MikeRush

To OP: 115 vs 124 is something you will have to sort out yourself with a timer. Pay attention to the results and not just the "feel". 115s feel flatter in my gun, but I find it a bit easier to shoot 124s (more predictable dot movement) and don't really give up any speed on the timer. Also, Open guns have a ton of variation (in barrel length, barrel speed, port configuration) so you may get a completely different result than somebody else. In this thread we've got someone saying a load blows primers, and somebody saying that same load isn't even pushing it in terms of pressure- both are likely right about the guns they are shooting. Neither of them posted OAL which can make a massive difference in pressure. I remember somewhere in the Speer reloading manual it mentions that with a certain load they found a few hundredths of OAL made an astronomical difference in pressure and safety. Somebody posted a 115 gr load with HS6 saying it is well below the case mouth, but my 115 gr HS6 load takes a full grain more powder than the load they posted and is precariously close to the top. I'd imagine those of us with spicier setups get less brass life, too, but I buy 1x fired and leave it so I don't really know. As far as 115s having more gas to work the comp, for a given powder more powder makes more gas, but my 124 load takes more HS6 than a couple of the 115 gr loads people posted in this thread. Just wanted to point out that Open probably has the most variation out of all of the divisions as far as guns and loads go, so you have to process the answers and replies you are receiving with that context.

Not trying to get in a Wikipedia duel here, but I do not understand what an paper on heating an alloy over its critical temperature and then cooling in different increments has to do with a coating that does not approach anywhere near the critical temperature of said alloy. What am I missing? That entire paper describes what happens after heating the metal to 854 c, right? I'm not a metallurgist, but I have seen spec sheets for 4150 and 416, and those advise temperatures of 840-899 c for a full anneal, and over 700 c for a sub-critical anneal to enhance ease of machining. Those alloys are used as barrel steels in part due to their ability to handle high heat. Either way, I think the OP's mystery smith is taking a stand that other builders and the coating industry don't seem to share. I couldn't find anything that indicated that these alloys would be adversely affected by a process that is under 450 c and cooler than nitride (which is used on tons of barrels including rifle barrels that see much higher pressures than a pistol barrels. If I wanted barrel/Ti comp coated gold TiN, I would find a coating company that does it on guns and talk to them.

https://www.calicocoatings.com/coating-data-sheets/titanium-nitride-pvd-tin-coating/ That is the top link on Google for "titanium nitride coating temperature". It states it is suitable for steel, hardened steel, titanium and stainless steel with a process temp of 448 c. Barrel steel isn't pot metal. I think a lot of manufacturers are using either 416R or 4150 which anneal at temperatures way higher than the 250 c you are referencing. Sometimes builders have a bad experience or no experience with a coating, don't want to deal with a coating, or have some other reason they discourage customers from going with it. SVI says that hard chroming is detrimental to the quality of plated products, but most builders will do hard chrome with no apparent issues from potential hydrogen embrittlement. I usually tend to trust what builders prefer, but maybe in this case your builder uses a company that can't do that coating well or has some other reason for discouraging it. What is clear is that there are companies doing it still which I would think would not be the case if barrels and comps were exploding. I've shot a TiN coated 416 barrel/titanium comp setup in a 9 Major open gun and I have all my fingers. The gold look isn't for me, but I wouldn't be afraid to go with a suitable coating from a reputable company.

I don't have any first hand experience with a skeletonized PCC, but I do have first hand experience with case head separations in blowback PCCs. Personally I want as much containment as I can get, but the blowback receivers do look cool.

Barrel nuts are becoming a somewhat popular feature for other actions as well. Some custom actions are threaded for Savage small shank barrels (although they can also use shouldered barrels) but barrel companies are making nut style barrels for Remington 700s (remage), Howa, Tikka, Ruger, etc. The Bighorn TL3, a high quality custom action, also uses a floating bolt head design. I think the reason that the Savage is not more popular has more to do with the aftermarket support (although there are still plenty of stocks, barrels, etc) and the quality of the product itself. While still pricey several of the custom action makers have started selling "budget" custom actions that are high quality with a slightly reduced feature set compared to traditional actions. The Bighorn Origin and Defiance Tenacity both come in under $900, which is still pricey but very competitive when considering the amount of work that would go into truing up/adding features to a Remington or Savage action.

