Cetme Ground Bolt Heads and Safety Issues

[rbernie]

I have posted my affirmative ideas dozens of times on various gun sites. I have also posted references to discussions which I consider worthwhile. These can be found easily using Google.

I've read 'em. Nowhere in them do I see a comprehensive discussion of the dynamics of the roller locking system within the CETME to a sufficient level of detail required for me to throw away the 'conventional wisdom' and replace it with yours.

I'm not adverse to doing so.

But you need to consolidate your thoughts into a discussion that starts with the forces and mechanical relationships that halt the bolt's forward movement into battery when the chamber is both empty and loaded, progresses into how the linear vector of the bolt under rearward pressure is converted by the rollers into a force that acts upon on the locking piece, describes the location/orientation of all of the relevant parts (dynamic and static) while the bolt is in battery and fully locked and how each reacts to the rearward pressure on the bolt face, and concludes by examining the 'timing' of the bits in play in the event that they deviate from the manufacturers specified tolerances (e.g. the bolt is ground shorter than its minimum specificed length).

In the absence of this complete picture, you're asking folks to take your word in regards to this. In doing so, you place yourself in no different light than anyone else in the conversation, but without the benefit of the manufacturer's specified tolerances to cover your fanny.

Since I have made my points as best I can, in THR, a forum not dominated by a Cetme "expert," I will retire from this discussion and let others continue it, if they wish.

<shrug> Your call. But you started a thread that demanded attention to your ideas. It seems kinda silly to abandon it when you're so convinced that you're correct.

Personally, I think that a ground bolt in part compensates for the fact that the barrel is too far to the rear in the trunnion and that the bolt cannot fully and properly enter into battery with in-spec ammo (headspace, if you will) unless the bolt itself is shortened to compensate. But shortening the bolt, in turn, reduces the distance available for the rollers to operate (since the bolt is further to the rear of the recesses than it was originally designed to operate). If the rollers cannot retract sufficiently by the time they reach the end of their recesses (they're still too far down the ramp of the locking piece), the supporting material around the rear of the locking recesses will take one hellova beating and this may cause significant damage to the barrel/receiver over time. I believe that the rationale for having in-tolerance bolt lengths and bolt gaps and locking piece dimensions and such is to both time the unlocking of the action relative to the dynamic bits but also to time the unlocking of the action relative to the stationary bits (the locking recesses, etc.).

You may be able to compensate for a shorter-than-normal bolt by playing with the dimensions of the locking piece and size of the rollers, but in the end you're pushing around a very small window within which things will operate correctly (and running an increasing risk of getting it wrong such that the bolt doesn't fully lock up, etc.). The factory specs are designed to create a larger window, timing-wise and wear-wise, for all of that to occur.

But that's just my theory, and is worth no more than anyone elses.

 

[jfowl31]

Its just simple common sense to me...

the parts get worn and thus the gap shrinks. Divots develop in the locking piece, rollers wear, internals of bolt heads wear, the trunnion weears... the gap shrinks. The gap is an indication of wear as stated before. Its not a magical cushion of air as Drakejake would have you think. Otherwise, Cetme an HK would just make the gap a half an inch, and never have to worry about anything about the rifles internals right? NO, they make the gap so that it can be precisely and accurately measured so that it can be adjusted accordingly.

And to the statement that Drakejake said about not getting any proof of any kind of mishaps from ground bolts/low bolt gap, there are plenty. Almost all of the case head separations that occur are with commercial ammo and/or low bolt gaps. With the gap too low, the rifle cant unlock as easily as the locking piece is driven too far into the bolt head. This rise in pressure causes case head separations as even Century will tell you if you call them. Case head separations are just one step away from an explosion of having too much pressure in the chamber. and grinding the bolt head masks the wear on internals, thus allowing the parts to be worn past nominal and allowing this scenario to escalate.

Its all your choice if you have one of these rifles... and if youre on the fence, why gamble with the total cost of your gun or your face???????? again simple common sense.

also to an earlier poster. HK bolt heads are 1.845"... cetmes are 1.835".

the most tolerance I've seen with any new bolt head from data gathered on discussion boards is about 2 thousandths. I've seen one or 2 guys say that they got new bolt heads at 1.833", but never seen anything above 1.836". and 95% or more are exactly 1.835".

