Rock River Arms - Page 2

[ARCHIVED THREAD] - Rock River Arms (Page 2 of 2)

Posted: 2/9/2006 11:33:51 AM EDT

[#1]

Quoted:
Quoted:
Quoted:
Quoted:
I thought the BAR10s didn't sell well because they kept breaking.

RRA must have figured out the problems.

I wouldn't bet on it.

+1

here is a pic of Idahodirt's (AR15.COM) BAR10 bolt w/broken tailpiece.
I do not believe the bolt failures were limited to the tailpiece, I have seen an image of one with fractured locking lugs, will see if I can dig it up.

i1.tinypic.com/nfoh07.jpg

Forgive my ignorance, but wouldn't that gun still operate with the broken tailpiece?

The firing pin should prevent the tailpiece from falling off and interfering with the action, and even if broken it should still allow the firing pin to trave far enough forward to hit the primer while still preventing the firing pin from traveling too far forward and causing a slam fire.

I'm not suggesting that it's accecptable, but it should still run right?

In the thread, Idahodirt said his BAR10 jammed when the bolt broke, and it galled the receiver. Bushmaster replaced the entire rifle.

Posted: 2/9/2006 11:46:42 AM EDT

[#2]

Quoted:
Quoted:
Actually, the rumor of bolt breakage from FAL mags is false. People figured this was true due to the deleted lug of the early prototypes. The production models in fact did not have the deleted lug.

Then how would it feed reliably? The FAL has no barrel extension lugs (uses locking shoulder) and feeds into the chamber from the center. Their mags are designed for this type of feeding.

I would like to see this new design they have.

With all due respect to Troy, the broken bolt in your picture isn't from the feed design using FAL mags. You mentioned a picture with fractured bolt lugs, which is what I would expect from a design flaw concerning the bolt lock-up.

Posted: 2/9/2006 12:03:28 PM EDT

[#3]

Quoted:

Well it still looks to me like they have compromised lower bolt lug lockup, but time and rounds downrange will be the judge of whether it holds up or not, not me.

Posted: 2/9/2006 12:08:04 PM EDT

[#4]

Quoted:
Quoted:
Quoted:
At least RRA is smart enough that they priced the .308 in the $1000 to $1150 range which should put street price around $850 - $900.

Bushy killed the BAR by overpricing the hell out of it.

It is not the BAR. A few early models were called that, but they had to change it, as I suspect RRA will have to do.

The price did not kill the Bushy, although it helped. The lack of chrome lining and bolts breaking due to the mods for the FAL mags killed it.

Actually, the rumor of bolt breakage from FAL mags is false. People figured this was true due to the deleted lug of the early prototypes. The production models in fact did not have the deleted lug. Later on there was an inside rumor that Bushmaster goofed up the heat treating process on a large order that caused them some set backs in the warranty department. The bolt's typically broke at the tail of the bolt, and not near the lugs where the rumors said they should have.

Bushmaster always called it the BAR10, and Rock River will call it the LAR10 to coincide with their LAR15 series.

Bushmaster only called it the BAR 10 early on. They were forced to stop using the name. I suspect that RRA may run into the same problem.

The production model did have the missing lug on the barrel extension. See this thread:

www.ar15.com/forums/topic.html?b=3&f=118&t=268022

I saw in the thread you started where one guy says that was not the problem and it was heat treating. Rumor, not fact. Go to the thread I am linking to and read what Troy has to say. He knows a lot more than you, I, or that other fellow.

Posted: 2/9/2006 12:10:11 PM EDT

[#5]

Quoted:
Quoted:
Quoted:
Quoted:
At least RRA is smart enough that they priced the .308 in the $1000 to $1150 range which should put street price around $850 - $900.

Bushy killed the BAR by overpricing the hell out of it.

It is not the BAR. A few early models were called that, but they had to change it, as I suspect RRA will have to do.

The price did not kill the Bushy, although it helped. The lack of chrome lining and bolts breaking due to the mods for the FAL mags killed it.

Actually, the rumor of bolt breakage from FAL mags is false. People figured this was true due to the deleted lug of the early prototypes. The production models in fact did not have the deleted lug. Later on there was an inside rumor that Bushmaster goofed up the heat treating process on a large order that caused them some set backs in the warranty department. The bolt's typically broke at the tail of the bolt, and not near the lugs where the rumors said they should have.

Bushmaster always called it the BAR10, and Rock River will call it the LAR10 to coincide with their LAR15 series.

Bushmaster only called it the BAR 10 early on. They were forced to stop using the name. I suspect that RRA may run into the same problem.

