Forums
New posts
Search forums
What's new
New posts
New media
New media comments
Latest activity
Classifieds
Media
New media
New comments
Search media
Log in
Register
What's New?
Search
Search
Search titles only
By:
New posts
Search forums
Menu
Log in
Register
Navigation
Install the app
Install
More Options
Advertise with us
Contact Us
Close Menu
JavaScript is disabled. For a better experience, please enable JavaScript in your browser before proceeding.
You are using an out of date browser. It may not display this or other websites correctly.
You should upgrade or use an
alternative browser
.
Forums
The Range
Rifle & Shotgun Discussion
Empirical Evidence for AR Supremacy ???
Search titles only
By:
Reply to Thread
This site may earn a commission from merchant affiliate links, including eBay, Amazon, and others.
Message
<blockquote data-quote="CAR-AR-M16" data-source="post: 891328" data-attributes="member: 204"><p>I do agree with just about everything you say. Mil-spec is a minimum specification that must be met. Some AR manufacturers exceed this spec and some don't even come up to this spec. Your postings seem to show that you have some kind of hatred for the term though.</p><p> </p><p>One thing that you did leave out was shot peening of the bolt which does do something for the surface hardness of the bolt. Again, some manufacturers do this and some don't.</p><p> </p><p>One last thing. You stated "that on Military M-4s With Military spec. parts they require the bolt to be replaced every 5000 rounds...because of bolts breaking". Do you have a source for this? The -23&P TM mentions nothing about this and I don't know how anyone could keep up with it anyway as there is no detailed accounting of how many rounds are fired through an individual weapon. We have some M-16's in the weapons pool here at Fort Sill that I can guarantee you are still on their original bolt after many years of hard use and abuse. Not saying it is not true, just would like a source. Either way, it would not be a bad idea to replace them often because if a bolt were to break in combat you cannot just "stop the match" while you get a spare. I do not see how you can equate a preventative replacement of a bolt to save a soldiers life to the fact that a "mil-spec" bolt is no better than any other.</p></blockquote><p></p>
[QUOTE="CAR-AR-M16, post: 891328, member: 204"] I do agree with just about everything you say. Mil-spec is a minimum specification that must be met. Some AR manufacturers exceed this spec and some don't even come up to this spec. Your postings seem to show that you have some kind of hatred for the term though. One thing that you did leave out was shot peening of the bolt which does do something for the surface hardness of the bolt. Again, some manufacturers do this and some don't. One last thing. You stated "that on Military M-4s With Military spec. parts they require the bolt to be replaced every 5000 rounds...because of bolts breaking". Do you have a source for this? The -23&P TM mentions nothing about this and I don't know how anyone could keep up with it anyway as there is no detailed accounting of how many rounds are fired through an individual weapon. We have some M-16's in the weapons pool here at Fort Sill that I can guarantee you are still on their original bolt after many years of hard use and abuse. Not saying it is not true, just would like a source. Either way, it would not be a bad idea to replace them often because if a bolt were to break in combat you cannot just "stop the match" while you get a spare. I do not see how you can equate a preventative replacement of a bolt to save a soldiers life to the fact that a "mil-spec" bolt is no better than any other. [/QUOTE]
Insert Quotes…
Verification
Post Reply
Forums
The Range
Rifle & Shotgun Discussion
Empirical Evidence for AR Supremacy ???
Search titles only
By:
Top
Bottom