User Panel
User Panel
User Panel
|
Posted: 8/16/2009 4:16:46 PM EDT
[#1]
Commercial is slightly larger in certain areas. You are supposed to buy the appropriate buffer tube and stock depending on your lower.
What brand lower do you have? |
|
|
|
Posted: 8/16/2009 4:19:34 PM EDT
[#2]
Quoted:
Commercial is slightly larger in certain areas. You are supposed to buy the appropriate buffer tube and stock depending on your lower. What brand lower do you have? No, the threads are the same, or very similar, on the both commercial and mil spec receiver extension and the lowers. It doesn't matter which brand the lower is, both will fit. If you're building from scratch, all that matters is the stock and the extension are both either com. or mil spec. I have mil-spec extensions on all my ARs. |
|
|
|
Posted: 8/16/2009 4:28:08 PM EDT
[#3]
I'm building from scratch and the buffer tube is the only thing that I haven't bought yet/ put much thought into. Just wondering if one was better for one thing than the other. Pros/Cons etc. What's the purpose of having the two differenet versions?
|
|
|
|
Posted: 8/16/2009 4:32:17 PM EDT
[#4]
Apparently the commercial are easier to make or something, I want to say there was a thread somewhere a few weeks ago that was pretty educational, I remember it had a drawing with the different dimesions of the different types.
Edit: Here's the thread I was thinking of |
|
|
|
Posted: 8/16/2009 5:26:51 PM EDT
[#5]
Everybody makes a stock that fits a mil-spec tube. NOT everybody makes stocks for a commercial tube. Just keep that in mind.
|
|
|
|
Posted: 8/16/2009 5:37:46 PM EDT
[#6]
There are no pros to a commercial buffer tube at all. If you are buying from scratch I would strongly advise that you go with a milspec tube.
|
|
|
|
Posted: 8/16/2009 5:48:07 PM EDT
[#7]
Mil spec tubes are slightly smaller in diameter. Both will fit all of the lowers out there.
That aside, I've only run into fitting issues with milspec tubes, especially with Vltor Emod stocks. They're often wayyy too tight on the tube, and will get stuck on the threads. I've never run into fit issues with a commercial tube. Just my experience. |
|
|
|
Posted: 8/16/2009 6:16:34 PM EDT
[#8]
If you go with a commercial version, I would suggest doing what I did and buy the ACE Super Heavy Duty M4-7 Receiver Extension Tube. It's a much more robust and thicker tube than a mil-spec receiver extension tube (see photo). Plus it extends all the way to the lower receiver (without slanting up) creating a very solid and sturdy tube. It also comes with a sling mount, 7 positions and a stop screw (to hit a specific position every time). You are limited to the stock that ACE offers for it (which looks like a mil-spec version), or you can get the commercial version of the Magpul CTR (which is what I did), or the commercial version of the VLTOR EMOD.
   |
|
|
|
Posted: 8/17/2009 3:30:06 AM EDT
[#9]
Quoted:
If you go with a commercial version, I would suggest doing what I did and buy the ACE Super Heavy Duty M4-7 Receiver Extension Tube. It's a much more robust and thicker tube than a mil-spec receiver extension tube (see photo). Plus it extends all the way to the lower receiver (without slanting up) creating a very solid and sturdy tube. It also comes with a sling mount, 7 positions and a stop screw (to hit a specific position every time). You are limited to the stock that ACE offers for it (which looks like a mil-spec version), or you can get the commercial version of the Magpul CTR (which is what I did), or the commercial version of the VLTOR EMOD. http://riflestocks.com/catalog/images/carret-stop.jpg http://riflestocks.com/catalog/images/m4-7ret_comp.jpg http://riflestocks.com/catalog/images/carret7.jpg Just because something is thicker doesn't mean it is stronger. |
|
|
|
Posted: 8/17/2009 4:50:13 AM EDT
[#10]
All lowers are threaded the same - you won't find a stripped lower that is designated "commercial" or "mil-spec". You will see built lowers that already have an extension installed that is a particular size. For example if you buy a factory built RRA it usually has a commercial extension. So when you look for a new stock, you would want to buy the commercial size.
