Hambone,
I am one of the folks that made rather harsh comments about Red Jacket. These comments were based on what I saw on the show, not on what I have read. Prior to responding to your challenge posted in the last thread, here are my comments on the prior thread (to that) on this firm: located here:
http://forums.gunboards.com/showthread.php?250976-Red-Jacket-ARs
Note I have cleaned up my comments slightly, but not significantly changed any comment I made:
Quote:
First a few comments as to my background: I was a competitive shooter and built my own service rifles and made high master with them. On M1 and M1A rifles I had Glenn Nelson in Colombia Georgia do the barreling operation; I did all the rest of the fitting. When I switched over to the M16A2 pattern in 1998/99, I bought the finished barrel (with fitted bolt) from Krieger (and one Douglas from Glenn Nelson in 1999) then assembled the rifle(s) from there. Since then I have done a lot of work on Lee Enfields and older patterns of rifles, and out of a sense of fun I have worked on a friend’s errant MG42 semi–auto (got it to work). I have changed out barrels on M1, Lee Enfield, Mauser actions and AR rifles. I also built two match grade M1911 pistols using the AMU guide. I have lots of gauges, two barrel vices and many manuals. I had a small milling machine and built a couple of rear target sights from bits, milling the bases to fit the rifles they were intended to fit. I have a small bluing tank and have done that, rust blue finishes and also parkarized parts and compete firearms. I have been lucky enough to be able to spend time down in the AMU shop at Fort Benning and pick the true rifle master builders minds. I could go on but suffice to say I would put myself in the category of a reasonably skilled armourer, not a gunsmith, my comments reflect that level of skill and not that of a true master.
These comments are based on just a few shows that I saw and was very disappointed in.
1) The .50 Cal build. They had no manuals nor did the even know how the weapon functioned, the basic technical rebuild manual has every thing in it they need to know, including how to do the riveting, check the plate alignment and most of all, how to headspace and “time” the complete weapon. They did not do this, which is why their weapon did not function when they took it out. This is the most basic thing that the weapons operators need to know, to headspace and “time” the M2 (by indexing the barrel) and should have the tool, but these “weapons masters” did not seem to know how to do it or have the basic user’s headspace/timing tool. So they never got the gun to reliably function at all.
2) The MG 42 builds. Once again they did not know the first thing about an MG 42 or so it seemed. If an MG 42 is not cycling correctly you refer to the armourers manual, which clearly has you check the following things: the reciprocator spring tension, the angle of the pressure plate on the top feed cover, the fit and spring tension on all of the belt feed components, the spring length on the main return spring, the roller bolts for chips, and the size of the front do-hikky (name I forget) that affects the recoil force applied to the barrel. The ammunition type also matters. The MG 42 armourers manual, translated to English is available from a few folks, easily found on the net for the sum of around 30 bucks and covers all of this. Billy-Joe-Jim-Bob’s solution was to spray lubricant on every thing but the MG belts (which should be lightly lubricated), look at the guns and scratch his head. No effort was made to ensure that the MG belts did not drag; they had the belts running all the way down to the bed of the truck. Few if any MG can lift that much weight, that is why they have ammunition box mounts on all tripods. All this is covered in the user’s manual, which will set you back 12 dollars. I guess Will didn’t read that.
3) The supposed ¼ MOA 1000 yard AK. Now I happen to know a little bit about long range and screwing a Krieger barrel onto an AK is not the method used to build a winning 1000 yard gun. To build a true MOA gas gun involves a bit more fitting like ensuring the locking lugs bear equally, that the chamber is concentric, that there is no asymmetric force on the barrel (free floated), that the ammunition uses the very best components (not Tula brand) , that the action is stiff and has very tight tolerances when the bolt is locked up. So you could do this with an M1, an M1A, an AR10 variant but not an AK with its inherently loose fits. Further, you are not going to produce ¼ MOA 1000 yard accuracy with any of these aforementioned designs, some thing close to 1 MOA is very, very good out of any of the .30 caliber rifles at long range. That entire show was a farce by any objective measure.
In general then, what I see is a company, at least as presented on the show, that lacks the basic craft one would associate with even an armourer level of skill. They should have the manuals for every American and foreign weapon they intend to work on. They should know something about finish besides paint.
At my little home shop I have as many books and armourer notes as I have tools, and I refer to them often. I have many US, British, some German and even Swiss K31 manual/notes, finding them did not cost me much money or time. Wills band of “Gunsmiths” do not ever refer to manuals and never seem to even know that one might have use of them. Little things in these books that affect accuracy and function, here are a few off the top of my head on one weapon system relevant to the discussion, the AR15.
1) The torque setting the flash hider on the AR15, too tight and it affects accuracy, to loose and it affects accuracy.
2) Alignment of the gas tube so there is no sideways pressure on it when it enters the upper receiver group.
