User Panel
User Panel
User Panel
|
Posted: 8/9/2015 12:28:05 PM EDT
[#1]
I suspect the reaction rod to be the best method, however, I've built many uppers using the clam shell and haven't had any problems.
|
|
|
|
Posted: 8/9/2015 12:44:05 PM EDT
[#2]
Quote HistoryQuoted:
I suspect the reaction rod to be the best method, however, I've built many uppers using the clam shell and haven't had any problems. Which type/manufacturer clam shell do you have? |
|
|
|
Posted: 8/9/2015 1:30:18 PM EDT
[#3]
Magpul Bev block is great. It has lugs that lock into the barrel, then insert bolt carrier w/o bolt and really locks everything up tight.
|
|
|
|
Posted: 8/9/2015 1:48:03 PM EDT
[#4]
Clam Shell upper vise block with supporting insert for assembling uppers in a bench vise. It supports the upper against the twisting motion of installing barrel nuts onto the receiver threads.
Anything supporting the barrel extension or barrel itself does not. Doing that would just depend on the steel barrel alignment pin binding against the softer aluminum of the receiver to prevent twisting. Torqueing steel against aluminum is not the best plan. For installing things on the barrel itself use something to support the barrel and keep it from spinning such as reaction rod, barrel vise blocks or the padded jaws of the vise itself. |
|
|
|
Posted: 8/9/2015 2:09:03 PM EDT
[#5]
Quote HistoryQuoted:
Clam Shell upper vise block with supporting insert for assembling uppers in a bench vise. It supports the upper against the twisting motion of installing barrel nuts onto the receiver threads. Anything supporting the barrel extension or barrel itself does not. Doing that would just depend on the steel barrel alignment pin binding against the softer aluminum of the receiver to prevent twisting. Torqueing steel against aluminum is not the best plan. For installing things on the barrel itself use something to support the barrel and keep it from spinning such as reaction rod, barrel vise blocks or the padded jaws of the vise itself. So something like what was mentioned above, the BEV magpul or similar style block, would be best/ideal for installing a barrel nut onto the upper receiver? |
|
|
|
Posted: 8/9/2015 2:31:09 PM EDT
[#6]
From what I see of the Magpul block, No. It seems to only support the barrel extension.
This is what I'm talking about http://www.brownells.com/gunsmith-tools-supplies/rifle-tools/bench-vise-blocks/ar-15-m16-upper-receiver-action-block-prod22385.aspx It actually supports the upper and has an insert to prevent crushing the upper in the vise. ETA.Upon taking a second look the BEV block does attach to the front lug of the upper. I would not want to put torque on the lugs. That is a relatively small part. The clam shell block surrounds the upper completely so no small areas are taking all the stress. Think in terms of actually supporting the part that will receive the stress of torque. Not supporting a different part that will cause binding and something may be damaged as a result. |
|
|
|
Posted: 8/9/2015 3:01:29 PM EDT
[#7]
Reaction rod is my go to method.
|
|
|
|
Posted: 8/9/2015 3:11:42 PM EDT
[#8]
Clamshells are best for upper receiver work. You are holding the part with the threads.
The original method was barrel blocks holding the barrel. This puts ALL the stress on the indexing pin, as that is the only thing that keeps the upper receiver from turning, however, this method was used for many, many years. Clamshells can put some level of stress on the indexing pin, but only as the barrel extension is sandwiched between the receiver and the barrel nut, and not 100% of the force is placed on the indexing pin. Reaction rods place all the stress on the indexing pin, just like a barrel clamp, as they only hold the barrel, and the indexing pin is the only thing that keeps the receiver from turning. The benefit of the reaction rod over barrel clamps is ease of use, especially when the barrel is covered. The other benefit of the reaction rod over barrel clamps, is that since they only hold the barrel extension, not the barrel, they don't risk popping the barrel loose from the extension, which can happen with barrel clamps. I used to really like using the reaction rod for installing muzzle devices, because it was so convenient. However, I was removing one a few months back, and the barrel popped loose from the extension. Now, this was truly the barrel manufacturers fault, it was either not torqued properly or it was melonited as a completed unit which stress relieved the torque, but either way, it wasn't the appropriate tool for muzzle device work, only barrel blocks are. So in my opinion, for removing and installing barrels, a clamshell is best. For removing and installing muzzle devices, barrel blocks are best. Reaction rods are great for holding the upper assembly in place when installing gas blocks and handguards, because they allow for quick rotation. I still use these to install muzzle devices as well, but not to remove them. |
|
|
|
Posted: 8/9/2015 3:28:42 PM EDT
[#9]
You make a good point against using anything that supports only the barrel extension when installing or removing muzzle devices.
Good to know. |
|
|
|
Posted: 8/9/2015 3:55:01 PM EDT
[#10]
Awesome info!
Any thoughts on a upper block like this? 
|
|
|
|
Posted: 8/9/2015 4:08:50 PM EDT
[#11]
Pic is not showing. Save some time and effort and go to the Brownells upper vise block link I provided.
You will have the tool you need to install barrels without the risk of damaging things. |
|
|
|
Posted: 8/9/2015 6:12:50 PM EDT
[#12]
Quote HistoryQuoted:
Awesome info! Any thoughts on a upper block like this? http://i.ebayimg.com/00/s/MTIwMFgxNjAw/z/EgYAAOSwD0lUeST2/$_57.JPG It's good for holding the upper if you're putting on sights or a scope or something like that, not much else. Unsuitable for barreling. FALARAK basically said everything I was going to say so just +1 on his post. |
|
|
|
Posted: 8/9/2015 6:13:00 PM EDT
[#13]
When tightening two threaded pieces you hold or turn the pieces that are threaded. You don't hold the pieces that are not threaded. Other wise your fastener will just spin and not tighten up.
|
|
|
|
Posted: 8/9/2015 6:25:54 PM EDT
[#14]
I use barrel vise blocks whenever possible. Holding the barrel does, as noted by FALARAK and Gamma, put stress on the index pin, but once you have the barrel nut tightened at all, there is no real movement there, so the issue is really minimal. When my blocks don't fit the barrel I'm working on, I use a clam shell - making sure the upper is thoroughly supported in the front of the clam shell. I haven't tried a Reaction Rod, but I've heard really good reports.