Youd think that if shorter bolt heads were ok, then Cetme or HK would sell them... but they only sell larger/smaller rollers, locking pieces and new normal length bolt heads. And the manuals and armorers manuals give ways of adjusting the bolt gap which include changing worn parts, adding oversize/undersize rollers, and repressing barrels. No mention of grinding bolts. Soooo.... who is it thats going against something in the manual again? Im pretty sure its not those of us who say to replace worn parts, and/or repress the barrel.

btw, what does my age matter? whats the age cutoff for having a statement accepted with you? And since age is a factor... what about the 50 or so other members who bashed you and your dumb opinions on other websites? They must all be "young punks" too or something right?

 

[texlurch]

Drakejake: You measure bolt gap and there isn't any. One of my Cetmes had this problem. What do you do now? I have stated that you reinstall the ground bolt and if you have good bolt gap, you are all set. Those on the other side are telling people that they must not fire their Cetme and G3 Sporters with a ground bolt, that this is unsafe, even though bolt gap is in spec and the rifles work fine.

But see, your gap is now within spec, with out of spec parts. So, the original issue is, the gun is out of spec. The internal parts are worn, beyond what the maker of the weapon agrees is a usable/safe wear range. And now you have no way to gauge the condition of the weapon, and the critical operating parts which contain 50,000 psi, inches from your face.

By grinding the bolt, you have done absolutely nothing to cure the problem, other than introduce a false sense of repair. If this is ok with you, fine.

But if you are trying to convince others that it is the correct way to repair a gun that CETME/HK say is out of spec, then you are wrong.

 

[Drakejake]

Once more, guys, I did not grind any bolt heads. Century did that. OK, the ground bolt is out of spec. So what? Standard rollers have been replaced with plus fours. The worn locking piece has been replaced with an unworn one. With an in spec bolt head installed, there is no bolt gap. So what?

I return to this topic because of the availability of more relevant information. I am arguing with those who claim that you cannot use a ground bolt safely unless you increase bolt gap by the amount that has been ground off. According to them, if, for example, you have a 1.820 (.015 under spec) bolt head with .010 gap, your "real" gap is minus .005. Responses to my other current thread suggest that inadequate bolt gap causes the rifle not to function, i.e., too little force to cycle the action. But my rifle works fine. There are no bulged primers or bulged cases. The dangerous side of out of spec bolt gap is said to be TOO MUCH gap, not TOO LITTLE. My Cetme with ground bolt does not have too large a gap.

Please explain why there is no contradiction between saying that using a ground bolt with normal bolt gap is unsafe and at the same time saying that it is excessive bolt gap that is dangerous.

Drakejake

 

[rbernie]

I am arguing with those who claim that you cannot use a ground bolt safely unless you increase bolt gap by the amount that has been ground off.

Given what (little) I know of the system, I would not say that. Increasing the bolt gap on a ground head would appear to do nothing more than push the carrier to the rear. Big deal; that will cause the rollers to sit further to the end of the firing pin holder/wedge but will do nothing to ensure that the rollers are properly located in the locking recesses in the trunnion when the bolt assy is in battery. To my thinkin', using a ground bolt and achieving the correct bolt gap implies that the barrel is too far to the rear and that the rollers are on the trailing edge of their locking recesses. That would make me uncomfortable, since it leaves open the very real possibility that one day the rollers will fail to fully enter their recesses in the trunnion. That condition might make things very interesting; you would have a 308 blow-back action at that point, and I'm not sure that the case wouldn't shrapnel all over you.

Were I building or troubleshooting a CETME action, my first instinct would be to set the proper relationship between the bolt head (breech end of the barrel, really) and the trunnion. Once that distance/relationship was established and verified, I would then worry about sizing rollers and such to ensure that the mating of these pieces all resulted in an appropriate bolt gap (instrumented means of measuring the wear on these pieces).

Worrying about bolt gap without first ensuring that the distance between the breech end of the barrel and locking recesses in the trunnion/locking piece is in spec seems, well, kinda silly and circular.

EDITED TO ADD: I note on the diagram that TEXLURCH provided in the other thread that what I was calling the locking piece is called the firing pin holder, and what I was calling the trunnion is what they call the locking piece. My bad, and I've tried to clean up this post to harmonize my thoughts with the terminology in that diagram.

 

[texlurch]

Drakejake, you are focusing too much on the gap itself. Any gap gained by grinding the bolt is false. Just air and nothing more.

The gap is an indicator of wear. That assumes the bolt is the proper length. It is the last part to wear, if ever. But once you grind on it, your indicator is out the window.

