Hoot's CCWS (Cheap Carrier Weight System)

Talk about the AR15 style rifles chambered in 450 Bushmaster.

Moderator: MudBug

Re: Hoot's CCWS (Cheap Carrier Weight System)

Postby kobraken » Mon Nov 18, 2013 6:57 pm

Hey Hoot, (insert evil scientist/ red neck laugh) u said your slug weighs 4-5 oz What if you could add weight - say drill a small hole in the center and fill it with mercury . How heavy is too heavy? Not that I would ever play with mercury.............that might account for the way I act now..........
Here piggy,piggy,piggy, I got something for you.
kobraken
 
Posts: 54
Joined: Tue Nov 05, 2013 9:14 pm
Location: Northwest Louisiana

Re: Hoot's CCWS (Cheap Carrier Weight System)

Postby Hoot » Mon Nov 18, 2013 11:18 pm

kobraken wrote:Hey Hoot, (insert evil scientist/ red neck laugh) u said your slug weighs 4-5 oz What if you could add weight - say drill a small hole in the center and fill it with mercury . How heavy is too heavy? Not that I would ever play with mercury.............that might account for the way I act now..........


No reason why you can't use more than one dense material. Not sure if the fluid dynamics of the mercury would buy you any unique change in behavior, save adding slightly more mass. Ditto on drilling the slug and pressing a tungsten rod inside it, since tungsten is also more dense. The similar mad scientist in me would be more interested in the effect of the mercury, given it brings a different set of characteristics to the equation.

Bottom line is any form of additional mass, regardless of composition, will add some unlocking delay to the cycle and provide a more gentle treatment for your expensive brass. Some folks add a slightly more robust spring to the additional weight and claim that it improves the process even more. I have not done that since I've never seen evidence that my spring was bottoming out and a lighter spring lends to a more gentle stripping of the next round from the magazine. and the additional mass seems from my observation, to make the life of the spring a little easier. All of this having been said. The fun of experimentation is best experienced by doing, not reading. It also broadens your understanding of how different factors play into the overall picture of this and any other AR15 caliber.

Learning by doing is very rewarding. Even the failures provide a better understanding of the process. Best of all, it gives you yet another reason to get out there and shoot. Share your steps with everyone along the way. We never tire or reading about them.

Hoot
In Theory, there is no difference between theory and practice. In Practice, there is.
User avatar
Hoot
 
Posts: 5083
Joined: Tue Feb 09, 2010 9:34 am
Location: Minnesota

Re: Hoot's CCWS (Cheap Carrier Weight System)

Postby Texas Sheepdawg » Tue Nov 19, 2013 1:49 am

Won't mercury amalgamize when it comes into contact with Lead?
Not even sure if that's the proper term....
I just did a quick search on Lead Mercury Amalgam and I don't think this is a good idea.
Just my .02.......
-Texas Sheepdawg

http://youtube.com/c/TexasSheepdawg21
NRA Life Member
User avatar
Texas Sheepdawg
 
Posts: 4731
Joined: Fri Nov 05, 2010 10:55 am
Location: North Texas

Re: Hoot's CCWS (Cheap Carrier Weight System)

Postby Hoot » Tue Nov 19, 2013 9:59 am

Texas Sheepdawg wrote:Won't mercury amalgamize when it comes into contact with Lead?
Not even sure if that's the proper term....
I just did a quick search on Lead Mercury Amalgam and I don't think this is a good idea.
Just my .02.......


That's a good point. Not sure if it will eat through the vessel, or just make the surface where it comes in contact with, get "cheesey". That's probably why the commercial ones use stainless steel. Oh well...

I have abut 4 ounces of it that I harvested from old mercury wetted relays and thermostats, in a pill bottle. 4 ounces is not a lot by volume, so I never got around to doing anything with it. I do take it out of the chemical cabinet from time to time, just to hold it, shake it and imagine... Then I put it back. Now that I have a hobby lathe, if I had more of it, I'd experiment with making a vessel out of stainless, that could be use for experimentation. I'm too cheap to buy a commercial one.

Hoot
In Theory, there is no difference between theory and practice. In Practice, there is.
User avatar
Hoot
 
Posts: 5083
Joined: Tue Feb 09, 2010 9:34 am
Location: Minnesota

Re: Hoot's CCWS (Cheap Carrier Weight System)

Postby Texas Sheepdawg » Tue Nov 19, 2013 11:34 am

Read this before trying to mix mercury and lead. Adding heat seems very risky.
http://www.southerncrossmetalrecyclers. ... algam.html
-Texas Sheepdawg

http://youtube.com/c/TexasSheepdawg21
NRA Life Member
User avatar
Texas Sheepdawg
 
Posts: 4731
Joined: Fri Nov 05, 2010 10:55 am
Location: North Texas

Re: Hoot's CCWS (Cheap Carrier Weight System)

