Robert Henley Posted May 27, 2014 Report Share Posted May 27, 2014 Couple of questions: First:Using an M1 bolt (no Blish Lock) and M1 buffer in a Hurley 28 seems like a severe test of receiver strength.Doug Richardson states this setup should only be used with blanks.Does anyone have any long term experience using this system with real ammo, and did any receiver cracks occur? Second:There is a post of Subguns listing this ad as Fradulent. Anyone know any more about this? I saw that (second question) which prompted me to look back at this thread: http://www.subguns.com/classifieds/index.cgi?db=nfafirearms&website=&language=&session_key=&search_and_display_db_button=on&results_format=long&db_id=24178&query=retrieval Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Dolphinvet Posted May 27, 2014 Report Share Posted May 27, 2014 This happened to me as well (fraudulent ad) when I sold my MK760. Two other ads sprung up and my pictures were on the ads, taken straight from Gunbroker where I'd listed it. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
ThompsonCrazy Posted May 27, 2014 Report Share Posted May 27, 2014 Couple of questions:First:Using an M1 bolt (no Blish Lock) and M1 buffer in a Hurley 28 seems like a severe test of receiver strength.Doug Richardson states this setup should only be used with blanks.Does anyone have any long term experience using this system with real ammo, and did any receiver cracks occur?I think Doug is referring to the standard 1921/1928 full height, full auto receiver back ends being thin which necessitate the blish action. The semi auto, 1/10" shorter receivers are machined differently at the rear which results in a little more material in that area. That is my understanding of the two. TC Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
mnshooter Posted May 28, 2014 Report Share Posted May 28, 2014 (edited) Couple of questions:First:Using an M1 bolt (no Blish Lock) and M1 buffer in a Hurley 28 seems like a severe test of receiver strength.Doug Richardson states this setup should only be used with blanks.Does anyone have any long term experience using this system with real ammo, and did any receiver cracks occur?I think Doug is referring to the standard 1921/1928 full height, full auto receiver back ends being thin which necessitate the blish action. The semi auto, 1/10" shorter receivers are machined differently at the rear which results in a little more material in that area. That is my understanding of the two. TCHmm, good point. I hadn't considered the semi's lack of cutouts for the bolt oiler; that should add some reinforcement. It can only help, even if it is still not as strong as the M1's massive solid rear end. I'd still want a neoprene buffer, no matter what else was in the mix. Unless, maybe Sons of Guns is busy blending a Thompson and a Pogo stick into a new super gun at this moment. I don't think they've done that yet. Edited May 28, 2014 by mnshooter Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
steeltoe1978 Posted May 28, 2014 Report Share Posted May 28, 2014 Sold my M60 for an engagement ring... been married coming up on 10 years. Wishing you all the best! :-) Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Robert Henley Posted May 29, 2014 Report Share Posted May 29, 2014 Looks like this explains the above questions about the ad: http://www.subguns.com/classifieds/index.cgi?db=nfafirearms&website=&language=&session_key=&search_and_display_db_button=on&results_format=long&db_id=24189&query=retrieval Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
airborne118 Posted May 29, 2014 Author Report Share Posted May 29, 2014 (edited) I have been super busy and was unable to check out the post and to my amazment there was a mix up, apparently the scammer listed his last name first just like me, a habit of being in the military....The gentleman at subguns was really apologetic and I cannot blame him for erring on the side of caution....he fixed it.... Edited May 29, 2014 by airborne118 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
bug Posted May 29, 2014 Report Share Posted May 29, 2014 Tom is good people... Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Joe H Posted May 29, 2014 Report Share Posted May 29, 2014 (edited) Mnshooter, I share your concerns. It appears that the additional material normally found in the rear of a 1927a1 semi has been removed to allow for the full stroke of a FA and has been chamfered out (why?)similar to a 1928a1. Also the bolt is now about 8% lighter than an M1 bolt probably with a higher rate of fire. I would also doubt that the receiver steel is heat treated for strength as were the originals or a modern grade of alloy steel such as 4130/4140 was used. Doubt we will ever know, but it would be interesting if there have been any long term issues with this type of conversion. I imagine they are very rare. Joe Edited May 29, 2014 by Joe H 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