The buffer tube attaches to the upper. We opted for this for several reasons, but importantly it saves quite a bit of stock and brings the cost down. This gun is very much nothing like an AR.
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![]()
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.
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.
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.
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.
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.
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.
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.
I understand the design aspects of your system and the reasoning for your choosing to do it that way. My comments were only in reference to other comments wondering about going with a standard bcg and buffer tube set up so we get the spring assist.
Are there any pictures of the rear angle!
Any chance you can share drawings of the Bolt/carrier system?
Interested when the time comes.
If the morons do insist on a ban, maybe they should offer a receiver swap at their expense instead of a complete buy-back (assuming that was ever a real consideration). Probably cheaper for them, a compromise position (that nobody would like), and a sh!tload of sales for Spectre as well as a make work program for gunsmiths (for those incapable of doing the conversion themselves). Just musing.
Interested when the time comes.
If the morons do insist on a ban, maybe they should offer a receiver swap at their expense instead of a complete buy-back (assuming that was ever a real consideration). Probably cheaper for them, a compromise position (that nobody would like), and a sh!tload of sales for Spectre as well as a make work program for gunsmiths (for those incapable of doing the conversion themselves). Just musing.