Postby kobraken » Tue Nov 19, 2013 7:08 pm

Hmmmm ,does sound like a bad idea. Most of my ideas start out just like this,then there's a large noise,possibly sirens and lights, an ER run...................but occasionally it works out . Hmmmm we are currently welding stainless using the rig process and I think I have about a dozen 1/8 " dia 1" long pieces of tungsten .......I could either drill the lead and insert the tungsten or stack the tungsten in the cylinder form and pour lead in around it . Wonder how heavy I can get it? Wonder what the limit is?
Here piggy,piggy,piggy, I got something for you.
kobraken
 
Posts: 54
Joined: Tue Nov 05, 2013 9:14 pm
Location: Northwest Louisiana

Re: Hoot's CCWS (Cheap Carrier Weight System)

Postby Chief506 » Thu Nov 21, 2013 12:12 pm

Hey Hoot,
I would like your input on your weight system. I want to add weight to the bolt carrier. What I was considering using, was a carbide shack off a end mill. .625dia x 2" long. I'm having a groove/notch ground into it. 3/16" from end. Then drill and tap a hole in bolt carrier, and use a set screw (cone point or dog point) to lock the carbide in place. It looks like i have enough material (thickness) to use only one set screw. Not a double stack. My thought on this is it will be removable, and get a less permanent modification. My worry is it coming loose. I will use loctite (red) on the set screw. What are your thoughts? Thanks for your time.
Mike
Chief506
 
Posts: 5
Joined: Sat Nov 16, 2013 6:20 pm
Location: IOWA

Re: Hoot's CCWS (Cheap Carrier Weight System)

Postby Texas Sheepdawg » Thu Nov 21, 2013 12:30 pm

I haven't had any problems with my bolt carrier system. From my experience so far, the standard carrier that came with it has operated just fine. Maybe it's because instead of weight, I'm using the LeGendre Crimp to slow things down a hair?
-Texas Sheepdawg

http://youtube.com/c/TexasSheepdawg21
NRA Life Member
User avatar
Texas Sheepdawg
 
Posts: 4731
Joined: Fri Nov 05, 2010 10:55 am
Location: North Texas

Re: Hoot's CCWS (Cheap Carrier Weight System)

Postby Hoot » Thu Nov 21, 2013 2:12 pm

Chief506 wrote:Hey Hoot,
I would like your input on your weight system. I want to add weight to the bolt carrier. What I was considering using, was a carbide shack off a end mill. .625dia x 2" long. I'm having a groove/notch ground into it. 3/16" from end. Then drill and tap a hole in bolt carrier, and use a set screw (cone point or dog point) to lock the carbide in place. It looks like i have enough material (thickness) to use only one set screw. Not a double stack. My thought on this is it will be removable, and get a less permanent modification. My worry is it coming loose. I will use loctite (red) on the set screw. What are your thoughts? Thanks for your time.
Mike


Chief, I wouldn't rely upon a set screw to retain that weight. There's a good chance it will peen over and/or break off and possibly gouge something up. I understand the reasoning behind that approach as opposed to an adhesive that will require heat to dislodge, but I think there will be too much stress on too small an area when the bolt falls on an empty chamber. I had once toyed with the idea of tapping the inside of the BC to accept a threaded weight and utilizing a set screw to discourage it from screwing in or out on it's own, but it was a lot of work. Also, wasn't sure how disrupting that much surface area inside the BC would effect it's overall strength.

Dawg, you are correct that the rifle works fine without any weight, but the side crimp and BCA mass have different contributions to the overall cycle.

Hoot
In Theory, there is no difference between theory and practice. In Practice, there is.
User avatar
Hoot
 
Posts: 5083
Joined: Tue Feb 09, 2010 9:34 am
Location: Minnesota

Re: Hoot's CCWS (Cheap Carrier Weight System)

Postby Texas Sheepdawg » Thu Nov 21, 2013 11:34 pm

Dawg, you are correct that the rifle works fine without any weight, but the side crimp and BCA mass have different contributions to the overall cycle.

Thanx for pointing this out, Hoot. Could you elaborate a bit on the differences, not only for my benefit, (I seem to recall a phone conversation about this a few years ago yet I've forgotten the details), but also for some of the newer guys? I understand that the custom crimp causes delay in bullet release creating a better ignition to the powder, which helps bring up pressures faster to help seal the case to the chamber wall as well. This does "delay" opening of the bolt by nanoseconds... But why add slower, heavier slam and inertia to the carrier when it seems that on the surface, the side crimp is achieving a similar delay? Also, what are the combined benefits with the weight system and the side crimp?
-Texas Sheepdawg

http://youtube.com/c/TexasSheepdawg21
NRA Life Member
User avatar
Texas Sheepdawg
 
Posts: 4731
Joined: Fri Nov 05, 2010 10:55 am
Location: North Texas

PreviousNext

Return to AR15 Style Rifles

Who is online

Users browsing this forum: No registered users and 23 guests