Basically, you are choosing to ignore the fact that your rifle is out of spec. These CETME and HK mechanisms are tuned and timed to run a certain way, and they tell you that. The rollers are the only thing that keeps the action closed. The engineers determined that monitoring the gap is the only way to keep track of the wear, in the critical parts in the gun. When the parts wear, you replace them. When the parts wear beyond the usable limit, you don't just grind some to increase the limit.

I'm done, if you don't care to follow the manufacture recommendations, that is your choice. Century is NOT the gun manufacturer, they just stuck a bunch of used parts back together, without much care. So whatever methods they chose to use, were theirs alone.

 

[Drakejake]

texlurch,

I think you and others are reversing the function of bolt gap. The main function of bolt gap is not to tell you if parts are worn. The main reason to be concerned about roller wear, for example, is that you may not have sufficient bolt gap. Bolt gap is a FUNCTIONAL requirement of gun operation, not merely a measure of part wear. You are overlooking this point. the wearing of rollers, locking piece, etc., per se, does not affect lock-up or headspace. I have cited messages pointing this out in detail. The impact of part wear is on the function of the locking piece. If there is too little bolt gap, the locking piece cannot perform its function of pushing the rollers into the trunnion recesses. And by your own statement, insufficient bolt gap can cause cycling problems, not premature unlocking of the bolt assembly. It is excessive bolt gap that is dangerous to the gun and to the shooter, not insufficient bolt gap, if what you say is correct.

Drakejake

 

[texlurch]

drakejake: You are overlooking this point. the wearing of rollers, locking piece, etc., per se, does not affect lock-up or headspace.

Wow.

Headspace, no.

The wear on those parts is the ONLY thing that affects lockup! :banghead:


NVM, forest for the trees I guess.

Good luck and hope you have many happy days of shooting that CETME.

 

[Drakejake]

texlurch,

Do you disagree with Handy in the following thread? As I read him, wear on the rollers and other parts does not affect headspace or lock-up. I can cite other messages making the same point. Headspace is not changed by wear. It is only changed by resetting the barrel in the trunnion. Wear of the parts does not affect lock-up until there is no bolt gap and the bolt carrier is hitting the bolt head before the locking piece can go forward enough to push the rollers all the way out.

http://hkpro.com/forum/showthread.php?t=51448&highlight=headspace

Drakejake

 

[AH-1]

I just wonder with all that grinding on the bolts did CIA re-temper the bolts back to spec.grinding/heating the metal will lose it's hardness.

while not a small arms inspector I was on aircraft weapons(68J3F) from mini-guns to the 30mm chain gun.we were never allowed to grind anything period.
when I signed off a weapon it was correct and to spec.
I think it would ge a good idea for someone to send off a ground bolt for a "RH" test then compare it to a new bolt.
pete

 

[texlurch]

Drakejake: texlurch,

Do you disagree with Handy in the following thread? As I read him, wear on the rollers and other parts does not affect headspace or lock-up. I can cite other messages making the same point. Headspace is not changed by wear. It is only changed by resetting the barrel in the trunnion. Wear of the parts does not affect lock-up until there is no bolt gap and the bolt carrier is hitting the bolt head before the locking piece can go forward enough to push the rollers all the way out.

No, I don't entirely agree. Yes, headspace is not affected. No is it not affected when you press the barrel, since the bolt is still mating to the barrel the same way.

The tunnion recess is at an angle, where the rollers mate. As the gap changes, you go up and down that angle, as well as the angle on the LP. The farther the roller is into the bolt, the less side angle of the roller is on the trunnion.
Just an example, no actual measurement. Say your roller is 30% into the bolt, your thrust force against the roller will be around 5 pm. Now go out to 50% with the roller, you are now pushing more towards 3:30-4 o'clock.

From all my mechanical experience, the farther out the roller is, into the trunnion, the harder it will be to move it back into the bolt.

Handy says you are touching at three points, actually on the roller I can only find two. At least on the outside radius of the roller. One against the LP, one against the trunnion.

 

[rbernie]

You are overlooking this point. the wearing of rollers, locking piece, etc., per se, does not affect lock-up or headspace. I have cited messages pointing this out in detail.

From staring at the diagram - lockup itself would seem to be obtained by the proper positioning of the rollers into the locking piece/trunnion when the bolt is in battery, and this appears to be governed both by bolt head location (barrel protrusion into the locking area of the trunnion) and by the proper dimensions and interrelationships of the bolt head, rollers, and firing pin holder. Lockup timing, on the other hand, would seem to be dictated by the angles at play (trunnion recesses, roller diameter, and firing pin holder).

