AR Sponsor
Posted: 10/20/2012 4:57:45 PM EDT
|
I recently had a gas key come loose on me. It sounds weird, but I was excited because it was the first time, and I had the chance to use my staking tool manufactured by Brownells.
After using it I was less than impressed in the job it did. I contacted Brownells and got the OK to send it back which is a huge plus on their CS. While waiting for the refund I purchased a pocket MOACKS and received it today. The full size is about twice the cost of the one from Brownells, but the one I bought, the pocket size, is about the same cost. All I can say is WOW! This thing is awesome! So for anyone on the fence between the two, or looking for something similar, there really is no comparison. |
|
This is one of those situations where "the right tool for the job" may or may not be the commercial tool in question. The MOACKS is a great tool, but its job is to produce consistent stakes that are similar to the Colt manufacturing process' stakes. The TM for the M16 calls for "field" staking on replaced keys to be 3 dimples equally spaced around each screw head, no more than 0.025" deep and close enough to displace metal into the knurling on the bolt heads. The TM calls for use of a basic pointed punch, making that "the right tool for the job" for that particular approach.
Now if I was building or rebuilding a carrier, I'd shell out for the Pocket MOACKS simply because it's easier to use and requires less brain sweat than the "field" method from the TM. It's just that this is a situation where there a lot of "right way" solutions, which can be done with a lot of different tools, so your approach and your preferences are as much a factor as a designated tool. |
|
Quoted:
This is one of those situations where "the right tool for the job" may or may not be the commercial tool in question. The MOACKS is a great tool, but its job is to produce consistent stakes that are similar to the Colt manufacturing process' stakes. The TM for the M16 calls for "field" staking on replaced keys to be 3 dimples equally spaced around each screw head, no more than 0.025" deep and close enough to displace metal into the knurling on the bolt heads. The TM calls for use of a basic pointed punch, making that "the right tool for the job" for that particular approach. Now if I was building or rebuilding a carrier, I'd shell out for the Pocket MOACKS simply because it's easier to use and requires less brain sweat than the "field" method from the TM. It's just that this is a situation where there a lot of "right way" solutions, which can be done with a lot of different tools, so your approach and your preferences are as much a factor as a designated tool. I am guessing "field" staking refers to out in the field, as in when the Armorer may not be available to pass your rifle off to. Even so, if I was still active, I would surely prefer a pocket MOACKS over the method outlined in the TM. |
|
Quoted:
No, field means "not at depot". This info is from the -23&P TM, (page 3-21 of the 1991 version) intended for unit and direct support armorers. There is no difference between the joint pub (Army, Air Force, CG) And USMC (page 3-28 of the USMC manual I have (no date on the electronic version)) versions of the manual regarding field staking the key.
I am guessing "field" staking refers to out in the field, as in when the Armorer may not be available to pass your rifle off to. Even so, if I was still active, I would surely prefer a pocket MOACKS over the method outlined in the TM. GI keys seldom "come loose," and very seldom do they fail to the point that the unit armorer has to replace the key or just the screws. They would probably swap the carrier out before repairing it (that would be a faster fix) and do the key repair later. (That's based on my experience in Air Force maintenance, and may not reflect Army procedures.) Edited to fix a reference. |
AR Sponsor