Steve Johnson

Founder and Dictator-In-Chief of TFB. A passionate gun owner, a shooting enthusiast and totally tacti-uncool. Favorite first date location: any gun range. Steve can be contacted here.


Advertisement

  • JoePublic

    OOPS

    • Andrew

      Beat me to it.

  • Chris

    Shut up and take my money!

  • Lance

    When they get the 5.45mm version they sold me on it one gun every modern caliber got to love that.

  • Kyle

    Looks like they’re using US Palm mags too.

    • jmkcolorado

      THIS! THIS! THIS!

  • bbmg
  • Andrew

    Also looks like there’s a paddle release by the trigger guard.

  • kris

    I would settle for the darn conversion block for the one I have.You know the one for 5.56 they showed for a year before launch but have yet to release to us.

    • Cymond

      Oh wow, that really sucks! I haven’t kept up with the 901, so didn’t realize the blocks weren’t available. Isn’t that one of it’s biggest selling points?

    • Danny Sampsel

      kris-
      I would, as well. The one EVERY T&E version has been given to gun writer’s for evaluation, right? The one their “customer service” reps have been saying will be available “next month”, for the last 12 months? The one that Colt Defense has been dangliing in front of every fool that believed their marketing hype (guys like me)? Frustrating does not begin to approach an accurate description. It’s to the point i am having someone with a 4 axis CNC machine looking at making one for me. Why do customers have to go to such extremes to get something that has been promised for months now?

  • Alex C.

    Damn I love my governer.

    • BR549

      Yeah, but I wish Perry make up his mind. First the NAFTA highway, then his attendance at Bilderberg. These are not good signs for someone professing to be a supporter of the Constitution.

  • http://www.thenewrifleman.com/ Lothaen

    I would love to see something like this with an updated bolt. From what I have read the rim diameter on the 7.62 round significantly decreases the material on the bolt face which in turn makes it a weaker bolt/system. I would think if I got this setup I would want a few spare bolts. Anyone care to confirm or deny?

    • Ian

      The diameter on the face does little, if nothing to decrease the bolt strength. Its only purpose is to give the extractor a solid face to push the cartridge against. The problem is that the AR-15 bolt can’t even handle the bolt thrust of the .223 (why bolts go down at 6k rounds) let alone the much higher force from the M43 cartridge.

      • Laserbait

        Bolts break at 6K rounds? Where did you get that nonsense? I have yet to have a bolt break, and many of my AR’s have triple that many rounds through them, and they’re not anything special, most are from DPMS…

        • Nathaniel

          People love to repeat things they’ve read on the Internet.

          I wouldn’t worry too much about the bolt breaking. 7.62×39 has slightly lower bolt thrust than 5.56mm. It should be fine.

          • Ian

            Or that’s the point when the military changes theirs because mag particle inspection shows them as breaking and/or deforming to the point that headspace is an issue. Breaking and catastrophic failure are not one in the same.

            I’m sorry that Stoner didn’t copy the most important feature of Johnson’s bolt, i.e. the lug length behind the bolt face.

            Care to show your math on the bolt thrust calculation, Nate?

          • Marvin

            bolt thrust on the M43 cartridge is over 1K pounds more than a 5.56

          • Joshua

            Thats BS, we change our bolts and barrel around the 10,000 round mark(keeping track is iffy so its around there). We rarely see a bolt break before 10,000 rounds, most will go 11-14,000 before they break.

            How about you ask someone who works on more M4A1 than most people see in their life before you repeat crap you read on the errornet.

            We did have a spotty QC patch with Colt were we saw bolts going down around 6,000 but they fixed that quickly.

      • LilWolfy

        The AR15 bolt was engineered by Sullivan and Fremont around the .222 Remington at 50ksi SAAMI MAP, with 8620, and works fine in that regard. Once they pushed the pressures to meet the 500yd steel helmet perforation requirement with the .222 Remington Special, they exceeded the design parameters of the bolt.

        We’ve been shooting cartridges in the AR15 that were never meant to be fired from it. That’s where the tool steel and HPT/MPI came from, to address an inherently weak bolt for 5.56×45.

    • John

      Did you get that argument off the .300 AAC website? Not making any accusations, it’s just the only place I’ve seen that point be made
      http://300aacblackout.com/

      • J.T.

        That argument has been around longer than the .300 BLK. I remember it being used a lot by both AK and AR purists on Arfcom when people would post a 7.62×39 AR.

    • Joshua

      That is with an AR-15 bolt. The 901 in 7.62×39 will use a 7.62 bolt so there will not be a reduction in bolt life as seen in a standard bolt.

  • Paul Hacker

    Dang Rick gets to play with the new stuff but I don’t (and I’m a Texican to!) Oh well, maybe Colt will shaft the unions and come on down here. I’d be happy of ALL of them come down here.

  • idahoguy101

    Hasn’t Colt sold 7.62×39 AR15’s in the past?

    • LilWolfy

      Colt is the original developer of the 7.62×39 Sporter AR15 in the 1980’s. Other companies ignored Colt’s research, and thought they could just spec a bolt with .223 rim diameter-based bolt face depth, which is a major problem for extractors.

      Alexander Arms looked very closely at Colt’s RDT&E on the 7.62×39 when working on the 50 Beowulf, and went with a bolt specifically designed for the 7.62×39 rim diameter, as well as a purpose-built extractor-both made with very careful metallurgy, certs, testing, and extensive QC.

      That dovetailed nicely for the 6.5 Grendel, as a solid bolt design has already been done.