98Z5V

Mine shipped free several weeks ago, brother - which was a nice surprise. It was the only thing I ordered then, too.

They're including an adjustable gas block, so you can tame down that "over-gassed rifle" that actually has a gas port that's too small in the first place... You now have an adjustable gas block and a too-small gas port, so you can "tame down" your rifle that is "under-recoiled" with a weak recoil system. They're still using an H1 buffer, which is too light. They're saying "AR-10 spring" which it probably isn't, unless they're getting the Armalite EA1095 spring FROM Armalite... I'll BET that receiver extension isn't 7 5/8" internal depth, either - but who cares? They clearanced the lower to you won't see the evidence of the BCG hitting it!...

RIGHT?!!? I think that pic was the recessed target crown...

Holy Shat. They clearanced the lower receiver, where BCG contact happens when the recoil system isn't correct, and you beat up your lower... Is that so you can't tell that the recoil system isn't right?...

I'll bet they finally unfucked it. That's why it's Gen 3. They probably fixed all the issues.

This is why I try to stick to nitrided BCGs now. NLA put that bolt in a gun and I'm sure is headpsaced correctly - but it's chamber depth wasn't the same as yours, I'll guarantee. Pretty brave to guarantee something like that, when I'm not even a gunsmith, right?...

DId you save these rounds, by chance? The ones you had to mortar out? If so, can you get a good picture of them,all line up. Need to see the bodies, shoulders and the necks.

Here's when you stated the barrel...

Damn. That Go Gauge and just the bolt (no BCG)... no way that's happening?... Criterion will send you a new barrel. You hit the barrel from DVOR, last October.

Will that BCG go all the way into battery, and the bolt rotate - with nothing in the chamber?

@Peachey, thought about you guys when I read this report this morning...

Exactly so. Using their logic, we can definitely say that the amount of US spending on space, science and technology directly correlates with the amount of Suicides by hanging, strangulation and suffocation...

Damnit! They're FAKE?!@!?

https://forum.308ar.com/forum/135-palmetto-state-armory/

It only needs to rotate enough to catch the back of the bolt lugs directly behind the front of the lugs in the extension - that's all the rotation a bolt does, ever. It rotates exactly as much as the cam pin slot makes it rotate. Look at the bolt face, extended - push it into the BCG and watch the rotation - that's all it ever does. It's not much.

