Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Jun 22, 2013 6:19:58 GMT -8
I was talking with Carl, the owner of Black Hole Weaponry last night. The company is thinking about streamlining some of it's products, to speed up the production process. The 264 LBC came up in the conversation. Right now there are two chamber measurements.
#1 Chamber using a bolt with a .125 recessed bolt face.
This is the original bolt used for the 7.62X39 and the 6.5 Grendel. As most of you know, this was and is the easiest bolt to aquire for your present builds. This is the same bolt used for all the offshoot wild cats from the 264 LBC or Grendel. The 6 PPC also uses this bolt unless it is a custom chamber. In short this is the fits all bolt.
#2 Chamber using a bolt with a .135 recessed bolt face.
The .135 bolt has been around for about 2 years. It was originally intended to aid in the extraction process of the Grendel case. It is hard to come by as far as the purchase of one. Right now I only know of two companies supplying them. Only about half of the barrel manufactures are chambering to use this bolt measurement. This same bolt also leaves another .010 of the case head un supported.
So here is the question.
If Black Hole only chambers for ONE size bolt, which should they go with? Lets hear your opinions about this!!!!!!
|
|
|
|
Post by GLSHOOTER on Jun 22, 2013 6:45:12 GMT -8
Type I is my choice. Availability and same same parts for all the LBC cases makes sense. Also more case support is a plus.
Greg
|
|
djmfl
Senior Member
Posts: 118
|
Post by djmfl on Jun 23, 2013 17:36:55 GMT -8
Guys, this sounds easier than it really is. I have a .264LBC with bull barrel with a type 2 chamber. Also, Andy is remaking my .264LBC with a LTR barrel with a type 1 chamber. Both are LH UPPERS. I guess I'll go with the type 1 since I have an extra LH type 2 bolt on hand.
I completely agree that simplifying the processes and products is the proper way to go.
Don
|
|
|
|
Post by ballardw on Jun 23, 2013 21:14:18 GMT -8
Since my current BHW .264 LBC has the type 1 bolt, I think I would like any other the same to minimize the places Murphy can strike.
|
|
|
|
Post by GLSHOOTER on Jun 24, 2013 8:36:12 GMT -8
Since my current BHW .264 LBC has the type 1 bolt, I think I would like any other the same to minimize the places Murphy can strike. I agree. With four variations I want them all the same. Greg |
|
|
|
Post by Babaganoush on Jun 24, 2013 10:25:00 GMT -8
I'm conflicted on this one. I have a barrel that is head spaced for the "type II" bolt, and I understand the attraction for readily available parts. What concerns me is that BHW seems to be unique in the production of the type I variants, whereas the rest of the manufacturers are seemingly producing the .135" chambers.
I know of at least three sources for "type II" bolts but, as Greg has said, they are very hard to come by at the present. That said, I anticipate the supply to improve, as I have already ordered and received one, in the past month.
If BHW decides to dedicate their production of the .264 LBC in only one chambering, I would submit that it would reduce potential customer confusion by producing the chambering as specified by its originator, Les Baer Custom. If you're going to call it .264 LBC, let it be just that.
Either way it goes, at best, BHW would annoy one segment of its existing .264 LBC owners or, at worst, alienate them. Were I Carl, I would let the future customer base be my primary consideration.
David
|
|
|
|
Post by GLSHOOTER on Jun 24, 2013 10:44:40 GMT -8
Since no one else is producing variants on the case I see no issues with a Type I on them. The Type II IMHO does nothing for the cartridge. The Ii type bolt has never been readily available. Model 1 is a type I. If you get a custom barrel I would want to get the easiest parts I could get and that is a Type I. The ammo runs in both so that is a non-issue.
Some builders quit doing any because no II bolts cannot be had easily. Silly if they can match up a Type I IMHO. Future customers are not really predictble. Unless supplies change there won't be a large number of Grebdel derivatives sold period in my estimation.
