HKPRO Forums banner

1 - 15 of 15 Posts

·
Registered
Joined
·
161 Posts
Discussion Starter #1
Who does conversions of 93 carriers to 53 specs? I'm getting a 53 built and would need a buffered carrier if I have it done as a pistol.
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
161 Posts
Discussion Starter #3
Turns out that the conversion is part of my build, so no longer need to find someone for this.
 

·
H&K Certified Armorer
Joined
·
8,216 Posts
You do not need to have it done for a 53. Why do it?
A factory-correct 53 uses a carrier with a shorter cocking tube lead-in than a 33 carrier.
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
161 Posts
Discussion Starter #10
But it will never be a factory correct 53. Why do the extra work that does not need done. If you were making a 53K I could understand cutting it down.
Since I already have the factory cocking tube and factory cocking piece, I would prefer the build to be as close to HK factory specs as possible. Although it sounds like an unmodified 93 could work with a shorter cocking piece, HK made it with the long cocking piece and short forward tube section on the carrrier for some reason. The V53s are made this way also.
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
167 Posts
Since I already have the factory cocking tube and factory cocking piece, I would prefer the build to be as close to HK factory specs as possible. Although it sounds like an unmodified 93 could work with a shorter cocking piece, HK made it with the long cocking piece and short forward tube section on the carrrier for some reason. The V53s are made this way also.
OK. I started with a 33 kit, RCM 53 barrel, and a SW93 receiver.
 

·
H&K Certified Armorer
Joined
·
8,216 Posts
But it will never be a factory correct 53. Why do the extra work that does not need done. If you were making a 53K I could understand cutting it down.
I disagree. You'd have to cut the cocking tube support and add a sleeve extension to the carrier to compensate for the shorter 53 recoil rod. I use the term factory-correct in reference the dimensional accuracy of the firearm and its parts.
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
10,251 Posts
... HK made it with the long cocking piece and short forward tube section on the carrrier for some reason.
And the reason is cycle rate. A heavier carrier is... a heavier carrier. With a sear, the heavier carrier will produce a much slower rate of fire. The lighter the carrier, the higher the cycle speed, which explains why a 91 cycles slower than a 51 and why a 51K is faster than either. The effect is most dramatic in a 223 though.
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
1,450 Posts
And the reason is cycle rate. A heavier carrier is... a heavier carrier. With a sear, the heavier carrier will produce a much slower rate of fire. The lighter the carrier, the higher the cycle speed, which explains why a 91 cycles slower than a 51 and why a 51K is faster than either. The effect is most dramatic in a 223 though.
Would you say the slower rate of fire in a hk53 with a full sized carrier is easier to control or the faster 53 style carrier? Does it feel smoother at the higher ROF?
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
10,251 Posts
Would you say the slower rate of fire in a hk53 with a full sized carrier is easier to control or the faster 53 style carrier? Does it feel smoother at the higher ROF?
Couldn't tell you from any experience. I never had a full length HK-33 carrier in a 53 or 53K. Both of my mini 223 guns have cut down carriers. The "K"s carrier is a bit shorter than the 53s carrier and both are a very smooth 700-750 rpm... almost boringly smooth as long as you keep your eyes shut. However, keeping your eyes shut is for rookie cops and noobs especially when you're hanging on to a miniature flame thrower. That's where all the fun is...
 
1 - 15 of 15 Posts
Top