AR Sponsor
Posted: 8/19/2012 3:32:42 PM EDT
|
This is my 3rd AR build, but my first piston build. I put an Adams Arms piston system on a Noveske 10.5 inch CQC barrel. Thought i got the gas port lined up right but during first test fires, it would hardly push the BCG back. Went back and double checked and forgot to account for the handguard cap(figures), seeing as how i'm running a FFT. So i adjusted the gas block back about 1/32", which judging by the prior port marks on the barrel from the test fire, and the thickness of the handguard cap, should be perfect. Test fire #2 came around, and the bolt cycles, but only goes back halfway. Checked the position of the gas piston setting, checked the alignment of the gas block, all good to go, and everything bolt and receiver wise is oiled properly.
So my question before i redo everything again and start over is whether or not a heavy buffer would have any effect on this. I shot it for 10 rounds and everytime it cycled to the same halfway point, just past actual halfway, enough to lock the BCG on the mag with the Carrier and not the bolt. So consistent gas is getting ported, and the op-rod is doing its job to my knowledge, but maybe the ST-H2 buffer i have in it is just too heavy for it. I have a standard buffer on the way, but wanted some input before more tests. :::update Day 2 tests. readjusted the gas tube slightly more, now the gas burns on the barrel are perfectly centered over the gas hole in the barrel, so i go to test it and the bolt doesn't go back as far as it did the time before, which is kinda reversed in my head. so i switch the piston to the 1 o'clock position it cycles one this time but the bolt still isn't going far enough back still. So i move the gas block back to where it was so that the 12 o'clock position of the piston is cycling the bolt the furthest. is there anyway that the piston rod would not be connecting enough with the bolt. i installed the gas key as per adams arm's instructions. things i've done so far to try and find something: -taken out the tungsten powder in buffer to lighten it up -tried it with the bolt spring from the AA kit on and off to see if it made a difference -tried it with the old bolt gas rings on and off -i've had the gas block in 4 different postions now, in all cases the gas burns have been relatively centered on the gas hole, the 4th time being perfectly centered The best i have gotten is the BCG will lock on the bolt catch consistently through 10 rounds, it cycled another round 7 out of those 10. So endstate is the BCG will just not go back far enough, does anyone have any ideas. Gunsmiths i could use your help on this one, i am bound and determined not to take it to the gunsmith. some pictures might help: 
 </a>" />
The burns are directly around the gas hole, the whitish stuff you see came like that on the barrel, its just the polished part. as you can see the burns are centered pretty well, but it actually cycled better when the burns were about 1/16'' closer to the barrel shoulder. |
|
I have a similar setup with a 10.5". If I remember I used an standard H-Buffer, no rings on the bolt and use their spring in the bolt to effect bolt release from the carrier. One key is making sure the op rod slides free and easy. I also use a FFT. My upper is their bushingless one so did not need the insert.
If the rod is free of binding - either you are getting a pressure leak or maybe the port is wrong? |
|
I know i'm not a gunsmith but i know i'm not getting enough gas lol. It's starting to frustrate me quite a bit. I can't really see any major signs of a gas leak, but then again it could be minimal and my untrained eyes can't notice it. The current testing setup is, an H2 buffer with half the tungsten filling poured out, the bolt spring on without gas rings. The gas block about 1/16''-1/32" away from the barrel shoulder. That's one thing i've perfected is getting the gas block lined up properly, the op-rod and the plug slide in and out flawlessly, the plug and sleeve are a tight perfect fit. I'm running out of ideas, unless there is a gas leak or some weird blockage that doesnt occur when i manually rack the charging handle.