You have no idea how happy I am that you used "correlation" in here. I've been sitting on this article for a few weeks, waiting to work it into a real discussion. Correlation and Causation… again: “Children” Edition By Keith Finch - July 17, 2019 https://gatdaily.com/correlation-and-causation-again-children-edition/?trk_msg=JD7G10GKUTFK17MMQCDA07JVCS&trk_contact=8V0L65B89JG3CKL2PPP2IG35AC&trk_module=new&trk_sid=7SVM9CRTIVQGB47G51LMMF4N2S Do gun safety laws decrease child deaths? Children in states with strict gun laws less likely to die, study says Correlation. Does. Not. Equal. Causation. A study released on Monday has led to a flurry of headlines stating the latest study of gun control has found that states with Universal Background Check laws (UBC’s) had lower child mortality rates due to firearms. Most of those headlines read like the second one above, if not even more emphatically linking the mortality rate to UBC’s But the first headline, from PBS, is the most accurate inquiry into the data. In the first paragraph they answer that question. There may be a connection between tougher gun laws and fewer child fatalities from firearms, a new study suggested Monday. The study, published in the journal Pediatrics, says states with universal background checks report fewer children’s deaths due to gun incidents. However, more data is needed to understand the relationship between firearms and public health, and to conclude whether such laws save lives, the study maintains. [emphasis mine] They don’t know. But they don’t want to say that. Not too loudly at least. They found a correlative link but do not have causative break downs. Anyone inside statistical analysis will tell you highlighting a single input, like UBC’s, and then projecting them as the assumed causative (as the headlines do) is simple lying with statistics. Reading into the various pieces further they are very careful with their language. They are attempting every possible linguistic method to keep UBC’s as the assumed causative because it was the correlative they found to push the narrative. According to the study, 21,241 children died due to firearm use between 2011 and 2015, based on federal data from the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention. That produces a firearm-related fatality rate of 4.65 per 100,000 U.S. children. -PBS The key terms are children and died. “Died” will include suicides, homicides, and accidents, all of which have very different causative circumstances but ending in the same result. The study generalized all of these factors to try and forward the idea that a UBC is the common solution in the reduced rate of mortality. Precisely how, or even a blind shot in the dark as to a reason, a UBC would influence suicide or accident rates is not expressed. Among states with universal background checks, Goyal said the study suggests a 35-percent drop in child firearm fatality rates compared to states without those laws. Suggests. Another careful word choice that doesn’t tie them into verifying the causative relations to their premise. The publishers want you to believe this is why (the UBC’s) it works without deep delving into the how or why that could possibly be the case. Also their numbers seem to include a very interesting extension of “children”… The study also grouped in young people between the ages of 18 and 21 into its accounting of child fatalities, which critics say painted a disingenuous picture for a study focused on child deaths. Considering these “children” can vote, smoke, drink (21), and enlist for war, yeah I’d go with pretty disingenuous. My 21st birthday was after the start of my 4th year of service… Children evokes an emotive response in us. It’s supposed too, we are wired to defend our offspring on a macro level. So using the term children in the headlines is to evoke that image of a child, 0-12 years of age. But including teens and young adults, who are developmentally and functionally at or near an autonomous adult level, are used too heavily pad the number. What would the rate look like if we take the 18-21 year old “children” out? Age group 0-17, 2012-2014 National Vital Statistics System via AAP News & Journals By excluding the legal adult, voting age, military age male and female portion of the study the mortality rate drops to only 37.8% of what the study claims. From 4.65 to only 1.76 per 100,000. By including the young adults the study is able to nearly triple their mortality rate. I’m not saying these deaths aren’t of note. They are. What I am saying is that equating these deaths to that of a 6 year old is back to using statistics to lie. What about actual children? Excluding both teens and young adults? What is the danger to the truly and fully dependant age ranges? Age group 0-12 NVSS Less than 1/10th of the deaths are children. Over 90% of the 21,241 are over the age of 12. Over 60% are over the age of 18! So why isn’t this study correlating that UBC’s have a 35% reductive effect on firearms deaths among young adults? Why use the term children? Simple. Dead children evoke an emotive response. But when placed in perspective things change. CDC Childhood Injury Report: Patterns of Unintentional Injuries among 0-19 year olds in the United States, 2000-2006. Drowning rates varied by age group with the highest rates among children 1-4 years of age at 3.0 per 100,000; among this group, drowning represented 27% of all unintentional injury deaths. The unintentional drowning rate is six times higher for children age 1-4 than all firearm related deaths of children age 0-12. Granted these are different studies, different year ranges, and only some overlapping age ranges not direct data point to data point. The point, however, is that when we break down the data into useable pieces the headline presumption completely falls apart. The headlines are deliberately shaping a correlation causation relationship that has no substantiation and is, in point of practical analysis, a farce. The conclusion the study wanted was that a gun control measure, UBC’s in the case, reduced gun deaths. What they produced was a piece of misconstrued data to fit their message, and evoked the emotive “dead children” card. When we break down the data we can draw some conclusions. Crime among young adult, especially male, results in the majority of homicide gun deaths Suicide among young adults is also a massive contributing factor to gun deaths Young adults are the majority contributor to all of these stat blocks The UBC might have a peripheral influence on criminal homicide and suicide deaths with a number of attached suppositions. Supposition A. That a transfer that was blocked was the only method for the person committing suicide or committing homicide to get the weapon. Supposition B. That the firearm was the only method that person had considered to complete the action of suicide or homicide and that they will not commit otherwise by any other method. Supposition C. The person looking to commit suicide or homicide is unwilling to break the UBC law. Supposition D. The person looking to commit the suicide or homicide is already properly flagged by background as prohibited. Conclusions Well… conclusion, singular. This is just another massaged set of data where they’ve shucked away the useable bits and burned the credibility for the sake of promoting a message. *le sigh* Correlation AND causation folks… they matter. They really do if you genuinely want to improve on these problems.

