Gauging interest in an adjustable bolt

MitchWerbellsGhost87

UZI Talk Life Member
Feedback: 6 / 0 / 0
Joined
Dec 11, 2022
Messages
663
Location
USA
I started typing out the same post but then figured I’d just have to wait to see 😀

Not using drag “in the normal fashion” is something interesting to think about
Yeah, sounds to me like they’re using drag… just not in the way we would expect it to be done. I was thinking a bolt with some kind of adjustable protrusion that rubs against the inside of the receiver slightly to make it a bit more snug could work, and it could be adjustable too…. But it would not be sustainable, it would end up etching a groove into the inside of the receiver after a while and it would no longer slow it down.
 

MitchWerbellsGhost87

UZI Talk Life Member
Feedback: 6 / 0 / 0
Joined
Dec 11, 2022
Messages
663
Location
USA
It’s interesting that it delays the closing of the slide, not the opening. It would be interesting to try to reverse the mechanism to delay opening, but I suspect the opening impulse is too fleeting in duration to give the mechanism time to both engage and disengage.
This is exactly what the autowerks design did. It was a spring loaded bar that sat behind the bolt, when the bolt cycled backwards it hit that bar. It would push the bar backwards as it travelled towards the rear of the receiver. The bar had spring tension pushing up against the bolt, and slowed it down. Very similar to the closed bolt gun cocking the hammer on the way back. It didn’t completely STOP the bolt in its tracks, but it slowed it down some.
 

SecondAmend

Well-known member
Feedback: 13 / 0 / 0
Joined
Apr 3, 2007
Messages
1,758
This is exactly what the autowerks design did. It was a spring loaded bar that sat behind the bolt, when the bolt cycled backwards it hit that bar. It would push the bar backwards as it travelled towards the rear of the receiver. The bar had spring tension pushing up against the bolt, and slowed it down. Very similar to the closed bolt gun cocking the hammer on the way back. It didn’t completely STOP the bolt in its tracks, but it slowed it down some.
People also made a makeshift version that used an AR-15 hammer and hammer spring. In one version the hammer/spring assembly hammer pin was mounted in a carrier as was the case of the Autowerkz assembly; and in another version the hammer pin was mounted into holes in the receiver.
 

gorillastomp

UZI Talk Life Member
Feedback: 17 / 0 / 0
Joined
Jan 18, 2009
Messages
1,202
Location
Tennessee
Yeah, sounds to me like they’re using drag… just not in the way we would expect it to be done. I was thinking a bolt with some kind of adjustable protrusion that rubs against the inside of the receiver slightly to make it a bit more snug could work, and it could be adjustable too…. But it would not be sustainable, it would end up etching a groove into the inside of the receiver after a while and it would no longer slow it down.
Not doing this. I don’t want to go into much detail just yet.
 

MitchWerbellsGhost87

UZI Talk Life Member
Feedback: 6 / 0 / 0
Joined
Dec 11, 2022
Messages
663
Location
USA
Not doing this. I don’t want to go into much detail just yet.
Obviously that isn’t your method and I wasn’t implying that it was, what I described would take 10 mins to create with an oem bolt, a drill, a tap and a set screw, cost less than 10 dollars, and certainly wouldn’t be treated like some top secret prototype (and likely would not work either, at least not for long).

It would also be cheap enough to accomplish that there would be no need to gauge interest prior to selling them. Clearly what you have come up with must be more intricately designed and require some kind of machining from scratch, or this thread wouldn’t exist and units would already be available.

I’m very curious to see what it is. I’d love to see what kind of new design has been thought up that wasn’t already attempted over the last 50 years by all the others who have tried everything under the sun to slow down the MAC.

With CFW bolts regularly selling for $2000-$3000 apiece on GunBroker, do you even really have to ask if there is an interest in slowing down the MAC? The answer seems obvious enough to me, unless these guys just like fancy tungsten paperweights. it seems that guys not only wanna slow down the MAC, but they wanna slow it down so badly they’re willing to spend nearly half the price of the gun to do so!
 