The production model did have the missing lug on the barrel extension. See this thread:

www.ar15.com/forums/topic.html?b=3&f=118&t=268022

I saw in the thread you started where one guy says that was not the problem and it was heat treating. Rumor, not fact. Go to the thread I am linking to and read what Troy has to say. He knows a lot more than you, I, or that other fellow.

But the problem with BAR was there already was one...the Browning. What could be wrong with LAR?

Posted: 2/9/2006 12:14:12 PM EDT

[#6]

Quoted:
Quoted:
Quoted:
Quoted:
Quoted:
At least RRA is smart enough that they priced the .308 in the $1000 to $1150 range which should put street price around $850 - $900.

Bushy killed the BAR by overpricing the hell out of it.

It is not the BAR. A few early models were called that, but they had to change it, as I suspect RRA will have to do.

The price did not kill the Bushy, although it helped. The lack of chrome lining and bolts breaking due to the mods for the FAL mags killed it.

Actually, the rumor of bolt breakage from FAL mags is false. People figured this was true due to the deleted lug of the early prototypes. The production models in fact did not have the deleted lug. Later on there was an inside rumor that Bushmaster goofed up the heat treating process on a large order that caused them some set backs in the warranty department. The bolt's typically broke at the tail of the bolt, and not near the lugs where the rumors said they should have.

Bushmaster always called it the BAR10, and Rock River will call it the LAR10 to coincide with their LAR15 series.

Bushmaster only called it the BAR 10 early on. They were forced to stop using the name. I suspect that RRA may run into the same problem.

The production model did have the missing lug on the barrel extension. See this thread:

www.ar15.com/forums/topic.html?b=3&f=118&t=268022

I saw in the thread you started where one guy says that was not the problem and it was heat treating. Rumor, not fact. Go to the thread I am linking to and read what Troy has to say. He knows a lot more than you, I, or that other fellow.

But the problem with BAR was there already was one...the Browning. What could be wrong with LAR?

The problem was the AR10 part, not the BAR part.

Posted: 2/9/2006 12:19:29 PM EDT

[#7]

Quoted:
Quoted:
...

The problem was the AR10 part, not the BAR part.

No shit?

Posted: 2/9/2006 1:19:06 PM EDT

[#8]

Let's be clear here: the bolt on any AR is missing 1 locking lug, where the extractor cut-out is.

The Bushmaster .308 AR's bolts are the same. What is different is the locking lugs in the barrel extension. In order to avoid the severe (and predicted) feeding problems that ASA and Hesse both had with their FAL-mag .308 ARs, the Bushmaster design deleted the 6-o'clock locking lug in the BARREL EXTENSION (not on the bolt). But, this means that the corresponding lug on the bolt has no support, and that, coupled with the missing lug on the bolt where the extractor is, means that the one remaining, supported lug on that side is under a LOT of lopsided stress. And, as a result, bolt lugs HAVE broken off on the BM .308s.

Yes, there were OTHER bolt-related problems with BM's rifle, but they aren't related to the problem above, which still exists.

-Troy

Posted: 2/9/2006 1:38:26 PM EDT

[#9]

FAL mags don't work for shi'ite in AR type rifles, IMHO.

Posted: 2/9/2006 1:38:55 PM EDT

[#10]

Quoted:
Quoted:
Quoted:
Quoted:
At least RRA is smart enough that they priced the .308 in the $1000 to $1150 range which should put street price around $850 - $900.

Bushy killed the BAR by overpricing the hell out of it.

It is not the BAR. A few early models were called that, but they had to change it, as I suspect RRA will have to do.

The price did not kill the Bushy, although it helped. The lack of chrome lining and bolts breaking due to the mods for the FAL mags killed it.

Actually, the rumor of bolt breakage from FAL mags is false. People figured this was true due to the deleted lug of the early prototypes. The production models in fact did not have the deleted lug. Later on there was an inside rumor that Bushmaster goofed up the heat treating process on a large order that caused them some set backs in the warranty department. The bolt's typically broke at the tail of the bolt, and not near the lugs where the rumors said they should have.

Bushmaster always called it the BAR10, and Rock River will call it the LAR10 to coincide with their LAR15 series.

Bushmaster only called it the BAR 10 early on. They were forced to stop using the name. I suspect that RRA may run into the same problem.

The production model did have the missing lug on the barrel extension. See this thread:

www.ar15.com/forums/topic.html?b=3&f=118&t=268022

I saw in the thread you started where one guy says that was not the problem and it was heat treating. Rumor, not fact. Go to the thread I am linking to and read what Troy has to say. He knows a lot more than you, I, or that other fellow.

