How To Build An AR BCG The Wrong Way With Rock River Arms

Recently I was attending an AR-15 armorers course (I will be posting about the experience later) and the instructor showed us this gem of a youtube video put out by Rock River Arms.

Rock River’s marketing department felt that producing a video where they taught the masses the Rock River way of building a bolt carrier group was just the ticket to sell more components. Great idea in theory, as long as you fact check the process you are using. Watch the below video and see if you identify all the shortcomings in Jake the “Assembly Specialist’s” build process.

I hope that you noticed how many steps in the process that Jake botched. My instructor, William Larson, went over the video in detail.

  • Installs ejector incorrectly. Jake should have used the tool that holds the ejector in place. (Note: The tool is not absolutely needed, but is the right way to do it.)
  • Doesn’t use roll pin punch or roll pin punch starter, uses flat face punch. This could deform the roll pin and lead to maintenance issues.
  • Uses pliers to install extractor spring. Could crush spring and cause malfunction.
  • Uses punch and vice to install extractor pivot pin,the pin should slide in without issue when pressing the tail of the extractor.
  • Spreads myth about staggering gas rings. (IT DOESN’T MATTER !!!!)
  • Incorrectly quotes gas key torque at 70 inch pounds instead of the 58 outlined in the milspec.
  • Does not use a torque wrench to torque things.
  • Stakes the gas key with a punch instead of a staking tool, barely dents the side of the gas key.

While I appreciate what Rock River was trying to do, I would have liked to see them present factual information instead of continuing the flow of bullshit information about AR-15s.

Check out Semper Paratus Arms on their website HERE. William Larson is a walking, talking, bearded AR-15 encyclopaedia that is fueled by doughnuts and coffee. I hope that you know where to find Rock River Arms, if not I guess you can click HERE.



Patrick R

Patrick is a Senior Writer for The Firearm Blog and Co-Director for TFBTV. He is a verified gun nerd. With a lifelong passion for shooting, he has a love for all types of firearms, especially overly modified plastic handguns, precision rifles, and AR based things. You can follow Patrick on Instagram @tfbpatrick, Facebook, or contact him by email at tfbpatrick@gmail.com.

The above post is my opinion and does not reflect the views of any company or organization.


Advertisement

  • Just say’n

    Seems nit-picky. I’m sure the weapon would’ve run just fine for many thousands of rounds as assembled.

  • Ambassador Vader
  • jam

    The context was clearly stated for people doing this at home. Buying a couple hundred dollars in jigs doesn’t make sense for everyone for a potentially one time home build, in which case a vice, some pliers, hammer, and a punch set makes a cost effective alternative.

    • Joseph Goins

      Considering as well that most people won’t put 500 rounds through it, I would also say that the MILSPEC and professional doesn’t need to followed as well.

      • Tom Currie

        By the way — there flat AIN’T NO SUCH THING as a “MilSpec” civilian AR.

        To be fully milspec it would not be built with a 16″ barrel and would not be semi-auto.

    • Sunshine_Shooter

      If the context was “let’s say you live in a cardboard box…”, would that make the gun run better? Context means nothing, correct assembly means everything.

    • Wolfgar

      If you cannot afford to build a rifle correctly then purchase one
      already assembled. There are already too many crappy assembled AR rifles
      on the market giving the false opinion the AR platform sucks. Reading
      many opinions on this blog verifies this. Besides most people who
      assemble AR rifles will become addicted and will want to build more.
      They might as well learn to do it correctly from the start. A crappy built AR benefits no one.

      • jam

        Exactly how in the video was there anything assembled in a way that would make the firearm not function? The staking wasn’t even shown it was just speculated on by an author who clearly got out of an armory course where the instructor clearly had a bone to pick with RRA. If a factory is putting the gun together then yes, all the jigs and specialty tools should be expected. As a garage project most of those tools can be effectively supplemented with stuff you probably already have. All of you guys on crusade right now must not care about cost, haven’t put ARs together, or be talking out your ass.

