Page 6 of 11 FirstFirst ... 45678 ... LastLast
Results 51 to 60 of 101

Thread: NEW SPR TROUBLE ON FIRST RANGE TRIP. UPDATE IN OP.

  1. #51
    Join Date
    Feb 2016
    Location
    North Alabama
    Posts
    5,310
    Feedback Score
    19 (100%)
    Third vote for "more info please"

    My understanding is that the Colt and Sprinco are very similar in performance. According to my uncalibrated finger and eyeballs, my BCM springs are stronger than the mystery springs included with PSA and Toolcraft BCGs but the Sprinco springs are stronger yet.

    Andy
    Last edited by AndyLate; 01-19-21 at 22:32.

  2. #52
    Join Date
    Jul 2006
    Location
    Oregon
    Posts
    4,630
    Feedback Score
    2 (100%)
    It’s not about who makes the strongest, it’s about not exceeding spring engineering stress limits. Above those limits spring life can go down significantly.

    There is no room in the space available to put the spring you would want in there. The Colt is basically as much as you can fit within that stress limit.

    That’s about the extent of what I got from knowledgeable sources, I have not run the numbers myself.

  3. #53
    Join Date
    Dec 2020
    Posts
    85
    Feedback Score
    0
    So the justification for the statement is something like “a big name I respect said so.”

    I had higher hopes.

  4. #54
    Join Date
    Jul 2006
    Location
    Oregon
    Posts
    4,630
    Feedback Score
    2 (100%)
    Spring calculations are not that complicated. You are welcome to get a engineer to tell you how spring stress works if you don’t believe me.

    You can do the stress calculations yourself, there are free calculators available online. You only need a few measurements off the spring.

  5. #55
    Join Date
    Feb 2016
    Location
    North Alabama
    Posts
    5,310
    Feedback Score
    19 (100%)
    I dont think anyone is doubting Colt engineered the springs correctly, just asking for empirical evidence supporting the statement that they are the only ones to do so.

    Andy

  6. #56
    Join Date
    Jun 2015
    Location
    Georgia
    Posts
    3,095
    Feedback Score
    2 (100%)
    Quote Originally Posted by AndyLate View Post
    Third vote for "more info please"

    My understanding is that the Colt and Sprinco are very similar in performance. According to my uncalibrated finger and eyeballs, my BCM springs are stronger than the mystery springs included with PSA and Toolcraft BCGs but the Sprinco springs are stronger yet.

    Andy
    This has been my understanding also, concerning the 4 coil Sprinco specifically. Whereas the 5 coil Sprinco is stiffer. The difference between the Colt and the 4 coil Sprinco being that the Sprinco has a MUCH MUCH longer service life, in the 100s of thousands versus 5-10k for the Colt. Is that right?

  7. #57
    Join Date
    Jul 2006
    Location
    Oregon
    Posts
    4,630
    Feedback Score
    2 (100%)
    As I said, it’s not hard to do yourself. Somebody I trust enough to properly measure a spring had a few different ones to work with. This was years ago and I don’t recall what specific “extra power” springs he had.

    That info has kept me running, without any problems, a Colt gold or standard rifle with o-ring. I have never seen a viton o-ring come apart and I suspect it’s standard rubber ones that do but I replace them regularly anyway.

    I’m not looking to disparage anyone’s favorite manufacturer, just passing on some knowledge I picked up that at least some of the “extra power” springs are not properly engineered.

  8. #58
    Join Date
    Apr 2008
    Posts
    2,144
    Feedback Score
    2 (100%)
    Quote Originally Posted by sinister View Post
    By your post (and the other one) this is a Young "National Match BCG."

    You do know there is no United States military or industry standard for National Match anything for the M16 and AR-15, correct? You bought into Young's snake-oil marketing. Their web site even states their carriers are NOT mil-spec.

    Your other thread says you've got a BCM bolt in the carrier, so I'm going to assume (yes, I know about ass out of you-and-me) that something may be causing a sluggish interference-fit between your bolt and carrier. Does this have standard gas rings or a MacFarland coil? Is the bore of the bolt carrier under-sized? Is your parkerized bolt tail polished to fit the carrier bore hole? Did you lube it well? Did you break it in (parkerized bolt finish against chrome carrier bore)?

    Does the gas tube bind on the gas carrier key on closing?

    HEY NOW, I resemble that remark!

    I bought a rifle several years ago with a Youngs carrier, bought it reasonably, has a Shilen barrel on it....it was built as a Prairie Dog killer originally. I did replace the funky PSG1 pistol grip, the Magpul PRS stock (with a UBR) and the old school free float tube with a BCM KMR-Alpha but other than that, it's been a superb rifle. Very accurate and not terribly picky about loads honestly...
    The truth can only offend those who live a lie.

  9. #59
    Join Date
    May 2008
    Posts
    5,286
    Feedback Score
    5 (100%)
    Since there is no standard for the term NM, I think it's just been semi-accepted because over the decades some really zoot high power rifle/ Camp Perry shooters started using this type barrel, trigger, free float set up, maybe something like some good gunsmith's idea of a blue printed BCG etc. etc. The idea just sort of trickled down to the masses
    Last edited by TomMcC; 01-21-21 at 20:16.

  10. #60
    Join Date
    Oct 2006
    Location
    Midland, Georgia
    Posts
    2,058
    Feedback Score
    6 (100%)
    There are, in fact, National Match standards and drawings for the M1903 rifle, the M1911A1 pistol, the M1 rifle, and the M14 rifle. You can find GI parts with the Army drawing number stamped on them as required per contract specifications.

    At the National Matches at Camp Perry the Army would give out booklets so that civilians and other gunsmiths could make guns to meet NM standards to pass inspection at Camp Perry and other Excellence-in-Competition matches.

    The Army stopped supporting the National Matches in 1968. The Army Materiel Command did not and does not have standardized parts or dimensions for National Match M16s, M9s, M11s, or M17s and 18s. Weapons and ammo must now meet the rules in Civilian Marksmanship Program rules for service rifle and service pistol competition, but there are no military standard drawings.









Page 6 of 11 FirstFirst ... 45678 ... 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
  •