Jump to content
Search In
  • More options...
Find results that contain...
Find results in...
Benelli Forums

etale

Members
  • Content Count

    34
  • Joined

  • Last visited

Community Reputation

10 Good

About etale

  • Rank
    Member
  • Birthday 11/12/1980
  1. tactical1 has a good point about the grease. I would definitely *NOT* use grease in the hammer plunger/ spring area, as it is incompressible and too viscous to rapidly expunge out the vent hole. In fact, it's a common automotive technique to pull clutch bearings by packing the recess with grease and hammering in a plunger (e.g. solid steel rod) with interference fit to the inner bearing: the force of the plunger is transmitted through the grease to the bearing outer race, thus driving it out of its recess. Point being: if there is captive grease below the plunger when the hammer strikes it, the plunger will be prevented from fully depressing into its recess. Something has to give way, and given how hard the hammer is, it's going to be the plunger cap. I just run a very light lubricant (e.g. machinegunner's lube from LaRue) throughout my trigger group, *except* for the sear contact/ engagement points, where a small amount of grease is appropriate.
  2. Definitely not right. I would call Benelli on this, as it looks like a defective part. I have about 450 rounds through mine and my hammer spring cap is virtually pristine.
  3. etale

    New FFT Stuff

    I have not spoken to FFT about the hammer deformations I observed. FFT is an upstanding company, and I am sure that they will stand behind their products. That said, I feel bad about asking for a refund on the Hammer, and would be happier exchanging it. If it is a heat treat issue (quenching too slowly/ at too low a temerature or tempering too long) it should be easy to resolve quickly. Hardness issues can be caused by more serious problems, such as defects in the steel itself (carbon content too low, impurities, etc.) I'd be interested in what type of steel they are using (S series?). Of course, I still have no firm judgement as to whether the deformations/ dents in the hammer that we are seeing is significant from a functional viewpoint, but it is disconcerting in comparison that Stranger Danger's OEM hammer is un-dented/ deformed after..... is it 13K + rounds, if I remember?
  4. Mine is in exactly the same position as Crofton's. My m4 is 2010 production, I think (bought in early 2011).
  5. etale

    New FFT Stuff

    Hookster--You are very welcome. StrangerDanger--Thanks. The marks on the hammer are definitely dings/ deformations, and not just surface abrasion. Where the hammer strikes the firing pin there should be a nick visible in one of the pictures. This area has been deformed from an initial thickness of 0.1470 in (measured across the body of the hammer right below the nick) to 0.1530 in (measured right at the nick), for a change of 0.006 in. It seems as if repeated contact with the firing pin has "pancaked out" this portion of the hammer a little, if that makes sense as a description. The nick itself is about 0.04 in at its widest, and the indent is definitely noticeable while running a fingernail across this portion of the hammer. Again, I do not know if this is significant in terms of long-term functionality/ reliability, only that the Geissele/ Carrier Comp and OEM units show no such deformation/ dinging. I agree with you that it is a hardness issue, though not having access to a Rockwell tester, I can neither confirm nor refute our suspicions. As for trigger pull, my (limited) impression was that the FFT trigger with Geissele/ CarrierComp hammer resulted in a trigger pull comparable to that of the full FFT trigger pack, and noticeably lighter than with the OEM trigger and Geissele hammer. That said, I took no measurements on this matter. I will be very interested to hear about the impact of your testing on the FFT hammer (if any). It could well be that my hammer was tempered too long or quenched too slowly for some reason... Mr. Shotgun---I am currently using the FFT trigger and disconnector with the Geissele/ CarrierComp Hammer, and all the usual function checks (as described in the FFT instructions, or in StrangerDanger's earlier post in this thread) check out exactly as they should. That said, I have yet to hit the range with this combo.
  6. etale

