Jump to content

Bottoming out the "op rod", OAL questions...


Recommended Posts

I drilled out my operating rod dimples to pin it in place, that's some hard steel. The op rod wasn't bottomed out in the carrier, I know its typical. It was threaded in at 3.367" and I can screw it in (bottomed out) to a shorter length of 3.316". What effect will this have on the gas system and functional operation if I pinned it at the shorter OAL? Should I try and use a filler of some sort to take up the extra space and keep it at 3.367"? Opinions?

Link to post
Share on other sites

As the factory have set the OAL to a different length than would be achieved by simply screwing the rod all the way in, I would suggest that it would be important to keep this length. After all it would be easier and quicker to just screw it all the way in, so why haven't they?

I am in the same boat, as my carrier has cracked ,and needs welding. It was always 'loose and wobbly' out of the box. I propose to have a longer op rod machined up, and then shave it down progressively until the original OAL is achieved with the rod screwed in tight, then pin the rod in place.

You could use shim stock to take up the slack, but a longer rod seemed a more elegant solution. Might even try to get a Titanium version done if I can find someone to do it !

I do have slight concerns that if  the factory left the rod 'loose and wobbly' that there may be a reason, and that I may be changing the function by tightening the rod up. Will have to see. The R&R carrier I think has a tight rod and seems to work well. 

Link to post
Share on other sites

I assume this is Saiga 12

too much free space between puck and op rod allows the puck to hammer the carrier.

 

Most of them I measured several years ago ,  had about .025 clearance before bottoming on the puck  so that's  how I used to set them up.

 

I never saw any official numbers for this, and someone else on the forum may know more

Link to post
Share on other sites

Yes, Saiga 12.

One other idea I was toying with was the CSS performance puck with the little nipple on it, installed backwards with the nipple towards the op rod. If the body of it is the same length as the OE puck, than that nipple could potentially be very close to the difference I measured in mine, .051". I'll contact Greg @ CSS and see what he thinks. I'm betting that nipple isn't designed to take the force of contacting the op rod though.

 

 

Also, playing around with it, I am able to thread the op rod into the carrier without being bottomed out and with no wobble, at an OAL of 3.339", so a little closer to the original OAL.

Edited by Mullet Man
Link to post
Share on other sites

As the factory have set the OAL to a different length than would be achieved by simply screwing the rod all the way in, I would suggest that it would be important to keep this length. After all it would be easier and quicker to just screw it all the way in, so why haven't they?

I am in the same boat, as my carrier has cracked ,and needs welding. It was always 'loose and wobbly' out of the box. I propose to have a longer op rod machined up, and then shave it down progressively until the original OAL is achieved with the rod screwed in tight, then pin the rod in place.

You could use shim stock to take up the slack, but a longer rod seemed a more elegant solution. Might even try to get a Titanium version done if I can find someone to do it !

I do have slight concerns that if  the factory left the rod 'loose and wobbly' that there may be a reason, and that I may be changing the function by tightening the rod up. Will have to see. The R&R carrier I think has a tight rod and seems to work well. 

There isn't a whole lot about these guns coming out of the factory, that I trust as gospel.

Having a new rod machined wouldn't be that big a deal, it doesn't need to be contoured like the OE rod. It just needs threaded on one end, cut to the right length and hardened.

Link to post
Share on other sites

I have one of the CSS pucks and I've found it does, indeed, help with cycling.  Two or three years ago, Pauly  wrote that he had found the puck to increase reliability, with the nipple toward the op rod.  When you install the puck with the nipple toward the op rod, it rests against the op rod and there is no play (rock the shotty back and forth (muzzle up then down) with a regular puck.  You can feel and hear the puck move.  Then swap it out for the CSS puck and rock it back and forth--you will feel or hear nothing.  When the shotty is fired, the puck shoves, rather than strikes, the op rod, making for a longer push.  In fact, it was Pauly's  write up that decided the issue for me as far as acquiring one for my own use!

Link to post
Share on other sites

When messing with the op rod -  be sure the bolt locks FULLY into the lugs when 'home'. The bolt must achieve full rotation. Shouldn't be a problem, but always check!

10-4 to that.

Edited by Mullet Man
Link to post
Share on other sites

Join the conversation

You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.

Guest
Reply to this topic...

×   Pasted as rich text.   Paste as plain text instead

  Only 75 emoji are allowed.

×   Your link has been automatically embedded.   Display as a link instead

×   Your previous content has been restored.   Clear editor

×   You cannot paste images directly. Upload or insert images from URL.

Loading...
  • Chatbox

    Load More
    You don't have permission to chat.
×
×
  • Create New...