Since you have a choice, a mil-spec extension has some advantages, but either would work. Buy the stock that matches the extension you choose. (mil-spec extension = mil spec stock, commercial extension = commercial stock.) The mil-spec is supposed to be stronger, although you may not use the rifle in a way that you would ever notice. There are more stocks available for mil-spec. Some have optional butt pads that work best on mil-spec extensions. The Magpul extended butt pad is an example, it works best on a mil-spec CTR/MOE/ACS. It will work on the commercial versions, too, but you can't close them all the way. The Ace mentioned above is probably nice and strong. The attachment is not a standard end plate/castle nut so you are limited on the receiver end plate you can use. This will limit your choice of sling attachment options. It is also expensive. Not to confuse you, but you can unintentionally put a commercial stock on a mil spec extension, it will be loose and not ideal - not recommended. A mil spec stock will not fit a commercial extension because it (the stock) is too small. The picture in the link posted above is a great visual of the differences between the two. |
|
|
|
Posted: 8/17/2009 2:08:58 PM EDT
[#11]
Quoted: Quoted: If you go with a commercial version, I would suggest doing what I did and buy the ACE Super Heavy Duty M4-7 Receiver Extension Tube. It's a much more robust and thicker tube than a mil-spec receiver extension tube (see photo). Plus it extends all the way to the lower receiver (without slanting up) creating a very solid and sturdy tube. It also comes with a sling mount, 7 positions and a stop screw (to hit a specific position every time). You are limited to the stock that ACE offers for it (which looks like a mil-spec version), or you can get the commercial version of the Magpul CTR (which is what I did), or the commercial version of the VLTOR EMOD. http://riflestocks.com/catalog/images/carret-stop.jpg http://riflestocks.com/catalog/images/m4-7ret_comp.jpg http://riflestocks.com/catalog/images/carret7.jpg Just because something is thicker doesn't mean it is stronger. In this case it is thicker and it is stronger. |
|
|
|
Posted: 8/17/2009 6:58:03 PM EDT
[#12]
The walls can't be any thicker than a standard com spec tube. Otherwise a) the stock wouldn't fit on the outside or b) the buffer wouldn't fit on the inside. I've yet to see an item from ACE that was really all that impressive. A forged milspec tube with an LMT SOPMOD stock > anything in the commercial variety.
|
|
|
|
Posted: 8/17/2009 9:09:27 PM EDT
[#13]
The M4-7 is in fact thicker on the bottom forward most part (look at the photo). In my opinion ACE makes some great products. I personally own one and believe it to be a better product albeit with some limitations (i.e. available stocks and sling mounts).
|
|
|
|
Posted: 8/17/2009 9:19:32 PM EDT
[#14]
Yes, the stock has a thicker base along that seem - but - a receiver tube's 'weakest link' is the thinnest spot around its circumference. Since the rest of the walling in that tube is just as thin as any other extension means it has the same vulnerability as any other when taking blunt impact. If the entire tube body was thicker inside all around then I would definitely jump on it as an improved part. ACE just had to make that area thicker to support a full spread for 7-positions instead of the typical 6. It wasn't done for overall tube strength. |
|
|
|
Posted: 8/17/2009 9:51:05 PM EDT
[#15]
So if I have a commercial tube can I buy a mil-spec tube and use the same spring and buffer? Or do I need to buy all new components for the mil-spec tube?
|
|
|
|
Posted: 8/17/2009 10:49:48 PM EDT
[#16]
Same spring and buffer work in both. Tubes alone are 10-20$, goto a gun show to grab one for 10-12$ out the door if there's one nearby.
|
|
|
|
Posted: 8/17/2009 11:32:52 PM EDT
[#17]
It has less vulnerability along the base vs a mil-spec, so that area is not equally factored into the weakest link of the mil-spec. Basically it has a better weakest link vs mil-spec.
