this is the clearest bit of info I've found on that change-over to "1960 Series" specs.

    Another change that will be transparent to you is that while our cost has gone up, yours stays the same. Any future price changes will reflect only prevailing costs and conditions.

    This change is being phased in over the next several weeks. You can be assured that no orders will contain a mixture of old and new, and orders shipped after today and into the near future will be clearly marked as to socket size.

    Thank you and happy staking!
    Thank you for the update Ned. I just sent out your OCKS update via Facebook.

  5. #95
    Join Date
    Mar 2021
    Posts
    756
    Feedback Score
    0
    These have become my standard go to ever since I personally discovered them a while back. Still don't understand why they are not standard for any BCG manufacturer. The added cost has to be in the cents per BCG.

  6. #96
    Join Date
    Jan 2013
    Posts
    208
    Feedback Score
    4 (100%)
    Quote Originally Posted by 556Cliff View Post
    I'm curious why you never went with TORX Plus for the drive slots on the OCKS screws? Those are what really had caught on before the OCKS screws came along, so I always thought that combining the OCKS along with TORX Plus drive slots made sense.
    I’m curious about this as well.

  7. #97
    Join Date
    Jul 2006
    Posts
    2,506
    Feedback Score
    7 (100%)
    I think Torx is a great idea...... I have not delved into it deeply but it sure seems to offer advantages. Couple reasons I have not offered them that way. One, trying to keep up with everything else. Two, standardization, where some people are gonna say "those dang star-drive things again! I don't have the bit for it!" Also, what customers ask for..... there just has not been a lot of request for it. There has been some-- I've done a few batches with Torx sockets, fewer than 5,000 I think, for Umbrella Corp. Not sure but I presume they offer them in their BCG's and maybe as individual parts.

  8. #98
    Join Date
    Mar 2021
    Posts
    756
    Feedback Score
    0
    Quote Originally Posted by Ned Christiansen View Post
    ......."those dang star-drive things again! I don't have the bit for it!" .......
    This is me every time I need to loosen two of my optics mounts. I store the bits in the handle of my driver, and the end cap no longer snaps in place, so I end up dumping them out all over my work bench. Which is what I was going to have to do anyway to find the correct one. And since I only use them once in a great while I have no motivation to correct that situation. So essentially its my fault for being lazy

  9. #99
    Join Date
    Dec 2015
    Location
    Former USA
    Posts
    3,134
    Feedback Score
    0
    What's the reason for the change?
    You won't outvote the corruption.
    Sic Semper Tyrannis

  10. #100
    Join Date
    Jul 2006
    Posts
    2,506
    Feedback Score
    7 (100%)
    Cupcakes.

    When you bake them, the bottom and sides go to a certain specific shape because that's where the containment is in the cupcake pan. On the top they will vary a little. Cold-headed parts like a SHCS (socket-head cap screw) are similar in that the top of the head to some degree is formed by flow and not containment as much. So, there can be some inconsistency in the area that's critical to this particular application. No issue at all in most applications, but carrier key screws should be relatively sharp at the junction of the head top and head diameter. The arsenal print for these is very specific in this area, calling out a small max chamfer and calling out the knurl very clearly and that it must come all the way to the top. These screws, made to that print, achieve all this by having a couple secondary operations, where the head is left a little "full" on top and then is shaved down, making these critical areas controlled, then, the crennelations are added lastly..... which are more consistent due to greater consistency of the area where they are pressed in.

    AND..... I wanted to be able to throw the term "mil-spec" around. Oh plus they are Tactical and National Match :-)

    I have never had these areas complained about in I don't know how many thousands and thousands of screws, but I saw some room for improvement so I went there. Material, heat treat, and specs are unchanged; I spent an afternoon torque testing, testing to failure, and I find those numbers also identical.

Page 10 of 18 FirstFirst ... 89101112 ... 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
  •