AR Sponsor
[ARCHIVED THREAD] - Wobble question (Page 1 of 2)
Posted: 11/4/2014 7:19:38 PM EDT
| I just bought a new Colt 6940. After playing with it a bit, I notice that there is some slight wobble/play between the upper and lower. It is noticeable when you apply any sideways torque on the pistol grip. I am just wondering if some amount of wobble is normal? I also own a Sig M400 that has no wobble. Now I am curious if this is unusual or a normal thing. Thanks in advance for your help. |
|
if it bothers you try an Accuwedge. About $3.00 usually. This. You can also make a shim to go at the front block. I cut them out of either stainless or brass, shape them to fit around the front pin block so they can't fall off unless you separate the receiver halves: 
|
|
To remove slop use an AR15AccuShim or an AR15FlatJack and oversize Armalite National Match Pins and throw in an AccuWedge as a Buffer. An AccuWedge does not remove receiver slop, receivers continue to move side to side. AR15AccuShim has a way posted to check wear limits for receiver play.
Rest assured doing nothing and buying into it's normal will only make the problem worse. Standards are .001" clearance between the pins and bores and in 200 rounds it'll be .002" and on and on. And rest assured beyond 3 or 4 posts on this topic will you find any solutions offered to solve the problem...and a problem it is. What you'll find are Rambo wannabes daydreaming about the need to quickly dismantle a weapon and put it back together just in time to let an evil villain have it. And you'll hear many individuals regurgitate excessive slop excuses fed to them by some manufacturers and experts with many thousands of posts. And you'll hear trolls attempt to denigrate those whose standards of excellence begins with receivers that fit correctly or attempt to denigrate those who step out of line and simply prefer their rifles not to have receiver slop. If you want a rifle with slop they're available in every pawn shop across America. If you want a rifle without slop you can purchase a matched pair of receivers or you can tweak a mismatched pair to perform like a matched pair. And should the need to feel the slop of a M16 arise the tweaks can be undone. Yes indeed it takes more work, more time and more money to address every little detail and to squeeze out every bit of accuracy. When it comes to quality and performance it is sweat equity and attention paid to each and every detail that separates the men from the boys. |
|
Quoted:
I use the o-ring around the front receiver lug, works great never had a problem and cannot work it's way into the Fcg. |
|
Quoted:
That is FAR from reality. If a semi-auto rifle does not wiggle at all (especially an AR), it's probably never been shot... Quoted:
Quoted:
The only thing that should wiggle on a semiautomatic rifle is the sling. That is FAR from reality. If a semi-auto rifle does not wiggle at all (especially an AR), it's probably never been shot... |
|
Quoted:
My builds don't wiggle a bit and they've been shot...a lot. So when I say the only thing that should wiggle on a semiautomatic rifle is the sling that is to say those are my standards for assembling a semiautomatic AR15. If someone cannot understand or appreciate those standards or they are content with borderline junk, cutting corners, lazy, talking about a subject they know nothing about, etc....well ignorance is bliss. Quoted:
Quoted:
Quoted:
The only thing that should wiggle on a semiautomatic rifle is the sling. That is FAR from reality. If a semi-auto rifle does not wiggle at all (especially an AR), it's probably never been shot... Personally I like a little wiggle when it comes to combat guns. Pretty sure one of the reasons (among many) the AK platform is so reliable is because of its looser tolerances, more forgiving to dirt and debris. Looser tolerances also allow for better parts compatibility/interchangeability, so in case there is a need for quick takedown and replacement of parts it'll be easier to do without tools. So its not junk or corner cutting, there are reasons for a looser fitting gun. But again as you said everyone's standards are different |
|
Quoted: My builds don't wiggle a bit and they've been shot...a lot. So when I say the only thing that should wiggle on a semiautomatic rifle is the sling that is to say those are my standards for assembling a semiautomatic AR15. If someone cannot understand or appreciate those standards or they are content with borderline junk, cutting corners, lazy, talking about a subject they know nothing about, etc....well ignorance is bliss. Quoted: Quoted: Quoted: The only thing that should wiggle on a semiautomatic rifle is the sling. That is FAR from reality. If a semi-auto rifle does not wiggle at all (especially an AR), it's probably never been shot... Even tight guns loosen after being shot, so I have serious doubts about your claims. Maybe you think "shot a lot"is a few hundred rounds?
|
|
Quoted:
My builds don't wiggle a bit and they've been shot...a lot. So when I say the only thing that should wiggle on a semiautomatic rifle is the sling that is to say those are my standards for assembling a semiautomatic AR15. If someone cannot understand or appreciate those standards or they are content with borderline junk, cutting corners, lazy, talking about a subject they know nothing about, etc....well ignorance is bliss. Quoted:
Quoted:
Quoted:
The only thing that should wiggle on a semiautomatic rifle is the sling. That is FAR from reality. If a semi-auto rifle does not wiggle at all (especially an AR), it's probably never been shot... So Colt, BCM, DD, and so on are all borderline junk? 