        • WKL

          There are no “jigs” required. You simply need an ejector tool, and the correct punches. In addition a factory staking is completely different than a field staking. You should go look at RRA stakings some time. It will make more sense to you.

        • Wolfgar

          Staking tool: $70.00
          Roll pin set: $13.00
          Inch pound torque wrench: $20.00
          Extractor-ejector tool: $20.00

          Total: $123.00

          Google them, you can find them.
          Not exactly breaking the bank for a proper built AR!

          • Wolfgar

            “Correction” I meant roll pin punch set : $20.00

    • Boomstick Mechanic

      Correct, as stated in the article, ” Rock River’s marketing department felt that producing a video where they taught the masses the Rock River way of building a bolt carrier group was just the ticket to sell more components.” Do you think that the average Joe is going to know the technical aspects, proper tools needed, and “proper” way of doing things. This video is used as content to appeal to those who are learning to build and buy RRA product. At the same time it says in the video seek a qualified gunsmith if you do not feel comfortable performing the tasks. We can sit here and argue technical aspects all day but there are more ways than one to skin a cat. With the popularity of individuals doing home builds, its amazing to see how some of these rifles were built. Home builds and budget rifles can be put on a pedestal of criticism and all the flaws can be pointed out by an informed individual.With some mistakes and experience comes the knowledge that most learn from. Most average Joe’s are not gonna put a ton of ammo through the rifle and once they come to the point where they do, they will have hopefully learned and have an idea of what Milspec actually is and buy or build a quality rifle with proper tooling and equipment. Instead of criticism lets be productive and learn from everyone’s knowledge.

      • Wolfgar

        Teaching a half ass way of doing something is not a good idea in my opinion. Many including myself have assembled AR rifles with the minimum of tools and knowledge. I would have rather learned the correct and best way to assemble my first AR rather than by trial and error. A good AR can be assembled with minimum cost with out poor instruction. He should have explained the pros and cons of assembling an AR with different tools and methods.

        • Boomstick Mechanic

          In agreement. As the original intent of the video was used as a guideline, like most, it can be better in information and content.

        • Tom Currie

          Teaching a method that CANNOT be used by the target audience is not “half assed” it would be totally assed up.

          There are ONLY two valid questions about the methods used in the video:

          1) Did they work (i.e. would the assembled part function properly)?

          and

          2) Do they represent any danger to the person performing the assembly or the parts being assembled that wasn’t specifically cautioned in the video?

          So far as I can tell the answer to #1 is yes and the answer to #2 is no.

          On that basis, any quibbling about “I-Know-A-Better-Way” or even “A Fully Equipped Full Time Professional Shop Would Do It Differently” is pole vaulting over mouse turds.

          • Wolfgar

            There is no reason the targeted audience could not assemble a proper AR. Poor instruction is not an excuse and is half ass.

            Answers to your valid questions:

            1) Not using a torque wrench, or improperly installing an extractor spring could lead to a malfunction failure

            2} Not using a torque wrench could result in an out of spec torque screw which could lead to a malfunction during a self defense situation which could lead to a dangerous situation.

            Relying on chance with a poorly assembled AR is not quibbling.

          • A.WChuck

            “pole vaulting over mouse turds.”
            Perhaps my favorite phrase of the year. Thank you.

          • Vanns40

            I wasn’t even going to jump in to this one but since you opened the door…?…….possibility of Olympic sport?

  • De Facto

    Either we’re being overly harsh on RRA’s video or you’re confirming my decision to avoid the AR15 platform for being excessively special snowflake and delicate.

    • AC97

      Century and I.O. AKs…

    • Wolfgar

      Any firearm that uses inferior parts and assembly methods will fail. Compare an AK made in Russia or China vs some of the latest American made junk. AR rifles are no different.

    • MadMonkey

      The only special snowflake here is the one triggered by an internet gun video that was WRONG!!!1 (allegedly)

    • Tom Currie

      De Facto: You omitted the correct solution to your question:
      C) All of the above.

