Warning

 

Close

Confirm Action

Are you sure you wish to do this?

Confirm Cancel
Member Login
Site Notices
9/22/2017 12:11:25 AM
Arrow Left Previous Page
Page / 4
Posted: 8/4/2011 1:32:45 PM EDT
Link Posted: 8/4/2011 2:10:04 PM EDT
WOW. That actually looks like something here! Great Mods...I look at this and think about the operation of the bolt during firing.....everything you did here makes perfict sense and seems like it would help cycling.

Where in MO are you guys? I want to get my hands on one!
Link Posted: 8/4/2011 2:11:08 PM EDT
Nice, I'll do some testing for you?
Link Posted: 8/4/2011 2:50:51 PM EDT
[Last Edit: 8/4/2011 2:52:03 PM EDT by ak4784]
Ill test one too! Lol.

Edit. Nevermind...i see you got Army testing...lol
Link Posted: 8/4/2011 4:11:22 PM EDT
Does it have a balanced extractor and/or address the cam pin hole weak spot?
Link Posted: 8/4/2011 5:05:40 PM EDT
Originally Posted By Gamma762:
Does it have a balanced extractor and/or address the cam pin hole weak spot?


On this one we kept it interchangeable with readily available parts, so adjusting the cam pin hole/design was out. Similarly, we didn't touch the extractor as we wanted to be able to say we were compatible with the Army's current parts inventory. Look for some of these issue to be addressed in the enhanced version.
Link Posted: 8/4/2011 5:06:55 PM EDT
One would think such a design would leave less bolt face to push rounds out of the magazine. Meaning that perhaps it would skip over a round in a mag that is dirty/ has a weak spring and can't keep up with the cyclic rate. Perhaps not. I will have to check my rifle when I get home.

I have been hoping someone would correct the glaringly obvious problems with the ar bolt/carrier design. This is one step. Next is to alter/lessen the bolt carrier bearing surfaces and smooth out the locking cam pin channel. Also, I'd like to see someone increase the clearance between the magazine lips and the bottom of the bolt carrier. There is no need for these surfaces to be so close, and out of spec/old mags with the feed lips pushed up can drag on the bottom of the carrier.
Link Posted: 8/4/2011 5:11:40 PM EDT
Originally Posted By SharpsMilSpec-Mike:
Originally Posted By Gamma762:
Does it have a balanced extractor and/or address the cam pin hole weak spot?


On this one we kept it interchangeable with readily available parts, so adjusting the cam pin hole/design was out. Similarly, we didn't touch the extractor as we wanted to be able to say we were compatible with the Army's current parts inventory. Look for some of these issue to be addressed in the enhanced version.


I understand the reasoning. It is sad that our boys are forced to accept substandard designs because beauracratic idiots are obsessed with bacwards compatibility, but it is what it is.

I look forward to seeing the enhanced version. I am liking the new things coming out of sharps these days!

Link Posted: 8/4/2011 5:33:30 PM EDT
Originally Posted By Seth247:
One would think such a design would leave less bolt face to push rounds out of the magazine. Meaning that perhaps it would skip over a round in a mag that is dirty/ has a weak spring and can't keep up with the cyclic rate. Perhaps not. I will have to check my rifle when I get home.

I have been hoping someone would correct the glaringly obvious problems with the ar bolt/carrier design. This is one step. Next is to alter/lessen the bolt carrier bearing surfaces and smooth out the locking cam pin channel. Also, I'd like to see someone increase the clearance between the magazine lips and the bottom of the bolt carrier. There is no need for these surfaces to be so close, and out of spec/old mags with the feed lips pushed up can drag on the bottom of the carrier.


What's wrong with the carrier bearing surfaces now?

The Cam Pin channel was fine for a 20" rifle, but there's simply no room to extend the unlock time.

And you want someone to engineer a solution for the rifle to work with out-of-spec mags? Really? I have a novel solution: get a new mag.
Link Posted: 8/4/2011 5:34:42 PM EDT
Originally Posted By Seth247:
One would think such a design would leave less bolt face to push rounds out of the magazine. Meaning that perhaps it would skip over a round in a mag that is dirty/ has a weak spring and can't keep up with the cyclic rate. Perhaps not. I will have to check my rifle when I get home.

I have been hoping someone would correct the glaringly obvious problems with the ar bolt/carrier design. This is one step. Next is to alter/lessen the bolt carrier bearing surfaces and smooth out the locking cam pin channel. Also, I'd like to see someone increase the clearance between the magazine lips and the bottom of the bolt carrier. There is no need for these surfaces to be so close, and out of spec/old mags with the feed lips pushed up can drag on the bottom of the carrier.