If there is too little bolt gap, the locking piece cannot perform its function of pushing the rollers into the trunnion recesses.

As I've come to realize in these threads, the locking piece *is* the rear of the trunnion; I presume that you're referring to the firing pin holder that presses the rollers out from the bolt head, no?

Anyway, I agree with your statement - too little bolt gap CAN prevent the wedge-shaped firing pin holder from pushing the rollers fully into the locking recesses in the trunnion/locking piece itself. However, increasing the bolt gap alone does not necessarily fix that. For example, if the bolt head is not located properly in relationship to the locking piece/trunnion (e.g. the barrel's breech end protrudes too deeply into the trunnion) then the rollers will be positioned too far to the rear of their recesses to properly engage their recesses and no amount of addtitional bolt gap will fix that.

But none of this explains or addresses why CAI ground the bolt heads in the rear where the bolt head contacts the carrier. I think that they found that, on a certain number of their builds, they could not get the rollers fully extended into the recesses no matter how they mixed-n-matched oversized rollers and unworn firing pin holders. They then ground the bolt head shorter to place the rollers on a fatter part of the firing pin holder/wedge. Does this approach have timing and locking issues associated with it? My guess is not immediately, since initial locking integrity would seem to be set by the location of the rollers in the bolt head relative to the locking recesses themselves and by the ability of the system to reliably press the rollers into the locking recesses. So long as the CAI rifle with ground bolt head does these things, I would imagine that the locking system itself will operate as advertised. The timing of the 'unlocking' may be suspect, but the basic mechanical locking (such as it is) would appear to be accomplished.

It the best way to fix the issue? Maybe not. The root cause (e.g. oversized locking recesses) is still present, and goodness knows the metallurgic issues are at play there. I would NOT want to find out that my rear trunnion grenaded on me because it simply lacked the margin of safety afforded by the missing XXX thou of an inch per side that has been lost and is being compensated for by using a ground bolt.

To go back to the very first post that started this thread:

Assume that you buy a CETME and examination indicates that the bolt head has been ground and that if you replace the ground BH with an unground one, and install bigger rollers and an unworn locking piece, there is insufficient bolt gap. A coterie of CETME fanciers has claimed that you cannot use the ground bolt to get bolt gap and that you must "repress the barrel," basically reconstructing the rifle. In other words, according to these commentators, the only valid alternative to junking the rifle is spending several hundred dollars to have the rifle rebuit.

Is this an inappropriate response on their part? I don't think so. What they're telling you is that the parts on your rifle are beyond their nominal specification, such that normal arsenal repairs could not bring the rifle back into spec. Can it be made to continue to operate? Sure. But it's not in spec. PERIOD. There is no other way to say it - the rifle is operating outside the bounds of its normal design parameters.

I do not understand why you feel that this position is worthy of some kind of jihad against the CETME community. They're not telling you that you rifle doesn't work. It does. They're telling you that it doesn't work according to spec, and that statement is irrefutable. If it was in spec, CAI would not have had to make any modifications to it.

Handy says you are touching at three points, actually on the roller I can only find two. At least on the outside radius of the roller. One against the LP, one against the trunnion.

Stupid question - how are the rollers held captive within the bolt head?

 

[texlurch]

Sorry, the G3 diagram and others call the part the barrel presses into the trunnion, the firing pin holder the locking piece. That diagram is the only one handy, and taken out of the Spanish CETME manaul, translated to English.

Your last question, the rollers are held by a flat cross piece, with dimples on each end that fit into recesses on the flat side of the rollers. The rollers are able to float and turn some, side to side. The opening on the rollers is larger than the dimples.
The flat retainer is held in the bolt by a roll pin.

It is hard to see in that diagram, but the rollers don't just pop into the recess in the trunnion. The rear is cut more of an angle, the rollers ride on that slope. When you press the barrel back, the rollers move back and up the slope a bit, and farther into the bolt.

You have to remember that we are talking .001" here, and the ratio of the bolt and LP moves is 4 to 1. So, if you press the barrel back .001, you gain .004 in gap. Very minute, but that is what it is all about. Much easier to just grind in some false gap and sell that puppy.

If you really want to study the G3 system (almost identical to the CETME), go here: http://www.hkpro.com/technical.htm


This is a better idea of the angles in the trunnion, note how the force changes, depending on the roller location.

