DeLane Development Group Rimfire Ventures
- Thread starter RAVAGE88
- Start date
I've spoken a bit about my M5x DBM and described verbally the difference between the "x" and the de-facto standard M5, so I thought I'd show everyone what the "x" is all about.
Notice the circled protrusion with a blind hole that houses the Pre-Load Piston, and, in some stocks, material will need to be relieved to allow the fitment of the protrusion.
One will note that in the DDG Lot Test Fixture, there's no "wall" of material between the mag box feature and trigger inlet area of the stock. If one has a stock with a wall of material there, simply remove enough of the material to allow the protrusion on the DBM. Everything else about the "x" is all standard M5.
The only other area to be revised is on the bottom of the receiver (rimfire and centerfire alike), just ahead of the trigger pocket. A small, blind depth plunge with a 1/4" end mill creates a pocket that allows the vertical movement of the piston when the magazine is inserted into the DBM.
All of my new actions will be set up from the jump with the features that accommodate the Pre-Load Piston.
MB
Notice the circled protrusion with a blind hole that houses the Pre-Load Piston, and, in some stocks, material will need to be relieved to allow the fitment of the protrusion.
One will note that in the DDG Lot Test Fixture, there's no "wall" of material between the mag box feature and trigger inlet area of the stock. If one has a stock with a wall of material there, simply remove enough of the material to allow the protrusion on the DBM. Everything else about the "x" is all standard M5.
The only other area to be revised is on the bottom of the receiver (rimfire and centerfire alike), just ahead of the trigger pocket. A small, blind depth plunge with a 1/4" end mill creates a pocket that allows the vertical movement of the piston when the magazine is inserted into the DBM.
All of my new actions will be set up from the jump with the features that accommodate the Pre-Load Piston.
MB
Today's question: Skirt or no skirt?
Todd McBee sparked a few thoughts the other day and while I have a sample of the DDG M5x being 3D printed by my long-time friend and fellow pilot, Josh Kunz at Patriot Valley Arms, I figured I'd toss this question out to gather a few opinions about a skirt that rides the three-degree stock line, a la, the MDT DBM.
I've noted a few advantages by having a skirt there, the greater of them being the addition of material allows for a more prominent flare for the opening, which aids in allowing seamless mag changes.
At the moment, I've dealt with this without the skirt in the DDG M5 and M5x DBMs I'm about to release, but there are some who seem to like it. I'm not one copy someone else's product, so, just how important is the skirt to you guys?
MB
Todd McBee sparked a few thoughts the other day and while I have a sample of the DDG M5x being 3D printed by my long-time friend and fellow pilot, Josh Kunz at Patriot Valley Arms, I figured I'd toss this question out to gather a few opinions about a skirt that rides the three-degree stock line, a la, the MDT DBM.
I've noted a few advantages by having a skirt there, the greater of them being the addition of material allows for a more prominent flare for the opening, which aids in allowing seamless mag changes.
At the moment, I've dealt with this without the skirt in the DDG M5 and M5x DBMs I'm about to release, but there are some who seem to like it. I'm not one copy someone else's product, so, just how important is the skirt to you guys?
MB
More flare is nice for mag changes for sure, but I care more about the material in front of the magazine. A longer barricade stop in front to protect the magazine is more important to me.
Because we are discussing bottom metal. Is this protrusion (name?) required? Looking to learn & understand in greater detail its purpose and if it’s worth adding
Thanks,
Doc
Gen 1 and the early Gen 2 were two piece receivers and there are two issued patents for my design. This is how I was able to eliminate the lug ways propagating the full length of the receiver bore, like the 40X Rimfire. Shortly into Gen 2 production, the receiver became one-piece.
The bolt handle is friction welded to the bolt body. There's a machine that spins a blank (that becomes the bolt body) at 4400 RPM while the handle blank is held stationary. As the bolt body blank spins, it is moved toward the handle blank until the point of contact. The friction creates heat and welding of the material occurs. What stops the spinning is the adhesion of the two parts.
This goes back to the early production of Phoenix Machine and Defiance Machine bolt blanks prior to the falling out between Glen Harrison and Ken Frankel, resulting in Defiance Machine bringing all their production in-house.
MB
It's not required and I have removed it from my DBMs. I believe it originally appeared on the early Surgeon DBMs.
MB
Mornin, All,
I haven't updated here for a while as things have become incredibly busy. All updates for Parts Kits, Receiver Wrenches, Lot Test Fixtures, DBMs and new action designs are occurring in my FB group.
