Page 4 of 14 FirstFirst ... 23456 ... LastLast
Results 31 to 40 of 136

Thread: McFarland Gas Ring vs. Standard

  1. #31
    Join Date
    Jun 2006
    Location
    NOVA
    Posts
    738
    Feedback Score
    0
    Stock buffers Grant. I saw that this weekend.
    Yup, every vehicle has a Commando. He has it set up so that they can sling up and deploy from the car.
    The bike look great with the Commandos, and the use policy is dead on.
    His program pre dates the N. Hollywood incident. He was a clear thinker.

  2. #32
    Join Date
    Jun 2006
    Location
    USA
    Posts
    305
    Feedback Score
    1 (100%)
    Quote Originally Posted by C4IGrant
    Roger Pat. The next time you talk to him, please ask him what buffers they are running in their 11.5's. I would be curious to know as we now have two different opinions on what they run....
    C4
    So you trust Pat to get it correct from Dean but not Submariner?
    Last edited by C4IGrant; 01-26-07 at 19:13.
    Aubrey<><

  3. #33
    Join Date
    May 2006
    Location
    VA/OH
    Posts
    29,630
    Feedback Score
    33 (100%)
    Quote Originally Posted by Submariner
    ee

    That is what was stated in class (from my contemporaneous notes, not memory): standard carbine buffers, Colt action springs and gas rings. Given all the bandwidth prior to that time (July 2006) on heavier buffers and such for short barrels, his statement was noteworthy. (ETA: So I made a note of it. He did not state, nor do I recall anyone asking, how the guns came from the factory. I corroborated this with two other people who were actually there. Could it be that is how they came from the factory? Could they have been purchased some time ago? Since you are talking to Dean, you might ask him.)

    I think your recollection on periodicity of checking the gas rings is is faulty. Here is the TM: TM9-1005-319-23. Check out Section 2-7 dealing with Preventive Maintenance Checks and Services. PM's are Quarterly, not every 3000 rounds. (Crane hasn't finished its shot counter yet.) While a good idea, it requires the user to maintain a gun book. And that notion, also very good, is not a requirement of the TM. So they schedule it quarterly.
    From what I have been told, Colt M4's are now being issued with H2 buffers and I have seen 6920's come with them as well. The 6520 I have in the shop currently has an H buffer. So I would think that the 11.5's would come with at least an H or H2.

    As far as the 3K, that number is useful or you can do quarterly PM's (doesn't really matter what you do as long as you do something).


    C4
    Last edited by C4IGrant; 01-26-07 at 19:11.

  4. #34
    Join Date
    May 2006
    Location
    VA/OH
    Posts
    29,630
    Feedback Score
    33 (100%)
    Quote Originally Posted by Aubrey
    So you trust Pat to get it correct from Dean but not Submariner?

    I trust the person that contacts Dean and replies back to this thread with what he said.

    It is 100% possible that the 11.5's are issued with carbine buffers. This would mean that BOTH Pat and Paul are correct.



    C4

  5. #35
    Join Date
    May 2006
    Location
    VA/OH
    Posts
    29,630
    Feedback Score
    33 (100%)
    Quote Originally Posted by Aubrey
    Which 300 series CRES (Corrosion-REsistant Steel)? 321? Heat-treated to what temper?

    Sheet metal? You do realize that 3xx CRES comes in sheet form? Sheet is a material form, like rod, bar, plate... Sheet form is not necessarily "cheap" or inferior. It may, in fact, be the logical choice for a part. Sheet-metal parts may also be heat-treated and otherwise processed to meet requirements. Best-value designs utilize cost-effective materials and manufacturing processes AS APPROPRIATE. If more-expensive materials and/or processes are required to meet requirements, then they are appropriate. However, if less-expensive materials and/or processes meet the requirements, then the customer gets a less-expensive product and/or the manufacturer enjoys a higher profit margin.

    Now if one product form allows greater reliability or service life (increased requirements) than that allowed by another, then additional material or processing cost may be justifiable.

    Are the McFarland gas rings more reliable? Do they last longer? Has anyone actually documented any testing to verify this? I read on the errornet that the SOPMOD kit that included the Crane O-ring and 5-coil extractor spring also included the McFarland gas rings. Is this still the case? Can anyone share test data with us that might demonstrate that these parts are indeed superior?

    I am not anal enough to ask them which of the 300 series SS they were using (sorry).

    I asked them about standard gas rings and what they thought. Their comment to me was that they were cheap sheet metal so take it for what its worth.

