So I purchased a PTG rem 700 bdl "drop in" DBM with a 5 round AI mag thinking this will work for all i want to do but man was i wrong( running a short action 700 remage build 6XC manners T4). First off drop in required minor fitting in my manners stock, no big deal, then my very first try to chamber a round it got jammed on the feed ramp, this is where it all started to go down hill. Why did it get jammed? Well that became evident when i notice the system sat considerably lower in relation to the feed ramp than the internal box does, well this caused the bullets (105 berger hybrid) to hit on the lower 1/3rd of the ramp and just wouldnt slide up. Easy enough notch down the front of the magazine and it allowed it to tilt up just enough to feed 50% of the time single loaded. Then i noticed that the magazine sits under the feed ramp so every time a round is stripped off the top the round below tries to follow and ends up going under the bottom of the feed ramp (location as seen in the image). At this point it just is not meant to be ( towel thrown in). Giving it another chance i thought maybe because its in manners stock it may actually have the bottom metal slightly farther away from the bottom of the action (call me stupid but i was not ruling out anything), but wrong again as i found out the bottom metal was actually touching the bottom of the receiver. Needless to say i am less than impressed. I thought well maybe it just isint meant for a 6xc so i thought i would just see if my 308 rounds would function, i know there obviously not going to chamber but with the twist of a new barrel this would be a 308 so i wanted to just see if it was partially the cartridge fault, nope wrong again the 308 didnt fair any better, neither did the 243. Sorry to say but my experience was less than stellar, enough to never ever touch a ptg again.....just my opinion..............end rant......
-
Having trouble using the site?
Contact support
PTG Drop In My ASS!!!!
- Thread starter STI_1911_Guy
- Start date
Wish i would have seen this earlier. On a side note i see on midway the Wyatts DBM drop in has very good reviews, any thoughts on these?
Many people take a dremel (or use a mill if they have one) to remove that exposed section of the feed ramp scallop or put a notch in it. It's not needed for a DBM assembly.
I cannot be there to positively troubleshoot this malfunction but in my experiences before I try to feed rounds I achieve the proper height of the bottom metal made by the pillars. If the bottom metal is making contact with the action then evenly remove material from the bottom metal until the desirable clearance is made between the two. At this point the rounds should be ridding the feed ramp positively if further issues persist continue to look for solutions. It my be the bottom metal was made incorrectly but I find most errors are operater induced.
AO fit mine into my PSS stock. It certainly wasn't drop in. 0 feeding issues so far. 200 rounds or so fired.
Ryan
Ryan
I got a stealth dbm for a HS take-off and knew right away it wasn't a drop in. I got ahold of a local gunsmith and he inletted it with a mill...works perfect
I don't doubt it could be made to work but the whole appeal is the bolt in and go. I assumed there would be minor work to be done but not work on the action and stock. They are called drop in or bolt in there is a link further up in this thread. At the end of the day I should have known it wouldn't be that simple but was it drop in.....no.....was it minor work......no......could it work....yes with gunsmith Install which is completely defeating the purpose of this.
Send the rifle and DBM to Mark Gordon at SAC and you will get it made right. Have him notch the feed ramp while he's at it. You tried doing it yourself, but was a bit more than you bargained for. No big deal at all and after it's all said and done your rifle will have a nice upgrade to it.
First off, I am not saying this will correct your issues, but will relate what I did to offer another experience. I just installed the same PTG DBM in my factory R700 AAC-SD Hogue stock (yeah..I know, but I wanted to see if I could do it). I got it to work fine with 10 rd Accurate Mags (single stack) only. I could not get my Alpha 1-10 round double stacks to feed correctly. I think the Alphas and AI's are similar/clone design, so a diff mag may help..don't know. Also, I had the same issue with feeding from BOTH mags until I took a 5/8" spade bit and drill and slowly removed both aluminum action screw pillar material evenly (which is why the spade was necessary) until the bottom metal sat low enough in the stock to allow proper torque on the action screws AND allowed feeding from at least the Accurate mags. I put 110 rounds through it Sunday and no FTF's. I probably could have kept going and got the Alpha's to feed but this is only going to be a hunting stock and I have 3 Accurate mags, so it didn't matter. And I know I would have had ALOT more hesitance to do this were my stock a Manners and not a POS Hogue...but I thought I would share anyway. FWIW...
