User Panel
Originally Posted By krdt:
That's not all carbon build up in those pictures; there is some actual blast erosion as well. There is carbon, yes... but it's also already cutting into the blast baffle; mine is doing it with less than 1k on it. Of course, it's purely cosmetic at this point, being the blast-baffle is like 1/8"-3/16" thick, but there is definitely some erosion already. If I hold it at an angle it's very easy to see minor cuts spiralling outwards from the bore - the pictures only show it slightly. Here are some better pics: http://wkd.site.nfoservers.com/CQBR/CQBR.101618.SOCOM.RC.Blast.Baffle-700-03.jpg http://wkd.site.nfoservers.com/CQBR/CQBR.101618.SOCOM.RC.Blast.Baffle-700-04.jpg If you look at the bottom "tine," you can pretty clearly see where it has cut into the blast-baffle and the step down from the height of the surrounding surface. The same is happening on each "tine," the photos just don't capture it very well. As to whether a 3P or 4P wears faster, I doubt there is a significant difference; certainly nothing like the difference in an MB and flash hider. There might be some merit to the notion that the blast is split into four points of impact versus three, and that serves to disperse the blast to some degree, but I doubt it'd be anything major. Either way, clearly the RC was designed for the 4P (as I recall, SF came out with the 3P for commercial use after they had already secured the SOCOM contract using the 4P/RC). Only seems right to use the MD it was designed for. View Quote View All Quotes View All Quotes Originally Posted By krdt:
Originally Posted By Dyzastr:
Originally Posted By krdt: No expert on baffle design, but it seems to me that as the pressurized gas expands into the pre-blast baffle chamber area, it has five pathways into the baffle stack - through the bore or into one of the four ports on the blast baffle. Without those ports, any gas that didn't follow into the bore would be redirected as back pressure; the ports just allow some of that pressure to be relieved into the baffle stack. If so, it would stand to reason that having the gaps on the 4P aligned to the ports on the blast baffle would just help guide the gas along the path of least resistance (i.e. into one of the four ports). Not certain that's how it actually works, but that's the way I'm featuring it. Here are some better pics: http://wkd.site.nfoservers.com/CQBR/CQBR.101618.SOCOM.RC.Blast.Baffle-700-03.jpg http://wkd.site.nfoservers.com/CQBR/CQBR.101618.SOCOM.RC.Blast.Baffle-700-04.jpg If you look at the bottom "tine," you can pretty clearly see where it has cut into the blast-baffle and the step down from the height of the surrounding surface. The same is happening on each "tine," the photos just don't capture it very well. As to whether a 3P or 4P wears faster, I doubt there is a significant difference; certainly nothing like the difference in an MB and flash hider. There might be some merit to the notion that the blast is split into four points of impact versus three, and that serves to disperse the blast to some degree, but I doubt it'd be anything major. Either way, clearly the RC was designed for the 4P (as I recall, SF came out with the 3P for commercial use after they had already secured the SOCOM contract using the 4P/RC). Only seems right to use the MD it was designed for. |
|
We're dropping like flies. -Apocalypto-
|
Originally Posted By CloneDiseased:
I do boff. I'll probably never get rid of the CQBR. Edit: Got to add a pic for page ownage. https://i.imgur.com/OhJcDQd.jpg And the CQBR: https://i.imgur.com/Ezs63I4.jpg View Quote View All Quotes View All Quotes Originally Posted By CloneDiseased:
Originally Posted By MILSPEC556:
Originally Posted By CloneDiseased:
Originally Posted By MILSPEC556:
Dude I was just wondering where you were yesterday. Am I trippin or have you been gone for like forever? Edit: Got to add a pic for page ownage. https://i.imgur.com/OhJcDQd.jpg And the CQBR: https://i.imgur.com/Ezs63I4.jpg |
|
We're dropping like flies. -Apocalypto-
|
Originally Posted By MILSPEC556:
ETA nvm. I just brain farted View Quote View All Quotes View All Quotes Originally Posted By MILSPEC556:
Originally Posted By krdt:
Originally Posted By Dyzastr:
Originally Posted By krdt: No expert on baffle design, but it seems to me that as the pressurized gas expands into the pre-blast baffle chamber area, it has five pathways into the baffle stack - through the bore or into one of the four ports on the blast baffle. Without those ports, any gas that didn't follow into the bore would be redirected as back pressure; the ports just allow some of that pressure to be relieved into the baffle stack. If so, it would stand to reason that having the gaps on the 4P aligned to the ports on the blast baffle would just help guide the gas along the path of least resistance (i.e. into one of the four ports). Not certain that's how it actually works, but that's the way I'm featuring it. Here are some better pics: http://wkd.site.nfoservers.com/CQBR/CQBR.101618.SOCOM.RC.Blast.Baffle-700-03.jpg http://wkd.site.nfoservers.com/CQBR/CQBR.101618.SOCOM.RC.Blast.Baffle-700-04.jpg If you look at the bottom "tine," you can pretty clearly see where it has cut into the blast-baffle and the step down from the height of the surrounding surface. The same is happening on each "tine," the photos just don't capture it very well. As to whether a 3P or 4P wears faster, I doubt there is a significant difference; certainly nothing like the difference in an MB and flash hider. There might be some merit to the notion that the blast is split into four points of impact versus three, and that serves to disperse the blast to some degree, but I doubt it'd be anything major. Either way, clearly the RC was designed for the 4P (as I recall, SF came out with the 3P for commercial use after they had already secured the SOCOM contract using the 4P/RC). Only seems right to use the MD it was designed for. |
|
Practice, the master of all things. - Augustus
|
Originally Posted By krdt:
Lol... yeah, the index point would stay the same ;p. View Quote View All Quotes View All Quotes Originally Posted By krdt:
Originally Posted By MILSPEC556:
Originally Posted By krdt:
Originally Posted By Dyzastr:
Originally Posted By krdt: No expert on baffle design, but it seems to me that as the pressurized gas expands into the pre-blast baffle chamber area, it has five pathways into the baffle stack - through the bore or into one of the four ports on the blast baffle. Without those ports, any gas that didn't follow into the bore would be redirected as back pressure; the ports just allow some of that pressure to be relieved into the baffle stack. If so, it would stand to reason that having the gaps on the 4P aligned to the ports on the blast baffle would just help guide the gas along the path of least resistance (i.e. into one of the four ports). Not certain that's how it actually works, but that's the way I'm featuring it. Here are some better pics: http://wkd.site.nfoservers.com/CQBR/CQBR.101618.SOCOM.RC.Blast.Baffle-700-03.jpg http://wkd.site.nfoservers.com/CQBR/CQBR.101618.SOCOM.RC.Blast.Baffle-700-04.jpg If you look at the bottom "tine," you can pretty clearly see where it has cut into the blast-baffle and the step down from the height of the surrounding surface. The same is happening on each "tine," the photos just don't capture it very well. As to whether a 3P or 4P wears faster, I doubt there is a significant difference; certainly nothing like the difference in an MB and flash hider. There might be some merit to the notion that the blast is split into four points of impact versus three, and that serves to disperse the blast to some degree, but I doubt it'd be anything major. Either way, clearly the RC was designed for the 4P (as I recall, SF came out with the 3P for commercial use after they had already secured the SOCOM contract using the 4P/RC). Only seems right to use the MD it was designed for. (You can't tell me you at least hadn't thought about it) |
|
We're dropping like flies. -Apocalypto-
|
Originally Posted By MILSPEC556:
In before krdt turns his BAFFLES 2 degrees to the right (You can't tell me you at least hadn't thought about it) View Quote View All Quotes View All Quotes Originally Posted By MILSPEC556:
Originally Posted By krdt:
Originally Posted By MILSPEC556:
Originally Posted By krdt:
Originally Posted By Dyzastr:
Originally Posted By krdt: No expert on baffle design, but it seems to me that as the pressurized gas expands into the pre-blast baffle chamber area, it has five pathways into the baffle stack - through the bore or into one of the four ports on the blast baffle. Without those ports, any gas that didn't follow into the bore would be redirected as back pressure; the ports just allow some of that pressure to be relieved into the baffle stack. If so, it would stand to reason that having the gaps on the 4P aligned to the ports on the blast baffle would just help guide the gas along the path of least resistance (i.e. into one of the four ports). Not certain that's how it actually works, but that's the way I'm featuring it. Here are some better pics: http://wkd.site.nfoservers.com/CQBR/CQBR.101618.SOCOM.RC.Blast.Baffle-700-03.jpg http://wkd.site.nfoservers.com/CQBR/CQBR.101618.SOCOM.RC.Blast.Baffle-700-04.jpg If you