There are 3 processes for manufacturing a lower, correct?

They are forged, cast, & milled. ????

What are the pros & cons of each? I am guessing of the 3 milled is the most expensive?

What process do the major manufactures (Stag, RRA, Colt, Busmaster, etc) use?

I do not know if anyone even makes cast lowers anymore. They were thicker and more crude looking. Most are forged (DPMS, RRA, Bushy etc). I do not know who is making milled, but I am sure they are pricey.

So basically as long as it is forged it should be good to go? Correct? The rest is just brand name, eh?

Read this

https://www.24hourcampfire.com/ubbt...&topic=0&Search=true#Post1683760

Sun Devil makes milled receivers for a comparable price to forged (about $125, or so). I have two, the nice thing about them is that the lines of the receiver are sharper and there are no "mould seams" visible (or whatever you call the little rough edges left on the forgings from the dies)

I also have Stag forged lowers and functionally I don't think that it makes any difference.

You might want to try " Spikes Tactical.com " they have lower receivers for around 100.00 and lots of interesting things for your AR.
Navarro

Forged receivers are put into a CNC to finish..then you have those that start out as a block of Billet and is CNC'd to a receiver(Sun Devil,Vltor,LaRue and POF)

from Wilson Combat's web site

so there is another manufacture that uses CNC machined uppers and lowers. S&W's web site does not say if they are machined, but they use the same alloy as Wilson, so I am thinking they are not forged.

Hell here I was under the impression they were all pretty well CNC machined....

Wilson you pay mightily for the name... just like you used to with Kulecks crew at FA....I bet there hair still stinks over there from HUA syndrome.

Jeff

HUA?

Heap Up A$$?

I'd love to hear why you hate those guys so much, Jeff. I've done no business with them and have no personal experience, but back in the day there was an M14 list I was on and Walt Kuleck was very helpful and while he seemed a little full of himself, you couldn't argue with the hour or so a day he seemed to devote to disseminating info... anyway, why are they so bad?

-jeff

All the methods you mention require the reciever be it upper or lower to be machined in some fashion or another to final desired dimensions. No upper or lower is useable as is straight from the casting dies or the forging dies and requires machining or milling to bring it to final design dimensions. It is then heat treated to get the durability desired. FWIW 1100, 2410, 6061 and 7075 aluminum may all be forged, cast or machined/milled. In some instances it would be desireable structurally to have a forged piece rather than a cast or billet machined piece. This instance isn't one of them from a strength standpoint. The wear resistance comes from the alloy and the heat treat with some help from the surface coating.

Well full of himself is only a start... those mods you paid for so highly... well they didn't do anything for the M14, that was all smoke and mirrors, a solid smith would do as well or better and have the same accucracy.... I've driven an M14 just a bit in competition...

Beyond that when they started to get behind the curve and into the AR platform they came on board telling folks what was and wasn't needed, when the platform had been totally worked out already, and that pinned sights were nothing, float tubes did nothing etc... while touting their guns at much more money, and saying that you could not use reloads in their guns.... lets just say at the time no one loaded 77s or 80s in factory, AND you woudl NOT win a damn thing without those or better bullets.... And low and behold after they got burned pretty bad on a couple of forums and were total asses at Perry a few years, they turned back around and lowered prices to normal, started touting pinned sights, float tubes and heavy bullets.... kinda came across as if they'd came up with all those ideas too..... maybe they'd like to compare Perry medals some day too...

Brrrr.... off my box again a bit.

Jeff

I'm afraid I reply with not enough information to be helpful, a I've forgotten what my friend, the machainist, said.

He's built an AR, has years of Machinist esperience, and knows.

The difference is not all that great, but (as I remember) some recievers are much harder than others, and these are harder to drill for extreme accuracy. Can't remember if it's forged or cast, but both are pretty hard.

For someone making a super-accurate rifle, the choice seem to go to machined recievers. At least as I remmber.

But otherwise, I don't think it matters much.

Here's what I'm talking about. These lower receivers are all forged and you can see where the forging marks are left on the receivers after finish machining.

I think you're mixing up "machined" with billet or forged. Either way, billet or forged, they're machined before they become anything usable. What Wilson does is purchase forged uppers and lowers, with some indication of the manufacturer being CMT, with their roll mark on them. Wilson isn't forging uppers or lowers and I highly doubt they are doing the final machining on them as it is much easier to spec and purchase something rather than tooling up. Very few mfg's forge their own, a few more do the final machining of purchased forgings, most purchase fully machined forgings with their roll marks in place. Uppers and lowers being hand-matched by a master riflesmith... Now that's marketing speak for "we cornered the market on pushing assembly pins".

