Excellent!I was out today with My converted drill rifle.I'm really living on the edge!Quote:
Originally Posted by Punch The Clown
Printable View
Excellent!I was out today with My converted drill rifle.I'm really living on the edge!Quote:
Originally Posted by Punch The Clown
Quote:
Originally Posted by Roadkingtrax
This is nothing, check out his ask Orest.
http://forums.thecmp.org/showthread.php?t=86950
http://forums.thecmp.org/images/statusicon/post_old.gif Today, 07:09 PM
M14 http://forums.thecmp.org/images/stat...ser_online.gif Join Date: Jul 2011
Location: south mississippi
Posts: 268http://forums.thecmp.org/images/icons/icon1.gif Sales of M1 builds and bare receivers
When bare receivers are sold to the public, and rifle builds are sold, are the receivers checked with an ordnance receiver gage, and the bolt lug contact on builds, checked by lapping or other means ?
Can you post pictures for the members here, of the ordnance gages used for this procedure ?
When the CMP does these builds for sale, who builds them ? Are they certified military or ex-military armorers ?
Are the gages used, if any, calibrated regularly ?
If checked and gaged, what happens to the ones that fail inspection ? Such as, when a receiver locking lug or bridge is mislocated or worn out, and does not pass the inspection, where does it end up ?
It was suggested to me by CaptainMagic, to ask these questions here, because I have found some anomolies in a few receivers and rifles from the CMP. He asked me if I thought it might be a liability issue for the CMP to be selling these in this condition. Since these are fairly recent offerings (purchases)from the CMP, I was also curious that if they were gaged, how did they get past any existing quality control, if any, to end up in the hands of a civilian ?
Does the CMP have any verifiable data on the percentile of inspection failures of M1 receivers, intended for sale, and the cause of those failures. I am primarily interested in the left receiver locking lug, and it's location from datum. Receiver bridge failures of out of spec, would also be of interest, and production run numbers and manufacturers of both these conditions.
He seems to be alluding to the idea that I will get scolded by you for such questioning of this type, about ongoing business practices and operation standards and procedures at the CMP. Since it is a congressionally chartered operation, I know that much harder questions have been asked before from congress, and I hope the public.
Any help in clearing this up, and any emperical data you may have on the left lugs of M1 receivers not having contact on the left bolt lug, and gaps up to
.003 wide, would be much appreciated, thank you.
P.S.
It seems many people here, feel that I am imagining this issue exist, but I have proof it does. It looks as though I will need your evidence to back it up, from receivers that failed inspection for sale....best regards.
Why is there no mention of the ammunition that was used?
Overloaded? High Primers? Singled loaded rounds, while releasing an Op-Rod with 100% travel and force?
He's setting himself up for a prison shower scene. Failures in a few items, when millions were produced? Items subjected to forces outside of allowed tolerances? M14 needs a lesson in Six Sigma.
Wow. Was around a couple law suit deals in the auto industry in the early 1980's. One started out like this caused by some jaggoff that did'nt think he was getting the respect that was due him. Questions being asked about QA procedures and QA audit reports getting copied and removed from the facility. Never went anywhere, but caused a whole bunch of people alot of greif and wrecked a few careers. Who the hell is this M14 guy? Does he run a shop or what? On one hand I admit to a certain joy to seeing the CMP put on the spot, but this whole thing stinks like it's being done because the guy is a complete ass.
I admit that I don't always enjoy all the things that the CMP does but this does stink. This dude is trying to make a giant issue out of a condition that is not hurting anyone. This completely reminds me of how we get helmet laws, seatbelt laws, airbag laws, there's always someone who thinks that everything has to be 100% bullet proof. In this case, there hasn't even been the accident which anyone can point to and say, "hey, two perfectly touching bolt lugs would have fixed this."Quote:
Originally Posted by ordmm
Remember, we could prevent all gun accidents by just eliminating guns. That's exactly the argument that the left makes everyday.
Ordmm....
Don't delete that new post. :)
Quote:
Originally Posted by ordmm
I worked around strokes like this in auto manufacturing and in the airlines. This type of person will snoop around just to make some great discovery only to find out that the answer is ancient history. They are the ones that would wonder why when they would come into a lunch room all the other mechs would get up and walk out. Or when their roll-away got co-mailed from Chicago to Norita they would try to figure out what they did to deserve that. Some people just can't accept that the Sun rises in the East...who the hell cares why...it just does. Some people turn goofy because they feel they have been excluded from the tribe. Usually it's due to the fact nobody trusts them or their work. Some of these people have big egos that can be massaged to get them to sell out others. Man pukes like M14 piss me off. They are not to be trusted no-how, no-way.
http://m14forum.com/m14/100539-usgi-bolt-cracked.html
Here we have a USGI bolt that was lapped in on an M14, guess what, it was inspected before install and had no cracks. Guess what else, the bolt started cracking. Trying to blame a cracked bolt or a bolt that fails because you loaded bullseye into your reloads on lack of bolt lapping is inaccurate. If you lap your bolt, your bolt can still crack. If you don't lap your bolt, your bolt can still crack.
A couple more "kickers", the bolt was "inspected" by a fellow named "ripsaw", ripsaw is "M14", the OP of the bolt thread. Guess what else? according to the military manual you can shoot M14's with cracked bolts up to certain standards. This thread at the M14 forum also points out the ultimate danger of lapping bolts, sooner or later the cased hardness on either your bolt, Garand, or both will be gone. This isn't a big deal if you know you're starting out with a new in wrap USGI bolt but it might be a big deal for the next guy.
Oh, and did you know that the military allowed for cracks in the bolt lugs on M14's? I would think some lug offset would be far less dangerous, read not at all, then a cracked lug which the military allowed.
The Depot Overhaul Manual allows cracks in the bolt lugs up to 1/32" in depth along the maximum length of the lug from top to bottom of both lugs to be acceptable and servicable. This is at the point where the lug meets the body of the bolt.
Orest responds, what he doesn't say is if the Army either lapped the bolts or checked for lug setback. I am guessing they did not, only a guess, because they found it to be a NON issue.
http://forums.thecmp.org/images/statusicon/post_new.gif Today, 06:09 AM
Orest http://forums.thecmp.org/images/stat...er_offline.gif
Chief Operating Officer
Join Date: Sep 2009
Location: Anniston, AL
Posts: 4,202
http://forums.thecmp.org/images/icons/icon1.gif
we perform our inspections to the "exact" same scope of work that the U.S. Army used when building/preparing rifles for sale through the DCM. Plus we added a few extra steps.
__________________
CMP Chief Operating Officer