The bushing for the upper reciever is put in correctly and aids greatly in the smooth operation of the Op-rod. who knows lol. thanks for the input though. |
|
Going to say this, then you let you figure it out on your own,
A telescoping receiver extension is not acceptable to use on a pistol build since it allows a telescoping butt stock to be added too easily to the tube. If this a register SBR build, then not a problem. |
| Can't count the number of times i've read that on here, and i can only imagine you have read it more times than i have. Do you know of anyone who has ever had a problem with an LEO because of it?, or the ATF for that matter. I'm positive there's an ATF letter on here supporting the use of a standard carbine reciever extension. On top of all that i don't own a buttstock currently that can even fit on that RE. So even the "Intent to make an SBR" isn't supported. I thought about tack welding the rear so you couldnt put a stock on it, but after chatting with an ohio attorney who specializes in firearm laws, i opted not too. Either way the law isn't broken, but i guess it's whatever you feel comfortable with |
|
Quoted:
Can't count the number of times i've read that on here, and i can only imagine you have read it more times than i have. Do you know of anyone who has ever had a problem with an LEO because of it?, or the ATF for that matter. I'm positive there's an ATF letter on here supporting the use of a standard carbine reciever extension. On top of all that i don't own a buttstock currently that can even fit on that RE. So even the "Intent to make an SBR" isn't supported. I thought about tack welding the rear so you couldnt put a stock on it, but after chatting with an ohio attorney who specializes in firearm laws, i opted not too. Either way the law isn't broken, but i guess it's whatever you feel comfortable with You are correct but only if the the lower receiver was ORIGINALLY reported to the ATF as being manufactured as a pistol. A lower receiver manufactured as a rifle will always be a rifle. See Page 3, third paragraph under Assembly of Weapons From Parts Kits: http://www.atf.gov/regulations-rulings/rulings/atf-rulings/atf-ruling-2011-4.pdf For this reason, companies like SIG and LWRC mark their receivers with "PISTOL USE ONLY". |
|
Quoted: Can't count the number of times i've read that on here, and i can only imagine you have read it more times than i have. Do you know of anyone who has ever had a problem with an LEO because of it?, or the ATF for that matter. I'm positive there's an ATF letter on here supporting the use of a standard carbine reciever extension. On top of all that i don't own a buttstock currently that can even fit on that RE. So even the "Intent to make an SBR" isn't supported. I thought about tack welding the rear so you couldnt put a stock on it, but after chatting with an ohio attorney who specializes in firearm laws, i opted not too. Either way the law isn't broken, but i guess it's whatever you feel comfortable with While there aren't that many LEOs who are versed in NFA weapons, we are out there. If you bumped into me with that weapon, whether you agree with it or not, you would have some legal troubles. You took a rifle lower, attached a short barrel and receiver ext. designed to have a stock attached to it that would render it shoulder fired. In the eyes of the law that weapon "serves no useful purpose other than to make an NFA firearm." Better get a stamp. |
|
The stamp is in the 6 month process so it's slowly on its way, but until then it will be shot as a pistol. As for the original design of the reciever, it was a stripped reciever marked marked multi-cal, neither rifle nor pistol. I took a video and picture of the stripped reciever being opened out of the box from PSA, in which i include serial number, original reciept from PSA, and intent to make it a useable pistol from origin. Then also a video and picture after the barrel was put on again explaining my intent. So i should be covered on all ends, not trying to fool LEO's or make a stink, but i want to shoot the thing and this was the only way in my eyes to cover myself thoroughly. This way i can have plenty of range time with it before i put the stock on, which i don't even have yet so no suspiciousness there either.