S&W AR's are definately forged!

Right. ALL recievers are machined, CNC most likely.

The distinction here is that some are machined from bar stock basically, while others are machined from castings or forgings. Obviously, if one is starting from bar stock it will be a lot MORE machining!

I will take a forged receiver any day.

-jeff

What am I looking for, to see the forging marks?

-jeff

That quote from the Wilson site states clearly that they are using forgings. An Rost is correct, ALL of the receivers, whether they are from forgings, castings or a billet, are machined by a CNC.

The advantage of the forged receiver is that it is much stronger than a cast or billet receiver. The aluminum used in a forged receiver is formed under hundreds of tons of pressure. This pressure actually compresses the aluminum leaving it 15% heavier than the base-metal they started with. This extra weight equates to more strength. The forged aluminum is more dense, stronger and harder than cast or billet receivers.

There are only a couple of companies in the world producing forgings that all of the AR companies are CNC machining into lowers and uppers. If you are a small AR company and want something a little different in a lower or upper, you will have to machine it from a billet. (that is if what they want falls outside of the dimension of the original forging) Machining from a billet lets you add area to a receiver that would be impossible to do with a forging.

I think most will agree that the cast receiver is junk. The billet receivers will probably service most AR customers quite well. For high-use customers, the billet receivers will probably get slopy in the pin-holes well before a forged receiver would.

Do you have any data to back that up with? I know Sun Devil uses 6061 to machine there lowers. I'm not sure what Vltor or POF use's. But I cant see whey they would use a material thats going to go out of spec after some use.

Of course for those anal,, doesn't DPMS still offer a SS lower?

Wow what a pack of misinformation!. The "hardness" of the material has nothing to do with it's method of manufacture but it's alloy and it's heat treat. Forging will not increase the density of a metal either. Forging has this benefit- it help align grain structure in the metal to increase it's tensile strength IF properly heat treated. This is primarily due to grain structure control. Non heat treated forgings indeed are often of higher tensile strength than castings of the same alloy. A proper heat treat process will make the difference negligible in any non load bearing or structural application. It is more expensive and if paying more for something means it's "better" to you, go for it.
Often when heat treating fully machined parts they warp as the billet had stress which when machined to shape were released and the part warps.
As the upper and lower of an AR are not load/stress bearing structural parts the difference is final appearance to you and cost when any of the 3 methods is properly done.

So a metallurgist is saying, thats why my 50 buck cast EA lower from years ago, is still running fine in a rattle battle gun(ones that take the most abuse as they let us open up with as many rounds we can pour down range in 50 seconds....). I always thought it was a big dog ugly, but I could care less about looks anyway, long as it works..

Jeff

Looks are a whole different arena But from a durability or strength standpoint there isn't a real difference for this application. Obviously a poorly finished piece is reflected in cost. To simply reject an upper or lower because of method of manufacture is foolish. Now if it's poorly finished, over or under size etc. reject it. the two hardest alloys- those used for structural component forgings and castings in aviation 6061 and 7075 are great alloys with substantial abrasion resistance over 1100 or 2024. Though 2024 is used extensively in aircraft- usually skin and stamped former/stringers. Not aware that anyone uses 2024 for uppers or lowers though.

I have worked with truck-loads of forged receivers, and have had my share of billet receivers through the shop. The billet receivers are softer, and as I said: "will probably get slopy in the pin-holes well before a forged receiver would"

If the billet receiver were better, there would be more of the mfgs. using them. The fact is that NONE of the main-stream makers are using them.

THey are made to tighter tolerances and the only reason why more dont make them is cost...Yes the Billet is softer. But I still dont see how you could even say probably. But hey thats me...

a

Are you saying that it costs more to cut a chunk of aluminum off of a 20' bar than it does to have it forged into a shape? And what in the world makes you believe that just because it is a "billet" that closer machining tolerances are used? That's a stretch.

The pin-holes in good quality forged receivers will beat-out. The softer billet receivers will as well, and it will happen faster.

The coating on the receiver is of huge importance as far as wear. Just comparing the major AR makers, the "hardness" of the coating used is all over the board. Oly used to produce receivers that were called "Max-Hard" It was not a coating like most of the forgings. the process went into the metal and made the surface screaming hard. The process was done "out of house" and they no longer offer these receivers. I have a couple of them that I've had for years, and they hold-up as well as my stainless DPMS lower.