Inletting required here but it feeds perfectly if fitted properly. I've used 5 and 10 round double stack AI mag's.
One thing I noticed is the BM base / pillar contact is not parallel like a Badger style BM. If you tq down the action screws it will distort the BM and can also re-position the BM and magazine out of alignment.
One thing I noticed is the BM base / pillar contact is not parallel like a Badger style BM. If you tq down the action screws it will distort the BM and can also re-position the BM and magazine out of alignment.
Last edited:
I appreciate the advice from everyone. Is it common place to remove the part of the feed ramp that I showed in my image? With all the inletting in the world the next round in the mag will.still slide up under the feed ramp.
My 'BDL' inlet did need some fitting, but it fed fine. Only issue I encountered was after fire-forming the .22-243 cases to AI dimensions. Found that the sharper shoulder of the Improved case would contact the stamped longitudinal 'ribs' that run down both sides of the single stack AE magazine. No bueno, as the shoulder of the Improved cases blew out far enough to where it wouldn't clear that rib, inside the magazine walls.
Wound up suckin' it up, and inletted for a Surgeon DBM, rock & roll.
If it were not for the case fitment issue of my fireformed .22-243AI rounds, I'd likely still be using the 'BDL' system from PT&G. It works fine, 'cept for the "drop in" part isn't a truly accurate representation of the product...
Wound up suckin' it up, and inletted for a Surgeon DBM, rock & roll.
If it were not for the case fitment issue of my fireformed .22-243AI rounds, I'd likely still be using the 'BDL' system from PT&G. It works fine, 'cept for the "drop in" part isn't a truly accurate representation of the product...
I didn't have to, but with the Alpha 1 mags, my rounds were sliding under the feed ramp also (when I could get the bolt to even pick the round up from the mag on the way forward). The Accurate mag feeds perfectly with same inletting depth.
The Wyatt's does work well I have one but fallow the instructions or it will not work
Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk
Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk
Thanks guys. I do not have much experience with DBM's on precision rifles so i dont really know what to expect but now i know a little more. I learn more everyday and most of it ends with......"well i sure wish i would have........"
STI, does the mag sit at the proper location (high enough to feed properly) if the mag is held upward against the action? If so, PTG may be able to provide a longer retaining lever that seats mag higher in DBM.
I purchased a CDI two weeks ago and ran into same issue on my Manners T4A. Mine would feed normally if I pushed/held mag upward into receiver while cycling bolt. CDI sent a longer mag catch lever and I am sure it would have worked BUT, I decided I didn't want to wait so I used a dremel with milling guide (like a router guide) and simply removed about a 1/16 of depth in the bottom inlet. Meaning I shaved the pillars and stock material so that DBI would in higher in relation to receiver. This solved my issue and no need for longer catch lever.
First thing to do is bolt the bottom metal up to the receiver with the pillars and make sure it feeds. If it doesn't than this is the time to make changes to the pillar length to insure the mag is at the right height. Almost all the mag systems will fail if the height is wrong and since the stocks vary so much in thickness its almost impossible to make a drop in setup. I've installed quite a few of the bottom metal which use AI double stack single feed type mags. All have worked very well and first time out because the pillars were checked prior to installing. I've done these for a number of oddball cals that have a reputation for troublesome feeding in the stock internal rem magazine. I suppose the key is not thinking you've got a drop in setup and insuring that it fits right rather than just bolting up.
Frank
Frank
Last edited:
Alphas sometimes need the feed lips adjusted. If the bullet tip isn't pointing slightly upward, it probably won't feed.