That is my concern as well.
Link Posted: 8/4/2011 5:48:47 PM EDT
[Last Edit: 8/4/2011 5:51:22 PM EDT by Gamma762]
I would also have expected some "sand cuts"... contouring on the "rails" and maybe some additional clearance around the BC to better handle dirt/sand/debris/fouling.
Link Posted: 8/4/2011 6:31:22 PM EDT
Originally Posted By Gamma762:
I would also have expected some "sand cuts"... contouring on the "rails" and maybe some additional clearance around the BC to better handle dirt/sand/debris/fouling.


Quick answer is what you are seeing had to be 100% "drop in" so we couldn't go too radical on the carrier. We focused on the one area we knew we could make a big difference and where there are major jamming issues.



Link Posted: 8/4/2011 6:35:09 PM EDT
Originally Posted By Scooby223:
Originally Posted By Seth247:
One would think such a design would leave less bolt face to push rounds out of the magazine. Meaning that perhaps it would skip over a round in a mag that is dirty/ has a weak spring and can't keep up with the cyclic rate. Perhaps not. I will have to check my rifle when I get home.

I have been hoping someone would correct the glaringly obvious problems with the ar bolt/carrier design. This is one step. Next is to alter/lessen the bolt carrier bearing surfaces and smooth out the locking cam pin channel. Also, I'd like to see someone increase the clearance between the magazine lips and the bottom of the bolt carrier. There is no need for these surfaces to be so close, and out of spec/old mags with the feed lips pushed up can drag on the bottom of the carrier.


That is my concern as well.


It still fully engages the from immediately above the primer which is the same as most bolt actions, so by overall percentage of engagement we feel we are pretty safe, however, that is why we are continuing testing, but to date we really haven't had much luck making it skip over rounds in the magazine. So far to make it skip the round has to be too low to chamber out of the magazine anyway. If needed we can extend that lug a bit as it was our concern as well, but again, so far, we haven't had any luck making it miss by starting the round low or forward.
Link Posted: 8/4/2011 8:13:55 PM EDT
wow i really like that, and if it goes well with the .mil ill purchase one, any idea on how much they will run us civies?
Link Posted: 8/4/2011 10:32:35 PM EDT
Originally Posted By sinlessorrow:
wow i really like that, and if it goes well with the .mil ill purchase one, any idea on how much they will run us civies?


Pricing hasn't firmed up yet, but for the Mil Spec type shown here it shouldn't be too harsh on the wallet.
Link Posted: 8/4/2011 10:44:18 PM EDT
this looks very interesting

glad to see a local company do something innovative like this


good luck



Link Posted: 8/5/2011 4:57:54 AM EDT
is the modified key and roller cam part of your bid?
Link Posted: 8/5/2011 7:30:20 AM EDT
Originally Posted By eternal24k:
is the modified key and roller cam part of your bid?


Yes, what you see is one of the extras from the sample build

Link Posted: 8/5/2011 7:53:17 AM EDT
thanks for the response. What kind of testing have you guys done in regards to whether or not reducing the size of the face (and thus impact area) has any affect on the strength and reliability of the bolt & lugs?
Link Posted: 8/5/2011 9:54:24 AM EDT

Well, technically, the rounds direct impact is on the bolt face, which is unchanged and then reflected to the lugs which are on the base, where they interact with the breach face, unchanged. The contouring of the lugs really doesn't reduce/effect the strength. Now the question is how are we testing to make sure that this is all the case. We are using standard real world test firing to see what stresses occur there. We ran stress tests in the computer world to see that at least the engineering programs didn't have an issue from the technical stand point. We are going talk to HP White or another laboratory, but they are first choice so that we can get full 3rd party testing done. Part of the hold on that as we want the enhanced version to go into the 3rd party at the same time as frankly, its most cost effective to run the tests on both at the same time under the same conditions, rather than pay them for the same setup costs twice.
Link Posted: 8/5/2011 10:04:12 AM EDT
thanks for the response, looking forward to seeing more. My concern comes from the fact the only broken parts on a bcg I have personally seen were broken lugs.
Link Posted: 8/5/2011 11:01:18 AM EDT
[Last Edit: 8/5/2011 11:01:40 AM EDT by SharpsMilSpec-Mike]
Originally Posted By eternal24k:
thanks for the response, looking forward to seeing more. My concern comes from the fact the only broken parts on a bcg I have personally seen were broken lugs.