As for the whole short stroking problem, it turned out to be the ejector on the bolt i was using. Wasn't ejecting completely and never picked up the second round, also it was getting bound up and wasn't taking the BCG all the way rearward. switched bolts with and older AR and it works great with NATO ammo. Need to polish up the chamber a little and Factory ammo should run through it better too. Never even had a problem with the gas block, guess i learned a good lesson there. |
|
Quoted: Quoted: Can't count the number of times i've read that on here, and i can only imagine you have read it more times than i have. Do you know of anyone who has ever had a problem with an LEO because of it?, or the ATF for that matter. I'm positive there's an ATF letter on here supporting the use of a standard carbine reciever extension. On top of all that i don't own a buttstock currently that can even fit on that RE. So even the "Intent to make an SBR" isn't supported. I thought about tack welding the rear so you couldnt put a stock on it, but after chatting with an ohio attorney who specializes in firearm laws, i opted not too. Either way the law isn't broken, but i guess it's whatever you feel comfortable with While there aren't that many LEOs who are versed in NFA weapons, we are out there. If you bumped into me with that weapon, whether you agree with it or not, you would have some legal troubles. You took a rifle lower, attached a short barrel and receiver ext. designed to have a stock attached to it that would render it shoulder fired. In the eyes of the law that weapon "serves no useful purpose other than to make an NFA firearm." Better get a stamp. Based on your post here I would put you into that group that are NOT well versed in NFA weapons. The OPs firearm is 100% title 1 and legal. While I agree that a RE that has no capacity to accept a stock is the wiser choice, just to avoid the hassle you admitted you would cause, the carbine RE is legal to use for a pistol. As for the origin of the receiver itself I submit this discussion found in the Firearms Law Deskbook, the book is published by West Group, which runs Westlaw. I don't know how much you know about legal research, but Westlaw is the largest, most comprehensive database for legal research in existence. 6:12, "Short-barreled rifles and weapons made from rifles." Although there is some disagreement between Sterling Nixon in 2003 (Sterling T. Nixon, Chief, ATF Firearms Technology Branch, Oct. 30, 2003, 903050:MRC, 3311/2003-308) and Ernest Lintner in 2009 (Ernest A. Lintner, Acting Chief, NFA Branch, 901040:EAL, Dec. 11, 2009), Lintner's opinion is both the most recent and has the greater weight of authority behind it. Relevant conclusion: "Finally, the result is the same without regard to how the items are initially recorded in the manufacturer's or other licensee's record books, i.e., as a firearm receiver, a pistol, or a rifle. Section 5845(a)(4) describes a weapon made from a rifle with certain dimensions, and ss 5845(c) defines a rifle as having certain physical characteristics. None of these definitions include how a manufacturer or other licensee recorded the item in its record books pursuant to the requirements of 18 U.S.C.A. ss 923(g) and related regulations. Thus, a receiver that was part of a rifle as originally recorded in records, may be separated from its rifle barrel and shoulder stock, and assembled with a pistol barrel and pistol grip, without constituting a weapon made from a rifle as described in ss 5845(a)(4)." |
|
Quoted:
Quoted:
Quoted:
Can't count the number of times i've read that on here, and i can only imagine you have read it more times than i have. Do you know of anyone who has ever had a problem with an LEO because of it?, or the ATF for that matter. I'm positive there's an ATF letter on here supporting the use of a standard carbine reciever extension. On top of all that i don't own a buttstock currently that can even fit on that RE. So even the "Intent to make an SBR" isn't supported. I thought about tack welding the rear so you couldnt put a stock on it, but after chatting with an ohio attorney who specializes in firearm laws, i opted not too. Either way the law isn't broken, but i guess it's whatever you feel comfortable with While there aren't that many LEOs who are versed in NFA weapons, we are out there. If you bumped into me with that weapon, whether you agree with it or not, you would have some legal troubles. You took a rifle lower, attached a short barrel and receiver ext. designed to have a stock attached to it that would render it shoulder fired. In the eyes of the law that weapon "serves no useful purpose other than to make an NFA firearm." Better get a stamp. Based on your post here I would put you into that group that are NOT well versed in NFA weapons. The OPs firearm is 100% title 1 and legal. While I agree that a RE that has no capacity to accept a stock is the wiser choice, just to avoid the hassle you admitted you would cause, the carbine RE is legal to use for a pistol. As for the origin of the receiver itself I submit this discussion found in the Firearms Law Deskbook, the book is published by West Group, which runs Westlaw. I don't know how much you know about legal research, but Westlaw is the largest, most comprehensive database for legal research in existence. 6:12, "Short-barreled rifles and weapons made from rifles." Although there is some disagreement between Sterling Nixon in 2003 (Sterling T. Nixon, Chief, ATF Firearms Technology Branch, Oct. 30, 2003, 903050:MRC, 3311/2003-308) and Ernest Lintner in 2009 (Ernest A. Lintner, Acting Chief, NFA Branch, 901040:EAL, Dec. 11, 2009), Lintner's opinion is both the most recent and has the greater weight of authority behind it. Relevant conclusion: "Finally, the result is the same without regard to how the items are initially recorded in the manufacturer's or other licensee's record books, i.e., as a firearm receiver, a pistol, or a rifle. Section 5845(a)(4) describes a weapon made from a rifle with certain dimensions, and ss 5845(c) defines a rifle as having certain physical characteristics. None of these definitions include how a manufacturer or other licensee recorded the item in its record books pursuant to the requirements of 18 U.S.C.A. ss 923(g) and related regulations. Thus, a receiver that was part of a rifle as originally recorded in records, may be separated from its rifle barrel and shoulder stock, and assembled with a pistol barrel and pistol grip, without constituting a weapon made from a rifle as described in ss 5845(a)(4)." Thanks for the legal support iNeXile556, is there a way to research for myself on this Westlaw? or is that something you need to be involved in the law world to get a hold of. I am always searching for more information on gun laws and the origin of such, but I am usually confused where I should start. Every once in a while I get some help or support from someone who has the facts like yourself, and would also like to support my arguments/decisions with fact. |
|
Quoted: Thanks for the legal support iNeXile556, is there a way to research for myself on this Westlaw? or is that something you need to be involved in the law world to get a hold of. I am always searching for more information on gun laws and the origin of such, but I am usually confused where I should start. Every once in a while I get some help or support from someone who has the facts like yourself, and would also like to support my arguments/decisions with fact. Extremely expensive subscription service. The Firearms Law Deskbook you can buy here, the 2012-13 edition is bargain priced at $570.  |
|
Lets short bus it here,
Receiver starts out as a pistol, then yes, it can be converted to a rifle, then back to a pistol again. No harm, no foul, and this is in part due to the Thompson encore type receivers. Due to this, the encore is always manufactured and sold at a pistol receiver on the transferring paper work. Now lets move it over to an AR receiver, and again, if the receiver is designated as a pistol receiver from the manufacturer, transferred to you as a pistol receiver, then again,not harm, not foul on playing dress up with the receiver since it legal either way (as a title 1 firearm). Now the grey area, your receiver was not paper worked as a pistol receiver from either the manufacturer, and guess the transfer paper work that you did as well, so who is to say that at one point before you received it, it was not built up as a rifle, even for a second or two. Next the receiver extension, unlike an encore type receiver that you have to unbolt to remove and bolt up another grip or stock, your is ready to install a butt stock in less than a second, and with no tools needed as well (think host rifle for a DIAS, but with just the DIAS removed). Simply, chances are if push came to shove, you may win any case against you so long as you did not own a carbine butt stock/the tube shows now wear of a butt stock ever being installed, or the receiver was transferred to you as a pistol receiver, but do you really want to drop the hundreds of thousands of dollars fighting such a case? |
|
