IRA-10D buffer damage.

[mjsemtex]

That ain't right, no matter how they try to sugarcoat it.  >:(

neither is the fact that i'm still waiting for the refund.

[imschur]

This is not good business...

I have stickied this topic.

[98Z5V]

And this was THE set I wanted to use for my first .308 AR build...  DNP was set to talk me out of it before I went to a gunshow - that had a great deal on the DPMS set.  I was supposed to call DNP prior to buying the DPMS parts, because he knew how bad I wanted the IRA setup.  I didn't call him, bought the stuff I bought - and I'm damn glad now that I'm not pissed off at IRA for something like this... 

I wish you luck, my friend.  They need to make this right, and not blow smoke up your ass about it.

[mjsemtex]

This is not good business...

I have stickied this topic.

thankfully, the refund showed up this week.

[MajorJim]

iron ridge has had the rifle / parts since early december and had said that they were going to replace the upper with their 'gen 2'... but, had also said that this wouldn't solve the way it was banging up the buffer as that was 'normal' in all AR rifles.

as i was unhappy with this response, they've offered to refund my purchases from them. which i accepted.

now, i'm waiting on the refund... i'd have thought it would be immediate which is not the case.

Kind of late to  the game here, but this is something that piqued my interest since I am not building an Iron Ridge upper & lower AR 308. 

How can Iron Ridge represent that the damage was "Normal in all AR rifles"  when they claimed before that the " never had this issue with other builds".  If it was never an issue before, how did something they had never seen before become the new normal? 

HI

Iron Ridge Will need to see the whole firearm, so we can determine  what the problem is.

who set up the rifle ? what type of action spring is being used. Etc. you will have a gap between the carrier and Buffer. But hard to work it out on line/ give us a call or email us your phone number and we can figure this out,  never had this issue with other builds.

thx.

Tech@IronRidgeGuns.com

That damage appears to me to have been caused by the BCG extending back into the buffer tube, slamming against the buffer retaining pin.  That is NOT normal, and is rarely seen - only when someone tries to mate an AR10 with a DMPS upper/lower/BCG, where there is a gap between the upper and lower receivers. 

I know Iron Ridge was selling both Armalite and DMPS style lowers around the same time, and began upper production with the DPMS style.  Is it possible you had an Armalite lower (maybe marked as a "D"), married to a DPMS upper? 

As for the "normal" comment, that bothers me a great deal.  Frankly, I have had great dealings with Oliver at Iron Ridge, and am more than a little shocked at this comment coming from anyone at Iron Ridge.  I am not implying that is what they told you, but one would think that a company deep into the AR market would know that the guys buing their components have a touch more experience with these platforms than the average buyer. 

[mjsemtex]

That damage appears to me to have been caused by the BCG extending back into the buffer tube, slamming against the buffer retaining pin.  That is NOT normal, and is rarely seen - only when someone tries to mate an AR10 with a DMPS upper/lower/BCG, where there is a gap between the upper and lower receivers.

as i'd purchased the complete lower well before the upper was available from iron ridge, i'd used the lower with a factory DPMS upper (at least 120 rounds fired) and experienced no unusual wear.

using the iron ridge upper, there was an obvious gap between the rear of the bolt carrier and the buffer when the upper and lower were mated together and closed. while the buffer retainer would normally not fall under pressure (other than when the upper and lower are opened up) it was taking the brunt of the force as the buffer moved forward when the weapon cycled.

i'm more than happy to never deal with the company again after the experiences i've had with them.

[Jgun]

I have watched this thread for a while because I thought the IR rec sets looked to be pretty high quality, and had considered going for one. I had even gone so far as to call up and speak to Oliver. He seemed like someone that would be willing to work with me (meaning answer countlees questions before I jumped) in getting what I wanted in order to end up with the finished gun that I envisioned.  For a number of reasons I didn't end up with the IR set, but figured it would be a good choice for my next build. But I don't see that many of you guys have gone with their set and this type of customer complaint certainly doesn't make me want to run out and order a set to see if your bad experience was an isolated one, or if this is the nature of how they are doing business. I can't fathom how a company can drop the ball like this when dealing with their customers. I have to think that no one who's followed this thread is going to consider buying one and if it is in fact a quality product that doesn't stick around because they are not managing the business properly, that would be a shame. Does anyone know if Iron Ridge has military or other contracts that they are giving their focus to at the expense of the civilian .308 AR enthusiast's?