|
| My Colt 6520 is a very sloppy fit. I have 5 builds on Mega forged lowers that have a tiny bit of play. My Stag lower fits so tight I almost need a punch to get the rear takedown pin off. They all function perfectly. I guess a little bit of play would be an OCD person's nightmare, but it does not effect the function or performance of the gun one bit. |
|
Quoted:
It can break and work its way into the chamber. An o-ring is primarily compressed between the mag-well and the rear of the pivot pin on a very narrow ledge directly below the feed ramps. If you're going to use an o-ring be sure its a good one and its diameter is not too thick. If you're concerned about a fix working its way into the fcg use the products listed in my previous post with zero worries. Quoted:
Quoted:
I use the o-ring around the front receiver lug, works great never had a problem and cannot work it's way into the Fcg. Has anyone ever seen this happen or is this just a theory? |
|
While slop or "wiggle" may not affect reliability or accuracy, it is a marker of less than optimal attention to detail in manufacturing, assembly and inspection.
Companies can do better. If matching the sloppiness of AK's is the goal, just because it doesn't hurt reliability or accuracy, that's awful. There is such a thing as pride in fit and finish and it is worth maintaining. No decent private gunsmith would accept such sloppy tolerances out of his own work, nor should we. Have we become a society where "good enough" includes sloppy tolerances just because it does not affect functionality? I hope not. I have some fine 12 gauge over under and side-by-side shotguns that have tight fitting actions when new, and are purposefully designed to smooth out by use. But they don't every "wobble" or "wiggle" or have slop in them. Nor do the actions on my bolt guns or on revolvers, or even on civilian semi-auto hunting rifles and shotguns. None of them rattle. Where is the pride in American manufacturing? FWIW: I have a Spikes upper on a S&W M&P 15 lower build. I purposefully made sure that the upper and lower fit well before closing the deal on the components. They do not have any slop, "wiggle" or "wobble". I know I'm still on the short side of about 3,000 rounds at this point, but it's been shot enough to conclude that there is not likely to be any serious change. |
|
Quoted:
So Colt, BCM, DD, and so on are all borderline junk? Quoted:
Quoted:
Quoted:
Quoted:
The only thing that should wiggle on a semiautomatic rifle is the sling. That is FAR from reality. If a semi-auto rifle does not wiggle at all (especially an AR), it's probably never been shot... So Colt, BCM, DD, and so on are all borderline junk? Haha! Ya, apparently! I have ARs that are TIGHT and I have some with some play. It's called manufacturing tolerance, and that does not mean that components are allowed to be a little "fucked up", it means that if you have two parts that are on the smallish side of the ALLOWED limit, you will have SOME amount of play. It's a coincidence and affects nothing more than the OCD in some people. The ones who think it is unacceptable, or that it is "broken" are the ones who need to learn more about the system... |
|
Some people in this thread obviously know nothing about manufacturing and tolerances.
OP, your rifle is fine. Almost all production guns will have a very slight wobble to them, especially the lower priced ones. Accuwedge will fix it if you have OCD, otherwise just go shoot it. |
|
I understand tolerances. But I disagree that it's unavoidable. If tolerances were tighter, and people didn't just say "that's just tolerances, it's fine" then all manufacturers would tighten up.
And I'm not saying price wouldn't change accordingly. Hell, I'm not even saying that needs to happen. What I am saying is it is possible for these things to fit better. You can have your cake and eat it too! My rifles have minimal wobble by the way. Just loose enough to push the pins easily. |
|
Quoted:
I understand tolerances. But I disagree that it's unavoidable. If tolerances were tighter, and people didn't just say "that's just tolerances, it's fine" then all manufacturers would tighten up. And I'm not saying price wouldn't change accordingly. Hell, I'm not even saying that needs to happen. What I am saying is it is possible for these things to fit better. You can have your cake and eat it too! My rifles have minimal wobble by the way. Just loose enough to push the pins easily. It's true. I also believe this is very possible. However it won't happen. My best fitting combo is a BCM upper and an Anderson lower. They fit together so perfectly that there is no pressure on the pins and absolutely no play. The gun feels like one solid piece. Luck of the draw. I didn't believe uppers and lowers could fit together so well until those two pieces came along. |
|
Quoted:
I'm of the mindset that making an upper/lower fit "tight" where there is no play, can wear parts quicker. I generally leave the play or just drop a foam earplug in there if there is enough of a gap to still leave some play. IMHO, you want a little bit of play. Friction causes wear. Less movement equals less friction. Although binding from being too tight is different. |
|
Quoted:
It's true. I also believe this is very possible. However it won't happen. My best fitting combo is a BCM upper and an Anderson lower. They fit together so perfectly that there is no pressure on the pins and absolutely no play. The gun feels like one solid piece. Luck of the draw. I didn't believe uppers and lowers could fit together so well until those two pieces came along. Quoted:
Quoted:
I understand tolerances. But I disagree that it's unavoidable. If tolerances were tighter, and people didn't just say "that's just tolerances, it's fine" then all manufacturers would tighten up. And I'm not saying price wouldn't change accordingly. Hell, I'm not even saying that needs to happen. What I am saying is it is possible for these things to fit better. You can have your cake and eat it too! My rifles have minimal wobble by the way. Just loose enough to push the pins easily. It's true. I also believe this is very possible. However it won't happen. My best fitting combo is a BCM upper and an Anderson lower. They fit together so perfectly that there is no pressure on the pins and absolutely no play. The gun feels like one solid piece. Luck of the draw. I didn't believe uppers and lowers could fit together so well until those two pieces came along. I believe that's the kind of fit that most would prefer if they had a choice. And manufacturers could provide it every time. However most don't want to give custom rifle prices that it would require. lol |
|
Quoted:
Haha! Ya, apparently! I have ARs that are TIGHT and I have some with some play. It's called manufacturing tolerance, and that does not mean that components are allowed to be a little "fucked up", it means that if you have two parts that are on the smallish side of the ALLOWED limit, you will have SOME amount of play. It's a coincidence and affects nothing more than the OCD in some people. The ones who think it is unacceptable, or that it is "broken" are the ones who need to learn more about the system... Quoted:
Quoted:
Quoted:
Quoted:
Quoted:
The only thing that should wiggle on a semiautomatic rifle is the sling. That is FAR from reality. If a semi-auto rifle does not wiggle at all (especially an AR), it's probably never been shot... So Colt, BCM, DD, and so on are all borderline junk? Haha! Ya, apparently! I have ARs that are TIGHT and I have some with some play. It's called manufacturing tolerance, and that does not mean that components are allowed to be a little "fucked up", it means that if you have two parts that are on the smallish side of the ALLOWED limit, you will have SOME amount of play. It's a coincidence and affects nothing more than the OCD in some people. The ones who think it is unacceptable, or that it is "broken" are the ones who need to learn more about the system... |
|
Quoted:
I understand tolerances. But I disagree that it's unavoidable. If tolerances were tighter, and people didn't just say "that's just tolerances, it's fine" then all manufacturers would tighten up. And I'm not saying price wouldn't change accordingly. Hell, I'm not even saying that needs to happen. What I am saying is it is possible for these things to fit better. You can have your cake and eat it too! My rifles have minimal wobble by the way. Just loose enough to push the pins easily. My thinking is the same. The industry can do better if we want them to. FWIW: To those who say "its just tolerances" and are willing to accept inspection that allows for wide tolerance swings, I respectfully suggest that the cure to sloppy tolerances lies with us. We watch the demise and lowering of quality of companies that shall remain nameless, and companies that have reorganized or been bought out by conglomerates that sacrifice high productions standards for increased profits. We see what is going on with quality control and are led, like sheep, to believe what we are told and that all is well.. My background is as an automotive machinist, working in a machine shop for many years boring blocks, grinding crankshafts, milling cylinder heads and blocks and other machine operations, including hand-making parts on milling machines and lathes. We do not work in thousandths of an inch, we work in "tenths," as in one ten thousandth of an inch. In my family business as an automotive engine rebuilding company and custom machine shop including building racing engies, we are having extreme difficulty finding employees who care enough to maintain the tolerances we demand for our products and our customers expect. I think this is happening in the firearms industry. Forgive me. I'll get off my soap box. I didn't start this thread. But, I know our industry can do better and that we, as consumers can tell the offenders, some of them pretty big names, that the slip on quality control can and will cause us to stop following brand names and buy products that are held to higher production standards. The firearms shortage is over. It is now a buyers market. We have clout as consumers. We should use it. OP: Tell Colt that you are not the government buying from the lowest bidder. Get a replacement rifle where the upper and lower fit better. Maybe it can begin with you and with us, one at a time. That's my two bits. "You may now resume your regular programming." |
|
Quoted:
Not so fast...People should not attempt to advise someone concerned about wobble with what amounts to an ah-shucks it's GTG reply. People who lend bad advice where firearms are involved usually scatter like cockroaches when a tragedy occurs. To address your question based on your imagination...Where did I make the statement or imply that Colt, BCM, DD, and so on are all borderline junk? I'll answer the question for you...Nowhere. Obviously you are impressed with brand names and the giddy accolades they receive but I do not care what brand or who made this or that and who says how great they are, etc. If the component does not pass inspection it's returned and I've returned my fair share with problems that would have flown right over your little SHOUTING head. Furthermore, if an individual like you has receivers that are tight they came your way by pot luck and not by your knowledge of tightening procedures. It's your choice to roll over and cater to excuses for manufacturing tolerances that way too often exceed limits. But to proclaim loose, out of alignment aluminum receivers in constant conflict with steel effects nothing is ignorance in neon lights. 