ACE made that area thicker for overall tube strength. |
|
|
|
Posted: 8/18/2009 6:35:37 AM EDT
[#18]
Quoted:
So if I have a commercial tube can I buy a mil-spec tube and use the same spring and buffer? Or do I need to buy all new components for the mil-spec tube? If you already have a receiver extension ,why buy another ? (unless you have a full stock version & want to go to a collapsible type )There is nothing wrong with a commercial tube . I think some go over board with this "Mil spec " stuff. I looked into some of this when I put the lower together for a 308 build & some of the stuff you read here may have some some fact to it ,but until I hear from a actual manufacturer that makes both types ,its just hear say . The fact that the comm. RE is 0.020 " thicker in dia , Because its thicker ,it can have threads cut into it the conventional way . ( a thread cutting die ) Some may say its a cost cutting step , but one that is done with just about every thread cut for a threaded part out there . They say the Mil spec are forged( I have not seen any manufacture say they are , yet )they could be. That may be the reason they say the threads are rolled into them or is it because of the way the RE was made or it could be because of the thickness of the material itself. I believe the Mil spec RE was made to reduce weight for a Rifle that was putting on weight with all those nice star war gadgets that were put on there . I chose the Commercial version , because of the extra thickness of the RE & what I have seen, in the deeper full-er cut threads . If the Mil spec is stronger ,I want to hear it from those who tested it . |
|
|
|
Posted: 8/18/2009 10:57:33 AM EDT
[#19]
The Mil spec tube has stronger threads because of the smaller diameter compared to a comm tube.
|
|
|
|
Posted: 8/18/2009 11:09:21 AM EDT
[#20]
sorry to thread hi-jack but with the commercial tube having the slanted back end and the mil-spec having the flat back would the commercial tube lead to increased buffer spring wear because the spring is being pressed against a slanted area and not a flattened one? I know, dumb question but I was curious...
|
|
|
|
Posted: 8/18/2009 12:51:33 PM EDT
[#21]
Quoted: It has less vulnerability along the base vs a mil-spec, so that area is not equally factored into the weakest link of the mil-spec. Basically it has a better weakest link vs mil-spec. ACE made that area thicker for overall tube strength. Just out of curiosity, have you ever known anyone to break a receiver extension that wasn't either in a combat situation or abusing it? |
|
|
|
Posted: 8/18/2009 1:04:24 PM EDT
[#22]
Quoted:
There are no pros to a commercial buffer tube at all. If you are buying from scratch I would strongly advise that you go with a milspec tube. But you get to tell people with the correctly spec'd part that they're SNOBs. That's a pro to some of our more childish members. The last time this came up, the specifics of why commercial re's are inferior were clearly stated, and some peckerwood still chimed in and said it was a snob issue. 
|
|
|
|
Posted: 8/18/2009 1:08:13 PM EDT
[#23]
Quoted:
Just out of curiosity, have you ever known anyone to break a receiver extension that wasn't either in a combat situation or abusing it? A subject matter expert on a more knowledge based gun board sited seeing a few commercial re failures. All of the failures he saw happened where the re threads into the receiver. The threads not properly engaging the lower receiver is one of the main weakness issues with commercial re's. |
|
|
|
Posted: 8/18/2009 1:09:36 PM EDT
[#24]
Quoted:
There is nothing wrong with a commercial tube . For some folks this may be true. I would NEVER have one on any of my guns. |
|
|
|
Posted: 8/18/2009 1:51:53 PM EDT
[#25]
Quoted:
Quoted:
There is nothing wrong with a commercial tube . For some folks this may be true. I would NEVER have one on any of my guns. When I point this out in "Tier 1 vs the rest" debates people call me all sorts of names. 