 

[rbernie]

Cool - thanks.

Much easier to just grind in some false gap and sell that puppy.

What, other than oversized recesses, would have caused CAI to need/want to grind the back of the bolt heads? Or is it really just an issue with overly worn trunnions?

 

[texlurch]

What, other than oversized recesses, would have caused CAI to need/want to grind the back of the bolt heads? Or is it really just an issue with overly worn trunnions?

The general consensus is the trunnions are worn, as are some of the LP's. Comparing my old LP with a new one I got from Spain, it is obviously worn.

And from what I have seen and heard, Century has been replacing ground bolts on some guns returned to them, and other times destroying the gun as "unsafe" and giving a refund. Draw your own conclusion...

 

[HorseSoldier]

I don't have a dog in this fight, not being a G3 or CETME shooter, owner, or prospective owner. But, I do have to ask about this logic:

The Cetme/G3 manuals say that bolt gap should be .004 to .020. Jordan and the other Dead End Kids say this doesn't apply to rifles which have ground bolt heads. But they do not give us any reason to believe them rather than the manuals.

I don't see how this makes a lot of sense. Not meaning to flame anyone, start an argument or keep an argument going, or anything like that, but, the manual was written with the assumption that certain parts that do not wear would be in spec. Grinding on the bolt makes it out of spec. It seems to me that what the manual says should apply to an in-spec part, does not necessarily apply to an out-of-spec part. The manual does not address grinding metal off parts to make them fit for the simple reason that no one anticipated someone doing something so shoddy, so the lack of a glaring warning from the CETME or HK people about not doing this is not evidence of Century getting a green light to take the cheap route to making weapons work more or less.

 

[usmcdoc14]

The dangerous side of out of spec bolt gap is said to be TOO MUCH gap, not TOO LITTLE.

anyone else find this funny

Dude sell me your CETME, the world would be a safer place and your blood pressure would return to normal.

 

[texlurch]

One more. This is a page from the G3 armorers manual. Note towards the bottom where it states excessive wear can cause malfunctions and affect the timing.. also note the arrows noting wear points. Also note a wear point is not indicated at the rear of the bolt, where they are ground.

Now, study the diagram noting wear points. These affect the operation of the rifle. Inproper timing and locking of the bolt is not a good thing, in any way shape or form.

Now. Still studying the diagram of wear points, what possible repair of the said wear points can occur by grinding the rear of the bolt?

 

[rbernie]

I've heard reference made several times in these threads that HK changed the CETME design slightly. Do you know specifically what the Germans changed from the preceding Spanish implementation?

 

[texlurch]

I've heard reference made several times in these threads that HK changed the CETME design slightly. Do you know specifically what the Germans changed from the preceding Spanish implementation?

Triple frame, barrel trunnion and roller cutout contour, bolt carrier, bolt, LP, stock attachment and stocks. Trigger group is different and safety operates in opposite direction, rear sight is changed. G3 has a different shaped receiver, with raised blocks to locate the scope mount. I am sure I missed something, but there are plenty of comparison lists floating around the web..

Timing of bolt lockup is slightly different as well, the CETME on average has a softer felt recoil than the G3.

 

[Ian Sean]

This is from Robert rtg's parts place (BTW if you need HK/CETME parts he is THE guy to do business with, very good rep.)

His site: http://www.robertrtg.com/cetmeinfo.html

Cetme - HK G3 Compatibility page!
(are HK parts a match for your Cetme?)
YES, the below items will work perfect on a Cetme
Barrels Yes
Barrel Retainer Pins Yes
Firing Pin Yes*
Spring, for firing pin Yes*
Rollers Yes
+2, +4 Rollers Yes
Retainer Plate and Roll Pin Retainer for Rollers Yes
Extractor Yes*
Extractor Spring Yes*
Recoil Spring Yes*
Backplate or Complete recoil Assembly Yes with minor fitting to the plastic sleeve at the end of the spring guide rod
Complete Stock set Yes with minor fitting to the plastic sleeve at the end of the spring guide rod
Collapsible Stock Yes with minor fitting to the plastic sleeve at the end of the spring guide rod
Buttstock Yes with minor fitting (needs the buffer hole matched to use the cetme buffer)
Grip Frames Yes
Complete Trigger Pack Yes (but no individual parts)
Rear Sight Yes (but only if entire sight base is swapped)
Handguards, Slim Yes
Handguards Wide Yes with minor fitting. Just like the old style HK triple frame, the cetme has a bipod retaining ring that prevents the wide from installing
Pistol Grip Yes
Triple Frames Yes
Flash Hider Yes
Eyeloop for triple frame Yes
Cocking Handle Yes*
Spring for cocking handle Yes*
Pivot Pin for cocking handle Yes
Mag Catch parts Yes
Paddle mag release Yes
End Cap, Dust Cover Yes (but cetme will not fit g3)
Bayonet Adapter Yes*
Bayonet Yes* (but only when using adapter)
Retainer Pins Yes*
Blank Firing Adapter Yes
Claw, Stanag Scope Mount Yes
POF Carry handle and Port Buffer Yes (carry handle slight modification to cetme handguard)