I get lots of people don't think ramped barrels are necessary (and they aren't), but I would absolutely disagree that quality lowers don't benefit from ramped barrels. I've got a QC10 lower and ULW barrel, and I never had feeding issues until I did. Mine doesn't need a ramp but starts nose diving as the mag springs wear. The ramp can help prevent that. Not necessary, especially for a steel challenge gun where you use short mags, but I do believe it is a benefit to feed reliability once you start using big sticks with long extensions. Once the mag springs on my big stick started to go (but still fed easily in my Glock, which happens to have a feed ramp despite having a "quality lower") I wound up with severe bullet setback (using factory ammo, no less) that led to multiple malfunctions and case head separations. I firmly believe a ramp would have helped those rounds up into the chamber instead of turning them into little grenades. If you keep up on mag springs you shouldn't have a problem but my take is as follows: Non-ramped AR9 barrels were designed for Colt lowers that have a feed ramp. The Glocks that our Glock mags come from also have a feed ramp. The M4 style upper receiver that most of these guns are built on has feed ramps. Just because we can get away with running a Glock lower with no ramp most of the time doesn't mean there is no reason to have a ramp.

I currently have both, and I greatly prefer the AR Gold. My observations: to my poorly calibrated trigger slapper the Hiperfire feels more like a single stage bolt gun trigger, where the AR Gold has just a bit of take up (which is how I like my 19/2011 triggers set up). I feel like I can get on the trigger sooner and it's a very similar prep, break, and reset to my pistols. The Hiperfire hits the firing pin harder. This may lead to more broken firing pins. The Hiperfire is also not modular, and seems to break more hammer pins than the captured, modular trigger setups. I tried multiple .223 AR Golds with a bunch of different bolts and wasn't able to get any of them to reset. The SR Gold (308 version) has been 100% since I installed it. I don't think my overall placement would be any different at a PCC match with either trigger. Both were a significant step up from a milspec + JP spring setup. I feel more confident with the AR Gold setup as I can ever so slightly prep the trigger while refining sight picture for distant steel or while shooting a tight array with lots of no shoots or hard cover.

https://www.brownells.com/rifle-parts/bolt-parts/firing-pin-parts/firing-pins/ar6951-9mm-firing-pin-prod4829.aspx The transitions appears in the first picture, to my eyes, different than the picture you posted a couple of days ago. In the other photo angles it look comparable, so I think comparison would be difficult without having the two side by side. The QC10 pin has a nice radius there. I haven't broken a pin yet and have done quite a bit of shooting. I think extremely high hammer impact velocities don't help. I also think it might be at least in part a bolt problem. I have said this before, but some bolts seem to eat firing pins while others never have a problem. I guess if someone had a borescope they could look at the firing pin channel.

If you are trying to save money or even just put your money where it matters most check out the Anderson Sport uppers. They run about $40 bucks. If you aren't going side charging there isn't really a functional difference for the 9mm blowback PCC between the various uppers. I have a QC10 lower and bolt which I think are among the finest parts on the market place and worth every penny. The upper receiver is $180 dollars though, and while "nice", doesn't really offer a functional benefit in a 9mm. It is absolutely not a "bang for the buck" upper receiver option, it's more of a "money is no object" high end option you buy because you like the shape. I prefer ramped barrels because they are more likely to function with less than optimal magazine springs. The Taccom barrels are good as are the Shooting Innovations LLC ramped barrels. The Taccom Extreme BCG, the QC10 BCG and the Shooting Innovations LLC bolts all should work with a ramped barrel. I strongly prefer the pivoting AR style extractors to the old leaf spring style. It looks like the Faxon Gen 2 bolt has the pivoting extractor but I don't know if it will clear a feed ramp without modification. The Faxon barrels are OK, but all of the ones I have used have short chamber leades. This means loading to a short OAL if you are using coated bullets. In my experience the shorter OALs feed less reliably. If I had to use a Faxon today I would have someone open up the chamber leade with a reamer, and consider cutting a small ramp in the barrel.