One thign I know, the one reciever we had that had developed sloppy pin holes was an older oly, circa 1990... John sold me a swage kit and I swagged the holes back to size in a vise with sized hardened pins.... Worked very well so I no longer worry about pin holes wearing out.... though you could crack one according to John, its rare though.

And this was not a shot at oly, simply the one that happened to have that issue, and was the one with the barrel that never functioned.... accurate as an SUM, but function in rapid fire, nope, something wrong with the chamber.... They did eventually replace the barrel, just like good CR.

Jeff

Jeff, Oly went through a stage where their coating was on the soft-side. The coating that they are using now is top-notch, much harder than some of the other major mfgs. Oly does have their issues with machining from time to time on their lowers, but they are much harder than they used to be.

Back in the "old days" I made myself a swage kit to do the same thing. Haven't used it in years, but you mentioning it did bring back some memories.

How are you measuring the hardness of the coatings?

On the second receiver from the right you will see a little square bump sticking out right below where the pistol grip attaches. As a raw forging this is a 1/4" wide extrusion that sticks up from the inside of that nice curve. It is where the metal flows into the seam of the forging mold. All the manufactures machine this off but in different ways. That double radius is hard to cut and you can see how some makers mill it with a large flat while others use a radius cutter to make a nice smooth curve.

On an all milled receivers the manufacturers use the correct radius cutter because they have to cut the large curve instead of having it forged into shape.

It's the ALLOY and the HEAT TREAT that determines the hardness NOT THE METHOD OF MANUFACTURE.

Planemech, sent you a PM.

Most are forged very few are totally machined andf even fewer are cast anymore. Forging means they take a billet of aluminum alloy usually a7075 T-6 alloy that is what is known as "mil-spec" That billet is run through a series of dies and beaten or perssed into the shape desired, a machined reciever is the same block of 7075 alloy put into a CNC machine the parts of the billet that do not fit the program are removed, and casting is just that the molten aluminum is poured into a mould to get the rough shape then Machined to final demensions, but the mould makeing process is so exact anymore that final machining is very minimal. BTW the casting method seems to work better with harder alloys like steel like with Ruger firearms recievers.
The majority of AR recievers are forged as that is the best compromise between speed, price, and quality of finished product. They then get heat treated and teflon coated as per "Mil -Spec"

There's a fair bit more specified in the military specifications or mil-spec than simply the alloy used and it's heat treat and finish applied.

Well, if you buy a forged lower your most likely to get a out of spec lower/upper. Billet will be square and in spec..If you did a study you'll find that Forged lowers/uppers will be out of spec more than Billet...

BTW, dont you build on Olympic? So basically you dont know what quality parts are anyways

The language that you are using is misleading. ALL surfaces on a billet receiver are machined, where quite a bit of the surface of a forged receiver are NOT machined. I don't doubt for one moment that some of the forged receivers have a flaw or other problem, in or on an area not machined, that will put them "out of spec." Any surface of a forged receiver that has to mate with another part IS machined, and I don't believe for a moment that there is ANY, and I don't believe you can claim, difference between a forged or billet receiver on the machined areas.

BD1 the alloy is 7075 in your example the heat treat condition would be T6. T6 is a very high level of solution heat treat for that alloy- it's as hard as one can get aluminum and nobody would start to forge or machine 7075 in that state, hard on tooling and wasted money as the heating to forge it would wipe out the expensive T6 heat treat to the billet. Which brings me to a great point, forging starts with a billet too

All of the Thompsons were made from investment castings from orilader spain,then shipped to caspian arms to be machined,then shipped to New Hurley New York to be hand fitted!

They worked great then and now!

So whats your question about casting?

Bob

Cast steel such as Ruger's Pine Tree Casting are great.
Cast aluminum such as Olympic sucks.

Any cast aluminum receiver sucks, whether it's made by Oly or anyone else.

Dtech

A strange question here for some local tightwads that want to stash away many of them for a rainy day... any experience with EA arms in LA? They are a bit cheaper, I"ve got an old one from circa 80s, I run it in an NTIT gun, its never gave a problem and thats all hard rapid fire.

But are they OK in the long run for general duty?