For a muzzle device, barrel vise blocks are THE way to go. Holding the upper anywhere else makes the barrel a torsion bar, and that can put enough twist on the upper to twist it out of true, even if you're only removing a plain A2 flash hider. Grip the barrel as close as possible to the muzzle. |
|
|
|
Posted: 8/9/2015 7:47:15 PM EDT
[#15]
As usual I disagree with the negative comments about the reaction rod.
It works fine for me. The torque spec on a barrel extension is 150 ft lbs and a flash hider is 15-20 ft lbs. If you are unscrewing an extension while removing a flash hider or twisting a barrel the rod is not the problem. Bill Geissele says this about the rod: "The AR15/M4 Reaction Rod makes the removal and installation of barrels, flash hiders, gas blocks and hand guards much easier and simpler. The Reaction Rod is designed to be gripped in a bench vise so that the rod is either horizontal or vertical. The upper receiver is then slid onto the rod and the rod’s integral splines enter the barrel extension and secure the barrel extension from turning. This allows all the torque from barrel nut wrenches to go directly into the barrel extension. In contrast, receiver vise blocks transmit the turning force into the aluminum receiver, a good part of which passes through the small, easily distorted receiver index pin. With the Geissele Reaction Rod, marring of an upper receiver’s finish by gripping and twisting inside vise blocks is eliminated and so is the need to remove sights and mounts from the receiver’s M1913 rail." I guess it's a personal decision to believe an Industry leader or forum posters when it comes to deciding on tools. If you decide on a rod Botach sells the same thing for half the price, $49 shipped. |
|
|
|
Posted: 8/9/2015 8:06:45 PM EDT
[#16]
Quote HistoryQuoted:
It's good for holding the upper if you're putting on sights or a scope or something like that, not much else. Unsuitable for barreling. FALARAK basically said everything I was going to say so just +1 on his post. Quote HistoryQuoted:
Quoted:
Awesome info! Any thoughts on a upper block like this? http://i.ebayimg.com/00/s/MTIwMFgxNjAw/z/EgYAAOSwD0lUeST2/$_57.JPG It's good for holding the upper if you're putting on sights or a scope or something like that, not much else. Unsuitable for barreling. FALARAK basically said everything I was going to say so just +1 on his post. The one he posted is perfectly fine for barreling when oriented that way. |
|
|
|
Posted: 8/9/2015 8:41:09 PM EDT
[#17]
FALARAK +1
Good index pins should hold with a reaction rod, but all the posts about index pins shearing imply there are non-spec pins out there. Possibly some guys are jerking on the torque wrench which would aggravate the situation. |
|
|
|
Posted: 8/9/2015 8:46:51 PM EDT
[#18]
I use the Reaction rod. If I didn't already own it I would buy the Botach one. Looks the same for 1/2 the price. Brownell's also sells one.
Remember to use grease on the barrel nut threads and on the barrel extension. Just a dab not slobbered all over. |
|
|
|
Posted: 8/9/2015 8:51:54 PM EDT
[#19]
Quote HistoryQuoted:
As usual I disagree with the negative comments about the reaction rod. It works fine for me. The torque spec on a barrel extension is 150 ft lbs and a flash hider is 15-20 ft lbs. If you are unscrewing an extension while removing a flash hider or twisting a barrel the rod is not the problem. Two points: 1. Nobody made "negative" comments about the reaction rod. Just opinions based on experience or otherwise. Just because someone feels it isn't the best choice for barreling, doesn't equate to a negative comment. 2. Some with more experience than you know that some muzzle devices require a lot more torque to remove than 20 lbs. Once you get to work with rocksett or 1100 degree solder. But I agree on the 150 (actually I read 155 lbs) and if that pops loose, as I stated the rod wasn't the problem. Still, torquing against that does not seem wise. God, I hope this thread can actually discuss peoples opinions and experiences with all the tools available, without the fanboys coming in to defend one of them and then turning the whole thread into that..... We have enough of those threads already. |
|
|
|
Posted: 8/9/2015 9:10:20 PM EDT
[#20]
Tag for later
|
|
|
|
Posted: 8/9/2015 10:37:04 PM EDT
[#21]
I wonder if it would be possible to create a clamshell that worked with the Magpul Bev Block. That way you'd have a solid hold on both the extension/barrel AND the upper receiver.