Last edited:

BlackBelt

UZI Talk Life Member
Feedback: 0 / 0 / 0
Joined
Feb 16, 2007
Messages
1,114
People also made a makeshift version that used an AR-15 hammer and hammer spring. In one version the hammer/spring assembly hammer pin was mounted in a carrier as was the case of the Autowerkz assembly; and in another version the hammer pin was mounted into holes in the receiver.
This is what I bought many years ago. It was sold as a "drop in rate reducer" but after I received it I immediately noticed it wouldnt "drop in" without shaving the back of the AR hammer down. I contacted the man who had made and marketed these and he and I started corresponding about developing a more "drop in" version, but unfortunately he passed away before that project got started. I did work on it a bit, but lost interest when it did not appreciably decrease the ROF and tossed it into my 'box of all things Mac'...where it still sits today.
 

skoda

UZI Talk Life Member
Feedback: 4 / 0 / 0
Joined
Mar 23, 2010
Messages
706
This is what I bought many years ago. It was sold as a "drop in rate reducer" but after I received it I immediately noticed it wouldnt "drop in" without shaving the back of the AR hammer down. I contacted the man who had made and marketed these and he and I started corresponding about developing a more "drop in" version, but unfortunately he passed away before that project got started. I did work on it a bit, but lost interest when it did not appreciably decrease the ROF and tossed it into my 'box of all things Mac'...where it still sits today.
That's my experience as well. Which only adds to the obvious situation where MAC shooters want a slower gun but short of the TASK and the CFW with their own short comings* there is no good solution. Hence this thread is five pages long and growing until GS clues us all in. I'm thinking that the Polish RAK idea might have some legs as well.

*I'd say that the extra weight of the CFW is a minimal short coming. The TASK hole and rear projection is a take it or leave it shortcoming.
 

SecondAmend

Well-known member
Feedback: 13 / 0 / 0
Joined
Apr 3, 2007
Messages
1,758
A bolt with integral hydraulic buffer to reduce ROF could be made, but would likely be even less attractive from a cost to benefit ratio perspective.
MHO, YMMV, etc.
 

MitchWerbellsGhost87

UZI Talk Life Member
Feedback: 6 / 0 / 0
Joined
Dec 11, 2022
Messages
663
Location
USA
That's my experience as well. Which only adds to the obvious situation where MAC shooters want a slower gun but short of the TASK and the CFW with their own short comings* there is no good solution. Hence this thread is five pages long and growing until GS clues us all in. I'm thinking that the Polish RAK idea might have some legs as well.

*I'd say that the extra weight of the CFW is a minimal short coming. The TASK hole and rear projection is a take it or leave it shortcoming.
TASK butt holes are a deal breaker for most these days. CFW style drop-ins are much more appealing. M11/9s have become expensive enough that people don’t wanna bore a hole through the rear end. I honestly have never even heard anyone complain about the extra weight of the CFW, its such a negligible amount in the big scheme of things that most likely don’t even feel much of a difference in the handling of the firearm, with the exception of the rate reduction of course.
 

skoda

UZI Talk Life Member
Feedback: 4 / 0 / 0
Joined
Mar 23, 2010
Messages
706
I notice the weight of the CFW in my M11 much more than in the M11/9. Might be psychological or the fact that I don't normally use a stock in the little one.

Holes can be welded up but with the Lage Max15 most opted for the non-hole version so it's clear that most don't like them.

