IN-STOCK: All-New TYPE 81 SR

saltfree said:
Excellent attention to detail with the wood in-letting Dmitri, great work all around, you've offered a very practical compliment to the solutions offered for this poorly engineered design flaw. So much stress on the grain pattern to begin with and no reason that more material couldn't have been left to fill the cavity....even with pre-drilling and plating, the major concern remains with splitting and tear out because of the inherit failure potential of the grain pattern orientation and the hardware affixed in line with one another. While the, now, four points of contact is the saving grace, I wonder if a slight off set of drilling to avoid the grain run would further mitigate potential splits. Again, just constructive brainstorming to further refine on your excellent idea.
Click to expand...

The space was limited. The reason for the angle-of-the-dangle is clearance for the rear of the bolt carrier.
 
i gotta agree with CZ shooter, what dimitri did is beyong most owners. factory solution would be to solve the problem at minimal cost and not change the appearance (last thing they want is a constant reminder of failure.)

so i see the replacement stock with 1. extending the front end by adding more wood as saltfree suggested. 2. inserted the front end into a square metal tube with glued. then pinned.

thats it, simple and cheap, and you cant tell whether its a replacement or old stock from the appearance.
 
Thanks a lot Dimitri! It looks amazing! Btw how did you finish the stock to this beautiful grain? Is it the Japanese wood-burning technique?
 
tiriaq said:
Excellent work and photos, Dmitri.

The connection is much improved.

The fundamental problem is that the geometry of the stock/receiver interface is poorly designed. Consider the load applied to those two closely spaced pins when force is applied at the buttplate end of the stock.
In comparison, a Lee Enfield butt is secured in a closely fitted socket with a 7/16" diameter bolt.
Click to expand...

Every rifle i have carried I controlled by the pistol grip. All the stress in at that point. I use that grip to turn/lift or move rifle around rifle every time. Never take your shooting hand off the grip is how I was trained.

The screw in top like Bfiles is not enough but helps out a lot.

Any bolt screw I put in needs to be pretty much center of mass not to spilt stock under stress and stock needs to be removable . Those lower pins need metal around it. The top bolt screw needs threaded sleeve.

I am gonna delay this fix while I rack my brain for best method, yours, mine or TIs idea I dont care. Just want a be able to hold that rifle with one hand like any rifle with a grip, that is until I shoot it.
 
Last edited:
BeaverMeat said:
The space was limited. The reason for the angle-of-the-dangle is clearance for the rear of the bolt carrier.
Click to expand...

Respectfully BeaverMeat, the "angle-of-the-dangle" is not required for removal of the bolt carrier; there is enough clearance for the wood at it's total height to continue further into the receiver all the way to the the back of the trigger group (allowing for pivot clearance, of course). In fact, the wood could have a quarter round removed so that the upper corner would nestle against the safety shaft, thereby reducing stress a little more. If the bolt carrier clears the safety "shaft" then it clears the top of the wood because they share the same height profile; thus, there's lots of room for more wood...or, er...beaver meat, if you prefer.
 
A small triangular block of wood with grain orientated perpendicular to the shoulder stock grain glued in place, add two small (1/8" - 1/4") pilot holes drilled through triangular block into the wood of the stock (avoiding factory hardware), to each of these pilot holes will be added a glued dowel...clamp or wedge something in there to apply pressure until glue is set. One could additionally add another piece of hardware through the receiver to make up a triangulated pattern in conjunction with the two factory pins; this of course, will alter the outside aesthetic slightly and make for a really busy mess of a small amount of wood and metal vying for space. A steady hand folks, a very steady hand. Glue is your friend and can be stronger than wood.....just another brainstorm.
 