|
|
Quoted: I understand tolerances. But I disagree that it's unavoidable. If tolerances were tighter, and people didn't just say "that's just tolerances, it's fine" then all manufacturers would tighten up. And I'm not saying price wouldn't change accordingly. Hell, I'm not even saying that needs to happen. What I am saying is it is possible for these things to fit better. You can have your cake and eat it too! My rifles have minimal wobble by the way. Just loose enough to push the pins easily. |
|
Quoted: My thinking is the same. The industry can do better if we want them to. FWIW: To those who say "its just tolerances" and are willing to accept inspection that allows for wide tolerance swings, I respectfully suggest that the cure to sloppy tolerances lies with us. We watch the demise and lowering of quality of companies that shall remain nameless, and companies that have reorganized or been bought out by conglomerates that sacrifice high productions standards for increased profits. We see what is going on with quality control and are led, like sheep, to believe what we are told and that all is well.. My background is as an automotive machinist, working in a machine shop for many years boring blocks, grinding crankshafts, milling cylinder heads and blocks and other machine operations, including hand-making parts on milling machines and lathes. We do not work in thousandths of an inch, we work in "tenths," as in one ten thousandth of an inch. In my family business as an automotive engine rebuilding company and custom machine shop including building racing engies, we are having extreme difficulty finding employees who care enough to maintain the tolerances we demand for our products and our customers expect. I think this is happening in the firearms industry. Forgive me. I'll get off my soap box. I didn't start this thread. But, I know our industry can do better and that we, as consumers can tell the offenders, some of them pretty big names, that the slip on quality control can and will cause us to stop following brand names and buy products that are held to higher production standards. The firearms shortage is over. It is now a buyers market. We have clout as consumers. We should use it. OP: Tell Colt that you are not the government buying from the lowest bidder. Get a replacement rifle where the upper and lower fit better. Maybe it can begin with you and with us, one at a time. That's my two bits. "You may now resume your regular programming." Quoted: Quoted: I understand tolerances. But I disagree that it's unavoidable. If tolerances were tighter, and people didn't just say "that's just tolerances, it's fine" then all manufacturers would tighten up. And I'm not saying price wouldn't change accordingly. Hell, I'm not even saying that needs to happen. What I am saying is it is possible for these things to fit better. You can have your cake and eat it too! My rifles have minimal wobble by the way. Just loose enough to push the pins easily. My thinking is the same. The industry can do better if we want them to. FWIW: To those who say "its just tolerances" and are willing to accept inspection that allows for wide tolerance swings, I respectfully suggest that the cure to sloppy tolerances lies with us. We watch the demise and lowering of quality of companies that shall remain nameless, and companies that have reorganized or been bought out by conglomerates that sacrifice high productions standards for increased profits. We see what is going on with quality control and are led, like sheep, to believe what we are told and that all is well.. My background is as an automotive machinist, working in a machine shop for many years boring blocks, grinding crankshafts, milling cylinder heads and blocks and other machine operations, including hand-making parts on milling machines and lathes. We do not work in thousandths of an inch, we work in "tenths," as in one ten thousandth of an inch. In my family business as an automotive engine rebuilding company and custom machine shop including building racing engies, we are having extreme difficulty finding employees who care enough to maintain the tolerances we demand for our products and our customers expect. I think this is happening in the firearms industry. Forgive me. I'll get off my soap box. I didn't start this thread. But, I know our industry can do better and that we, as consumers can tell the offenders, some of them pretty big names, that the slip on quality control can and will cause us to stop following brand names and buy products that are held to higher production standards. The firearms shortage is over. It is now a buyers market. We have clout as consumers. We should use it. OP: Tell Colt that you are not the government buying from the lowest bidder. Get a replacement rifle where the upper and lower fit better. Maybe it can begin with you and with us, one at a time. That's my two bits. "You may now resume your regular programming." |
|
Snip Not so fast...People should not attempt to advise someone concerned about wobble with what amounts to an ah-shucks it's GTG reply. People who lend bad advice where firearms are involved usually scatter like cockroaches when a tragedy occurs. To address your question based on your imagination...Where did I make the statement or imply that Colt, BCM, DD, and so on are all borderline junk? I'll answer the question for you...Nowhere. Obviously you are impressed with brand names and the giddy accolades they receive but I do not care what brand or who made this or that and who says how great they are, etc. If the component does not pass inspection it's returned and I've returned my fair share with problems that would have flown right over your little SHOUTING head. Furthermore, if an individual like you has receivers that are tight they came your way by pot luck and not by your knowledge of tightening procedures. It's your choice to roll over and cater to excuses for manufacturing tolerances that way too often exceed limits. But to proclaim loose, out of alignment aluminum receivers in constant conflict with steel effects nothing is ignorance in neon lights. Snip Haha! Ya, apparently! I have ARs that are TIGHT and I have some with some play. It's called manufacturing tolerance, and that does not mean that components are allowed to be a little "fucked up", it means that if you have two parts that are on the smallish side of the ALLOWED limit, you will have SOME amount of play. It's a coincidence and affects nothing more than the OCD in some people. The ones who think it is unacceptable, or that it is "broken" are the ones who need to learn more about the system... |
|
Quoted:
Has anyone ever seen this happen or is this just a theory? Quoted:
Quoted:
Quoted:
I use the o-ring around the front receiver lug, works great never had a problem and cannot work it's way into the Fcg. Has anyone ever seen this happen or is this just a theory? When it comes to you consider it theory. |
|
Quoted:
Ideals and realistic manufacturing expectations in order to turn a profit are in separate worlds. Quoted:
Snip