Did you read what I wrote earlier about that company? Have you researched that company? Why don't you get down to the details, here, once and for all. Tell the exact problem with the exact gun, the combination of parts on that gun - by the manufacturers (not just half-assed partial names of companies)... So, now, we're not dealing with the 24" gun, at all? Why was it even brought up in the first place then?

Oh,this whole thing is "choreographed" all right. You can't compare a bolt gun to a gas gun. I have some ammo that I'll only load and shoot through a bolt gun, but I'd never shoot it through a gas gun, because it would blow a gas gun up. Read into that, you'll see the meaning. This thread turned into caliber to caliber performance, the instant you thought I didn't know what I was talking about on these particular 6.5s, because I'm shooting a .260 Remington. Regarless how many 6.5 Creedmoors I've shot, you dismissed it all, and I can quote that instance for you. What bolt are you using, that you only identified as "Davidson?" And when did you switch to that bolt, in the round-count history of your gun? Is this bolt "Davidson Defense" or not. If not, what "Davidson" bolt did you put in your BCG?

The 4 rules of Gun Safety. Never seen it covered better.

“Illegal Rifle!” in Gilroy, CA By Keith Finch - July 30, 2019 https://gatdaily.com/illegal-rifle-in-gilroy-ca/?trk_msg=OJHKDT7L789KJ06UQ6E1FKO1KS&trk_contact=8V0L65B89JG3CKL2PPP2IG35AC&trk_module=new&trk_sid=AUM495LBFA1CV71BDO4UN822P4 The LA Times is reporting that the 19 year old shooter who killed 3, before being killed in a gunfight with the police at the Gilroy Garlic Festival, used a rifle. An illegal rifle to possess in California. Originally stated to be a WASR-10, a lower cost AK variant, that description has since been updated to “an AK-47 variant” and a few sources have said SKS, which I believe given the sources of “AK variant”. Regardless of final clarity, the rifle was purchased legally in Nevada and then illegally brought to California. The shooter passed his NICS background check. “That weapon could not be sold in California. That weapon cannot be imported into the state of California,” Becerra said in response to a question about the assault-style rifle used in the shooting. Becerra added: “There is a very strong likelihood as we develop the evidence that the perpetrator in this particular case violated California law on top of the crimes of homicide and so forth, the crimes that we have that are meant to prevent individuals from carrying out this type of activity.” – via CNN Pre-crime precognition isn’t a thing so… what’s to be done? California government officials have expressed sentiments along the lines of, ‘can’t defend themselves from the Second Amendment’… implying that constitutionally protected civil rights are to blame. “I can’t put borders up … in a neighboring state where you can buy this damn stuff legally,” California Gov. Gavin Newsom said Monday morning, calling for action from Washington, DC. “I have no problem with the Second Amendment, you have a right to bear arms but not weapons of … mass destruction.” Of course we should blame Nevada, the gun store there, the US Constitution, the NRA, who else… who else? “The shooter?”, someone would inquire from the back of the room. No, that’s preposterous! It was white supremacist rhetoric and Donald Trump! [/sarcasm] The 19 year old shooter has been linked to a text, “Might is Right” by Ragnar Redbeard, believed to be Arthur Desmond, a late 19th century British born author, poet, and politician who espoused a dark bend of survivalist, darwinist, ‘kill-or be-killed’, the strong should rule the weak type mentality known as egoist anarchism. The text is also heavily anti-christian. What’s it all mean? It means that anti-2A politicians, media types, and groups are going to use the attack to further fuel their base for vaporware “common sense gun safety” legislation. It means the 3 who died and those that were wounded have become political ammo for further regulations in California and across the nation. But mostly it means making something illegal doesn’t stop it. Illegal never has, illegal never will. Mass violence is not new. It is not unique to the United States. A killer did an illegal thing with an “illegal rifle.” Did that make the situation any better, California? The fact that it was double against the law? No, it didn’t. But what did, ironically, were the people with guns. The officers who stopped the attack on a defenseless crowd by a lunatic with delusions of grandeur, they made things better. Perhaps most ironic, the shooter proved himself the weak one, by his own espoused ideologic theory he should have been culled. Wish granted, a$shole.

