User Panel
User Panel
User Panel
|
Posted: 8/17/2015 1:05:28 PM EDT
[#1]
Quote HistoryQuoted: Fascinating thread! Has anyone considered using melted Pmag plastic for the fill? Seems like it would be durable, but I know nothing of this.  There are a number of reasons that will not work. I'm pretty sure P-mags are roto-molded which uses a completely different kind of plastic (either pellets or powder) as well as high temperatures. Not something we can easily re-create at home for a small investment. |
|
|
|
Posted: 8/17/2015 1:23:14 PM EDT
[#2]
This is crazy!!!
|
|
|
|
Posted: 8/17/2015 2:02:17 PM EDT
[#3]
THIS should be dead simple to cast...
Not sure there are any left, however. 
http://www.ktordnance.com/kto/order.php |
|
|
|
Posted: 8/17/2015 2:12:24 PM EDT
[#4]
Quote HistoryQuoted:
There are a number of reasons that will not work. I'm pretty sure P-mags are roto-molded which uses a completely different kind of plastic (either pellets or powder) as well as high temperatures. Not something we can easily re-create at home for a small investment. Quote HistoryQuoted:
Quoted:
Fascinating thread! Has anyone considered using melted Pmag plastic for the fill? Seems like it would be durable, but I know nothing of this. There are a number of reasons that will not work. I'm pretty sure P-mags are roto-molded which uses a completely different kind of plastic (either pellets or powder) as well as high temperatures. Not something we can easily re-create at home for a small investment. Gotcha - thanks. |
|
|
|
Posted: 8/18/2015 11:20:55 PM EDT
[#5]
So I test fired my first batch of resin lowers! The first one (blue) had the trigger pins egging after 50 rounds and if fired on release, that double tap cracked through the rear pin. I switched to the white lower and finished off the 150 rounds I had left with no trouble. Both of these lowers were Smooth-on 305, I'm experimenting with different resins now.
https://youtu.be/bbhhQvsjrZE |
|
|
|
Posted: 8/18/2015 11:33:16 PM EDT
[#6]
Quote HistoryQuoted: So I test fired my first batch of resin lowers! The first one (blue) had the trigger pins egging after 50 rounds and if fired on release, that double tap cracked through the rear pin. I switched to the white lower and finished off the 150 rounds I had left with no trouble. Both of these lowers were Smooth-on 305, I'm experimenting with different resins now.
https://youtu.be/bbhhQvsjrZE Sweeeeeet: 
|
|
|
|
Posted: 8/19/2015 10:35:52 PM EDT
[#7]
What do I need to do to make videos show up like that?
|
|
|
|
Posted: 8/19/2015 11:04:31 PM EDT
[#8]
Quote HistoryQuoted: What do I need to do to make videos show up like that? Become a Team Member. No need in this thread - you keep posting the links & we'll put 'em up for you. You're doing God's work. 
|
|
|
|
Posted: 8/19/2015 11:35:51 PM EDT
[#9]
More lowers die for science, very interesting results.