Haha! Ya, apparently! I have ARs that are TIGHT and I have some with some play. It's called manufacturing tolerance, and that does not mean that components are allowed to be a little "fucked up", it means that if you have two parts that are on the smallish side of the ALLOWED limit, you will have SOME amount of play. It's a coincidence and affects nothing more than the OCD in some people. The ones who think it is unacceptable, or that it is "broken" are the ones who need to learn more about the system... |
|
Quoted:
When it comes to you consider it theory. Quoted:
Quoted:
Quoted:
Quoted:
I use the o-ring around the front receiver lug, works great never had a problem and cannot work it's way into the Fcg. Has anyone ever seen this happen or is this just a theory? When it comes to you consider it theory. That is a serious question that deserves a serious answer, not a smart ass answer. Has this ever happened? Has anyone ever seen this occur? |
|
Quoted:
That is a serious question that deserves a serious answer, not a smart ass answer. Has this ever happened? Has anyone ever seen this occur? Quoted:
Quoted:
Quoted:
Quoted:
Quoted:
I use the o-ring around the front receiver lug, works great never had a problem and cannot work it's way into the Fcg. Has anyone ever seen this happen or is this just a theory? When it comes to you consider it theory. That is a serious question that deserves a serious answer, not a smart ass answer. Has this ever happened? Has anyone ever seen this occur? I've never had that happen, but they do break all the ones I've changed have usually split/cracked on the outside of the mag well by getting pinched from opening and closing(pivoting) the upper rec. The o-ring gets sandwiched between the two receivers on that thin ledge really can't go anywhere but anything is possible. |
|
Quoted:
I've never had that happen, but they do break all the ones I've changed have usually split/cracked on the outside of the mag well by getting pinched from opening and closing(pivoting) the upper rec. The o-ring gets sandwiched between the two receivers on that thin ledge really can't go anywhere but anything is possible. Maybe, but has this ever happened? The point is that we can suppose it might happen, but has anyone ever seen a broken o ring tie up a rifles action? |
|
Quoted:
How can you expect modularity then? Quoted:
Quoted:
I understand tolerances. But I disagree that it's unavoidable. If tolerances were tighter, and people didn't just say "that's just tolerances, it's fine" then all manufacturers would tighten up. And I'm not saying price wouldn't change accordingly. Hell, I'm not even saying that needs to happen. What I am saying is it is possible for these things to fit better. You can have your cake and eat it too! My rifles have minimal wobble by the way. Just loose enough to push the pins easily. What do you mean? If all parts involved have tighter tolerances then nothing changes "being modular". If one company held lowers to a tighter tolerance but company B made uppers to loosed standards then you would have problems. But I was talking about tolerances industry wide. Doesn't matter. The same effect could be achieved with companies actually taking the time during assembly and QC to ensure good fit by matching the receivers. My point is that as long as consumers continue to say "it's just tolerances" then nothing will change. If they can charge you full price for a worn out feeling rifle then they will continue to do so as long as you let them. You act as if the AR is a high tolerance machine. It isn't. Talking about engines earlier...I can buy say...a camshaft for a 302 Ford that is held to much stricter tolerances than any AR receiver, and yet it still works in all 302 Fords. So it is "modular" as you would say. |
|
Quoted: What do you mean? If all parts involved have tighter tolerances then nothing changes "being modular". If one company held lowers to a tighter tolerance but company B made uppers to loosed standards then you would have problems. But I was talking about tolerances industry wide. Doesn't matter. The same effect could be achieved with companies actually taking the time during assembly and QC to ensure good fit by matching the receivers. My point is that as long as consumers continue to say "it's just tolerances" then nothing will change. If they can charge you full price for a worn out feeling rifle then they will continue to do so as long as you let them. You act as if the AR is a high tolerance machine. It isn't. Talking about engines earlier...I can buy say...a camshaft for a 302 Ford that is held to much stricter tolerances than any AR receiver, and yet it still works in all 302 Fords. So it is "modular" as you would say. Quoted: Quoted: Quoted: I understand tolerances. But I disagree that it's unavoidable. If tolerances were tighter, and people didn't just say "that's just tolerances, it's fine" then all manufacturers would tighten up. And I'm not saying price wouldn't change accordingly. Hell, I'm not even saying that needs to happen. What I am saying is it is possible for these things to fit better. You can have your cake and eat it too! My rifles have minimal wobble by the way. Just loose enough to push the pins easily. What do you mean? If all parts involved have tighter tolerances then nothing changes "being modular". If one company held lowers to a tighter tolerance but company B made uppers to loosed standards then you would have problems. But I was talking about tolerances industry wide. Doesn't matter. The same effect could be achieved with companies actually taking the time during assembly and QC to ensure good fit by matching the receivers. My point is that as long as consumers continue to say "it's just tolerances" then nothing will change. If they can charge you full price for a worn out feeling rifle then they will continue to do so as long as you let them. You act as if the AR is a high tolerance machine. It isn't. Talking about engines earlier...I can buy say...a camshaft for a 302 Ford that is held to much stricter tolerances than any AR receiver, and yet it still works in all 302 Fords. So it is "modular" as you would say. How do you know the camshaft has tighter specs? Do you measure each dimension? Does it affect performance? AR15s have a tolerance RANGE because clearances between parts allows them to function in a variety of situations. If it doesn't affect performance, then it is only user preference how tight the rifle feels. If the camshaft changes the performance, or timing, then the tighter specs matter. On a rifle they don't. You lose modularity because when tooling wears down, you get variances in the parts. If the manufacturer didn't account for variances, parts won't fit together. That's just a simple fact in all manufacturing. Unless you use New tooling for each part, variances occur. Even between tooling there are variances. If you prefer a tighter fitting rifle, that's fine. But it's not an indication of quality in this case. Quality is measured by longevity of parts, reliability, and accuracy or consistency.
