Geez, you're a cranky little......
I see we are not an engineer. The design DOES NOT apply a torque to the op rod. The Op rod strikes the anvil (the key) and the force is vectored down intot he carrier. This will not eliminate side-loading, but helps redirect the force vector.
Redirect the force where ?
Yeah, it's a cool idea. But I add again... provide evidence of failures due to "carrier tilt." I bet you can't. And I mean FAILURES, not wear you find "unacceptable."
Do you have a short attention span I never posted failures why do you keep bringing this up? The rifle wasn't designed to wear there so yes its unacceptable.
If a "design flaw" doesn't cause failures, it's not a design flaw. Ever done risk management? If there is no consequence to the risk, it's not a risk.
If you are happy with that risk then go for it buddy .
Not QUITE. A force CAN cause torque, but it doesn't HAVE to. So no, not exactly the same.
Can you point out that it doesn't cause torque
B.S.M.E. UMCP 1990. R&D Engineer for the U.S. Navy 1990-present (as both a civil servant and contractor).
The enhanced bolt in the LWRC is not an LMT bolt. The whale tail extractor is intended to improve extraction.
The lmt enhanced bolt has a whale tail extractor to also to improve extraction
does it look like the one thats the 8th& 9th pic from the top?
http://www.weaponevolution.com/forum...read.php?t=341
The bolt carrier is intended to slow unlock and reduce stress on the lugs... what does that have to do with this thread?
Bookmarks