  • Oaf

    And did you see the way he dropped the ejector spring into the hole in the bolt? He should have used an ejector spring bolt hole guide tool available on brownells for $59.99

  • Zach Robinson

    Arguably if you’re not using a dedicated staking tool (ie MOACKS) for the carrier key it would be better to use the field staking method by using a punch from the top instead of the side. Staking the side of the carrier key with a punch could lead to damage or small burrs which could cause damage elsewhere in the upper. Somethings are nitpicky, but the thing about the gas rings and misquoting the milspec torque values are annoying.

  • roguetechie

    It’s really not nitpicking, and you’re looking at maybe $60 worth of tools to do it right.

    • Sunshine_Shooter

      Then pay someone else to do it right. Saving $60 won’t make your upper run better when your gas key shears off, or your ejector spring binds up.

      • Joseph Goins

        How many rounds do you think it would take to shear off the carrier key if it wasn’t staked?

        • Wolfgar

          The key could loosen, leak gas, malfunction, which could occur at a very embarrassing time. Loose gas keys are one of the main causes of gas related malfunctions on the AR platform.

          • Joseph Goins

            Try it. I had a PSA BCG that was incorrectly staked. It went six thousand rounds before I ended up selling the gun.

          • Wolfgar

            I have seen them work with much higher round counts. I have also seen them fail to finish a 150 round competition. A properly stacked gas key is important for reliable functioning. Like I stated before do it right from the start. Cutting corners can have bad consequences at the most inopportune time. There is a reason Bravo Company rifles work flawlessly. I wouldn’t recommend relying on chance with any shoddy built firearm but suit yourself.

          • Sunshine_Shooter

            “I had a *noun* that *verb*ed flawlessly!”

            This is what anecdotal evidence looks like. You have a sample size of one, and any other examples outside that one are in no way accurately represented by it.

          • Joseph Goins

            I never said it was conclusive proof. Then again, the individual I was responding offered no proof at all other than a vague claim that problems “could occur at a very embarrassing time.”

          • Wolfgar

            My friends home built AR was proof as others who have cycling problems because of an improperly staked gas key. Jeesh, I’m only trying to help here guys, do as you want. It’s no skin off of my back.

          • Wolfgar

            Did you find the problem, you should be able to find and correct most problems. All bolt carrier groups are not made the same. I use only BCM bolt carrier groups in my rifles. They have never failed.

          • M

            Staking the gas key does not prevent loosening it only prevents the screws from falling out. It’s more important to torque it correctly to 56 inch-lbs.

          • Joseph Goins

            And if the screws fall out, the key will separate from the carrier and thus cause a malfunction, loss of gas pressure, etc.

          • Wolfgar

            Not true, if the bolt is staked loose you are stacking a loose bolt. Staking a proper torqued bolt will prevent it from backing out and help keep a broken bolt in place. This is why a castle nut and axle bearing nuts are staked..

  • Wolfgar

    This is why many Frankenguns can really suck. I have never used an ejector tool so I think this is a little nit picking. The other gripes are spot on especially giving the wrong torque number. Over torquing will stretch the bolts thus weakening them.. Having the correct tools and instruction can be the difference between a great rifle and a cobbled hunk of junk. I have watched many videos on line which teach incorrect assembly methods. I would have expected better from Rock River Arms since their rifles have been very good in my experience.

  • Jake

    damn you see how he isnt even wearing hand protection? There was literally no documentation on how recent his tetanus shot was and I seen 0 eyewash stations on standby in case of a flying spring. would not fire weapon 0/10

  • rockstarartist

    Patrick,

    Thanks for putting links to the companies, people, and information sources you discuss. I would like to see this more often at the bottom of the blog posts!

    Cheers,
    RockStarArtist

  • Frank Grimes

    He works for State Farm now.

  • Joseph Goins

    @PatrickR I think you owe Jake an apology based on changing specifications (e.g. mil-spec) over time and the fact that this video wasn’t made for professionals with specialized tools.