Thank you to all who provided answers to my questions about DBM features. As has always been the case, I watch and listen to this community and execute what I see and hear in community driven design and development. What you see below is the result of your answers; a PRS/NRL inspired DBM with the M5 inlet. I normally wouldn't splash this and other stuff so early, but copiers will be copiers no matter when it makes it to public view.
Pictured is the full blown M5x with a true flared mag well, Pre-Load Piston and some other things I'm not showing or speaking about yet. There's also a Mini-ARCA for a Barricade Stop that's available in numerous thicknesses. Putting the Barri-Stop this far back allows one to get the rifle further forward, to the balance point.
The line of DBMs is cooking along in parallel and will be available soon.
MB
I haven't updated here for a while as things have become incredibly busy. All updates for Parts Kits, Receiver Wrenches, Lot Test Fixtures, DBMs and new action designs are occurring in my FB group.
Thank you to all who provided answers to my questions about DBM features. As has always been the case, I watch and listen to this community and execute what I see and hear in community driven design and development. What you see below is the result of your answers; a PRS/NRL inspired DBM with the M5 inlet. I normally wouldn't splash this and other stuff so early, but copiers will be copiers no matter when it makes it to public view.
Pictured is the full blown M5x with a true flared mag well, Pre-Load Piston and some other things I'm not showing or speaking about yet. There's also a Mini-ARCA for a Barricade Stop that's available in numerous thicknesses. Putting the Barri-Stop this far back allows one to get the rifle further forward, to the balance point.
The line of DBMs is cooking along in parallel and will be available soon.
MB
Ok, after yesterday's post showing the DDG M5x DBM System, I've received tons of questions about my Pre-Load Piston (PLP). So, I figured I'd give a y'all a better look at what it is, what it does, and how one makes it a part of his/her shooting platform.
As one can see, when the magazine is inserted, it forces the PLP upward by acting on a surface on the tab of the PLP. The PLP is under pressure from an internal spring and this pressure acts upon the top surface of the magazine.
This pressure forces the magazine downward, trapping it between the tab on the PLP and the magazine release. At this point, the magazine is not free to bounce up and down and it has resistance to moving about the lateral axis (the magazine can't tilt forward and down).
So, how does one make the M5x fit his/her stock? As one can see from the attached photo of the inletting in a McMillan stock, I've colored the area in red that needs to be removed. Thanks to four cups of coffee, I colored the area a little larger than it actually needs to be, but one can easily get an idea of how simple it is to fit the M5x in his/her stock.
The DDG M5 DBM drops right in without any revisions.
Because the PLP needs a bit of headroom to move upward when the magazine is inserted, a small revision is made to the receiver by pushing the forward wall of the trigger pocket forward. I've attached a 3D assembly below that I posted recently, and one can see the small area in question. I don't recommend this revision be performed with a hand mill (Dremel), but instead, a manual mill like a Bridgeport or in a CNC. It's actually quite a simple operation.
There's one additional feature that's part of the full-on system (Magazine, M5 and M5x DBMs, New Rimfire Bolt Action) that I'm not showing yet that will make all this make more sense when one sees it. But the goals are to continue with envisioning and creating the exceptional to continue to push the boundaries of increasing accuracy and overall performance of the Rimfire Shooting System.
Hope this helps and feel free to keep the questions coming.
MB
As one can see, when the magazine is inserted, it forces the PLP upward by acting on a surface on the tab of the PLP. The PLP is under pressure from an internal spring and this pressure acts upon the top surface of the magazine.
This pressure forces the magazine downward, trapping it between the tab on the PLP and the magazine release. At this point, the magazine is not free to bounce up and down and it has resistance to moving about the lateral axis (the magazine can't tilt forward and down).
So, how does one make the M5x fit his/her stock? As one can see from the attached photo of the inletting in a McMillan stock, I've colored the area in red that needs to be removed. Thanks to four cups of coffee, I colored the area a little larger than it actually needs to be, but one can easily get an idea of how simple it is to fit the M5x in his/her stock.
The DDG M5 DBM drops right in without any revisions.
Because the PLP needs a bit of headroom to move upward when the magazine is inserted, a small revision is made to the receiver by pushing the forward wall of the trigger pocket forward. I've attached a 3D assembly below that I posted recently, and one can see the small area in question. I don't recommend this revision be performed with a hand mill (Dremel), but instead, a manual mill like a Bridgeport or in a CNC. It's actually quite a simple operation.