Greg
|
|
|
|
Post by Babaganoush on Jun 24, 2013 13:26:52 GMT -8
Since no one else is producing variants on the case I see no issues with a Type I on them. The Type II IMHO does nothing for the cartridge. The Ii type bolt has never been readily available. Model 1 is a type I. If you get a custom barrel I would want to get the easiest parts I could get and that is a Type I. The ammo runs in both so that is a non-issue. Some builders quit doing any because no II bolts cannot be had easily. Silly if they can match up a Type I IMHO. Future customers are not really predictble. Unless supplies change there won't be a large number of Grebdel derivatives sold period in my estimation. Greg Greg, With all due respect, it's long been known where you are on this issue. The thread was created for the purpose of soliciting opinion, not necessarily for debate. I submitted my opinion. Can we leave it at that? David |
|
|
|
Post by GLSHOOTER on Jun 24, 2013 14:17:05 GMT -8
Since no one else is producing variants on the case I see no issues with a Type I on them. The Type II IMHO does nothing for the cartridge. The Ii type bolt has never been readily available. Model 1 is a type I. If you get a custom barrel I would want to get the easiest parts I could get and that is a Type I. The ammo runs in both so that is a non-issue. Some builders quit doing any because no II bolts cannot be had easily. Silly if they can match up a Type I IMHO. Future customers are not really predictble. Unless supplies change there won't be a large number of Grebdel derivatives sold period in my estimation. Greg Greg, With all due respect, it's long been known where you are on this issue. The thread was created for the purpose of soliciting opinion, not necessarily for debate. I submitted my opinion. Can we leave it at that? David Sure we can leave it at that. So far four opinions and the polls are still open. Sometimes these seem like a Ford vs Chevy deal. Greg |
|
|
|
Post by biggdawg on Jun 24, 2013 16:51:55 GMT -8
my vote would go to a type II because that is what most of the industry is going to from my understanding.
but BHW has to do what makes business sense to them.
it is just a bad deal that there are 2 different bolts being used in the first place. can just cause problems for the consumer.
|
|
|
|
Post by Warlike on Jun 25, 2013 11:35:29 GMT -8
I've discussed this variance with so many people now that it makes my head hurt, people saying that we need to go with what the industry is going to as a standard kills Me, there is no direction as a "standard". If you want components that will work in either chambering go TYPE I, if need be it can be modified to work in either chambering and TYPE II can't be modded to run well in a TYPE I chambering by any method that I have ever come across. TYPE I is also the better option for any future wildcats to use the chambering as a platform as the face has more wiggle room for machining. Once My pocket matches My desires, please have a TYPE I bbl chamber available, ty.
|
|
|
|
Post by pasttense on Jul 20, 2013 18:55:40 GMT -8
When something is changed it is usually for a reason. Was the reason for type II a valid one? Did it solve the problem? Was it all just marketing? Is there a better solution? All valid point for discussion? A survey is generally a Marketing tool not an Engineering tool (problem solving tool). As opinions go I acquired a type (x) bolt so I want a type(x) barrel. I have heard that the change was due to a need for better extraction, cheap type I bolts failing and marketing. The cartridge origins are a murky subject so getting to the truth may take some digging. The comments about using one with another are not binding unless you shoot factory ammo. If you know the chamber is .010" longer or shorter than spec it is not a problem for the hand-loader. Bolts failing and extraction failing or Alexander not controlling the market belong on different balance sheets.
Paul
|
|
|
|
Post by geoffh417 on Aug 27, 2013 10:50:02 GMT -8
I've never had my type 1 bolt fail to extract ammo. But I do tear my bolt down and clean it inside from time to time.
|
|
|
|
Post by pasttense on Aug 27, 2013 12:22:54 GMT -8
When I started my first AR it was to be a 6.5Grendel Lothar Walther was associated with that attempt, in discussion with them the head spacing for the 6.5 Grendel was changed 3 times at least at that point the Grendel name was still copyrighted barrel manufactures where licensed. The license agreement was from what I have heard quite one sided Alexander got involved with Hornady and eventually released the copyright. This left work-around's 6.5css 264lbc come to mind. All of this left a bad taste in some peoples mouth. Each change in head space was supposed to cure some compliant. The real purpose seams to have been to muddy the water so that you would have to deal with Alexander. As an accurate description of the cartridge would be closer to 6.5x.220 K Russian. Put the K where you want. It seems it all comes down to marketing. I think this exercise in applied ignorance left the void for the 6.8, 30AR and possibly 300blackout a void to fill.
Paul
|
|
|
|
Post by GLSHOOTER on Aug 27, 2013 14:43:16 GMT -8
When I started my first AR it was to be a 6.5Grendel Lothar Walther was associated with that attempt, in discussion with them the head spacing for the 6.5 Grendel was changed 3 times at least at that point the Grendel name was still copyrighted barrel manufactures where licensed. The license agreement was from what I have heard quite one sided Alexander got involved with Hornady and eventually released the copyright. This left work-around's 6.5css 264lbc come to mind. All of this left a bad taste in some peoples mouth. Each change in head space was supposed to cure some compliant. The real purpose seams to have been to muddy the water so that you would have to deal with Alexander. As an accurate description of the cartridge would be closer to 6.5x.220 K Russian. Put the K where you want. It seems it all comes down to marketing. I think this exercise in applied ignorance left the void for the 6.8, 30AR and possibly 300blackout a void to fill. Paul Somebody had their thinking cap on today. Greg |
|