Dano, there is on such thing as a pistol receiver. There is no avenue to have a receiver transferred as a pistol, or a rifle for that matter, unless it is part of a complete handgun or long gun. All receivers or frames are simply firearms and MUST be transferred as such (other) on the 4473. This is not an option for an FFL, it is ATF regulation and required of all FFL transfers. Failure to abide by ATF regulations places the FFL in jeopardy of losing their license. |
|
Quoted:
Dano, there is on such thing as a pistol receiver. There is no avenue to have a receiver transferred as a pistol, or a rifle for that matter, unless it is part of a complete handgun or long gun. All receivers or frames are simply firearms and MUST be transferred as such (other) on the 4473. This is not an option for an FFL, it is ATF regulation and required of all FFL transfers. Failure to abide by ATF regulations places the FFL in jeopardy of losing their license. There are lowers now being manufactured that are stamped "Pistol"....even stripped lowers.. Pistol Lower Pistol Lower 2 Pistol Lower 3 |
|
Quoted:
True, but the OPs receiver is a Palmetto State Armory, it was transferred as other. Agreed, but if line 18 is marked pistol as well as other, then its done deal from the start, instead of second guessing if the receiver has ever been built into a rifle before hand, or the manufacturer reporting the receiver as a rifle receiver in their paper work since it was not marked as a pistol receiver from the start. http://www.atf.gov/forms/download/atf-f-4473-1.pdf See instructions, and how line 18 states to check all boxes that apply. So checking both other and pistol, documents the receiver as a pistol, and that once done this way, buyer has to be 21 to buy, not 18 for just a rifle or shotgun only. |
|
Quoted: Quoted: Dano, there is on such thing as a pistol receiver. There is no avenue to have a receiver transferred as a pistol, or a rifle for that matter, unless it is part of a complete handgun or long gun. All receivers or frames are simply firearms and MUST be transferred as such (other) on the 4473. This is not an option for an FFL, it is ATF regulation and required of all FFL transfers. Failure to abide by ATF regulations places the FFL in jeopardy of losing their license. There are lowers now being manufactured that are stamped "Pistol"....even stripped lowers.. Pistol Lower Pistol Lower 2 Pistol Lower 3 Has absolutely no legal bearing. Dano, A manufacture will not send out a lower as a rifle as doing so would force the manufacture into paying the additional 11% excise tax on the rifle, not a smart move. As far as the 7743 goes, only one box can be marked, it cannot be a pistol and other. See the instructions with the 7743. |
|
Quoted:
Quoted:
Quoted:
Dano, there is on such thing as a pistol receiver. There is no avenue to have a receiver transferred as a pistol, or a rifle for that matter, unless it is part of a complete handgun or long gun. All receivers or frames are simply firearms and MUST be transferred as such (other) on the 4473. This is not an option for an FFL, it is ATF regulation and required of all FFL transfers. Failure to abide by ATF regulations places the FFL in jeopardy of losing their license. There are lowers now being manufactured that are stamped "Pistol"....even stripped lowers.. Pistol Lower Pistol Lower 2 Pistol Lower 3 Has absolutely no legal bearing. Dano, A manufacture will not send out a lower as a rifle as doing so would force the manufacture into paying the additional 11% excise tax on the rifle, not a smart move. As far as the 7743 goes, only one box can be marked, it cannot be a pistol and other. See the instructions with the 7743. I'm not sure what the 7743 form that you mention is, but on a 4473 form, if a lower stamped as a "pistol" is sold, some FFLs are now listing those as pistol on line 29 of the form. I know because I have bought three from different sellers and all marked them as "pistol on the 4473 form. When I asked why, they stated that it was listed as a pistol by the manufacturer. ETA: They may have been listed that way because they were complete pistol lowers, and not stripped ones. |
|
