making Egyptian FN49 as slam fire proof as possible.

[waw44]

So, what's the approach?

30-06 bolt with safety stop? (but 8mm extractor?)
30-06 bolt carrier
two piece firing pin with the safety slot cutout?

Will that fit?

Information

Warning: This is a relatively older thread This discussion is older than 360 days. Some information contained in it may no longer be current.

[Bruce_in_Oz]

.30-06 and 7.92 should have essentially identical rim diameter and thickness.

However, differences in extractor design may prove a small challenge.

There seems to be pros and cons with both "safety" systems.

Remember the FAL started out with a one-piece striker. However, it also features the "safety" sear that prevented hammer release until the carrier had traveled forward to the point of full breech-block lock-up AND exposure of the striker "tail". The carrier rear face blocking the striker tail until final lock-up is a neat bit of design. The 2-piece, spring-loaded Brit style striker set-up is definitely the best option in them.

[Bruce_in_Oz]

The other thing about the FN 49 / FAL etc. is that the rear of the bolt radically changes direction of movement during lockup. Is there any indication of "friction braking caused by drag of the striker on the bolt body during tis?

Rotating bolts like the Mi rifle and Carbine behave differently, thus the "tails" on their strikers are "ben"t and must pass through a "window" just before lockup. I saw an M1 rifle action "slam-fire ONCE. The bolt had not fully locked and the operator tapped teh cocking handle forward. Bad move. The rifle fired during this action. The heel of he shooters hand was still on the cocking handle on discharge. NASTY. Off to the hospital to report an "indistrial accident involving machinery" and receive a number of stitches.

When the rifle was carefully stripped and examined, several things were evident.

There was a whisker of excess striker protrusion and the trigger let-off was below spec.

I came to the conclusion that the striker was not the issue, but the trigger mech was highly suspect.. Those who have experienced "doubling' with the M-1 or M-14 / M1A will understand There is the VERY good reason most serious military rifles have NON reciprocating cocking handles. umpteen million Kalashnikov editions notwithstanding.

Then there is the AR platform which does NOT have a reciprocating cocking handle, but it DOES have a "floating" striker.. Early in its service history, the striker was lightened considerably. Even after that, primers on rounds chambered but not fired, usually exhibit signs of a light impact by the striker.

Not sure what the latest training doctrine is, but in my day, we did NOT put that "lightly-tapped" live round straight back on top of the stack in the mag, ready tp be chambered (and tapped) once again.

The Steyr AUG has a light-ish striker and a "lockout' cam at the rear of the carrier to hold the striker rearwards until final rotation of the bolt.

Other designs use springs to hold the striker to the rear until actually smacked by the hammer..


Primers: MIL-Spec. primers have more robust cups than nice "sporting" ones. This difference will vary from maker to maker. Military arms often "over-do" things, because the idea is that the rifle/ machine-gun MUST GO BANG when the trigger is pulled on live ammunition. Using softer-cupped "match" primers in your favourite belt-fed toy is NOT a good idea. Having your receiver bulged and the feed mech launched skywards by a "premature" ignition will be grounds for tears before bed-time.

Bolt-action and handgun / shotgun drivers should not get too cocky. Plenty of incidents of "negligent discharges" there.

Poor firearm handling, for starters, worn OR GUMMED-UP trigger mechanisms, injudicious trigger adjustments, even MORE injudicious abrasive adjustment of trigger and bolt components, etc.

[mrclark303]

An excellent post Bruce, it should be to the stickies!