At this point the CFW bolt is the standard to beat. I think that's why anytime someone comes out with something new, or the promise of something new, that there is a lot of initial interest in if it is really better or worse or vaporware.
 

brenbuilds

UZI Talk Supporter
Feedback: 0 / 0 / 0
Joined
Mar 23, 2019
Messages
184
Location
USA
TASK butt holes are a deal breaker for most these days. CFW style drop-ins are much more appealing. M11/9s have become expensive enough that people don’t wanna bore a hole through the rear end. I honestly have never even heard anyone complain about the extra weight of the CFW, its such a negligible amount in the big scheme of things that most likely don’t even feel much of a difference in the handling of the firearm, with the exception of the rate reduction of course.
Frankly, transferable machine guns as an aggregate are historically relevant enough to second guess heavily modifying your gun. Many MAC's, M-16's, etc. have entered C&R status, or are on their way.
 

MitchWerbellsGhost87

UZI Talk Life Member
Feedback: 6 / 0 / 0
Joined
Dec 11, 2022
Messages
663
Location
USA
Frankly, transferable machine guns as an aggregate are historically relevant enough to second guess heavily modifying your gun. Many MAC's, M-16's, etc. have entered C&R status, or are on their way.
I firmly agree. They’re not making any more of them anytime soon… over the years there will be less and less all original guns, until eventually an all original gun will be a diamond in the rough. We are already getting there…
 

SecondAmend

Well-known member
Feedback: 13 / 0 / 0
Joined
Apr 3, 2007
Messages
1,758
I firmly agree. They’re not making any more of them anytime soon… over the years there will be less and less all original guns, until eventually an all original gun will be a diamond in the rough. We are already getting there…
I saw this happen live with the '63-'67 Corvette Stingrays. In the early to mid 1970s a popular modification was opening up and flaring the wheel wells to accommodate the tires and wheels that had evolved. By the mid to late 1980's, the same custom body shops that had cut and flared the wheel wells were making money putting the wheel wells back to the original shape, but any one who wanted a truly original Stingray knew to look for the wheel well modifications.
MHO, YMMV, etc.
 

Gaujo

UZI Talk Supporter
Feedback: 10 / 0 / 1
Joined
Sep 11, 2013
Messages
4,229
Location
Raleigh, NC
Frankly, transferable machine guns as an aggregate are historically relevant enough to second guess heavily modifying your gun. Many MAC's, M-16's, etc. have entered C&R status, or are on their way.
I mean it was 1986, all transferables will be legally C&R once they are 50 years old, and that occurs in May of 2036, which is only 8 years out.
 

Gaujo

UZI Talk Supporter
Feedback: 10 / 0 / 1
Joined
Sep 11, 2013
Messages
4,229
Location
Raleigh, NC
I saw this happen live with the '63-'67 Corvette Stingrays. In the early to mid 1970s a popular modification was opening up and flaring the wheel wells to accommodate the tires and wheels that had evolved. By the mid to late 1980's, the same custom body shops that had cut and flared the wheel wells were making money putting the wheel wells back to the original shape, but any one who wanted a truly original Stingray knew to look for the wheel well modifications.
MHO, YMMV, etc.
Yea but we are talking about swapping uppers here and parts, Everybody who has any sense keeps the original parts in a box.
 

SecondAmend

Well-known member
Feedback: 13 / 0 / 0
Joined
Apr 3, 2007
Messages
1,758
Yea but we are talking about swapping uppers here and parts, Everybody who has any sense keeps the original parts in a box.
When wheel wells were modified, original rims were pitched as were original exhaust systems when the bodies were modified to install side pipes (which was another fairly common aftermarket modification). Upgrading the carburation from a single four barrel carb to "three deuces" generally resulted in the original carb and intake manifold being scrapped or sold.
In any case, on the MAC's the hole drilled in the rear plate for the TASK modification was specifically mentioned. And one can only store so many gun parts before the gun room gets full.
MHO, YMMV, etc.
 

Gaujo

UZI Talk Supporter
Feedback: 10 / 0 / 1
Joined
Sep 11, 2013
Messages
4,229
Location
Raleigh, NC
You made me think twice. I'm going to go find my original parts and put them in a marked box!
 

Please Visit our Sister Sites Below

Sister Board - Sturmgewehr Sister Board - MachinegunBoards


Please consider becoming an UZI Talk Supporter
Top