    “Installs ejector incorrectly. Jake should have used the tool that holds the ejector in place.”
    Unless I missed something, his method worked. Therefore, you can’t fault the guy.

    “Doesn’t use roll pin punch or roll pin punch starter, uses flat face punch. This could deform the roll pin and lead to maintenance issues.”
    Could deform? Sure. It’s also probable that using a “roll pin punch starter” can damage the pin. (I have personally seen this happen on pistols a few times.)

    “Uses pliers to install extractor spring. Could crush spring and cause malfunction.”
    He straight-up mentioned this. He said that you could use your fingers or a pair of pliers but that you need to be careful in how you do it so as to not damage the part.

    “Spreads myth about staggering gas rings. (IT DOESN’T MATTER !!!!)”
    Regardless of whether or not it’s a myth, you are outside of mil-spec if you don’t space out the rings. According to TM 9-1005-249-23&P on page 3-18: “Stagger the bolt ring gaps to prevent loss of gas pressure.”

    “Incorrectly quotes milspec at 70 inch pounds instead of the 58 outlined in the milspec.”
    You are both wrong. According to TM 9-1005-249-23&P on page 3-20: “Use a socket head screw wrench attachment and torque wrench to torque the carrier and key screws to 35 to 40 inch-pounds.”

    “Does not use a torque wrench to torque things.”
    He mentions this in the video. He is trying to use a different means to accomplish the goal. (I presume this is because the video was made for home armorers without fancy tools.)

    “Stakes the gas key with a punch instead of a staking tool, barely dents the side of the gas key.”
    While you are supposed to use a punch and not a staking tool, I find it funny that you didn’t harp on his method for staking the carrier key. You are supposed to hit the screws themselves in three spots and the actual carrier. According to TM 9-1005-249-23&P on page 3-21: “Use solid center punch, and hand hammer to stake the two carrier and key screws in three places.”

    • WKL

      You have several facts wrong. For one, the carrier key torque value you are quoting is old. The most recent edition of 9-1005-319-23&P is 58 in/lbs.

      The staking you are referring to is a field staking and not factory OEM staking. You should research the difference.

      Whether staggering is still being taught is irrelevant. There is no need for it and people who understand how the system actually works know and understand this.

      • Joseph Goins

        “You have several facts wrong. For one, the carrier key torque value you are quoting is old. The most recent edition of 9-1005-319-23&P is 58 in/lbs.”
        I think you glanced over the first sentence I wrote: “I think you owe Jake an apology based on changing specifications (e.g. mil-spec) over time…” I quoted an accurate specification. This is the reason why Patrick shouldn’t have been a d••k about the torque pressure. It has and will change given time.

        “The staking you are referring to is a field staking and not factory OEM staking. You should research the difference.”
        Screw staking was the military’s preference (at least during when I was in the Army from 1990-2008) because it didn’t ruin the carrier if the key needed to be replaced. In fact, my unit was issued M4s during their initial field tests. Those weapons had the three part staking of the screws.

        “Whether staggering is still being taught is irrelevant. There is no need for it and people who understand how the system actually works know and understand this.”
        The fact that staggering is still being taught means that it is still the military standard. That is the only thing that matters. (Staggering has not been disproven. People only say “the gun still works” instead of measuring the amount of gas to see if any escaped.)

        • WKL

          It’s clear you don’t understand the facts. OEM means the company building the weapons to the MILSPEC such as Colt or FN. Those carrier keys from the factory are staked in 4 places (on each side of the screw) and not from the top. The 3 stakes at top is referred to as the “Field Staking Method” and is done when a key is replaced.

          The torque for the screws was never 70 in./lbs. It hasn’t changed since the latest revision which was about 9 years ago.

          • Joseph Goins

            “It’s clear you don’t understand the facts.”
            What you really mean is I don’t understand your presentation of the “facts” or that I am not swayed by your argument. However, that is neither here nor there.

