Page 13 of 14 FirstFirst ... 311121314 LastLast
Results 121 to 130 of 132

Thread: Spikes CHF mid-length also by FN

  1. #121
    Join Date
    Nov 2010
    Location
    Michigan
    Posts
    3,799
    Feedback Score
    19 (100%)
    Quote Originally Posted by C4IGrant View Post
    I am familiar with FN made barrels as several quality companies use them and have so for years (quietly).

    The barrels quality depends on how the customer specs them. Meaning, the contour, chamber dims, gas port size, etc ,etc.

    **
    C4
    I understand that if ST specified something stupid, like a tight .223 match chamber and a 0.10" gas port, FN would simply make that and these would be iffy barrels. But assuming ST specified something more intelligent, I'm also going to assume that FN would make a quality barrel to those specifications. I'm further assuming that FN is going to use their standard materials and process, assuming that ST specified such materials and process, and that the quality will be comparable to other FNH-USA forged barrels apart from anything ST might have screwed up in their specs.

    As just an amateur, I would further think that ST could spec these pretty well by just copying the chamber and gas port from another quality company, even without doing any of their own engineering.

    My only hesitations would be not knowing if the chrome lining was being done in-house at FN or by some other contractor for ST - I'm going to hope and assume by FN - and not knowing what the dimensional tolerances and reject rate would be for these vs. forged barrels made by FNH-USA but sold by BCM or Noveske. On the optimistic side the nature of the forging process should result in minimal dimensional variation - the mandrel is either right or not, and if it's not I would expect all of the barrels to be off by the same amount.

    This is all a bit academic for me because according to UPS, I have one of these sitting in a box on my stairs, and it should be in my hot little hands within the hour.

  2. #122
    Join Date
    May 2006
    Location
    VA/OH
    Posts
    29,630
    Feedback Score
    33 (100%)
    Quote Originally Posted by SomeOtherGuy View Post
    I understand that if ST specified something stupid, like a tight .223 match chamber and a 0.10" gas port, FN would simply make that and these would be iffy barrels. But assuming ST specified something more intelligent, I'm also going to assume that FN would make a quality barrel to those specifications. I'm further assuming that FN is going to use their standard materials and process, assuming that ST specified such materials and process, and that the quality will be comparable to other FNH-USA forged barrels apart from anything ST might have screwed up in their specs.

    As just an amateur, I would further think that ST could spec these pretty well by just copying the chamber and gas port from another quality company, even without doing any of their own engineering.

    My only hesitations would be not knowing if the chrome lining was being done in-house at FN or by some other contractor for ST - I'm going to hope and assume by FN - and not knowing what the dimensional tolerances and reject rate would be for these vs. forged barrels made by FNH-USA but sold by BCM or Noveske. On the optimistic side the nature of the forging process should result in minimal dimensional variation - the mandrel is either right or not, and if it's not I would expect all of the barrels to be off by the same amount.

    This is all a bit academic for me because according to UPS, I have one of these sitting in a box on my stairs, and it should be in my hot little hands within the hour.
    You could be 100% correct. Or I could be. Or we both could be.

    The only real way to see what is quality and what isn't is to look at everything from barrel materials used, to the thickness of the chrome, to the GP size, to getting molds made of the chamber and to see the HPT and MPI certs. Sadly, most common shooters do not understand most of this stuff nor do they have the capability to check any of it. So the answer might never be known.

    Enjoy your upper and shoot the crap out of it!



    C4

  3. #123
    Join Date
    Sep 2010
    Posts
    354
    Feedback Score
    0
    It's funny the firearms biz is the only one I've come across with this secret-supplier attitude. Every day you hear company X will not say where part A comes from. In other ventures, for example electronics, they will print the log on every last IC, condenser and capacitor will have a name and logo on it. As with anything they are not all created equal. The computer motherboard industry has learned in the last decade or so, that it's a lever in the market they can use, and will advertise openly who they use (when they use good stuff). And it works. It's peculiar the AR biz is the way it is. I get the products standing on there own, but it's still odd and inefficient. Old fashioned almost. Cars are the same way, everything has a logo on it. Even when it's glaringly NOT an advantage, like the number of parts in a late model Porsche that have the VW logo on them as an example, nobody wants to hear that, but there they are. GM's the same way. Anything without a name on it makes me nervous to be honest, and the name on the box don't count.