|
|
Quoted:
Your whole argument is false just by the fact that your family business doesn't make production items. Do you think GM could use the same procedures to built engines as you do and turn a profit? No. It's too specialized and niche. That's why your business exists. Quoted:
Quoted:
Quoted:
I understand tolerances. But I disagree that it's unavoidable. If tolerances were tighter, and people didn't just say "that's just tolerances, it's fine" then all manufacturers would tighten up. And I'm not saying price wouldn't change accordingly. Hell, I'm not even saying that needs to happen. What I am saying is it is possible for these things to fit better. You can have your cake and eat it too! My rifles have minimal wobble by the way. Just loose enough to push the pins easily. My thinking is the same. The industry can do better if we want them to. FWIW: To those who say "its just tolerances" and are willing to accept inspection that allows for wide tolerance swings, I respectfully suggest that the cure to sloppy tolerances lies with us. We watch the demise and lowering of quality of companies that shall remain nameless, and companies that have reorganized or been bought out by conglomerates that sacrifice high productions standards for increased profits. We see what is going on with quality control and are led, like sheep, to believe what we are told and that all is well.. My background is as an automotive machinist, working in a machine shop for many years boring blocks, grinding crankshafts, milling cylinder heads and blocks and other machine operations, including hand-making parts on milling machines and lathes. We do not work in thousandths of an inch, we work in "tenths," as in one ten thousandth of an inch. In my family business as an automotive engine rebuilding company and custom machine shop including building racing engies, we are having extreme difficulty finding employees who care enough to maintain the tolerances we demand for our products and our customers expect. I think this is happening in the firearms industry. Forgive me. I'll get off my soap box. I didn't start this thread. But, I know our industry can do better and that we, as consumers can tell the offenders, some of them pretty big names, that the slip on quality control can and will cause us to stop following brand names and buy products that are held to higher production standards. The firearms shortage is over. It is now a buyers market. We have clout as consumers. We should use it. OP: Tell Colt that you are not the government buying from the lowest bidder. Get a replacement rifle where the upper and lower fit better. Maybe it can begin with you and with us, one at a time. That's my two bits. "You may now resume your regular programming." Its really not that hard. Not at all. Many AR manufacturers are doing much better than Colt on this. Smith and Wesson is a good example of very good fit and finish on its ARs, even on the bottom line Sport. Spikes seems to have tight fit between their uppers and lowers. So does Daniel Defense, although at a bit higher price point. CNC computerized machining is extremely accurate for these purposes when the operator gives a shit and inspection is up to snuff. |
|
Not so fast...People should not attempt to advise someone concerned about wobble with what amounts to an ah-shucks it's GTG reply. People who lend bad advice where firearms are involved usually scatter like cockroaches when a tragedy occurs. To address your question based on your imagination...Where did I make the statement or imply that Colt, BCM, DD, and so on are all borderline junk? I'll answer the question for you...Nowhere. Obviously you are impressed with brand names and the giddy accolades they receive but I do not care what brand or who made this or that and who says how great they are, etc. If the component does not pass inspection it's returned and I've returned my fair share with problems that would have flown right over your little SHOUTING head. Furthermore, if an individual like you has receivers that are tight they came your way by pot luck and not by your knowledge of tightening procedures. It's your choice to roll over and cater to excuses for manufacturing tolerances that way too often exceed limits. But to proclaim loose, out of alignment aluminum receivers in constant conflict with steel effects nothing is ignorance in neon lights.
