Tapco G2 gives resistance to bolt (pics)

[Agent Lemon 157]

I recently converted a 7.62, and noticed that the G2 FCG was giving resistance to the bolt operation. It cycled just fine at the range and all, but if I pull back the handle and then stop at the spot where it gives resistance, the bolt just stays open. Then if I shake the rifle the bolt slams home.

 

I thought that the hammer just needs to re-profile or something, so I put the original one back in. The original Saiga hammer causes a little less resistance, probably because it has polished itself from previous use. The saiga stock hammer still wants to stop the bolt at the same spot, and resistance is felt, but it never stops the bolt. When comparing the hammers side by side they look the same size.

 

When comparing a stock saiga and the conversion, I noticed that the rest of the FCG on the G2 allows the hammer to sit higher, and closer to the rails on the inside of the receiver. In the stock saiga, there is some clearance between the top of the hammer and the bottom of inside rails.

 

Does anybody else have this happening to them or did I get a faulty FCG? Does the Arsenal FCG also let the hammer rest slightly above the rails on the inside? It would be nice if somebody could check for clearance between an Arsenal FCG and the bottom of the rails on the side of the receiver.

 

I want the hammer to give the same resistance as the stock saiga if possible. Above all I want an all U.S. made FCG (for compliance reasons) that sits at the same height as the stock config. so that everything functions smooth. What are some options?

 

Here are some pictures showing what I mean. I was using the wrench that came with the bullet guide, BTW.

 

http://i.imgur.com/eHGWg.jpg

 

http://i.imgur.com/cPq7u.jpg

 

http://i.imgur.com/APqTM.jpg

 

 

Video of the bolt stopping on top of the hammer

http://youtu.be/TAAYs1LKD_8

 

Help please

[TARE 47]

Reprofile the hammer face to match the factory, I bet you could find a nice tutorial if you looked, otherwise try to match the G2 to the factory by lining up the pin hole and the shelfs on the side of the hammer face, then take notice of where the Tapco hammer face needs to be reduced, leave the same higher point but smooth the transitions. I'd go into more detail, but there are previous multiple reply topics on this subject

 

http://forum.saiga-12.com/index.php?/topic/50571-how-do-i-polish-the-bolt/

[Agent Lemon 157]

I would re-do the hammer, but only as a last resort. This is because the problem isnt exactly in the hammer, but in the disconnector/trigger. The hooks on trigger/disconnector are a bit larger/higher than the stock saiga ones, and therefore allow the hammer to rest higher than stock (i think, i havent actually compared the two as of yet).

 

If I were to re-do the hammer, then it would be more like the stock (if i understand correctly). But I have already tried putting the actual stock hammer in with the 2 other G2 parts, and there is still unwanted resistance against the bolt (just not as much as to actually stop the bolt as with the G2 hammer). Once again due to larger hooks on G2 group.

 

I was wondering if the Arsenal trigger/disconnector also have larger hooks which allow the hammer to sit higher, or if they are lower like in the stock saiga.

[jimdigriz 580]

If it works with live fire, leave it alone. It will probably wear in after a bit of use. I had a friend with an S308 whose bolt actually hung up often on the G2 when firing during the first 100 rounds; it worked itself out and doesn't do that anymore.

[Agent Lemon 157]

Meh.

 

I filed/sanded/polished the G2 hammer a bit, and it now seems to work kind of like the saiga stock/G2 trigger combo. It does not hold the carrier group anymore, but there is still resistance felt.

 

I might as well work on it some more since the hammer hits the firing pin in a slight angle and I've heard that this can deform the back of the bolt a bit.

 

Also I took out the entire G2 FCG to compare with the stock saiga, and as suspected the hook that holds the hammer is a bit larger. Well, not exactly larger, but thinner on the inside part of it, allowing the hammer to be held a little higher than stock. This is what causes the hammer to protrude above the rails and snag on the carrier group.

 

What I want to find though for the next conversion, is a trigger that has a hook that holds the hammer low like in the stock saiga. I'm not a fan of modding FCG parts by hand to make em fit, and would rather have something precision machined

 

Any ideas on who makes such a trigger?

Edited December 4, 2011 by Agent Lemon

[geepelton 105]

I'm sure you have enough 922 parts, put the factory hammer back in if your that worried about it.

[Agent Lemon 157]

So did my G2 trigger work as intended? As in, does it behave like this to everyone who puts it into their converted 7.62? Does this mean that everybody who uses a G2 in their conversion re-profiles their hammers to work right?

 

Also what about Arsenal/K-var (same company?)? Do they also buy regular triggers and then modify them to fit, or do they produce their own drop-in triggers that work without snagging in the first place? Do they modify regular IZ-132s like I did?

 

P.S. almost forgot-

 

I'm sure you have enough 922 parts, put the factory hammer back in if your that worried about it.

 

The problem is that although the factory hammer does not stop the carrier, it still gives more resistance than it does in a factory untouched stock saiga. The whole point is that I want a hammer that has the same low resistance as a factory stock saiga. The cause of this has been pinpointed already also.

 

Am I making any sense whatsoever?

Edited December 4, 2011 by Agent Lemon

[jimdigriz 580]

The whole point is that I want a hammer that has the same low resistance as a factory stock saiga.

 

Why?

 

You are probably overthinking things more than a little...

[geepelton 105]

Have you shot it yet?