  4. #124
    Join Date
    May 2006
    Location
    VA/OH
    Posts
    29,630
    Feedback Score
    33 (100%)
    Quote Originally Posted by wolf_walker View Post
    It's funny the firearms biz is the only one I've come across with this secret-supplier attitude. Every day you hear company X will not say where part A comes from. In other ventures, for example electronics, they will print the log on every last IC, condenser and capacitor will have a name and logo on it. As with anything they are not all created equal. The computer motherboard industry has learned in the last decade or so, that it's a lever in the market they can use, and will advertise openly who they use (when they use good stuff). And it works. It's peculiar the AR biz is the way it is. I get the products standing on there own, but it's still odd and inefficient. Old fashioned almost. Cars are the same way, everything has a logo on it. Even when it's glaringly NOT an advantage, like the number of parts in a late model Porsche that have the VW logo on them as an example, nobody wants to hear that, but there they are. GM's the same way. Anything without a name on it makes me nervous to be honest, and the name on the box don't count.

    There is a reason for this. I once asked a well known manufacturer to do a write up on all their procedures and protocols for how they build an AR. I said, "Tell them where these parts come and how much effort you put into building the best AR on the planet." They said no.

    I argued that they would gain market share if they educated the consumer as to why they were better than most every other gun manufacturer out there. They said no.

    Why??

    Simple. By detailing what they do and how they do it, they would be giving their competition the ability to close the gap on them.

    There is so much copy cat BS in the AR world and so few people that actually KNOW how to build a quality AR that this info is pretty closely guarded.


    C4
    Last edited by C4IGrant; 07-28-11 at 23:41.

  5. #125
    Join Date
    Sep 2010
    Posts
    204
    Feedback Score
    3 (100%)
    thanks for taking the time to post this stuff on m4c Grant. I really appreciate the experienced and knowledgeable posts you contribute.

  6. #126
    Join Date
    May 2006
    Location
    VA/OH
    Posts
    29,630
    Feedback Score
    33 (100%)
    Quote Originally Posted by avengd7x View Post
    thanks for taking the time to post this stuff on m4c Grant. I really appreciate the experienced and knowledgeable posts you contribute.
    Thanks for the kind words.

    At the end of the day, I don't care what products people buy, just be informed, know how the "system" works and learn how to read what manufacturers are telling you.

    If you own a BM, Colt, ST, or Oly make sure you take it out, function test it, go to training classes and shoot it!



    C4

  7. #127
    Join Date
    Sep 2010
    Posts
    354
    Feedback Score
    0
    Quote Originally Posted by C4IGrant View Post
    There is a reason for this. I once asked a well known manufacturer to do a write up on all their procedures and protocols for how they build an AR. I said, "Tell them where these parts come and how much effort you put into building the best AR on the planet." They said no.

    I argued that they would gain market share if they educated the consumer as to why they were better than most every other gun manufacturer out there. They said no.

    Why??

    Simple. By detailing what they do and how they do it, they would be giving their competition the ability to close the gap on them.

    There is so much copy cat BS in the AR world and so few people that actually KNOW how to build a quality AR that this info is pretty closely guarded.


    C4
    I understand the logic, but I think it's faulty unless you are talking about some really, really custom high end stuff. Which most stuff isn't. There's the TDP for starters, on top of the fact that there just isn't that much to these things. It's an old machine, it's easy to put together, for a competent metallurgist and forge operator the materials have been around forever, to a competent machining operator the parts aren't that hard to make, baring in mind I'm talking "normal" rifle here, not super tuned match stuff in which no doubt there are "trade secrets" like anything else.
    Most of the mistakes I see manufacturers guilty of are are stupid one's, we used a cheap bolt, we drilled our gas port the wrong size, our chamber isn't right, we didn't stake something well, etc, etc. Most of it's from bad component selection unless they do actually MAKE the stuff themselves, in which case there is no excuse as easy as it is to reverse engineer a hunk of metal these days. I think it's more a matter of it is in fact, all the same stuff, just some people pick better stuff. If the "stuff" were known quantities this would all be much simpler.
    I heard twice today about RRA's chambers being too tight, well instead of looking down on RRA alone we could look down on who makes RRA's barrels along with RRA for not being aware of such. This is just an example and I have no experience with them one way or another. It just seems like a goofy slow way of doing things. Anything else I buy I WILL know where the components came from if at all humanly possible, but all this stuff that explodes right next to your face and might possibly have to defend your life one day, we take the "yeah, it's mil-spec" answer. I can see why people buy Colt just so they can avoid all this.