There's one additional feature that's part of the full-on system (Magazine, M5 and M5x DBMs, New Rimfire Bolt Action) that I'm not showing yet that will make all this make more sense when one sees it. But the goals are to continue with envisioning and creating the exceptional to continue to push the boundaries of increasing accuracy and overall performance of the Rimfire Shooting System.
Hope this helps and feel free to keep the questions coming.
MB
Last edited:
While I applaud the piston and have absolutely no experience with it, my experience with vudoo mag failure has neen the rear mag tab hooking into the mag release acts as a pivot point allowing the mag front side to dip down when the rifle is jammed into a bag or barrier prop.
This was partially fixed by the industry offering longer “ file to fit” mag releases that get the mag up closer to the action with less pivoting. The real problem is the mags are physically smaller than the m5 pattern magwell, allowing enough room to pivot. That is why people stick velcro or something else the the mag to take up this wiggle room and keep the mag vertical.
I have tried installing set screws with rounded bottoms in both the front and the rear of the m5 magwell to eliminate this slop. The problem with getting a perfect rock free fit then induced a non drop- free situation where the mag would hang up without physically grabbing it out. I prefer the mag to drop free by itself , so I currently am just using longer mag releases in my vudoos for competition.
These pics are a good 5-6 years old, but are still relevant
This was partially fixed by the industry offering longer “ file to fit” mag releases that get the mag up closer to the action with less pivoting. The real problem is the mags are physically smaller than the m5 pattern magwell, allowing enough room to pivot. That is why people stick velcro or something else the the mag to take up this wiggle room and keep the mag vertical.
I have tried installing set screws with rounded bottoms in both the front and the rear of the m5 magwell to eliminate this slop. The problem with getting a perfect rock free fit then induced a non drop- free situation where the mag would hang up without physically grabbing it out. I prefer the mag to drop free by itself , so I currently am just using longer mag releases in my vudoos for competition.
These pics are a good 5-6 years old, but are still relevant
Yessir, your info is accurate and relevant, but the data actually goes a bit deeper. Additionally, the legacy magazines that became V-22 magazines were of the proper dimensions and designed to work optimally in my original DBM, which was dimensioned off the actual Accuracy International prints, no different than the BO M5.
Outside of those two DBMs, the movement based on pressure from a bag and a multitude of other feeding issues are symptoms of greater issues that have nothing to do with the magazine at all. In fact, "grind-to-length" mag releases were a product of poor execution (adjustable releases are actually part of the problem), which again, had nothing to do with the magazine.
Lastly, the magazine should never be flush with the bottom of the receiver. There's a highly specific dimension that the top of the magazine should be from the lower radius for optimal function.
MB
Last edited:
Ok, question from those of us with a chassis (MPA in my case) ready and waiting for a barreled action. Will your planned action require this DBM? Is a 700 compatible action still planned ?
Awesome question, and as a matter of fact I'm working on the topic of your question this very moment.
My planned actions will not "require" this DBM, although, I'm designing a complete system (magazines, DBM, actions, etc.), not just actions. My actions will be compatible with everything else out there, but based on the data I've confirmed, there are a lot of unchecked variables with so many different dimensions involved in a total assembly that's expected to reliably and repeatably feed a round as finicky as the 22LR.
Also, my DBM will work with everyone else's stuff, rimfire and centerfire.
I'll post up more info right after tis post, as you're timing is impeccable.
MB
Last edited:
If I may be so bold to make a suggestion, or more so a comment, a decade or so ago, there was a series of commercials of “Hi! I’m a Mac..and I’m a PC…”
As an electrical engineer and Quality Engineer that has designed a few things in my career, I find that if you chase too many “compromises” to try and be compatible with too many things, you end end up like “the PC”. It works, but it’s not “the best” (or just works “out of the box”).
Apple built what they wanted, controlled the space and suppliers around them, focused on one architecture to be 100% reliable, functional and with that, everyone else that wanted “in” the Appleverse had to play by Apple’s rules.
Built the rifle system you envisioned and show that it works reliably and flawlessly and make others come to the DDGverse (such as chassis makers, etc…)
When am I gonna see my barrel wrench?
As an electrical engineer and Quality Engineer that has designed a few things in my career, I find that if you chase too many “compromises” to try and be compatible with too many things, you end end up like “the PC”. It works, but it’s not “the best” (or just works “out of the box”).
Apple built what they wanted, controlled the space and suppliers around them, focused on one architecture to be 100% reliable, functional and with that, everyone else that wanted “in” the Appleverse had to play by Apple’s rules.
