Page 6 of 8 FirstFirst ... 45678 LastLast
Results 51 to 60 of 75

Thread: Testing Gas Rings

  1. #51
    Join Date
    Jun 2006
    Location
    SE FL
    Posts
    14,148
    Feedback Score
    5 (100%)
    Quote Originally Posted by El Cid View Post
    As an update, I did install a McFarland ring. Put 40 rounds through it and everything works fine. I'm expecting to put 800+ through it in a week or so.

    FWIW I bought a few of the McFarland rings and don't see a reason to use anything else in the future.
    I'll be there with the camera, just in case it doesn't work.

  2. #52
    Join Date
    Feb 2007
    Posts
    1,917
    Feedback Score
    0
    Quote Originally Posted by rob_s View Post
    I'll be there with the camera, just in case it doesn't work.
    Awesome! Better be quick though... I always bring a spare BCG just because you never know what could happen.

  3. #53
    Join Date
    Feb 2007
    Posts
    1,917
    Feedback Score
    0
    Okay, it seems the problem is not solved. I put 693 rounds through the rifle in Kyle Defoor's class last weekend. Gun ran like a champ. Slow fire for distance, mag dumps, etc.

    Take the rifle down to clean it and... (drum roll please) the bolt carrier collapses on the bolt as if there were no rings. The ring (McFarland) appears compressed.

    I'd love to hear some thoughts/suggestions.

    Thanks!

  4. #54
    Join Date
    Dec 2009
    Posts
    76
    Feedback Score
    0
    One of my kit builds ate gas rings. Went through three sets of rings in the first couple hundred rounds. Got a Mcfarland ring from Fulton Armory and have put about 500-600 rounds through it with no further problems. Since then, all my AR's have Mcfarlands. Some pass the carrier weight test and some don't, but I have no problems.

  5. #55
    Join Date
    Jan 2010
    Location
    Northern Alabama
    Posts
    992
    Feedback Score
    1 (100%)
    Hmm. Here's two reports where McFarland rings failed the standard test, but users report their guns still run.

    Do McFarland rings need a different standard for testing whether they're worn out? My gut and engineering judgement both say "rings is rings. don't cut McFarland any slack". But then, why would McFarlands keep a gun running while loose, whereas loose 3-piece rings are known to cause short stroking?

    IraqGunz, I am super curious as to whether your large sample of McFarland rings passed or failed the "standard test" (i.e. does the bolt carrier collapse down onto the bolt when you set the assembly down on the bolt face). Also, if they "fail" the test, how'd you justify running them anyway?
    Last edited by kartoffel; 01-27-12 at 21:57.
    Oh no, not another lube thread! Read this first: Lubrication 101.

  6. #56
    Join Date
    Apr 2009
    Location
    Washington State
    Posts
    473
    Feedback Score
    0
    Quote Originally Posted by El Cid View Post
    ) the bolt carrier collapses on the bolt
    huh? Does the bolt fall out of the carrier when the cam pin and firing pin are removed and the carrier is inverted?

  7. #57
    Join Date
    Dec 2009
    Posts
    76
    Feedback Score
    0
    Quote Originally Posted by Tweak View Post
    huh? Does the bolt fall out of the carrier when the cam pin and firing pin are removed and the carrier is inverted?
    It was MY understanding that the test was as follows:
    Stand the bolt carrier group assembly up with the bolt facing down. If the weight of the carrier causes the bolt and carrier to telescope together then the rings were bad/questionable.

  8. #58
    Join Date
    Feb 2007
    Posts
    1,917
    Feedback Score
    0
    Quote Originally Posted by mtrmn View Post
    It was MY understanding that the test was as follows:
    Stand the bolt carrier group assembly up with the bolt facing down. If the weight of the carrier causes the bolt and carrier to telescope together then the rings were bad/questionable.
    That's correct. Same way the Army taught me in 1990. I have seen some folks do the opposite where they hold the bolt to see of the carrier falls off.

    I'm tempted to just keep shooting it until it starts to choke and see how long that is. The rings aren't expensive, but I don't think I should need to replace them every 500 rds.

    Kartoffel, the gun did this the first time with the standard 3 gas rings. It wouldn't pass the field test, but it continued to run without a hiccup so I don't think it's a McFarland thing. I am wondering if it's a Young Mfg thing though...
    Last edited by El Cid; 01-28-12 at 11:35.

  9. #59
    Join Date
    Jan 2008
    Location
    AZ-Waging jihad against crappy AR's.
    Posts
    24,902
    Feedback Score
    104 (100%)
    The method Tweak is describing is per the TM. The other method which is often used outside of the MIL is one that came about years back.

    I'm not sure who gets credit for it.

    Quote Originally Posted by mtrmn View Post
    It was MY understanding that the test was as follows:
    Stand the bolt carrier group assembly up with the bolt facing down. If the weight of the carrier causes the bolt and carrier to telescope together then the rings were bad/questionable.



    Owner/Instructor at Semper Paratus Arms

    Facebook: https://www.facebook.com/SemperParatusArms/

    Semper Paratus Arms AR15 Armorer Course http://www.semperparatusarms.com/cou...-registration/

    M4C Misc. Training and Course Announcements- http://www.m4carbine.net/forumdisplay.php?f=141

    Master Armorer/R&D at SIONICS Weapon Systems- http://sionicsweaponsystems.com

  10. #60
    Join Date
    Jan 2008
    Location
    AZ-Waging jihad against crappy AR's.
    Posts
    24,902
    Feedback Score
    104 (100%)
    Kartoffel,

    When I was doing the overhaul of Bushies I did a number of things.

    1. Checked and staked carrier key.

    2. Staked castle nut.

    3. Reamed chamber with M-guns reamer.

    4. Replaced extractor spring and insert.

    5. Replaced gas rings.

    In every case the gas rings ALWAYS passed the test. I never had any of the McFarlands fail and should they have, they would have been replaced.

    Quote Originally Posted by kartoffel View Post
    Hmm. Here's two reports where McFarland rings failed the standard test, but users report their guns still run.

    Do McFarland rings need a different standard for testing whether they're worn out? My gut and engineering judgement both say "rings is rings. don't cut McFarland any slack". But then, why would McFarlands keep a gun running while loose, whereas loose 3-piece rings are known to cause short stroking?

    IraqGunz, I am super curious as to whether your large sample of McFarland rings passed or failed the "standard test" (i.e. does the bolt carrier collapse down onto the bolt when you set the assembly down on the bolt face). Also, if they "fail" the test, how'd you justify running them anyway?



    Owner/Instructor at Semper Paratus Arms

    Facebook: https://www.facebook.com/SemperParatusArms/

    Semper Paratus Arms AR15 Armorer Course http://www.semperparatusarms.com/cou...-registration/

    M4C Misc. Training and Course Announcements- http://www.m4carbine.net/forumdisplay.php?f=141

    Master Armorer/R&D at SIONICS Weapon Systems- http://sionicsweaponsystems.com

Page 6 of 8 FirstFirst ... 45678 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
  •