https://youtu.be/MSDovg_d5v4 |
|
|
|
Posted: 8/19/2015 11:41:19 PM EDT
[#10]
Quote HistoryQuoted:
3rd mold came out fairly well save for two problems, with one of them being yet another showstopper. . . the grip screw threads, which I had taped off of the inside of the fire control cavity and reinforced with bristles from a steel brush broke off inside the threaded part of the receiver. The bristles were evidently too strong and too short. Perhaps they would have worked better had I filled a small portion of the threads with silicone and let it set before adding the bristles and repouring. Remolded the grip screw threads with slightly less reinforcement and was able to extract from the template receiver. 3rd mold is filled now with the last of the SmoothCast 325. Will pull the casting tomorrow and see if the threads will survive a second extraction. Ultimately the silicone is fragile enough that I think these threads probably need to be cast around an actual bolt as others have tried. I don't have a 1/4-28 bolt on hand, but backbencher gave me some socket head screws a little longer than the typical grip screw, and I have one of those sitting in 325 now as another test. Perhaps it won't strip as easily as the machine screw I tried last time. ETA: FP3D, great to see video of another Fruity Ghost shooting! Will be interested to know what casting plastics work for you. I'm thinking Task 9 is the next I try. Haven't yet started looking at the properties sheets from brands other than Smooth-On. |
|
|
|
Posted: 8/19/2015 11:46:19 PM EDT
[#11]
Quote History
|
|
|
|
Posted: 8/20/2015 12:13:58 AM EDT
[#12]
Quote HistoryFascinating! Could you elaborate on the challenges of using Task 15? I think the main reason no one had tried it yet was the viscosity, which is twice that of Task 9 and six times that of SmoothCast 300 and kin. How are you working around the viscosity, and what other pitfalls should we watch out for? |
|
|
|
Posted: 8/20/2015 12:48:59 AM EDT
[#13]
Quote HistoryQuoted:
Fascinating! Could you elaborate on the challenges of using Task 15? I think the main reason no one had tried it yet was the viscosity, which is twice that of Task 9 and six times that of SmoothCast 300 and kin. How are you working around the viscosity, and what other pitfalls should we watch out for? Quote HistoryQuoted:
Fascinating! Could you elaborate on the challenges of using Task 15? I think the main reason no one had tried it yet was the viscosity, which is twice that of Task 9 and six times that of SmoothCast 300 and kin. How are you working around the viscosity, and what other pitfalls should we watch out for? Below is a picture of the other lower I've completed with Task 15, the only major defect is the bubble in the trigger guard which I can fill in with something easy enough. The viscosity is definitely the biggest issue, I ran a viberator around the outside of the mold and managed to work a few bubbles out, but not all of them. On the first one I tried to degas it first which didn't do much and then thanks to high viscosity I wasn't able to fill the mold in time. My fill channel is also only .25" so I have to pour quite slowly which might be hurting me here too. Semi-rigid 66D looks promising too, and it's a whole lot easier to work with. 
|
|
|
|
Posted: 8/20/2015 9:18:39 AM EDT
[#14]
I am seeing from the molds that the pistol grip screw hole and safety detent holes are being cast blind. Are y'all drilling those out? How are you attaching pistol grips?
|
|
|
|
Posted: 8/20/2015 11:29:44 AM EDT
[#15]
Quote HistoryQuoted:
I am seeing from the molds that the pistol grip screw hole and safety detent holes are being cast blind. Are y'all drilling those out? How are you attaching pistol grips? I typically run a drill bit through all the holes by hand to clean them out a little. For the pistol grip I run a tap through the hole and create the threads myself. I can't print those threads clean enough to start with and it makes it easy to mold with just a smooth hole. |
|
|
|
Posted: 8/21/2015 11:56:33 PM EDT
[#16]
FP3D any particular reason you went with Task15, just wanting to try something new? So far it seems like Task9 is the best suited for this sort of project. I'm still searching and seeing what other companies offer that may be a better alternative, but so far it is the "winner."
|
|
|
|
Posted: 8/22/2015 12:16:33 AM EDT
[#17]
Quote HistoryQuoted:
FP3D any particular reason you went with Task15, just wanting to try something new? So far it seems like Task9 is the best suited for this sort of project. I'm still searching and seeing what other companies offer that may be a better alternative, but so far it is the "winner." After I broke one made from 305 I was looking more at impact resistance than just high tensile strength. Task 15 might only be rated at 2720 psi but the Elongation @ break is 20% vs 5% of 300. Task 9 might work, it looks like it would be quite brittle, but if it's actually strong enough that might not even matter. It looks similar to ONYX slox which is very strong and rigid, but sure doesn't take a beating well. Watch the end of this video https://youtu.be/q5ZqN23o7ks |
|
|
|
Posted: 8/22/2015 12:22:20 AM EDT
[#18]
