Page 7 of 11 FirstFirst ... 56789 ... LastLast
Results 61 to 70 of 102

Thread: S&W stock buffer or H2?

  1. #61
    Join Date
    May 2006
    Location
    VA/OH
    Posts
    29,630
    Feedback Score
    33 (100%)
    Quote Originally Posted by Dave L. View Post
    ...which is sad because I would gladly pay an extra $25 for a weapon that came with the correct part(s), rather than having to spend another $25 after I buy the weapon.

    Yes, I know, but you are FAR more educated about how AR's run and what is needed for them to run at their best.

    Most people have no idea how to even take apart their AR, like to shoot dirt and want everything as cheap as possible.


    C4

  2. #62
    Join Date
    Jun 2006
    Location
    SE FL
    Posts
    14,148
    Feedback Score
    5 (100%)
    Quote Originally Posted by ROADKING View Post
    No need in spending money if you dont have to, the manufactures build it so they should no more than us. thats why they build guns and we work. Like the old saying goes (IF ITS NOT BROKE DONT FIX IT).
    Now I REALLY need the ROTFLMAO smiley!

  3. #63
    Join Date
    May 2006
    Location
    VA/OH
    Posts
    29,630
    Feedback Score
    33 (100%)
    Quote Originally Posted by rob_s View Post
    Now I REALLY need the ROTFLMAO smiley!
    Ya, no chit. I remember one time I called up Oly and I asked them why they didn't stake their gas key. They advised me that it wasn't needed and the staking made it harder to change it out.

    Ya, they know best....

    This is why build all my own AR's.



    C4

  4. #64
    Join Date
    Aug 2006
    Location
    A-stan or MI or _________
    Posts
    3,652
    Feedback Score
    1 (100%)
    Quote Originally Posted by Iraqgunz View Post
    Well if that is the case then we don't need to worry about non-staked castle nuts, bolt carrier keys, castle nuts installed backwards a la Les Baer, chambers that aren't truly 5.56 even when the barrels is marked, improper extractor inserts and springs, etc.... ad nauseum. After all they wouldn't make it that way of it wasn't wrong right? And they always work don't they?
    I blame gun magazines. I wouldn't even wipe my ass with one... 3/4s of the rhetoric you hear in gun stores* is the regurgitated shit they[writers] type (the other 1/4 is complete myth).

    *Site Sponsors Not Included!
    Last edited by Dave L.; 03-04-09 at 17:21. Reason: edit
    Praise be to the LORD my Rock, who trains my hands for war, my fingers for battle. Psalm 144:1

    Owner of MI-TAC, LLC .

    @MichiganTactical

  5. #65
    Join Date
    May 2006
    Location
    VA/OH
    Posts
    29,630
    Feedback Score
    33 (100%)
    Quote Originally Posted by Dave L. View Post
    I blame gun magazines. I wouldn't even wipe my ass with one... 3/4s of the rhetoric you hear in gun stores* is the regurgitated shit they[writers] type (the other 1/4 is complete myth).

    *Site Sponsors Not Included!
    Gun mags started it, but the errornet has grown it 10,0000 times.


    C4

  6. #66
    Join Date
    Jul 2008
    Posts
    76
    Feedback Score
    0
    I have fired and observed two M&P 15's pretty extensively and I am surprised to hear they have larger than normal gas ports. Both are very cranky with .223 pressure loads (not locking back the bolts, etc.) but work just fine with 5.56 ammo. I made both owners use lots of lubrication, too. One of the guns is below 55,000 serial number, the other is 69,000 or so. Were there changes along the line? Should we be looking at some other problem with these two rifles? It would sure save these guys on ammo costs if I could get them to work with .223.

  7. #67
    Join Date
    May 2006
    Location
    VA/OH
    Posts
    29,630
    Feedback Score
    33 (100%)
    Quote Originally Posted by dorchester View Post
    I have fired and observed two M&P 15's pretty extensively and I am surprised to hear they have larger than normal gas ports. Both are very cranky with .223 pressure loads (not locking back the bolts, etc.) but work just fine with 5.56 ammo. I made both owners use lots of lubrication, too. One of the guns is below 55,000 serial number, the other is 69,000 or so. Were there changes along the line? Should we be looking at some other problem with these two rifles? It would sure save these guys on ammo costs if I could get them to work with .223.


    How old are the guns? There is a big change between the guns now and that were made 8-12 months ago.

    I think I know what the problem is.


    C4

  8. #68
    Join Date
    Jul 2008
    Posts
    76
    Feedback Score
    0
    Would you believe they are about 8 or 12 months old? They aren't mine but that does seem about the right time frame when my buds bought them (at my advice for a reasonably priced AR that would work).

  9. #69
    Join Date
    May 2006
    Location
    VA/OH
    Posts
    29,630
    Feedback Score
    33 (100%)
    Quote Originally Posted by dorchester View Post
    Would you believe they are about 8 or 12 months old? They aren't mine but that does seem about the right time frame when my buds bought them (at my advice for a reasonably priced AR that would work).

    Check your PM.


    C4

  10. #70
    Join Date
    Jul 2008
    Posts
    76
    Feedback Score
    0
    Thanks Grant, this has been bugging me for a while.

Page 7 of 11 FirstFirst ... 56789 ... 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
  •