Wolff Springs

[darrylta]

I just replaced my tired M50 springs with Wolff springs and have an observation and a question.

 

It appears to me that the Wolff trigger spring is way to strong, decided to stay with the original.

 

I installed the Wolff recoil spring and could not fully screw in the butt plug. I can screw in the plug without a spring installed and with the original recoil spring. The last thing I want is stripped plug or tube threads or having to wrench the plug in. Is this normal with the Wolff recoil spring installations???

 

I can see now why the Reising's were cheaper to manufacture and more problematic with its stamped steel internals. There is really no comparison to the robust milled internals of other SMGs.

 

Any help is appreciated,

 

Darryl

[bm59collector]

Darryl - I had a similar problem, then determined that the bolt hadn't dropped - the bolt has to against the barrel, otherwise you have too much spring to compress. I did replace all my springs with Wolfe on my 50, Ken Christie has springs made to original H&R specs, and from what I've read are better replacements - JMHO. Yes, a cheaper made gun, but once tweaked will run great - for me the weak link was the firing pin where the tip got bent over the bolt face opening. Followed PaulF's instructions and works great. Good Luck

[darrylta]

bm59, You would think the stiff action bar spring, the bolt would be fully breeched? What did you do to advance the action bar / bolt to get the needed spring space??

 

As far as the firing pin, I bought and installed one of Christie's titanium pins.

 

Thanks,

Darryl

 

 

 

Darryl - I had a similar problem, then determined that the bolt hadn't dropped - the bolt has to against the barrel, otherwise you have too much spring to compress. I did replace all my springs with Wolfe on my 50, Ken Christie has springs made to original H&R specs, and from what I've read are better replacements - JMHO. Yes, a cheaper made gun, but once tweaked will run great - for me the weak link was the firing pin where the tip got bent over the bolt face opening. Followed PaulF's instructions and works great. Good Luck

 

[bm59collector]

Darryl - I placed the gun face down on a piece of cardboard, action was removed from the stock. I had the bolt & hammer installed, but not the spring. The bolt was against the barrel (action bar all the way forward), but the hammer hadn't dropped. I then pulled the trigger and gravity pulled the hammer down onto the boltl. You need to trip the release against the hammer which will give you the the space of the hammer when you install the spring. Drop the spring in and take the one or two piece (depends on your gun) stop and screw it in - you shouldn't have a problem since you've picked up 2 additional inches. Yes, the gun will be much tighter with the Wolff springs. When I changed them out I could see the difference that 50+ years will make, but I think I'll get Ken's - I think the tension is somewhere between the two. GL, Art

[emmagee1917]

The spring you are talking about is NOT the recoil spring. It is the hammer spring. The recoil ( or action ) spring is under the bbl. I agree the Wolff spring pacs are too strong and ended up using only the recoil spring under the bbl. While the hammer spring will slow down the bolt as it goes rearward ( as any cocking hammer spring will ) it does little on the return to lockup because it is held rearward with the hammer. The hammer does not need a lot of speed to set off the primers in this design , and I was more worried about battering the hammer face / rear of bolt/ firing pin with this spring. About the only thing I could see the Wolff springs doing in the action area was increasing the trigger pull to an unaceptable level. I hear Ken is having Wolff make his " toned down" kit. He knows his stuff , but I have not bought one now that both of mine are humming like a happy bee hive.

Chris

[darrylta]

I checked out the possibility that the bolt and hammer were not fully forward. No luck, they both were.

I'm now seeing that it is thread problem in the tube receiver.

Does anyone now what thread size the butt plug is and a source to purchase a tap and die set?

Thanks,

Darryl

[GUNGUY45]

I checked out the possibility that the bolt and hammer were not fully forward. No luck, they both were.

I'm now seeing that it is thread problem in the tube receiver.

Does anyone now what thread size the butt plug is and a source to purchase a tap and die set?

Thanks,

Darryl

 

 

The thread is .812-24 x .625 deep in the reciever, according to my copy of the reciever print.

 

Here's a link to MSC Industrial Supply;

 

http://www1.mscdirect.com/CGI/NNSRIT?PMPXN...PMT4NO=91631348

Not a cheap tap.....

 

Here's the die;

 

http://www1.mscdirect.com/CGI/NNSRIT?PMPXN...PMT4NO=91632213

 

Pete A.

 

 

 

edit to add links.

Edited August 13, 2010 by GUNGUY45

[darrylta]

I've ordered the tap and die,,,, why is everything so difficult:-)

 

My only other thing to get is a couple of fire control selector screws, the

shoulders are wore off on mine. I see that Numrich has them in stock.

 

If anyone needs to borrow the set or buy them on a discount, contact me.

 

Thanks guys,

Darryl

Edited August 14, 2010 by darrylta

[emmagee1917]

Dammmmm....saw this part too late. You didn't need a die , you arn't cutting new threads. A thread file would have done it. Those only run 10 bucks or so and can do eight different thread pitches.

Chris

[darrylta]

I think the die is the way to go for me, my eyes aren't what they use to be.

I bought a replacement butt plug to use the die on before I run the tap

through the receiver. I should have it back together next week, I'm looking forward

to sending some lead down range. I hope I don't have to throw it in the river :-)

-Darryl

[darrylta]

I used the 13/16 tap and die on the plug and receiver. It works smooth as butter now.

 

The die cleaned up the plug threads with out much resistance, the tap removed a little more

material than I expected, the existing threads in the receiver were galled. I guess the 13/16" tap

is actually .8125 which is .0005 larger than the spec. sheet .812. I'll fire it from the hip until I'm

comfortable with it :-)

 

Thanks,

Darryl