snorkelman

well I finally got one of these carriers thru this morning so should have a chance to give it a thurough look over some stage this weekend initial observations - very nicely made the machining and finish is on par with any other carrier out there and the finish on the nozzle tube puts the one on RATs 260 dollar carrier to shame. this one had a sticker for m4gbb.com on it so that was either the wholesaler/retailer that the ones on sale in HK were sourced from, or the HK ones are a cancelled order from there. yes it is heavy (315 on my digi scales in comparison to 241 for the RA

got JDT steel trigger assembly and JDT firing block/boltcatch assembly in steel trigger assembly - is a complete drop in unit you get trigger, trigger sear, trigger spring, trigger sear spring and a steel axis pin to hold it into the receiver with the sear - same slab sided style as RAT and Ino - this one has the slightly squared off beak that an Ino one uses rather than the slightly rounded beak of an RAT sear the trigger - I have two Ino triggers both are different the one I got RAT to source me direct as an Ino spare part has slightly soft edges and the webbing behin

couldnt tell you, still twiddling my thumbs waiting on mine to arrive.. Id also take a look at how restricted the blowback setup is as Ino run their own NP config (might be prompting similar condition to a RAT NPAS system thats been adjusted almost entirely to muzzle energy where recoil and ROF can go down the toilet) if these are INO parts that have had the backside milled off them and dumped onto the market then things may not be optimal 'under the hood' I know there was talk of the Ino 2009 carrier group being revised prior to release, so solution then might be to do a direct compare

not sure if the weight is the sole reason for the low cyclic rate, its definately a contributing factor but I wonder if its all thats going on here? eg 325g bolt carrier run with stock AGM plastic buffer is 336 gram of weight thats having to be cycled, heavy yes ..but RAT carrier fitted to a rifle along with heavy weight buffer is around 305 to 310 grammes of weight and that combo can still turn out half decent ROF

the original lets call it version V1 (though versions in terms of the GHK often amount to pretty insignificant/trivial changes as the design got a lot of minor tweakign as it went along) V2 then improved fire control parts (slightly more built up contact surfaces to address the issues some guns had with sloppy fire controls) V3 the improved firecontrol parts and new hop up V4 then the current? version with all of the above and a bolt carrier redesign to rejiggle how the bolt travel gets limited in the carrier (I think this one ditches the two screws approach?) at some poi

contact justin at daytona gun he sells steel versions of the internal parts (though Im not sure if he sells the selector on its own or only as part of a sub kit with a few other bits n bobs) alternately stick a wanted add up - someone might have an unbroken stock one that they've already swapped out when fitting Justins version the external selector lever is just a bog standard dboys AEG part

RAT bolt stop needs a little filing too if the JDT is Ino spec then its really going to be a choice between a little filing of the bolt stop area of the firing block (RAT) or a little filling of the lower receiver mounting area of the firing block I've got one of the JDT blocks on its way but its part of the ebbanned order they dragged their heels sending out so not likely to be here any time soon for me to be able to say for sure wether it needs filing or not. the JDT would have the advantages of being something you could (usually) source along with the element parts - ex

bear in mind thats 'doesnt come with a bucking' versus a part that 'only takes the bucking it ships with' wether it works out cheaper depends on wether shopping at boomarms in order to buy it doesnt add to overall order costs and whether getting a new hop rubber for it later means having to buy another complete unit from abroad or not that said its tried and tested and folks using it seem to get on OK with it whereas the one at PX (although cloned from the Prime) is as yet untested. As far as metal chambers breaking nozzles - nozzles seem to break based on alignment issues, not mate

anti rotation pins can be a tight fit element steel hammer might be a better option than the ACM one I've got the ACM one here it works well andd does the job but.. its got three bearings that could be failure points. In particular the two axis bearings are different size from standard hammer bushings so if one of the two of those does fail you'ld need to search for new bearings to suit. the 5KU steel sear Ive not tried yet (the finish on it put me off given RAT ones are 10 bucks and work well anyways) If you're not ordering stuff from RAT and want to chuck one of the 5ku ones in al

confirmed by stirrat its 175mm same length as the WA carrier

still waiting, got three on their way one from PX ordered on 11th was posted on 13th and left HK on 15th - random postal workers walkouts at this end wont help to speed its delivery two from ebb ordered on 9th and 10th were posted today (lazy tossers)

