Armory Sponsor
Posted: 10/19/2009 7:55:40 AM EDT
|
This last weekend I began having problems with my Century C93 (C93008XX). I have fired less than 100 rounds through the rifle and now I find that the bolt will not go into battery. When I inspected the rifle I found that the bolt is beginning to lock up before it is in the trunnion. What appears to have happened is that the forward portion of the stamped receiver has spread out and it is allowing the bolt to move into the carrier pushing the locking rollers out, the rollers are then slamming into the rear of the trunnion. The sides of the receiver are pushed out more than a 1/16" on each side and the trunnion has started to peen where the rollers are slamming into it. You can also see a marking where the rollers have left dents in the receiver.
The rifle is about a month old. It has the poorly stamped serial number and then the DOT Matrix serial number. It has a bolt gap of .012 so I thought I had gotten lucky with the rifle. I have contacted Century and obtained an RA number. The response from their techincal support was that it was "an occassionally encountered problem and is easily repaired". I have gone the rounds with Century over a GOLANI, it went back to them twice, one to replace a broken bolt and then it was returned again because they sent it back with bad headspace and the left lug not making contact. I guess I'm a slow learner and I keep buying Century Rifles. Years ago I had a Century M14's bolt blow apart, that rifle took 2 trips back to Century, it was returned with excessive headspace. |
| The SW receivers that were used for the C93 are hit/miss; the last one I got from Toad was stamped in such a way that the reciever was too big around. Some builders would stick the trunnion in it, weld it up with fill and pass it off, it could produce just what you are seeing. My gunsmith reshaped the receiver down to size and filled the divot on the bottom that was left over, and it works 100%. I would strongly suggest sending it to a good HK gunsmith to check out and get a quote for repairing it properly before you ship it back to Century. I'd want to know the real deal as to whats wrong, and how to properly fix it, before let Century hacks "fix" it. Could be the receiver would need to be removed and I doubt they will be willing to do that for a warranty repair if they can get away with something else, like squishing the receiver sides together in a vise or some other such half-assed action. |
| I'll be sending the rifle back to Century this afternoon. It will be interesting to see if it comes back with better welds on the front of the receiver. It looks like it was only welded in the flat bottom portion of the grooves. I figure they did a piss poor job assembling it, so they can try and fix it. |
|
I received my C93 back this evening. The rifle was sent back due to problems with the receiver rails spreading apart at the trunnion. The Century repair appears to have been to use some type of punch and pound the rails back into place. The repair has left marks where the punch made contact with the rail. Although I'm no expert, but the metal has been bent once and then bent back into place by their expert repair personnel, I would then assume that this metal has been stressed and weakened by the repeated bending. The welds for the rail/trunnion joint were only made on the flat portion of the rail, the sides of the rail were not welded. I requested that they address this problem and included that in a letter attached to the rifle and in emails to their customer service.
Even with their repairs the rails are not flush with the trunnion, I do not see that their fix will last very long before the problem starts again. Sorry for the poor quality pictures, but you can get an idea of the crappy weld job and the crappier repair. Another fine product from Century Arms. http://i197.photobucket.com/albums/aa79/pmiya/Picture055.jpg http://i197.photobucket.com/albums/aa79/pmiya/Picture054.jpg |
|
I'm going out on a limb on this one.....The issue is the actual builder and not the flat/receiver. I say this based on personal experience. Century supposedly had at least two different companies build the C93. Allied Armament built the parkerized models while an unnamed source built the painted ones. There are reviews where both painted and parkerized models arrived to customers with grit, gunk, and debris inside the guns. The bolt carriers were not refinished and the furniture was fairly beat up. The excuse....ooops I mean reason was cost savings to the consumer.