|
|
|
|
Posted: 8/18/2009 2:28:00 PM EDT
[#26]
Just to remind people...Mil-Spec does not mean "the same one the military uses". It rather means that the design specs meet the tolerances designated by the military. Whether or not your receiver extension tube (or any other part for that matter) is quality made is another thing entirely.
|
|
|
|
Posted: 8/18/2009 3:01:53 PM EDT
[#27]
Quoted: Joe, I've been known to rattle your chain, even if only slightly.Quoted: Quoted: There is nothing wrong with a commercial tube . For some folks this may be true. I would NEVER have one on any of my guns. When I point this out in "Tier 1 vs the rest" debates people call me all sorts of names.  This is one that I completely agree with you on. Yeah, I still own Colts and make fun of them. There is no other reason for commercial tubes to exist other than saving a few cents on them. |
|
|
|
Posted: 8/18/2009 5:56:50 PM EDT
[#28]
Quoted:
Quoted:
There are no pros to a commercial buffer tube at all. If you are buying from scratch I would strongly advise that you go with a milspec tube. But you get to tell people with the correctly spec'd part that they're SNOBs. That's a pro to some of our more childish members. The last time this came up, the specifics of why commercial re's are inferior were clearly stated, and some peckerwood still chimed in and said it was a snob issue. Yep, using racist slang is really gonna help diffuse a hotly debated issue... What's next calling someone a Ch!nk or a Ni^^er because they don't agree with your position? I agree with you on the better design and construcion Mil-Spec receiver extension of the but I'm not gonna get up so high in the saddle that I can't see the ground just because of this one issue. 
Facts are facts and let it stand at that we don't need this bullshit in a technical forum. |
|
|
|
Posted: 8/18/2009 6:03:07 PM EDT
[#29]
Quoted: I must be a little naive. I had no idea that was a racial term. I had to look it up once you made that comment. Learn something new everyday.Quoted: Quoted: There are no pros to a commercial buffer tube at all. If you are buying from scratch I would strongly advise that you go with a milspec tube. But you get to tell people with the correctly spec'd part that they're SNOBs. That's a pro to some of our more childish members. The last time this came up, the specifics of why commercial re's are inferior were clearly stated, and some peckerwood still chimed in and said it was a snob issue. Yep, using racist slang is really gonna help diffuse a hotly debated issue... What's next calling someone a Ch!nk or a Ni^^er because they don't agree with your position? I agree with you on the better design and construcion Mil-Spec receiver extension of the but I'm not gonna get up so high in the saddle that I can't see the ground just because of this one issue. Facts are facts and let it stand at that we don't need this bullshit in a technical forum. |
|
|
|
Posted: 8/18/2009 6:17:33 PM EDT
[#30]
Quoted:
Quoted:
Joe, I've been known to rattle your chain, even if only slightly.Quoted:
Quoted:
There is nothing wrong with a commercial tube . For some folks this may be true. I would NEVER have one on any of my guns. When I point this out in "Tier 1 vs the rest" debates people call me all sorts of names. This is one that I completely agree with you on. Yeah, I still own Colts and make fun of them. There is no other reason for commercial tubes to exist other than saving a few cents on them.
Kinda like 8620 bolts, non-HPT/MPI bolts and barrels, etc. 
|
|
|
|
Posted: 8/18/2009 6:18:25 PM EDT
[#31]
Quoted:
Quoted:
Quoted:
There are no pros to a commercial buffer tube at all. If you are buying from scratch I would strongly advise that you go with a milspec tube. But you get to tell people with the correctly spec'd part that they're SNOBs. That's a pro to some of our more childish members. The last time this came up, the specifics of why commercial re's are inferior were clearly stated, and some peckerwood still chimed in and said it was a snob issue. Yep, using racist slang is really gonna help diffuse a hotly debated issue... What's next calling someone a Ch!nk or a Ni^^er because they don't agree with your position? I agree with you on the better design and construcion Mil-Spec receiver extension of the but I'm not gonna get up so high in the saddle that I can't see the ground just because of this one issue.