Jeff

Jeff, I have had a few through my hands in the last 6 months or so. They have all been top-notch. Good fit, good hard finish. Seems to me the color was not real black though..... Don't take the color problem as gospel, I may be confusing them with another brand.

Color doesn't bother me, but when I have to put it in the mill to install the FGC, or can't install the bolt-catch because the roll-pin hole is crooked, I never forget!

I certainly wouldn't hesitate to grab a couple of them.

Thanks for the latest intel on them. Color never bothered me. Gun is a tool, like a wrench, don't care what it looks like IF it shoots... I've got one looker gun, it never leaves the safe....

My ARs mix and match mutts, shoot, and are rarely in the safe.

Thanks, Jeff

Dtech, I'm curious how you are measuring/determining the hardness of the finishes?

compared to what other brand?

I'm not "measuring" the hardness, it's more of an observation while working with the receivers. One of the brands that I work with quite a bit has a much "softer" coating. When you hit it with the mill, it cuts through the coating very easily. That same brand, so I'm making the assumption that the same coating process was used, displays tiny little "dents" on the brass-deflector. Some of the receivers, including the Oly's, the coating is quite hard. When you hit it with a solid carbide cutter in the mill, you can hear and feel that it's more difficult to penetrate the surface.

That same "softer" receiver also starts to loosen at the hammer-pin and trigger-pin holes quicker than the receivers with the "harder" coating.

I have quite a bit of equipment left over from my "previous life" that comes in real handy while building and experimenting with guns, especially wildcats. I probably have a device that would actually measure the "hardness" of the surface, but I haven't really seen the need.

"That same "softer" receiver also starts to loosen at the hammer-pin and trigger-pin holes quicker than the receivers with the "harder" coating."

Thanks for telling us which one it is. You are a big help in that area.

Sorry, I'm not in this as a hobby. The same people that produce receivers that have a soft coating, produce many other parts that are good, and that I use.

There are some quirky little habits that my wife has, but it would be poor judgement for me to talk about them on an open forum.

Interesting observations. Type III anodizing is difficult to measure using the Rockwell tests since it is such a thin coating. It is typically applied around 0.002 thick. Half of that .002 is build-up on the surface and the other half of the .002 is penetration of the underlying surface. Type III anodizing is more of an abrasion resistant coating rather than a hardening agent due to it's thickness. Sealing further reduces the hardness of this coating. If the substrate is being dented by shell casings something isn't right. Either it isn't hardened properly or it's not 7075-T6 no matter what they're marketing it as. 260 Brass, typically called cartridge brass, is approximately B77 Rockewll. 7075-T6 is approximately B87.

Thanks for nothing. Talking up Oly and others down are your bread and butter. Its all about Smoney$

Gonehuntinnow, Look back at your posts with me. You expect me to be forthcoming with you? Why? I don't care what brand you like or don't like. Most of the mall-ninjas and wana be's don't seem to like Oly. They read all the stuff on ARF.com and repeat it on other boards like you do. The folks that actually use their AR's for varmint, or target and require accuracy tend to realize that Oly makes a pretty darn good barrel.

I am a master dealer/distributor for DPMS, a dealer with ArmaLite, a dealer with Rock River and a master dealer/distributor for Olympic Arms. All of them have good points and all of them have some product that I will not use. About the only thing I use that Oly makes is their barrels, free-float tubes and WSSM parts. Oly has their problems, but they produce great barrels. These guys producing receivers with soft coatings, do a lot of other things right, and I don't see any reason to give a guy like you something to twist around to suit your agenda.

Buy whatever you wish, I really don't care, but if you make disparaging comments about a product that I happen to know is false, then expect to be challenged on it.

Dtech

Nice response, full disclosure and all.

Next time I'm up around Nisswa, I'll try to give you a call.
It will probably be a while, but I get to Bemidji now and then.

toltecgriz, You are welcome any time. I don't have a retail "store front", just a machine-shop where I do my fluting, profiling, chambering and assembly. I normally have lots of stuff to look at in various stages of completion, just not in a retail environment.

Thanks, not to worry, I wasn't looking for a store front anyway.

Google is a wonderful tool in this modern age!!!!!

I couldnt find any firearm history on you farther than 5 years ago. Did you exist before then?


This is from a man that wants us to believe Oly barrels are as good as the other simi custom barrels used on ARs. Wilson and Green Mountain, Ect.