    New FFT Stuff

    I put 100+ rounds of target loads through my m4 yesterday with the new FFT trigger package and I wanted to share some observations: First let me say that the FFT components installed easily, and functioned without any flaws through all 100+ rounds. Trigger pull is lighter and crisper. I am very excited to have acquired 3 US parts for 922r compliance, and agree with the assessments here that the FFT components seem to be well-made and finished. During routing cleaning of my m4 after range time, I noticed that the FFT hammer suffered some dents/ deformations from striking the firing pin and/or from the BCG cocking the hammer.. I was very surprised by this, as neither my OEM Benelli hammer nor my Geissele US-made hammer had any dents after 100+ rounds each, though both did "shine up" a bit (loss of surface coating) where the hammer hits the firing pin/ BCG. Below are some pictures I took of each of the hammers (FFT, OEM, Geissele): [ATTACH=CONFIG]1295[/ATTACH] [ATTACH=CONFIG]1296[/ATTACH] [ATTACH=CONFIG]1297[/ATTACH] Here are the three hammers together: [ATTACH=CONFIG]1298[/ATTACH] Geissele's website says that their hammer is EDM cut and hardened from S7 tool steel stock, while FFT says " wire EDM from ground bar stock high-impact premium tool steel". Usually, S7 is used in high-impact applications, and I would not be surprised if the FFT hammer is S7 as well, given what they say. That said, it would seem based on my experiences that the Geissele hammer and the OEM hammer are both harder than the FFT hammer, as they incurred no dents/ dings. The surface coating on the Geissele hammer also seems to be slightly more abrasion resistant than either the OEM or FFT hammers: the latter two have some abrasion marks from where the hammer rides the hammer spring/ plunger. [ATTACH=CONFIG]1299[/ATTACH] The Geissele is center. The sears are also much sharper/ crisper on the Geissele than either the FFT or the OEM. Careful measurements on the digital calipers also revealed that the bore of the Geissele is 0.2400 in, while both FFT and OEM clock in at 0.2515 in, making the Geissele a slightly snugger fit; this results in slightly less lateral play of the Geissele hammer. Does any of this matter? I really do not know. That said, I was irked enough that my new FFT hammer was getting dents after less than 125 rounds of light target loads that I re-installed the Geissele unit. I also wanted to report on two other observations. The first is that while the OEM and FFT disconnectors and hammers are functionally identical, the triggers are slightly different. In fact, I suspect that the geometry of the FFT trigger is a bit different (deeper bore for the trigger spring, perhaps?). Close inspection reveals that with the OEM trigger and either OEM or FFT disconnecter (and any of the three hammers), when the hammer is cocked there is definite clearance between the hammer and disconnector. I could fit two sheets of paper in the gap, making for a clearance of about 0.008 in. In contrast, when the FFT trigger is installed with any of the disconnectors and any hammer, the hammer *always* contacts the disconnector on its rearward trajectory. This contact is very small, and not enough to engage the disconnector sear when the trigger is at rest, but movement of the disconnector is noticeable. This may explain some of the difference in feel between the two triggers. I would be curious to hear whether or not there are m4 users out there with the FFT trigger installed who are still able to "beat the disconnector" during rapid fire exercises (as StrangerDanger has previously reported), as that 0.008+ in could well cause the disconnector to engage marginally sooner/ longer. Finally, I wanted to note that the FFT trigger, hammer, and disconnector pin holes are all chamfered, in contrast to the OEM and Geissele units. This perhaps makes installation slightly easier (though I didn't find this to be the case), but it also makes for slightly more lateral play, at least in theory. In conclusion, I want to reiterate that the FFT offerings seem to be of high-quality and function exactly as they are supposed to, at least in my rather limited testing. I am well-aware that FFT function checked their trigger control components extensively, and that my observations more than likely amount to inconsequential minutiae. For these reasons, they should not be interpreted as any kind of critique of the FFT components; they are only observations at this point in time. I would be interested to hear if anyone else can confirm/ duplicate my observations regarding the FFT hammer and trigger.
  7. etale

    New FFT Stuff

    Thanks, Stranger; I always enjoy your reviews/ comments. I just got my FFT trigger pack today and am looking forward to the install (currently has the Geissele/ CC hammer).... no doubt it will be much easier with the detailed guide you provided.
  8. etale

    Geissele Hammer

    Thanks BigHat for the thoughts and sonny27 for the suggestion to call Geissele. I spoke with an engineer at Geissele who confirmed that the lack of uniformity in the oxide coating is a byproduct of the manufacturing process, and not a defect. Specifically, the sear lips as well as the hammer pivot hole are wire EDM cut, which leaves a different surface texture than the rest of the manufacturing process. After hardening, this texture takes the black oxide (blueing) differently from the rest of the hammer, resulting in a reddish-brown hue, rather than the slick jet-black on the rest of the hammer. As suspected, I did indeed find the sear lips to be crisper and sharper on the Geissele than the OEM, and noted that black-oxide has superior wear and abrasion resistance to Benelli's phosphate coating. Now if only Geissele would make a drop-in trigger unit for the m4....
  9. etale