Facts are facts and let it stand at that we don't need this bullshit in a technical forum. It's not racist, Warren Oates called the white guy that worked at the diner a peckerwood in The Heat of the Night. |
|
|
|
Posted: 8/18/2009 6:46:30 PM EDT
[#32]
Quoted: Quoted: Quoted: Joe, I've been known to rattle your chain, even if only slightly.Quoted: Quoted: There is nothing wrong with a commercial tube . For some folks this may be true. I would NEVER have one on any of my guns. When I point this out in "Tier 1 vs the rest" debates people call me all sorts of names. This is one that I completely agree with you on. Yeah, I still own Colts and make fun of them. There is no other reason for commercial tubes to exist other than saving a few cents on them.Kinda like 8620 bolts, non-HPT/MPI bolts and barrels, etc. Not exactly a direct comparison. Commercial stocks and extensions typically cost the consumer the same money as the mil spec. counterparts, there isn't any real savings for the consumer. Of course the argument can be made that any mil-spec part can be had for the same price as commercial versions. This may be true if one shops wisely but by and large parts like the ones you mention cost more than commercial versions. The pennies I spoke of are saved by the manufacturer. The parts you mention arguably offer a "better" part, peace of mind, better warranty or whatever for a price. You don't see many claiming they feel much better having purchased a commercial tube at the same price they could have purchased a mil-spec tube. People making the argument on non mil-spec parts being the equivalent of 8620 bolts, non-HPT/MPI bolts and barrels usually make the claim that they have done so while saving money. The manufacturers obviously save money here also but some of the cost savings is passed on to the consumer offering the non-spec part at a noticeably lower price. Hence, the reason I stated there is no real reason for these pieces existence other than to save pennies. |
|
|
|
Posted: 8/19/2009 5:31:11 AM EDT
[#33]
This is just a discussion of the strengths and or weaknesses of two diff. configurations of parts for a AR rifle . No need to go off on any thing else .
I have read a lot of opinions , but I still have not read any real proof of actual testing or why the mil spec RE came into existence . Saying some nut case tossed his rifle into the air and it broke the RE ,is not scientific testing . You would have to exactly repeat it on both types of RE's , for it to be conclusive. Opinions are one thing ,but facts are what we need here . If ya like the Mil spec ,go for it . I have a long history of finding what works & what doesn't in the firearms field and I don't see any advantage to using the mil spec in this thread yet. Give me some actual facts on testing & you may sway my personal judgement . ( "personal judgement " because I have over thirty years in building & repairing all types of firearms ) |
|
|
|
Posted: 8/19/2009 5:37:16 AM EDT
[#34]
Quoted:
I must be a little naive. I had no idea that was a racial term. I had to look it up once you made that comment. Learn something new everyday. Peckerwood is racist? I'll have to look it up too. We're just used to calling everyone from our corporate office by that name. ... regardless of race.
FWIW, I have no idea what race the Commercial R.E. apologicians are are... (I looked it up, and the definition is in line with Olympic Arms customer base... so I think it was appropriate in this case despite my ignorance of its derogatory interpretation) |
|
|
|
Posted: 8/19/2009 5:42:23 AM EDT
[#35]
Quoted:
but I still have not read any real proof of actual testing or why the mil spec RE came into existence . I think you have it backwards. The mil spec is the original part.. spec'd for the military's carbean. The commercial RE is an aftermarket piece of crap, cost savings, corner cut part. Sadly there are a lot of bottom feeders in the gun realm. Most civilian ARs are not subjected to rough use, so often, corner cutting and sub standard parts will cut it. If there's a cheap way to sneak something by, some scum bag will do it. I can't count the number of times I've seen someone shooting a piece of shit firearm that doesn't work, and they'll blame it on break in or not enough lube. Most gun owners, for whatever reason, have a mental block to the fact that they bought a substandard weapon... not just in the AR realm either.