look at the bottom "tine," you can pretty clearly see where it has cut into the blast-baffle and the step down from the height of the surrounding surface. The same is happening on each "tine," the photos just don't capture it very well. As to whether a 3P or 4P wears faster, I doubt there is a significant difference; certainly nothing like the difference in an MB and flash hider. There might be some merit to the notion that the blast is split into four points of impact versus three, and that serves to disperse the blast to some degree, but I doubt it'd be anything major. Either way, clearly the RC was designed for the 4P (as I recall, SF came out with the 3P for commercial use after they had already secured the SOCOM contract using the 4P/RC). Only seems right to use the MD it was designed for. (You can't tell me you at least hadn't thought about it) I'm sure there is absolutely no way this could go wrong :D. |
|
Practice, the master of all things. - Augustus
|
Originally Posted By krdt:
*Turns on the welder and angle grinder* I'm sure there is absolutely no way this could go wrong :D. View Quote View All Quotes View All Quotes Originally Posted By krdt:
Originally Posted By MILSPEC556:
Originally Posted By krdt:
Originally Posted By MILSPEC556:
Originally Posted By krdt:
Originally Posted By Dyzastr:
Originally Posted By krdt: No expert on baffle design, but it seems to me that as the pressurized gas expands into the pre-blast baffle chamber area, it has five pathways into the baffle stack - through the bore or into one of the four ports on the blast baffle. Without those ports, any gas that didn't follow into the bore would be redirected as back pressure; the ports just allow some of that pressure to be relieved into the baffle stack. If so, it would stand to reason that having the gaps on the 4P aligned to the ports on the blast baffle would just help guide the gas along the path of least resistance (i.e. into one of the four ports). Not certain that's how it actually works, but that's the way I'm featuring it. Here are some better pics: http://wkd.site.nfoservers.com/CQBR/CQBR.101618.SOCOM.RC.Blast.Baffle-700-03.jpg http://wkd.site.nfoservers.com/CQBR/CQBR.101618.SOCOM.RC.Blast.Baffle-700-04.jpg If you look at the bottom "tine," you can pretty clearly see where it has cut into the blast-baffle and the step down from the height of the surrounding surface. The same is happening on each "tine," the photos just don't capture it very well. As to whether a 3P or 4P wears faster, I doubt there is a significant difference; certainly nothing like the difference in an MB and flash hider. There might be some merit to the notion that the blast is split into four points of impact versus three, and that serves to disperse the blast to some degree, but I doubt it'd be anything major. Either way, clearly the RC was designed for the 4P (as I recall, SF came out with the 3P for commercial use after they had already secured the SOCOM contract using the 4P/RC). Only seems right to use the MD it was designed for. (You can't tell me you at least hadn't thought about it) I'm sure there is absolutely no way this could go wrong :D. |
|
We're dropping like flies. -Apocalypto-
|
|
Originally Posted By tnbigdawg:
I took some quick pics of my "virgin" RC and RC2. You can also kind of see some carbon buildup on the RC1's mating surface. The oil residue is from the CLP I used to clean out the carbon. RC: https://i.imgur.com/Ocgx140.jpg RC2: https://i.imgur.com/iB0VZFx.jpg I spray painted the RC2; it's originally black. https://i.imgur.com/CjxOxuD.jpg View Quote |
|
We're dropping like flies. -Apocalypto-
|
WTB:
- Wilcox Micro Reflex Sight mount for NF Rings - EOTech FDE XPS 3-0 |
|
Originally Posted By wissota4:
7 out of 8?? Giving yourself some credit there! I didn't know you were a v8 to begin with anyway. View Quote View All Quotes View All Quotes Originally Posted By wissota4:
Originally Posted By MILSPEC556:
Damn you caught me before I edited right to left. Its just one of those days. Firing on 7/8 I didn't know you were a v8 to begin with anyway. Looks like I will have a new piece for my CQBR here soon. One I've been bitching about wanting for months now....unfortunately no it is not a new optic |
|
We're dropping like flies. -Apocalypto-
|
Originally Posted By tnbigdawg:
I took some quick pics of my "virgin" RC and RC2. You can also kind of see some carbon buildup on the RC1's mating surface. The oil residue is from the CLP I used to clean out the carbon. RC: https://i.imgur.com/Ocgx140.jpg RC2: https://i.imgur.com/iB0VZFx.jpg I spray painted the RC2; it's originally black. https://i.imgur.com/CjxOxuD.jpg View Quote Kinda had some oxidation - I'd guess it sat in some warehouse for quite a while, then a year in jail. I also didn't realize the RC2 had a different baffle design. Have you fired them both to see how they compare with back pressure? Also, fantastic job on the paint there. What colors did you use? |