Maybe Magpul will come out with a "bev block" compatible clamshell. |
|
|
|
Posted: 8/9/2015 11:43:05 PM EDT
[#22]
Quote HistoryQuoted:
Two points: 1. Nobody made "negative" comments about the reaction rod. Just opinions based on experience or otherwise. Just because someone feels it isn't the best choice for barreling, doesn't equate to a negative comment. 2. Some with more experience than you know that some muzzle devices require a lot more torque to remove than 20 lbs. Once you get to work with rocksett or 1100 degree solder. But I agree on the 150 (actually I read 155 lbs) and if that pops loose, as I stated the rod wasn't the problem. Still, torquing against that does not seem wise. God, I hope this thread can actually discuss peoples opinions and experiences with all the tools available, without the fanboys coming in to defend one of them and then turning the whole thread into that..... We have enough of those threads already. Quote HistoryQuoted:
Quoted:
As usual I disagree with the negative comments about the reaction rod. It works fine for me. The torque spec on a barrel extension is 150 ft lbs and a flash hider is 15-20 ft lbs. If you are unscrewing an extension while removing a flash hider or twisting a barrel the rod is not the problem. Two points: 1. Nobody made "negative" comments about the reaction rod. Just opinions based on experience or otherwise. Just because someone feels it isn't the best choice for barreling, doesn't equate to a negative comment. 2. Some with more experience than you know that some muzzle devices require a lot more torque to remove than 20 lbs. Once you get to work with rocksett or 1100 degree solder. But I agree on the 150 (actually I read 155 lbs) and if that pops loose, as I stated the rod wasn't the problem. Still, torquing against that does not seem wise. God, I hope this thread can actually discuss peoples opinions and experiences with all the tools available, without the fanboys coming in to defend one of them and then turning the whole thread into that..... We have enough of those threads already. And as anyone paying attention knows, there are barrels on the market now with extensions not necessarily torqued to 150 ft/lbs. |
|
|
|
Posted: 8/9/2015 11:54:04 PM EDT
[#23]
Quote HistoryQuoted:
Two points: 1. Nobody made "negative" comments about the reaction rod. Just opinions based on experience or otherwise. Just because someone feels it isn't the best choice for barreling, doesn't equate to a negative comment. 2. Some with more experience than you know that some muzzle devices require a lot more torque to remove than 20 lbs. Once you get to work with rocksett or 1100 degree solder. But I agree on the 150 (actually I read 155 lbs) and if that pops loose, as I stated the rod wasn't the problem. Still, torquing against that does not seem wise. God, I hope this thread can actually discuss peoples opinions and experiences with all the tools available, without the fanboys coming in to defend one of them and then turning the whole thread into that..... We have enough of those threads already. Quote HistoryQuoted:
Quoted:
As usual I disagree with the negative comments about the reaction rod. It works fine for me. The torque spec on a barrel extension is 150 ft lbs and a flash hider is 15-20 ft lbs. If you are unscrewing an extension while removing a flash hider or twisting a barrel the rod is not the problem. Two points: 1. Nobody made "negative" comments about the reaction rod. Just opinions based on experience or otherwise. Just because someone feels it isn't the best choice for barreling, doesn't equate to a negative comment. 2. Some with more experience than you know that some muzzle devices require a lot more torque to remove than 20 lbs. Once you get to work with rocksett or 1100 degree solder. But I agree on the 150 (actually I read 155 lbs) and if that pops loose, as I stated the rod wasn't the problem. Still, torquing against that does not seem wise. God, I hope this thread can actually discuss peoples opinions and experiences with all the tools available, without the fanboys coming in to defend one of them and then turning the whole thread into that..... We have enough of those threads already. 1. I disagree. Opinions or comments can be classified as negative or positive, depending on the readers point of view. To me this is a negative comment: "Reaction rods place all the stress on the indexing pin", especially when it flat out isn't true. The op reading that could be scared from even trying a rod. 2. Since you don't know me I'm curious how you would know my level of experience. I built my first upper from surplus parts in 1975, had a machinist make a crude front pivot pin adapter so I could use it on my SP1 lower. I have used blocks, clamshells and now rods hundreds of times in the last 40 years. Sorry but I'm not some kid in his mommas basement. As I stated the recommended flash hider torque is 15-20 lbs, even if it was 50 lbs or more the rod in an extension could take it. No one with any sense would attempt to remove a device that was mounted with rocksett or solder with out heating it first thereby reducing the force required so I fail to see the relevance in this discussion. The op wanted to know which of the 3 tools were the best and I stand by everything in my post. I never singled you out as a negative poster so please don't take offense. I've got to ask, do you own a rod and if so how many uppers and pins have you damaged with it? |
|
|
|
Posted: 8/10/2015 12:44:25 AM EDT
[#24]
Quote HistoryQuoted:
1. I disagree. Opinions or comments can be classified as negative or positive, depending on the readers point of view. To me this is a negative comment: "Reaction rods place all the stress on the indexing pin", especially when it flat out isn't true. The op reading that could be scared from even trying a rod. 2. Since you don't know me I'm curious how you would know my level of experience. I built my first upper from surplus parts in 1975, had a machinist make a crude front pivot pin adapter so I could use it on my SP1 lower. I have used blocks, clamshells and now rods hundreds of times in the last 40 years. Sorry but I'm not some kid in his mommas basement. As I stated the recommended flash hider torque is 15-20 lbs, even if it was 50 lbs or more the rod in an extension could take it. No one with any sense would attempt to remove a device that was mounted with rocksett or solder with out heating it first thereby reducing the force required so I fail to see the relevance in this discussion. The op wanted to know which of the 3 tools were the best and I stand by everything in my post. I never singled you out as a negative poster so please don't take offense. I've got to ask, do you own a rod and if so how many uppers and pins have you damaged with it? Quote HistoryQuoted:
Quoted:
Quoted:
As usual I disagree with the negative comments about the reaction rod. It works fine for me. The torque spec on a barrel extension is 150 ft lbs and a flash hider is 15-20 ft lbs. If you are unscrewing an extension while removing a flash hider or twisting a barrel the rod is not the problem. Two points: 1. Nobody made "negative" comments about the reaction rod. Just opinions based on experience or otherwise. Just because someone feels it isn't the best choice for barreling, doesn't equate to a negative comment. 2. Some with more experience than you know that some muzzle devices require a lot more torque to remove than 20 lbs. Once you get to work with rocksett or 1100 degree solder. But I agree on the 150 (actually I read 155 lbs) and if that pops loose, as I stated the rod wasn't the problem. Still, torquing against that does not seem wise. God, I hope this thread can actually discuss peoples opinions and experiences with all the tools available, without the fanboys coming in to defend one of them and then turning the whole thread into that..... We have enough of those threads already. 1. I disagree. Opinions or comments can be classified as negative or positive, depending on the readers point of view. To me this is a negative comment: "Reaction rods place all the stress on the indexing pin", especially when it flat out isn't true. The op reading that could be scared from even trying a rod. 2. Since you don't know me I'm curious how you would know my level of experience. I built my first upper from surplus parts in 1975, had a machinist make a crude front pivot pin adapter so I could use it on my SP1 lower. I have used blocks, clamshells and now rods hundreds of times in the last 40 years. Sorry but I'm not some kid in his mommas basement. As I stated the recommended flash hider torque is 15-20 lbs, even if it was 50 lbs or more the rod in an extension could take it. No one with any sense would attempt to remove a device that was mounted with rocksett or solder with out heating it first thereby reducing the force required so I fail to see the relevance in this discussion. The op wanted to know which of the 3 tools were the best and I stand by everything in my post. I never singled you out as a negative poster so please don't take offense. I've got to ask, do you own a rod and if so how many uppers and pins have you damaged with it? 
