AR Sponsor
Posted: 10/19/2011 5:36:03 AM EDT
| I have read in a few threads that a good way to test your gas rings is to stand the bolt and carrier up and see if it collapses on itself. My bolt has this issue. It only has around 1,800 rounds through it though. Is it time to replace my gas rings? |
|
Quoted: I have read in a few threads that a good way to test your gas rings is to stand the bolt and carrier up and see if it collapses on itself. My bolt has this issue. It only has around 1,800 rounds through it though. Is it time to replace my gas rings? Doubtful, I have several BCG's that fail that test and they all have hundreds to thousands of rounds on them but function just fine. In fact the only BCG I have that passes that test is a brand new one that has zero rounds on it. If your not having issues with the rifle cycling I wouldn't mess with them, but it probably would hurt to have a set on hand for when you do need them. |
|
Quoted:
I have read in a few threads that a good way to test your gas rings is to stand the bolt and carrier up and see if it collapses on itself. My bolt has this issue. It only has around 1,800 rounds through it though. Is it time to replace my gas rings? Other way around, Hold the carrier bolt downwards, push the bolt up, and if the bolt comes down under it own weight, then the gas rings are worn out. |
|
Quoted: Quoted: I have read in a few threads that a good way to test your gas rings is to stand the bolt and carrier up and see if it collapses on itself. My bolt has this issue. It only has around 1,800 rounds through it though. Is it time to replace my gas rings? Other way around, Hold the carrier bolt downwards, push the bolt up, and if the bolt comes down under it own weight, then the gas rings are worn out. No, he's got it right Dano. That's the "new test" for checking something, not quite sure what yet, but I keep hearing people talking about extending the bolt then standing the carrier on the bolt face and if the bolt closes/rotates there some sort of problem but I'm yet to find out what that problem is.  |
|
Anyone got a source for this back to any TM?
2-7 PREVENTIVE MAINTENANCE CHECKS AND SERVICES (CONT). of the TM 9-1005-319-23, states to check the rings under the bolts own weight. http://www.ar15.com/content/manuals/TM9-1005-319-23.pdf |
|
I recently had my first cycling issues. The rifle has about 1,800 round through it and has been flawless up until this point. I was shooting Wolf and had 2 stuck casings and a few short strokes so any advice would be great. Quoted:
Quoted:
I have read in a few threads that a good way to test your gas rings is to stand the bolt and carrier up and see if it collapses on itself. My bolt has this issue. It only has around 1,800 rounds through it though. Is it time to replace my gas rings? Doubtful, I have several BCG's that fail that test and they all have hundreds to thousands of rounds on them but function just fine. In fact the only BCG I have that passes that test is a brand new one that has zero rounds on it. If your not having issues with the rifle cycling I wouldn't mess with them, but it probably would hurt to have a set on hand for when you do need them. |
|
I think that Wolfe ammo is coated IIRC so when you shoot it it's imperative you REALLY clean the chamber good with a chamber brush and a good solvent. You can also look at your gas key on the carrier and check it for leaks and make sure it's still tight to the carrier but I would bet if the rifle was functioning good then you shot Wolfe ammo and started having problems the culprit is the ammo. Quoted: I recently had my first cycling issues. The rifle has about 1,800 round through it and has been flawless up until this point. I was shooting Wolf and had 2 stuck casings and a few short strokes so any advice would be great. Quoted: Quoted: I have read in a few threads that a good way to test your gas rings is to stand the bolt and carrier up and see if it collapses on itself. My bolt has this issue. It only has around 1,800 rounds through it though. Is it time to replace my gas rings? Doubtful, I have several BCG's that fail that test and they all have hundreds to thousands of rounds on them but function just fine. In fact the only BCG I have that passes that test is a brand new one that has zero rounds on it. If your not having issues with the rifle cycling I wouldn't mess with them, but it probably would hurt to have a set on hand for when you do need them. |
|
Quoted: Anyone got a source for this back to any TM? 2-7 PREVENTIVE MAINTENANCE CHECKS AND SERVICES (CONT). of the TM 9-1005-319-23, states to check the rings under the bolts own weight. http://www.ar15.com/content/manuals/TM9-1005-319-23.pdf I have no idea where the "new test" comes from Dano but I've heard it here and on several other sites. I've asked several people where it came from but everyone seems to have heard it somewhere?...go figure. It's probably just some comprehension challenged person idea of what the TM says and then the internet being what it is....  |
