CNC machining
has come a long way. When Parsons and Sikorsky decided to numerically control machines that made punches for helicopter rotor parts, they quickly realized that they didn’t know a lot about computers. MIT took the project in hand and made the first NC machines out of old Cincinnati mills. At the time, it literally was Numerical control; the circuitry took numeric instructions and made the servomotors move. Not until several years later did they actually integrate memory into the machines making them true Computer Numerical controls.
Without the CNC machine, a powerful lot of stuff the military needed could not be made, and so in concert with MIT, the Military purchased and retrofitted some machines and provided them to some of the shops they used, so they could get the stuff they needed.
The AR grew up in this time. NC and later CNC machining made the AR platform not only possible but fairly easy to build- it did for firearms what Henry Ford did to cars. It was no longer necesary to be a competent gunsmith or even machinist to make a good functioning firearm, pretty much any cletus could put a forging into a machine and a serviceable part would come out.
This was also sort of true of other firearms, like the AK, which, while it was not the child of CNC certainly benefitted by it and still does. The difference is the AK is designed to have wide open tolerances which allowed it to operate under many conditions, and withstand almost unbelievable abuse; the tradeoff is marginal accuracy, and pretty much always will be.
Unlike the AK, the AR was designed to be a precision firearm with precision fitted components, but with the ability for tolerance stack and human error removed.
Remember the post about Tolerance Stack? The brilliant thing about a CNC machine is that once a part has been verified, and tested exclusively, it can be duplicated with precise and repeatable accuracy almost infinitely. A properly cared for machine tool with appropriate tooling and careful operation has an indeterminate life; there really isn’t any way of telling how long one will last. Many of my customers are still using equipment made by Pratt Whitney and Giddings and Lewis that are now fifty or more years old. The leadscrews have automatic lubrication, they ways and gibs adjust readily and easily, and as long as they are not abused they continue to make good parts.
Stoner knew this, and he designed the components of his firearms to be easy to make with high precision. Let’s look at one of the most critical parts- though a lot of AR owners don’t even know it’s there.
You can click on the image to embiggenate.
This is the barrel adapter. Most people never see it as a separate part of their barrel, but if you look up into your receiver you should be able to see the threads that join it to the barrel inside the adapter.
This little bastard is brilliant. I mean, bloody brilliant.
In a bolt action rifle, or in other types of autos, the receiver is a solid machined piece that has the barrel screwed or pinned or sweated into the receiver face. This in itself requires a good deal of hand fitting, but the additional issue of fitting the bolt in place, making sure the bolt hits the recever lugs in the right place, and doesn’t allow excess headspace, is a good damned deal of work for even a talented gunsmith.
This little chunk of steel makes all that go away. You see, in a CNC machine, when you cut a thread, the thread always begins and ends in the same place, every single time, always. Which means that when you CNC machine a barrel, it’s threads will always start at, say, nine o’clock, and end at eleven o’clock. The threads in the barrel adapter are similarly oriented.
When the barrel adapter is made, it is machined in two operations, on a CNC machine. First, the face is squared, giving you surface A. Then the material is bored out of the center, the bottom of the hole faced, (Surface C)and the threads are cut. Then the outside of the part is machined, giving you diameter D and surface B. The part is then cut off and the secondary operations are performed. This means several things.
1: The surfaces A, B, and C are always parallel to one another, to the limit of the machine’s accuracy.
2: The surfaces A, B, and C are perpendicular to the diameter D.
3: Diameter D is concentric with the root diameter of the thread T
4: The thickness between surface A and B and the distance between surface A and surface C is predictable, repeatable, and consistent from one part to another.
Far better than can ever be done by hand in multiple operations, and far better than the average gunsmith wants to do. When JMB, God rest his soul, designed the M2 Garand (thanks Tam), he made it so the hand fitting was easy and simple. When Stoner made the M16, he made it so no hand fitting was required, period.
The upshot of this is subtle but vital. Barrels are made in a bunch of different ways, but at the end, the last thing that happens is that they get threaded and chambered. Because of CNC manufacture, threading the barrel into the barrel adapter means that the headspace is part of the barrel and adapter, and the headspace does not depend on the receiver but moves entire as a unit from receiver to receiver. Thus, a barrel/bolt that is a good accurate combination at a specific headspace can be moved from one firearm to another and the accuracy of the barrel moves with the barrel, assuming it is placed in a properly manufactured firearm. Here’s the subtle bit: No hand fitting is required to get the relationship between the barrel and the barrel adapter just right, because it’s done in CNC machines, and if done to spec it will always be just right. Sure, it’s possible to get a match grade barrel that’s headspaced as tight as a drum, but even then, you’ll see that they are sold as sets. You get the barrel, the adapter, and the bolt. Therein lies the accuracy of the firearm, and nothing else can effect it like those components can.