            “OEM means the company building the weapons to the MILSPEC such as Colt or FN. Those carrier keys from the factory are staked in 4 places (on each side of the screw) and not from the top. The 3 stakes at top is referred to as the “Field Staking Method” and is done when a key is replaced.”
            I think that you are highly confused. Unless you held the M4s that my unit was issued, you are talking out of your ass. (And yes, the OEM process was to stake the screws in three places. That is how the BCG came from the factory.)

            “The torque for the screws was never 70 in./lbs. It hasn’t changed since the latest revision which was about 9 years ago.”
            I also never said that the “proper” torque was seventy inch pounds. I have no idea why you are even mentioning this.

      • James

        “The most recent edition of 9-1005-319-23&P is 58 in/lbs”

        What page is that on? I looked up the pdf and on page 3-27 it says 35-40 inch-pounds.

        Unless there is a different version of 9-1005-319-23&P I am looking at. If I am looking at the wrong file, can you please link the newest file?

        • WKL

          The latest version is November 2008. It’s located on page 144. The torque is listed as 50-58 in./lbs. MILSPEC suppliers such as Colt and other default to the higher torque value listed.

    • Wolfgar

      You owe Patrick an apology, he was correct about everything he stated.
      Under the TM 9-1005-319-23&P manual you are mistaken about the mil
      spec factory staking . The factory side staking is clearly illustrated compared to
      the stagger field method in the TM 9-1005-319-23&P manual page 3-28 .
      You also stated you stake the screws not the key. This is also
      incorrect as it is clearly illustrated you stake the carrier key not the
      screw also on page 3-28.You maybe correct about the factory stagger staking since specs change all the time and most of what we have are the older specs but the BCG’s I have seen made by BCM, and Colt use the side staking.
      The gas rings continue to rotate every time you fire the rifle so staggering the gas rings is an exercise in futility whether it is mil spec or not. You talk a big story but what useful information for newbie AR builders have you actually brought to the table other than cynicism. NONE!

  • milesfortis

    What’s interesting is that a standard military issue SARK small arms repair kit doesn’t have roll pin punches, or roll pin starters for that matter, a set piece ejector compressor tool or staking tool.

    Yes, it is a very basic kit, but even a small arms shop set doesn’t have these things and they’re what your basic mil-spec 91F, or civilian 6600 series repairer uses.
    Should it have these more specialized tools, as well as some others? Well, maybe it should, but Uncle doesn’t seem to think that lack is a serious enough problem to add them.
    However, I will grant that when I was in a unit where $$ wasn’t an object, I had a Brownells catalog, access to a GPC and pretty much anything I thought I needed to make my job easier.

    • WKL

      If you are a unit level armorer you can’t do much more than replace handguards. they aren’t allowed to make any other repairs. The USMC has a very comprehensive small arms repair kit and it will allow you to repair most of the small arms in inventory. But, we aren’t talking about MIL weapons or limitations.

      • milesfortis

        Yes, that’s for a 92Y unit supply specialist who has the additional duty tacked on of being a unit armorer.
        The difference being the MOS 91F (old 45B) smallarms/artillery repairer, who just happens to be issued the same small arms repair kit and shop set and uses the same tech manuals that your typical Marine MOS 2111 does for the same weapons when both are repairing them at the field/direct support level.

        And yes, the article wasn’t about the military, but when the word “milspec” starts getting bandied about and a viewpoint that “professionals” (and I’d who work on the M16 for a living wouldn’t deign to use tools that, for the most part, they actually do, I get intrigued. But that’s just from a few decades of personal, ‘professional’ experience, 1983 to 2014.

        Now, if you were a Marine 2111 small arms repairer tech, good on ya.
        I retired as a federal civil service WG-6610-10 small arms inspector after starting out as an active duty 41B.

  • JSmath

    Staggering the rings isn’t for proper seal but distributing load and wear – an important function especially within the context of being the equivalent of Grammar Nazis about the use or nonuse of installation tools. What people should take away is that staggering isn’t necessary but it’s STILL THE CORRECT WAY to do things.