Built the rifle system you envisioned and show that it works reliably and flawlessly and make others come to the DDGverse (such as chassis makers, etc…)
When am I gonna see my barrel wrench?
Agreed... As you well know, when you provide stock makers with the CAD drawing of your system, shouldn't be any big deal for them to inlet for it, even if it does vary slightly from the typical 700 inlet that's 90% of their work.
“No, you have to buy so and so stock, use this DBM” is an acceptable answer if that is what is needed in your mind, and obviously in the minds of others (see msgs below your reply). But if that means your stock, your action, your barrel, your trigger, your magazine, etc, etc, that is also fine if you are able to do all of that. Apple built an ecosystem that worked very well for them. (I have lived both worlds as a retired developer). But it is a risk if the market doesn’t follow/develop before the money runs out.
Yes there will obviously be parts of the system that will have to be proprietary to this family of guns, but the more that doesn’t have to be single sourced is better in my opinion. My body and LOP may not conform well to the “preferred” stock, or I might really like a BnA trigger instead of a trigger tech, and my hand grip might be different than the next persons. And so on. You know all of this better than I do, just stating it for conversation purposes. Customizations are fun.
Again, whatever you come up with will more than likely rule the market. So keep the faith.
The. Heart. Of. The. System.
I've confirmed a lot of data that started with answers to my many questions from a community that's actively involved in truly using a platform that a lot is expected of. And thank you to the community, the participation has been awesome, and I appreciate everyone's responses, but there are many more questions to come.
The answers have served the development of a complete system that isn't hampered by a number of features that many have turned to that are actually part of the issues that have been experienced.
An adjustment on so and so's magazine, an adjustment on so and so's chassis and/or DBM, and no one has a clue where to start with all these adjustments that, frankly, are unnecessary.
Who knows what the exact process is to actually use all these adjustable releases and catches out there? Has a process been published by any of the respective manufacturers?
Has the single most important dimension to proper feeding and cycling been provided with all these adjustments out there? If one knew what this dimension was and why it's important, and if the system was capable of being adjusted while the magazine was inserted, one could be up and reliably running in a matter of seconds with a high-level of confidence that your system is optimized.
So, I've re-created what originally started all this, but it's going further than the original. I went back to the magazine and built on more than 15 years of fielded rimfire rifles. I have numerous features suppressed in the pictured magazine below (yes, it has a thumb button), but at the center of it is all the things that made the original so successful.
MB
I've confirmed a lot of data that started with answers to my many questions from a community that's actively involved in truly using a platform that a lot is expected of. And thank you to the community, the participation has been awesome, and I appreciate everyone's responses, but there are many more questions to come.
The answers have served the development of a complete system that isn't hampered by a number of features that many have turned to that are actually part of the issues that have been experienced.
An adjustment on so and so's magazine, an adjustment on so and so's chassis and/or DBM, and no one has a clue where to start with all these adjustments that, frankly, are unnecessary.
Who knows what the exact process is to actually use all these adjustable releases and catches out there? Has a process been published by any of the respective manufacturers?
Has the single most important dimension to proper feeding and cycling been provided with all these adjustments out there? If one knew what this dimension was and why it's important, and if the system was capable of being adjusted while the magazine was inserted, one could be up and reliably running in a matter of seconds with a high-level of confidence that your system is optimized.
So, I've re-created what originally started all this, but it's going further than the original. I went back to the magazine and built on more than 15 years of fielded rimfire rifles. I have numerous features suppressed in the pictured magazine below (yes, it has a thumb button), but at the center of it is all the things that made the original so successful.
MB
Yessir, you're spot on. At the center of the storied feeding/cycling struggles that litter the internet is one thing, but typically, the magazine is blamed, or "the extractors are over-sprung," but frankly, it's none of that. Instead, it's deviation from foundational information.
You may not be aware of this, but on the original Remington 700 short action receiver print, the action bolt centers are exactly 6.5". But, on the PTG M5 DBM print, the counterbored holes for the action bolts are 6.492". I have many other versions of M5 DBMs sitting within three feet of me that also, do not measure what's on the original Rem 700 print.
But everything is stated as, Rem 700 compatible. And this particular dimension isn't the only deviation; there are many others floating around out there, so why would there not be feeding/cycling issues? There's a ton of deviation from the original AICS prints for the chassis mag well and magazine envelope, so let's throw an adjustable release in there to make up for the slop....and while we're at it, let's add another adjustable chunk-o-steel to the magazine so we can somehow, get that thing in the right place. But how is one supposed to know where "the right place" is?