[98Z5V]

That damage appears to me to have been caused by the BCG extending back into the buffer tube, slamming against the buffer retaining pin. 

The groove on the bottom of the BCG is there to clear the buffer retaining pin - if the BCG was extending back far enough to hit that pin, then you'd see evidence of the gas key impacting the top of the lower, and the receiver extension.

I think I understood what you were saying the damage was from, with my comment above.  Not possible, basically, without other, more visible damage.

This problem seen in the thread is caused by one thing:  When you close the upper to the lower, the tail of the BCG should push the buffer off it's retaining pin - when the rifle is closed.  The only time the buffer should ever touch it's retaining pin is when you open the upper and lower - but never when the rifle is closed/pinned, with the BCG fully forward and seated.  When this doesn't occur as described, the buffer slams into it's retaining pin every time the rifle cycles - and it chews up the edges of the buffer.  Eventually, I can't see how this wouldn't complete shear the top of the retaining pin right off, or fracture the lower in front of where the retaining pin is housed.

[Jgun]

So does that mean that there is something wrong with either the location of the shoulder on the barrel extension or the dimension of the thread length of the upper (not likely), or possibley the barrel was not seated against the front of upper receiver when assembled(more likely)? I'm trying to figure out what else could cause the bolt carrier to be too far forward in the upper.

[mjsemtex]

So does that mean that there is something wrong with either the location of the shoulder on the barrel extension or the dimension of the thread length of the upper (not likely), or possibley the barrel was not seated against the front of upper receiver when assembled(more likely)? I'm trying to figure out what else could cause the bolt carrier to be too far forward in the upper.

all parts (the barrel, bolt, bolt carrier, etc.) have since been installed on another upper with no problems. this was also done during the time i was trying to diagnose the issue at hand using a factory DPMS upper and there were no problems.

there have been other users with the same issue who were happy to band-aid the issue with buffer pads and anti-tilt buffers.

[98Z5V]

So does that mean that there is something wrong with either the location of the shoulder on the barrel extension or the dimension of the thread length of the upper (not likely), or possibley the barrel was not seated against the front of upper receiver when assembled(more likely)? I'm trying to figure out what else could cause the bolt carrier to be too far forward in the upper.

Could be a bunch of things, really.  Barrel not seated in the upper couldn't be it, because tightening the barrel nut would probably take care of that, and fully seat the barrel.

Maybe machining the back of the upper too long - we're seeing this kind of stuff on billet parts, so it's CNC programming - or machining the threaded neck on the front of the upper too long.  Whatever the cause, it's only been on machined parts on the .308 setups so far.  I'm pretty sure it's only been seen in machined parts on the 5.56 guns, too.  I don't recall seeing any forged 5.56 guns having this problem.  <dontknow>

[Jgun]

I guess I must be naive. I couldn't believe that a fully machined, billet receiver set which was being sold for a premium price could have such a serious design or manufacturing flaw.  You know, when you opt to pay that extra money over the price of a DPMS or Amalita set, you take it for granted that your getting a part that is dimensionally correct. When I go for someting like this I figure I'm paying extra for better machine work along with unique styling. As I said earlier, it's a shame when someone comes up with a good idea that doesn't make it because they didn't take care of quality control.

[98Z5V]

...you take it for granted that your getting a part that is dimensionally correct.

This is the problem, brother, right here.  There's no such thing as "dimensionally correct" for the .308 AR platform.  No set of plans or a TDP to follow to get it right, no specs to meet, no military QC steps to meet or follow...  <dontknow>

.308 AR manufacturers can basically do anything they want, as long as they pick a magazine that will work and design around that. We usually "get caught" on these builds when we use an upper from one maker with a lower from another.  You're right, though - no reason at all for an IRA upper and lower not working together. 

[survivalshop]

I think a lot of it is also ,was this manufacturer making complete rifles or receivers for another manufacturer that was making complete rifles.

If they were not , than they really have not had to experience this or any other problem that comes with building a rifle .

Sure they probably had a prototype some where , to test (maybe ) ,but when you go into production , things can change .

I have a lower from one manufacturer ,that did not make 308 rifles at the time they made lowers & I have had to do a lot of tweeking to get it to function correctly & it still will not function with one particular brand of mag..

