Warning

 

Close

Confirm Action

Are you sure you wish to do this?

Confirm Cancel
Member Login
Posted: 12/22/2005 3:33:03 PM EDT
Is 35/39 foot pounds for the rifle buffer tube to tight or just right? It is the MIL-SPEC but it just sounds to tight to me.

I just don't see why it has to be so tight when carbine stocks only have to be torqued on at around 40 inch pounds which is a little less than 3 and a half foot pounds.
Link Posted: 12/22/2005 6:20:50 PM EDT
Bump.
Link Posted: 12/22/2005 7:03:57 PM EDT
could be a miss print, dont not know. I just go tight with grease on the threads, I stop before the lower flexes using a magazine as a lower holder in the vice.
Link Posted: 12/23/2005 8:59:45 AM EDT
BTT.
Link Posted: 12/23/2005 11:22:55 AM EDT
[Last Edit: 12/23/2005 11:23:43 AM EDT by M4Madness]
It's mil-spec, so it's good enough for me.

BTW, my armorer's manual lists the torque spec for rifle stocks at 35/39 foot pounds and carbine stocks at 38/42 foot pounds.
Link Posted: 12/23/2005 11:58:07 AM EDT

Originally Posted By 556Cliff:
I just don't see why it has to be so tight when carbine stocks only have to be torqued on at around 40 inch pounds which is a little less than 3 and a half foot pounds.



Because the Carbine's stock nut will be staked in place to make sure it doesn't loosen. Since you can't do that with the rifle's receiver extension it has to be torqued to a much higher value.
Link Posted: 12/23/2005 2:08:48 PM EDT
Thanks for the help guys! So are you saying I should torque to spec with some Moly grease and be done with it?
Link Posted: 12/23/2005 2:13:37 PM EDT

Originally Posted By 556Cliff:
Thanks for the help guys! So are you saying I should torque to spec with some Moly grease and be done with it?



Yes. Unless you think you know this rifle better than the world's largest and longest user of the M16 - the US Army.
Top Top