MB
IMO your real competition in the market is RImX. Vudoo is dead for the most part for new purchases. Are you aiming for that market or another?
Yessir, they seem to be at the top of the heap at the moment, but they aimed for my market. What I'm focused on is all part of the original vision.
MB
For conversation purposes (I agree), I also like customization, as long as it is NOT part of the critical path, part or system.
If the magazine is designed to feed and manage the “presentation” of the round and does it consistently and without fail, I will buy that magazine, regardless of how many others I have, as I am sick of having a magazine that “almost works for some chassis” with all these “adjustable” features that just adds to points of failure (basic reliability concepts).
For trigger, that is in a critical path that affects sear engagement, pin fall and timing in concert with the bolt and firing system. BnA triggers at least offer low, medium, high top sears and some adjustability and allow user servicing, but it still has to be compatible and functional with the firing system.
Chassis LOP is in the “user’s” critical path and can be altered without affecting the action’s critical system.
I have several different precision 22LRs and they all differ because each fixes one flaw or another in the other rifle system and yet introduce a new one of their own.
I’d really love to see one rifle system that is completely and reliably functional for its stated use case (that is not so narrowly specified to exclude conditions to cover for inherent flaws and compromises).
I am not a mechanical engineer, so I use this passion to learn from and enjoy the experience.
Agreed. For the M5x, there's a stock and receiver revision required, but I haven't posted the picture of my standard M5 DBM that doesn't have the limiting piston and drops right into any M5 inletted stock and no revision to the receiver.
So, one can make a choice between full featured and standard versions, but the point in all this is, getting back to dimensional purity is key to quelling the feeding/cycling frustrations.
MB
As a guy with only a single 700 pattern 22, it HAS to work to make us consumers happy about the brutal cost above a CZ457. A very expensive finicky annoying accurate Rimfire will not help your cause. If it runs like an older Honda Accord, it’s a license to print $$. All things to all people means it will be an expensive oddity that only a few autistics can get to perform. The long term owners that that take offence at this point of view have forgotten that they are not the target market. They are the QC team. The target market does not own a 700 pattern 22 yet.
Might you be my long-lost brother?
You struck at the heart of why I stood up to say what I wrote above, knowing that it will be unsettling for some, but it's true, hence my comment about the original vision. Basically, my questions have been aimed at what has been annoying to the community and thankfully, the community spoke up, as it always has. What I've executed to and talked about is contained in my last number of posts.
Sight has been lost to what matters, and that's stuff that works. I sat in front of SolidWorks for three days working on an adjustable mag release and the entire time, I hated it, it was stupid, and I had all the data in front of me that proved it was stupid. Three different versions and all of them were stupid.
There's no adjustable mag release in my DBMs, but instead a dimensionally conforming component that's well toleranced via the GD&T requirements that define a well-made, high-quality part. There's an adjustable mag catch in the magazine because it allows me to be responsible to the community and ensure the magazine is compatible with non-conforming parts. The hash mark on the mag body/adjustable block represents the exact location of the catch on the Accuracy International Chassis System (AICS) Magazine, because I consider that the standard, no different than the length of the release in my DBMs.
Finicky is out.
MB
Very good. I’m just a guy trying to catalog my experience in a logical way and gain some bullet points to use in the future. I would love to be uniformly positive about an elegant and effective tool that lives up to all the hype. Paying a lot for something great isn’t an issue.Might you be my long-lost brother?
You struck at the heart of why I stood up to say what I wrote above, knowing that it will be unsettling for some, but it's true, hence my comment about the original vision. Basically, my questions have been aimed at what has been annoying to the community and thankfully, the community spoke up, as it always has. What I've executed to and talked about is contained in my last number of posts.
Sight has been lost to what matters, and that's stuff that works. I sat in front of SolidWorks for three days working on an adjustable mag release and the entire time, I hated it, it was stupid, and I had all the data in front of me that proved it was stupid. Three different versions and all of them were stupid.
There's no adjustable mag release in my DBMs, but instead a dimensionally conforming component that's well toleranced via the GD&T requirements that define a well-made, high-quality part. There's an adjustable mag catch in the magazine because it allows me to be responsible to the community and ensure the magazine is compatible with non-conforming parts. The hash mark on the mag body/adjustable block is the exact location of the catch on the Accuracy International Chassis System (AICS) Magazine, because I consider that the standard, no different than the length of the release in the DBM.
Finicky is out.
MB
I hear ya.
What folks have paid is why I'm doing the parts kits. What folks have been annoyed by is why I'm developing to a standard.
MB
Similar threads