So , I look at it this way , if they don't make a complete rifle ,with a good reputation , I won't buy there main components , period.

[Jgun]

Your point that since there is no mil spec standard for the .308 AR's as there is with the AR-15's , making it difficult if not impossible for a manufacturer to cover all the possible combinations that we might  come up with is valid. That being said, there is no excuse that I can think of that would justify selling an upper that you manufacture that doesn't work with the lower that you also manufacture (which DOES work with  the other  manufacturers uppers that you were supposedly designing it to be compatible with). And if you decide to make design revisions along the way that would effect the compatibility (gen1, gen2, etc) you have a responsibility to your customers to make it known how these changes will effect that compatibility. It's not easy to establish a good brand reputation, but it's not hard to damage it either, with this type of apparent mfg screw up. Regarding the idea of buying from mfg's that make complete guns that are known to work, Didn't IR offer complete guns? That was kind of the reason for my first post on this topic, I was trying to see if this was an isolated thing and if people who had guns with this rec set that were happy with them would respond. This stuff makes me think that I've been very lucky with the ones I've picked up. I preordered the MA TEN sight unseen because of my good experiences with their AR-15 receivers, and they don't even offer complete guns. I'm looking forward to hearing about Matt Crosses impressions of the Mega monolithic setup when his build is finished.

[98Z5V]

That being said, there is no excuse that I can think of that would justify selling an upper that you manufacture that doesn't work with the lower that you also manufacture (which DOES work with  the other  manufacturers uppers that you were supposedly designing it to be compatible with). And if you decide to make design revisions along the way that would effect the compatibility (gen1, gen2, etc) you have a responsibility to your customers to make it known how these changes will effect that compatibility.

Oh, I hear ya, man - and I completely agree with you.  Completely.  survivalshop hit it, above - just because somebody has a CNC machine and can program it doesn't necessarily mean they can manufacture reliable firearms with it.  I think this is what happened here; I don't know this company's history in any manner well enough to state for sure this is the case.  Just a guess based on observations. 

There's a fix for this, for cheap, depending on how large that gap is between the tail of the BCG and the buffer face, when the rifle is close/pinned.  If the gap is less than 0.080", then you could simply add a Tubb Carrier Weight System to the butt of the BCG and solve it.

[Jgun]

I happened to see a thread on Snipershide about this. I didn't bother to see how recent it was. The concensus seemed to be that the original poster was making a big deal out of nothing because the responders claimed to have solved the problem with one of those stick on rubber buffer pads they sell. If I were the owner of the gun , I would certainly be relieved to know that there was a solution to the problem that would allow me to use the gun without any further damage to the buffer (and more serious, the buffer retainer and possibly the hole it fits into on the lower) but I would still be more than a little puzzled as to why it was happening in the first place, Maybe the threaded section at the front of the upper is a little too long? If that were the case and you measured it compared to other uppers that you knew worked, You could mill a little off the front and recut the slot for the alignment pin and solve the problem once and for all. What has me more confused is, why (if true) the mfg would tell the customer that this obvious battering damage was "normal" .

[MajorJim]

I just had another thought - was the correct barrel extention used, and/or was the barrel seated all the way back into the receiver before the ring was tightened?  And was the ring tightened with a torque wrench to spec? 

As 98Z5V noted, the BCG is supposed to push the buffer back a little bit when the BCG is mounted in the receiver.  IF the barrel was seated too far forward, that could allow for some play in the BCG and receiver. 

[survivalshop]

An easy way to find that out , would be to measure the distance from the BBL. extension to the upper rear or the upper receiver.

With BCG removed ,you should be able to have a clear path to measure .

I don't have a precision instrument to go past six " (no laughing )

I will bring one home from work tomorrow .

I did take a measurement with a good tape measure & both my SIDefence & DPMS upper are both 7 13/16 . I would like to see something more precise.

[Jgun]

The possibility that the barrel/barrel extension are not machined/assembled properly is one thing that I would be  really pissed off about, it I were to find that to be the cause of the problem, but the thought that the barrel was not fully seated into the receiver bore before tightening down the barrel nut is just scary to think about, It's funny, whenever a friend shows up with a new rifle that they built, and offers to let me try it. I never give any thought to the fact that they might have done something wrong during the build and that I might be shooting an unsafe gun. Maybe I should be. I've had builds that required me to remove material from the barrel extension OD in order to get it to fully seat up to the shoulder, in the uppers bore. I've also had one barrel that the slot for the pin was so narrow I had to widen it for the barrel locating pin to fit. The pin would have probably widened the slot on it's own from the pressure of the barrel nut, but the oversize barrel would have never gone all the way to the shoulder before locking up. This is the kind of stuff that if your not competent enough to do properly, it's probably better if you leave it to a gunsmith to do for you.

