Okay… Just tested the Young bolt in the following carriers: LaRue (hard chrome), Spikes nickel boron, and a very old Bushmaster (SA). The Young bolt collapsed with all of them. Conversely the bolts from those carriers did not collapse in the Young carrier.
They’re worn out when the rifle short strokes, otherwise you’re seeing an indicator of wear. Do you have a dental pick?
Don’t have dental tools. My concerns are 1) they wore out so quickly that they fail the test as 500rds is too quick IMO. and 2) This rifle currently serves the HD role so waiting until it short strokes isn’t really an option.
"I have never heard of the test you describe as being a reliable way to test gas rings.
Wow. That reads like somebody has their nose so high in the air that they’re indanger of drowning during the rainy season…
Point of order: I saw nothing to indicate you asking him what he’s heard of…but as to whether or not the method is a workable one. If he’s got a technical knowledge base worth pissing on if its on fire, he’d be able to tell you why it wouldn’t be reliable/workable/helpful.
Since he didn’t do that, it’s either an somewhat-artful dodge…or his knowledge base is too narrow or shallow to be worthy of basing any actions or decisions.
One thing about the written word; you really don’t have an excuse for being incomplete, unless it’s what you’re going for in the first place, or somehow just can’t bring one’s self to type out “I don’t know.”
And I dunno about the rest of you…I don’t own any MOLLE pouches for a damned air compressor and ancillary equipment. If there’s no field-expedient method to test the wear rate of gas rings that he’d consider viable, why not just SAY so?
This joker came up with his own question to answer, instead of answering the one that was asked. Jeez, they’re EVERYwhere…FML.
On the carrier questions, yes. That is, in talking with various manufacturers, I’ve discovered that the surface smoothness of the interior is an important detail.
A rough surface will eat gas rings, and there is no fixing it. “Manufacturers” who try to skip steps, or come “close enough” will make troublesome parts. In some applications, that isn’t a big deal.
In this instance, were I faced with a 3-gun rifle that worked 100%, shot sub-MOA groups, and ate gas rings in 500 rounds, I’d just spend the extra buck-and-a-half every 400 rounds, and not sweat it. A rifle for the zombie apocalypse, I’d swap out the carrier for one that was more gentle on gas rings.
It seems that the general consensus is that, aside from the possibility the gas rings are soft (I’ve seen a couple sets that wore down exceptionally quickly for no apparent reason) or that you’re not using proper lubrication, that something is probably wrong with the carrier… either it is too rough inside and is causing premature wear or the inside diameter is too great.
… I replacement bolt carrier group that is actually built to spec is less than $150. If you’re considering this rifle for defensive use, I think I’d upgrade to a bolt carrier group that is actually in spec.
It isn’t for lack of lube. I use it liberally all the time. Right now the plan is to replace the rings and see if it happens again.
Is there any possibility the rifle is over gassed and causing excessive wear? It’s a Lilja M4 Patrolman bbl and Brownells low profile gas block.
Thanks again!
I’ve personally never known over-gassing to wear out gas rings exceptionally quickly, although I imagine it could happen. Usually over-gassing is revealed by excessive gas back into your eyes/nose, and issues with torn casings. That said, I am not the end-all be-all of knowledge…
Even if it isn’t causing the rings to wear… doesn’t hurt to have an idea. Look where your brass is ejecting… If it is beyind 3 o’clock, you’re running a little sluggish. If it is ahead of 3 o’clock, you’re cycling too fast. Doesn’t necessarily tell you whether you are over-gassed or not since this also takes into account buffer weight, spring tension, and ammunition… but you’ll at least know that your cyclic rate is about right.
(Yes, this is very field-expedient… and for those of us with no high-speed camera.)
Hmm… Interesting. Didn’t know how it got started, but I heard it a few years back (never saw this illustration) and have been using it ever since and it’s never failed me yet.
Passes the smell test to me. I’ll keep using it.
There are just too many variables in the operating parts for ejection pattern alone to be relied upon as anything other than an indicator of where NOT to position someone with a low-cut top.
I can fully see how it wouldn’t be a good indicator of gas pressure, due to the variables.
If ejection patten does depend on cyclic rate, though, which I can’t envision how it wouldn’t after seeing the results I have… Aside from ejector tension coming into play to an extent, it looks like a reliable method of field-expedient cyclic rate observation.