I started a reply.... then I realized, you don't offer any data to back up your statements, and my explaining things to you would be a waste.... so enjoy your straw man arguments. We don't need another reaction rod fanboy derailing the thread, especially with misinformation. Bill is an awesome man, I love his business ethics and his triggers. And I love his reaction rod for what I feel it can be used for. That's why I spent $100 on it. But somehow you guys get all butt-hurt anytime someone disagrees with its use, and you lack understanding in how torque is applied in the scenario. Not to mention you call out my statements as false, but offer zero to back up yours. Therefore, until you do that, this whole thing is a waste. |
|
|
|
Posted: 8/10/2015 1:20:25 AM EDT
[#25]
Quote HistoryQuoted:
I started a reply.... then I realized, you don't offer any data to back up your statements, and my explaining things to you would be a waste.... so enjoy your straw man arguments. We don't need another reaction rod fanboy derailing the thread, especially with misinformation. Bill is an awesome man, I love his business ethics and his triggers. And I love his reaction rod for what I feel it can be used for. That's why I spent $100 on it. But somehow you guys get all butt-hurt anytime someone disagrees with its use, and you lack understanding in how torque is applied in the scenario. Not to mention you call out my statements as false, but offer zero to back up yours. Therefore, until you do that, this whole thing is a waste. Quote HistoryQuoted:
Quoted:
Quoted:
Quoted:
As usual I disagree with the negative comments about the reaction rod. It works fine for me. The torque spec on a barrel extension is 150 ft lbs and a flash hider is 15-20 ft lbs. If you are unscrewing an extension while removing a flash hider or twisting a barrel the rod is not the problem. Two points: 1. Nobody made "negative" comments about the reaction rod. Just opinions based on experience or otherwise. Just because someone feels it isn't the best choice for barreling, doesn't equate to a negative comment. 2. Some with more experience than you know that some muzzle devices require a lot more torque to remove than 20 lbs. Once you get to work with rocksett or 1100 degree solder. But I agree on the 150 (actually I read 155 lbs) and if that pops loose, as I stated the rod wasn't the problem. Still, torquing against that does not seem wise. God, I hope this thread can actually discuss peoples opinions and experiences with all the tools available, without the fanboys coming in to defend one of them and then turning the whole thread into that..... We have enough of those threads already. 1. I disagree. Opinions or comments can be classified as negative or positive, depending on the readers point of view. To me this is a negative comment: "Reaction rods place all the stress on the indexing pin", especially when it flat out isn't true. The op reading that could be scared from even trying a rod. 2. Since you don't know me I'm curious how you would know my level of experience. I built my first upper from surplus parts in 1975, had a machinist make a crude front pivot pin adapter so I could use it on my SP1 lower. I have used blocks, clamshells and now rods hundreds of times in the last 40 years. Sorry but I'm not some kid in his mommas basement. As I stated the recommended flash hider torque is 15-20 lbs, even if it was 50 lbs or more the rod in an extension could take it. No one with any sense would attempt to remove a device that was mounted with rocksett or solder with out heating it first thereby reducing the force required so I fail to see the relevance in this discussion. The op wanted to know which of the 3 tools were the best and I stand by everything in my post. I never singled you out as a negative poster so please don't take offense. I've got to ask, do you own a rod and if so how many uppers and pins have you damaged with it?
I started a reply.... then I realized, you don't offer any data to back up your statements, and my explaining things to you would be a waste.... so enjoy your straw man arguments. We don't need another reaction rod fanboy derailing the thread, especially with misinformation. Bill is an awesome man, I love his business ethics and his triggers. And I love his reaction rod for what I feel it can be used for. That's why I spent $100 on it. But somehow you guys get all butt-hurt anytime someone disagrees with its use, and you lack understanding in how torque is applied in the scenario. Not to mention you call out my statements as false, but offer zero to back up yours. Therefore, until you do that, this whole thing is a waste. I've been in this spot before with NeverMiss556 and quite a few other forum members, it's very frustrating. 
|
|
|
|
Posted: 8/10/2015 2:16:45 AM EDT
[#26]
Quote HistoryQuoted:
Magpul Bev block is great. It has lugs that lock into the barrel, then insert bolt carrier w/o bolt and really locks everything up tight. I just got the bev block for a my 3ooblk SBR build. I also picked up one brownells blue hockey pucks....made working on the gas block easy. |
|
|
|
Posted: 8/10/2015 2:25:04 AM EDT
[#27]
After looking at some more pictures and seeing how stresses can be applied, I can see how each/different tools will be needed for different purposes of the upper assembly (IE barrel, flash hider, etc).