(and the previous page's mentions of Commercial RE failure weren't from goofballs purposely breaking them) |
|
|
|
Posted: 8/19/2009 6:11:03 AM EDT
[#36]
Quoted:
Quoted:
but I still have not read any real proof of actual testing or why the mil spec RE came into existence . I think you have it backwards. The mil spec is the original part.. spec'd for the military's carbean. The commercial RE is an aftermarket piece of crap, cost savings, corner cut part. Sadly there are a lot of bottom feeders in the gun realm. Most civilian ARs are not subjected to rough use, so often, corner cutting and sub standard parts will cut it. I can't count the number of times I've seen someone shooting a piece of shit firearm that doesn't work, and they'll blame it on break in or not enough lube. Most gun owners, for whatever reason, have a mental block to the fact that they bought a substandard weapon... not just in the AR realm either.
(and the previous page's mentions of Commercial RE failure weren't from goofballs purposely breaking them( given that , how were they damaged & who made them , were the "Mil spec treated the same way, by the same personnel , ya see where this is going .)) Well the term" Mil spec" is a relatively new term ( at least new to me & I started to build AR's in the early 70's & it was not used back then & I remember only two type RE's used & it was a full stock version or the collapsible ( carbine ) version. May be I mis spoke , when did the smaller dia , RE come from and why? If its strength , I would like to see specific testing . Just weight savings , I can see that . It does weigh less , no argument there . I am not attacking you personally , but you seem very vocal about the two diff. parts , you may be right or you may just have ,what I am now going to call " the Mil spec attitude" ( MSA )where as ,if it doesn't have that buzz word on it , its not made good . Have you personally seen a RE (comm. type ) fail ? These weapons were never ment to bust down doors . I wouldn't even do that with my M1 Garrand. |
|
|
|
Posted: 8/19/2009 6:39:28 AM EDT
[#37]
Quoted:
May be I mis spoke , when did the smaller dia , RE come from and why? If its strength , I would like to see specific testing . Just weight savings , I can see that . It does weigh less , no argument there . I'm not aware of any weight difference in the two. And for sure, the term "mil spec" is used loosely in reference to the outer diameter of the RE only..... regardless how the RE was made. This is because people often only want to know which aftermarket adjustable stock to buy.... and stocks are sold as "mil spec" or "commercial". The reason the commercial re's don't engage the receiver threading properly is that they are typically extrusions. Thus, the threading on the RE can not be taller than the outer diameter of any other part of the extrusion... the thread height is limited by the extrusion diameter. "mil spec" re's on the other hand have threads that are taller than the outer diameter of the RE's body. As I understand it, a forged, mil spec RE is going to be stronger than a commercial extrusion by default. The experts have also brought up the issue of the encap on a non spec RE being welded in place.... and there's no guarantee on the quality of that weld... although I've never heard of a cap blowing out.
|
|
|
|
Posted: 9/13/2009 3:10:03 PM EDT
[#38]
I just picked up 2 Milspec tubes from Sherluk Marketing and they are great. The fit with my milspec Magpul stock was way better then I had before with my pinko china made bullcrap tube.
P.S How come the threads about buffer tubes gets everyone so mad? lol |
|
|
|
Posted: 9/14/2009 3:50:07 AM EDT
[#39]
I have seen nothing ,but opinions on the diff. between the two ,nothing has been put forth as any facts about the two . I would like to hear from a manufacturer of them . Maybe Mil-spec is forged & maybe its not . I have not read any thing here that has any proof ,maybe a metallurgist or as said, a manufacturer that makes them can clear it up ,other wise ,with out facts ,its just opinions and nothing more . I don't think its being "mad " when there is a heated debate, its true expression of opinions.