That's not my acronym - that's the acronym that the US Secret Service uses. One of their jobs is to study stuff like this, and come up with countermeasures (seeing how their primary job is Thread ID and countermeasures to that). Mass Attacks in Public Spaces By Keith Finch - July 30, 2019 https://gatdaily.com/mass-attacks-in-public-spaces/?trk_msg=OJHKDT7L789KJ06UQ6E1FKO1KS&trk_contact=8V0L65B89JG3CKL2PPP2IG35AC&trk_module=new&trk_sid=AUM495LBFA1CV71BDO4UN822P4 MAPS (Mass Attacks in Public Spaces) is a report completed by the US Secret Service that studies the incidents of mass casualty violence inside the United States. The report for 2018 was recently brought to me attention via an opinion piece on The Hill, the report was published this month. While the opinion columnist uses it to make an impassioned plea for gun control I wanted to look into the compiled data for myself. The considerations section at the end is especially worthy of note. From MAPS – 2018 Considerations Like the year before, 2018 saw incidents of mass violence impact the places where we work, learn, worship, or otherwise conduct our daily activities. Consistent with previous research from the Secret Service, these attacks were found to be motivated by a variety of goals, grievances, and ideologies. The attackers varied widely on demographic factors, and while there is no single profile that can be used to predict who will engage in targeted violence, focusing on a range of concerning behaviors while assessing threats can help promote early intervention with those rare individuals that pose such a risk. [emphasis added] Mental health and mental wellness Mental illness, alone, is not a risk factor for violence, and most violence is committed by individuals who are not mentally ill. Two-thirds of the attackers in this study, however, had previously displayed symptoms indicative of mental health issues, including depression, paranoia, and delusions. Other attackers displayed behaviors that do not indicate the presence of a mental illness, but do show that the person was experiencing some sort of distress or an emotional struggle. These behaviors included displays of persistent anger, an inability to cope with stressful events, or increased isolation. Out of 27 Incidents, 2018 A multidisciplinary approach that promotes emotional and mental wellness is an important component of any community violence prevention model. For example, a robust employee assistance program (EAP) can help to promote mental wellness in the workplace, whether that involves facilitating mental health treatment or assisting with other personal problems, like substance abuse, financial struggles, or problems in a personal relationship. The importance of reporting Since three-quarters of the attackers had concerned the people around them, with most of them specifically eliciting concerns for safety, the public is encouraged to share concerns they may have regarding coworkers, classmates, family members, or neighbors. Such reports could be made to workplace managers, school administrators, or law enforcement, as appropriate. While over-reporting is not the goal, a reasonable awareness of the warning signs that can precede an act of violence may prompt community members to share their concerns with someone who can help. Systems can be developed to promote and facilitate such reporting, and people should be encouraged to trust their instincts, especially if they have concerns for someone’s safety. For example, several states have recently developed statewide reporting infrastructures that allow students and others to utilize a smartphone app to submit anonymous tips to a call center staffed by law enforcement. This type of program can facilitate not only a law enforcement response to reported threats, but also a community-level response to reports of bullying, suicidal ideation, self-harm, or depression. “…Do Something” Since 2010, the Department of Homeland Security has effectively promoted the “If You See Something, Say Something®” national campaign, originally developed by New York City’s Metropolitan Transportation Authority, which encourages the reporting of suspicious activity. In many of these cases from 2018, members of the general public successfully performed their role in the “See Something, Say Something” process, by reporting their concerns to someone with a role in public safety. At that point, the responsibility is on the public safety professionals to “Do Something,” namely assessing the situation and managing as needed. By adopting a multidisciplinary threat assessment approach, that standardizes the process for identifying, assessing, and managing individuals who may pose a risk of violence, law enforcement and others are taking steps to ensure that those individuals who have elicited concern do not “fall through the cracks.” Law enforcement partnerships While law enforcement has a key role to play in the prevention of community violence, intervening with individuals who may pose a risk is not the responsibility of law enforcement alone. Particularly