The Allied built ones had a full circumfrence weld around the front of the trunion. The president of Allied said he built the guns to Century's specs. There's a thread on this on the FAL board. If you read the FAL links, Allied Armament posted how the Century guns were an outstanding deal initially not telling the board members they were the actual builder of the guns. Allied stated they only built the parkerized guns and they were supposed to be better than the painted ones. While this was going on, there was a member on the Pro board promoting the Century guns. That person stated his friend had a pretty elaborate shop with jigs, fixtures, and machinery worth over $30,000. This shop (which was eventually disclosed as Allied Armament) could easily fix the bolt gap issues built from the other shop for $40. I'm sure if Allied submitted a 93 built closer to the original specs, Century would not say anything different. In fact, I think Century could get more money for the rifles. There's no reason for shrinking bolt gaps, ugly welds, crooked cocking tubes, etc. There's no reason to ship a gun full of gunk, debris, crap. Todd Bailey may not have a charming personality or be on everyone's Christmas list, but I know his receivers and flats work. My friend works at a fairly large gun shop and tells me almost every Century they sold comes back with issues or complaints from who bought them. I personally would not buy a Century gun. I made that mistake years ago. I don't care if the the gun was $499 or $399. |
|
I put 100 rounds through the C93 this afternoon. It functioned perfectly. It was shooting about 1.5" groups at 100 using a Leupold 3-9. I also was shooting a SIG Sauer 556 Swat Classic, it would not group better than 4". Time will tell if the Century fix will last,
As far as buying Century rifles, I'm a slow learner. Out of 5 Century rifles I own 3 have made trips back to Century. An M14 was sent back twice for the bolt blowing apart (bad headspace even after it was repaired) and finally replaced, a Golani has been to Vermont twice, broken bolt, returned repaired but had bad headspace. The C93 for the receiver spreading. I have 2 Tantals that function perfectly and are relatively accurate. My C93 is one of the painted ones and it also has a weld all the way around the front of the trunnion, but has gaps in the welds were the rails meet the trunnion. |
|
Quoted:
I put 100 rounds through the C93 this afternoon. It functioned perfectly. It was shooting about 1.5" groups at 100 using a Leupold 3-9. I also was shooting a SIG Sauer 556 Swat Classic, it would not group better than 4". Time will tell if the Century fix will last, As far as buying Century rifles, I'm a slow learner. Out of 5 Century rifles I own 3 have made trips back to Century. An M14 was sent back twice for the bolt blowing apart (bad headspace even after it was repaired) and finally replaced, a Golani has been to Vermont twice, broken bolt, returned repaired but had bad headspace. The C93 for the receiver spreading. I have 2 Tantals that function perfectly and are relatively accurate. My C93 is one of the painted ones and it also has a weld all the way around the front of the trunnion, but has gaps in the welds were the rails meet the trunnion. I'm guessing Allied made painted ones but will not admit to it. Either way, I can make a better 93 than Allied from a flat. |
|
I'm guessing Allied made painted ones but will not admit to it. Either way, I can make a better 93 than Allied from a flat.
Allied Crapment sucks at building these rifles. They go around the net bragging about the state of the art machinery they have, and how they are such great builders, and still build crap. An HK weapon system is a work of art, a swiss watch at it's peak. When built correctly, they run excellent. That being said, Allied does not know how to build these rifles. Yes, they are built on used parts. I would expect some problems. But they cant seem to get something as simple as proper headspace. They go on and on about how they can do it right, but Century won't let them because of Century's own "specs". It's a load of crap. If they can build them correctly, why don't they? Makes you go hmmmmm. Not to mention, they are a company with a rocky history. My opinion is that they produce the same turd of a rifle that Century produces. But, what can you do? Toad is getting mostly out of roller locking guns, and Century is one of the biggest importers. They have brought us rifles that no one else can. That being said, it's hit or miss with ANY of their products. They earned their reputation. Make no mistake, Allied Armament is just as guilty. |
|
I'm kind of late to this thread but thought I'd add something that might be useful . . . maybe.
I have a C93 that has had only apx 150 rounds through it. It has functioned well. However, my rails are not welded correctly either nor are the rails correctly positioned with relation to the trunion. Meaning, there is a step up/in from the rails to the trunion. I have also noticed that there are a couple of small cracks in the receiver where the it should have been welded. I suspect that these cracks might have been caused during the stamping process instead of firing. I am currently in the process of resetting the rails so they are flush and will be finishing the welds proper via TIG. Owners of these rifles might want to keep an eye out for this as I suspect many will have the same issue. BTW, my bolt gap seems to have settled in at 0.011". |
|
Quoted:
the ONLY good century i had ever seen was the Yugo Ak's  Sorry to post off topic, but I've had to repair 2 Century yugo ak's, one of which they didn't drill the gas port for the barrel, they also ground too much metal off of the mag catch causing the bolt to fail to pick-up new rounds and the other I had to replace the forward trunnion, bolt and re-headspace the rifle. I did those jobs for free for guys in the Ga hometown forum. I would only buy a Century gun under the premise that it was going to be a project I'd have to fix or rebuild. |
|
I ordered one this weekend from Henderson Defense. I will provide feedback once I get it, inspect it, fire it, etc. I think this weapon and the other clones out there are like a "poor man's hot rod" car or a tricked out competition 1911 metaphorically speaking.....you have to keep them tuned up more than the Honda Civic variety.