Doing some analysis on it, it makes more sense now that a clam shell or similar type of tool should be used for the upper receiver when removing the barrel nut, since the portion/area that the barrel nut is actually threaded to is the upper receiver. The barrel is simply just pressed against the receiver at that point. However, when removing a muzzle device, a reaction rod would work better cause the barrel is what's primarily going to have forced applied to it. Thanks for all of the info again guys. It did help shed some light on everything and helped me make my decisions. |
|
|
|
Posted: 8/10/2015 7:18:45 AM EDT
[#28]
Quote HistoryQuoted:
However, when removing a muzzle device, a reaction rod would work better cause the barrel is what's primarily going to have forced applied to it.. Clamp the barrel in a vise for muzzle device removal and install. Make a set of jaws out of a chunk of 4x4. Bore a hole in the block the appropriate size. Then cut the block in half down the middle of the hole. If the barrel slips wrap an old bicycle inner tube around the barrel. |
|
|
|
Posted: 8/10/2015 10:56:07 AM EDT
[#29]
Quote HistoryQuoted:
After looking at some more pictures and seeing how stresses can be applied, I can see how each/different tools will be needed for different purposes of the upper assembly (IE barrel, flash hider, etc). Doing some analysis on it, it makes more sense now that a clam shell or similar type of tool should be used for the upper receiver when removing the barrel nut, since the portion/area that the barrel nut is actually threaded to is the upper receiver. The barrel is simply just pressed against the receiver at that point. However, when removing a muzzle device, a reaction rod would work better cause the barrel is what's primarily going to have forced applied to it. Thanks for all of the info again guys. It did help shed some light on everything and helped me make my decisions. The reaction rod is good for muzzle devices to a point. Some people have exceeded that point and turned the barrel in the BE. Also the clamshell would seem to be the safest bet for installation or removal of the barrel nut. |
|
|
|
Posted: 8/10/2015 11:26:16 AM EDT
[#30]
Quote HistoryQuoted:
The reaction rod is good for muzzle devices to a point. Some people have exceeded that point and turned the barrel in the BE. Also the clamshell would seem to be the safest bet for installation or removal of the barrel nut. Quote HistoryQuoted:
Quoted:
After looking at some more pictures and seeing how stresses can be applied, I can see how each/different tools will be needed for different purposes of the upper assembly (IE barrel, flash hider, etc). Doing some analysis on it, it makes more sense now that a clam shell or similar type of tool should be used for the upper receiver when removing the barrel nut, since the portion/area that the barrel nut is actually threaded to is the upper receiver. The barrel is simply just pressed against the receiver at that point. However, when removing a muzzle device, a reaction rod would work better cause the barrel is what's primarily going to have forced applied to it. Thanks for all of the info again guys. It did help shed some light on everything and helped me make my decisions. The reaction rod is good for muzzle devices to a point. Some people have exceeded that point and turned the barrel in the BE. Also the clamshell would seem to be the safest bet for installation or removal of the barrel nut. This. With a clam shell vise block and barrel vise blocks, you can do pretty much anything you need. With a reaction rod, you're almost always risking something. The reaction rod is okay for INSTALLING flash hiders - though I'd never REMOVE one with it. Especially after it's had a decent amount of rounds through it. When the clamshell blocks and barrel blocks are so cheap, I see no reason to buy a reaction rod (though I do have all 3) |
|
|
|
Posted: 8/10/2015 2:01:46 PM EDT
[#31]
Quote HistoryQuoted:
This. With a clam shell vise block and barrel vise blocks, you can do pretty much anything you need. With a reaction rod, you're almost always risking something. The reaction rod is okay for INSTALLING flash hiders - though I'd never REMOVE one with it. Especially after it's had a decent amount of rounds through it. When the clamshell blocks and barrel blocks are so cheap, I see no reason to buy a reaction rod (though I do have all 3) Quote HistoryQuoted:
Quoted:
Quoted:
After looking at some more pictures and seeing how stresses can be applied, I can see how each/different tools will be needed for different purposes of the upper assembly (IE barrel, flash hider, etc). Doing some analysis on it, it makes more sense now that a clam shell or similar type of tool should be used for the upper receiver when removing the barrel nut, since the portion/area that the barrel nut is actually threaded to is the upper receiver. The barrel is simply just pressed against the receiver at that point. However, when removing a muzzle device, a reaction rod would work better cause the barrel is what's primarily going to have forced applied to it. Thanks for all of the info again guys. It did help shed some light on everything and helped me make my decisions. The reaction rod is good for muzzle devices to a point. Some people have exceeded that point and turned the barrel in the BE. Also the clamshell would seem to be the safest bet for installation or removal of the barrel nut. This. With a clam shell vise block and barrel vise blocks, you can do pretty much anything you need. With a reaction rod, you're almost always risking something. The reaction rod is okay for INSTALLING flash hiders - though I'd never REMOVE one with it. Especially after it's had a decent amount of rounds through it. When the clamshell blocks and barrel blocks are so cheap, I see no reason to buy a reaction rod (though I do have all 3) Clam shells and barrel camps work no where near as good as the Reaction Rods. We just had some more uppers in here for some repair work for an OEM. Barrel nuts were on so tight that my young guy with a 2 foot long 1/2" breaker bar could not loosen them. It took my fatso 260b self on a over 3 foot long Snap On 3/4" breaker bar to crack these guys loose and I used everything I had. Clam shells would have twisted all up under that force. Barrel would have spun in the barrel clamp and tore the finish all to heck and left imbedded aluminum in the parkerizing. |
