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

New FFT Stuff

Recommended Posts

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.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

etale,

 

Great observations. I have 250 rounds through my FFT trigger, disconector, and hammer. I have the same dings on the face a a tiny amount of surface wear. Wondering if the dings will stabilize like this or get worse. Only time will tell, I guess...

 

111fdd2d.jpg

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Good review. Do the scuffs on the hammer appear to be deeper than the nickel finish? Any noticable trigger pull difference with the carriercomp hammer installed?

 

I plan to go out tomorrow with mine (weather permitting) with a few hundred rounds. If the surface is deforming from inpacts from the bolt carrier, that sounds like a heat treating issue.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Is it ok to use the Giselle hammer, with the FFT trigger and disconnector?

 

The deforming of the FFT hammer concerns me. correct me if I am reading this wrong.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

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.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Okay, I'll try this again. My FNG status is in full effect, I guess.

 

etale, those are excellent observations. I have run 250 rounds thru my FFT hammer, trigger, and disconector. I have the same dents on the hammer face as you are experiencing. There is a tiny amount of surface wear, but I'm not too concerned about it. Time will tell, I guess.

 

th_111fdd2d.jpg

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I put about 200 rounds through mine today. 100 high brass #4 birdshot, and 100 low brass #8.

 

My hammer has a nick in it as well, but it isn't as pronounced as the one posted above. It appears to be where the hammer strikes the edge of the firing pin. I have plans to go out again later today and run a few hundred more through it.

 

I got winged pretty good by some blow back today. I had my glasses on, but some of the shot or maybe some dirt blew back and bounced off my cheek and into my left eye. It went right under my glasses that have a pretty good amount of coverage.

 

I experienced several hammer down conditions, and I wasn't even shooting fast. Both on the high and low brass loads. I found a potential problem with the shell stop. The spring was in the wrong place compared to every other M4 I've handled and worked on. So I shifted it, and we'll see what happens later. I started a thread on that issue.

 

The trigger itself feels great. The break is much more crisp.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
I just sent an email to Todd at FFT and asked if there was any geometry change to help this issue. Having a NP3 coated hammer might speed up the action marginally since the BCG slides back over the hammer in order to recock it. I don't expect to see a night and day difference from such a minor enhancement, but if it shaves a few hundredths of a second off of lock time, I'll be more than happy.

 

I think it's more an issue of mass and distance and the parts involved. Like trying to make an F-250 hug the corners. Sure, you can lower it a touch and all that, but really, the sports car will still stomp it.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

As to the nicks, etc. FFT has traditionally used customers as their test-subjects BASED ON MY OBSERVATIONS. Their concept to production time is cut down like this, but the trade-off is that there are some kinks that need to be worked out that get found by you. Mostly cosmetic, though, I wager.

 

Again, just my opinion as I am not in the industry, but I do observe other's experiences and have owned FFT's products in the past.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I'm not sure. I've tried for an hour to get the hammer to fall by manually cycling the weapon. Every time it locks up solid. I even bounced the shotgun off the cement on the rubber butt pad to 'shock' the weapon. Nothing.

 

I didn't end up going out today, perhaps tomorrow.

 

I'm thinking of pulling a trigger pack out of my other M4 and see if the failure occurs with it. Perhaps try to localize where the failure point is.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I spoke with Tod few days ago and from what he told me is my M4 is good to go with all the add on but I thought I was still not 922r does anyone know if the stock counts as 1 or 2 parts? the stock is the only thing I am worried about I have the C stock OEM I took off my stock that came with it. and that is the last part I am worried about.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Yes. Although I haven't installed the parts yet, Todd kindly offered to refund my purchase price on the hammer.

 

Oh I had no worries that he would stand behind the product, he's a great guy. Hopefully it's just a heat treat issue that will get resolved quickly.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

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?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

The OEM hammer has about 13,000 rounds on it. Other than minor finish wear, it is in great shape.

 

I took the M4 out again today. Put another 200 rounds through it. Couldn't get it to fail a single time. I tried removing the slide glide lubricant from the receiver rails. I had a theory about the viscosity slowing the carrier down and maybe not cycling the BCG all the way to the rear enough to cock the hammer.

 

The weapon ran perfect like it is supposed to today. I haven't taken it apart yet to see if there is any more wear on the FFT hammer.

 

I hate uncertain issues.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
does anyone know if the stock counts as 1 or 2 parts? the stock is the only thing I am worried about I have the C stock OEM I took off my stock that came with it. and that is the last part I am worried about.

 

C stock counts as 2 parts

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Any more info on the hammer deformation concerns?

 

I'm thinking of ordering today, but might just get the trigger/disconnector and keep my Geissele hammer...

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Todd only states the manufacturer of the trigger parts has been at it for 30 some odd years. Hopefully in that amount of time, they have a quick answer for the material and hardness issues to be resolved. Still would be nice to know who we're counting on. I don't mind a heavy trigger on an M4, it is smooth and fast, but I'd rather tend to the factory set than buy an unknown soft parts set. If we had a clue who made them, I'd wait for the fix, that is unless Tapco is involved. For now I like knowing who made my aftermarket hammer, and that the seller made no secret of it.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Every supplier we commonly buy from, no matter how big or small, freely admits who makes the gear they sell. Our armory CAN'T undergo aquisition without knowing a source, not that they are entertaining open purchase of said trigger group, they aren't, or the notion would be DOA. See Brownells, Midway etc. Check the info and they volunteer the source. Answering the phone, speaking in riddles, and furnishing replacements from a mystery source is not entirely reassuring.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Based on my experience, the Geissele hammer is superior. FFT trigger and disconnector are keepers as long as they work reliably with the Geissele hammer.

 

Not quite sure yet what to do with the FFT hammer. It will either serve as a spare or be returned for refund.

 

+1 on the Geissele hammer. Mine has been flawless with none of the reported peening problems of the FFT. I'm thinking I'll just leave well enough alone with the trigger/disconnector since I'm already compliant, including the C-stock.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Maybe the supplier secrecy is because these parts are the 'also rans' for the M4 H20?

 

The reported soft hammer, and potential axle hole misalignment reported here

http://www.benelliusa.com/forum/showthread.php/28603-M4-Disconnector-Problem

combined with reports of the parts being NP3 coated, causes me to make a WILD ASSED GUESS that these may be parts are 3rd party supplier parts that did not pass QC for a M4 H20 delivery. ON THE OTHER HAND, it also makes me wonder if the M4 H20 itself might have 'soft' US trigger parts.

 

Hopefully someone will clear the confusion soon.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Maybe the supplier secrecy is because these parts are the 'also rans' for the M4 H20?

 

The reported soft hammer, and potential axle hole misalignment reported here

http://www.benelliusa.com/forum/showthread.php/28603-M4-Disconnector-Problem

combined with reports of the parts being NP3 coated, causes me to make a WILD ASSED GUESS that these may be parts are 3rd party supplier parts that did not pass QC for a M4 H20 delivery. ON THE OTHER HAND, it also makes me wonder if the M4 H20 itself might have 'soft' US trigger parts.

 

And maybe aliens made the hammers and gave them to FFT in an effort to thwart properly operating shotguns?

 

I don't think it is a good idea to be purely speculating on this.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Join the conversation

You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.

Guest
Reply to this topic...

×   Pasted as rich text.   Paste as plain text instead

  Only 75 emoji are allowed.

×   Your link has been automatically embedded.   Display as a link instead

×   Your previous content has been restored.   Clear editor

×   You cannot paste images directly. Upload or insert images from URL.


×
×
  • Create New...