Count me in for 3
|
 |
 |
 |
 |
 |
 |
 |
 |
 |
 |
 |
 |
 |
 |
 |
 |
 |
 |
 |
 |
 |
 |
 |
 |
 |
 |
 |
 |
 |
 |
 |
 |
 |
 |
Count me in for 3
My question is (since there is no picture from the rear of the receiver) Will it be machined in a way that allows a receiver endplate to be installed AND still allow the receiver halves to pivot open?Originally Posted by SpectreBallistics
Similar to this:
Attachment 316349
Attachment 316350
Attachment 316351
^^^ note that the rear of the lower is cut out to accept the endplate and allow it to open/close freely. Elimination of the ability to accept an endplate and only rely on the castle nut to attach the buffer tube will extremely limit sling attachment ability/options.
Please keep this in mind during the design process.
Last edited by jiffx2781; 10-24-2019 at 02:10 AM.
"Arguing with idiots is like playing chess with a pigeon..... No matter how good you are, the bird is going to s#!t on the board and strut around like it won anyway."
I should add, I'm interested in one of these, pending final design and pricing. I think it would make a nice foundation for a compact SBR for backpacking or throwing in the tractor cab.
The positive I see in this compared to the NR semi auto receiver sets is that the only requirement it would have to meet is minimum OAL.
I in NO way view this as a substitution, or worse, a replacement for my semi auto rifles. That it is being marketed as such due to government fear mongering is appalling to me. They can go pound sand as far as I'm concerned.
Regardless of my thoughts I do see this as having it's place in the market.
"Arguing with idiots is like playing chess with a pigeon..... No matter how good you are, the bird is going to s#!t on the board and strut around like it won anyway."
This is pretty important to consider SBI. If the bolt is not held closed by some means then the design of an AR bolt arrangement will allow for some slop to occur with the bolt carrier (whatever form it may be in). In turn this will mean light primer strikes or out of battery detonations. The Troy PAR has a mechanism for locking the bolt I. Position that is quite clever. Without something similar I think this design is unfinished.Yep, I understand that principle.
On an AR, I understand it is the buffer spring which applies continuous forward pressure on the BCG, thereby keeping the lugs engaged and locked.
My question is what takes place of this system?
I'll just wait for more details I guess. Either way, I want one
From what I can see, this will function like a gas system-less AR. Simple straight pull bolt action. Its suprising to me that the BCG has been changed, I would not have done that if I were SBI.
"I dont usually bring targets im more of a dirt shooter." -daniel_250r
I am the "small fringe minority" with "unacceptable" views.
CCFR 🍁 CSSA
Perhaps they are concerned the RCMP will find a way to determine that it could be easily converted back to semi auto. Really all you'd have to do is drill the hole through the front of the receiver for the gas tube and you'd be back up and running.
Perhaps a solution would be to machine the channel in the top of the upper not as deep so you could still use standard bcg and buffer spring BUT the gas key would have to be removed in order for it to fit. They would still need to find a simple way of attaching the side charging handle to a standard unmodified bcg which could prove to be a bit of a road block.
"Arguing with idiots is like playing chess with a pigeon..... No matter how good you are, the bird is going to s#!t on the board and strut around like it won anyway."
A gas-less AR still has the bolt locked closed by the buffer system. This does not.
The Troy PAR locks the bolt closed with a cam system acting on the unique bolt carrier. The Troy Side Action Rifle likely uses the same cam and also uses a spring to assist the bolt movement forward.
Either a locking mechanism or spring pressure system are, in my opinion, a necessity.
Not sure why people want to keep the BCG. It’s only needed for an AR. A simpler system can be made by abandoning the legacy part (BCG) and you also add another layer of differentiation from an AR.
Simple. Parts commonality, availability and serviceability. AR parts are the most common out there and the easiest to obtain.
What happens when your proprietary part fails and there's no longer a way to get it serviced, repaired or replaced.
Which is why I think they've chosen to go the route of a proprietary bcg. I did point out the possible concern of going with a standard AR bcg in my previous post.
"Arguing with idiots is like playing chess with a pigeon..... No matter how good you are, the bird is going to s#!t on the board and strut around like it won anyway."
Simply drilling a hole for a gas tube will not allow you in any way to convert the rifle to semi-auto. The buffer spring is completely omitted from the design. Infact the mount point for the stock is not even drilled all the way though the rifle, and is slightly offset from the bore axis by a couple of mm's to ensue the gun can't be converted.
As for a proprietary BCG, yes it's a downside but necessary. It is possible to permanently convert a standard BGC to work with the rifle.
Posting Permissions