The Mil Spec version will fail before enhanced, but the main focus of the Mil Spec model was to make it for more tolerant of gunk up in the barrel extension. The enhanced version is completely decked out to be on the other side of the spectrum. As strong and durable as possible, but it won't have the component part interchangeability of the mil spec, but then again if you are looking for parts on the enhanced, you either shoot a LOT or we've screwed up.....and yes that one will have a fix for the cam pin hole weakness
Link Posted: 8/5/2011 1:27:52 PM EDT
Originally Posted By BSWilson:
Originally Posted By Seth247:
One would think such a design would leave less bolt face to push rounds out of the magazine. Meaning that perhaps it would skip over a round in a mag that is dirty/ has a weak spring and can't keep up with the cyclic rate. Perhaps not. I will have to check my rifle when I get home.

I have been hoping someone would correct the glaringly obvious problems with the ar bolt/carrier design. This is one step. Next is to alter/lessen the bolt carrier bearing surfaces and smooth out the locking cam pin channel. Also, I'd like to see someone increase the clearance between the magazine lips and the bottom of the bolt carrier. There is no need for these surfaces to be so close, and out of spec/old mags with the feed lips pushed up can drag on the bottom of the carrier.


What's wrong with the carrier bearing surfaces now?

The Cam Pin channel was fine for a 20" rifle, but there's simply no room to extend the unlock time.

And you want someone to engineer a solution for the rifle to work with out-of-spec mags? Really? I have a novel solution: get a new mag.


The bearing surfaces, the "rails" on the outside of the carrier, don't need to be one solid piece like they are, they could have gaps machined in to clear fouling. Think 1911 versus glock, 1911 rails are one solid piece that runs the full length of the frame, while glocks, m&ps and the rest just have small "nubs" at each corner that arent tightly fitted. This design is a major part of those guns' reliability.

The cam pin channel has some sharp angles that could be smoothed out. Less stress, wear, drag on parts. Not really talking about lock time.

I know it makes you feel good to sound smart, but try to be a bit less snippy. Not everyone gets to sit at the range testing every single mag they have at every range visit. Some people have to test them while being shot at, after they picked up the mag from a dead buddy who may not have been as diligent in checking his mags for lip wear. I'd prefer a design that didn't malfunction on a mag with pushed lips than one that did. This mag lips to carrier clearance Is the whole reason some rifles will jam if the mag is pressed against the ground. However I spent some time looking around my rifle with a flashlight yesterday and there isn't a while lot of meat left in the carrier at that spot. So it may not be possible to increase clearance in this area much without compromising carrier strength.

Link Posted: 8/5/2011 1:29:44 PM EDT
Originally Posted By SharpsMilSpec-Mike:
Originally Posted By Scooby223:
Originally Posted By Seth247:
One would think such a design would leave less bolt face to push rounds out of the magazine. Meaning that perhaps it would skip over a round in a mag that is dirty/ has a weak spring and can't keep up with the cyclic rate. Perhaps not. I will have to check my rifle when I get home.

I have been hoping someone would correct the glaringly obvious problems with the ar bolt/carrier design. This is one step. Next is to alter/lessen the bolt carrier bearing surfaces and smooth out the locking cam pin channel. Also, I'd like to see someone increase the clearance between the magazine lips and the bottom of the bolt carrier. There is no need for these surfaces to be so close, and out of spec/old mags with the feed lips pushed up can drag on the bottom of the carrier.


That is my concern as well.


It still fully engages the from immediately above the primer which is the same as most bolt actions, so by overall percentage of engagement we feel we are pretty safe, however, that is why we are continuing testing, but to date we really haven't had much luck making it skip over rounds in the magazine. So far to make it skip the round has to be too low to chamber out of the magazine anyway. If needed we can extend that lug a bit as it was our concern as well, but again, so far, we haven't had any luck making it miss by starting the round low or forward.


Good to hear you guys are on top of things. I look forward to seeing the enhanced version.
Link Posted: 8/5/2011 2:08:01 PM EDT
In.

That is a smart idea.
Link Posted: 8/5/2011 3:54:06 PM EDT

Originally Posted By eternal24k:
thanks for the response, looking forward to seeing more. My concern comes from the fact the only broken parts on a bcg I have personally seen were broken lugs.

Which lugs broke, do you remember?


Along those lines, meaning broken lugs, somewhere I read that a possible reason for lugs breaking off is the uneven loading created by the 'missing' lug where the extractor is placed.
I cannot remember where I read this, and have searched with no luck................