I think many of the dedicated Colt lowers mimic the exterior profile of a standard .223 AR. It seems like a lot of guys run standard AR magwells on them. The QC10 Colt lower is an exception to that as it's cut differently. If you compare your LAR9 to a .223 lower you should be able to tell pretty quick.

Might be a good time to buy a lotto ticket! I think the added energy is a contributing factor but by no means guarantees a broken pin. I know there are a few aftermarket pin solutions, but I haven't seen a whole lot of positive feedback on them yet. I think the third piece of the puzzle (and maybe your bolt supports this thought) is the bolt itself. If the bore or internal features are not machined properly it could be contributing to failure. It seems like there are some bolts that break multiple firing pins and some that break none. Maybe it's not a pin problem (or at least exclusively a pin problem)?

Anecdotally it seems like a lot of guys are destroying firing pins with the Hiperfires. It could also be that a lot of people are running Hiperfires so you see more examples of breakage, but it seems like dramatically increasing hammer energy isn't helping any. I've got well over 10k live fire rounds and a decent amount of dryfire accross a couple of different bolts and I haven't broken a pin yet, but I've been using an ALG trigger with JP reduced springs for most of that. The CMMG bolt had no issues in the time I ran it, and the QC 10 bolt looks great after a lot of abuse.

V Seven makes them out of steel and Strong Side tactical sells them. Looks like 4.8 oz per weight and very low profile. I originally was going to try using a keymod flashlight ring and some brass or steel stock, but this works nice and lets me get some more weight back, but low and towards the receiver so the weight is still between my hands. I have added a railmount and surefire just to test, but I didn't want to beat up the flashlight so I removed it.

I'm pretty sure the 95 lb rating is 95 lbs per inch. The spec on the springs on Amazon are 25 lbs load capacity, which I think is the Smalley H spec as opposed to the M. It was a while back that I looked at it, but I purchased the 95 per inch/25 lb load capacity for my PCC and I love it. I'm just running a quarter as a spacer.

I have both and I greatly prefer the reflex style sights over tubes for PCC. I just feel like I c more or something. Im running the Romeo5 (tube style) right now instead of the reflex Romeo3 (which has a cracked lens) and while I don't think it's costing me much if anything in terms of performance I like the unobstructed view of the reflex better. I am cross dominant and occasionally with the tubes or even larger sized reflex sights (like an Eotech 512) I see the side of the tube/sight instead of my sight picture (typically only in awkward positions or leans).

I have a steel keymod weight I have been playing with on my handguard with the ULW. I don't think it's too light to perform well (although the heavier setups are a bit more stable at the cost of taking more effort to transition) but I want to use it as a cross training tool for my rifle caliber carbines so I am going back to a longer barrel and brake. I think if I exclusively cared about USPSA I would probably keep the ULW. If I was setting up a steel gun I would absolutely run the ULW.

Randall will recontour part or all of the barrel. He did a WOA for me and it was a huge improvement in handling. http://www.ar15barrels.com

As an update I received my 308 AR Gold on Wednesday and have shot about a thousand rounds with it since then. It ran with zero issues using my QC10 lower and bolt. My only regret on this is waiting for the PCC version instead of just buying the 308 version a long time ago. I know it doesn't work for everyone, but it seems to be working well in my setup.

Prove is a funny thing. You have guaranteed certain parts will work. I've owned the Kaw Valley and Faxon barrels. None of them would take coated bullets at a reasonable OAL. Neither are particularly well suited for feeding from mags with big extensions. I've had the Kaw Valley and Faxon bolts. Faxon was fine, Kaw Valley had no extractor tension and a loose "gas key" within a couple weeks of shooting. You can't prove that parts list will work for everyone. I've had it, tried it, and moved on. There are parts that have been recently designed for our sport that represent a functional improvement over prior configurations. I don't have a problem with you stating what you like. This is an open forum and we all get to share our opinions. But if you are going to guarantee to new guys this setup will work will you be refunding them when it doesn't?