|
Practice, the master of all things. - Augustus
|
Originally Posted By MILSPEC556:
Damn you did a good job with the rattle can View Quote View All Quotes View All Quotes Originally Posted By krdt: Mine wasn't so pristine unfired :\. http://wkd.site.nfoservers.com/CQBR/CQBR.101618.SOCOM.RC-0-Rounds-01.jpg Kinda had some oxidation - I'd guess it sat in some warehouse for quite a while, then a year in jail. I also didn't realize the RC2 had a different baffle design. Have you fired them both to see how they compare with back pressure? Also, fantastic job on the paint there. What colors did you use? I believe the paint I used was Valspar flat indoor/outdoor spray paint. The code on it says "84230 Rugged" and that's on the suppressor body. I also remember spraying a dust coat of Valspar Frosting "66504 Frost" to help take away any shiny highlights/reflections from light. For the collar I used some 20+ year old automotive solid gold (no flakes, almost 24k plating looking) spray paint, and dusted over with Rustoleum 7274 Antique Brass Metallic followed by the frosting. I was hoping I'd get the tanodized look. It would have looked sort of close to the RC1 in my picture, but the RC1's collar was saturated with oil and/or finger prints so it looks kind of dark. I only had the tan SF Warden to go off of while the RC1 was in jail. A lot of work only for it to burn off I know Note: I've used this spray frost to also flatten out satin (semi-gloss) paints on one of my rifles because the Lowe's by my house doesn't have a wide range of flat paints, but they have some nicer colors in satin. |
|
|
Originally Posted By CloneDiseased:
I do boff. I'll probably never get rid of the CQBR. Edit: Got to add a pic for page ownage. https://i.imgur.com/OhJcDQd.jpg And the CQBR: https://i.imgur.com/Ezs63I4.jpg View Quote |
|
Without blood, it doesn't count!
"A gun, like any other source of power, is a force for good or evil, being neither in itself, but dependent upon those who possess it." |
Originally Posted By krdt: That's not all carbon build up in those pictures; there is some actual blast erosion as well. There is carbon, yes... but it's also already cutting into the blast baffle; mine is doing it with less than 1k on it. Of course, it's purely cosmetic at this point, being the blast-baffle is like 1/8"-3/16" thick, but there is definitely some erosion already. If I hold it at an angle it's very easy to see minor cuts spiralling outwards from the bore - the pictures only show it slightly. Here are some better pics: http://wkd.site.nfoservers.com/CQBR/CQBR.101618.SOCOM.RC.Blast.Baffle-700-03.jpg http://wkd.site.nfoservers.com/CQBR/CQBR.101618.SOCOM.RC.Blast.Baffle-700-04.jpg If you look at the bottom "tine," you can pretty clearly see where it has cut into the blast-baffle and the step down from the height of the surrounding surface. The same is happening on each "tine," the photos just don't capture it very well. As to whether a 3P or 4P wears faster, I doubt there is a significant difference; certainly nothing like the difference in an MB and flash hider. There might be some merit to the notion that the blast is split into four points of impact versus three, and that serves to disperse the blast to some degree, but I doubt it'd be anything major. Either way, clearly the RC was designed for the 4P (as I recall, SF came out with the 3P for commercial use after they had already secured the SOCOM contract using the 4P/RC). Only seems right to use the MD it was designed for. View Quote |
|
|
Originally Posted By Dyzastr:
ya, I can definitely see the wear in that pic. I think we are saying the same thing pretty much. when I spoke of erosion, I should've been more specific and said bore erosion vs baffle erosion vs port erosion. the little ports aren't nearly as important on accuracy as the bore. if the bore looks the same on both then they are fine. like you said the ports act as another escape route for gas, similar to having a larger blast chamber. im sure the gas is going to find its way through there one way or another. I guess my main point is that I believe the 4 prong was developed and chosen because of its flash hiding capabilities with NV over it lining up with. Put a 3 prong on and you now have an open vertical slot that could send flash into view. the four prong however, has an extra tine to mitigate flash as well as offset slots that direct any flash away from the line of sight. Now I have to wonder, why in the hell did they even released the 3p? I guess I had two main questions that kind of blurred. 