deerslayer Posted July 6, 2020 Report Share Posted July 6, 2020 Here are some pictures and a video of a recent project. Group industries receiver used. Where the front sight would end up. With the gas port hole you have a choice to fill it out move everything back a little bit further. With this one we cut the barrel at the end of the port. 1 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
deerslayer Posted July 6, 2020 Author Report Share Posted July 6, 2020 With this one we actually had a monitor receiver front (pause to shed a tear..) so we were able to deduce hot to attach the action cover stud. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
deerslayer Posted July 6, 2020 Author Report Share Posted July 6, 2020 Here is the stud still red hot. Then the receiver milled and drilled. And finally the cover in place. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
deerslayer Posted July 6, 2020 Author Report Share Posted July 6, 2020 Prep work on shortening the gas tube, and starting to make a new piston. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
deerslayer Posted July 6, 2020 Author Report Share Posted July 6, 2020 1 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
bigbore Posted July 6, 2020 Report Share Posted July 6, 2020 very cool. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
K-9Dogo Posted July 7, 2020 Report Share Posted July 7, 2020 May be a stupid question . But whats the difference between a BAR,Monitor and FN D? I see the pistol grip .Seems the Monitor had better handling qualities. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
StrangeRanger Posted July 7, 2020 Report Share Posted July 7, 2020 Monitor was shorter, lighter with a pretty serious compensator. IMHO it would have made a better SAW than the BAR. The D was a full-sized BAR with much easier assy/disassy and improved ergonomics due to the grip Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
deerslayer Posted July 7, 2020 Author Report Share Posted July 7, 2020 Fnd trigger group is different. Has a rate reducer built in to the mechanisms. Barrel on fnd is quick detach. Fnd can also change caliber pretty easy. I've got 7x57, 308, and 3006 parts. 8mm is possible too. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
K-9Dogo Posted July 7, 2020 Report Share Posted July 7, 2020 Again may be stupid question .Why didnt the US adopt a "better "version? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
deerslayer Posted July 8, 2020 Author Report Share Posted July 8, 2020 It depends on what is better maybe...If you are walking around standing to shoot, the 1918 feels real good in your hands. Monitor is even better. Points and handles like a nice shotgun. The 1918A2 with heavy bipod and carry handle flopping around is cumbersome to shoot that way. And the fnd with the big carry handle, weird little wood forgrips, and bipod is really unwieldy. Now, if I was laying on the ground, shooting at say a pillbox (see the stinger post) I think I would really like the A2 bipod at the muzzle. Every shot would go in the hole, but only 20 rounds makes the belt fed stinger a better choice! If you needed a little barrel sweep to say drop a small group of attackers the midmounted bipod of the fnd will serve you better I think. Peter kokolis wrote some good articles along these lines. I like to shoot offhand standing..bipods and worse tripods are less fun. I never take the belt fed browning out for fun shooting by myself. The 1918 may truly be the better version. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Create an account or sign in to comment
You need to be a member in order to leave a comment
Create an account
Sign up for a new account in our community. It's easy!
Register a new accountSign in
Already have an account? Sign in here.
Sign In Now