Finally, I’ve made the step up to PA6-CF. Where I live it’s humid as fuck. That’s why I was totally set on using PA612… then I found out about PA12… and then I read here and saw someone mentioning PPA-CF / PAHT-CF.

Question: I know PA12-CF is quite a bit less hygroscopic… but does it still have enough strength anyway for a 5.56 lower? Same question for PPA-CF.

And by the way: if some of my posts sound weird or poorly worded, it’s because I’m using the “translation method” I just learned in the stealth section. Just to be safe.

  • Kopsis@forum.guncadindex.comEnglish
    2·
    20 days ago

    Anti-walk (really, anti-rotation) pins are of dubious value for a milspec receiver. The idea is that you want the hammer and trigger to rotate on their pins, but friction can cause the whole pin to rotate. That puts wear on the pin holes in the receiver, which really can’t be fixed without going to oversize pins. But this is really a tens of thousands of rounds with no lube kind of problem, so not relevant for most recreational shooters.

    But for a printed receiver, the stamped steel “dogbone” plate takes some of the stress off the receiver pin holes. The hammer spring is constantly pushing the hammer pin away from the trigger pin. Tying them together with a metal plate helps prevent creep (which is the result of a constant stress over an extended period of time).

    None of the Amazon offerings are particularly high quality. But most 3D printed guns aren’t duty-grade or precision competition guns. I’ve used an assortment of Chinese anti-walk pins and they’ve all been “good enough”.