"Most of the firearms manufacturers used hammer-forged barrels. A metal tube is slid over a mandrel, with the rifling formed on it. The metal tube is hydraulically squeezed down onto the mandrel, leaving the rifling embedded. This type of barrel is what you would find on a Remington or Winchester, as well as many others. This process is cost-effective where very high volumes of the same barrel contour is needed"

Some old wise man said. You can fool all the people some of the time and some of the people some of the time.

FWIW - I just picked up two Stag stripped lowers and they appear well made but there were several very tiny "flecks" of finish missing which could have happened during manufacture or in transit. Either way, I'm not sure how tough the coating is on these so I guess it's a good thing they're not going to rust....

I don't see what you find strange about that quote you dug up.

I really don't care what you believe about Wilson or Green Mountain. I have used enough Wilson barrels to know they are good most of the time, and I have used enough of the broach-cut Oly barrels to know they are more consistently accurate than the Wilson. Take it or leave it, I really don't care. Perhaps if you let us know who your are, and what vast experience you have with barrels, maybe someone will listen.

"I don't see what you find strange about that quote you dug up."

Here it is.

"Most of the firearms manufacturers used hammer-forged barrels. A metal tube is slid over a mandrel, with the rifling formed on it. The metal tube is hydraulically squeezed down onto the mandrel, leaving the rifling embedded. This type of barrel is what you would find on a Remington or Winchester, as well as many others. This process is cost-effective where very high volumes of the same barrel contour is needed"

Show us any proof from anybody that makes barrels using the hammer forged method you have described.

You said Oly barrels being better than others. Then I find you dont know how hammer forged barrels are made.

This is a copy-and-paste from an Internet site describing the hammer-forging process. The quote that you dug up of mine, was an attempt to answer the question "how is rifling put into barrels" The quote you presented was just the part about hammer-forging. I didn't go into great detail as to how hydraulic impact was used, just that it was a very expensive machine that was used for high-production.

The first quote is from Rifle Shooter magazine

]" barrel can be rifled in a matter of seconds with a single pass of a broach or button; or in two hours by the incremental cutting of one groove at a time using a solitary cutting tool. Or, if you've got the big bucks of a major firearms company, you can shell out a million-plus dollars for a hammer forging machine and literally beat the rifling into the barrel, while at the same time shape it to its finished contour. Some manufacturers even hammer-forge the chamber at the same time by using a mandrel that looks like a cartridge case stuck on the end of a rifled steel rod."

Here is a link with more explanations and photos.
http://technology.calumet.purdue.edu/met/higley/Precision%20Shooting%20Magazine%20-%20November-%202005%20(Vol_%2053%20-%20No_%207).htm

I think if you check with anyone with an IQ that is a couple of points above yours, you will find that, as I said, Remington and others use hammer-forged barrels. That brings up my next thought: I have often heard it said: "Never argue with an idiot, they will only bring you down to their level, then beat you with experience"

That being said, you can argue with yourself, or someone else, I've had enough of the "special olympics" I'm done.

Personal attacks are not part of an intelligent discussion!!

This was the original question I asked you.
Why I cant find you more than 5 years back??
You have done a fine dance or jig around the question??

This is a quote of yours. Show us where you found this?? Show us any proof from anybody that makes barrels by the hammer forged method you have described?? Show us the hydraulic squeezer that makes tubes into Remington or Winchester rifle barrels.

"Most of the firearms manufacturers used hammer-forged barrels. A metal tube is slid over a mandrel, with the rifling formed on it. The metal tube is hydraulically squeezed down onto the mandrel, leaving the rifling embedded. This type of barrel is what you would find on a Remington or Winchester, as well as many others. This process is cost-effective where very high volumes of the same barrel contour is needed"

Or just admit you were winging it and didn't really know what you were talking about.

Gone

I quit posting and just kept reading.... What exactly are you after here? Simple question could net a simple answer.

FWIW I've got 2 EA lowers, one oly,one bushy, one armalite, one colt, and probably 6-8 rra. Had one PWA that I sold some years back.

Most all of them literally have had 3-6 barrels through them so far. Thats 15-30K or more rounds. I've had to swage the oly lower but only because it was a bit large to start with when we dropped a Milazzo trigger into it years ago. It has not worn since. I've had to work on the holes on the Colt also.

Thats a lot of total rounds, and not many issues.

As to factory rifle barrels, the SUM I've shot and had have been as good as any wilson etc.... others claim even more accurate but they've been good and comparable for me.