    • Ken

      If it isn’t necessary then it isn’t “THE” correct way. It’s one correct way.

    • Wolfgar

      That is not true, go place your gas rings where you want them and then go shoot your rifle. Take it apart and you will see the rings had rotated. They move all the time when firing so the position of the rings is irrelevant.

  • Cal S.

    There’s a clear difference here for end users. The video is clearly intended for the hobbyist while you class was intended for, well, armorers or gunsmiths.

    For instance, I’ve put 2 AR lowers together from scratch (major accomplishment for me, but I know some of you who’ve put 50 together are rolling your eyes). One or two didn’t justify buying $300 in polymer jigs/vises or even tools that I would have to get in order to put it together to industry standard. Instead, I held that sucker in my bare hands (I work out) to get the various pins in or used my legs for a vice (in case you doubted) to get the buffer tube castle nut twisted on tightly. Was that in your armorer’s class? Is it industry standard? Nope. Did it work? Well, neither one of them has come apart or had a single malfunction so far.

    Point being, this video will work just fine for the amateur who just wants the satisfaction of knowing they put their own rifle together.

    Next time, I might just try and put the whole thing together myself. And, I very well may watch a free video off YouTube instead of paying $1,200 for an armorer’s course.

  • Well I decided to look up the military drawings for the assembly of the bolt carrier group and you, and Jake, forgot to mention to apply Permatex No. 3D Aviation Form-A-Gasket (liquid) around gas hole on bolt carrier prior to assembly. (dwg 8448505 RevJ). The same drawing says that you must stake both sides simultaneously, obviously near impossible to do without the proper expensive jigs. The depth called out for the stake shall be enough to be sufficient to give a removal torque of 55 to 100 in. lb. so unless the gas key screws were removed, there is no way to determine if the stake is sufficient to meet the drawing requirements. Now bolt assembly drawing (dwg 8448509 Rev H or dwg 12972691 no Rev shown), says the ring gaps must be staggered so if you did not do as Jake did then you are in error and your instructor is in error as well, unlike Jake.

    • Wolfgar

      The gas ring alignment is all bunk. The rings contently move during firing. A proper stake screw is a screw that does not back out. Mil spec does require Permatex Form A gasket but I have used Permatex thread locker with perfect results. Get five auto mechanics together and you will get five different opinions. This is what makes building an AR rifle enjoyable and sometimes argumentative.

      • Joseph Goins

        You keep speaking about mil-spec and you keep showing your ignorance of the subject. Where did you gain your information?

        • Wolfgar

          The specs have changed through the years but the last one I have was the Colt Armorer/Depot maintenance and Repair manual No CM102 dated 1991 which specs Permatex #3D Aviation form a gasket as the sealing compound for the carrier key. This is kinda common knowledge in the AR community.
          I have built many AR rifles in my life and wished to share some of what I have learned through the years. You don’t have to agree but there is no need to be rude or insulting. I know many other experienced AR rifle builders and competitors whom don’t always agree yet we never felt a need to get personal or insulting. Do as you wish.

          • The reason he ask, when the government says to do something you must do it to be acceptable to the specification they ordered the item under. If they ordered gray aircraft then you better not expect green colored aircraft to pass their specifications for acceptance. I quoted the drawings exactly and if people want an AR15 as close to military standards they need to meet the stands laid out in the drawings.

          • Wolfgar

            I never questioned any mil spec information. When staking the carrier key there is a different requirement if one is talking about a field repair or factory build. The torque specs have changed through the years, the latest I have seen are 34 to 40lbs. He called me ignorant and questioned my information so I gave it to him. I stated the mil spec sealant and an alternative that I have successfully used. I’m confused by what your point is?