Should have designed the receiver cuts to mimic the Dragunov more closely, could have got it nearly bang on with a little modification to allow the metal meat required for the safety switch; other than that, the wood could have extended right to the back of the trigger guard and so much more wood available to allow adequate placement of hardware to mitigate the fulcrum stress points, etc... compare Dragunov pics with the SR and it becomes obvious.
 
saltfree said:
Should have designed the receiver cuts to mimic the Dragunov more closely, could have got it nearly bang on with a little modification to allow the metal meat required for the safety switch; other than that, the wood could have extended right to the back of the trigger guard and so much more wood available to allow adequate placement of hardware to mitigate the fulcrum stress points, etc... compare Dragunov pics with the SR and it becomes obvious.
Click to expand...

that will have been easier to have the same cut of svd but a shame wont fix it for us ... i thought that having the ndm will help on the design but wrongly they did not make the same. cant wait to see the solution coming out but dmitri is a good one for the handier ones.
 
And so the solutions go on. Obviously this fix requires more than a dremel. The wood was carved using a router and the metal pieces were bent into shape by a machine. Could all be done by hand but wouldn't look as nice and/or is time consuming. A 1mm sheet metal can be bend using a vise quite easily. I have a lot of that stuff but not feeling it at this point and not sure that would be thick enough, 1.5 mm would be better. Wonder what he was using.
 
medvedqc said:
that will have been easier to have the same cut of svd but a shame wont fix it for us ... i thought that having the ndm will help on the design but wrongly they did not make the same. cant wait to see the solution coming out but dmitri is a good one for the handier ones.
Click to expand...

Exactly about the receiver cut, and albeit an aesthetic modification is necessary, Dmitri gains accolades for his inventive fix idea for the handy persons out there. I may try the block, dowel and glue method, carve up an SVD stock I've got laying around and make it work better than the current fiasco or....and a big or, cut the receiver to shape to allow said SVD stock to fit and resemble the Dragunov aesthetic, fit and function. Another "one day when I have spare time" project.
 
saltfree said:
Respectfully BeaverMeat, the "angle-of-the-dangle" is not required for removal of the bolt carrier; there is enough clearance for the wood at it's total height to continue further into the receiver all the way to the the back of the trigger group (allowing for pivot clearance, of course). In fact, the wood could have a quarter round removed so that the upper corner would nestle against the safety shaft, thereby reducing stress a little more. If the bolt carrier clears the safety "shaft" then it clears the top of the wood because they share the same height profile; thus, there's lots of room for more wood...or, er...beaver meat, if you prefer.
Click to expand...

I’ll have to take an other look. From a quick glance it looked liked that was the reasoning.

I may have look into fabricating the dimitri mod after the files mod fails. It’s amazing what you can accomplish with time and minimal tools. Vice, torch, and dremel.
 
JasonLiu said:
Thanks for sharing. Definitely helped us understand the issue and weak points better.



You're right, seems the top screw fix isn't going to last long, the bottem need to be reinforced too. Or better fix is to add a metal plate on both side of the wood tenon.
Click to expand...


In this picture it looks like from the factory, the stock wasn't seated in far enough to line up the holes with the receiver prior to hammering in the pins, so the pins being driven in might have cracked the stock. When I hammered those pins out and back in it took a lot of resistance and i was worried about that, but i made damn well sure the holes were lined up.

I can't see how both bottom pins can be cracked otherwise, especially out of the box. When the rifle is fired the forces on the bottom pin
 
ceilingcat said:
In this picture it looks like from the factory, the stock wasn't seated in far enough to line up the holes with the receiver prior to hammering in the pins, so the pins being driven in might have cracked the stock. When I hammered those pins out and back in it took a lot of resistance and i was worried about that, but i made damn well sure the holes were lined up.

I can't see how both bottom pins can be cracked otherwise, especially out of the box. When the rifle is fired the forces on the bottom pin
Click to expand...

I can think of one way to cause two pin holes broke is, pointing the muzzle to the ground while holding the stock, or flip the gun upside down while holding the stock. The weight of the gun will apply on the pins. This may happen when carrying a gun with the sling. If he did not grab the rifle that way but broken came out of the box then I think it must from the factory, since the foam in the packaging provided good support.
 
Last edited:
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top Bottom