|
|
|
Posted: 8/10/2015 2:11:22 PM EDT
[#32]
Quote HistoryQuoted:
Clam shells and barrel camps work no where near as good as the Reaction Rods. We just had some more uppers in here for some repair work for an OEM. Barrel nuts were on so tight that my young guy with a 2 foot long 1/2" breaker bar could not loosen them. It took my fatso 260b self on a over 3 foot long Snap On 3/4" breaker bar to crack these guys loose and I used everything I had. Clam shells would have twisted all up under that force. Barrel would have spun in the barrel clamp and tore the finish all to heck and left imbedded aluminum in the parkerizing. Quote HistoryQuoted:
Quoted:
Quoted:
Quoted:
After looking at some more pictures and seeing how stresses can be applied, I can see how each/different tools will be needed for different purposes of the upper assembly (IE barrel, flash hider, etc). Doing some analysis on it, it makes more sense now that a clam shell or similar type of tool should be used for the upper receiver when removing the barrel nut, since the portion/area that the barrel nut is actually threaded to is the upper receiver. The barrel is simply just pressed against the receiver at that point. However, when removing a muzzle device, a reaction rod would work better cause the barrel is what's primarily going to have forced applied to it. Thanks for all of the info again guys. It did help shed some light on everything and helped me make my decisions. The reaction rod is good for muzzle devices to a point. Some people have exceeded that point and turned the barrel in the BE. Also the clamshell would seem to be the safest bet for installation or removal of the barrel nut. This. With a clam shell vise block and barrel vise blocks, you can do pretty much anything you need. With a reaction rod, you're almost always risking something. The reaction rod is okay for INSTALLING flash hiders - though I'd never REMOVE one with it. Especially after it's had a decent amount of rounds through it. When the clamshell blocks and barrel blocks are so cheap, I see no reason to buy a reaction rod (though I do have all 3) Clam shells and barrel camps work no where near as good as the Reaction Rods. We just had some more uppers in here for some repair work for an OEM. Barrel nuts were on so tight that my young guy with a 2 foot long 1/2" breaker bar could not loosen them. It took my fatso 260b self on a over 3 foot long Snap On 3/4" breaker bar to crack these guys loose and I used everything I had. Clam shells would have twisted all up under that force. Barrel would have spun in the barrel clamp and tore the finish all to heck and left imbedded aluminum in the parkerizing. While I probably don't have as much experience in sheer numbers, I have had uppers that were a complete bitch to disassemble. The one (and only one I will EVER disassemble) BCM upper I disassembled had to have been torqued by king kong. It took my 2' breaker bar with the 4ft handle from my jack and all of my strength to crack loose. My clam shell blocks don't show any wear whatsoever. My barrel clamps also do not mar the finish or leave metal flakes (as they are rubber lined). That being said, barrel blocks were not the right choice. I understand it's your product and you have had great success. It's a very convenient tool that I do have some use for, but in my opinion, (other than convenience) it offers nothing that clam shell/barrel block combos do not. If the super reaction rod were the same price as the original, I'd absolutely love to have one. |
|
|
|
Posted: 8/10/2015 2:16:21 PM EDT
[#33]
I reccomend the Block Worx upper receiver vise blocks for barrel nuts, and a Magpul BEV or Geissele RR for muzzle devices.
|
|
|
|
Posted: 8/10/2015 2:39:52 PM EDT
[#34]
I've made my position known about this in previous threads. Let me add something for you reaction rod fans to think about. You stick a piece of hardened metal in your barrel extension and crank on it to 70-80 pounds torque against the extension? You do this multiple times to the part that receives your bolt with the locking lugs? I don't stick anything in my barrel extension and torque it. Would you do that with your bolt? How long will it be until one of those surfaces is deformed? It just doesn't seem like a good idea. -W
|
|
|
|
Posted: 8/10/2015 2:51:49 PM EDT
[#35]
Quote HistoryQuoted:
I've made my position known about this in previous threads. Let me add something for you reaction rod fans to think about. You stick a piece of hardened metal in your barrel extension and crank on it to 70-80 pounds torque against the extension? You do this multiple times to the part that receives your bolt with the locking lugs? I don't stick anything in my barrel extension and torque it. Would you do that with your bolt? How long will it be until one of those surfaces is deformed? It just doesn't seem like a good idea. -W Thats why the Reaction Rod is softer than the barrel extension so the barrel extension will not be marked. Even so the precise machining of the lugs in the reaction rod have good flat to flat contact so even the RR was hard as can be it wouldn't be a problem. We are still using the same RR from the first prototype run years ago and only the bluing is worn off....no deformation. The Reaction Rod works better than anything out on the market.....that why the U.S. Mil tested and approved it and gave it an NSN number so that U.S. Mil armorers can order it. |
|
|
|
Posted: 8/10/2015 3:00:38 PM EDT
[#36]
Quote HistoryQuoted:
I've made my position known about this in previous threads. Let me add something for you reaction rod fans to think about. You stick a piece of hardened metal in your barrel extension and crank on it to 70-80 pounds torque against the extension? You do this multiple times to the part that receives your bolt with the locking lugs? I don't stick anything in my barrel extension and torque it. Would you do that with your bolt? How long will it be until one of those surfaces is deformed? It just doesn't seem like a good idea. -W That would be the least of my concerns, honestly. |