And as to factory barrels.... I have no proof, but have heard it from a few folks I consider to be reliable sources that a barrel like a 700 or 77, the company has less than 50 bucks in it total. I know that Ruger has replaced a couple of barrels totally for free for folks I know, they ain't putting 300 dollar barrels on the guns thats for sure.

All that being said, I'm pretty friggin simple, looks don't matter, accuracy does, and I've seen accuracy thats unbelievable from every lower I've used, as long as the assembly was done correctly, like Dtech, WOP etc.... its accurate. .5 moa or less for sure with the right nut behind the butt and right load in the chamber. So I go with target results. Got em from every reciever so far.

As to Dtech being around, my main smith is WOP, and John has said that Mike is good and around for 20 some years IIRC, IE more than 5. And to me thats like God saying to me, yes Jesus is my son.... Not everyone was on the net when it came out.... doesn't mean a thing. I still know some top armorers that don't advertise, don't do email, etc..... How long you are on the net means nothing, and much less since Al Gore invented the d@mn thing... Don't read into the internet whats not there.

Now did you have a real, short, concise question we should answer?

Regards, Jeff

If he doesn't respond politely to that, Jeff, he's hopeless.

Dteck made the statement Olympic barrels are great.
Gone quoted something Dteck also said that was completely wrong about hammer forged barrels. I take it, he means if the guy was wrong about hammer forging then his statement about Olympic barrels could also be just as wrong.

Rusky, What was it that I said that "was completely wrong about hammer forged barrels"??

That is what I was trying to get out of him.

The quote that he dug up and posted was only part of a post on another forum. It was in response to someone that had asked: "How do they get the rifling into the barrel?" My reponse covered hammer-forging, cut-rifling, and button-rifling. None of it was done in any great detail or high technical level.

The process of squeezing a metal tube, with hydraulic impact, over a mandrel that has the rifling on it, and ending up with a barrel that is contoured and rifled is tough to imagine, but that is exactly what is done, and many of the major gun makers are still using this process.

I said Oly barrels are good barrels. I a have used around 2000 of them by now, along with many other barrels. I am now chambering my own barrels from Shilen blanks. I get better accuracy out of the barrels that I make from the Shilen blank, but that's not comparing apples to apples. I have used Wilson blanks as well. When I hand-chambered Wilson barrels, I got good results, but even that is not comparing apples to apples. What I have said is that, in my opinion, the Oly SUM barrel is the best, off the shelf, AR barrel you can buy. That is, that they are more consistently accurate than a stock DPMS, Bushmaster, ArmaLite etc. stock barrel. Do some DPMS, RRA, Bushmaster barrels shoot great? Of course they do!

Here is the whole post. What does it change?? You wrote this and then found out how a hammer forged barrel was made. Then you try to put a spin on it.

You said Oly barrels were great. Not good but great. You dont know what your talking about when it comes to barrels. Has a Oly barrel won any major matche ever??

"Most of the firearms manufacturers used hammer-forged barrels. A metal tube is slid over a mandrel, with the rifling formed on it. The metal tube is hydraulically squeezed down onto the mandrel, leaving the rifling embedded. This type of barrel is what you would find on a Remington or Winchester, as well as many others. This process is cost-effective where very high volumes of the same barrel contour is needed.

Custom barrels are either cut-rifled or button-rifled. The cut-rifled barrels fall into several categories depending on how they are cut. The cut-rifled barrels that I use quite a bit of are broach-cut. A broach is pulled through the bore, cutting the grooves at one time. The button-rifled barrels have a football-shaped, solid carbide "button" pulled or pushed through the bore. The "button" has a mirror image of the grooves ground into it, with the appropriate twist. As the "button" is forced through the barrel, the "button" extrudes the barrel material, forming the grooves.

What a tempest in a teapot...

-jeff

Oly has won a state championship highpower match.... Thats major enough I"d say.

The other interesting part is that Dtech rifles shoot extremely well... I"d say that says more than enough also.

Knowing how and doing are different things... The engineers that knew how to put together the corvette were great in their own minds, yet had they known more than a simple book education, no one would be forced to remove the engine from the mounting blocks to change out SPARK PLUGS.....

I"m still missing your point.

Jeff

I would just like to see someone actually point out what they think is wrong about the post. I used the term "forced" while referring to the button-rifled method, because some are pulled, and some are pushed. I guess I still don't see what is incorrect about my description.

Are you disputing how or if the hammer-forged barrels are made?