Ok. I'm really going to try to be clear here. I don't speak the gospel. Stop taking me and life so seriously, matter-of-fact, and absolute. It's not my opinion. Play between an upper and a lower on an AR-15 IS common, and it's NOT a functional issue; It is a personal issue. When I say some play and spacing is ok, I don't mean the damn thing rattles like a can of spray paint, I mean there is a LITTLE PLAY. If you want to return an AR-15 to the manufacturer because there is a little movement between the upper and lower receivers and you clip a piece of paper between them, PLEASE DO. That's your choice. What is FACT, is that it is NOT a functional issue. A little play between upper and lower is a KNOWN thing, and nothing is broken. I'm not going to respond to another one of your seemingly trolling posts. Have a good life. |
|
Quoted:
How do you determine full price? What manufacturers puts together rifles with less than .005 (arbitrary number) all the time? If all manufactures had to reject more parts or buy new tooling more often, don't you think prices would go up accordingly? How do you know the camshaft has tighter specs? Do you measure each dimension? Does it affect performance? AR15s have a tolerance RANGE because clearances between parts allows them to function in a variety of situations. If it doesn't affect performance, then it is only user preference how tight the rifle feels. If the camshaft changes the performance, or timing, then the tighter specs matter. On a rifle they don't. You lose modularity because when tooling wears down, you get variances in the parts. If the manufacturer didn't account for variances, parts won't fit together. That's just a simple fact in all manufacturing. Unless you use New tooling for each part, variances occur. Even between tooling there are variances. If you prefer a tighter fitting rifle, that's fine. But it's not an indication of quality in this case. Quality is measured by longevity of parts, reliability, and accuracy or consistency. Quoted:
Quoted:
Quoted:
Quoted:
I understand tolerances. But I disagree that it's unavoidable. If tolerances were tighter, and people didn't just say "that's just tolerances, it's fine" then all manufacturers would tighten up. And I'm not saying price wouldn't change accordingly. Hell, I'm not even saying that needs to happen. What I am saying is it is possible for these things to fit better. You can have your cake and eat it too! My rifles have minimal wobble by the way. Just loose enough to push the pins easily. What do you mean? If all parts involved have tighter tolerances then nothing changes "being modular". If one company held lowers to a tighter tolerance but company B made uppers to loosed standards then you would have problems. But I was talking about tolerances industry wide. Doesn't matter. The same effect could be achieved with companies actually taking the time during assembly and QC to ensure good fit by matching the receivers. My point is that as long as consumers continue to say "it's just tolerances" then nothing will change. If they can charge you full price for a worn out feeling rifle then they will continue to do so as long as you let them. You act as if the AR is a high tolerance machine. It isn't. Talking about engines earlier...I can buy say...a camshaft for a 302 Ford that is held to much stricter tolerances than any AR receiver, and yet it still works in all 302 Fords. So it is "modular" as you would say. How do you know the camshaft has tighter specs? Do you measure each dimension? Does it affect performance? AR15s have a tolerance RANGE because clearances between parts allows them to function in a variety of situations. If it doesn't affect performance, then it is only user preference how tight the rifle feels. If the camshaft changes the performance, or timing, then the tighter specs matter. On a rifle they don't. You lose modularity because when tooling wears down, you get variances in the parts. If the manufacturer didn't account for variances, parts won't fit together. That's just a simple fact in all manufacturing. Unless you use New tooling for each part, variances occur. Even between tooling there are variances. If you prefer a tighter fitting rifle, that's fine. But it's not an indication of quality in this case. Quality is measured by longevity of parts, reliability, and accuracy or consistency. I know camshafts have tighter tolerances than AR receivers because if they didn't your engine wouldn't last 15mins. Any engine component, especially bottom end parts are kept within a very small range. As MS556 stated earlier, we're talking "tenths of thousandths" of an inch. You aren't going to tell me anything about manufacturing or machining. I fully understand and know what I'm talking about in this case. Of course the prices would go up accordingly, as I've mentioned several times earlier in this thread. Sir, that's your opinion on quality, not mine. Regardless whether or not you value fit and finish, they still matter when judging quality as whole. It doesn't affect reliability, we agree there. |
|
Quoted:
While slop or "wiggle" may not affect reliability or accuracy, it is a marker of less than optimal attention to detail in manufacturing, assembly and inspection. Companies can do better. If matching the sloppiness of AK's is the goal, just because it doesn't hurt reliability or accuracy, that's awful. There is such a thing as pride in fit and finish and it is worth maintaining. No decent private gunsmith would accept such sloppy tolerances out of his own work, nor should we. Have we become a society where "good enough" includes sloppy tolerances just because it does not affect functionality? I hope not. I have some fine 12 gauge over under and side-by-side shotguns that have tight fitting actions when new, and are purposefully designed to smooth out by use. But they don't every "wobble" or "wiggle" or have slop in them. Nor do the actions on my bolt guns or on revolvers, or even on civilian semi-auto hunting rifles and shotguns. None of them rattle. Where is the pride in American manufacturing? FWIW: I have a Spikes upper on a S&W M&P 15 lower build. I purposefully made sure that the upper and lower fit well before closing the deal on the components. They do not have any slop, "wiggle" or "wobble". I know I'm still on the short side of about 3,000 rounds at this point, but it's been shot enough to conclude that there is not likely to be any serious change. Fine 12 gauge over and under or side by side shotguns do not have play due to the hand fitting that each one receives when made. As such, you can not simply take a barrel set from one and put it on another action. An AR is made so that any upper will work with any lower without any fitting necessary. None of my other firearms have any play in them either, but they are not designed to be modular and they are not held together by two pins that should be removable without the use of tools. |
|
There is a tolerance measurement for every part manufactured. That is a fact. I've built enough 1911s to know that most quality frames are in spec but the spec allows at least a couple thousands of wiggle room for every part. So you get a slightly oversized frame, still within manufacturers tolerances, and a slightly undersized slide, again within tolerance and you'll have a fine time mating the two. It's called tolerance stacking. It can go the other way as well. An undersized frame with an oversized slide gives you a rattle gun.