|
|
|
Posted: 8/10/2015 3:02:29 PM EDT
[#37]
Quote HistoryQuoted: I started a reply.... then I realized, you don't offer any data to back up your statements, and my explaining things to you would be a waste.... so enjoy your straw man arguments. We don't need another reaction rod fanboy derailing the thread, especially with misinformation. Bill is an awesome man, I love his business ethics and his triggers. And I love his reaction rod for what I feel it can be used for. That's why I spent $100 on it. But somehow you guys get all butt-hurt anytime someone disagrees with its use, and you lack understanding in how torque is applied in the scenario. Not to mention you call out my statements as false, but offer zero to back up yours. Therefore, until you do that, this whole thing is a waste. Everything you wrote except for whats in blue is either exactly the opposite, wrong or a figment of your imagination. You might want to read the posts by Sagmill on page 2. It is probably better for you to back out of this discussion and save face but if not you can get into it with him. If your lucky he will correct your misinformation but I would suggest a more humble attitude. Good luck! |
|
|
|
Posted: 8/10/2015 3:08:55 PM EDT
[#38]
Quote HistoryQuoted:
Thats why the Reaction Rod is softer than the barrel extension so the barrel extension will not be marked. Even so the precise machining of the lugs in the reaction rod have good flat to flat contact so even the RR was hard as can be it wouldn't be a problem. We are still using the same RR from the first prototype run years ago and only the bluing is worn off....no deformation. The Reaction Rod works better than anything out on the market.....that why the U.S. Mil tested and approved it and gave it an NSN number so that U.S. Mil armorers can order it. Quote HistoryQuoted:
Quoted:
I've made my position known about this in previous threads. Let me add something for you reaction rod fans to think about. You stick a piece of hardened metal in your barrel extension and crank on it to 70-80 pounds torque against the extension? You do this multiple times to the part that receives your bolt with the locking lugs? I don't stick anything in my barrel extension and torque it. Would you do that with your bolt? How long will it be until one of those surfaces is deformed? It just doesn't seem like a good idea. -W Thats why the Reaction Rod is softer than the barrel extension so the barrel extension will not be marked. Even so the precise machining of the lugs in the reaction rod have good flat to flat contact so even the RR was hard as can be it wouldn't be a problem. We are still using the same RR from the first prototype run years ago and only the bluing is worn off....no deformation. The Reaction Rod works better than anything out on the market.....that why the U.S. Mil tested and approved it and gave it an NSN number so that U.S. Mil armorers can order it. Are you sure about that? I think barrel extensions are 8620 steel and the rod is 4140 I'm not a metallurgist. Maybe you could explain it to me. From the rod site: The rod is cut from a solid bar of 4140 Chrome Moly steel, properly quenched/tempered and ground to an exact diameter that is smooth and straight so the rod will enter an upper receiver without wobble. ETA: Just saying it doesn't make it so. No photos, no facts, no nothing but "It's the greatest thing since sliced bread." That does not sway my opinion of the (in my opinion, and with due respect) useless rod. -W |
|
|
|
Posted: 8/10/2015 3:20:31 PM EDT
[#39]
Sagmill.
Thanks for joining in this discussion. I didn't know the rod now has an NSN number. There is so much misinformation about the rod and the physics of it's use that a lot of folks are afraid to try it. |
|
|
|
Posted: 8/10/2015 3:40:47 PM EDT
[#40]
Quote HistoryQuoted:
Are you sure about that? I think barrel extensions are 8620 steel and the rod is 4140 I'm not a metallurgist. Maybe you could explain it to me. From the rod site: The rod is cut from a solid bar of 4140 Chrome Moly steel, properly quenched/tempered and ground to an exact diameter that is smooth and straight so the rod will enter an upper receiver without wobble. Quote HistoryQuoted:
Quoted:
Quoted:
I've made my position known about this in previous threads. Let me add something for you reaction rod fans to think about. You stick a piece of hardened metal in your barrel extension and crank on it to 70-80 pounds torque against the extension? You do this multiple times to the part that receives your bolt with the locking lugs? I don't stick anything in my barrel extension and torque it. Would you do that with your bolt? How long will it be until one of those surfaces is deformed? It just doesn't seem like a good idea. -W Thats why the Reaction Rod is softer than the barrel extension so the barrel extension will not be marked. Even so the precise machining of the lugs in the reaction rod have good flat to flat contact so even the RR was hard as can be it wouldn't be a problem. We are still using the same RR from the first prototype run years ago and only the bluing is worn off....no deformation. The Reaction Rod works better than anything out on the market.....that why the U.S. Mil tested and approved it and gave it an NSN number so that U.S. Mil armorers can order it. Are you sure about that? I think barrel extensions are 8620 steel and the rod is 4140 I'm not a metallurgist. Maybe you could explain it to me. From the rod site: The rod is cut from a solid bar of 4140 Chrome Moly steel, properly quenched/tempered and ground to an exact diameter that is smooth and straight so the rod will enter an upper receiver without wobble. Yes, Yes my friend...........I am sure. |
|
|
|
Posted: 8/10/2015 4:50:29 PM EDT
[#41]
a barrel vice block set can be used on AR15s and AR10s (and many other rifles/shotguns/pistols)
bev block works only on an AR15 reaction rod works only on AR15 I went with a set of barrel blocks because in my opinion it's a waste of money to buy something so incredibly specialized that I can only use it in 1 application. |
|
|
|
Posted: 8/10/2015 8:33:00 PM EDT
[#42]
What would a clamshell proponent use on a billet or some other non-standard upper?
