grayfox Wrote:Has not happened to me with all the grendels I shot/shoot, but then again I do not get barrels smoking, nor fire 60 constant - sounds like "as close to 1 sec/ea as you could" - nor do I do it with steel case ammo. And as I understand it, the shorter the barrel, the harder the cycling. I personally do not consider the Grendel a blaster-type rifle.

No offense intended but regardless of the bolt or the replacement, you need to examine the operator procedures and operating parameters first.

VASCAR2 Wrote:Sorry to hear about your bolt and if I needed a replacement 6.5 Grendel bolt I’d use a group buy Monster logo bolt manufactured by Millennium. Other quality bolts are Alexander Arms and Maxim. JP bolts get good reviews.

Two areas of concern which might accelerate bolt wear is a receiver that is not square resulting in the bolt not being square with the barrel extension. If this is a carbine gas 14.5” barrel the upper might be over gassed which can put more stress on the bolt.

Depending on the number of rounds on the bolt might indicate poor heat treat. If the bolt failed on the first 80 rounds of Wolf steel cased ammo I’d suspect a faulty bolt. If the bolt lasted several hundred to thousands of rounds I’d look at contributing causes which lead to bolt failures.

Bronz Wrote:Not looking for a fight but care to elaborate on your last paragraph.

I was operating the rifle to or what should be under it’s operating parameters. I was literally firing a shot and saying in my head 1 Mississippi and firing another shot. Now, if that questions what you think is outside of an AR platform rifle well that’s your opinion. It shouldn’t be, 60 rds is not that much.

grayfox Wrote:Sure I will elaborate. And this is all my own opinion, you can take it for that as input and make your own decisions. I was "brought up" in engineering terms in the US nuclear navy, and a chief principle was, even though we had operating parameters and were designed as a (multi-billion) warship to operate in battle conditions, one of the primary rules was you do not over-stress your equipment beyond what is needed for the job at hand. 2 pumps in slow are better than 1 in fast even though both of those were acceptable operation. Like I said this is just my own point of view.

I would view a 556 or similar AR as more suited to a sustained, rapid fire situation than the Grendel, again, IMO. The Grendel has more bolt cross-sectional area and thrust, and has a thinner face/rim to handle the larger case bottom, these 2 things contribute to a larger thrust and force against the bolt lugs (anyway this is how I understand it) -- this all being said sustain-fire is probably taken into account of somehow in this design, notwithstanding.

The Grrr, however IMO, is more of a select your target and fire for accuracy, not fire for effect or suppressing fire, or other terms that I'm not as familiar with... so this all being said you could be right that it was all inside of AR parameters.... but for my money, if I'm not at war, and not in a rapid-fire-needed situation, I would personally not be inclined to do that type of firing. I probably differ in this viewpoint from others but that's the $0.02 that I would advise.

grayfox Wrote:Sure I will elaborate. And this is all my own opinion, you can take it for that as input and make your own decisions. I was "brought up" in engineering terms in the US nuclear navy, and a chief principle was, even though we had operating parameters and were designed as a (multi-billion) warship to operate in battle conditions, one of the primary rules was you do not over-stress your equipment beyond what is needed for the job at hand. 2 pumps in slow are better than 1 in fast even though both of those were acceptable operation. Like I said this is just my own point of view.

I would view a 556 or similar AR as more suited to a sustained, rapid fire situation than the Grendel, again, IMO. The Grendel has more bolt cross-sectional area and thrust, and has a thinner face/rim to handle the larger case bottom, these 2 things contribute to a larger thrust and force against the bolt lugs (anyway this is how I understand it) -- this all being said sustain-fire is probably taken into account of somehow in this design, notwithstanding.

The Grrr, however IMO, is more of a select your target and fire for accuracy, not fire for effect or suppressing fire, or other terms that I'm not as familiar with... so this all being said you could be right that it was all inside of AR parameters.... but for my money, if I'm not at war, and not in a rapid-fire-needed situation, I would personally not be inclined to do that type of firing. I probably differ in this viewpoint from others but that's the $0.02 that I would advise.

Lemonaid Wrote:https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=BSizVpfqFtw

That wasn't you in the above video was it Bronz?

Bronz Wrote:With that mindset sir why do we have cars with speedometers that go to 200 but we are only supposed to go 55. Now would I fire my match M1a like that no, but an AR should be able to get hot and not fail.
Hopefully it was just a fluke.

I like your signature quote. Best on the forum.

mdram Wrote:lets see if i can post that pic for ya