Looks like they are still making regular old MR556A1s in the new Georgia factory. - Page 11
Page 11 of 13 FirstFirst ... 9 10 11 12 13 LastLast
Results 101 to 110 of 130
Like Tree2Likes

Thread: Looks like they are still making regular old MR556A1s in the new Georgia factory.

  1. #101
    HKPRO PREMIUM PARTNER
    Brad4065's Avatar
    Join Date : Dec 2009
    Location : That black SUV in your driveway
    Posts : 3,730
    Mentioned
    57 Post(s)

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Nzfly View Post
    Oh I understand what you have provided, but it doesn’t appear to align with what is logically consistent. If they are tool marks caused by worn bits, then why do so many, if not all, units share this attribute? Contrast that with the fact the "same" part (Daniel Defense finished) lack this attribute. It stands more reasonable those machining marks are not as you suggest as worn bits, but rather intentional and reflective of different manufacturing process.

    It is pretty damn inflammatory to suggest I am deluding myself. When I do an image search for "cotes de Geneve" many of the images match the pattern I find in my rifle’s receiver. To ward off more semantic crap, I say many, as clearly the term is being applied to fish-scaling, and that isn’t what we are talking about.

    So, I can choose to believe HK is sending out parts they made in-spec, but with worn tools, ignoring that probably every unit appears to have them. Or, I can choose to believe you, someone who constantly argues about how right they are even in the face of other informed perspectives.

    Hallelujah! Holy S***! Where’s the Tylenol?"
    I think you hit the nail on the head.
    A redneck's famous last words...."Hey everybody, watch this!"

  2. #102
    Gets the Shakes if No HK Contact in 24 Hour Period

    Join Date : Jan 2011
    Posts : 530
    Mentioned
    10 Post(s)

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by InshallahTech View Post
    The "Cotes de Geneve" (more commonly called "jeweling") is a very specific finishing step that adds time and cost to a piece that is done mostly for decorative purposes. Remember, we're talking about weapons here, not swiss watches.

    It is also such a fine surface process means that anodizing would completely cover it, thereby making it non-visible and a complete waste of time.

    I've seen a lot of aluminum parts hit the market with this "pattern" (i.e. machine marks) from a wide variety of manufacturers and once again, coming from a reputable manufacturer means it's still within the design tolerances set by the specifications and a non-issue. It does not mean that HK is putting out sub-par parts.

    When bit wear DOES become an issue is like when Aero precision constantly lets their magwell broaches wear down so post anodizing even USGI aluminum mags have a very difficult time fitting, much less dropping free. They say they fix it, yet it happens again every couple years or so. :-/

    Plenty of USGI contract parts we used on guns in the middle east had similar machine markings and as long as it doesn't effect form, fit, or function, no big deal.

    Personally, I don't understand how anybody could delude themselves into thinking that they would find a "Cotes de Geneve" type finish on a factory AR series rifle regardless of manufacture unless it was for a special collectors edition with a very low release quantity.

    Some bolt gun manufacturers have been known to perform something similar on the bolts of some higher end rifles, and of course hobbyists have been doing this to anything they can get their hands on from AR15 BCG's to needle nose pliars (you can find many examples of this with a quick search using "Jeweled rifle bolt").

    Perhaps since the 416 is designed to be deployed with the tip of the spear........the rz on the inside of the receiver is specified so it holds more oil.

  3. #103
    Gets the Shakes if No HK Contact in 24 Hour Period

    Join Date : Nov 2015
    Posts : 700
    Mentioned
    27 Post(s)

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Nzfly View Post
    Oh I understand what you have provided, but it doesn’t appear to align with what is logically consistent. If they are tool marks caused by worn bits, then why do so many, if not all, units share this attribute? Contrast that with the fact the "same" part (Daniel Defense finished) lack this attribute. It stands more reasonable those machining marks are not as you suggest as worn bits, but rather intentional and reflective of different manufacturing process.
    So you assume that a) your point is logically consistent and b) that "DD finished" MR556 and HK416 are "same part" and c) that due to assumption b, it must be a different manufacturing process.

    And then you use that to attack a member because he debunks the theories brought forward.

    HK is not required to produce weapons for the US Mil/Leo customers locally, they can be imported from HK Germany just fine. Hence you actually have "different part". But that said, its awesome to see the amount of theorycrafting that goes into manufacturing tolerances.

