AR Sponsor
Posted: 12/29/2008 5:28:51 PM EDT
| Did S&W change the rollmark on the m&p15 or is the top of the line one differant than the others. |
|
Why is there a caliber marking on the reciever at all? The caliber should ONLY be marked on the barrel. I can see some serious implications in stamping the receivers especially in a platform as modular as the AR.
Example: Receiver is marked 7.62x39 and someone changes the barrel to 5.45x39. An unsuspecting shooter/buyer jams a magazine full of 7.62 rounds in the gun, hits the bolt release, pulls the trigger, KABOOOM!! Most long guns are marked on the barrel not the receiver. ALL manufacturers should be required to mark the caliber on the barrel in a conspicuous place. And NOT a code like RRA either. I would think this would be common sense to avoid any potential legal issues. YMMV |
|
Quoted:
I noticed that the new lower receivers have the 5.56mm wording removed. I guess because S&W uses the same lower receiver for their 5.45x39 uppers (M&P15R) Did they remove it from the 5.56 weapons as well now? When they first started doing it the 5.56 ar's were still marked. It was just the receivers for the 5.45 that were left unmarked. |
|
Quoted:
Why is there a caliber marking on the reciever at all? The caliber should ONLY be marked on the barrel. I can see some serious implications in stamping the receivers especially in a platform as modular as the AR. Example: Receiver is marked 7.62x39 and someone changes the barrel to 5.45x39. An unsuspecting shooter/buyer jams a magazine full of 7.62 rounds in the gun, hits the bolt release, pulls the trigger, KABOOOM!! Most long guns are marked on the barrel not the receiver. ALL manufacturers should be required to mark the caliber on the barrel in a conspicuous place. And NOT a code like RRA either. I would think this would be common sense to avoid any potential legal issues. YMMV I want to know how the shooter managed to get a 7.62x39 round in a 5.45x39 chamber. 
I see what you're saying, though. 
|
|
Quoted:
Quoted:
Why is there a caliber marking on the reciever at all? The caliber should ONLY be marked on the barrel. I can see some serious implications in stamping the receivers especially in a platform as modular as the AR. Example: Receiver is marked 7.62x39 and someone changes the barrel to 5.45x39. An unsuspecting shooter/buyer jams a magazine full of 7.62 rounds in the gun, hits the bolt release, pulls the trigger, KABOOOM!! Most long guns are marked on the barrel not the receiver. ALL manufacturers should be required to mark the caliber on the barrel in a conspicuous place. And NOT a code like RRA either. I would think this would be common sense to avoid any potential legal issues. YMMV I want to know how the shooter managed to get a 7.62x39 round in a 5.45x39 chamber.
I see what you're saying, though. Admittedly, there would have to be a number of things that "went wrong" for something catastrophic to happen but the potential is there. As a manufacturer, I wouldn't want to have any part in contributing to an accident because of marking something as such and such and instead it was so and so. As for "Multi", I wouldn't put it past some rocket scientist to pack a magazine full of any round that would fit and think it would work. 
|
|
Quoted:
Why is there a caliber marking on the reciever at all? The caliber should ONLY be marked on the barrel. I can see some serious implications in stamping the receivers especially in a platform as modular as the AR. Example: Receiver is marked 7.62x39 and someone changes the barrel to 5.45x39. An unsuspecting shooter/buyer jams a magazine full of 7.62 rounds in the gun, hits the bolt release, pulls the trigger, KABOOOM!! Most long guns are marked on the barrel not the receiver. ALL manufacturers should be required to mark the caliber on the barrel in a conspicuous place. And NOT a code like RRA either. I would think this would be common sense to avoid any potential legal issues. YMMV Agreed...but I thought manufacturers were required to put some type of caliber marking on the receiver as well. Guess not... |
|
Quoted:
Quoted:
Why is there a caliber marking on the reciever at all? The caliber should ONLY be marked on the barrel. I can see some serious implications in stamping the receivers especially in a platform as modular as the AR. Example: Receiver is marked 7.62x39 and someone changes the barrel to 5.45x39. An unsuspecting shooter/buyer jams a magazine full of 7.62 rounds in the gun, hits the bolt release, pulls the trigger, KABOOOM!! Most long guns are marked on the barrel not the receiver. ALL manufacturers should be required to mark the caliber on the barrel in a conspicuous place. And NOT a code like RRA either. I would think this would be common sense to avoid any potential legal issues. YMMV Agreed...but I thought manufacturers were required to put some type of caliber marking on the receiver as well. Guess not... I doubt it. Contender/Encore frames aren't marked. Even T2 weapons do not require caliber markings on the frame. Only Serial #, Manufacturer, and Location. |