    Geissele Hammer

    I just installed the Geissele US-made hammer (acquired through Carriercomp) on my m4, and it functions flawlessly so far. Upon close inspection, the Geissele unit I received differs slightly from the Benelli OEM in several respects. One such difference is that the surface finish on the Geissele does not coat the entire hammer: there is a small patch directly behind the rear sear (the one that engages the disconnector) which seems to be bare tool steel. It may be that the corresponding region by the front sear (trigger engagement) is similarly un-coated, though I did not note this. Did anyone else observe this on their Geissele hammer? Is this a design feature, or is the surface coating on my hammer defective? Does anyone know how the Geissele is coated (Benelli coats theirs with a phosphate, I think)?
  10. It's called complying with the law. The fines and penalties associated with taking game with an illegal device greatly outweigh whatever benefit you seem to imply would be associated with not plugging the magazine. I use my m4 for a lot of different things, so it it's important to me that it be as versatile as my interests. So what is it you wanted to say, exactly?
  11. As stated in the post (part 2 of 2), I wanted a plug that can be removed and installed *without* any tools (e.g. c-clip pliers to remove/ install the mag spring retainer). Neither Benelli nor anyone else sells anything like that. As for m4 specific limiters on the market, it isn't so clear to me that there is one, though apparently this would work: http://www.brownells.com/.aspx/pid=6463/Product/PLUG__3_SHOT__STANDARD_MAGAZINE See post 2 or 2 for another option. Again, nothing on the market that doesn't require removing the mag spring retainer. Also: cost to make my plug: $4.19. Less than half the cost of anything out there that might work. So yes, lol indeed.
  12. Thanks much for the reference pic! It looks like installation of the factory limiter requires removal of the mag spring retainer clip. Is that the case? I had specifically wanted a limiter that would require no tools (e.g. c-clip pliers) to remove or install...
  13. Here are the promised installation pictures (See M4 Magazine Plug (post 1 of 2) ). [ATTACH=CONFIG]916[/ATTACH][ATTACH=CONFIG]917[/ATTACH][ATTACH=CONFIG]918[/ATTACH] I don't know how much the plug weighs (no scale), but it's pretty damn light. Could be lightened with an aluminum (or titanium or CF...) plug, naturally. Length is perfect for a 2-round (2.75 or 3" shells) limit. Of course, *technically* the law is that while hunting migratory birds, your shotgun must be capable of holding at most 3 rounds. With the m4, strict adherence to this law would require plugging the mag to accept only 1 round. I don't expect the game warden to be familiar with ghosting, though... Happy hunting.
  14. I found myself in need of a magazine plug for my m4 with Kip's FL mag (hunting migratory birds, mag must be limited to 2 rounds). I searched the internet, and even ordered one of those Butler Creek plugs, but it seems nothing out there is long enough (12 inches). In the end, I made my own, and thought I'd share the process in case there are others who are interested. Parts: 1) Brass tube, 13/32" (10.32mm) OD with 3/8" (9.53mm) ID by 12in. 2) Tree nut, metric thread, 9.60mm OD with 22.2mm diameter cap. 3) Wood dowel (screw type), 3/8" OD. [ATTACH=CONFIG]911[/ATTACH] Process: 1) Polish tube with metal polish for aesthetics. [ATTACH=CONFIG]912[/ATTACH] 2) Insert tree nut and hammer flush (interference fit). [ATTACH=CONFIG]913[/ATTACH] 3) Insert dowel and hammer in to tube to desired length. [ATTACH=CONFIG]914[/ATTACH] Finished product: [ATTACH=CONFIG]915[/ATTACH] To fit plug, simply remove the magazine cap and insert through hole in mag spring retention clip and reinstall magazine cap. The OD of the tree-nut is about 0.8mm smaller than the ID of the magazine tube. The pressure of the magazine cap centers the plug and keeps it snug in the tube (rattle-free). No tools required for installation/ removal. See following thread for pics of installation (can't seem to post more than 5 pix per thread.)
  15. Thanks all for your feedback. I am leaning towards the LaRue, as I want to mount as low as possible. dprichard-I might be interested in one of your stock aimpoint mounts... will send PM.
×
×
  • Create New...