Quoted: Quoted: Quoted: Quoted: Dano, there is on such thing as a pistol receiver. There is no avenue to have a receiver transferred as a pistol, or a rifle for that matter, unless it is part of a complete handgun or long gun. All receivers or frames are simply firearms and MUST be transferred as such (other) on the 4473. This is not an option for an FFL, it is ATF regulation and required of all FFL transfers. Failure to abide by ATF regulations places the FFL in jeopardy of losing their license. There are lowers now being manufactured that are stamped "Pistol"....even stripped lowers.. Pistol Lower Pistol Lower 2 Pistol Lower 3 Has absolutely no legal bearing. Dano, A manufacture will not send out a lower as a rifle as doing so would force the manufacture into paying the additional 11% excise tax on the rifle, not a smart move. As far as the 7743 goes, only one box can be marked, it cannot be a pistol and other. See the instructions with the 7743. I'm not sure what the 7743 form that you mention is, but on a 4473 form, if a lower stamped as a "pistol" is sold, some FFLs are now listing those as pistol on line 29 of the form. I know because I have bought three from different sellers and all marked them as "pistol on the 4473 form. When I asked why, they stated that it was listed as a pistol by the manufacturer. ETA: They may have been listed that way because they were complete pistol lowers, and not stripped ones. Yea the 7743 is a typo, fingers going faster then the mind. National Firearms Act. 26 U.S.C. Chapter 53 defines a pistol as " A weapon originally designed, made, and intended to fire a projectile (bullet) from one or more barrels when held in one hand, and having (a) a chamber(s) as an integral part(s) of, or permanently aligned with, the bore(s); and (b) a short stock designed to be gripped by one hand and at an angle to and extending below the line of the bore(s)." Simply put if the firearm does not meet this definition it is not a pistol and must not be transferred as such in accordance with BATFE regulations and published instructions to FFL's. This is exactly why the "other" checkbox was added to the 4473. Dano, the "check all that apply" is due to the allowance of multiple transfers on one form. Box 29 is where those selections are further described. Checking more than on item in box 18 indicates that more then one firearm is being transferred, hence the wording "Type of Firearm(s) to be transferred." You wouldn't after all check long gun and handgun and only have one firearm in box 29. Same with a handgun and other. These are two different firearm classifications and cannot be the assigned to a single firearm. |
|
iNeXile556, would not adding Pistol on line 29 type, solve the problem with documenting the receiver as a virgin pistol receiver instead?
Simply, we know that building up a virgin receiver into a pistol is allowed, but here we are trying to skin the cat of documenting a receiver as a pistol receiver from the start, that way is can go back and forth as a pistol to rifle, and back again without worries. |
|
Quoted: iNeXile556, would not adding Pistol on line 29 type, solve the problem with documenting the receiver as a virgin pistol receiver instead? Simply, we know that building up a virgin receiver into a pistol is allowed, but here we are trying to skin the cat of documenting a receiver as a pistol receiver from the start, that way is can go back and forth as a pistol to rifle, and back again without worries. That's the problem, there is no such thing as a pistol receiver, or a rifle receiver, they are all simply receivers. Even a S&W revolver frame must be listed (as per ATF regs) as "other" in box 18 and "frame" in box 29. A receiver sold as other/receiver is document enough that it was a virgin build. Even if there was such thing as a "pistol" receiver, if it was built as a rifle first it would not be legal to build it as a pistol so the problem your thinking of goes both ways. How do you prove you didn't build it as a rifle first? Kind of on the same lines as owning an AR rifle and a pistol, what proof do you have that in the privacy of you own home, you have never put the pistol upper on the rifle lower, just to see what it looks like. In any legal proceedings the burden of proof would be on the prosecution to prove the firearm was first a rifle, and that you knew it. If it was sold to you as other/receiver your covered. It all goes back to the old saying "you can't prove a negative". |
|
iNeXile556, lets take is a step back then,