I guess the way to really figure this out would be to examine cyclic rate using a high-speed camera, and seeing how it relates to ejection pattern. Are you implying that that cyclic rate and ejection pattern are two entirely separate issues? I have a hard time believing that. Not saying it isn’t true, it just isn’t supported by my observations and what seems intuitive.
I’m not saying you are wrong… I very well might be wrong. It’s just that the method I have been using has been working for me, and I have been able to make modifications to ejection pattern using it which common knowledge says are influencing cyclic rate.
Excessive extractor tension will alter ejection.
Weak ejector strength will alter ejection .
Excessively fast or slow BCG speed can look different than moderately over or under speed BCG travel.
Raising and lowering buffer weight and spring strength will alter bolt speed and ejection pattern independantly of gas ring function.
Dirty/dry/caked parts will cycle differently than clean, slippery ones.
You can also use the sharp tip of a knife from a multitool as well. I would encourage you to get some McFarland rings and see what happens.
I’m not suggesting it is perfect, or that there are NO other variables. And without a whole lot more research and data I don’t think either of us is going to come up with conclusive proof either way. (If you have it, I’m all ears.)
My observations, though, with a number of different rifles have been that buffers, carriers, and springs have substantial impacts on ejection pattern through their alteration of cyclic rate.
It isn’t a flawless method, and I don’t claim it is… but it seems to work, that’s all I’m saying and we can leave it there.
As with Gunz, I use McFarland gas rings and will continue to do so.
My personal rifle has about 2500 rounds on the ring and it looks almost new.
I also have a buddy who has slightly more (about 2800) through his gun and no visible wear at all.
It is my understanding that the steel used in McFarland gas rings is of a higher grade than the steel used in normal 3-piece mil spec gas rings.
I also understand that McFarland gas rings are part of the PIP of the Mk18 for the Navy to increase the reliability and longevity of the 10.5" Mk18.
My buddy had issues running weak steel cased ammo before installing the McFarland ring. It just wouldn’t cycle the gun (short stroking). Buffer, buffer spring (chrome silicon), and carrier all remain the same. Issues disappeared once he installed the McFarland ring…haven’t reappeared since and he shoots both weak Rusky steel cased ammo and XM193 regularly (he’s about a 50/50 between the two)
I hope to god that this question answers itself. 
Also, I distinctly remember a test someone did, I forget where I saw/read about it. Someone completely took the gas rings off a bolt and went through a course of fire with the weapon without any major issues. Granted, it’s not the smartest thing to do, and certainly not every weapon would do it. Statistically speaking, I’m not sure how probable or improbable it would be for a weapon to function without gas rings.
Even if a carrier/bolt collapses under it’s own weight, that doesn’t necessarily mean the gas rings are worn out. As stated by IG, the proper test is to pull the cam pin out of the carrier, insert the bolt and if it falls free under it’s own weight, the rings are considered bad. If not, you’re set to go.
I think that might be where the disconnect is.
Having a high or low cyclic rate does not really indicate if the weapon is over or under-gassed, and excessive extractor tension and/or weak ejector strength can indicate something other than what ejection pattern may seem to indicate, and combinations of variables can show wide differences in ejection pattern.
I have had literally hundreds of shooters on a range at once, all with virtually identical mil-spec weapons, with several different ejection patterns, none of which had any issue in function.
If you want to use ejection pattern to diagnose function problems, it’s your choice. I prefer to use other methods as recommended by guys that have done it professionally over the course of decades for guys that stake life on the function of their weapons. Doesn’t mean it’s the only way, but they have a highly successful model that I choose to follow that has worked for me in my 14+ year career.
I’m not too worried about ejection patterns. I did notice it change when we were experimenting with different buffer springs (standard, blue and red) and different weight buffers. I’m now running the rifle with an H3 and a red spring (Springco’s recommendation for 16" carbine gas). Had that set up for the TAPS class, just shy of 300rds. The function was flawless.
I’m going to try the McFarland ring and see how it goes. Looks like DSG Arms is getting more of my money. 
Thanks guys! Will let y’all know what happens after the next 500rds.
I think we pretty much agree on the technical aspects, but just interpret it differently.
A rifle that is over-gassed will probably wear parts faster, but as long as something is being done to keep the cyclic rate under control it is not an immediate problem in the sense you can likely avoid stuck casings and other failures associated with a rifle that is cycling too fast.