View Single Post
Old October 13, 2018, 00:21   #5
Combloc
Registered
 
FALaholic #: 55596
Join Date: Aug 2010
Location: Maryland
Posts: 960
You're welcome. I enjoy doing this stuff for some reason.


In this post, we're mostly going to look at the receiver. I'll post some pictures of the welds, markings, screwups and overall workmanship.

Let's start with the markings. Of course, the original receivers had all of the markings stamped into the sheet metal and then filled in with white paint. I had planned fill in the serial number, magazine well markings and manufacturer's logo on this rifle in a similar fashion but it was a no go because they are too shallow. In fact, I'm not even sure they were stamped because I've never seen anything like them. Maybe they were laser cut?? I have no idea; maybe you guys will know:

Notice that the characters aren't even indented into the steel. It's more like an outline than anything else and the lines are so thin and shallow I'm not sure you could paint it in such a way as to make it look anywhere near attractive. You'd probably just end up with a sloppy mess. I did the best I could with the safety markings and they look just ok in person but a closeup reveals just how bad they turned out:

I guess the above is not a complaint really. I mean, the markings are neat and well done so there is no real reason to complain. I just would have like to have filled them in for a more accurate look.


For the most part, the welds on the AMG are extremely well done. By that I mean most are as good or better than on my HK's. A couple are a bit wonky but, overall, I'm very pleased with them.


Here is the area where the barrel and cocking tube plug into the receiver:

The two spot welds for the trunnion are excellent. The cocking tube weld on the right is original Santa Barbara work while the one on the left was done by HMG. There is a clear quality difference between the two. That's not to say the HMG weld it terrible or ugly but the original is much more pleasing to the eye. Notice too the reinforcing rib stamped into the receiver at the left of the picture. It is very crisp and straight. All of the reinforcing ribs on the receiver are just as well done. Although the receiver stamping is not 100% accurate to the original, HMG clearly spent some cash on Quality dies.


Here is another example of the reinforcing ribs showing how clean and neat the stamping is:

Notice too how well executed the radius is where the top of the receiver transitions into the side. Excellent work here.


Here is the left front side again showing a comparison between Santa Barbara and HMG welds on the cocking tube:

Nice spot welds on the trunnion again and note the well executed compound curves where the magazine well meets the main body of the receiver.


Here, we see the front of the trunnion. Lots of parts are coming together here and I have nothing but good to say about it.



Beautiful welding along the bottom seam and front of the magazine well:




The rear of the magazine housing is extremely well executed too:




Bottom of magazine housing showing both finely stamped reinforcing ribs and nicely squared opening. This is clearly NOT a century built CETME:



It's not all cookies and cream though. Here we see the rear of the trunnion where it meets the bolt carrier guide rails:

It looks nice and neat and it is. BUT, if you look at an original rifle, this area is covered in weld so that you can't even see the trunnion. Then it is ground down forming a nicely shaped ramp that runs from the guide rail up to the bulge covering the trunnion. I'm probably not explaining it very well but you'll see what I mean if you look at some pictures of an original L.


The attaching welds on the left side of the rear sight base look pretty good:



But the front weld on the right side is pretty bad:

Notice the voids/pitting.


For some reason lost on me, HMG didn't flair out the rear of the ejection port:
It's not a huge deal but it should be present. They obviously put a lot of work into designing the receiver so why goof the ejection port?? You can also see where the brass hits the side of the receiver and bungs up the finish. These marks were on there when the rifle was shipped out from HMG so they obviously did a decent amount of test firing.


We'll finish up this post by looking at the rear of the receiver.

First up is a look at the cross section:

We can see nice radii and overall symmetry. At the bottom of the receiver is a milled reinforcing block. Personally, I would have filled the two lower corner voids with some weld and ground it smooth just to give it a more finished and professional look. No, it's not necessary but you know SIG would have!


Here is the bottom rear of the receiver showing some fine workmanship. You can't see any seams at all:



Unfortunately, the otherwise exemplary work at the rear of the receiver is badly undermined when we look at the side where the stock pins pass through:

Rant on. The above picture shows the worst craftsmanship on the entire rifle. Yes, that wobbly sight is pretty bad too but this is just horrid.
"Hey Hill, something went wrong with the jigs. These holes aren't lining up!"
"Don't worry about it Mac. Just ram that thing in a vice and egg out the holes. It'll be aright!!"
It works and it'll probably never give me any problems. And the pins go in easily enough so long as you turn them so that their retaining springs pass through the smooth side of the hole but come on guy's. This is really pretty shoddy work right here. My only two real complaints about this rifle are the funky stock pin holes and the wobbly sight. Otherwise, it's a real winner. Rant off.



That's it for tonight. In the last post, we'll look at the innards and a few other bits and compare some of them to HK93 innards and bits. I'll also tell you my shooting impressions and wrap it up. Okiedokie...bye for now!
__________________
I ain't too bright!
Forums are for furthering knowledge, not bragging about what you've got.
Combloc is online now   Reply With Quote