          • Joseph Goins

            “He called me ignorant and questioned my information so I gave it to him.”
            What you gave me is not mil-spec. You gave me information from a repair manual. That is why I think you are ignorant about what mil-spec actually is. (Ignorance isn’t a bad thing; it simply means “lack of knowledge.”) The very concept of “mil-spec” is highly overrated in many regards because it isn’t always the same as “the best way to built” a gun. It simply is the exact standards that the military sets for its equipment when it receives it new from the suppliers. Using the history of the M4 for simplicity, Colt created the weapon and incorporated all of the relevant data (size, shape, angles, tolerances, type of metal, etc.) into a technical data packet. The Army then purchased all of their M4s from Colt according to the Army’s exact specifications (the original technical data packet plus any updates). In 2009-ish that changed when the Army received the packet from Colt which allowed the Army to open up bidding for contracts. At least Colt, Remington, and FN all received contracts and the technical data packets so their items could meet mil-spec. To date, the technical data packet (mil-spec) still hasn’t been made available to the general public or even to those companies for sale of non-military products. All we have are little snippets of earlier items that may or may not be accurate right now. (That changing standard is another reason why mil-spec is overrated.)

          • Wolfgar

            J Goins, please explain what I have stated that makes me ignorant LOL. What did I give you that wasn’t mil spec or in correct? Is it the fact that Colt uses a sealant on their gas key? They do as does Colt Canada on their rifles. If this Is not a mil spec requirement please show me the evidence. Is it the fact that staggering gas rings is irrelevant? It isn’t. If you feel you need to stagger your gas rings after you fire your AR so your rifle will stay mil spec by golly knock yourself out. The point of all this was the quality of or lack of quality of the instruction of the RR video.

          • Joseph Goins

            “If this Is not a mil spec requirement please show me the evidence.”
            If this is a mil spec requirement, please show me the evidence. You can’t do that shy of a maintenance manual.

          • Wolfgar

            That’s all you have LOL, hopeless!

          • Wow!

            Just ignore them Joseph. You presented facts, they just circle jerked around to avoid being shown up again.

          • Wolfgar

            Which facts are you talking about, he never gave any? Talk about about circle jerking.

          • WKL

            I wouldn’t argue with Joseph as he has no idea what he is talking about and his basing some of his information off of weapons he saw in his unit. He’s apparently never seen new issued weapons before or done any depot level work. I learned that after a few attempts to break through a thick head, you won’t get be successful.

          • Wolfgar

            Agreed, but hopefully newbies will be able to ignore his nonsense and will look for proper instruction. It helps to have people with real knowledge and experience to direct them. Cutting corners during assembly is not good advice. Semper Paratus Arms William Larson who instructed Patrick would be a wise and much better choice.

          • Wolfgar

            J Goins, mil spec is often a subject of research and debate. What many including myself have often thought was mil spec may not be. This is why we do research and communicate on blogs such as this to find the correct answer. The sealant on the Colt carrier may not be a mil spec but a proprietary method but I’m still waiting for your proof as such if you have any.

            Under the TM 9-1005-319-23&P manual you are mistaken about the mil spec factory staking with your scornful debate with WKL and comment to Patrick R. The factory side staking is clearly illustrated compared to the stagger field method in the TM 9-1005-319-23&P manual page 3-28 . You also stated you stake the screws not the key. This is also incorrect as it is clearly illustrated you stake the carrier key not the screw also on page 3-28. You maybe correct about the screw staking but I have seen no evidence of this other than from your snide remarks. What you are claiming is the BCM bolt carrier is not mil spec since the utilize the side stake method. Good luck with that one.

            Some of us wish to learn from these post and relay information respectfully to further our knowledge and help others since we have a love of firearm systems. Why you have to reply with contempt and scorn is beyond me. If a disagreement occurs how about using some manners and respect. Any A hole can be rude and insulting but that doesn’t benefit anyone including yourself.

          • Tom Currie

            Mongo — that is why the grey plastic “Aluminum Map Tacks” came with a note printed on the box pointing out that the word “aluminum” used in the specification for the item referred to the color, not to the material.