Check out the picture above.

The mystery lug is there in the barrel extension atleast.

With that said, the lug shaving would have little to do with the tail piece breakage being common, if at all.

This is till just assumptions that RRA did nothing to improve the design. As DR said, it's something we'll have to wait for to find out.

Posted: 2/9/2006 1:41:56 PM EDT

[#11]

Quoted:
Let's be clear here: the bolt on any AR is missing 1 locking lug, where the extractor cut-out is.

The Bushmaster .308 AR's bolts are the same. What is different is the locking lugs in the barrel extension. In order to avoid the severe (and predicted) feeding problems that ASA and Hesse both had with their FAL-mag .308 ARs, the Bushmaster design deleted the 6-o'clock locking lug in the BARREL EXTENSION (not on the bolt). But, this means that the corresponding lug on the bolt has no support, and that, coupled with the missing lug on the bolt where the extractor is, means that the one remaining, supported lug on that side is under a LOT of lopsided stress. And, as a result, bolt lugs HAVE broken off on the BM .308s.

Yes, there were OTHER bolt-related problems with BM's rifle, but they aren't related to the problem above, which still exists.

-Troy

The pictures don't come up for me now, but I could swear that picture that was posted above clearly showed the six o'clock lug. While it appears it was trimmed down, it was in no way deleted. (Or atleast I thought.)

Posted: 2/9/2006 2:01:51 PM EDT

[#12]

The lug isn't totally missing, but it is cut back significantly enough that it does not provide enough support. And remember that, because of the missing lug on the bolt for the extractor, one whole side of the bolt is being overstressed.

-Troy

Posted: 2/9/2006 2:14:37 PM EDT

[#13]

Great people at ROCK RIVER

Posted: 2/9/2006 5:20:08 PM EDT

[#14]

Quoted:
The lug isn't totally missing, but it is cut back significantly enough that it does not provide enough support. And remember that, because of the missing lug on the bolt for the extractor, one whole side of the bolt is being overstressed.

-Troy

No offense, but all you have is a hypothesis with nothing to back up your assertions. Here are some pics to refute your claims:

The lug on the extractor:

Another view:

You can see the pin that carries the load from the lug on the extractor to the bolt. Here is a shot of the six o'clock lug. Yes, much of the back of the lug has been machine away, but in the next shot you can see that at least half of the lug on the bolt engages the barrel extension lug (bolt is NOT fully rotated into position). Without some knowledge of the loads on each lug, your claim that it doesn't provide enough support doesn't hold water.

Sorry about the blurry photos:

A closer shot of the 6 o'clock lug engagement (remember: bolt NOT rotated fully):

Personally, I think there is more than enough excess margin built into the locking mechanism that it could probably operate with a couple of lugs missing. There maybe a problem with Bushmaster's bolts, then again maybe not, it all depends on how many have broken and if they all broke in a similar fashion.

Posted: 2/9/2006 6:22:24 PM EDT

[#15]

This and no govt profile 1/7 twist barrels? (bring some mil-spec love)

Boooo.....

Posted: 2/9/2006 7:16:54 PM EDT

[#16]

What is so damn wrong about making an AR-10 use AR-10 magazines?

Posted: 2/9/2006 8:59:54 PM EDT

[#17]

Quoted:
What is so damn wrong about making an AR-10 use AR-10 magazines?

Well, the current AR10 was developed during the ban. They could not find original AR10 mags and they could not produce anything more than 10 round mags. Guess that might have had something to do with it. They have developed a new mag now that the ban is over.

Go read this:

www.ar15.com/forums/topic.html?b=2&f=27&t=149407

Posted: 2/9/2006 9:11:50 PM EDT

[#18]

Yeah, I already know that.

Posted: 2/9/2006 9:18:37 PM EDT

[#19]

just posted in the industry section asking what they have done to resolve the prob. hopefully we will get a positive response. I am very interested in this rifle and hopefully they found a way around the problem.

Posted: 2/9/2006 9:32:29 PM EDT

[#20]

Quoted:
This and no govt profile 1/7 twist barrels? (bring some mil-spec love)

Boooo.....

This is 7.62x51mm we are talking here, not 5.56x45mm. .308/7.62x51mm does not use a 1/7 twist rate.

AR-10 is 1/10, the KAC SR-25 is 1/11, and the SR-25 IS "mil-spec".

C'mon ..GEt with the program already!