Jump to content
308AR.com Community
  • Visit Aero Precision
  • Visit Brownells
  • Visit EuroOptic
  • Visit Site
  • Visit Beachin Tactical
  • Visit Rainier Arms
  • Visit Ballistic Advantage
  • Visit Palmetto State Armory
  • Visit Cabelas
  • Visit Sportsmans Guide


  • Content Count

  • Joined

  • Last visited

About Lane

  • Rank
  • Birthday April 23

Profile Information

  • Gender
  • Location
    Upstate New York
  • Interests
    Machining, Building, Shooting, Reloading.

Recent Profile Visitors

The recent visitors block is disabled and is not being shown to other users.

  1. I bought one "new" (I thought it was new) quite a long time ago. But it never worked at all. Not even once. I called the company and they just gave me some non-sense about how the sun needs to be bright enough; but not too bright. And they couldn't give me any technical details because it was made by another company (in China). Well. I'm mad. I could have bought a real chrono for that price... If anyone has the ability to measure the DC power output from the RCBS head unit on those 1/4" connectors it would be helpful to me. An audio cable, or electric guitar cable and a multimeter are the easy way. Taking the board out is nearly impossible since it's wired to the buttons stuck to the case shell. If you measure on a guitar cable you'll likely find the voltages are backwards (sleeve is positive, tip negative?). I suspect my unit is under voltage by a long shot; even with a new 9V battery. If I know why mine is broken, I can build a new driver circuit in the short term. Otherwise; this thing is going to be another experimental "guess and check" kind of job. The circuit board inside the RCBS unit looks like a bag of Lays. About 30 chips; all from mid-80s technology. It's horribly overbuilt; and has a mere 10MHz processor. This thing is not special in any way other than age of technology; but mine never worked at all.
  2. I had considered it; but didn't think it would affect performance in the short term. Fired them off a few hours after posting that picture. Made another set already without buckling any brass. My procedure seems to be a few partial but firm rams (each a little further than the last until the pre-adjusted die hits the shell plate); that to crimp in the star, and then a few more with the finishing die to crimp the butt-hole closed. Yes. These blanks were for ballistics testing (and to work up recipes for powders I can actually buy off the shelf; but couldn't find qualified data for online). Blank reloading data appears to be pretty scarce... While Unique was mentioned a few times in other forum discussions; nobody offered even a starting weight. I'll post my results when I have some loads that compare to a standard M200 blank. I didn't want to use that specific "phrase" in my post; because there's no reason to give them ideas for banning things... But I can't find any reason to suspect it's illegal here in NY. They did ship that thing right to my door without any issue. Those first few turned out to be pretty light loads of Unique compared to regular M200 blanks. Tonights batch are considerably more likely to compare to a "normal" blank load. Then I'll work up from there until I blast through a can. I've been using a square of gorilla tape on the bottom to make cans stronger. Going to work up a load with Trail Boss next. Should be similar in performance; but I'm not sure which will be cheaper. Trail Boss is only 9 oz. in the same container that typically holds a pound of many other powders. I have Clays as well; but QuickLoad data didn't look super favorable in comparison to the burn rates of Unique, Red Dot, etc. I'm going to be extra careful when testing those loads with Clays.
  3. Mistakes were made in the process of trying to make blanks from once fired brass. I crushed two just a bit too hard; but might as well rescue the powder. Powder weighed the same for the re-made loads. That star crimp and close isn't easy to do. I really would like two manual presses next to each other; with both dies side-by-side if I wanted to do this more often. I can't see it ever working well in an automated or progressive setup at home. Still want to crimp those three with hand pliers after the fact... But it's a ladder load of Unique. Have a few other things to try after I see how this works out.
  4. That's why I mentioned a center foam cutout. I think it could really make that work at 100+. I'd be worried about anyone touching that in "baggage" as I saw it... I've often filled gaps with cut out pieces of foam, just to make sure nothing touched things that they should not. In a box that tight. I'd be stuffing in t-shirts at the very least. Maybe you don't need a suitcase. Just clothes in the gun box... Mmm; smells like CLP and Hoppe's in my pants.
  5. I see a few empty spaces that might fit more ammo or magazines. A well cut foam insert would make this really interesting. When you say #60 and up; what's the upper limit? Can you get past #100?
  6. Lane

