It results in a longer "dwell-time", which is the amount of time for gas to flow into the gas-operating system after the bullet passes the Gas Port in the Barrel (eg. at the Gas Block). The closer the Gas Port is to the Chamber, the longer time there is with the bullet in the bore, pressurizing the gas system, during its travel from the Gas Port to the Muzzle.
Lockhart Tactical Raven Platinum Edition, .223 Wylde
- Thread starter Bartok5
- Start date
It results in a longer "dwell-time", which is the amount of time for gas to flow into the gas-operating system after the bullet passes the Gas Port in the Barrel (eg. at the Gas Block). The closer the Gas Port is to the Chamber, the longer time there is with the bullet in the bore, pressurizing the gas system, during its travel from the Gas Port to the Muzzle.
Here is a photo of the 2 different sizes of LAW Tactical Bolt-Carrier Extension. .308 on top, 5.56mm on bottom. Note how much larger the diameter of the .308 version is where it inserts into the rear of the Bolt-Carrier.
The diameter of the hole in the rear of my Raven's Bolt-Carrier is .061", which is very close to the diameter of the .308 LAW Tactical Folder Bolt-Carrier Extension. It is far too large to accommodate the 5.56mm Extension. As it turns out, I had to remove about 1/100" off of the diameter of the .308 Extension in order for it to fit inside of the Raven Carrier. If yours slid right in, either the size of the hole in the rear of your Raven Carrier is slightly larger than mine, or the diameter of your LAW Tac's .308 Extension is slightly smaller....
Last edited:
How so? I use extended Take-Down Pins on all of my AR15s and hardly find them "ugly". Nor do I find the Extended LTAC Pins to be "ugly", as they actually blend in nicely when the rifle is viewed as a whole. As far as being counter-ergonomic, I would characterize the Extended Pins as the exact opposite - they greatly facilitate the effortless removal of the pins (and disassembly of the rifle) without need for pushing (or hammering) from the opposite side.
Anything that sticks out I consider counter-ergonomic. As for usability - regular AR15 pins are just fine, they can be easily pushed out. But tell me, are these extended pins in place because regular Raven pins are bad, or is it personal preference? I can understand the latter, but I suspect it's the former.
I'd say in this case, it is both. The pins used by Lockhart are apparently beyond the ken of some owners, who insist on pounding on/in the center of the pin, where the spring needs to compress into in order to release the spring's lock on the Receiver. There is zero need to hammer on the LTAC pins, as they are simple push-pins with a spring detent. Push on the rim of the Pin itself, and they will back out effortlessly! With the Extended Pins, you can simply pull them out rather than have to push from the opposite side. Easier-Peasier.
Last edited:
In a sense yes, however they work quite differently. The Raven pins are retained by spring-tension, whereas the Stg's Take-Down Pin locks externally. In order to disassemble the Stg you must push the protruding side of the spring into the center of the Pin, then push the pin into the gun in order to capture the spring-clip while the Pin is pulled completely through and out of the gun. The Raven pins are simply pushed out of the gun from the far side, overcoming spring tension as you go.
Here is a photo of the 2 different sizes of LAW Tactical Bolt-Carrier Extension. .308 on top, 5.56mm on bottom. Note how much larger the diameter of the .308 version is where it inserts into the rear of the Bolt-Carrier.
The diameter of the hole in the rear of my Raven's Bolt-Carrier is .061", which is very close to the diameter of the .308 LAW Tactical Folder Bolt-Carrier Extension. It is far too large to accommodate the 5.56mm Extension. As it turns out, I had to remove about 1/100" off of the diameter of the .308 Extension in order for it to fit inside of the Raven Carrier. If yours slid right in, either the size of the hole in the rear of your Raven Carrier is slightly larger than mine, or the diameter of your LAW Tac's .308 Extension is slightly smaller....
Ill see if i can grab some calipers from work and see. My o rings are much fatter than those. I have to press fit it into the carrier tgey make it tight. I havn't seen any one take a caliper to the barrel nut or handgaurd as well to see the difference on loose handgaurd i had to hammer mine off.
Well, here you go:
Inside of Handguard = 1.375"
Outside of Barrel Nut = 1.373"
Difference = the Barrel Nut is .002" smaller than the Handguard, thereby inducing "slop". One way to eliminate that .002" gap is to fill it with self-adhesive Aluminum Duct Tape. Works perfectly! (Ask me how I know....)
It is on the Lockhart Tactical website, advertised initially in .308 cal: https://www.lockharttactical.com/st...n-modular-semi-automatic-rifle-non-restricted
Of course any after-market AR10 Barrel with a Mid-Length Gas System in 6.5 Creedmoor would just plug 'n play with the .308 Raven Receiver Set. You just need the .308 Magazine Well and Upper Receiver.
I cannot account for the $3800 price tag on the baseline "Gold" .308 Rifle, other than to note that it is not that far out of line with other .308 semi-auto offerings. The Tavor 7 typically sells for $3200 (although can be found on sale for $2800), the Crusader Crux by Spectre sells for $3500 and so on, with the list topping out on the B+T APC 308 at a cool $6K. Suddenly $3800 doesn't seem all that much by comparison!
Ideally, you will already own a 5.56mm Rifle, which you can convert into a .308 with the addition of a .308 Upper Receiver and Magazine Well for the comparatively low price of $2400....
Ideally, you will already own a 5.56mm Rifle, which you can convert into a .308 with the addition of a .308 Upper Receiver and Magazine Well for the comparatively low price of $2400....
Never thought I would say it but at this time I miss the $1500 BCL MK7 or the $2k Stag. I remember when the T7 was "expensive".
Wonder if LT will add the Gen3 upper additions to the rifles being built within a years time.
Look forward to your tuesday range results.
Back on topic!
Wonder if LT will add the Gen3 upper additions to the rifles being built within a years time.
Look forward to your tuesday range results.
Back on topic!
To think that the "good old days" were just 3 1/2 years ago....
Lockhart currently has no intention of offering complete rifles with the Gen 3 Uppers, but who knows what may be possible with enough customer pressure....
I will post some 100m groups on Tuesday. Hopefully the weather will cooperate!
