Same as if in a bolt action, anything “weird” because it's an AR, pet methods, or etc. ..? Teach me new ‘tricks’.
Thank ye much …
Maybe I’m not understanding, but according to most books by PO the chamber must be set back .004”. This is to accommodate factory ammo providing an area to hold against.I had an issue with a Rem700 that was re-barreled and chambered in 223AI. I had inconsistent results using factory ammo...with substantial (25%-50%) failure to fire with light strikes on factory ammo, including Hornady and Winchester. I brought the rifle back to gunsmith and we verified the chamber was to spec. We then began looking at the ammo. Surprise...the ammo was consistently short resulting in inadequate crush fit seal. The different ammo tested were as little as 0.005" short to as much as 0.015".
One solution is to have barrel set back (ie shorten the chamber) to account for non spec ammo. I decided to keep it as designed by PO Ackley, and then I found an acceptable ammo that match the chamber for fire forming. I also ordered some LC brass to fire form for the rifle.
Maybe I’m not understanding, but according to most books by PO the chamber must be set back .004”. This is to accommodate factory ammo providing an area to hold against.
so your factory was .005-.015” shorter then .004” crush ?
Maybe my experience is kind of different. Although all my 223AI shooting is done in bolt actions. But I spend a lot of time firing AR's.Thank ye much …
Gilbert,
That is correct. A .223AI chamber is set back so that when you insert a .223 cartridge the junction/intersection of the shoulder and neck create a tight fit (crush fit) when the bolt is closed. This seal keeps the gas from leaking back around from the case mouth and provides a front reference point/stop so that the body of case can expand correctly to fit your rifle's chamber.
Most modern 5.56 or .223 ammo is not being produced to spec. What I found from like 8-10 different varieties of .223 Rem factory ammo (tested bulk ammo through match target ammo) was that most were short (shoulder pushed back). My best guess is this is done to ensure bolt closure and feeding for any rifle's chamber, especially for AR15 platform. As a result I was either not getting any crush fit or only a partial seal. If shoulder was too short then there was no crush fit and when firing pin hit primer then the cartridge would get pushed further into the chamber but since there wasn't enough resistance the firing pin would not cause a detonation...just a light primer strike mark. If the case only formed a weak or partial crush fit then upon firing some of the gas would flow backwards around the neck/shoulder junction and retard the fire forming process. The end result looked like a case initially formed using the Cream of Wheat method (80% formed) with a rounded shoulder and would require a second firing to achieve full firing forming.
From some discussions it is common practice amongst gunsmith community to set back the barrel an extra twist or two to ensure fire-forming with new factory ammo. An alternate method is to upgrade the firing pin spring (Wolf replacement spring for Rem 700 is much better than cheap factory spring), and also check the length of your firing pin (some are a bit short. For me my rifle was already assembled so easiest fix was to swap spring and evaluate firing pin for potential replacement/upgrade. In my case swapping out the $10 spring was the easy answer.
As a result of this fiasco my gunsmith now swaps out factory firing springs in any Rem 700 he works on.
Oso,
I believe this is what happened with a new build of mine. The firing pin assembly has since been changed out with a new PTG Performance Assembly and awaiting a chance to be fired again with my new handloads. I did load them with new unfired Lapua brass with the bullet into the lands app. .015 Time will tell.