I have tried to search for when & why the Mil-spec or Comm. ext. tubes came from , with no results. I even tried to e-mail Colt (good luck ) I'm pretty sure I don't have china made ext. tubes on my rifles ,but I could be wrong .(brownells said they are made in the USA , I trust them ) Until I see hard facts & not just opinions ,I will use what I have ,which are Comm. tubes on my collapsible stocks (right now to much $$ ,to change all that hard ware out )They work fine for me & I may not be in a combat zone ,but they get pretty abused as it is . |
|
|
|
Posted: 9/14/2009 6:45:32 AM EDT
[#40]
ANSWERS TO PUT THIS REPEAT QUESTION TO BED!!!!!!
The comm tube came from Sendra in IL, it came about in the earlier days of the comm AR15 market when alot of the parts and kits on the market had cheap non mil spec parts, to save money. This brief history lesson should be important to all of you as if it were not for these cheap comm parts the AR15 market would never have gotten off the ground with just Colt suppling parts. These parts spring boarded Bushmaster, Eagle, LMT and many others. That said at this point all comm spec stuff should go away there is no need for it now. But even if it did comm spec grade parts would still be everywhere; because many manufactures have started out with mil spec parts and changed there parts to better suit the needs, quality, fit and finish of the US comm market. WHAT COLT HAS SAID ABOUT THIS IS TOPIC: If you strike a door or a hard object with a comm or mil spec 6061 tube you run a VERY VERY good chance of breaking the tube and taking out the rifle. This is why COLT's tubes are Different/ stronger in the threads( all mil specs are). BUT more importantly the material used is 7075T6. Almost all companies making comm or mil spec tubes use 6061 alloy not the Mil spec 7075T6. So even if you have what looks to be a Mil Spec tube there is a VERY good chance it is not real Mil Spec anyway. |
|
|
|
Posted: 9/14/2009 8:27:04 AM EDT
[#41]
Quoted:
ANSWERS TO PUT THIS REPEAT QUESTION TO BED!!!!!! The comm tube came from Sendra in IL, it came about in the earlier days of the comm AR15 market when alot of the parts and kits on the market had cheap non mil spec parts, to save money. This brief history lesson should be important to all of you as if it were not for these cheap comm parts the AR15 market would never have gotten off the ground with just Colt suppling parts. These parts spring boarded Bushmaster, Eagle, LMT and many others. That said at this point all comm spec stuff should go away there is no need for it now. But even if it did comm spec grade parts would still be everywhere; because many manufactures have started out with mil spec parts and changed there parts to better suit the needs, quality, fit and finish of the US comm market. WHAT COLT HAS SAID ABOUT THIS IS TOPIC: If you strike a door or a hard object with a comm or mil spec 6061 tube you run a VERY VERY good chance of breaking the tube and taking out the rifle. This is why COLT's tubes are Different/ stronger in the threads( all mil specs are). BUT more importantly the material used is 7075T6. Almost all companies making comm or mil spec tubes use 6061 alloy not the Mil spec 7075T6. So even if you have what looks to be a Mil Spec tube there is a VERY good chance it is not real Mil Spec anyway. see, now this makes sense. i may not know much about metals or specifics on alloys, nor do i have to, but it makes sense. thank you.
now, does anyone know what Stag uses? and answers please, not, #$%@ Stag this or that. just a nice answer.
|
|
|
|
Posted: 9/14/2009 8:29:58 AM EDT
[#42]
They are Mil Spec but the material is unknown and most companies will not disclose it anyway.
|
|
|
|
Posted: 9/14/2009 8:43:04 AM EDT
[#43]
Since when is a rifle stock used as a breeching tool? A ram or shotgun blast is used if I am not mistaken. Can anyone That is in a swat team ever recall using a rifle to break down a door? That said who cares? The comm RE is not made of glass, is it?