|
Quoted:
Quoted:
Quoted:
Why is there a caliber marking on the reciever at all? The caliber should ONLY be marked on the barrel. I can see some serious implications in stamping the receivers especially in a platform as modular as the AR. Example: Receiver is marked 7.62x39 and someone changes the barrel to 5.45x39. An unsuspecting shooter/buyer jams a magazine full of 7.62 rounds in the gun, hits the bolt release, pulls the trigger, KABOOOM!! Most long guns are marked on the barrel not the receiver. ALL manufacturers should be required to mark the caliber on the barrel in a conspicuous place. And NOT a code like RRA either. I would think this would be common sense to avoid any potential legal issues. YMMV Agreed...but I thought manufacturers were required to put some type of caliber marking on the receiver as well. Guess not... I doubt it. Contender/Encore frames aren't marked. Even T2 weapons do not require caliber markings on the frame. Only Serial #, Manufacturer, and Location. Well as you said as long as it's somewhere near the chamber. |
|
Quoted:
Quoted:
Quoted:
Quoted:
Why is there a caliber marking on the reciever at all? The caliber should ONLY be marked on the barrel. I can see some serious implications in stamping the receivers especially in a platform as modular as the AR. Example: Receiver is marked 7.62x39 and someone changes the barrel to 5.45x39. An unsuspecting shooter/buyer jams a magazine full of 7.62 rounds in the gun, hits the bolt release, pulls the trigger, KABOOOM!! Most long guns are marked on the barrel not the receiver. ALL manufacturers should be required to mark the caliber on the barrel in a conspicuous place. And NOT a code like RRA either. I would think this would be common sense to avoid any potential legal issues. YMMV Agreed...but I thought manufacturers were required to put some type of caliber marking on the receiver as well. Guess not... I doubt it. Contender/Encore frames aren't marked. Even T2 weapons do not require caliber markings on the frame. Only Serial #, Manufacturer, and Location. Well as you said as long as it's somewhere near the chamber. I didn't say near the chamber, I said in a "conspicuous" place. In other words ahead of the gasblock location and presumably out in the open for all to see on the AR's. BM does this on some of their barrels - they are marked in two places. |
|
I bought a stripped S&W lower a couple of weeks ago –– JUST BECAUSE IT HAD NO CALIBER ROLLMARKS. There was only one unclaimed lower in stock (a Bushmaster), but there was a S&W that another guy had just purchased but hadn't had transferred to him yet by the shop. The Bushmaster was $20 more, but I traded the guy even for the S&W before we each had them transferred.
I have a pet peeve about having calibers on uppers and lowers that are mismatched. My next couple of builds are going to be non-5.56MM, so I wanted a lower with no caliber rollmarks. And I really didn't want "MULTI" on a lower either. |
|
Quoted:
I have a new S&W M&P15A and the barrel is the only thing stamped 5.56, the lower isn't stamped for caliber and it doesn't say multi either. Just a serial number.  I recently purchased a couple of S&W stripped lowers.......no reference to caliber in any way. |
|
Quoted: I heard about that.I bought a stripped S&W lower a couple of weeks ago –– JUST BECAUSE IT HAD NO CALIBER ROLLMARKS. There was only one unclaimed lower in stock (a Bushmaster), but there was a S&W that another guy had just purchased but hadn't had transferred to him yet by the shop. The Bushmaster was $20 more, but I traded the guy even for the S&W before we each had them transferred. I have a pet peeve about having calibers on uppers and lowers that are mismatched. My next couple of builds are going to be non-5.56MM, so I wanted a lower with no caliber rollmarks. And I really didn't want "MULTI" on a lower either.  My main AR is marked 7.62x39 and has never been one in the years I have owned it. I never thought about it til some guy called me trying to get me to trade my S&W lower for a Bushmaster.... |
|
Quoted:
Quoted:
I heard about that.I bought a stripped S&W lower a couple of weeks ago –– JUST BECAUSE IT HAD NO CALIBER ROLLMARKS. There was only one unclaimed lower in stock (a Bushmaster), but there was a S&W that another guy had just purchased but hadn't had transferred to him yet by the shop. The Bushmaster was $20 more, but I traded the guy even for the S&W before we each had them transferred. I have a pet peeve about having calibers on uppers and lowers that are mismatched. My next couple of builds are going to be non-5.56MM, so I wanted a lower with no caliber rollmarks. And I really didn't want "MULTI" on a lower either. My main AR is marked 7.62x39 and has never been one in the years I have owned it. I never thought about it til some guy called me trying to get me to trade my S&W lower for a Bushmaster....
I wish you had another one to trade me again, as I'll probably be in the market for one in the next moth or so. |
AR Sponsor