  4. Remove Advertisements
    HKPro.com
    Advertisements
     

  5. #104
    Unrepentant HKHolic
    Nzfly's Avatar
    Join Date : Aug 2011
    Posts : 2,008
    Mentioned
    62 Post(s)

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by baljar View Post
    So you assume that a) your point is logically consistent and b) that "DD finished" MR556 and HK416 are "same part" and c) that due to assumption b, it must be a different manufacturing process.

    And then you use that to attack a member because he debunks the theories brought forward.

    HK is not required to produce weapons for the US Mil/Leo customers locally, they can be imported from HK Germany just fine. Hence you actually have "different part". But that said, its awesome to see the amount of theorycrafting that goes into manufacturing tolerances.
    Bold strategy, Cotton. Let’s see if that works out for him.

    a) I assumed his argument was not logically consistent. AND b) HK provides the blank receivers to Daniel Defense for finishing stateside. AND c) because the finishes (I. E. Tool marks are visually different) then, yes, the method of manufacturing was different.

    No, the guy in the room without firsthand knowledge puts out that I am deluded to believe my speculation was accurate. If you read his posts, or the plain reading of mine, and conclude he debunked anything then I can’t help you. If the fact that I have a 416, not a MR failed to make the point, we’ll carry on about theory crafting and all that whatnot.

    ETA: the fire control pocket doesn’t have the same tool marks as the magwell. So, I mean, because I was saving money using only my worn out bits to mill the magwells, I saved my crisp new bits to mill the pocket. Makes so much logical sense how could anyone have missed it? @balljar
    Last edited by Nzfly; 12-10-2017 at 03:56 AM.

  6. #105
    Very Senior Member
    InshallahTech's Avatar
    Join Date : Aug 2013
    Location : WA
    Posts : 390
    Mentioned
    15 Post(s)

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by NoScoE30 View Post
    Perhaps since the 416 is designed to be deployed with the tip of the spear........the rz on the inside of the receiver is specified so it holds more oil.
    No, at this juncture the only thing I can surmise is that there are a whole lotta folks with no manufacturing or finishing experience who desperately want to feel that a piece of equipment they own is super special to the point that they can look at something so mundane as tooling marks and convince themselves that such an ordinary aspect of machining somehow makes their rice bowl mo' bettah special then the next guys.

    Considering that working with anodized ordnance components exposed to severe conditions and keeping internal components sealed using various seals and greases to maintain watertight boundaries is a fair portion of what I currently do, I'd say I've a pretty good grasp on the subject and find the supposition of some folks here to be beyond laughable. I have seen Anodizing that is specifically profiled to "hold" a liquid better and the finish on ANY HK is not that. The process i'm speaking of is a specific rough texture profile (caused by an extreme roughing of the surface post machining and then anodized over) that is wholly and entirely unsuitable for the internals on a firearm. Were this applied to a gun, it would be the worst cycling firearm you've ever had the misfortune of touching your hand to, if it even worked at all.

    No amount of machine tool marks are going to make anodizing hold lubricant any better then it normally does and to think this is the case is baffling to me. About as baffling as the time I heard two TACOM LARS (these guys are supposed to be the Army's indigenous SME's) talking in afghan and one told the other about a 240B that was "literally held together by the parkerizing!"...... I nearly spit up my sour gummy bears....

    I've already aired my background and experience in the area of small arms. It's no secret. And it's comical that people argue something such as this with zero background or knowledge to back it up.

    People believe what the want to believe. Apparently reality is a mere speed bump on the road to delusion. Belief trumps experience, desire beats knowledge, and how dare I bring sense into a conversation here. This is pretty much the message i'm getting here.

    This threat reminds me of that scene in 'A Christmas Story' where the dad gets the leg lamp delivered and reads "Fragile" on the box and because of his wanting it to be something extraordinary and special, he mis-interprets a simple word to "Fra-gee-le, it must be Italian!".....

  7. #106
    Very Senior Member
    InshallahTech's Avatar
    Join Date : Aug 2013
    Location : WA
    Posts : 390
    Mentioned
    15 Post(s)

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Nzfly View Post
    ETA: the fire control pocket doesn’t have the same tool marks as the magwell. So, I mean, because I was saving money using only my worn out bits to mill the magwells, I saved my crisp new bits to mill the pocket. Makes so much logical sense how could anyone have missed it? @balljar
    You do realized that magwells are broached, right?

    Thank you for making my point for me.