Ino bolt assemblies: proprietary nozzle tube - has the groove for the side plate machined into the side of the nozzle tube (versus the WA style groove formed into a raised section on side of the tube) proprietary bolt - screws into the nozzle tube not the 'keyed and thru pin' of standard bolts break the nozzle tube or break the bolt and you'll need to source spare Ino style ones bolt carrier - top cut out section of the bolt carrier is same length as the bottom cut out, and the rear section of the carrier behind the cut outs is pretty much the same length as the cut outs.

re the cooldown does it do same in semi and in auto? e.g does 5 or 6 shots as fast as you can cycle the trigger in semi produce a similar result to 5 or 6 shots in auto if not then check the hammer lock functionality, hammer following the bolt carrier home in auto (rather than staying put till the carrier gets all the way back into battery) will start gas release before the nozzle assembly is lined up over the port in the mag and thats going to waste gas reshimming the flute valve will end up in similar situation to a NPAS - you'll bring the flute valve closer to its closed p

I've got that problem with socks but never shoes..

hehe aye, if not you can always throw them at people to keep their heads down

good to hear it helped ... granted they really should be abe to work in positive config but way I see it if negative gets round the problem then why make life harder than it needs to be Million dollar question is wether the elements work better in negative config than the AGM ones do (ROF gas consumption etc) though my guess is you probably wont have had a chance to do a fresh compare as yet?

On the AGM nozzle assembly the flute valve is held open with the spring (spring goes at front around long part of the flute valve) On a positive pressure system the spring is behind the flute valve pushing it closed (relying on the BB being in the right position in the hop so that it can push on the tip of the flute valve to force it open)

because it governs the depth that the nozzle enters the hop chamber on the loading stroke without the buffer the charging handle can sit further forward, when the charging handle sits further forwards the gas key on the bolt carrier can sit further forwards, and when the bolt carrier sits further forwards the nozzle sits further forwards. Voila Is the element using negative or positive pressure? If its set for positive try to rig it for negative pressure and see how you get on If BBs are getting knocked too far thru the hop then they wont be applying any standoff to the flute

couldnt tell you for definate though that sounds logical enough I kinda lost the will to live before getting to the end of their checkout procedure so have never ordered from them Still I expect someone will be along in a min or two who has and can confirm.

http://www.boomarms.com/sc/viewproductdeta...?ProductID=3059 that one? as far as JDT goes you're not going to get much by way of a meaningful collective opinion on a hop rubber thats only been out since thursday or friday speculation yes, actual hands on personal experience no so at risk of adding to the speculation what I will say is 1 - the rubber is described as JDT Taiwan made, the chamber is described as china made and looks awfully like a chamber EBB was already selling - so chances are Ebb just took an off the shelf chamber and chucked this JDT rubber in along with it

turn the bolt catch/firing block towards you so your facing the bolt catch button straight on, just to the right of the bolt catch is a small hole near top of the block, slide the detente pin into that hole narrow end first Once the pin is in feed the spring in - it'll protrude a fair amount Once you've slid the firing block and bolt catch almost fully home into the lower receiver, compress the spring so it sits flush with the mouth of the hole and the block can then be slid right down into place The inside wall of the lower receiver will keep the spring under proper tension

first one I had to deal with of that style was the original RAT one needed to shave a little material off the bottom of the front of the actuator (ahead of the pivot point) shaved some off the top of the actuating lever (atop surface behind the pivot point up to where the spring sits) then shaved a little off the nubs over two or three passes after that it worked fine. when it came to trying the cheapy CNC part I pulled lever Id modded for the RAT one stuck it into that and it worked fine there too On mine the hop was always visibly on while sat inside the RAT hop unit untill the lever wa

aye, ordered one up for testing along with the firing block hop up rubber and the steel trigger set been totting up the parts and if the trigger and bolt carrier from these check out OK, then theres now the option of gutting everything internally in favour of steel parts aluminium hop and buffer etc for around 200 bucks

hole in the lower receiver for the G&P mag catch rod to pass thru needs opened up on the AGM receiver, so there'll be no need to alter that on the G&P when fitting the slightly narrower AGM rod thru it. G&P and Inokatsu mag catch buttons are slightly wobbly when fitted in an AGM receiver so the AGM button may well be a little tight when fitted in a G&P lower. Difference between all the different buttons is only 0.2mm so not much alteration neccessary there if it is too tight a fit same goes for the actual mag catch part of the assembly - measurements on all of them a

threading is close enough to fit but the AGM nuts arent all that great - they're a lot more prone to jumping the threads than a RS or G&P nut with better defined threads.