I have the Wyatts and it is a pos imo. 2nd to last round in the 5 round mag would jam every time. I tried every possible combination with their supplied spacers. Two at one end, one at each end, one at both ends, etc. same deal. Then I tried removing a little material from the trigger guard, same problem. (Rending it unsellable) I read here later on the problem is with their mags. Two guys had success altering their mags so I bent the top coil to put pressure on the other end of the follower then, success. Fed every round. I spoke with Kevin and told him his mags would benefit greatly from using anti tilt followers or changing the spring design. He said he'd look into it.
No the mag did not sit high enough to feed reliably. I know i could have adjusted the inletting/lever arm and probably got it to work, but no matter what as it sit i would have an issue with the bullet tip going under the feed ramp. I am not about to remove part of the ramp as this just seems stupid to me, but i could possibly have machined a spacer to sit in the front of the mag and not allowed them to move forward. Maybe i expected to much but it gets back to the point of the product title "drop in". I understand there will be minor fitting and if there are as many variances with stocks as there probably is then the manufacture should know to label them as "possibly a drop in fit but doubtful PTG bottom metal". To me it seems a little odd to assume your product you are buying is incorrect and not as described and then still desire to purchase that product. My Opinion.
DID you ever get yours to feed. i got one that wont feed. also not high enough. looks like most of your help is trying to diagnose a m5 instead of the bolt in bdl. did your bolt in bdl come with pillars
Last edited:
No mine did not come with pillars. I never put the time and effort into getting it to work. Mainly due to the fact that it was marketed and sold as drop in, so when i was going to have to machine the stock and action, it wasnt worth it to me.
There's ways to do stuff and then there's the right way.
I'll approach this from the accounting perspective:
PTG DBM. Well under $200 bucks delivered to your door.
A DBM from ANYONE ELSE starts at nearly $300.00
Fitting a DBM by folks who do this for a living: $85-$100
So, you can have your PTG stealth installed where it'll be checked for fit/function by a shop known to do this for less than what you can buy a competitor's DBM.
I know what I'd be doing...
FWIW I install about 2 dozen of these a month in every conceivable stock/action configuration imaginable.
Easy to do with the right equipment.
C.
I'll approach this from the accounting perspective:
PTG DBM. Well under $200 bucks delivered to your door.
A DBM from ANYONE ELSE starts at nearly $300.00
Fitting a DBM by folks who do this for a living: $85-$100
So, you can have your PTG stealth installed where it'll be checked for fit/function by a shop known to do this for less than what you can buy a competitor's DBM.
I know what I'd be doing...
FWIW I install about 2 dozen of these a month in every conceivable stock/action configuration imaginable.
Easy to do with the right equipment.
C.
I have seen threads upon threads and images of your work sir and i have no doubt you could install the DBM. Quick background on myself, i am an engineer and i design/fabricate prototype and production automated machinery for a living , while working on firearms as a hobby. I dont have much spare time so the fact of a drop in bottom metal caught my attention(Lazy/cheap on my part maybe, or maybe just hopeful). If it is totally inconceivable for me to think that a part marketed as drop in should actually drop in, then maybe i was wrong in everything I said. If i should have known better, due to the tolerances and significant design differences encountered in all possible scenarios that the bottom metal could be used in, that would render the "drop in" more of a fools gold than reality, then maybe i am just to slow for this high speed stuff. Until i finally learn to assume, that if it sounds to good to be true it probably is, i will just keep reading product descriptions and buying into the fantasy of which they are made.
Noted, and you "should" have a point.
Now here's reality:
You have an infinite number of guys working in this trade at all levels. This industry has historically been a cottage one. Just what is an M700 footprint floormetal? If you call Remington and ask for a print, they'll laugh and the last sound you'll hear is the click signalling the end of the conversation.
The ghist is there is NO standard. Any attempt to regulate and make one will be answered with fierce opposition because then we ALL have to run to a standard.