|
Quoted:
I recently had my first cycling issues. The rifle has about 1,800 round through it and has been flawless up until this point. I was shooting Wolf and had 2 stuck casings and a few short strokes so any advice would be great. Quoted:
Quoted:
I have read in a few threads that a good way to test your gas rings is to stand the bolt and carrier up and see if it collapses on itself. My bolt has this issue. It only has around 1,800 rounds through it though. Is it time to replace my gas rings? Doubtful, I have several BCG's that fail that test and they all have hundreds to thousands of rounds on them but function just fine. In fact the only BCG I have that passes that test is a brand new one that has zero rounds on it. If your not having issues with the rifle cycling I wouldn't mess with them, but it probably would hurt to have a set on hand for when you do need them. If you first understand the problem, then you will have a better understanding of how to keep it from happening again. Wolf ammo is steel case ammo, coated with lacquer (old style) or poly to keep the steel from rusting. It's not the soft steel cases that are the problem but the coating instead. When the ammo cycled through the rifle, the ammo gets scrapped, and you end up with a powderized fouling of the coating in the action and chamber. This Powderized fouling build up in the action/chamber to the point that the case are no longer easily extracted from the chamber, and you end up with the stuck case. Furthermore, since no standard gun cleaning solvent will dissolve this powderized fouling, it has to be scrubbed out of the chamber with a chamber brush by hand. So, chamber brush to clean the action each and every cleaning, and as for if you plan on running coated ammo by the pallet through a gun in a single event, then keep the upper bearing areas well coated with CLP to at least allow the back half of the action to semi flush out the powderized fouling, and single piece steel cleaning rod on hand for when you built so much up in the chamber that when the spent case sticks, you can use the rod to remove it (have to get the bolt unlocked first, so do a standard clearing drill, and lock the bolt back first). |
|
Quoted:
Quoted:
Anyone got a source for this back to any TM? 2-7 PREVENTIVE MAINTENANCE CHECKS AND SERVICES (CONT). of the TM 9-1005-319-23, states to check the rings under the bolts own weight. http://www.ar15.com/content/manuals/TM9-1005-319-23.pdf I have no idea where the "new test" comes from Dano but I've heard it here and on several other sites.
I've asked several people where it came from but everyone seems to have heard it somewhere?...go figure. It's probably just some comprehension challenged person idea of what the TM says and then the internet being what it is....
Just read this post. Sweeney wrote in his first book on the AR15 to test the rings by standing the bolt and carrier with bolt extended on the bolt and if it collapse the rings need changed. My Bushmaster carbine was loose like that for at least 3,000 rounds and still functioned excellent. I changed to a Macfarland one piece ring and its tight as new for almost a 1,000 rounds. I do notthink that a fair test. A Colt AR15 cut bolt carrier is a lot lighter than my full auto bolt carrier, dub.....Mike |
|
Quoted: Quoted: Quoted: Anyone got a source for this back to any TM? 2-7 PREVENTIVE MAINTENANCE CHECKS AND SERVICES (CONT). of the TM 9-1005-319-23, states to check the rings under the bolts own weight. http://www.ar15.com/content/manuals/TM9-1005-319-23.pdf I have no idea where the "new test" comes from Dano but I've heard it here and on several other sites. I've asked several people where it came from but everyone seems to have heard it somewhere?...go figure. It's probably just some comprehension challenged person idea of what the TM says and then the internet being what it is.... Just read this post. Sweeney wrote in his first book on the AR15 to test the rings by standing the bolt and carrier with bolt extended on the bolt and if it collapse the rings need changed. My Bushmaster carbine was loose like that for at least 3,000 rounds and still functioned excellent. I changed to a Macfarland one piece ring and its tight as new for almost a 1,000 rounds. I do notthink that a fair test. A Colt AR15 cut bolt carrier is a lot lighter than my full auto bolt carrier, dub.....Mike Huh, I have volume 2 of Sweeney's AR15 book and never read that part but I just went back reread it and found it. This is the exact quote from that book... Stand the assembly on the bolt face on a hard surface. if the weight of the carrier cases (that's how it's spelled) the bolt to collapse, the rings lack friction. Install new ones. I would definitely have to disagree with that, Dano has it right. Of course I disagree with some of what is in the TM also, like "stagger ring gaps to stop gas loss". |
|
Seen way too many M-16 with a gas ring or two completely gone or parts missing off them, and the rifle still ran correctly.