The seven lugs obviously are loaded differently, with the lugs on either of the extractor carrying more that their share.

The answer was to remove the lug opposite the extractor, thus creating an evenly balanced situation, actually REDUCING the load on the lugs beside the extractor.
This sounds like a remarkably simple solution, easy to implement, and totally backwards compatible.

The people that did this reported that it seemed to solve the lug breakage problem. Not that a lot of lugs break off, but it could still spoil your afternoon............

Anybody have any experiences / comments? And not meant as a hi-jack, but this is a possible good area to mention this.

Link Posted: 8/5/2011 5:12:35 PM EDT
Originally Posted By us-kiwi:

Originally Posted By eternal24k:
thanks for the response, looking forward to seeing more. My concern comes from the fact the only broken parts on a bcg I have personally seen were broken lugs.

Which lugs broke, do you remember?


Along those lines, meaning broken lugs, somewhere I read that a possible reason for lugs breaking off is the uneven loading created by the 'missing' lug where the extractor is placed.
I cannot remember where I read this, and have searched with no luck................

http://i1191.photobucket.com/albums/z480/SharpsMilSpec/Reliabolt1-Bolt-Face.jpg

The seven lugs obviously are loaded differently, with the lugs on either of the extractor carrying more that their share.

The answer was to remove the lug opposite the extractor, thus creating an evenly balanced situation, actually REDUCING the load on the lugs beside the extractor.
This sounds like a remarkably simple solution, easy to implement, and totally backwards compatible.

The people that did this reported that it seemed to solve the lug breakage problem. Not that a lot of lugs break off, but it could still spoil your afternoon............

Anybody have any experiences / comments? And not meant as a hi-jack, but this is a possible good area to mention this.






Correct it is usually one of the two lugs on either side of the extractor. Both because of the uneven load and because the cut for the extractor extends underneath those two lugs weakening them.
Link Posted: 8/5/2011 6:00:55 PM EDT

Originally Posted By Seth247:
Originally Posted By us-kiwi:

Originally Posted By eternal24k:
thanks for the response, looking forward to seeing more. My concern comes from the fact the only broken parts on a bcg I have personally seen were broken lugs.

Which lugs broke, do you remember?


Along those lines, meaning broken lugs, somewhere I read that a possible reason for lugs breaking off is the uneven loading created by the 'missing' lug where the extractor is placed.
I cannot remember where I read this, and have searched with no luck................

http://i1191.photobucket.com/albums/z480/SharpsMilSpec/Reliabolt1-Bolt-Face.jpg

The seven lugs obviously are loaded differently, with the lugs on either of the extractor carrying more that their share.

The answer was to remove the lug opposite the extractor, thus creating an evenly balanced situation, actually REDUCING the load on the lugs beside the extractor.
This sounds like a remarkably simple solution, easy to implement, and totally backwards compatible.

The people that did this reported that it seemed to solve the lug breakage problem. Not that a lot of lugs break off, but it could still spoil your afternoon............

Anybody have any experiences / comments? And not meant as a hi-jack, but this is a possible good area to mention this.



Correct it is usually one of the two lugs on either side of the extractor. Both because of the uneven load and because the cut for the extractor extends underneath those two lugs weakening them.

Interesting.
So is anybody actually removing the center lug?

Seems that this would be a 'win-win' situation.
Less load on the two weak lugs = more load on the stronger ones. Yes?


Link Posted: 8/5/2011 7:21:02 PM EDT
[Last Edit: 8/5/2011 7:39:49 PM EDT by Gamma762]
Originally Posted By SharpsMilSpec-Mike:
Originally Posted By Scooby223:
Originally Posted By Seth247:
One would think such a design would leave less bolt face to push rounds out of the magazine.

That is my concern as well.

It still fully engages the from immediately above the primer which is the same as most bolt actions, so by overall percentage of engagement we feel we are pretty safe

AR15 based rifles are not, though, bolt actions, and depending on configuration (cyclic rate) sometimes begin feeding ammo before the rounds are completely settled at the top of the magazine. This is the reason M4 feedramps exist for example. I'm also concerned that only pushing the round from the top could create some malfunctions of the round hitting low because of the different angle of application of force.

There have been some extreme examples of fouled rifles, even displayed right here on this website and I don't recall fouling in the barrel extension to be a real issue.
Originally Posted By Seth247:
The bearing surfaces, the "rails" on the outside of the carrier, don't need to be one solid piece like they are, they could have gaps machined in to clear fouling.