    98's 6mm ARC

    I looked at the options briefly; for assembling something from off the shelf parts. Unfortunately I don't have a good way to test something like this here. I have at best 200-300 yards of semi-line-of-sight available. I might be able to test something at a park though; there are places I can get a better line of sight distance. The biggest issue I see is that there are some high angle shooting setups; that might require an antenna adjustment. Usually; to get that kind of distance you're talking about a directional antenna, which would need to be angled up towards the shooting/viewing station. Anyway; I've seen some WiFi units that advertise a 7 mile range line of sight (12,320 yards). I can't guarantee a cell phone would be enough on the receiving end; one might need two long range units to work reliably at extreme distance. That said; I'm guessing 800 yards wouldn't be a big deal at all. I've seen those long range units for about $20. That would still need a small computer, power source, and camera. I'd guess about $100 would make a pretty functional build. On the other hand; it might be a LOT easier to just put a cell phone in a plastic ammo can. Most of them have reasonably high resolution rear facing cameras. One simply needs to serve that video up somewhere; and probably add an external battery. Beyond that; just don't shoot the target camera.
  7. Care to share any bread recipes? Welcome from New York state.
  8. Since I can't edit the error in my post about the "weird" 80% lower cut I stumbled across; I will link that here. It was labeled "Hell Fire Armory". It's not that those FCG locations are directly related to the mag-catch issues; but they may be indicative of a larger problem in the 80% 308 world. I still don't know enough about the variations between various upper receivers' geometry to know if they were even legitimate modifications; or just oversights in "copying" a design. I've long been curious if those changes were on purpose, to protect in terms of legal liability; perhaps by not being the "same" as the original armalite pattern?
  9. The 308Lower.pdf file is a slant style; so it may not be directly applicable to all variations... But perhaps it is? It lists the mag-catch slot as being 0.250 in height, and also contains enough references to the vertical position to compare with other files and physical lowers. The other drawings are also slant style; but the quick checks I did all matched each other in terms of those measurements. One other thing to consider. I measured my slot to be 0.250" (with the coating in the slot). There may be some slight variations in that measurement depending on the finish (sloppy machining tolerances, etc.). My actual mag-catch only measures 0.245" in height which makes complete sense; because it needs clearance to operate. If the mag-catch were in fact 0.250" tall, it would have to be hammered in, would have a serious friction fit; and be completely non-functional. 308Lower.pdf AR_10-2.pdf
  10. Tried to edit that last post; but it looks like I was wrong about Colfax Tactical being the weird one. I'll see what else I can dig up in terms of "strange" 308 lowers. I know I have a few sets of full prints of unknown origin; meaning, I don't know what particular brand or cut lowers they are supposed to match.
  11. That's an interesting question; and would likely require a decent amount of leg-work calling around. Some companies might not be forthcoming with that information out of the gate, but it's worth a try moving forward. The best place I can see to start (in this forum at least), is looking for forge marks on the lowers, and also trying to identify any unique cuts in the machining process. There is a good chance that will help sort out at least some of the differences between lowers' manufacturers. I presume there will be some sub-sets that match cut and measurement between different manufacturers. I can tell you out of the gate, that Colfax Tactical had one of the most "unique" cuts in terms of FCG pocket position; that may or may not be officially related to the mag-catch issues though. When I was digging for that information (FCG pocket locations), it was rather scarce. That was considered proprietary information by some companies over the years... These blueprint images aren't "super" helpful at this point in the conversation, but here are a few semi-related files I had laying around. I don't know off hand what the first image is supposed to be (is that Armalite measurements?); but it has a slant (not radiused) buffer tower... What's interesting there, is that there is a reference to the mag catch listed. The next question is; are there different height mag catch inserts? Are all the mag catch slots the same height; or is that where everything starts to go off the rails? If the official reference point is the bottom of the slot; and some manufacturers use a non-standard height mag catch, it may have compounded the offset issue on those particular lowers. One other thing that original poll never really addressed; is if there are proprietary upper cuts as well. I never came up with a well defined way to measure that. It could possibly be done with a series of measurements; but my ultimate curiosity was: "does the BCG position vary vertically in different upper receivers". My guess is, the answer to that question is "yes"; and that those should be sorted out. There should be an upper (some uppers) that are compatible with 0.700" measured lowers, and something else that works on those in the 0.640-0.650" range... Maybe time for a new measurement poll to ask the same question about mag-catch height; but also what upper receivers are in use (mated and functional) on those particular builds?
  12. I believe this is what you're looking for? The mag-catch height thread?
  13. Saw a bunch of fireflies earlier; but can't figure out what's up with that. I saw them early evening, and then not at all a few hours later. They were much more prolific in grassy fields nearby.... (just trying to stay "on topic") Finally dove in. Full on swan dive; belly flop. Sweet Sue's whole can of chicken for $20. None of them $5.75 deals 'round these parts...
  14. I don't think so... That'll buff out real easy with some "care". The same end-mill should do the job, or some more welding and then more end-mill.
  • Create New...