[Agent Lemon 157]

Have you shot it yet?

 

Yup, cycled just fine even when the carrier group was able to stick on the hammer.

 

But,

 

 

Why?

 

You are probably overthinking things more than a little...

 

Probably. I just had something that I would call a problem, so I gave as much info about it as possible to try and find a good solution.

 

I just like to have things done right, I guess. Therefore, I would like a FCG that works as intended from the very beginning, instead of me having to file it down. I understand that the AK is a simple design, and as long as the hammer hits the firing pin it fires, but I would rather have a factory machined FCG that does not snag and also hits the firing pin straight.

 

Is this absurd/ unheard of in the Saiga conversion world?

 

I still haven't heard any responses if everybody has to file down their G2 hammers, or if Arsenal FCGs have a lower hammer that does not snag to begin with. Anybody know?

[TJohn 8]

Agent Lemon said: "I still haven't heard any responses if everybody has to file down their G2 hammers, or if Arsenal FCGs have a lower hammer that does not snag to begin with. Anybody know?"

 

I have not filed down the hammer on any of the five conversions I have done using G2 trigger groups. Must just be me, other than the first pull of the bolt after installation, I cannot tell that the G2 has any more resistance than the stock Saiga hammers did. They seem to have worn in just fine.

 

As for sticking or snagging the carrier group, I have been able to make the carrier group stick on stock Saiga hammers when the rifles were new.

Edited December 5, 2011 by TJohn

[jimdigriz 580]

Probably. I just had something that I would call a problem, so I gave as much info about it as possible to try and find a good solution.

 

I just like to have things done right, I guess. Therefore, I would like a FCG that works as intended from the very beginning, instead of me having to file it down. I understand that the AK is a simple design, and as long as the hammer hits the firing pin it fires, but I would rather have a factory machined FCG that does not snag and also hits the firing pin straight.

 

Is this absurd/ unheard of in the Saiga conversion world?

 

I still haven't heard any responses if everybody has to file down their G2 hammers, or if Arsenal FCGs have a lower hammer that does not snag to begin with. Anybody know?

 

The Arsenal FCG I had did it worse. It is not uncommon for a FCG to do this, especially at first.

 

I would recommend against filing the hammer. You might end up with unexpected behaviors. Keep shooting, and this "problem" will likely go away on its own very soon.

[sidewinder11 7]

Stay away from Arsenal FCG. Just shoot the G2 it will break in and get smoother

[Agent Lemon 157]

 

I would recommend against filing the hammer. You might end up with unexpected behaviors.

 

Well, I already filed/sanded/polished it a little bit to make it stop snagging/stopping the carrier. This also made the hammer hit the firing pin at less of an angle (which I consider good because I seen a thread on here about a G2 hammer bending the back of a bolt because of the angle of strike). The now more rounded edges on the hammer also make everything work smoother.

 

What do you mean by unexpected behaviors though? It wont go full auto on me from what I did to it, will it ?

 

I just want everything to be as perfect as possible (heh, good luck right?), but ill have to use the stock hammer or an untouched G2 one if the "mod" I did is at risk of creating dangerous behavior.

 

Edit: its not gonna give me slam-fires or anything, is it? What causes slam-fires?

Edited December 5, 2011 by Agent Lemon

[DrThunder88 912]

Slam fires are caused by firing pins that are either stuck in the forward position or too heavy too be held back by the firing pin if there is one. Reprofiling the hammer may risk a light strike being delivered to the primer, resulting in a mis- or hangfire.

 

I actually like the resistance the Tapco trigger has. It doesn't interfere with normal operation and works as a bolt hold open at the range. The only time I'd see it posing a problem is if I'm running black ops under the cover of night and I need to perform a silent field strip while within earshot of an enemy patrol. But since that's as unlikely a situation as a T. rex pooping in my yard, I'm not too worried.

[Agent Lemon 157]

I wanna thank everybody for posting so far. I no longer have any questions/ concerns that I can think of, and from the looks of it, the G2 resistance is normal .

 

Although I'd still rather sand the hammer down a bit/ polish it in future conversions. Id rather slightly mod a hammer than have the hammer/bolt carrier modify themselves together from each others friction.

[Scott Kenny 144]

Considering how many parts on an AR are supposed to be a matched set, I'm pretty sure you're nuking the problem (as in, massively overthinking it).

 

I know that the G2 I put in Petra was a little more drag on the bolt (fix it when I take the gun to Pauley for Glassbolt), but the break was so much better it wasn't even funny.

[uzitiger 193]

I used a Century FCG on my first conversion and TAPCO on the second. I have the same problem with the TAPCO but a friend who has more experience with AK building told me that it will wear away with use. The Century disconnector tail had to ground off to eliminate the painful trigger slap.

 

זה מאוד מעצבן

[Agent Lemon 157]

I have since been using the stock Saiga hammer, since I am perfectly compliant and dont want to have to fiddle with things.

 

The Arsenal FCG from Dinzag (the modified one that fits with the BHO) has the hammer surface polished very nicely, and I don't think that it binds anything. This is only true when used with the G2 trigger/disconnector, though, as the Arsenals trigger has a very high sitting trigger hook, which makes even the OEM hammer sometimes bind the carrier.

 

But yeah, any hammer that binds things will wear out until it is smooth, but this will wear out the bolt carrier too, which I don't want to happen.