I'll use something as innocuous looking as a recoil lug for example.
If it's 5/16 it should be .3125" right? Lets toss in a tolerance just cause it deserves one. Let's say +.0025/-0.0"
Now go buy a dozen of the most popular recoil lugs and measure them. It's from .290" to .315" or more.
Why? Cause a guy fuggered up in his little shop cause he didn't wait for the machine to warm up, didn't use the right grade of tool, had the coolant too thin to save money, wheel runout on the grinder, heat treater cooked em too much, yada, yada.
Still works though right? So, what the hell, lets sell em cause it don't matter anyway. We have to measure everything cause the actions themselves are often all over the place.
This is the world we all exist in with firearms.
There's long winded debates over AI's being able to thread and chamber without the action. Many are advocates for it. I personally am not for the above reason. Alls it takes is one bad day in the QC and a guy is picking gun parts from his face.
So, back to your floormetal debackle. If you look at the legacy of M700 floormetals you see evolution before you. They change stuff on the fly and it's the next best thing. -Just ask them, they'll tell ya'.
If you really want to go off the deep end, buy some Savages and get your mood stabilizer prescription refilled cause it's gonna be FUN! (yay!) Action screws are all over (even within the same legacy). Why you think they run the barrel nut? Cause then it don't matter! It's so bad that guys like Tom Manners is literally to the point of having an aneurysm because of all the guys calling and bitching because their "drop in" stock don't work with their shiny new Savage action. Tom's stuff is jonny on the spot. Savage's production facility is like lightening; it never strikes twice in the same spot.So, Dave (PTG) made a DBM based on a particular stock and a particular pattern of floormetal. In THAT moment it probably fit just fine. How many crossbreeds and mixed chromosomes of M700's have their been since? Remington couldn't even tell you if you asked.
We all just "do". There isn't much of a plan.
It's not until you get into the actual MIL SPEC level that stuff has to run to a standard. I've been through the FN machine gun armorer courses. There they actually DO have to maintain a toelrance. The Gov inspector will take the latest LOT of M249's, shootem, then rip them all down to level 3 echelon service and toss the parts in a pile.
Then assemble all the guns again. They ALL must run to standard. If they don't then entire batch is scrapped until it does.
The need for this is obvious as combat demands that guns work all the time and parts are interchangeable.
If only bolt guns were the same....(what fun would that be though?)
Hope this helps.
C.
Last edited:
I have to agree with you, mostly. The guys that are selling a 5/16 lug +.0025/-0.0 anywhere from .219-.315 probably are not or atleast should not be calling them 5/16. It is more likely a grayed term "standard" or "oversized" where there is no real spec. I am willing to bet anybody selling a 5/16 lug +.0025/-0 at .219 wouldn't sell many. In my experience, once again mostly with automated machinery, what is stated is what it is, or not many are bought. I have to totally agree with you on threading a barrel for an AI or anything for that matter, you are just asking for it. I firsthand understand stuff may not work all the time even if your simulation study in solidworks says it will, but that does not make it right. I dont know, as i have never seen every blueprint from remington on their 700 but they do have tolerances and QC to ensure the stocks/rings/barrels/triggers and anything they sell stating will do "XXXXXX" actually will do this. And even if the actions are all over the place, they are within their tolerances which were designed with a tiered system allowing for stacking from the other items in the assembly, resulting in a 98% probability of 2.5% or less defects or less unless they run six sigma analysis operations. I think remington does have a "standard" for their floorplate footprint, i bet the records of what they have had and do have would suprise you, especially for government contracts. I am not sure about their manufacturing facility but i do believe their ammunition is ISO certified and they have intercorporate document control systems for such changes over the years. My point is i guess, we dont have to have a standard to follow that would cross between all manufactures but, remington/winchester/browning etc... they have a "standard" on all parts they make that will fit and work together in the end, so if you want to make a statement of drop in then by god it should be drop in. Something noteworthy on my part i have been called unreasonable/perfectionist/picky/stubborn and assholish a few times so bear that in mind when trying to understand my idea of the perfect world we live in And as far as savages go, my opinion they build great stuff for the price range, the barrel nut system was a great idea to allow control in your manufacturing while adjusting for precision. They have it under control and what they make works with what they say. Rarely do mass production and extreme precision go hand in hand Savage or remingtion/ Manners stocks and your company. You make very precise stuff on a low volume and by god it does exactly what you say. If you cant guarantee it outside of normal defective returns than dont say it. Maybe thats more of my perfectionist coming out again though..............