I am not trying to be antagonistic but the list you have created is far from definitive. A few of the parts on your list are ones that I specifically recommend people avoid because I have used them and found them to be sub-optimal. I'd recommend anyone building a PCC from the ground up take a look at what the top PCC shooters are using. Max Leograndis' IG is a great resource. A lot of the good parts don't cost much more or even cost less than the parts on this list. For example, the KV and Faxon barrels typically take work with a reamer to chamber projectiles that are commonly used in USPSA at longer (and typically more reliable) OALs. The QC10 lower is great, but the upper is $180 and will function the same in a 9mm PCC as a $40 Anderson Sport. I'd take some of the savings from the upper and put it towards a ramped barrel (Shooting Innovations or Taccom) and the rest towards the higher end Taccom or QC10 bolt. If I were buying an optic today for PCC it would be a HS 510C. I understand there are lots of different opinions but there are no winning guns. There are guns that run consistently and guns that don't and I've found some of the parts on that list tilt the PCCs towards the "don't" category. After that ergonomics/balance and optics are individual preference.

Not that I am aware of. I emailed the email under the support tab at the website and received a response saying I could be added to a waitlist if I desired.

I emailed ATC about a month ago and was told that the PCC version is still in testing. There is a PCC waiting list you can be added to if you want updates. As someone who has primarily shot 19/2011s in competition the AR Gold take-up/reset takes the cake for me. It is the most natural feeling AR trigger I have shot. I thought the "two stage" design would throw me off but it was love at first bill drill. I should note that while I strongly prefer flat triggers in my pistols, I actually like the curved AR Gold trigger better than the flat. I imagine it has to do with my hand position and the grip that I used, but wicked splits are more repeatable for me with the curved. I tried a handful of different 9mm bolts with a variety of the 223 AR Gold triggers in a couple different lowers and I couldn't get any of them to run. I gave up on waiting for the PCC version and ordered the SR (308) version of the AR Gold earlier this week. I am hoping it runs with my QC10 bolt, otherwise I will throw it in my AR10 and wait for the PCC version.

Are you 100% sure there isn't any brass left in the chamber? I've had a few case head separations recently where the head came off and left a ring of brass in the chamber. In my case, it was a bad batch of factory ammo. If you separate the upper and lower, then remove the bolt you can hold the barrel vertical and "plunk" test by dropping a round in the chamber. If you have a ring of brass that would explain why you can't chamber another round. I got the remaining ring out by threading a 3/8-24 tap into the brass, then tapping it out via a rod from the muzzle. After clearing it I've had several hundred rounds of trouble free performance, and that was after 3 severe case head separations.

My understanding is that for the DI 9mm uppers, the mag catch shelf needed to be lowered a bit to keep the feed lips of a Glock mag from interfering with the bolt lugs. I have been told it is also possible to drop a Colt mag low enough to gain compatibility on the DI setups. The upper I had was sold to a friend, who is testing it with an undisclosed lower/mag combo. Under the tech specs it also says it requires a modified upper for reliability. I haven't seen a picture of the barrel extension, but my guess would be that for a Glock mag setup the upper itself might need to have a feed ramp cut in the middle (as opposed to the M4 ramps already cut in most uppers). Tim, any chance we will see a ULW Guard Bolt/Barrel kit?

Glenn at LSI built me an amazing open blaster- it is set up exactly how I want it. He worked with me from beginning to end. 6 months is pretty reasonable for a full custom- some of the other builders mentioned here are 18 months or more. I would second kneelingatlas' suggestion to pick up a used blaster and shoot it to develop your preferences. That way, you have something now while you get a custom built. I personally wouldn't drop the coin on any of the "factory" open guns that are currently available. In my opinion the price is too close to a custom and too far above what it would cost to pick up a used gun. It seems like every week or two there is a thread on somebody's new "factory custom" that has quit at a very low round count.