Same point I was trying to make earlier in the thread. All the wear on the rails is the first and last 1/2".
Link Posted: 8/5/2011 7:41:32 PM EDT
Originally Posted By Gamma762:
Originally Posted By SharpsMilSpec-Mike:
Originally Posted By Scooby223:
Originally Posted By Seth247:
One would think such a design would leave less bolt face to push rounds out of the magazine.

That is my concern as well.

It still fully engages the from immediately above the primer which is the same as most bolt actions, so by overall percentage of engagement we feel we are pretty safe

AR15 based rifles are not, though, bolt actions, and depending on configuration (cyclic rate) sometimes begin feeding ammo before the rounds are completely settled at the top of the magazine. This is the reason M4 feedramps exist for example.


Yes, and we continue to test for that very reason. The benefit is you've got circles, the bolt and the cartridge, that overlap, giving a certain level of tolerance. However, we definitely continue to test to make sure we don't have any failures to load. We can always extend the appropriate lugs back out a little to correct without compromising much of the overall design benefit.
Link Posted: 8/6/2011 7:43:11 AM EDT
Link Posted: 8/6/2011 8:02:37 AM EDT
Originally Posted By SharpsMilSpec:

Lug profile does NOT touch the primer so if you are doing full auto firing the red hot lug isn't touching the primer greatly reducing the risk of a round "cooking off" prior to the firearm being in full battery.


I wasn't aware that bolt lugs were exposed to enough heat to become red hot. Having fired tens of thousands of rounds through M4 carbines, I have never experienced a cook off nor do I know anyone who has. At this point in your thread, you may want to shift to a more technical discussion and present data to support your claims. Failing to do so may lead many to consider the thread little more that a thinly veiled marketing campaign.
Link Posted: 8/6/2011 8:57:06 AM EDT
Whats going on with the ejector pin. Whats the white stuff around the pin?
Link Posted: 8/6/2011 9:37:14 AM EDT
Originally Posted By CAC01:
Originally Posted By SharpsMilSpec:

Lug profile does NOT touch the primer so if you are doing full auto firing the red hot lug isn't touching the primer greatly reducing the risk of a round "cooking off" prior to the firearm being in full battery.


I wasn't aware that bolt lugs were exposed to enough heat to become red hot. Having fired tens of thousands of rounds through M4 carbines, I have never experienced a cook off nor do I know anyone who has. At this point in your thread, you may want to shift to a more technical discussion and present data to support your claims. Failing to do so may lead many to consider the thread little more that a thinly veiled marketing campaign.


It was a benefit that was pointed out to us by one of the folks from the military consulting side and it was an issue that they brought up. I haven't seen it either, but it is certain that without any contact its not possible with the current lug design. I'm willing to believe it has happened as we had a primer detonate this week on a piece of equipment that turned out to have a very minor raised point from a error on the screw machine that made it decades ago. We bought it used and we've used it for many years ourselves, so with the right touchy primer like we had and a M4 that's just short of melting its gas tube I can believe its happened. All that being said, I agree, its not anything more than a rare at best occurrence, and if we end up with a fail to feed, we will have to extend the contact area removing this benefit. However, its an easy call if we have to make it as reliable feeding trumps avoiding the rare cook off possibility.

We will post some technical data as we move along. One particularly good graphic I want to put up shows the room for gunk this creates in the barrel extension. Sure you have to clean it out, and the designs motion helps to draw some back out, but the main point for us is it keeps you in the fight longer. And we aren't selling any at this time, not until the testing is complete.
Link Posted: 8/6/2011 9:39:27 AM EDT
Originally Posted By creedlemyerjones:
Whats going on with the ejector pin. Whats the white stuff around the pin?


Looks like grease the put on it in assembly to me. Nothing special there. We photographed this one right before this went into the box to Picatinny "unfired" as required in the bid
Link Posted: 8/6/2011 10:49:32 AM EDT
Please Post up a pic taken like these.



Link Posted: 8/6/2011 11:42:57 AM EDT
Have you done a round count of the regular bolt and this bolt? What is the percentage of improvement over a regular bolt?
Link Posted: 8/6/2011 3:04:43 PM EDT

I'll see what we can do on the photos. Should be a problem. Nice shots by the way.
Link Posted: 8/6/2011 3:19:57 PM EDT
Originally Posted By Swoosh101:
Have you done a round count of the regular bolt and this bolt? What is the percentage of improvement over a regular bolt?