[98Z5V]

I'd think that the barrel not being seated fully in the upper would be next to impossible.  Just tightening the barrel nut to spec would seat the two, even if they were just started, with the index pin barely in the slot. 

Machining the threaded front of the upper receiver too long would do it, though, as well as just machining the upper receiver too long at the back - anything that would keep the BCG from pushing the buffer off it's pin.  Even machining the buffer retaining pin hole too far back by a few thousandths of an inch would do it, with everything else being "correct."

[Jgun]

Based on the Snipershide thread, it would appear that mjsemtex's problem is not unique. Others seem to have encountered it. If that is true, it would indicate that there is, or has been in the past, a problem with something being out of spec on the receiver (either upper or lower). That is just what seems most likely to me if other people (that probably are using different brand barrels) have run into the same issue. If it had happened to me I think I would have found a way to compare all of the dimensions you mentioned, on the IRA receiver set, to a rec set that I knew to be good. Also, don't know this for sure because I didn't do it, but the oversize barrel I referred to before, started into the uppers bore but then locked up. When I checked the size difference, I found that the front of the receivers bore was about .0025" bigger than the back, since the barrel just started into the front, had I attempted to press or use the barrel nut to tighten the barrel down onto the shoulder, I would have had a .002" interference fit. Not sure if the aluminum threads on the upper would have been up to the task.

[98Z5V]

I attempted to press or use the barrel nut to tighten the barrel down onto the shoulder, I would have had a .002" interference fit. Not sure if the aluminum threads on the upper would have been up to the task.

0.002"...  That's a pretty bad interference fit - that is usually intentionally done at a 0.001" clearance for engine parts, and even into the "slightly-over-ten-thou" arena for some things.  I've got all the tools to measure something like that, but I never thought of that as a problem for CNC machining - boring that hole on a CNC machine shouldn't be a problem, over such a short distance (as the barrel extension seating area) for such a great taper.  That's a serious issue in the programming, or a serious issue in the hardware used. 

I don't know which scenario would be worse here - 0.002" interference in the bore for the barrel extension fitment, or a 0.002" interference in the slot that the barrel index pin goes in.  Probably be worse for the slot and index pin.  <dontknow>

That's effed up, from a machining standpoint.  I'd like to see IRA get in here on this and provide some follow-up on what they've found.

[Jgun]

The receiver that I was describing that had the .0025" barrel extension bore taper, was an AR-15 receiver of questionable manufacture, not an Iron Ridge, which I understand are supposed to be of extremely high quality. I just mentioned it to illustrate that a person "could " assemble one of these without seating the barrel fully, if there were any problems with the machining tolerances of the bore or the slot. All of the things that you mentioned are possibilities as well, but I'm thinking that they would require either a program or offset error. How else could you end up with a upper receiver that is physically too long while still having the pivot and takedown pin bores  located correctly. All of this is academic. For me, the real question, which was asked earlier, Is why the mfg. wasn't  willing to assist the owner with determining what the problem was, and resolving it.  I still think that the IR receivers look really nice and would love to do a build using one. This problem just kind of discourages me from the idea. Maybe some other Iron Ridge owners could post their experiences with the brand?

[survivalshop]

Measurements of the two upper receivers I have ,both measured from the face of the bbl. extention to the outer surface of the receiver.

DPMS  -- ---7.867 "

SIDefence--7.899 "

That's not much difference & could be a lot of reasons for that small of a one.

Now, as said ,I would look into a lot of other things ,if the upper measured about the same as mine , because mine work .

We know this rifle is using a Fulton Armory BCG , so its DPMS & probably not out of spec's , because FA sold it .

If the measurements of the barrel extension face to the back surface of the upper are close to mine( hell , all you have to do is insert the BCG & see if it protrudes from the end of the upper )  & of course the bolt, head spaces correctly , the only thing left is the Buffer retaining pin hole in the lower receiver.

That would be a manufactures defect.