26 comments Og | Uncategorized
They touch on this very issue in April’s G&A “AR Accuracy: the Benchmark.” You explain it better.
“When JMB, God rest his soul, designed the Garand…”
Freudian slip, Og. Not every awesome old gun was designed by him, it just sometimes seems that way. ;)
Prezactly. Thinking m2, type garand. Day one of influenza, not as coherent as i ought to be. Thank GOD i did most of the post the other day
I followed a link from Tam’s place and see it is likely you’ve forgotten more about machining than many self-identified machinists ever learn. So you seem like the perfect person to ask the following question.
If I wanted to get a job as a machinist what is the best way of gaining the knowledge required to do the job well?
My boy is an Aerospace Eng undergrad. He spent some time before that getting tight with an M16. Im gonna forward this on to him, I’m sure he learn a thing or three.
Athor: There are a lot of machining videos you can rent, and a lot of stuff exists on youtube, but not much substitutes for hands on experience. You might find a local community college that has a couple of courses. And of course there are vast differences even between one type of machine and another.
There are also a lot of CNC simulators out there, and some of them are pretty easy to master, but again, handson is the key.
On the other hand, there are TONS of cheap used machines out there, and, frankly, the quiality of the chinese stuff from Grizzly is first rate. I wouldn’t be ashamed to own one of those, despite it’s chinese heritage.
Nice post. Love them CNC machine tools!
Been meaning to ask you this but if it is too much to ask, you can tell me to figure it out for myself. Would you happen to know the pin schematic for the cables that plug into the back of a Mitutoyo DRO? The DRO for my milling machine is maybe 25+ years old and the transformer died. I want to use the scales with a laptop with CAD/CAM software which has a DRO feature. I’ll have to build the interface but that’s the fun part.
John: depending on age you might find the pinout you’re looking for here
http://www.mitutoyo.com/pdf/1715.pdf
A couple of years out of high school, I went to work for a machine shop that had half a dozen Warner-Swasey automatic screw machines (each one as big as a school bus) and several Davenport multi-spindles. That was almost 30 years ago, and those machines were twice my age or more back then.
I dropped by for a visit a few years back, and all of ’em were still chugging along. On the other side of the shop almost everything had been replaced by CNC equipment, but when you’re cranking out 1000’s of identical parts out of bar stock, it’s hard to beat old cam-driven iron.
Thanks for the advice.
Looks like I’m going back to community college. Woohoo!
Thanks Og. That manual gave me some hints. That and looking at the wiring on the old DRO. It looks like red and green are for 5v DC and then there are two pairs, one pair for each phase of the phototransistor.
I think I’ve got enough to do some damage.
Gonna need to get one of them USB O-scopes now.
If you live in a city, check your local community college. Ours has an excellent machinist program with a couple Haas milling centers and lathes. Lots of fun.
From the software side, Google Mach3 and LinuxCNC — both mature software. Mach3 is my favorite — commercial ($150) but the demo version will run 500 lines of G Code. The LinuxCNC is a bit quirky but both have excellent support groups and fora.
From the hardware side, lots of people offer conversion kits — the hands-down best drivers are from Gecko.
Og: One detail that few mention when it comes to the ‘inaccuracy’ of the AK design is the fact that due to the ‘height’ of the bolt carrier over the centerline of the barrel, the receiver ‘flexes’, severely, when fired.
You can see this in high-speed photography with the sheet metal receiver AK’s, regardless of mfr, pretty easy and it remains even with the forged receivers…..it just takes longer to materialize, as in when these receivers ‘crack’ just behind the trunion after enough use.
It is a built-in design flaw and one few acknowledge and a major contributor to the fact those guns will never “shoot”…
All The Best,
Frank W. James
I have always been amazed at the similarities in sighting in M-16s. When I entered service, my reserve unit still had M16a1 rifles, then a2 conversions (a1s were converted, and a “2” was stamped over the one), then an assortment of FN and Colt a2 rifles. All through the “nose on the charging handle” days, windage was within a click and elevation within 2 clicks (and all but one rifle were either 6 or 7 clicks down). I attribute this to a design that produces consistency and to my rather large nose, mostly to the design.
Og: You don’t need a bolt as part of a set unless you are doing a caliber change.
If the bolt is milspec, mating it with a particular barrel/nut is a bit excessive ( not that some accuracy fanatics won’t go there, of course ).
Agreed on all counts, Ed. The whole point of the design is for proper interchangeability without hand work. I’ve seen the videos of AK’s oilcanning, but what’s more fun is to tape a metal foil strain gauge to one and watch the flexion on a scope. It will make you never want to touch one again, they seem as if they’re going to blow up in your hands.
