Anyone ever seen this?

[cmshoot]

People are nice to me when I'm paying them also. Once again, I listened to everything you said, like always. I just didn't agree.

Not everyone I train pays me. I contribute a lot of free man hours of training every year, especially to youth organizations, churches, family members of friends, etc.

I have also been very not-nice to folks that paid me to train them. Over the decades, I’ve kicked students off my range and out of my class on more than one occasion.

Students don’t pay me to be nice. They pay me to teach them.

 

[Red Squirrel 556]

No.

The simplest version is you have a part that is within specs, but it’s on the low end of the spec. You mate it with another part that is within spec, but it is within the high end of the spec. If they don’t want to work together as an assembly as they are required to do, then it can be because of tolerance stacking, even though they are both within manufacturer’s specs.

I was a bike mechanic for years. Everything on the drive train is .5lbs over torque, pedals and bottom bracket aren't lubricated, hub cones are over tightened.... next thing you know you can't pedal uphill.

edited - Any one of these issues isn't a deal breaker on their own, but combined they cause trouble.


It's the same principle. Maybe I used the wrong words.

 

[cmshoot]

There's no ****ing way I'd own a rifle that had that issue.


I love you.

I wouldn’t either. I’d correct it.

 

[cmshoot]

I was a bike mechanic for years. Everything on the drive train is .5lbs over torque, pedals and bottom bracket aren't lubricated, hub cones are over tightened.... next thing you know you can't pedal uphill.


It's the same principle. Maybe I used the wrong words.

I see that on AR’s as well, and that’s improper assembly. Taking a bunch of high quality parts is no guarantee of a quality build, if the assembly isn’t done correctly.

 

[Red Squirrel 556]

Except it's usually the mechanics fault.

 

[cmshoot]

Shooting is a mental sport. If you think you just improved your gun, there is a good chance that you will shoot better with it. Like NWSharpshooter said……..snake oil.

Upper and lower fit has nothing to do with accuracy. If you tighten up the fit, and you shoot better, it’s because YOU shot better.

I built a DMR-ish AR several years ago. It had a solid upper and lower fit, and was very accurate when I did my part.

To prove my point, I removed the upper receiver group from that AR and, over the course of a couple of weeks, dropped it onto 5 different complete lowers. Some fit tight, some fit sloppy, some were in between. The lowers were made by several different companies.

That upper shot the same size groups, to the EXACT same point of aim / point of impact with all 6 lower receivers. This would be impossible if upper and lower fit had anything to do with accuracy.

Compare that to something like a Remington 700 where fit between the action and the stock is critical to accuracy and holding POI. Pull a Rem700 barreled action, and proceed to drop it in 5 more different stocks and chassis made by different companies, and you’re going to see a shift in POA/POI every time. More than a decent chance that you will see a difference in group size, as well.

 

[cmshoot]

Except it's usually the mechanics fault.

In the case that you mentioned, with everything overtorqued, it would be the mechanics fault.

In the case of stacking tolerances, it‘s the nature of the beast. It’s what can happen in rare instances when we are dealing with man made parts.

There are few AR companies out there that actually adhere to TDP and manufacturer’s spec for 100% of the assembly. Colt doesn’t do it on non-contract rifles. SOLGW does do it.

If you are adhering to TDP/maker’s specs, there is a solid chance that you will catch stacked tolerances and be able to correct it by swapping out one or more of the offending parts. When you’re slapping it together as fast as you can during a 12 hour shift, you probably won’t.

 

[cmshoot]

I wouldn’t use WC as a shining example of how to build a lower receiver. I’ve had to send quite a few WC lowers back for replacement, for such issues as the pocket for the magazine release is grossly undersized so that you can’t install the mag release. Simple stuff like that.

They have that rubber piece in the lower because there are misinformed folks out there that want them. WC is in business to make money, so they sell what people want.

Colt used to put an Accu-Wedge in certain rifles. They don’t use them anymore. They also don’t use collet barrel bushings in their 1911’s anymore. Just because they did it at one time doesn’t mean that it’s a good thing.

When I build on a WC lower, or sell one to someone, I point out the rubber piece, tell them what it’s for, give them my professional opinion on it, and let them choose what they do with it. It’s their lower/group/gun, and their money.

 

[cmshoot]

Did you mean how to build a lower or how not to build a lower?

Thanks for catching that! I edited my OP to correctly reflect what I meant.

 

[CTS Tactical]

I am not crazy about their barrels either. They are famous for under-sizing the gas port.