And as far as savages go, my opinion they build great stuff for the price range, the barrel nut system was a great idea to allow control in your manufacturing while adjusting for precision. They have it under control and what they make works with what they say. Rarely do mass production and extreme precision go hand in hand Savage or remingtion/ Manners stocks and your company. You make very precise stuff on a low volume and by god it does exactly what you say. If you cant guarantee it outside of normal defective returns than dont say it. Maybe thats more of my perfectionist coming out again though..............
I think remington does have a "standard" for their floorplate footprint, i bet the records of what they have had and do have would suprise you, especially for government contracts
Understand this isn't an argument on my side. Just facts.
Remington subs a great deal of work out to other shops. Dakota Arms has Remington contracts, as does my next door neighbor. Seems that the "kinky" stuff is what's sent out.
Just saying as it reinforces my earlier statement.
Rarely do mass production and extreme precision go hand in hand
I would have to respectfully disagree.
Having worked for West Industries, a gear manufacturing facility that caters to companies like CAT, Allison, aerospace companies, etc... I can tell you that it's very possible to crank out pallets of small parts to tolerance. Semi truck transmissions go for a million or so miles. Imagine the loads, accel, decel, grades, engine braking, shock loading, etc...
Million or so miles...think about that.
It's just a matter of having fail safes installed to manage the production standard.
When you walk into Remington's plant and there's a peg board full of recoil lugs of various thicknesses to bring chambers into headspace and a guy built like The Hulk with a breaker bar big enough to move tectonic plates, you come to the conclusion that tools like micrometers seem to have been replaced with knotted strings.
I know, I'm sounding like I'm bashing Remington, it's not that. It's just that your comparing applies to onions while delivering a message that implies the world is only full of mushrooms.
Ford reports that it manufactured around 965,000 cars in 2000. Lets say for sake of argument they were all 6 cylinder engines. (an average between the 4 bangers and the V-8's.)
4 valves per cylinder is pretty common in engines anymore so that's 23.160.000 turned, heat treated, and ground hydraulic lifters. Throw them all in a bin and toss them in various engines of the same type. I'd bet a buck they run for 100K miles...
That is bad ass and that is the difference between a $25,000+ car and a $800 bolt gun.
Understand this isn't an argument on my side. Just facts.
Remington subs a great deal of work out to other shops. Dakota Arms has Remington contracts, as does my next door neighbor. Seems that the "kinky" stuff is what's sent out.
Just saying as it reinforces my earlier statement.
Rarely do mass production and extreme precision go hand in hand
I would have to respectfully disagree.
Having worked for West Industries, a gear manufacturing facility that caters to companies like CAT, Allison, aerospace companies, etc... I can tell you that it's very possible to crank out pallets of small parts to tolerance. Semi truck transmissions go for a million or so miles. Imagine the loads, accel, decel, grades, engine braking, shock loading, etc...
Million or so miles...think about that.
It's just a matter of having fail safes installed to manage the production standard.
When you walk into Remington's plant and there's a peg board full of recoil lugs of various thicknesses to bring chambers into headspace and a guy built like The Hulk with a breaker bar big enough to move tectonic plates, you come to the conclusion that tools like micrometers seem to have been replaced with knotted strings.