Biggest problem in the civilian AR market is that manufacturers are trying to one up each in other in barrel accuracy by moving into to tighter cross wall chamber dimensions, causing the spent case to higher than normal adhesion to the chamber walls during residual bore pressure at unlock, and it take a stronger than needed rearward force of the B/C to get the spent case out. Then to add, since they are increasing the unlock speed, it makes the getting the spent case out of the chamber even harder, since this just has increased the bore residual pressure as well with the faster unlock speed (nasty game of chasing your tail). |
|
so why not cut the diagnosis part short once you've ruled out the easy stuff??
We're talking about less than $4 in parts here. ( Much cheaper if you shop around and buy a bunch to keep the shipping cost down.) http://www.midwayusa.com/product/285336/bushmaster-bolt-gas-ring-ar-15-package-of-3 Just buy a set and swap them out. See if the problem corrects itself. (not recommended for $100, but jeez guys.....) And yes, always have a spare set or two on the shelf. I have not had anyone advise me that one set of rings is better than another in the multi-ring style (don't start the whole discussion about single coil springs being better than stock 3 ring. I don't want to go there today. He can search that on his own.) |
|
Sweeney’s instruction seems too specific to be a misprint, however IMO it does not translate well into a real world test procedure with all the bolt carrier variations out there.
As has already been pointed out gas rings are cheap, if in doubt swap them out. |
|
Simple logic would tell you that the "Sweeney" test is invalid. It is dependent on the weight of the carrier. A reduced mass carrier would pass the test that a FA carrier would fail using the same bolt and rings. How can that possibly be a valid test of the ability of the rings to maintain a seal? Testing the rings under the weight of the bolt keeps all other variations out of the test. |
|
Quoted:
Simple logic would tell you that the "Sweeney" test is invalid. It is dependent on the weight of the carrier. A reduced mass carrier would pass the test that a FA carrier would fail using the same bolt and rings. How can that possibly be a valid test of the ability of the rings to maintain a seal? Testing the rings under the weight of the bolt keeps all other variations out of the test. +1 Sweeney wrote the test procedure bassackwards. New rings may support a bolt carrier, but rings with a few hundred rounds and well lubed well not. Follow the test procedure in the 23&P. I've had BCG's with just a single ring left intact function normally. |
| I went to the Colt M4/ M16 armorers course and was told to use that test for the gas rings. Extend the bolt then set the bolt face down on the table. If the weight of the bolt carrier causes the bolt to retract then replace the gas rings. If the bolt fails this test with a semi cut carrier then the gas rings really should be replaced. It may still work fine, but it is a question of relability in guns used by law enforcement and the military. |
|
Quoted: I went to the Colt M4/ M16 armorers course and was told to use that test for the gas rings. Extend the bolt then set the bolt face down on the table. If the weight of the bolt carrier causes the bolt to retract then replace the gas rings. If the bolt fails this test with a semi cut carrier then the gas rings really should be replaced. It may still work fine, but it is a question of relability in guns used by law enforcement and the military. Well apparently the military does not agree 'cause they don't do it that way and I believe they have more then enough field testing to prove Colt wrong. |
|
Quoted:
Quoted:
I went to the Colt M4/ M16 armorers course and was told to use that test for the gas rings. Extend the bolt then set the bolt face down on the table. If the weight of the bolt carrier causes the bolt to retract then replace the gas rings. If the bolt fails this test with a semi cut carrier then the gas rings really should be replaced. It may still work fine, but it is a question of relability in guns used by law enforcement and the military. Well apparently the military does not agree 'cause they don't do it that way and I believe they have more then enough field testing to prove Colt wrong. Colt and the military go hand and hand when it comes to maintenance for the M-16 (both parties develop such in the form of TM's). Where the difference is, is it that the instructor of the coarse is not adhering to any of the tm's in regards to gas ring testing.. Granted that Colt ties to the military is now pretty much limited to the M-4 program now (FN now producing the current M-16's), I can not see them so hard up for parts sales that they warrant that the gas rings be replace longer before the end of their service life (could be wrong,since they have end up in bankruptcy a few times now). |
|
Quoted:
I went to the Colt M4/ M16 armorers course and was told to use that test for the gas rings. Extend the bolt then set the bolt face down on the table. If the weight of the bolt carrier causes the bolt to retract then replace the gas rings. If the bolt fails this test with a semi cut carrier then the gas rings really should be replaced. It may still work fine, but it is a question of relability in guns used by law enforcement and the military. Here is a link to a Colt maintenance manual. Page 4-4 has the same test the tM has where you hold the carrier with the bolt down to see if the bolt falls out under it's own weight. http://www.coltcanada.com/techpubs.htm |
|
Quoted: Quoted: Quoted: I went to the Colt M4/ M16 armorers course and was told to use that test for the gas rings. Extend the bolt then set the bolt face down on the table. If the weight of the bolt carrier causes the bolt to retract then replace the gas rings. If the bolt fails this test with a semi cut carrier then the gas rings really should be replaced. It may still work fine, but it is a question of relability in guns used by law enforcement and the military. Well apparently the military does not agree 'cause they don't do it that way and I believe they have more then enough field testing to prove Colt wrong. Colt and the military go hand and hand when it comes to maintenance for the M-16 (both parties develop such in the form of TM's). Where the difference is, is it that the instructor of the coarse is not adhering to any of the tm's in regards to gas ring testing.. Granted that Colt ties to the military is now pretty much limited to the M-4 program now (FN now producing the current M-16's), I can not see them so hard up for parts sales that they warrant that the gas rings be replace longer before the end of their service life (could be wrong,since they have end up in bankruptcy a few times now). Your right, my bad. I am looking at one instructor as a representative of a whole company. But on the other hand if that instructor is a Colt employee he does represent the whole company, at least in his field. |
|
It would not be the first time a company tech spoke out about something that a company was not releasing for any number of reasons.
If war does anything it supplies lots of data on system reliability. A person has to wonder if something is coming out of the sandbox that is causing concern about the service life of rings. |
|
Quoted:
It would not be the first time a company tech spoke out about something that a company was not releasing for any number of reasons. If war does anything it supplies lots of data on system reliability. A person has to wonder if something is coming out of the sandbox that is causing concern about the service life of rings. First off, Colt is no longer part of the process for anything other than the M-4 program (what little of foot that they still have in the government door as a supplier). In regards to the M-4, the rifle was designed for heaver than M-855 ammo,such as the MK318 and Mk 262 ammo, which are heaver bullet ammo's, loaded with slower burning powder, creating more/higher gas cycle pressures, and really, what most of the mods to the platform have been all about to make it run with such. So much in fact, it just the opposite that you want, being a bit more than normal gas bleed off happening so the rifle function properly when feed the the intended ammo it's design around. M-193 is for barrels of 1/12 twist. M-855 for barrels of 1/9 twist. then you get into 1/7 for heaver than above ammo's. As for the sand box, just brief exposure to the platform in regards to the total life of the rifle (read vast improvements in the rifle were developed with it's first stent in the Mekong delta to solve a great deal of tooth'g problems with the platform there). And again, since it's only the M-4's Program that Colt has anything to do with now for the government, then such changes would be very specific to that platform alone that you would see a change within service testing procedures. FN is the current supplier for the government when it comes to the standard m-16 rifle, and almost every thing else with it comes to squad type rifles as well, such as the M-240, M-249,and even the Mk19. So trust me, if you where going to see changes needed for service testing procedures with the rifles, it would now come from them/the government in the form of updated TM's. Now I'm not knocking the Colt instructor to replace parts at the first sigh of any where (great for selling replacement parts, even if by the pennies at a time), but in general, most rings will fail the carrier on top pressing down test just about the time that they just start matting in. To take it even a step farther will B/C's that a not milled to the same tolerances as Colt or FN (remember that when parts are sold to the military, they are lot tested with no less than three times inspected by the time that the government test them the last time, and if rejected by the government, the whole lot is rejected) you could end up with a commercial new B/C that may not even past such a test brand new (read yes, rejected government parts do make it to the commercial market when it all said and done,and in the grand scheme of things, often better than the foreign parts being sold as well ). |
AR Sponsor