Page 5 of 5 FirstFirst ... 345
Results 41 to 45 of 45

Thread: Adcor Defense New Direct Impingement Rifle

  1. #41
    Join Date
    Mar 2011
    Location
    MD
    Posts
    20
    Feedback Score
    0
    Quote Originally Posted by BigNog View Post
    As far as the forward charging handle eating into the receiver, I think that it must be normal for this design or it is a problem they all have. I was looking at an SBR upper at a local shop and it had the same exact gouging in the same location as the OP's gun.
    The charging handle is not eating into the receiver. It is normal wear, just like the standard charging handle catch on an everyday AR-15, it is going to wear through the anodize over time.

    It this issue was such a big deal, how come nobody else is complaining about it? You have one un-happy customer who posted some pictures.

  2. #42
    Join Date
    Nov 2011
    Posts
    65
    Feedback Score
    2 (100%)
    Quote Originally Posted by Adcor Defense View Post
    The charging handle is not eating into the receiver. It is normal wear, just like the standard charging handle catch on an everyday AR-15, it is going to wear through the anodize over time.

    It this issue was such a big deal, how come nobody else is complaining about it? You have one un-happy customer who posted some pictures.
    It wasn't anodize wearing off but rather actual material displacement, I will see if I can grab some pictures this week, it was at Loudoun Guns in Leesburg VA. Like I said I assumed it was normal for the design and wouldn't affect function, nobody said it was a big deal but you hadn't replied in the other thread and I wanted to share what I had seen myself.
    Last edited by BigNog; 12-06-11 at 21:10.

  3. #43
    Join Date
    Sep 2008
    Location
    Texas
    Posts
    1,316
    Feedback Score
    33 (100%)
    First off you should A; Send some examples out to non partisan end users before you release a product to the public.

    B; Why even machine a catch that allows metal to be removed, why not just remove the catch, it's not needed it's under pressure.
    Last edited by SW-Shooter; 12-07-11 at 20:14.

  4. #44
    Join Date
    Feb 2011
    Location
    Arizona
    Posts
    40
    Feedback Score
    0
    Quote Originally Posted by Adcor Defense View Post
    The charging handle is not eating into the receiver. It is normal wear, just like the standard charging handle catch on an everyday AR-15, it is going to wear through the anodize over time.

    It this issue was such a big deal, how come nobody else is complaining about it? You have one un-happy customer who posted some pictures.
    No one said that the charging handle is eating into the receiver, I stated in my original post (https://www.m4carbine.net/showthread.php?t=88729) that the front charging handle was taking chunks and shavings of metal off the front of the rail system of the rifle, were the charging handle latches. By the way, this was proven in my pictures posted. The fact that this much metal was being removed is not a minor problem, your company needs to go back to the drawing board and make a different system.

    Within this post you asked the question "how come nobody else is complaining about it?", well here is someone else. This was stated by jabara571 at ar15.com (jabara571 statements are in bold). http://www.ar15.com/forums/t_3_126/548960_.html

    Pretty hillarious, this is from the other thread at m4c.net

    "Secondly, as I have spent some time manipulating this weapon, I have noticed that the front charging handle cover has become worn and a small amount of metal has become exposed on the handle itself. This has caused a vast amount metal to be removed from the front rail where the front charging handle comes into contact with it at closing (the metal being removed looks like chunks have been taken out, and there are flakes of metal all over the rail itself).

    I asked ADCOR if pulling the front charging handle back and letting it go was a proper way of manipulating the weapon, they assured me it was, and that metal should not be coming off. ADCOR initially explained to me that this sounds like a failure of some sort. I have only pulled the front charging handle back and let it go no more than two dozen times for it to get to this point. I do not understand how this is a failure, it appears to be the result of the natural design of the weapon that causes this to happen.

    Each time that the forward charging handle is pulled back and let go, new metal dimples appear and more metal is taken off each time. I could see after doing this around a hundred times, that there would no longer be a shelf there for the charging handle to hold onto."