Quote HistoryQuoted: After I broke one made from 305 I was looking more at impact resistance than just high tensile strength. Task 15 might only be rated at 2720 psi but the Elongation @ break is 20% vs 5% of 300. Task 9 might work, it looks like it would be quite brittle, but if it's actually strong enough that might not even matter. It looks similar to ONYX slox which is very strong and rigid, but sure doesn't take a beating well. Watch the end of this video https://youtu.be/q5ZqN23o7ks Quote HistoryQuoted: Quoted: FP3D any particular reason you went with Task15, just wanting to try something new? So far it seems like Task9 is the best suited for this sort of project. I'm still searching and seeing what other companies offer that may be a better alternative, but so far it is the "winner." After I broke one made from 305 I was looking more at impact resistance than just high tensile strength. Task 15 might only be rated at 2720 psi but the Elongation @ break is 20% vs 5% of 300. Task 9 might work, it looks like it would be quite brittle, but if it's actually strong enough that might not even matter. It looks similar to ONYX slox which is very strong and rigid, but sure doesn't take a beating well. Watch the end of this video https://youtu.be/q5ZqN23o7ks Boris hasn't had any issues with the one he cast using Task 9. Granted it has a piece of metal re-enforcing the buffer tube area. If you use a drop in trigger pack rather than a standard FCG then you won't have the hammer pin holes egg out. Another alternative is to re-enforce that area with a piece of metal much like the buffer tube or you can use bushings from McMaster Carr (they will need to be reamed out). |
|
|
|
Posted: 8/22/2015 12:30:19 AM EDT
[#19]
Quote HistoryQuoted:
Boris hasn't had any issues with the one he cast using Task 9. Granted it has a piece of metal re-enforcing the buffer tube area. If you use a drop in trigger pack rather than a standard FCG then you won't have the hammer pin holes egg out. Another alternative is to re-enforce that area with a piece of metal much like the buffer tube or you can use bushings from McMaster Carr (they will need to be reamed out). Quote HistoryQuoted:
Quoted:
Quoted:
FP3D any particular reason you went with Task15, just wanting to try something new? So far it seems like Task9 is the best suited for this sort of project. I'm still searching and seeing what other companies offer that may be a better alternative, but so far it is the "winner." After I broke one made from 305 I was looking more at impact resistance than just high tensile strength. Task 15 might only be rated at 2720 psi but the Elongation @ break is 20% vs 5% of 300. Task 9 might work, it looks like it would be quite brittle, but if it's actually strong enough that might not even matter. It looks similar to ONYX slox which is very strong and rigid, but sure doesn't take a beating well. Watch the end of this video https://youtu.be/q5ZqN23o7ks Boris hasn't had any issues with the one he cast using Task 9. Granted it has a piece of metal re-enforcing the buffer tube area. If you use a drop in trigger pack rather than a standard FCG then you won't have the hammer pin holes egg out. Another alternative is to re-enforce that area with a piece of metal much like the buffer tube or you can use bushings from McMaster Carr (they will need to be reamed out). I just bought a drop in trigger, first non mil-spec trigger I've ever used, it blew my mind how nice it felt. I'd like to avoid adding metal reinforcements if possible, that just seems like cheating.  I got 1600 rounds and a birthday shooting trip planned so I should be able to give Task 15 a good test here before long.
|
|
|
|
Posted: 8/22/2015 1:20:33 AM EDT
[#20]
Task 15 may end up being too much trouble to work with in light of Task 9, but its properties are intriguing enough to be worth trying. Working around the viscosity problem of Task 15 may prove simpler than solving the egging and brittleness problems with anything else. I bought some 15 yesterday when I bought a supply of 9. I'm now mulling ways to improve flow without changing the mold too radically.
|
|
|
|
Posted: 8/22/2015 8:28:32 AM EDT
[#21]
Has anyone used their silicone mold for casting a wax AR? Then do a lost wax pour using aluminum or brass?
I'm wondering how bad the shrinkage would end up being on a second generation mold (mold of a mold). |
|
|
|
Posted: 8/22/2015 8:43:15 AM EDT
[#22]
This is not meant to be an advertisement for TA but these guys have already done the R&D. But, I agree, it may not be as much fun or you won't get as many colors. Plus there is the "I did this myself" factor while you thumb your nose at the BATF guys when you do it at home.
http://www.tnarmsco.com/competitiontinted-multiple-colors-stripped-lower-receiver/ |
|
|
|
Posted: 8/22/2015 9:11:04 AM EDT
[#23]
Quote HistoryQuoted:
For about the same money you can have these guys do it and you will have one for a lifetime. But, I agree, it may not be as much fun or you won't get as many colors. http://www.tnarmsco.com/competitiontinted-multiple-colors-stripped-lower-receiver/ You're right, that doesn't sound like any fun at all. I'm a maker, not an oper8or!