I know, I'm sounding like I'm bashing Remington, it's not that. It's just that your comparing applies to onions while delivering a message that implies the world is only full of mushrooms.
Ford reports that it manufactured around 965,000 cars in 2000. Lets say for sake of argument they were all 6 cylinder engines. (an average between the 4 bangers and the V-8's.)
4 valves per cylinder is pretty common in engines anymore so that's 23.160.000 turned, heat treated, and ground hydraulic lifters. Throw them all in a bin and toss them in various engines of the same type. I'd bet a buck they run for 100K miles...
That is bad ass and that is the difference between a $25,000+ car and a $800 bolt gun.
Last edited:
Agreed, however i did not specify what mass production or extreme precision meant in this case. Once again a gray term. Mass production 500 parts or 1 million a day? Extreme precision???? I shouldn't have really said that, or maybe been more clear because boy do i know if its not specified, everyones interpretation is different. As you say pallets of parts to tolerance, exactly what i mean, it meant your set tolerance for the design created, which will work as described. Every video i see of setting up a barrel most try to achieve .000X" runout. I could be wrong but i bet those gears did not have that tolerance. Lots of items are outsourced today and i would agree that most would interchange in the engine fine but you are making my point, that its all made to what they created as their tolerance and more importantly what they said would work. Plus anything outsourced to another vendor must include exact documentation of the "foootprint" you want and is usually better documented than your own stuff in my experience, i could say i have always done everything the same but in the real world it doesnt work that way. Working with steering plates and transmission housings mostly for GM through outsourced machine shops i have seen some fairly tight surface finish requirements and tolerances but most stuff was within a 2 thou range. We are getting off topic but in the end everything you mentioned has something in common of my whole point, it does exactly as you say it would. You guarantee 1/2 Moa out of your rifles right?And most probably are much more capable, but what if you started letting them go shooting 1 moa, what can you expect? I was initially very disappointed with my purchase and possibly could have handled it differently, however in my mindset it burns me to think/be told i should just expect it to not quite work as described.
Uhm. Actually the tolerances are much tighter.
zeiss hoffler cmm. 1/2 million dollar machine.
ever seen a gear hobb and/or a gear hone?
How bout a K chart? .000025" TIR. True positions of .0005"
Million mile transmissions....
zeiss hoffler cmm. 1/2 million dollar machine.
ever seen a gear hobb and/or a gear hone?
How bout a K chart? .000025" TIR. True positions of .0005"
Million mile transmissions....
Uhm. Actually the tolerances are much tighter.
zeiss hoffler cmm. 1/2 million dollar machine.
ever seen a gear hobb and/or a gear hone?
How bout a K chart? .000025" TIR. True positions of .0005"
Million mile transmissions....
Now. Look at what you just wrote.
GM outsourced the parts. Their movie. They get to direct it. They specify the tolerance. As an engineer you certainly know that for every 0 right of the decimal you add another 100 bucks to the left. A tolerance on a part of .002 doesnt sound lime mich, till you have to make 100000 of em.
your a fukkin bad ass if you can do that and be profitable.
My point. Remington didnt call up Dave Kiff and say, "hey make a DBM and make it fit all the stuff we make."
David went about this on his own. Based on what he had in that moment he made a part that he now sells. Parts that ive installed hundreds of times with no complication.
if Remington contracted him to build these and he flopped it, Id see your point.
this didnt happen so Im not grasping it.
sorry.
zeiss hoffler cmm. 1/2 million dollar machine.
ever seen a gear hobb and/or a gear hone?
How bout a K chart? .000025" TIR. True positions of .0005"
Million mile transmissions....
Now. Look at what you just wrote.
GM outsourced the parts. Their movie. They get to direct it. They specify the tolerance. As an engineer you certainly know that for every 0 right of the decimal you add another 100 bucks to the left. A tolerance on a part of .002 doesnt sound lime mich, till you have to make 100000 of em.
your a fukkin bad ass if you can do that and be profitable.