Obviously, my opinion is limited in personal value until I actually get my weapon and confirm it is a go or no go. I have read enough positive reviews on the C93 and CETME to buy with reasonable confidence. Talk to some of the CETME and PTR owners, and a lot of them love the reliability of the CETME over the PTR. I am personally hoping Century's builder dialed in some corrections after the first batch or two and subsequent feedback and cost of repairs, etc. I believe not all but....a lot of folks that buy these clones either: a) really know their stuff and have high expectations and pure HK standard in mind, and when the build for $600 or whatever on a SW/CA/etc is off a tad, they call it for what it is and voice disappointment or b) have no clue what they are actually buying and how the price point was made in the first place. They don't really get the fact that the weapon was reassembled from parts and that there are potential shortfalls present, so when the weapon needs some tuning (a la Hot Rod tweaking), they freak out. The comments mentioned above on a potential improper series of welds on the receiver is indeed unacceptable if that is what happened. There is no reason for that to occur at all. I really want a SIG556 at some point, but damn, at 2-3 times the cost of a C93 and 2x's the cost of an AR.....guess which ones I am buying right now in the midst of the recession?  More to come. My two cents.....please don't shred me lads.
|
|
The comments mentioned above on a potential improper series of welds on the receiver is indeed unacceptable if that is what happened. There is no reason for that to occur at all.
No shredding is included in this message. Rest assured, the improper welds are there on mine and many others that have bought these rifles. The receiver on pm's rifle pictured above, mine, and many others that have posted on HKPro.com (and other boards) all look the same. These welds are incorrect and WILL lead to problems eventually. Receiver rails are already beginning to spread on some of the rifles that have been out there for a while now. The only reason that I can see for the shortcut on the welding is so the manufacturer can get them out the door as fast as possible. Even while knowing this, I'm planning on buying another one. I originally bought one knowing that it was probably a crap shoot going with a Century product but also knowing that, should something be amiss, I could probably fix it and have myself a good shooter for a lot less than the real thing or any other clone. So I have to finish welding the receiver. No big deal and I won't complain too loudly because the rifle was cheap to begin with. Now if the thing blows up due to the way it was originally put together then I'll be a bit upset. However, if someone wants a 93 and doesn't want the potential to have to fool with it they'd better open their wallet and look for another clone or a genuine HK instead. Disclaimer - I haven't seen the latest crop of these C93s so I don't know if the latest batch has these problems or not. I'll find out soon enough. |
|
[span style='font-weight: bold;']b) have no clue what they are actually buying and how the price point was made in the first place. They don't really get the fact that the weapon was reassembled from parts and that there are potential shortfalls present, so when the weapon needs some tuning (a la Hot Rod tweaking), they freak out.
I only disagree with one point, most often these guns are sent out with too little bolt gap. So on a new rifle that doesn't function properly or when guys figure out that their bolt gap is at .005 when .004 is the bare minimum, they have to buy + size rollers and a new locking piece to get the right gap or at the middle road of .012 which is supposed to be optimum. Keep in mind, that this is usually only to get the right gap so the gun will function correctlly. I wouldn't call it "hot rod tweaking" and I don't think thats what you meant, but it sounds like it. What else is there to do? I've read of one review on here where after shooting the gun (a c93) the guys bolt gap went to zero and wouldn't even eject fired rounds. Bad bolt gap is a common problem with century's cetme's and it seems some of their c93's. Turning out a gun that runs off of bolt gap, with bad bolt gap is not acceptable and shouldn't be an expected shortfall. Perhaps there are other issues you are refering to. I built my own Cetme on a Century receiver. It took me two hours of pressing the barrel in and out to get the bolt gap to .019. I set it that high because I read that on a new build, its common for the gap to drop as much as .005 after the first 100 rnds, and it did. My gap is now at .014 and my Cetme runs like a top. Its obvious that Century isn't putting that much time into each of their rifles. |
Armory Sponsor