|
|
|
|
Posted: 9/14/2009 8:54:15 AM EDT
[#44]
Quoted:
ANSWERS TO PUT THIS REPEAT QUESTION TO BED!!!!!! The comm tube came from Sendra in IL, it came about in the earlier days of the comm AR15 market when alot of the parts and kits on the market had cheap non mil spec parts, to save money. This brief history lesson should be important to all of you as if it were not for these cheap comm parts the AR15 market would never have gotten off the ground with just Colt suppling parts. These parts spring boarded Bushmaster, Eagle, LMT and many others. That said at this point all comm spec stuff should go away there is no need for it now. But even if it did comm spec grade parts would still be everywhere; because many manufactures have started out with mil spec parts and changed there parts to better suit the needs, quality, fit and finish of the US comm market. WHAT COLT HAS SAID ABOUT THIS IS TOPIC: If you strike a door or a hard object with a comm or mil spec 6061 tube you run a VERY VERY good chance of breaking the tube and taking out the rifle. This is why COLT's tubes are Different/ stronger in the threads( all mil specs are). BUT more importantly the material used is 7075T6. Almost all companies making comm or mil spec tubes use 6061 alloy not the Mil spec 7075T6. So even if you have what looks to be a Mil Spec tube there is a VERY good chance it is not real Mil Spec anyway. So , to make sure we get a true Mil-spec ext. tube , we should buy Colt ? Just to make sure we get this 7075T6 , sounds like a sales pitch . Your post does make some sense, I used to put all my AR's together with military surplus parts (except Receivers of course & bbl's)back in the late 70's, but that still does not mean that they were . How would one know or identify this wonder material ? |
|
|
|
Posted: 9/14/2009 9:06:25 AM EDT
[#45]
If it was a sales pitch I would not make this statement DSArms makes buffer tubes in both 7075 and 6061 that said 95% of all our sales are 6061. As a matter of fact we don't even do runs for 7075 anymore no one wants to pay the extra for it. If you must have a 7075T6 call:
Colt or LMT those are the only 2 that I know that use 7075 Vltor does from time to time also. |
|
|
|
Posted: 9/15/2009 5:07:23 AM EDT
[#46]
Ok , just to make myself clear ,I was talking about a sales pitch from Colt ,since that is what you quoted .
How many ,if any at all , have you seen come back or reported broken in some fashion , of those made of the 6160 and or the 7075 ? Are they extruded or Forged ? Inquiring minds want to know ! Or is that going to be a secret & trust me I would understand why if it is . |
|
|
|
Posted: 9/15/2009 5:36:54 AM EDT
[#47]
Colt Defense Customer Service:
Tel: 1-800-241-2485 (860) 232-4489 If anyone wants to get first hand info. |
|
|
|
Posted: 9/15/2009 5:43:28 AM EDT
[#48]
That info was provided by Colt in the 80's I really don't see any reason to drop alot of extra money on a 7075T6. Unless you want your receiver extension to be made from the same material as your upper and lower which are also 7075.
BTW charging handles are suppose to be 7075T6 also. |
|
|
Win a FREE Membership!
Sign up for the ARFCOM weekly newsletter and be entered to win a free ARFCOM membership. One new winner* is announced every week!
You will receive an email every Friday morning featuring the latest chatter from the hottest topics, breaking news surrounding legislation, as well as exclusive deals only available to ARFCOM email subscribers.
AR15.COM is the world's largest firearm community and is a gathering place for firearm enthusiasts of all types.
From hunters and military members, to competition shooters and general firearm enthusiasts, we welcome anyone who values and respects the way of the firearm.
Subscribe to our monthly Newsletter to receive firearm news, product discounts from your favorite Industry Partners, and more.
Copyright © 1996-2024 AR15.COM LLC. All Rights Reserved.
Any use of this content without express written consent is prohibited.
AR15.Com reserves the right to overwrite or replace any affiliate, commercial, or monetizable links, posted by users, with our own.