My point. Remington didnt call up Dave Kiff and say, "hey make a DBM and make it fit all the stuff we make."
David went about this on his own. Based on what he had in that moment he made a part that he now sells. Parts that ive installed hundreds of times with no complication.
if Remington contracted him to build these and he flopped it, Id see your point.
this didnt happen so Im not grasping it.
sorry.
No remington didnt ask him to make it, doesnt change the fact it should still perform as stated. If its not conceivable to think it should work, maybe it shouldnt be described in that manner. The height is easy enough to correct but, this is an honest question, what would you do about the feeding every other bullet under the ramp? With the box mag going all the way under the ramp the only way i see it is to either machine the ramp which seems to be the acceptable manner from what i read or place a shim in the mag. Now that to me would not be close to drop in. Obviously it worked for some, but there are many above or in the link provided at the beginning that had issues.
Front dimension: .725 from saddle of action inlet to bottom of floor metal inlet.
Rear: 1.075
When correct the rim of the case will overlap the swept arc of the bolt face by about .1. This gives you the ability to strip a case off the maglips without the case rim slipping under the bolt and jamming up at the web.
bullets will wiggle up the feedramp and itll just work.
.725/1.075. Those are the magic numbers. If your using a ptg stealth setup for ai mags ina M700 short this is all ypu have to do. SOMETIMES the m700s cause the rear of the magazine to hang up in the rear of the receiver. The center portion boss will catch. Its an intermittent issue. Some do, most dont. Milling the action needs to happen here.
an AI 308 mag has a workable cartridge length of around 2.900. Your COAL needs to not exceed this. Ive only had to relieve the feedramp when fitting for the AW mags. Receiver work on the sides of the mag mortises needs to happen too.
No hard feelings. I consider this a friendly debate. Hope you feel the same.
C.
Rear: 1.075
When correct the rim of the case will overlap the swept arc of the bolt face by about .1. This gives you the ability to strip a case off the maglips without the case rim slipping under the bolt and jamming up at the web.
bullets will wiggle up the feedramp and itll just work.
.725/1.075. Those are the magic numbers. If your using a ptg stealth setup for ai mags ina M700 short this is all ypu have to do. SOMETIMES the m700s cause the rear of the magazine to hang up in the rear of the receiver. The center portion boss will catch. Its an intermittent issue. Some do, most dont. Milling the action needs to happen here.
an AI 308 mag has a workable cartridge length of around 2.900. Your COAL needs to not exceed this. Ive only had to relieve the feedramp when fitting for the AW mags. Receiver work on the sides of the mag mortises needs to happen too.
No hard feelings. I consider this a friendly debate. Hope you feel the same.
C.
Last edited:
^ ^ This is the point exactly.
This has nothing to do with machining, decimals and equipment. It has to do with the way the product is marketed.
Would you agree that PTG is not a new player to the shooting industry?
Would you agree that PTG has equipment and programmers that are top notch?
I would have to say Yes to both.
This means that they can make a consistent product BUT should also be aware that there are a ton of inlet and stock variations within the market that make a "Drop In" very unlikely in many instances. It just isn't going to happen all the time and as a tenured manufacturer within this niche, they should be and are aware of that.
The PTG is low cost because of machining efficiencies as well as lack of additional features found in other DBMs. It is made and marketed toward shooters on a budget that are trying to get into an AICS capable DBM. Buyers of this product do not purchase it with the intent to send it to anyone for correct installation. Since the average buyer in this market is relatively new to this tech, they rely on a product doing what it is marketed to do.
Any number of us can and do install this hardware so that it can function properly.... but we shouldn't have to.
STI_1911_Guy How does drop in mean it will need no tweaking to perform properly? What definition of drop in with BM is that the stock will need no inletting for the BM to fit
Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk
Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk
Para, with all due respect. Re-machining an inlet on a stock should not fall under "tweaking".
"Drop In" should equal "Plug and Play".