in those instances where a concerning individual has not broken a law, the relationships between law enforcement and other community resources become paramount. Law enforcement personnel are encouraged to continue developing close partnerships with the mental health community, local schools and school districts, houses of worship, social services, and other private and public community organizations. The mission of law enforcement in the United States is public service oriented, and that mission will be most effectively executed through multidisciplinary and collaborative community efforts. Targeted violence has a profound and devastating impact on those directly involved and a far reaching emotional impact to those beyond. Because these acts are usually planned over a period of time, and the attackers often elicit concern from the people around them, there exists an opportunity to stop these incidents before they occur. Threat assessment is one of the most effective practices for prevention. Many of the resources to support this process are already in place at the community level, but require leadership, collaboration, and information sharing to facilitate their effectiveness at preventing violence. Threat Assessment The Importance of Threat Assessment “Threat assessment” refers to a proactive approach to violence prevention. It is an investigative model originally developed by the U.S. Secret Service to prevent assassinations, but has since been adapted to prevent all forms of targeted violence, regardless of motivation. This includes K-12 school shootings and acts of workplace violence. When implemented effectively, a threat assessment generally involves three key components: Identify -> Assess -> Manage Research indicates that the majority of perpetrators of targeted violence elicit concern in others prior to the attack. We rely on those people who observe such concerns to identify the individual to law enforcement or to someone else with a public safety responsibility. In educational settings or workplaces, concerns may be reported to a multidisciplinary threat assessment team that works in conjunction with law enforcement when needed. The responsible public safety entity is then tasked to assess the situation to determine how they can manage any risk of violence posed by the individual. With a focus on early intervention, this systematic approach is an important component of any safety plan. It allows communities to respond appropriately to a broad range of situations, from those individuals who are displaying a low-level concerning behavior to those who may pose an immediate and imminent risk of violence. What’s absent from the MAPS Considerations? Gun Ban It is never suggested that a public ban on any firearm type would be a useful step in reducing mass violence. It’s lack of inclusion suggests the strategy was found wanting and ineffective in the goal of preventing attacks. Were it an effective solution or a method of execution viable for impacting mass casualty events it would be included. Magazine Capacity Ban Like the gun ban, a capacity ban on magazines for firearms is not listed under the considerations for limiting mass casualty attacks. Again like the firearm ban, a public prohibition on magazines of above an arbitrarily picked number of rounds would not realistically prevent attacks or reduce casualties. Just as banning certain methods of injury while leaving others available would not suffice nor significantly alter outcomes, altering a firearms capacity wouldn’t influence method of injury enough to make mass casualty less likely in any viable way. Red Flag Laws Yes the considerations recommend reporting and intervention on a personal, professional, medical, or legal means as necessary but the key factor in the recommendation, as opposed to the legal framework of most ‘red flag’ legislation, is early intervention to help in place of just a confiscatory action. Red Flag legislation seems to have that goal in mind but crafting the framework to minimize abuse and protect the rights of persons who may be under suspicion (rightly or wrongly) is not high among the priorities of lawmakers. “Red Flag” legislation, in brief, sounds good. On the surface it seems like a good plan. The devil is in the details, as the saying goes, and the lack of legal protections for the “flagged” can make the law, designed for safety, into a weapon too easily. Final Thoughts While public mass violence is a very open and therefore terrifying spectacle and steps must be taken to safeguard against it, it is not a cause for rash overreactions and drastic changes in law. Mass violence accounted for 91 deaths and 107 injuries across the nation in 2018. By comparison, Chicago is sitting at 296 homicides right now, including an 8 victim shooting incident where 3 died. But because that was “city violence” associated with established criminal activity it doesn’t get the attention that an incident like Gilroy does. There are things we can do. There are steps we can take. A ban isn’t among the effective ones.