|
|
|
|
Posted: 8/22/2015 12:58:01 PM EDT
[#24]
Quote HistoryQuoted:
Has anyone used their silicone mold for casting a wax AR? Then do a lost wax pour using aluminum or brass? I'm wondering how bad the shrinkage would end up being on a second generation mold (mold of a mold). That is a big piece to get a good wax model of. Not saying it can't be done but you are probably going to have to heat the mould and run wax from an injector or a vacuum to get a good mould fill. Then getting a good burnout is going to be a problem. Also casting brass into an investment mould without a centrifuge or vacuum could be a problem (not to mention brass is soft and heavier than hell). To get good consistent castings the cost is going to be prohibitive for a hobby maker (I just put a new burnout furnace in the shop last week...$1200 and it won't fit a flask with an AR15 sized casting). Sand casting is going to be a better method for aluminum. As far as shrinking, it depends on what kind of mould material and wax you are using. Some vulcanizing rubbers will shrink 10%. Some RTV type moulds are near 0%. |
|
|
|
Posted: 8/22/2015 1:30:13 PM EDT
[#25]
Quote HistoryQuoted: After I broke one made from 305 I was looking more at impact resistance than just high tensile strength. Task 15 might only be rated at 2720 psi but the Elongation @ break is 20% vs 5% of 300. Task 9 might work, it looks like it would be quite brittle, but if it's actually strong enough that might not even matter. It looks similar to ONYX slox which is very strong and rigid, but sure doesn't take a beating well. Watch the end of this video https://youtu.be/q5ZqN23o7ks
|
|
|
|
Posted: 8/22/2015 1:31:58 PM EDT
[#26]
Quote HistoryQuoted: This is not meant to be an advertisement for TA but these guys have already done the R&D. But, I agree, it may not be as much fun or you won't get as many colors. Plus there is the "I did this myself" factor while you thumb your nose at the BATF guys when you do it at home.
http://www.tnarmsco.com/competitiontinted-multiple-colors-stripped-lower-receiver/ http://www.tnarmsco.com/competitiontinted-multiple-colors-stripped-lower-receiver/ |
|
|
|
Posted: 8/22/2015 8:28:33 PM EDT
[#27]
I'm trying something new to beef up the lower while using user friendly resins. Initial results look promising.
|
|
|
|
Posted: 8/22/2015 10:51:07 PM EDT
[#28]
Quote HistoryQuoted:
I'm trying something new to beef up the lower while using user friendly resins. Initial results look promising. Very nice. Your pace of experimentation is impressive. Fiberglass and carbon fiber cloth have been on my list to test since the beginning, and I've not gotten to them yet. I believe Boris was going to test with some sort of chopped fiber fill. |
|
|
|
Posted: 8/22/2015 11:56:54 PM EDT
[#29]
Crazy question here but has anyone been crazy enough to try casting an upper? Or would that just melt? Also what do you estimate is your cost per lower when you cast them?
|
|
|
|
Posted: 8/23/2015 12:15:30 AM EDT
[#30]
Quote HistoryQuoted:
I'm wondering how bad the shrinkage would end up being on a second generation mold (mold of a mold). Quote HistoryQuoted:
I'm wondering how bad the shrinkage would end up being on a second generation mold (mold of a mold). I've wondered the same thing. That was my original plan, since I want to add some reinforcements to the basic receiver, and I'm far more willing to sculpt on a casting than an original receiver. So far, I'm getting some variability that's hard to put down solely to the urethane since I've still been tinkering with the Lego mold box backbencher built, and not yet the aluminum mold box Boris sent. Rebuilding the Lego box in such a way as to hold the mold exactly the same each time is not nearly so easy as one might think, mainly because the seepage - of both silicone during molding and urethane during casting - in between the bricks quickly makes a mockery of the standard Lego dimensioning. This in turn makes for poor dimensional repeatability in the castings. For this reason, while Legos certainly do work and are a worthy medium for a proof of concept, I would recommend against using them. I will soon be trimming my existing molds and pouring them to fit into Boris' aluminum mold box. While building such a box from aluminum is beyond my skills and tooling, most anyone could built a good mold box from plywood. Perhaps with a more stable mold box I will get the sort of repeatability I would need to make multi-generation castings. Until then, it's an open question, at least to me. ETA: Quoted:
Crazy question here but has anyone been crazy enough to try casting an upper? Or would that just melt? Also what do you estimate is your cost per lower when you cast them? If/when I arrive at a lower I'm happy with, I intent to look into an upper. Polymer uppers exist, but they have a poor reputation, so I suspect (without knowing much about them) that a number of problems would need to be solved. Smooth-On trial kits cost about $30 and for the urethanes which mix 1:1, like Smooth-Cast 300 or Task 9, probably contain enough for five or possibly six receivers. To hit the very low prices of Boris' initial posts, you need to be buying in the gallon sizes. |
|
|
|
Posted: 8/23/2015 12:50:45 AM EDT
[#31]
Quote HistoryQuoted:
I've wondered the same thing. That was my original plan, since I want to add some reinforcements to the basic receiver, and I'm far more willing to sculpt on a casting than an original receiver. So far, I'm getting some variability that's hard to put down solely to the urethane since I've still been tinkering with the Lego mold box backbencher built, and not yet the aluminum mold box Boris sent. Rebuilding the Lego box in such a way as to hold the mold exactly the same each time is not nearly so easy as one might think, mainly because the seepage - of both silicone during molding and urethane during casting - in between the bricks quickly makes a mockery of the standard Lego dimensioning. This in turn makes for poor dimensional repeatability in the castings. For this reason, while Legos certainly do work and are a worthy medium for a proof of concept, I would recommend against using them. I will soon be trimming my existing molds and pouring them to fit into Boris' aluminum mold box. While building such a box from aluminum is beyond my skills and tooling, most anyone could built a good mold box from plywood. Perhaps with a more stable mold box I will get the sort of repeatability I would need to make multi-generation castings. Until then, it's an open question, at least to me. Quote HistoryQuoted:
Quoted:
I'm wondering how bad the shrinkage would end up being on a second generation mold (mold of a mold). I've wondered the same thing. That was my original plan, since I want to add some reinforcements to the basic receiver, and I'm far more willing to sculpt on a casting than an original receiver. So far, I'm getting some variability that's hard to put down solely to the urethane since I've still been tinkering with the Lego mold box backbencher built, and not yet the aluminum mold box Boris sent. Rebuilding the Lego box in such a way as to hold the mold exactly the same each time is not nearly so easy as one might think, mainly because the seepage - of both silicone during molding and urethane during casting - in between the bricks quickly makes a mockery of the standard Lego dimensioning. This in turn makes for poor dimensional repeatability in the castings. For this reason, while Legos certainly do work and are a worthy medium for a proof of concept, I would recommend against using them. I will soon be trimming my existing molds and pouring them to fit into Boris' aluminum mold box. While building such a box from aluminum is beyond my skills and tooling, most anyone could built a good mold box from plywood. Perhaps with a more stable mold box I will get the sort of repeatability I would need to make multi-generation castings. Until then, it's an open question, at least to me. My mold box was one piece of wood that cost $4.16 at home depot, it works perfect other than it could be built a bit tighter to save on silicone. I'm also only getting 3-4 receivers from a trial kit, might be because mine contains a lot more plastic or just I guess on the amount and have some left over,idk. |
|
|
|
Posted: 8/23/2015 1:17:58 AM EDT
[#32]
Quote HistoryQuoted:My mold box was one piece of wood that cost $4.16 at home depot, it works perfect other than it could be built a bit tighter to save on silicone. I'm also only getting 3-4 receivers from a trial kit, might be because mine contains a lot more plastic or just I guess on the amount and have some left over,idk. My first kit of Smooth-Cast made five receivers plus a good bit of overrun. One problem with the Legos is you lose a lot of plastic not only to flashings between the mold sections but also to the gaps between the bricks. A standard AR15 lower seems around 4 fluid ounces in volume, but with losses, I am using somewhat more. I suspect the leftovers from what I mixed, plus what I lost to the Lego box, total to something in the neighborhood of another receiver. I too was guessing on quantities for most of my castings. |
|
|
|
Posted: 8/23/2015 3:37:02 PM EDT
[#33]
How do you remove the lower from the mold without ruining the mold? Specifically, how do you unthread the part the buffer tube goes from the mold once you form the lower?