1) are the 3p and 4p any different when it comes to baffle wear i.e. which one wears less, and 2) is one or the other better at mitigating back pressure (in reference to milspec comparing a 3p to oversized gas ports.) Now I guess a 3rd) why did they make the 3p at all? i must say though, its more pleasing to see four lines of erosion lining up to four holes, than the 3/4 thing with the 3p. Our brains and eyes strive for uniformity. Either way when all is said and done, 4p+rc=pure greatness. Thanks for all the pics man. View Quote View All Quotes View All Quotes Originally Posted By Dyzastr:
Originally Posted By krdt: That's not all carbon build up in those pictures; there is some actual blast erosion as well. There is carbon, yes... but it's also already cutting into the blast baffle; mine is doing it with less than 1k on it. Of course, it's purely cosmetic at this point, being the blast-baffle is like 1/8"-3/16" thick, but there is definitely some erosion already. If I hold it at an angle it's very easy to see minor cuts spiralling outwards from the bore - the pictures only show it slightly. Here are some better pics: http://wkd.site.nfoservers.com/CQBR/CQBR.101618.SOCOM.RC.Blast.Baffle-700-03.jpg http://wkd.site.nfoservers.com/CQBR/CQBR.101618.SOCOM.RC.Blast.Baffle-700-04.jpg If you look at the bottom "tine," you can pretty clearly see where it has cut into the blast-baffle and the step down from the height of the surrounding surface. The same is happening on each "tine," the photos just don't capture it very well. As to whether a 3P or 4P wears faster, I doubt there is a significant difference; certainly nothing like the difference in an MB and flash hider. There might be some merit to the notion that the blast is split into four points of impact versus three, and that serves to disperse the blast to some degree, but I doubt it'd be anything major. Either way, clearly the RC was designed for the 4P (as I recall, SF came out with the 3P for commercial use after they had already secured the SOCOM contract using the 4P/RC). Only seems right to use the MD it was designed for. I do seem to recall that SOCOM specifically requested a four prong device, so maybe Surefire already had the 3P at the time, but it didn't meet the requirements of SOCOM? I was always under the impression Surefire had secured the contract with the 4P and RC, and only later developed the 3P and later the RC2. I still don't quite understand why they opted to sell the RC commercially, but not offer the 4P when they were clearly designed to work together. The 3P makes more sense with the RC2, but that still doesn't explain the refusal to offer the 4P when they were already manufacturing it for contract purposes. I also wonder why they decided to eliminate the blast baffle ports on the RC2; did that weaken the blast baffle and cause a need to re-core sooner? As far as I know, the primary concern with suppressor wear is the blast baffle eroding (probably outwards from the bore) and exposing the baffle stack to wear - at which point you'd need to re-core. ETA: I wonder if anyone has ever taken a photo of an RC that needed a re-core? Not from a baffle strike, but one that had reached a point that sound suppression had been meaningfully impacted and it required replacement. I'd be curious to see what it looked like and to know the round count. I'm expecting a useful life of at least 25k to 30k (or more). Based on the round counts of other RC users that still have a usable can, I think that's a fairly reasonable estimate. |
|
Practice, the master of all things. - Augustus
|
|
Did you build this? Looking to build a mk18 myself and what ya have here is what I plan to model my build off of lol.
|
|
|
|
Originally Posted By tnbigdawg:
I took some quick pics of my "virgin" RC and RC2. You can also kind of see some carbon buildup on the RC1's mating surface. The oil residue is from the CLP I used to clean out the carbon. RC: https://i.imgur.com/Ocgx140.jpg RC2: https://i.imgur.com/iB0VZFx.jpg I spray painted the RC2; it's originally black. https://i.imgur.com/CjxOxuD.jpg View Quote NM, I see you answered already. But can't find any online. |
|
|
@Combat_Diver
CD, I did go for that handstop (Ergo) in the end. Nicest one I tried so far (and a must on a pistol anyways) Mk18 pistol and Friends by SoloDallas, on Flickr |
|
*Born in Texas, raised in Europe. Will die in the USA*
|
|
Soon. Soon I will be a member of the mile high club. Lift kit on my rig so to speak.