3) To get a good trigger, the lower triggers holes must not be oversized relative to the trigger pins. To get a good trigger you must select the lower or have a supply of sized trigger pins to fit the receiver.
There are many more fits that matter either to accuracy; those were 3 that came to mind as I write this. Based on what is shown in this show, there does not seem to be any real attention shown to these points. Based on what the show shows, they are not even aware that the finer points of fit affect anything at all.
They have no means of surface finishing but spray paint. From the comments on the show they seem to use epoxy based paints. Now these can work but in order to work the surface must be properly prepared and after application they need to be cured at the correct temperature (again you must refer to the specific paint cure profile, which any manufacturer will tell you if you take the time to ask for the applications sheets.) and most importantly, the paint must be kept out of any area where two metal surfaces will be sliding against each other. Epoxy paint has a problem that until properly cured (and even then depending on the type) it will become soft and “sticky” when warm. So there method of sloppy finish almost ensures that once their rifles heat up they will start to show stoppages due to the uncured paint sticking and slowing down the correct action cycle time.
So in conclusion these guys seem like the assistant village idiots when it comes to just armourer technique, not to mention being so far way from true gunsmiths that they could not even dream of what it means to be a true master gunsmith. I would not trust any product from these guys.
Well enough said, pardon my grammar if there are any mistakes, but I would like to hear from the folks so lauding this firm about the points raised in this post. What say you to these points, or are you just shills for what appears on TV as a schlock house operation? If I am in error feel free to correct me, but in so far as I have been able to determine the above is a true rendering of the approach shown on this show. The show is a disservice to the true craftsmen that work in this industry and even the more interested skilled hobbyists.
Unquote:
So Hambone, you have asked for specific comments in the last thread, here are some in the above missive, based on the TV show and how they present themselves. In the comments on the above thread, there are other comments on their quality, based on actual rifles that folks have received. You and other have put forward the point that the firm is not to be judged by the show; please now do explain, in detail, why the show is not an accurate reflection of their work. Not platitudes, but explain how a shop presented with such poor technical skills could be a really top notch gunsmithing firm. Please explain the poor quality of builds noted by other contributors.
To be fair, I should warn you that my come back to your comments pertain to a specific AR-15 build of that shop, the “katana”.
I look forward to your detailed response. I am more then willing to withdraw my comments and apologize should I be wrong.
Fritz
I am one of the folks that made rather harsh comments about Red Jacket. These comments were based on what I saw on the show, not on what I have read. Prior to responding to your challenge posted in the last thread, here are my comments on the prior thread (to that) on this firm: located here:
http://forums.gunboards.com/showthread.php?250976-Red-Jacket-ARs
Note I have cleaned up my comments slightly, but not significantly changed any comment I made:
Quote:
First a few comments as to my background: I was a competitive shooter and built my own service rifles and made high master with them. On M1 and M1A rifles I had Glenn Nelson in Colombia Georgia do the barreling operation; I did all the rest of the fitting. When I switched over to the M16A2 pattern in 1998/99, I bought the finished barrel (with fitted bolt) from Krieger (and one Douglas from Glenn Nelson in 1999) then assembled the rifle(s) from there. Since then I have done a lot of work on Lee Enfields and older patterns of rifles, and out of a sense of fun I have worked on a friend’s errant MG42 semi–auto (got it to work). I have changed out barrels on M1, Lee Enfield, Mauser actions and AR rifles. I also built two match grade M1911 pistols using the AMU guide. I have lots of gauges, two barrel vices and many manuals. I had a small milling machine and built a couple of rear target sights from bits, milling the bases to fit the rifles they were intended to fit. I have a small bluing tank and have done that, rust blue finishes and also parkarized parts and compete firearms. I have been lucky enough to be able to spend time down in the AMU shop at Fort Benning and pick the true rifle master builders minds. I could go on but suffice to say I would put myself in the category of a reasonably skilled armourer, not a gunsmith, my comments reflect that level of skill and not that of a true master.
These comments are based on just a few shows that I saw and was very disappointed in.
1) The .50 Cal build. They had no manuals nor did the even know how the weapon functioned, the basic technical rebuild manual has every thing in it they need to know, including how to do the riveting, check the plate alignment and most of all, how to headspace and “time” the complete weapon. They did not do this, which is why their weapon did not function when they took it out. This is the most basic thing that the weapons operators need to know, to headspace and “time” the M2 (by indexing the barrel) and should have the tool, but these “weapons masters” did not seem to know how to do it or have the basic user’s headspace/timing tool. So they never got the gun to reliably function at all.