    I'd like to see, when I buy an upper for example, an itemized list of who made each part. A name, with an address, with a history and a reputation to protect. FN on a barrel is a good start. If it turns out to be crap, I like that I can ask FN what the deal is, if they say "hey, we just made what they told us to make" then I'll know the score, and the FN name will mean a lot less to me in the future.
    Then I can talk to ST. I think ya'll are making things a lot harder on yourselves in this business than it has to be.

  8. #128
    Join Date
    Nov 2010
    Location
    Michigan
    Posts
    3,799
    Feedback Score
    19 (100%)
    Quote Originally Posted by wolf_walker View Post
    I understand the logic, but I think it's faulty unless you are talking about some really, really custom high end stuff. Which most stuff isn't. There's the TDP for starters,**
    I'm mostly in agreement with this. I'm also a bit confused that we always talk about compliance with the TDP, yet from all I've read no one other than Colt and the US Government should have access to the genuine and complete TDP for the M4, and only a few more companies (FNH for one) should have access to the M16 TDP - and FNH is apparently barred from making use of that for any commercial purpose anyway. Maybe I'm missing something.


    Quote Originally Posted by wolf_walker View Post
    I heard twice today about RRA's chambers being too tight, well instead of looking down on RRA alone we could look down on who makes RRA's barrels along with RRA for not being aware of such. *** FN on a barrel is a good start. If it turns out to be crap, I like that I can ask FN what the deal is, if they say "hey, we just made what they told us to make" then I'll know the score, and the FN name will mean a lot less to me in the future.
    Then I can talk to ST. I think ya'll are making things a lot harder on yourselves in this business than it has to be.
    I disagree here. The company assembling and selling the rifle or upper is, in my view, solely responsible for what goes into it. If they specify bad ideas (like .223 chambers) or don't bother testing to ensure they are getting what they asked for, blame rests for them. If Shaw or Wilson sends RRA barrels that meet RRA's specs, they are blameless if those specs are less than ideal. Likewise, if FNH-USA sends ST barrels that meet ST's specs, any defects in the design rest with ST.

    I have my new ST upper sitting next to me. It looks just like in the ads! I may not get to shoot it for a week or two so I doubt I'll have the first range report. I am pleasantly surprised by the NiB coated carrier group - I would not have paid extra for that as I view it mostly as a solution in search of a problem, but it sure does look and feel smooth and slick. Otherwise there isn't much to report until I have some rounds through it, or chop it up and send labeled pieces to someone with a mass spectrometer and a scanning electron microscope (which is not in my current plans).

  9. #129
    Join Date
    Jul 2011
    Posts
    265
    Feedback Score
    2 (100%)
    Short of a rstripped eceiver, any of those parts could be bought direct - thus cutting out the builder - if they told you who they got them from. That is probably a good part of why they don't say where they get them.

  10. #130
    Join Date
    Sep 2010
    Posts
    354
    Feedback Score
    0
    I've seen a lot of really expensive, really desirable, really in demand, really well thought of and reviewed hardware that I have held in my hands in a manner few people do and been able to say "huh, this is a stupid ass design". Years of this has made me want to know specifically who makes what at all times, and where to assign blame.
    Parts change over time, even knowing a manufacturer of a thing is not an etched in stone promise of quality. I've seen it happen time and time again, look at Bosch for an example. Leaving anything up to a company to pick out parts and put them together bothers me. I can appreciate many, most, people want to just buy something from a "good guy" and be OK, but we don't call this a hobby for nothing. I don't anyway. Everything I own that is of any consequence to me, computers, cars, etc, I know where the parts came from. I don't know who made the refrigerant lines in my refrigerator but I don't really care as long as it works in that case. I do know who made the board and LCD and battery and assorted other chips and subsystems in my smartphone. That sort of thing. I see no reason to be any different with an AR.

Page 13 of 14 FirstFirst ... 311121314 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
  •