    Its funny because I had the exact same problem on my THIRD adcor upper, and the VP of Adcor was as dismissive as he possibly could be, swearing that it wasnt an issue at all and was only "FINISH WEAR". One of the many reasons i ditched my Adcor upper as quickly as possible. My upper was literally eating itself alive just cycling the action by hand, i didnt want to see how much material would be left in a year....


    also from that thread: ".... came to the conclusion that I needed to send my rifle in to have the lower replaced because he said that the internal mag well should be smooth, and that metal shaving should not becoming off of the rail where I described. I went ahead and sent the rifle back over the long Labor Day weekend.

    ...Jerry and Rick (VP of sales who use to work for COLT and FNH) contacted me and told me that nothing was wrong with the rifle and they were unwilling to do anything about the issues."


    That sounds oddly familiar to me! same BS they wanted to fix mine too and then gave me sh*t about it when it got back to them. Sad. Sad

    "...I guess I have the privilege of being their first refund; which they still are trying to figure out how to give me. ADCOR told me that because they have never issued someone a refund, they are unsure of how to do it (it seems to me they never thought someone would have a problem with their "Perfect" rifle). So far, they have contacted the company I bought the weapon from, and are going to give them a credit and make them give me the refund (so they do not loose any money in the process). The company I bought the rifle from says this is an unconventional business practice, and if the rifle was sent back to the manufacturer, that the refund should come from them. ADCOR's website states that if you are not completely satisfied with their product for any reason within 30 days that they will issue you a refund. This doesn't seem to be the case. "


    The first thing they wanted to do was cut me a check for a refund. I didn't buy it from them either, Rick said it was a piece of cake, send in the upper, cut a personal check to me, and this was almost TWO MONTHS AGO


    All of jabara571 statements, about his experiences with your upper, sound awfully familiar to mine.

  5. #45
    Join Date
    Feb 2011
    Location
    Arizona
    Posts
    40
    Feedback Score
    0
    Quote Originally Posted by Adcor Defense View Post
    Thank you for an opportunity to address this issue.

    First, there is no "rise" in the mag well. There is a process line where the broach comes down from the top and then up from the bottom.

    We made the mag well slighty larger than the standard print dimensions to allow for Lancer and Pmags, which are plastic and prone to minor swelling. So, in fact the mag well on the rifle in question is larger and should have no drag on a P mag or any other mag.

    We never said that we were not going to fix the issue until the next production run. What we said was that the first run had this line on it that did not effect function of the rifle. There is no way that this line damaged a P mag.
    You are using a play on words, and it doesn't seem that you were involved in the discussion I had over the phone with your company. Over the phone, I explained that I would like to have a smooth (rise free) internal mag-well, and Jerry told me that your company would not do that because it would cost you $500 in order to recalibrate the machines in order to make me a new one without defects, and that your company was not willing to take the loss on my account.

    The mag-well, within the rifle in question, did not have a simple "process line", nor was this the explanation that I was admittedly given over the phone. The rise in the photo I supplied is significant, and did in-fact cause plastic to be removed from the included p-mag that came with the rifle. I was told by Rick, that when you machine your lowers, a CNC machine comes in from the top and the bottom with two different bits, and it was explained to me that the two machining bits were not aligned. That is why you only see the rise on one side from the bottom of the mag-well, and one raised line from the top of the mag-well.

    Please stop trying to cover up the facts, and just speak the truth. I feel that I was very nice in my original post, even though I found some shortcomings on your rifle, and the horrible customer service experience. I mentioned in my original post that I thought everything on the rifle seemed to be solid and made well (except the shortcomings mentioned). I even stated that in the future that I would consider buying your rifle, but the design needs to have a second generation front charging handle that fixes the metal shaving design, and you need to do better quality control on your lowers.

Page 5 of 5 FirstFirst ... 345

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
  •