I know Shilen makes a barrel/adapter/bolt set for what it considers it’s “Custom fitted match grade” barrel, at a premium price. I have yet to see anyone willing to demonstrate to me that this combination of items is any more accurate than a properly manufactured firearm, built to spec.
P6 mold steel. No wonder you can use the little bastards to cut glass.
I am learning a lot here!
When one understands all this, it makes the tolerances held by those who built the Springfields/Garands/Johnsons/Thompsons/1911’s/M14’s all the more impressive.
It’s one thing to achieve tight tolerances on a gun as a gunsmith when working on them one at a time. It’s easier with modern equipment with better bearings and tighter machines equipped with DRO’s.
It’s quite another thing to hold tight tolerances on manual machines without DRO’s, run day after day by humans, with production quotas hanging over their heads.
Wyop, we also have the ability to do solid modeling; imagine the kind of information that Browning had to hold in his head that can now be done with a few thousand dollars worth of software. People have no clue what kind of genius JMB was.
Og, for those who don’t, they should see the Browning Firearms Museum at Ogden, UT. They have the Browning workshop set up off the side of the exhibit of the vast number of firearms on which the Brownings had input or patents.
It is a remarkably humble shop. Most gunsmiths today would be hard pressed to turn out their work on his tooling. It was before the Bridgeport mill, the lathe he used was rather small and much of his work was doubtless done with hand tools at the bench.
As an experienced mechanical engineer, a polite way of saying older than dirt, one might observe that indexed threading was already in use in the 1890s and circa 1900 arsenals were well capable of holding these tolerances. By way of example, I offer my ’03 Springfield which required rebarreling. The new barrel screwed right in. The front sight was properly aligned and the chamber passed the appropriate gaging tests. That said, contemporary CNC machines can attain these tolerances without a lot of the specials fixtures, tools & machines.
The barrel adapter idea is a clever idea but was in use long before Gene Stoner designed his AR-15. If anything, the AR-15/M16/M4 is a clever recombination of a number of previously proven features. Although I have not verified the claim, I’ve read claims the gas system can be traced to the Swedish AG42.
This utilization of proven technology is good engineering practice. For instance, the M240 machine gun is the old BAR with a quick change barrel and a feeder mechanism “borrowed” from the German MG-42. In any case, the new gun is superior to its antecedents.
“indexed threading was already in use in the 1890s and circa 1900 arsenals were well capable of holding these tolerances.”
No doubt this is true.I have myself used a lathe which is now over 100 years old to cut not only an indexed thread but a four-start indexed thread. But it took me three days.
“The front sight was properly aligned and the chamber passed the appropriate gaging tests”
Of course it did. That’s because the front sight flat and chamber were cut after the thread was cut. They’re still made in just that way. Which would you do; spend hours setting up and cutting a thread so it matched the sight location, or thread it in any old way, and then clock the barrel to the thread start and use that orientation to cut the sight? That’s right, you’d do it the easy way, and so do all barrel makers. Receivers are threaded in special fixtures that make the start point accurately and in the same place every time. But still: the effort required is far and away above the AR platform, and it requires a lot of very skilled people doing the job, and that training takes time and costs money. I can pull into an empty building with two semis full of machinery and have six total gomers making fully functional AR rifles after 24 hours.
“The barrel adapter idea is a clever idea but was in use long before Gene Stoner designed his AR-15.”
I never suggested this was unique to Stoner, only that it is brilliant. The execution, on the other hand, is nearly impossible without CNC machinery, and that is the magical bit that Stoner built this rifle around, the ability to make many fully interchangeable parts to a high tolerance that did not require a lot of skilled labor to manufacture.
The barrel collar is actually not a Stoner invention- it was invented by Melvin Johnson, who made the Johnson rifle. Both the collar and bolthead were directly adapted from his designs, as well as the overall layout of the AR series and many other ideas. Stoner figured out how to put all these parts into an aluminum frame, but the components were all adapted from the Johnson 1941 LMG.
“The barrel collar is actually not a Stoner invention-” as I mentioned above. There are a lot of “Borrowed” ideas on the platform, but he borrowed the better ones, unquestionably.
Jerry said: Although I have not verified the claim, I’ve read claims the gas system can be traced to the Swedish AG42.
Well, I can’t say whether or not Eugene Stoner knew about the AG-42 (though I can’t imagine he didn’t), but it’s definitely a previous direct-impingement system, like the MAS-49 family.
Probably fairest to view the AR-10/AR-15 system as the culmination of that line of development (at least so far).