Yea, that's exactly how it went. They are in spec and the parts were used. There is literally zero benefit or detraction caused by those tool marks so long as they do not fall outside of the tolerances specified in the TDP.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?In the immortal words of the Swedish chef, "Vert dee furk?" You have no idea how many 416's I've laid eyes and hands on. I spend a fair amount of time in Maz-E-sharif BS'ing with all sorts of foreign SF types, many of whom ran 416's and I got to play with a lot of them there, not including the ones I've had my hands on CONUS.I offered there is a unique identifier for OEM 416 receivers. The tech who doesnít have one, hasnít observed one,
You REALLY need to slow your roll.Then why do you protest my comments so much? You assume that because you don't know that nobody else does either?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 didnít know either way, so that should have put some water on those sizzle chests. zYou clearly know nothing of manufacturing processes. It's time for you to go home and re-think your life.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, i'm introducing experience and knowledge. You're the one babbling nonsense.No one thinks their receiver was made of dreams or starlight. You are introducing new nonsense.Seriously guy, you just keep digging. A washboard tooling effect only becomes an issue once it takes the part past the tolerances specified in the drawings/TDP. If the tool marks do not exceed these and it does not effect form, fit, or function, the part is within spec and moves on to the next part of the manufacturing process. HK, like any ordnance manufacturer makes guns that are designed to work, not guns that are designed to sit in your safe and be pretty to look at.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 Didnít Compromise They Were Worn Out Bits.
Since these machine tool marks do not make the gun fail at its given task, they get used. Get used to it. Deal with it. Accept it. That's how life works in the manufacturing world.
I feel so much better now that the expert has dumbed it down for the rest of us, that are too incompetent to pull the trigger right . Oh...and BTW, because ^^^says so,............. you can't hit a target at 500 or 850 yds with a MR556 either.
A redneck's famous last words...."Hey everybody, watch this!"
Worn tools canít melt steel beams.
I understand how high speed and low drag of a professional weapons maintenance dude you are, but turn it back a couple clicks. This thread needs some loctite.
Here's some learnin' about how magwells are broached....
Broached AR-15 Lower Receiver - Willoughby, Ohio
Please notice the different wall thicknesses during different steps.
And sure, it's true that the pattern can be reproduced with a new tool, but once again, it requires excess work, improper machine feed (improper chip load), and accomplishes absolutely nothing in the greater scheme of things regarding the supposed reasons ventured forth in this thread. I would really love to hear how the tool pattern in question effects the ability of anodizing to hold lube. But in the end, the magwell wasn't machined and the machine marks don't do diddly squat for lube retention no matter how you cut it.
Lastly, I get it. Some of y'all don't like me. Maybe it's my delivery, maybe it's my attitude, maybe it's because people don't like being shown they're wrong about something. Not exactly sure how many people came to HKpro to make friends compared to how many came to learn something, but rest assured, making friends wasn't my primary motivation. If people choose focus on personal issues rather then the topic at hand, we all lose.
Last edited by InshallahTech; 12-11-2017 at 07:03 AM.
Not to be offensive..... But every good euro gun maker started making their thing in USA their QC tend to have a lot of problems ....... Look at SIG.............. Same as the MR556 it made by DD so What is the difference? My PSA CHF CL barrel made by FN performed as same if not better than My MR556. And eveyone are play with a3/a5 and we only get a A1 build form a parts kit ??????? Really HK ?
Last edited by MasonGui; 03-03-2018 at 02:56 AM.
I don’t see anything in the laws (German Export/US Import) that prevent HK from bringing the MR556 A3, MR762 A3, HK243, & others here. If it was German Export Laws, they wouldn’t be selling them in Canada and Europe. Would they have to jump through some hoops, such as importing as Pistols with a Mag Block installed like other companies, possibly. I won’t buy until they do, and if they don’t, so be it, there are plenty of just as capable alternatives. I wish HK would though!!
Last edited by JNAP94; 03-05-2018 at 03:52 PM.