I think, Dtech, that it's your use of the term "hydraulic" that has him comin' at you like this.

I don't have a dog in this fight, but from where I sit, it's pretty silly.

-jeff

Jeff, that may very well be. I tried to clarify that point twice. Once by stating that the original post was not meant to be of high a technical level, and second, to clarify that the hammer-forging machine that I had read quite a bit about used hydraulic impact to do the work. If that's the beef, then we are really splitting hairs. I quite honestly don't know how the current machines are powered. Doesn't really matter, the end result is the same, they are "hammer forged"

Hell if its coming down to hydraulics as an issue, I say TROLL....

Jeff

Well there's the fact that you referred to the barrel blank as a "tube", too I know that you were just trying to keep it simple, but apparently Gonhuntinnow is a nitpicker of the highest order. Maybe he doesn't think Oly arms uses a pulled broach either, based on his use of bold characters? But he'd be wrong, as:



Personally, since he's so keen on your bona fides, I'd not bother to respond to him until he's disclosed his own background.

His background is apparent from his posts and the good Mr. Rost has defined that aptly.

Scott, I have personally pulled both broaches and buttons and made my own barrels in someone else's shop. I know how those barrels are produced.

The hammer-forging is a different story. I have seen video of it, and the reason I said "tube" is that the operator grabbed a "tube" out of a bin and slid it over the mandrel. This "tube was, just judging from the video, about 1-1/2" in diameter and only about 14" long with a hole that looked to be about 3/4" in diameter. The operator pushed the button and in seconds the barrel was profiled and had it's rifling. I don't know what I could call it but a "tube" It looked like a real thick-walled pipe.

I also saw a video of barrels being made for Uzi. The "tubes" they were using were much shorter, perhaps 7" long.

Now to be perfectly honest, probably 20 or 25 years ago when my father told me that was how Remington made their barrels, I called "BS". I was wrong. At the time, the whole process didn't sound like it was feasible.

You guys have patiently tried and tried. I, too, say troll.

He's got nothing worthwhile to say.

Seems like we had this conversation before, but maybe it was someone else or using a different name.

I made my point. Most got it. Some didnt. A troll I aint.

most=you

go away

If you couldn't tell, I'm with you on this, in that I can see why you'd refer to it as a "tube". Since I have zero experience hammer forging barrels, I couldn't tell you if that's the actual term used by those that produce barrels or not. All I can do is speak from my machining background, and say that off the top of my head, I'd refer to the item in question as a "blank". If pressed, then I'd make some sort of reference to the manner in which the bore was taken to it's final dimension as in "bored blank", "reamed blank" etc. But for person A to put the screws to person B for using "tube" says more to me about the former individual than the latter.

For what its worth, I literally cut tons upon tons of 6061, 2024, and 7075 back when I was a CNC machinist/programmer. Mostly billet with some near net forged. Come to think of it, there was quite a bit of cast that I worked with as well. I haven't read a single word of yours regarding receiver materials that doesn't ring true to my own experiences.

Regards,
Scott

Too verbose

Jeff is rather verbose when its not his way.

The real subject line was >>>>>hammer forging does not = hydraulic squeezing<<<<<.

Jeff there is life beyond the internet. 6467 posts in less than 3 years?? Almost 6 posts per day!

No wonder you think you own the place.

I'm about 10 a day, average... I must really own the place!

:-)

-jeff

That attitude is not Jeff Rost's. He speaks quietly and clearly as a man who knows AR's as well or better than anyone on here or anywhere else for that matter. He has the trophys and connections and knowledge to prove it, if he ever wanted to or needed to, which he doesn't.

You, on the other hand, stuck your foot in your mouth, by bad mouthing another man who has forgotten more than you will likely ever know about AR's and are not man enough to just say so and move on. I'm not speaking for Jeff, but that is not his way and I believe he does not hold with such, thus the rebuke.

Don't make this any worse. See things for what they are, aplogize, and let's get on with talking guns, hunting and such. Anything short of that will just continue the spiral downward and it's you who is headed that way.

Short and simple of it, got no time for picking nits.... kinda strange that way I am. I admit.

But I don't own or run the place....

Picking nits leads to flaming threads... BTDT on many competitive sights... ain't worth the time or effort of being an azzhole anymore, we got real things to discuss.

Wanna chat about SD/ES and how you HAVE to get them really low, but that in reality they don't tell a damn thing about what the groups will be ...grinning.

Jeff