Thanks for the answer, by the way - I noticed that you avoided answering my question, but I expected that. Pride fucked with you, and you couldn't answer it - or you didn't want to. Nice deflection, though. I hope my answer back to YOU was sufficient for YOU, though.

Not pistols - just rifles and shotguns. Rifle and Shotgun semi's = gone with this one. Read all about it, right here: https://ballotpedia.org/Florida_Ban_on_Semiautomatic_Rifles_and_Shotguns_Initiative_(2020) Here's the FL AG challenge to it: https://www.thetruthaboutguns.com/florida-ag-challenges-ballot-measure-that-would-outlaw-most-semi-auto-firearms-in-the-state/?

SS, I have about 40 of these things. ARs. Large and small frame, across MULTIPLE calibers. I've learned what I've learned, THROUGH building these. Myself. I've diagnosed more shiit here than you have, and you are the, self-proclaimed, by you: I have these recoil systems down to a science - and you disagree with me on that because "your DPMS works just fine." Good for you. MY DPMS recoil system - the ONE that I have, from true factory parts - works fine, too. It's a rifle recoil system. First one I built. You can try to belittle me all you want, you can throw your "gunsmith" credentials around all you want, talk all the shiit you want. You can tell me about the "hundreds of different types of Firearms for over forty years & repaired them!" that you want. I've been a professional user of the AR platform for 21.5 years, and that ended 12 years ago. Since that beginning, I've been IN THEM for 32.5 years. In ARs. Only. Now, you gonna tell me that you're superior to me?.... Should I BOW to you now, or later? You just stated above, that you have zero experience with either cartridge that's discussed. You said it here: So, why are you in this thread in the first place? You don't have any hands on with either of them - I have extensive hands-on with .260 Rem, and you didn't even know how similar that 6.5 Creedmoor was, to the .260 Rem - that really spelled it out to me. You don't know what you're talking about, in THIS subject. 40 years, pro gunsmith, worked on hundreds, or not. Pierced primers - those were hot loads. That's how this all started, before he sucked you in, with all the same shiit he always does. That's how this guy does it. I wasn't about listening to all his BS about mil-dot scopes and 1/4 MOA "superior" turret adjustments, LAST TIME he pulled this - you apparently missed that one, SS. Read up on what you're trying to argue here - and at LEAST know what cartridges you're talking about, and defending to the death here - from a REAL HANDS-ON EXPERIENCE level. Don't give me your theoretical "shoulder angle" BS on this. I have plenty of friends with 6.5 Creedmoor guns, both bolt and semi - that DO NOT have this maginal "Bullet Deformation" thing going on in their guns - that I have personally, myself, shot. @survivalshop, you apparently missed the fact that the 22 and 24 inch barrels he's having the issues with, are Bear Creek Arsenal barrels - budget barrels. He SWITCHED his bolt to a "davidson" bolt- I asked if that was "Davidson Defense" and never - NEVER - got a response... Davidson Defense ONLY deals in BLEM PARTS, that they get cheap from manufacturers, them mark them up and pass them on... So, is THAT the company, that he won't answer about?... Pretty much has to be - no other name in the business, besides "Davidson Defense." So, @survivalshop, what was his blem with that bolt... was it in material finish, or in material function?... "Gunsmith," are you there? What's his blem? Finish or function, there?... You @survivalshop, would be WAY better off defending someone with a bone stock first-gen PA-10, that argues about everything, than you'd be, right here, defending that which you are - and you don't even see that. You don't know, that which you are talking about in this thread... YOU are the "professional gunsmith" with all this experience, years repairing hundreds of these, and all that bulshiit, though You're WAY smarter than me on this, so you tell me - you tell me what details you missed in this whole giant shiit-show of a thread, that you didn't catch, and I did. YOU are the one that is WAY SUPERIOR TO ME on all this AR shiit. To me, it seems that you can't take being challenged, and when you are wrong, you can't take it. You missed ALOT in this thread - and you didn't even know it. You don't know the parts named, you don't know the REAL differences in those two cartridges (that's not even what this thread started as), and you don't know how to FIRST start on diagnosing a pierced primer. Fucking tell me where I'm wrong, and I'll jump my ass right back in here. "Gunsmith."