Does the 07 also just list a receiver as a other on their annual report as well? Unlike the encore, or a pistol frame, that are always considered a pistol from the start, some where in someones books, that has to be a way to designate an AR receiver as a pistol from the get-go, short of paper working the pistol build to BATF with the tax for the completed pistol. Or maybe that is the problem in itself, that is is no form for an individual to report a receiver build and pay the taxable amount on it instead,(other than a 5320, since that one is $200 to file). Take the saddle gun receivers that are being built as pistols. Here, we know that the receivers are being bought as virgins, but added to the 07'S annual report as a pistol completion to document them that way. Simply, somehow there has to be some justification between a receiver marked as a pistol costing hundreds of dollars more that one not marked as such, and I have a hard time believing that it coming down to the manufacturer of the pistol marked receiver building the receiver into a pistol once before shipping it out, so the receiver can be shown as a pistol receiver on the books (and not nothing more than engraving alone on a receiver, that would have no real bearing if someone first built the stripped pistol marked receiver into a rifle first, voiding the pistol receiver being in fact, a pistol receiver from the start). |
|
Quoted: iNeXile556, lets take is a step back then, Does the 07 also just list a receiver as a other on their annual report as well? Unlike the encore, or a pistol frame, that are always considered a pistol from the start, some where in someones books, that has to be a way to designate an AR receiver as a pistol from the get-go, short of paper working the pistol build to BATF with the tax for the completed pistol. Or maybe that is the problem in itself, that is is no form for an individual to report a receiver build and pay the taxable amount on it instead,(other than a 5320, since that one is $200 to file). Take the saddle gun receivers that are being built as pistols. Here, we know that the receivers are being bought as virgins, but added to the 07'S annual report as a pistol completion to document them that way. Simply, somehow there has to be some justification between a receiver marked as a pistol costing hundreds of dollars more that one not marked as such, and I have a hard time believing that it coming down to the manufacturer of the pistol marked receiver building the receiver into a pistol once before shipping it out, so the receiver can be shown as a pistol receiver on the books (and not nothing more than engraving alone on a receiver, that would have no real bearing if someone first built the stripped pistol marked receiver into a rifle first, voiding the pistol receiver being in fact, a pistol receiver from the start). Indeed, the 07 reports the manufacture of the receiver as a firearm but not a pistol or rifle. In doing so the 07 does not pay the 11% excise tax that would be due on a complete rifle/pistol/handgun/revolver. The receiver/frame is also received in and listed as a receiver/frame in the 01's boundbook. There is absolutely no justification for a lower marked pistol to cost any more then on not marked (except perhaps the extra cost involved in the engraving). It is consumer ignorance and corporate greed that drive that market. The markings on any firearm other then what is required by 27 C.F.R. § 479.102 has no bearing whatsoever on the legal status of that firearm. If it did how many of us would own a Colt LEO marked AR? The encore or revolver frame is not considered a pistol from the start. ANY frame is a simple firearm unless it complete and meets one of the definitions of a pistol/rifle/shotgun... It is not legal to buy a Thompson Center rifle and later buy a pistol grip and short barrel and make it into a pistol. It is legal to buy a Thompson pistol or receiver or the (in)famous Contender kit (of the legal fame) and make a pistol and/or rifle. The Contender Kit consisted of a Contender pistol packaged with a stock and long barrel (the carbine kit). It was therefore a pistol first. The court case was to determine if the pistol, packaged and sold with a buttstock, constituted a SBR. The only way to assure, as you would like to, that you truly possess a receiver that began life as a pistol would be to purchase a complete pistol that was manufactured by a 07 and the disposition of that pistol from the 07 recorded as such. The 01 could then transfer that pistol to you as a pistol on the 4473 and the paper trail from manufacture to you is of a pistol. If you would like to listen to the recordings of the Thompson case you can do so here. It is very interesting. |
|
Quoted:
So did the OP fix the gas issue or are we here: ] http://adamsarms.net/images/Installation.pdf Op has a bur at the gas passage entrance of the gas block ID channel on the muzzle side of the gas block that is not allowing a clean seal of the gas block to the barrel. Options are to either clean up the bur on the ID of the gas block so it correctly seals to the barrel, or send the Block back to Adams arms to have them replace it instead. Also, with a standard telescoping receiver extension in play, all that is needed is standard carbine parts, and not the extra tension and mass of the parts he has added on. |