  8. #107
    Gets the Shakes if No HK Contact in 24 Hour Period

    Join Date : Nov 2015
    Posts : 700
    Mentioned
    27 Post(s)

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Nzfly View Post
    If the fact that I have a 416, not a MR failed to make the point, we’ll carry on about theory crafting and all that whatnot.
    You have exactly ONE 416. Whoo great. And you dont understand that its not a gun that is required to come from the DD line but could be from Oberndorf. Who cares it doesnt matter, as I stated before the MR556 is the oddball gun. Deriving any funny "tool marks logic" from single samples is absurd. I have had my hands on dozens of actual 416, heck you can even buy 416 lowers and what not legally here for dime a dozen, especially the outdated "slanted top rail ones", and they have never had any obviously different manufacturing marks compared to whatever civilian MR223 of the same or current generation.

    You guys are chasing ghosts, its bloody gun manufacturing not some ultra precise chip production. There are toolmarks sometimes and it doesnt matter. Or, if you want to look at it negatively, maybe the 416 sold off to civilians in the US are just a lot off a bad run with manufacturing marks that shouldnt be there? Who knows? In the end, it doesnt matter if the gun shoots well.

  9. #108
    Really liking this HK Stuff Member

    Join Date : May 2013
    Location : Over There
    Posts : 415
    Mentioned
    4 Post(s)

    Default

    In an effort to lighten the mood, here are some pix of unfinished 416 castings Zib in Germany is selling. A wide variety of tool marks and manufacturing processes could be expected to be found on end users finished products. European internet self-police, please turn away so as not to be offended. And no, I have absolutely no idea what it would take to bring this to a finished usable product.

    HK416 50% Lower, Semi-finished-item,H&K 80% Receiver Heckler Koch

    Looks like they are still making regular old MR556A1s in the new Georgia factory.-416-casting-1.jpg

    Looks like they are still making regular old MR556A1s in the new Georgia factory.-416-casting-2.jpg
    MR 308 A3 20"
    MR 308 A1
    MR 223 A1
    HK 243 S TAR
    HK USC .45
    USP Expert .45
    MK 23

  10. #109
    Unrepentant HKHolic
    Nzfly's Avatar
    Join Date : Aug 2011
    Posts : 2,008
    Mentioned
    62 Post(s)

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by InshallahTech View Post
    You do realized that magwells are broached, right?

    Thank you for making my point for me.
    Apparently, they are broached with worn bits.

  11. #110
    Unrepentant HKHolic
    Nzfly's Avatar
    Join Date : Aug 2011
    Posts : 2,008
    Mentioned
    62 Post(s)

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by baljar View Post
    You have exactly ONE 416. Whoo great. And you dont understand that its not a gun that is required to come from the DD line but could be from Oberndorf. Who cares it doesnt matter, as I stated before the MR556 is the oddball gun. Deriving any funny "tool marks logic" from single samples is absurd. I have had my hands on dozens of actual 416, heck you can even buy 416 lowers and what not legally here for dime a dozen, especially the outdated "slanted top rail ones", and they have never had any obviously different manufacturing marks compared to whatever civilian MR223 of the same or current generation.

    You guys are chasing ghosts, its bloody gun manufacturing not some ultra precise chip production. There are toolmarks sometimes and it doesnt matter. Or, if you want to look at it negatively, maybe the 416 sold off to civilians in the US are just a lot off a bad run with manufacturing marks that shouldnt be there? Who knows? In the end, it doesnt matter if the gun shoots well.
    I’ll take one last stab at it because you and your buddy appear to be more interested in being right or at least making me wrong than sorting though reasonable conclusions. The question is: were the marks made intentionally or were they made by worn tools but HK said screw it, they are still in spec?

    I offered there is a unique identifier for OEM 416 receivers. The tech who doesn’t have one, hasn’t observed one, knows through his infinite wisdom the marks are made by worn bits pushing material instead of cutting (assuming cause surely he would have told us in his massive diatribes). I said at the outset I didn’t know either way, so that should have put some water on those sizzle chests. I have a very hard time buying that explanation because there are multiple 416 owners (semi and auto) who report these same manufacturing marks. Those marks are not reported by MR556 owners. This strongly suggests two different manufacturing process were used in their creation, albeit for this to be correct we must assume they were not made by worn bits.

    No one thinks their receiver was made of dreams or starlight. You are introducing new nonsense. You are free to believe whatever you want. If you think they were made with worn out equipment, more power to you. But maybe you should write HK a letter asking them to change their slogan.

    HK - We Didn’t Compromise They Were Worn Out Bits.
    Last edited by Nzfly; 12-10-2017 at 03:41 PM.

Page 11 of 13 FirstFirst ... 9 10 11 12 13 LastLast

Sponsored Links

 
 

Posting Permissions

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