Colt's new FCP milling

[VaderSpade]

I just saw this on another site and thought it was somewhat interesting.

[r3dn3ck]

well it sure won't take a DIAS without some work

[ott1]

That's a good idea. It'll stiffen up the fcg a little bit.

[desertdweller]

Made solely to eliminate DIAS and LL.

[VytamenC Tactical]

Never had a problem with a loose fcg that needed stiffining lol

[goober]

well it sure won't take a DIAS without some work

Made solely to eliminate DIAS and LL.

these^

That's a good idea. It'll stiffen up the fcg a little bit.

not this^

[ott1]

these^




not this^

I guess you know a lot about machining. I bow to your infinite knowledge.

[wash]

In terms of machining time, two pockets surely takes more time than one larger. Time is money so Colt is spending money to make sure you can't fit a legal DIAS or Lightening Link.

The whole philosophy that leads to a change like that is not friendly to gun owners.

It's like putting a 65 mph speed limiter on a golf cart that can't break 25.

Because of this, if I ever decide to make an illegal machine gun, it will be a Colt. Just because I can.

[ott1]

In terms of machining time, two pockets surely takes more time than one larger.

The time is negligible between the two. You still need 2 endmills, one rougher and one finishing. At the speeds their CNCs can do, there's practically no difference in machining times. I'm sure they have a pallet changer for their CNC.

The whole philosophy that leads to a change like that is not friendly to gun owners.

Different parts for different market. They don't need to make it easy for the civilian market. I'm sure the duo pocket is only for the civilian market.

[Milspec714]

In terms of machining time, two pockets surely takes more time than one larger. Time is money so Colt is spending money to make sure you can't fit a legal DIAS or Lightening Link.

The whole philosophy that leads to a change like that is not friendly to gun owners.

It's like putting a 65 mph speed limiter on a golf cart that can't break 25.

Because of this, if I ever decide to make an illegal machine gun, it will be a Colt. Just because I can.

EXACTLY...nicely put

[wash]

Having personally pushed the start button machining an 80% lower on a CNC machining center and having worked in a machine shop for several years, I can tell you with 100% certainty that making two pockets takes longer.

I'm sorry, you are wrong.

[ott1]

Having personally pushed the start button machining an 80% lower on a CNC machining center and having worked in a machine shop for several years, I can tell you with 100% certainty that making two pockets takes longer.

I'm sorry, you are wrong.

I said the time difference are negligible. If you say longer, how much longer? 2 minutes? 20 secs? 2 hrs? Wherever you worked must not have pushed the machines as much as what I've seen been done. That pocket can be done in roughly 2 minutes on a Fadal.

[goober]

I guess you know a lot about machining. I bow to your infinite knowledge.

I said the time difference are negligible. If you say longer, how much longer? 2 minutes? 20 secs? 2 hrs? Wherever you worked must not have pushed the machines as much as what I've seen been done. That pocket can be done in roughly 2 minutes on a Fadal.

wow. argumentative much?
lets say the difference is "negligible" as you say... we'll use your lowest suggestion of 20 sec/lower, total. i don't know if that's a realistic estimate or not but its your number, so...
carry that out over 100,000 units (or more) and you're closing on 550 hours of increased production time, maintenance costs due to machine and cutter wear, etc.
"practically no difference" begins to cost real money when volume is the name of the game.

[wash]

I guess you haven't seen someone push a Fadal very hard.

That pocket probably takes less than a minute and the FCG pocket probably takes a few seconds less than a normal pocket. It's probably a 30 second change but if you are running three shifts on a machining center that means about seven less receivers per day and also higher wear on the cutter, that would be unacceptable at any machine shop I am familiar with.

When you've got a $100,000+ machining center on lease, you have to keep it humming to make money.

A change that doesn't improve the gun, save money or even have a cosmetic effect stinks of management wanting to limit liability for an imagined problem.

[nick]

Looks like wants to beat Ruger in playing the PC game. Worked well for Ruger, right?