    My POV on the subject is that if you have ever taken your gas rings off, they are VERY flimsy and cheap feeling items. If you have ever handled the McFarland rings, you would have the exact opposite opinion. That is the easiest way for me to describe it.

    I have seen early Crane upgrade kits with the McFarland Gas rings. I don't know if they still include them or not though.


    C4
    Last edited by C4IGrant; 01-26-07 at 19:20.

  6. #36
    Join Date
    May 2006
    Location
    VA/OH
    Posts
    29,630
    Feedback Score
    33 (100%)
    Quote Originally Posted by Pat_Rogers
    Stock buffers Grant. I saw that this weekend.
    Yup, every vehicle has a Commando. He has it set up so that they can sling up and deploy from the car.
    The bike look great with the Commandos, and the use policy is dead on.
    His program pre dates the N. Hollywood incident. He was a clear thinker.

    Roger Pat that is interesting to say the least. Do you know if the 11.5's were stock Colt's?

    I believe I read on Advanced Armament's web site that they recommended heavy buffers for supressed Commando's. A can of course does increase back pressure, but not enough to warrant an H3 buffer though.


    C4
    Last edited by C4IGrant; 01-26-07 at 19:25.

  7. #37
    Join Date
    Oct 2006
    Location
    OH/USA
    Posts
    196
    Feedback Score
    1 (100%)
    As I posted on Grant's FN B&C discussion, I don't think the McFarland gas rings are an improvement.
    As far as I'm concerned, they fall into the "excellent solution to a non-existent problem" category.

    In my experience they add additional drag (friction) to the system and the only payoff is the marginally better gas seal that's not really needed. After a couple of hundred rounds without additional lube they start to bind and drag more than standard gas rings. Perhaps this is a function of the coiled ring being fouled and increasing tension, but I don't know for sure. I know that's what they did in my experience. (Mil-spec parts and good lube, BTW)
    I know I dumped mine for standard gas rings that are easy to check for wear, are inexpensive to replace, function fine, and last long enough.
    Just my experience- YMMV.

    As for Commando buffers...
    We have a total of one, early 90's vintage, and it has a standard buffer. Many, many thousands of rounds and I can't ever remember a malfunction.
    A properly built and maintained Commando (or M4, M16, etc.) shouldn't need anything special to work correctly.

  8. #38
    Join Date
    May 2006
    Location
    VA/OH
    Posts
    29,630
    Feedback Score
    33 (100%)
    Quote Originally Posted by MASP7
    As I posted on Grant's FN B&C discussion, I don't think the McFarland gas rings are an improvement.
    As far as I'm concerned, they fall into the "excellent solution to a non-existent problem" category.

    In my experience they add additional drag (friction) to the system and the only payoff is the marginally better gas seal that's not really needed. After a couple of hundred rounds without additional lube they start to bind and drag more than standard gas rings. Perhaps this is a function of the coiled ring being fouled and increasing tension, but I don't know for sure. I know that's what they did in my experience. (Mil-spec parts and good lube, BTW)
    I know I dumped mine for standard gas rings that are easy to check for wear, are inexpensive to replace, function fine, and last long enough.
    Just my experience- YMMV.

    As for Commando buffers...
    We have a total of one, early 90's vintage, and it has a standard buffer. Many, many thousands of rounds and I can't ever remember a malfunction.
    A properly built and maintained Commando (or M4, M16, etc.) shouldn't need anything special to work correctly.
    The McFarland gas ring might not be an upgrade (I think it is simply for the materials used). The other kicker is that they aren't any more expensive than standard gas rings. I also don't think they will need as much replacing as standard rings do either.

    All AR's will run with a car buffer. What we are seeing though is a trend with manufacturers using heavier buffers (like when Colt went from H buffers to H2 buffers in the M4 and 6920). There is a reason for this.


    C4

  9. #39
    Join Date
    Jul 2006
    Location
    Paradise
    Posts
    828
    Feedback Score
    0
    Does anyone know how Ken Elmore sets up his Commando's?
    "So have your buddy get a box of stray cats and try to get a good sight picture while he is throwing the cats at you... naked." - KLD

    Get yours news at Presscheck.org!

  10. #40
    Join Date
    Jul 2006
    Location
    NoVa
    Posts
    123
    Feedback Score
    1 (100%)
    I've used Mcfarland gas rings on both a 16" carbine and 20" rifle for years with no problems whatsoever. If you think/feel you need them go ahead, otherwise standard rings work.
    Victory needs no explanation. Defeat allows none

Page 4 of 14 FirstFirst ... 23456 ... 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
  •