2) The MG 42 builds. Once again they did not know the first thing about an MG 42 or so it seemed. If an MG 42 is not cycling correctly you refer to the armourers manual, which clearly has you check the following things: the reciprocator spring tension, the angle of the pressure plate on the top feed cover, the fit and spring tension on all of the belt feed components, the spring length on the main return spring, the roller bolts for chips, and the size of the front do-hikky (name I forget) that affects the recoil force applied to the barrel. The ammunition type also matters. The MG 42 armourers manual, translated to English is available from a few folks, easily found on the net for the sum of around 30 bucks and covers all of this. Billy-Joe-Jim-Bob’s solution was to spray lubricant on every thing but the MG belts (which should be lightly lubricated), look at the guns and scratch his head. No effort was made to ensure that the MG belts did not drag; they had the belts running all the way down to the bed of the truck. Few if any MG can lift that much weight, that is why they have ammunition box mounts on all tripods. All this is covered in the user’s manual, which will set you back 12 dollars. I guess Will didn’t read that.
3) The supposed ¼ MOA 1000 yard AK. Now I happen to know a little bit about long range and screwing a Krieger barrel onto an AK is not the method used to build a winning 1000 yard gun. To build a true MOA gas gun involves a bit more fitting like ensuring the locking lugs bear equally, that the chamber is concentric, that there is no asymmetric force on the barrel (free floated), that the ammunition uses the very best components (not Tula brand) , that the action is stiff and has very tight tolerances when the bolt is locked up. So you could do this with an M1, an M1A, an AR10 variant but not an AK with its inherently loose fits. Further, you are not going to produce ¼ MOA 1000 yard accuracy with any of these aforementioned designs, some thing close to 1 MOA is very, very good out of any of the .30 caliber rifles at long range. That entire show was a farce by any objective measure.
In general then, what I see is a company, at least as presented on the show, that lacks the basic craft one would associate with even an armourer level of skill. They should have the manuals for every American and foreign weapon they intend to work on. They should know something about finish besides paint.
At my little home shop I have as many books and armourer notes as I have tools, and I refer to them often. I have many US, British, some German and even Swiss K31 manual/notes, finding them did not cost me much money or time. Wills band of “Gunsmiths” do not ever refer to manuals and never seem to even know that one might have use of them. Little things in these books that affect accuracy and function, here are a few off the top of my head on one weapon system relevant to the discussion, the AR15.
1) The torque setting the flash hider on the AR15, too tight and it affects accuracy, to loose and it affects accuracy.
2) Alignment of the gas tube so there is no sideways pressure on it when it enters the upper receiver group.
3) To get a good trigger, the lower triggers holes must not be oversized relative to the trigger pins. To get a good trigger you must select the lower or have a supply of sized trigger pins to fit the receiver.
There are many more fits that matter either to accuracy; those were 3 that came to mind as I write this. Based on what is shown in this show, there does not seem to be any real attention shown to these points. Based on what the show shows, they are not even aware that the finer points of fit affect anything at all.
They have no means of surface finishing but spray paint. From the comments on the show they seem to use epoxy based paints. Now these can work but in order to work the surface must be properly prepared and after application they need to be cured at the correct temperature (again you must refer to the specific paint cure profile, which any manufacturer will tell you if you take the time to ask for the applications sheets.) and most importantly, the paint must be kept out of any area where two metal surfaces will be sliding against each other. Epoxy paint has a problem that until properly cured (and even then depending on the type) it will become soft and “sticky” when warm. So there method of sloppy finish almost ensures that once their rifles heat up they will start to show stoppages due to the uncured paint sticking and slowing down the correct action cycle time.
So in conclusion these guys seem like the assistant village idiots when it comes to just armourer technique, not to mention being so far way from true gunsmiths that they could not even dream of what it means to be a true master gunsmith. I would not trust any product from these guys.
Well enough said, pardon my grammar if there are any mistakes, but I would like to hear from the folks so lauding this firm about the points raised in this post. What say you to these points, or are you just shills for what appears on TV as a schlock house operation? If I am in error feel free to correct me, but in so far as I have been able to determine the above is a true rendering of the approach shown on this show. The show is a disservice to the true craftsmen that work in this industry and even the more interested skilled hobbyists.
Unquote:
So Hambone, you have asked for specific comments in the last thread, here are some in the above missive, based on the TV show and how they present themselves. In the comments on the above thread, there are other comments on their quality, based on actual rifles that folks have received. You and other have put forward the point that the firm is not to be judged by the show; please now do explain, in detail, why the show is not an accurate reflection of their work. Not platitudes, but explain how a shop presented with such poor technical skills could be a really top notch gunsmithing firm. Please explain the poor quality of builds noted by other contributors.
To be fair, I should warn you that my come back to your comments pertain to a specific AR-15 build of that shop, the “katana”.
I look forward to your detailed response. I am more then willing to withdraw my comments and apologize should I be wrong.
Fritz
anyway, the show has really gone south. hope hambone doesn't try to assasinate me for my opinion, it's only worth what it cost. they really do need to get away from the jersey drama nomatter who's responsible.