|
|
We're dropping like flies. -Apocalypto-
|
Originally Posted By MILSPEC556:
Soon. Soon I will be a member of the mile high club. Lift kit on my rig so to speak. View Quote Attached File |
|
|
Originally Posted By SoloDallas:
@Combat_Diver CD, I did go for that handstop (Ergo) in the end. Nicest one I tried so far (and a must on a pistol anyways) https://farm2.staticflickr.com/1924/44671942454_ae333b9786_b.jpg Mk18 pistol and Friends by SoloDallas, on Flickr View Quote Looks good, hope you enjoy it. CD |
|
De Oppresso Liber
Iraq: 91,03,04,05,06,08,09,15&16' Afganistan: 09,10,11',14',17' & 18' |
Originally Posted By Spooled:
Take it to the next bevel bruh https://www.AR15.Com/media/mediaFiles/297824/D20E5DA8-48FA-4E53-B1FD-955EF569F453_jpeg-709241.JPG View Quote View All Quotes View All Quotes Originally Posted By Spooled:
Originally Posted By MILSPEC556:
Soon. Soon I will be a member of the mile high club. Lift kit on my rig so to speak. https://www.AR15.Com/media/mediaFiles/297824/D20E5DA8-48FA-4E53-B1FD-955EF569F453_jpeg-709241.JPG |
|
We're dropping like flies. -Apocalypto-
|
*Born in Texas, raised in Europe. Will die in the USA*
|
Practice, the master of all things. - Augustus
|
We are not citizens, We are suspects.
|
Originally Posted By Spooled:
Take it to the next bevel bruh https://www.AR15.Com/media/mediaFiles/297824/D20E5DA8-48FA-4E53-B1FD-955EF569F453_jpeg-709241.JPG View Quote pic... |
|
Live Free or Die
NRA Patron Member Follow me on IG @josh_goes_pewpew |
Originally Posted By Conner378:
https://www.AR15.Com/media/mediaFiles/448813/492D4E3C-0D79-4CF6-AEE9-02750116A84E_jpeg-709353.JPG View Quote |
|
|
Originally Posted By SoloDallas:
@Combat_Diver CD, I did go for that handstop (Ergo) in the end. Nicest one I tried so far (and a must on a pistol anyways) https://farm2.staticflickr.com/1924/44671942454_ae333b9786_b.jpg Mk18 pistol and Friends by SoloDallas, on Flickr View Quote |
|
|
|
Originally Posted By Dyzastr:
Looks very good. I like the meat hook for sure. My lgs always has those in stock. They look like they do a good job for what they are intended. View Quote It triggered me to know more; CD didn't remember the name of that contraption but google did. Cheap, bought and installed. Looks great, functions great. Done. ETA: keep in mind, it's a MUST for me because California and pistol. If I could go differently, that would be an SBR and that handstop would become a VG. I love VGs |
|
*Born in Texas, raised in Europe. Will die in the USA*
|
Originally Posted By krdt: This is pretty much current - darkening up pretty quickly. http://wkd.site.nfoservers.com/CQBR/CQBR.101218.SBR.BY-RS-01.jpg Yeah, with the 3P two ports mostly line up and the third lands in the middle between the ports. http://i.imgur.com/4NbNs98.jpg That's one of the reasons I wanted a 4P besides just correctness - it's really what the RC was designed for. No idea if there is any difference in wear or performance 3P vs. 4P, but I figured if I wasn't going to run a muzzle brake, I should at least have the right flash hider that aligns with the ports. Well, that and... cause 4 prong :D. View Quote |
|
"I'll tell you what war is about, you've got to kill people, and when you've killed enough they stop fighting." GEN Curtis LeMay
"Someday this war's gonna end..." LTC William Kilgore |
Originally Posted By Combat_Diver: Lots of variables involved, don't know of anyone that keeps their suppressor on all the time. Generally they call me if the gun won't group anymore or I stop by and gauge all their guns like I'm doing now on the road (ie barrel erosion gauge). I do try and put on new bolts at 6,000 rds. Barrels can last longer up to 3x the amount. CD View Quote |
|
"I'll tell you what war is about, you've got to kill people, and when you've killed enough they stop fighting." GEN Curtis LeMay
"Someday this war's gonna end..." LTC William Kilgore |
Originally Posted By MILSPEC556:
Sounds like solid logic to me. 3 prong with RC is = to larger gas port. Eeek! Thank god DD wisened up on their port sizing. Not that I use DD bbls on clones thus far pre URG-I.....but I am a believer in CHF so that will change once the 10.3 URG-I is released View Quote |
|
"I'll tell you what war is about, you've got to kill people, and when you've killed enough they stop fighting." GEN Curtis LeMay
"Someday this war's gonna end..." LTC William Kilgore |
De Oppresso Liber
Iraq: 91,03,04,05,06,08,09,15&16' Afganistan: 09,10,11',14',17' & 18' |
Originally Posted By KILLERB6:
We can be an OCD bunch, can't we: "I had to get a 4P so the erosion on my baffle would be clone correct!!!" View Quote View All Quotes View All Quotes Originally Posted By KILLERB6:
Originally Posted By krdt: This is pretty much current - darkening up pretty quickly. http://wkd.site.nfoservers.com/CQBR/CQBR.101218.SBR.BY-RS-01.jpg Yeah, with the 3P two ports mostly line up and the third lands in the middle between the ports. http://i.imgur.com/4NbNs98.jpg That's one of the reasons I wanted a 4P besides just correctness - it's really what the RC was designed for. No idea if there is any difference in wear or performance 3P vs. 4P, but I figured if I wasn't going to run a muzzle brake, I should at least have the right flash hider that aligns with the ports. Well, that and... cause 4 prong :D. |
|
|
Originally Posted By Spooled:
Take it to the next bevel bruh https://www.AR15.Com/media/mediaFiles/297824/D20E5DA8-48FA-4E53-B1FD-955EF569F453_jpeg-709241.JPG View Quote looks like you could almost shoot from the hip and still get a nice sight picture. |
|
|
Originally Posted By Dyzastr:
here is one valid reason for mismatched lowers and uppers. too many uppers, too few sbr'd lowers. Also with issued guns, it depends which upper they had on the lower when painted. you'll either end up with 1 painted upper, 1 not, or 1 painted, 1 partial, or one that matches the lower and one thats is a little "off." At least thats what happens to me. https://i.imgur.com/CUaUtB9.jpg eta- my whore lower. she don't care whats upper. View Quote View All Quotes View All Quotes Originally Posted By Dyzastr:
Originally Posted By SurtrsFire:
Originally Posted By MILSPEC556:
If you're gonna spray spray the whole thing things look fuckey when an entire part of it doesnt have paint but the rest of the gun is painted. https://i.imgur.com/CUaUtB9.jpg eta- my whore lower. she don't care whats upper. |
|
Practice, the master of all things. - Augustus
|
Live Free or Die
NRA Patron Member Follow me on IG @josh_goes_pewpew |
Originally Posted By Jlgil73:
I dont see a problem View Quote View All Quotes View All Quotes |
|
Practice, the master of all things. - Augustus
|
|
Originally Posted By wissota4:
I need a lower like that!! @Dyzastr maybe save some parts for the rest of us man.. View Quote |
|
|
Originally Posted By krdt:
She is a lower of the evening... a lower with low moral fiber... a loose lower... a lower of ill repute... a scarlet lower... a harlot, a tart, a hussy! View Quote View All Quotes View All Quotes Originally Posted By krdt:
Originally Posted By Jlgil73:
Originally Posted By krdt: What a whore... she'll let |
|
|
Originally Posted By Dyzastr:
Not making any promises . Right now I'm on a bit of a parts purge as I build up another cqbr block1. Got a 2 moa comp m3/ m68 that needs a rifle. I'm tellin ya, the m3 is where it's at. 2moa dot (nice for magnifying) and better on batteries than the m2 (not like they ever die anyway, just nice to know.) I'm sellin off some lights, stocks small parts etc... I don't really need anything else to finish the block one except a colt handgaurd retainer, oh, and time. And an nt4. Then I'll be set. Gonna cannibalize a b2 for the cause. View Quote View All Quotes View All Quotes Originally Posted By Dyzastr:
Originally Posted By wissota4:
I need a lower like that!! @Dyzastr maybe save some parts for the rest of us man.. M3 is where the win lives. You've now joined the super-secret M3-instead-of-M2 Club. And the first rule of M3 Club... |
|
Practice, the master of all things. - Augustus
|
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.