  • Joseph Goins

    @PatrickR If you are going to come back and edit your original article by adding (Note: The tool is not absolutely needed, but is the right way to do it), please at least do us the courtesy of #1 changing the headline to include the word “updated” and #2 placing the changes at the beginning or end of the article. Also remember that you are still being dogmatic when you use the phrase “the right way.” His method worked; you can’t fault him.

  • DropGun25

    This article and the comments attached are examples of the Gun snobbery that are pushing new blood away from this sport and branding shooters in a negative light. It’s extremely disheartening to see someone associated to TFB to be unnecessarily negative and point out completely pointless opinions about a video that pretends to do nothing more then to be informative to the casual shooter or prospective home smith.

    • 22winmag

      Faulting various “gun fails” videos and countless blogs and videos that spout religoin, politics, and general redneckedness would be like passing out speeding tickets at the Indianapolis 500. I’ve always felt the “online gun community” was the biggest deterrent to prospective new firearms owners. It’s nice to see TFB try to rise above the rip currents of politics and religion, but the comments section alone is enough to make most prospective first time gun buyers think twice.

    • Wolfgar

      Using correct torque values, exposing the myth of staggering gas rings, the
      importance of using correct tools and staking methods is not gun snobbery, pointless opinion or being unnecessarily negative. All the correct tools would cost no more than $123.00. Drop the cost of the staking tool since it is rarely needed and your looking at a total cost of $53.00. Hardly the work of gun snobbery LOL.

  • DGR

    This is a problem with the firearm community at large. Nit picking by random instructors who feel their way is the only way. I agree, the construction could have been done better and might not be the best role model to follow. But nit-picking over the use of pliers and not using a roll pin punch, come one man, this is why we cant have nice things!

  • stephen

    Apparently you don’t need to be competent, you just have to FEEL like you are.

    😉

  • Nimrod

    Who the hell builds a stripped bolt carrier group at home? I’ve rebuilt them but never built one from scratch.

  • 22winmag

    In my experience, roll pin punches always see to mangle roll pins quicker than appropriately sized flat punches. In my experience, I’ve never met a “properly staked gas key” that was easily removed with a crappy throwaway 2 inch long hex key.

    • Wolfgar

      You are using the wrong size roll pin punch if you are mangling the roll pin.

  • Wow!

    This easily goes in the category as one of the most obnoxious posts posts on TFB.

  • Mike Lashewitz

    After having looked at a lot of cheaply made weapons Rock River gets the credit for the worst. Like delivering pistols to dealers with bent front sights. As in bent nearly over.

  • Johnny

    After having attended a LEGIT armorers course, Patrick is definitely more qualified than the moron from Rock River. Their rifles are hobby grade at best.

  • TRUBOOST

    Another case of some serious gun snobbery. This is from the kind of guys that have a super over priced gun that is so “quality” and “precise” that it can only shoot 1 type of ammo that gets made by unicons and imported by pegasus. only cost $5 per round too. this guy did great. he assembled a BCG that will function just fine, with tools your average guy will already have. rather than spend more than the cost of the completed firearm on every stupid specialty tool in the brownells book.

    • Wolfgar

      Using correct torque values, exposing the myth of staggering gas rings, the
      importance
      of using correct tools and staking methods is not gun snobbery, All the correct tools
      would cost no more than $123.00. Drop the cost of the staking tool
      since it is rarely needed and your looking at a total cost of $53.00.
      Hardly the cost of a completed firearm LOL.

  • Cal S.

    Well, in all fairness I wore proper eye protection…

  • Wolfgar

    All you need for the upper is a $20.00 aluminum barrel block. If a person is going to build one or two rifles and is on a very tight budget it shouldn’t cost an arm and a leg to cover the important aspects of an AR build. The $16.00 take down pin detent tool is worth every penny having lost too many without it. The better the tool the better and easier the build will be. The trick is knowing which is best for the individual needs and expected out come. Skipping on proper torque, promoting the staggering gas ring myth and recommending the use of proper tools is not unreasonable. Deciding on which will always create debate.