AR Sponsor
Posted: 11/10/2005 9:53:06 PM EDT
|
Ok with out searching (my intenet time is VERY limited) I am posing the question of the MRPs having touble with the barrel loosening up in as little as 4000 rounds. I have a 14.5 CQB MRP (safely stashed back home for the length of this deployment) and I use it primarily in a RECCE role with an ACOG. I have "heard" rumors from some Army cats that MRPs, when run on a full auto, have trouble with the upper begining to loosen (at the clamp point for the barrel) to the point that the screws can not be retorqued to correct specs, end of upper. Is this true or just BS? IPSC_GUY SIERRA II ALPHA |
|
|
if you torque the T30 bolt down, you will never have any loosening problem... I have well over 6000 rounds into this current MRP since mid year. it has not had any loosening problem... I had some problem running the Enhanced bolt with std carrier using a 10.5 inch barrel but once a std carrier is installed, the problem went away.. other then that.. my MRP with std 14.5 inch barrel using enhanced bolt and std FA carrier has been flewless. |
|
There were two guys with MRPs in a Pat Rogers class I took. Neither of them made it through the first day. I know a local customer who attended at least 4 carbine classes with his and it ran like a clock; but thats probably because I speced/assembled his carbine  IMO, there are too many other things more deserving of gun money to justify to benefit / cost ratio of the MRP. |
I was told those were brand new uppers. another lesson, don't take something new to a class... make sure your gear works or you end up wasting money on the class. |
A qualified source advised me of the same issue. C4 |
I ran 3k+ rounds through an MRP in two weeks of class without issue, another shooter (my brother) ran 1.5K through a 10.5 MRP. Both worked fine. The issue the other shooter brought up was the barrel loosening if not torqued to within 1 foot pound of the spec. Too much or too little and the barrel came loose. |
I wonder if this is caused by the higher temps associated with full-auto firing? Has anyone really heated theirs up using full-auto? Spooky |
|
He was using LMTs spec. They revised it from the manual to the one he had. |
This is where I begin to wonder the same thing. Users with thousands of rounds an NO hicups but all on semi. I wonder if the Army cats were doing mag dump after mag dump till failure. Alas I can no longer ask. Mine has so far proven to be utterly reliable. When I get home the lower is getting run through the SBR hop and a 10.5 will go on mine.
The long continious rail on top is why I need the MRP for the different optics I run. IPSC_GUY SIERRA II ALPHA |
|
IPSC_GUY- First of all I am glad that you and others are not having problems with the MRP. It is on my list of things to consider if the XCR I order doesn't show up before spring. There are however, other options for a continous rail. Such as an ARMS SIR, Predator, or those rails that run from the A3 flat top to a weaver gas block in the back of the RRA catalog. |
|
I don't know anyone that is using one for a real serious job.,. fact is, I don't know anyone that actually dumped that much cash for one -- but I have not heard great things about a couple of evaluation units. One group that looked at it dropped all future interest because of "concerns with the method of barrel attachement"... The concept of a solid upper is a great idea (after all, a lot of rifles use the concept), but I am not at all jacked by the MRP -- I just cant get past the fact that for the cost of the bare MRP, I can build three complete upper assemblies. And. I can not think of a thing that the MRP offers or does that is not available from another choice... even the "auto detach" barrel assembly; heck, RA rifles had that trick down years ago... |
|
Well I'm not speaking for anyone else, but my 16"SS MRP upper shoots better than 0.5MOA, has had zero issues of any kind, never a failure to feed, fire, or extract, has the monolithic rail for my optics or laser, is reasonably lightweight, flawlessly finished from LMT, and I'm dang happy with it. I don't think I can buy any other upper with it's particular combination of attributes, much less three of them for the MRP's purchase price. |
I could build something close for about $300.00 less but it still would not have the top rail. I just need to invest in a good torque wrench. IPSC_GUY SIERRA II ALPHA |
|
HERE'S HOW THE 85-90 IN-LB TORQUE SETTING WAS DERIVED: I CHECKED THE TORQUE WHEN REMOVING THE BARREL FROM THE FIRST MRP WE RECEIVED, BACK IN 2003. IT WAS 85 IN-LB ON ONE BOLT AND 90-IN LB ON THE OTHER BOLT. I QUESTIONED LMT ON THIS BEING THE CORRECT FIGURE. THEY SAID LET'S GO WITH IT. I HAVE NEVER ONCE RECEIVED A NEW MRP TORQUED TO 140 IN-LB. THIS IS A SERVICE I PROVIDE MY CUSTOMERS SINCE THE TORQUE SPEC WAS UPPED FROM 85-90 TO 140 IN-LB. THE ONLY ISSUE WITH RELIABILITY A CUSTOMER OF MINE HAS HAD OF WHICH I AM AWARE RESULTED FROM THE BARREL NOT BEING PROPERLY TORQUED AFTER R&R. WES GRANT MSTN.BIZ |
|
While they are beautiful to look at (witness edwin907 pix), most would better served simply buying another upper or another rifle And could save money doing it. Narrow window of application - very narrow. |
What do you think of the MGI QCB system? Better bang for the buck? S.O. |
QCB uppers have the advantage of lighter weight, size, and cost (need one upper, then just more barrels without needing a B/C group for each upper.). I am considering a MGI unit as I have not heard any bad things and you can use ANY MILSPEC barrel. S.O. |
Would this mean stripped threads? |
Best feature I see for me anyways!
AR Sponsor