|
|
|
|
Posted: 8/23/2015 4:03:15 PM EDT
[#34]
Quote HistoryQuoted: How do you remove the lower from the mold without ruining the mold? Specifically, how do you unthread the part the buffer tube goes from the mold once you form the lower? the silicone will pull free without tearing...well so long as you don't rip it out like a gorilla  |
|
|
|
Posted: 8/23/2015 4:28:18 PM EDT
[#35]
Quote HistoryQuoted: If/when I arrive at a lower I'm happy with, I intent to look into an upper. Polymer uppers exist, but they have a poor reputation, so I suspect (without knowing much about them) that a number of problems would need to be solved. Smooth-On trial kits cost about $30 and for the urethanes which mix 1:1, like Smooth-Cast 300 or Task 9, probably contain enough for five or possibly six receivers. To hit the very low prices of Boris' initial posts, you need to be buying in the gallon sizes. Quote HistoryQuoted: Quoted: Crazy question here but has anyone been crazy enough to try casting an upper? Or would that just melt? Also what do you estimate is your cost per lower when you cast them? If/when I arrive at a lower I'm happy with, I intent to look into an upper. Polymer uppers exist, but they have a poor reputation, so I suspect (without knowing much about them) that a number of problems would need to be solved. Smooth-On trial kits cost about $30 and for the urethanes which mix 1:1, like Smooth-Cast 300 or Task 9, probably contain enough for five or possibly six receivers. To hit the very low prices of Boris' initial posts, you need to be buying in the gallon sizes. Yeah you pretty much have to buy the gallon stuff to make it cost efficient. For the mold alone you need 2 sample kits of silicone which is 1/2 the cost of the gallon, yet 1/4 the size. For the urethanes getting the sample sizes to test things out isn't a bad idea. Once you find the one you like get the gallon and go crazy with it. If there's enough interest in this I may look into making a mold kit which would include the box and enough of part A and B of the silicone to make your own mold.
As for casting an upper. Give me about a month and I'll let you know how it goes. I'm trudging through my honey do list right now, researching other materials to use, and trying to figure out improvements for our current lowers. My plan is to try casting a 100% urethane upper as well as a hybrid aluminum/urethane upper (gonna cut the sides off leaving the top rail, threaded portion, front lug, and a small ring with the rear lug. It'll be interesting to see what, if any weight differences, as well as strength issues might arise by doing this. I don't have much hope in the 100% urethane holding up very well since most of these cast-able urethanes have a very low heat threshold (under 250*F in most cases). |
|
|
|
Posted: 8/23/2015 4:35:53 PM EDT
[#36]
Quote HistoryQuoted:
Crazy question here but has anyone been crazy enough to try casting an upper? Or would that just melt? Also what do you estimate is your cost per lower when you cast them? The stresses on the lower are considerably less than the upper. Both thermally and structurally. I think the only reason this is possible is because the lower on an AR is relatively stress free. |
|
|
|
Posted: 8/23/2015 4:54:18 PM EDT
[#37]
Quote HistoryQuoted:
How do you remove the lower from the mold without ruining the mold? Specifically, how do you unthread the part the buffer tube goes from the mold once you form the lower? Made this for someone else with that question. http://gfycat.com/BadZealousLadybird |
|
|
|
Posted: 8/23/2015 7:32:04 PM EDT
[#38]
So I think I'm done with expensive, hard to use resin. Fiberglass is AWESOME! https://youtu.be/FHbtQkCF1Z0
|
|
|
|
Posted: 8/23/2015 7:46:31 PM EDT
[#39]
Quote HistoryQuoted:
So I think I'm done with expensive, hard to use resin. Fiberglass is AWESOME! https://youtu.be/FHbtQkCF1Z0
you can do this yourself next time
|
|
|
|
Posted: 8/23/2015 8:00:59 PM EDT
[#40]
Quote HistoryQuoted:
So I think I'm done with expensive, hard to use resin. Fiberglass is AWESOME! https://youtu.be/FHbtQkCF1Z0 Very nice! ETA: If fiberglass can be made to work with the higher viscosity of some of the less brittle resins, I wonder if we can get away with less dimensional reinforcement. Not sure I want to try pouring 200 cps urethane (intended for rotocasting) through fiberglass though. |
|
|
|
Posted: 8/23/2015 9:01:24 PM EDT
[#41]
Quote HistoryQuoted: Made this for someone else with that question. http://gfycat.com/BadZealousLadybird Que? http://gfycat.com/BadZealousLadybird 
|
|
|
|
Posted: 8/23/2015 9:04:12 PM EDT
[#42]
Quote HistoryQuoted:
Made this for someone else with that question. http://gfycat.com/BadZealousLadybird Quote HistoryQuoted:
Quoted:
How do you remove the lower from the mold without ruining the mold? Specifically, how do you unthread the part the buffer tube goes from the mold once you form the lower? Made this for someone else with that question. http://gfycat.com/BadZealousLadybird Very cool, thanks! |
|
|
|
Posted: 8/23/2015 11:06:48 PM EDT
[#43]
Quote HistoryQuoted:
So I think I'm done with expensive, hard to use resin. Fiberglass is AWESOME! https://youtu.be/FHbtQkCF1Z0 Log out then log back in. I bought you a membership. |
|
|
|
Posted: 8/23/2015 11:31:44 PM EDT
[#44]
Quote HistoryQuoted:
Log out then log back in. I bought you a membership. Quote HistoryQuoted:
Quoted:
So I think I'm done with expensive, hard to use resin. Fiberglass is AWESOME! https://youtu.be/FHbtQkCF1Z0 Log out then log back in. I bought you a membership. Awesome! Now I just gotta figure out what this all does...Thanks! |
|
|
|
Posted: 8/23/2015 11:45:35 PM EDT
[#45]
Not sure why I took so long to try this
|
|
|
|
Posted: 8/23/2015 11:52:07 PM EDT
[#46]
Quote HistoryQuoted:
Log out then log back in. I bought you a membership. Quote HistoryQuoted:
Quoted:
So I think I'm done with expensive, hard to use resin. Fiberglass is AWESOME! https://youtu.be/FHbtQkCF1Z0 Log out then log back in. I bought you a membership. Now he has two years
|
|
|
|
Posted: 8/24/2015 12:15:37 AM EDT
[#47]
Quote HistoryQuoted: Very nice! ETA: If fiberglass can be made to work with the higher viscosity of some of the less brittle resins, I wonder if we can get away with less dimensional reinforcement. Not sure I want to try pouring 200 cps urethane (intended for rotocasting) through fiberglass though. Quote HistoryQuoted: Quoted: So I think I'm done with expensive, hard to use resin. Fiberglass is AWESOME! https://youtu.be/FHbtQkCF1Z0 Very nice! ETA: If fiberglass can be made to work with the higher viscosity of some of the less brittle resins, I wonder if we can get away with less dimensional reinforcement. Not sure I want to try pouring 200 cps urethane (intended for rotocasting) through fiberglass though. FWIW, I think it'll work. The cloth should wet out just fine. Fiberglass resin is about as thick as Task9, a bit thicker actually. |
|
|
|
Posted: 8/24/2015 2:12:51 AM EDT
[#48]
Ok, so I guess my question is other than the fun of making a lower yourself that can't be transfered or sold what is the advantage compared to buying a 5 pack of Anderson lowers for $200?
|
|
|
|
Posted: 8/24/2015 2:17:50 AM EDT
[#49]
Quote HistoryQuoted: Ok, so I guess my question is other than the fun of making a lower yourself that can't be transfered or sold what is the advantage compared to buying a 5 pack of Anderson lowers for $200? 87 plastic lowers for the same money? And homebuilt lowers can be legally transferred and sold, you just can't build them w/ that intent. If your buddy wants to pay good money for your 80% build, good on him. If your buddy wants you to make an 80% FOR him, no beuno. And 87 lowers scares the bejesus out of liberals. |
|
|
|
Posted: 8/24/2015 8:31:44 AM EDT
[#50]
Quote HistoryQuoted:
Ok, so I guess my question is other than the fun of making a lower yourself that can't be transfered or sold what is the advantage compared to buying a 5 pack of Anderson lowers for $200? Making your own lowers from a mold is cool as shit. Guys tinkering with stuff like this in garages is what made America great. |
|
|
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.
