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.
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.
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!".....
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.
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
MR 308 A3 20"
MR 308 A1
MR 223 A1
HK 243 S TAR
HK USC .45
USP Expert .45
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.