Most of the testing to date has been just trying to jam it up. Part of the benefit or the military process is they've got mountains of data on the standard bolts to compare against and we have some summary data and averages as testing what the known bolt design does would be replicating data that is available already at what is a fairly significant expense. Also, why we are going to a 3rd party lab to do some of the longevity testing on ours so we can get this type of data from an independent party. Also they have methods and test equipment we don't. They key on this Mil Spec part is better reliability, the enhanced one still finalizing in design will combine reliability with significantly increased durability.

We are going to try and get some youtube videos up of some of the testing we are doing to try and jam this one up.

We are still very early in this products cycle, but we wanted to show the folks here where we are going as its happening. Basically this is a look into our R&D room. Hearing what it is that people want to see and hear and have us report on is part of why we are doing this, so that we can deliver a product that satisfies as many as possible and has been tested properly and has all the market education we can include with it.

Link Posted: 8/6/2011 7:06:05 PM EDT
Will these bolts be High pressure tested then Magnetic particle inspected? If so, will these be batch tested or individually tested?
Link Posted: 8/7/2011 8:42:38 AM EDT
Link Posted: 8/7/2011 8:54:31 AM EDT
Link Posted: 8/7/2011 11:55:39 AM EDT
could you send one of them to Banditman

His pictures are way better

Interesting Idea you have for an improved Bolt I will have to think about it for a while
Link Posted: 8/7/2011 12:47:28 PM EDT
[Last Edit: 8/7/2011 12:47:36 PM EDT by rgerh]
Originally Posted By rgerh:
could you send one of them to Banditman

His pictures are way better

Its a good idea and I like it


Your intent is to give carbon dirt and sand a place to go so it does not jam up the bolt Correct?

But now you need some place for it to go to, leaving in the barrel extension it will still build up and cause a problem, granted it will now hold more but it is possible the extra room would fill up with sand etc and cause a problem.

Could you not also change the barrel extension to allow dirt sand etc a way out of the barrel extension. By milling two small grooves between the locking lugs so when the gun is fired and the bolt is drawn back it could also drop the material into the grooves and drag it out.



Link Posted: 8/7/2011 10:05:49 PM EDT

Army bid doesn't permit any adjustment to the barrel extension. For our own there will be a new barrel extension available.

Pictures were the best I could do with the compact on the weekend.
Link Posted: 8/8/2011 6:13:00 AM EDT
[Last Edit: 8/8/2011 6:14:07 AM EDT by wingo]
interesting!
any chance of a picture of all the components taken apart? is the rear of the bolt beefed up around the cam pin? is there any chance to see these working in a really filthy rifle?

i would like to see a couple tested by some of the real high volume shooters on the board. if they work like they look like they should, im down for a couple. also, any 6.8 in the works?
Link Posted: 8/8/2011 6:34:22 AM EDT
Originally Posted By wingo:
interesting!
any chance of a picture of all the components taken apart? is the rear of the bolt beefed up around the cam pin? is there any chance to see these working in a really filthy rifle?

i would like to see a couple tested by some of the real high volume shooters on the board. if they work like they look like they should, im down for a couple. also, any 6.8 in the works?



On the military item we have posted here we didn't change the cam pin hole, however on the enhanced we are working on that area........speaking of, if anyone has a bolt with a broken cam pin hole they'd like to sell, preferably several people with bolts broken at the cam pin, we'd be interested in buying them. We'd like to do some hardness analysis to see exactly how the failures occur, basically did someone screw up the hardening , etc. Other than that nothing much really to see on the rest.

We will be showing tested components shortly. Then the broken down shots might be more interesting to show the degree of carbon build up, etc. We'll also be sending some to the testing labs and also to some of the shooting schools out there, but if a few of the high volume guys on here that are unaffiliated want to shoot us a resume we'd be happy to read them.

And we'll be putting out other bolts, including a 6.8 when we get the 5.56 bolt done which also will work for our 25 cal.
Link Posted: 8/8/2011 1:02:31 PM EDT
Link Posted: 8/8/2011 5:30:59 PM EDT
Originally Posted By SharpsMilSpec-Mike:

Army bid doesn't permit any adjustment to the barrel extension. For our own there will be a new barrel extension available.

Pictures were the best I could do with the compact on the weekend.


Any pictures of the new barrel extension?
Link Posted: 8/8/2011 7:28:33 PM EDT
Any pictures of the new barrel extension?


The enhanced one? No, not yet, still doing some geometry work. Should move quicker now that the military bid is in.

Link Posted: 8/8/2011 8:16:17 PM EDT
Arrow Left Previous Page
Page / 4
Top Top