I have seen diagrams concerning where the torque goes when tightening a fastener. Figures that gets thrown around are that 50% to 60% of the torque is overcoming the nut face friction, 10% to 15% of the torque goes to providing the actual clamp load, leaving 25% to 40% of the torque being taken up by the thread friction. With an AR barrel nut I see the nut face friction as occurring between the barrel extension shoulder and the barrel nut. It would seem that with all things being equal, if the barrel extension is held by Reaction Rod or Bev Block and tightening the barrel nut to a theoretical 80 ft*lb of torque, nut face friction is consuming around 40 to 48 ft*lb of the torque. The thread friction torque is loading the index pin and that load might be in the range of 20 to 32 ft*lb. The remaining 12 ft*lb or less actually is providing the clamp load. If the upper receiver is held with a clamshell or other device and the same 80 ft*lb is applied to the barrel nut, the nut face friction torque load to the barrel index pin might be in the range of 40 to 48 ft*lb. In my opinion I would not make the assumption that the load to the index pin is always higher when using a device that engages the barrel extension over the load to the pin when using the clamshell device. I know the dynamics are more complex than these two examples, and my assumptions may be in error. In the interest of full disclosure I own both, clamshells and Reaction Rods but do not have enough real world experience with either to make a definitive judgment and I am not sure there is one answer. |
|
|
|
Posted: 8/10/2015 8:35:05 PM EDT
[#43]
This style works well on billet uppers
|
|
|
|
Posted: 8/10/2015 8:39:36 PM EDT
[#44]
Quote HistoryQuoted:
Clam shells and barrel camps work no where near as good as the Reaction Rods. We just had some more uppers in here for some repair work for an OEM. Barrel nuts were on so tight that my young guy with a 2 foot long 1/2" breaker bar could not loosen them. It took my fatso 260b self on a over 3 foot long Snap On 3/4" breaker bar to crack these guys loose and I used everything I had. Clam shells would have twisted all up under that force. Barrel would have spun in the barrel clamp and tore the finish all to heck and left imbedded aluminum in the parkerizing. A properly used barrel vise jaw set would not necessarily have spun - I know because I've done this same thing. It was quite a challenge to get the barrel to not turn, I'll grant you, but it's doable. And while it's a chore to get off, that aluminum does come off of the barrel - because I had to remove the aluminum I got on the barrel before I got it properly tightened. No negative comment here about the Reaction Rod. Just pointing out that, hassle though it might be, a barrel vise block set is definitely doable. |
|
|
|
Posted: 8/10/2015 9:36:51 PM EDT
[#45]
Quote HistoryQuoted:
a barrel vice block set can be used on AR15s and AR10s (and many other rifles/shotguns/pistols) bev block works only on an AR15 reaction rod works only on AR15 I went with a set of barrel blocks because in my opinion it's a waste of money to buy something so incredibly specialized that I can only use it in 1 application. I purchased a Bev block to install the barrel nut and flash hider. Will I be ok using it or will I still risk damage to my upper? Hope I didn't just waste 49.00. 
|
|
|
|
Posted: 8/10/2015 9:37:03 PM EDT
[#46]
I use a reaction rod (that's what we have at work and I do all my stuff there).
I'm also a fan of the Magpul BEV Block. |
|
|
|
Posted: 8/11/2015 10:20:20 AM EDT
[#47]
Quote HistoryQuoted:
What would a clamshell proponent use on a billet or some other non-standard upper?
I have seen diagrams concerning where the torque goes when tightening a fastener. Figures that gets thrown around are that 50% to 60% of the torque is overcoming the nut face friction, 10% to 15% of the torque goes to providing the actual clamp load, leaving 25% to 40% of the torque being taken up by the thread friction. With an AR barrel nut I see the nut face friction as occurring between the barrel extension shoulder and the barrel nut. It would seem that with all things being equal, if the barrel extension is held by Reaction Rod or Bev Block and tightening the barrel nut to a theoretical 80 ft*lb of torque, nut face friction is consuming around 40 to 48 ft*lb of the torque. The thread friction torque is loading the index pin and that load might be in the range of 20 to 32 ft*lb. The remaining 12 ft*lb or less actually is providing the clamp load. If the upper receiver is held with a clamshell or other device and the same 80 ft*lb is applied to the barrel nut, the nut face friction torque load to the barrel index pin might be in the range of 40 to 48 ft*lb. In my opinion I would not make the assumption that the load to the index pin is always higher when using a device that engages the barrel extension over the load to the pin when using the clamshell device. I know the dynamics are more complex than these two examples, and my assumptions may be in error. In the interest of full disclosure I own both, clamshells and Reaction Rods but do not have enough real world experience with either to make a definitive judgment and I am not sure there is one answer. The torque load applied to the index pin when using the Reaction Rod has to be more than the torque load applied to the index pin when using the clamshell upper vise blocks since the use of the Reaction Rod is the only method that routinely shears index pins, something that rarely happens with the clamshell upper vise blocks. |
|
|
|
Posted: 8/11/2015 10:59:05 AM EDT
[#48]
I have the same goals as the OP. I've read many of these types of threads in the past, but there never seems to be a clear winning method. I've always wondered how to the AR manufactures attach barrels to upper receivers as well as muzzle devices to the barrel?
|
|
|
|
Posted: 8/11/2015 11:46:03 AM EDT
[#49]
I own and have used the Clamshell, the Reaction Rod and the Magpul BevBlock. I really like the Reaction Rod, however I would like to see something like the jig Windham Weaponry uses, which is like the Reaction Rod but with a section on the rod that engages the charging handle slot if I have seen the pictures correctly.
I also like the idea of a Clamshell/BevBlock design if it were possible. |
|
|
|
Posted: 8/11/2015 12:07:17 PM EDT
[#50]
Quote HistoryQuoted:
I own and have used the Clamshell, the Reaction Rod and the Magpul BevBlock. I really like the Reaction Rod, however I would like to see something like the jig Windham Weaponry uses, which is like the Reaction Rod but with a section on the rod that engages the charging handle slot if I have seen the pictures correctly. I also like the idea of a Clamshell/BevBlock design if it were possible. The Windham Weaponry jig is a great tool, I really hope 2Unique will make them. Link so people know what we're talking about. > http://www.ar15.com/forums/t_2_489/254215_Windham_Weaponry_upper_assembly_jig_.html |
|
|
Win a FREE Membership!
Sign up for the ARFCOM weekly newsletter and be entered to win a free ARFCOM membership. One new winner* is announced every week!
You will receive an email every Friday morning featuring the latest chatter from the hottest topics, breaking news surrounding legislation, as well as exclusive deals only available to ARFCOM email subscribers.
AR15.COM is the world's largest firearm community and is a gathering place for firearm enthusiasts of all types.
From hunters and military members, to competition shooters and general firearm enthusiasts, we welcome anyone who values and respects the way of the firearm.
Subscribe to our monthly Newsletter to receive firearm news, product discounts from your favorite Industry Partners, and more.
Copyright © 1996-2024 AR15.COM LLC. All Rights Reserved.
Any use of this content without express written consent is prohibited.
AR15.Com reserves the right to overwrite or replace any affiliate, commercial, or monetizable links, posted by users, with our own.