I'm sure it's no different the AR world. |
|
It's quite simple really... if you don't like or want slop between the 2 then:
1 get a matched set. There is a reason they sell them. 2. If not 1 then get a lower with a tensioning screw to tighten it to any upper. 3. If not 2 or 3 the accuwedge it. Doesn't hurt anything and does the job, however gracelessly. 4. Live with it. Folks hung up on too loose or too tight don't really grasp the AR system. They are 2 nearly independent systems. The only interaction between the two during operation is the hammer (a lower part) striking the firing pin (an upper part) setting the system into motion with the BCG (an upper part) being controlled by the buffer and buffer spring (lower parts). So long as there isn't a MAJOR fubar to the allignment of the Lower extension to the path of the BCG in action then tight, loose, sloppy, whatever, the fitment means nothing to function or reliability, nor does it mean anything to wear. A loose gun will last as long as a tight one and a tight one will last as long as a loose one. In either case you'll shoot out a barrel long before the fitment were to ever matter. Now having said all of that... Personally, not a fan of a sloppy fit, but that is because before getting into ARs I was into bolt guns. Bolt guns have no wiggle. It's all about the feel to me, and that's it. That's why I've only built with either a matched set or at least a lower with a tensioning screw, and in a couple of cases BOTH. Makes the platform rock solid and just feels right. That is also why I like the UBR for a stock, I don't care for rattles there either. As for spring sproing a generous dose of Mobil 1 grease and there is no sproing in my spring. When I finally suppress the 300BO pistol I expect it to be one of the quietest packages ever. |
|
I guess I'm a lazy consumer who is satisfied with following what I am told is acceptable. By this, I mean that I generally look toward military applications when it comes to purchasing weapons. I'm no expert marksman, and I don't hunt. I buy handguns and rifles to protect myself, and my loved ones. My line of reasoning is that if a weapon is good enough for the US military, then it is good enough for me. I then look at the specs for that particular weapon and will use that as a baseline for my purchases. It doesn't mean that every rifle I own will be a Colt LE6920 and every pistol a Beretta M9. It means those are my base standards and I will buy products that meet or exceed those standards.
When it comes to receiver fit between upper and lower, I found that my LE6920 was looser than the Bushmaster that I'm issued for work. As such, and with the Colt being the military standard... I will buy rifles more closely resembling the Colt than my issued Bushmaster. A list the slop doesn't affect accuracy, nor reliability and is normal for the military spec rifles. No reason to worry unless it is excessive. If you want no slop... Buy a bolt action and call it a day. |
|
Quoted: I guess I'm a lazy consumer who is satisfied with following what I am told is acceptable. By this, I mean that I generally look toward military applications when it comes to purchasing weapons. I'm no expert marksman, and I don't hunt. I buy handguns and rifles to protect myself, and my loved ones. My line of reasoning is that if a weapon is good enough for the US military, then it is good enough for me. I then look at the specs for that particular weapon and will use that as a baseline for my purchases. It doesn't mean that every rifle I own will be a Colt LE6920 and every pistol a Beretta M9. It means those are my base standards and I will buy products that meet or exceed those standards. When it comes to receiver fit between upper and lower, I found that my LE6920 was looser than the Bushmaster that I'm issued for work. As such, and with the Colt being the military standard... I will buy rifles more closely resembling the Colt than my issued Bushmaster. A list the slop doesn't affect accuracy, nor reliability and is normal for the military spec rifles. No reason to worry unless it is excessive. If you want no slop... Buy a bolt action and call it a day. Boutique brands might guarantee zero clearance, but I'm not aware of any since that's not important to me. I've had a few rifles that were extremely tight fitting and did not like the fact they i needed a mallet and a punch to take them down. Part of the beauty and simplicity of a field weapon is tool-less disassembly. I've also seen people bed receivers together using traditional bedding techniques to eliminate slop. I even used JP Rifles takedown tension pin on my first AR15. But tight receiver fit gave no advantages to the functioning of the rifle (unlike a camshaft), and made disassembly more time consuming and difficult.
|
[ARCHIVED THREAD] - Wobble question (Page 1 of 2)
AR Sponsor