|
Quoted:
Kind of off topic here Zshier17, but I absolutley love your idea of a side charging piston operated SBR!!! Do you plan on supressing it? Posted Via AR15.Com Mobile Thanks alot man, I have two AR's now with the OPS-4 side charger upper on them and I asolutely love that upper. Great design by LAR, and amazingly tight fit. It also happens to look good with the set up I have. And yes i do plan on suppressing it, i would love to have the Wilson Combat whisper suppressor but that's a little out of my league for now. Eventually(hopefully), this build will be a great rifle, complete with all that is necessary. Quoted:
As for the whole short stroking problem, it turned out to be the ejector on the bolt i was using. Wasn't ejecting completely and never picked up the second round, also it was getting bound up and not unlocking smoothly which led to just enough mechanical disadvantage to aid in the BCG not cycling all the way rearward. Switched bolts with an older AR and it works great with NATO ammo. Need to polish up the chamber a little and Factory ammo should run through it better too. Never even had a problem with the gas block, guess i learned a good lesson there. I posted this in the middle of the heated debate  .... guess nobody saw it. Although we did get extremely far off topic, I learned a lot through this argument from both iNeXile556 and Dano523, so thanks to you guys. Dano523, you were somewhat correct and somewhat not. There was a bur on my gas block and it did cut down on the leakage, but the problems continued. It was not until I chatted with a supplier of most of my parts, who specializes in building SBR's, did i find the true problem, which turned out to be the bolt. I will also be honing out the chamber slightly to try and get the cases to pull out a little smoother. For now my AR will only run properly on NATO ammo, but after a little breaking in of the chamber, it should run on Factory rounds just fine. Also, a little bit of gas leakage is normal and usually will not cause problems. Found out SBR builds can sometimes have some weird quirks. Thanks again guys for making my post more fun, and somewhat confusing. iNeXile556, you truly know your shit, keep up the good work.
|
|
Quoted: Glad you got it all worked out. Again sorry for the derailment, but I looked at it as a discussion not and argument, I hope Dano did too.Quoted: Kind of off topic here Zshier17, but I absolutley love your idea of a side charging piston operated SBR!!! Do you plan on supressing it? Posted Via AR15.Com Mobile Thanks alot man, I have two AR's now with the OPS-4 side charger upper on them and I asolutely love that upper. Great design by LAR, and amazingly tight fit. It also happens to look good with the set up I have. And yes i do plan on suppressing it, i would love to have the Wilson Combat whisper suppressor but that's a little out of my league for now. Eventually(hopefully), this build will be a great rifle, complete with all that is necessary. Quoted: As for the whole short stroking problem, it turned out to be the ejector on the bolt i was using. Wasn't ejecting completely and never picked up the second round, also it was getting bound up and not unlocking smoothly which led to just enough mechanical disadvantage to aid in the BCG not cycling all the way rearward. Switched bolts with an older AR and it works great with NATO ammo. Need to polish up the chamber a little and Factory ammo should run through it better too. Never even had a problem with the gas block, guess i learned a good lesson there. I posted this in the middle of the heated debate .... guess nobody saw it. Although we did get extremely far off topic, I learned a lot through this argument from both iNeXile556 and Dano523, so thanks to you guys. Dano523, you were somewhat correct and somewhat not. There was a bur on my gas block and it did cut down on the leakage, but the problems continued. It was not until I chatted with a supplier of most of my parts, who specializes in building SBR's, did i find the true problem, which turned out to be the bolt. I will also be honing out the chamber slightly to try and get the cases to pull out a little smoother. For now my AR will only run properly on NATO ammo, but after a little breaking in of the chamber, it should run on Factory rounds just fine. Also, a little bit of gas leakage is normal and usually will not cause problems. Found out SBR builds can sometimes have some weird quirks. Thanks again guys for making my post more fun, and somewhat confusing. iNeXile556, you truly know your shit, keep up the good work. |
AR Sponsor