No, the below items will not work on a Cetme:
Trunions No
Bolt Carriers No
Locking Lever for bolt carrier No
Bolt Head No
Locking Piece No
Cocking Tube No
Support for Cocking Handle No
Recoil Buffer No unless using HK buttstock
individual fire control group parts No

 

[Seattlefungus]

HorseSoldier, If the gap is based on a machined in spec dimension to find the relationship between two objects and you alter one of the related dimensions, how accurate are your resulting measurements? Say you found your tires tread depth less than a 32th inch. You go to a tire shop and they try to tell you that just cutting new tread into the existing rubber will be the same as a new set of tires? Sure, you’d have a 32nd of an inch tread but the belts are compromised the rubber thinner and no longer within the design specs of the tire. I’ve read the G3 armorer’s manual, and the Cetme’s, nowhere is there a procedure for bolt grinding. It’s rollers being replaced and out of spec parts replaced. Not intended as a flame either. I do have both G3’s and CETME’s It was stated earlier in the thread that Century does not replace the barrels in their build of the G3’s and CETME’s. I’d have to question that as it has been against ATF rules for at least the last 14 months to use the barrel in the de-milled kits. That’s why they send you a new barrel with the kit when you buy them. It’s not a US made part either, it’s an in the white barrel, most I’ve seen have Santa Barbara markings. I’ve also bought from Century in the last 3 months as spares the removed CETME barrels with the trunion still attached, they are Parkerized and spec out as 2.5 to 3 in barrel wear.

 

[texlurch]

Just an FYI on my CETME with a .004 gap, and unground bolt. I installed the bolt and carrier from a parts kit I bought, and it brought the gap up to .008. Now it shoots like it should, ejects and fires like it wouldn't before.

I still plan to replace the barrel and reset the gap, but the coorelation of bolt gap to function is definate in this case.

 

[texlurch]

Since this issue is something that is still mis-understood and bandied about, I thought I would toss out this little tidbit... these are quotes from a guy that didn't understand the system completely, listened to facts, and took his rifle to a gunsmith that is familiar with the system...


"As for the bolt gap, no I never did fix the zero bolt gap. Both the cetme I built and the cetme I got from century have a bolt gap of zero. However the century cetme has had close to 1,000 rounds of ammo down its barrel since 2004 without a hiccup. Its shot everything from SA to RG, even 180 rounds of aussie without a problem. How would you suggest fixing the bolt gap? How would you set the bolt gap to like .015 or .010 or something??

Thanks"


"OK,
I'LL FIX IT BEFORE SHOOTING IT ANYMORE.... TELL ME HOW.. NOW!!! I DONT WANT TO KABOOM ONE OR BOTH OF MY CETMES!!!!!!!! TELL ME NOW HOW TO FIX THE GAP... I'M NOT IGNORANT NOR STUPID, I UNDERSTAND THAT THE RIFLE CAN EXPLODE AND MAYBE TAKE ME WITH IT!!! NOW, TELL ME HOW TO FIX THIS!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!! "


"Got my cetmes back from the local gunsmith a few minutes ago... he Re-pressed both barrels, and I now have a nice gap of around .020 on each rifle and it only set me back $50 - $25 per rifle. Test fired both guns earlier and they shoot great with their new gap... thanks for the input guys

and yes, the reason I got such a good deal on this barrel re-pressing is that I know this gunsmith really well and have dealt with him for a long time.. And yes, he does know all about the roller locking system on HK style rifles..

thanks"

Went from "it works fine, why mess with it?" to "gee thanks guys"

We asked him to quiz his gunsmith for thoughts on ground bolts, I'll post back if and when he replies....