Page 3 of 4 FirstFirst 1 2 3 4 LastLast
Results 21 to 30 of 36

Thread: Need some help with my M1A

  1. #21
    U.N.C.L.E. Illya Kuryakin's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jan 2005
    Location
    The Third Coast
    Posts
    3,731
    Feedback Score
    7 (100%)

    Default

    Doh !!

    Thought don't shim, peen = dont shim or peen....

    The confusion is on this end. I grew up in the Los Angeles basin where English is a second language



    Did I do that?

  2. #22
    GuncoHolic BigAl's Avatar
    Join Date
    Apr 2004
    Posts
    2,038
    Feedback Score
    12 (100%)

    Default

    I'm trying to translate all this into Galil language...

  3. #23
    U.N.C.L.E. Illya Kuryakin's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jan 2005
    Location
    The Third Coast
    Posts
    3,731
    Feedback Score
    7 (100%)

    Default

    I still don't get the reason you can peen but don't shim. Both methods essentially have the same effect on the stack up of the assembly. One adds material between barrel shoulder and receiver face (shim) and the other displaces material (peen) into the same interface. I didn't care enough about the subject to turn this into a research project or to buy books from Fulton to get their answer.


    Did I do that?

  4. #24
    Gunco Member wjkuleck's Avatar
    Join Date
    Feb 2004
    Location
    NE Ohio
    Posts
    55
    Feedback Score
    0

    Default

    I'm trying to translate all this into Galil language
    Well, heck, the Galil is just a Valmet is just an AK, which latter is just the next generation Garand, as is the M14

    Regards,

    Walt
    Author, New! The M1911 Complete Owner's Guide
    Author, The M14 Complete Assembly Guide
    Author, The M1 Garand Complete Assembly Guide

    Author, The AR-15 Complete Assembly Guide
    Author, The AR-15 Complete Owner's Guide, Fourth Edition



  5. #25
    Gunco Member wjkuleck's Avatar
    Join Date
    Feb 2004
    Location
    NE Ohio
    Posts
    55
    Feedback Score
    0

    Default

    Both methods essentially have the same effect on the stack up of the assembly
    Respectfully, if adamantly, no, they really, really don't.

    when you peen or roll the barrel, you are not adding material. You are displacing material which upon torquing the barrel goes back. When you shim, you are not recreating the first "crush," you're adding material, against which you crush the barrel.

    Think of it this way. When you properly install the barrel, it is "straight up" (the sights, that is ). If the barrel overclocks, goes to far, you have to do something about it. If you peen/roll, when the barrel is straight up, you have the chamber the same place with respect to the bolt face as you would have if your barrel had timed in the first place.

    When you shim, and get the barrel straight up, you have effectively moved the face of the receiver forward. The barrel is forward of its design location, as is the chamber, whcih is now further away from the bolt face than before. If you can get headspace with this effectively longer chamber somehow, the case head is unsupported by the amount of shim with which you lengthed the receiver face.

    If all else fails, just trust me, I know, I'm an X-Purt.

    Regards,

    Walt
    Last edited by wjkuleck; 04-22-2008 at 08:52 AM. Reason: Spelling
    Author, New! The M1911 Complete Owner's Guide
    Author, The M14 Complete Assembly Guide
    Author, The M1 Garand Complete Assembly Guide

    Author, The AR-15 Complete Assembly Guide
    Author, The AR-15 Complete Owner's Guide, Fourth Edition



  6. #26
    U.N.C.L.E. Illya Kuryakin's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jan 2005
    Location
    The Third Coast
    Posts
    3,731
    Feedback Score
    7 (100%)

    Default

    With all due respect, your argument is sometimes an inconsistent mixture of mechanical material principles and effects. You combine, then sometimes ignore, the influences of preload induced strain, plastic and elastic deformation and the associated subsequent material property effects, static 'no load' dimensional stackups, and make various assumptions including shim material selection and 'as built' receiver dimensions.

    I am not a M-14 expert but I am a spacecraft mechanical design engineer


    Did I do that?

  7. #27
    GuncoHolic BigAl's Avatar
    Join Date
    Apr 2004
    Posts
    2,038
    Feedback Score
    12 (100%)

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Illya Kuryakin View Post
    I am not a M-14 expert but I am a spacecraft mechanical design engineer

    I knew it...rocket scientist type...he has always been a touch on the geeky side...it's all so clear now...

  8. #28
    U.N.C.L.E. Illya Kuryakin's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jan 2005
    Location
    The Third Coast
    Posts
    3,731
    Feedback Score
    7 (100%)

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by BigAl View Post
    I knew it...rocket scientist type...he has always been a touch on the geeky side...it's all so clear now...
    My oddities are not a result of my education or occupation but rather a direct result of heavy alcohol, narcotic and stimulant use during the 70's and 80's

    I only meant to say his argument did not support his conclusions


    Did I do that?

  9. #29
    Gunco Member wjkuleck's Avatar
    Join Date
    Feb 2004
    Location
    NE Ohio
    Posts
    55
    Feedback Score
    0

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Illya Kuryakin View Post
    With all due respect, your argument is sometimes an inconsistent mixture of mechanical material principles and effects. You combine, then sometimes ignore, the influences of preload induced strain, plastic and elastic deformation and the associated subsequent material property effects, static 'no load' dimensional stackups, and make various assumptions including shim material selection and 'as built' receiver dimensions.

    I am not a M-14 expert but I am a spacecraft mechanical design engineer
    Ah, well, you asked, I answered. I'm a student of the M14 and also an engineer, and aeronautical engineer at that. While I ended up as an aerodynamicist, they didn't let us get out without at least a nodding acquaintance with metallurgy, mechanics, and the like.

    We can agree to disagree. I'm not here to tell anyone they are wrong. But, I will do my best to explain matters as best I can*. Now, if someone can articulate the differences in the two approaches better than I can, I'm all ears.

    Respectfully,

    Walt

    * We can break out the calculus here, but I fear that most posters are profoundly uninterested in the mathematics.
    Author, New! The M1911 Complete Owner's Guide
    Author, The M14 Complete Assembly Guide
    Author, The M1 Garand Complete Assembly Guide

    Author, The AR-15 Complete Assembly Guide
    Author, The AR-15 Complete Owner's Guide, Fourth Edition



  10. #30
    U.N.C.L.E. Illya Kuryakin's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jan 2005
    Location
    The Third Coast
    Posts
    3,731
    Feedback Score
    7 (100%)

    Default

    Walt, you're cool.

    I possess a Aerospace Engineering degree and have been employed as a Sr. Mechanical Design Engineer for the past 25 years developing International Space Station and Space Shuttle mechanisms and other flight hardware.

    I think we beat this dead horse all to hell and back
    but enjoyed the discussion along the way.


    BTW - I did want to add that I agree with you 100% that best course of action is to check/verify the items in question are per print to isolate the source of the problem in order to plot the best course of resolution. Well worth the $75 if you cannot do it yourself.


    Did I do that?

Page 3 of 4 FirstFirst 1 2 3 4 LastLast

Search tags for this page

There are currently no search engine referrals.
Click on a term to search our site for related topics.

Posting Permissions

  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts
  •