Warning

 

Close

Confirm Action

Are you sure you wish to do this?

Confirm Cancel
Member Login
Site Notices
9/19/2017 7:27:10 PM
Posted: 7/18/2003 6:06:31 PM EDT
[Last Edit: 7/18/2003 8:12:22 PM EDT by strongmad]
post your poll
Link Posted: 7/18/2003 9:29:58 PM EDT
I sure dont know how to post polls but i did like the Pro ord's concept. Now that bushie is taking over they might be able to get the wrinkles out of the design. If they make it reliable, ill add one to the safe.
Link Posted: 7/18/2003 9:43:03 PM EDT
carbon fiber...............what's wrong with aluminum????????
Link Posted: 7/18/2003 9:53:29 PM EDT
if it is carbon fiber is it really milspec?
Link Posted: 7/18/2003 10:18:12 PM EDT
Why carbon fiber? B/c it is friggin lighter than crap. Is is milspec? Dumb question. According to a certain definition of the term milspec no. But milspec in the sense the its dimensions are within specs, and it uses all milspec parts, yes.
Link Posted: 7/18/2003 10:24:30 PM EDT
[Last Edit: 7/18/2003 10:24:41 PM EDT by bvmjethead]
I'd get one. I like the pistol model too.
Link Posted: 7/18/2003 11:30:39 PM EDT
Originally Posted By 20iner: if it is carbon fiber is it really milspec?
View Quote
I thought just adding the Bushmaster name would make anything mil-spec ?? (I know that makes no sense but it does make exactly as much sense as referring to current Bushmaster AR's as mil-spec. Or the AR's of any manufacturer for that matter. There are NO mil-spec AR's available to the civilian population. None)
Link Posted: 7/18/2003 11:51:19 PM EDT
[B]Who wants BM to start cranking out quality milspec carbon fiber recievers??? [/B] No.
Link Posted: 7/19/2003 12:07:56 AM EDT
I cant think of a single downside to carbonfiber recievers as long as there was no slop, they used standard parts (mag releases, bolt catch, bolt ass. etc.) and they were in general of high quality.
Link Posted: 7/19/2003 8:05:36 AM EDT
Originally Posted By strongmad: I cant think of a single downside to carbonfiber recievers as long as there was no slop, they used standard parts (mag releases, bolt catch, bolt ass. etc.) and they were in general of high quality.
View Quote
I agree. There is no down-side if produced as you have qualified above.
Link Posted: 7/19/2003 12:43:49 PM EDT
Some of y'all act like if you erase the Pro Ord and put Bushmaster the thing is going to work. Bushie has great ARs but they are still mass produced using someone elses plan. GG
Link Posted: 7/19/2003 12:45:06 PM EDT
There might be a down side if you were employed at CavArms.
Link Posted: 7/20/2003 7:17:33 PM EDT
Originally Posted By Gun Guru: Some of y'all act like if you erase the Pro Ord and put Bushmaster the thing is going to work. Bushie has great ARs but they are still mass produced using someone elses plan. GG
View Quote
BM is changing the Pro Ord design significantly B4 production. They are going make it so it uses standard industry parts, and I'm sure they will test it alot B4 selling. Besides, as long as the recievers are made w/ the exact same dimensions as their aluminim reveivers, they'll work every bit as good. And about all of this milspec crap, I don't know what the exact definition of milspec is, i know that perhaps the only true misspec rifles are current issue M4's and stuff, but most are just referring to the rifle having standard external dimensions, and using standard type parts. Perhaps we need some linguistif clarification.
Link Posted: 7/20/2003 7:32:15 PM EDT
a better question would be: "who wants an AR pistol that uses standard AR components?" I do, I do!
Link Posted: 7/20/2003 9:15:20 PM EDT
[Last Edit: 7/20/2003 9:15:37 PM EDT by Boom_Stick]
Hmmm, I may buy one as long as they are the exact deminitions as their aluminum cousins. I could install an Oly pistol caliber bolt, barrel and spring ejector to make a 49oz 32 round pistol!
Link Posted: 7/20/2003 9:22:13 PM EDT
Originally Posted By Boom_Stick: Hmmm, I may buy one as long as they are the exact deminitions as their aluminum cousins. I could install an Oly pistol caliber bolt, barrel and spring ejector to make a 49oz 32 round pistol!
View Quote
Do you think it is possible to make a pistol caliber AR pistol that is under 50oz? Particularly in 45acp? I would seem non likely to me but who knows
Link Posted: 7/20/2003 10:05:39 PM EDT
I'm happy with aluminum.
Link Posted: 7/20/2003 11:06:21 PM EDT
[Last Edit: 7/20/2003 11:07:10 PM EDT by Boom_Stick]
Originally Posted By strongmad: Do you think it is possible to make a pistol caliber AR pistol that is under 50oz? Particularly in 45acp? I would seem non likely to me but who knows
View Quote
I think if you trim a 7" barrel down enough it will slip in under 50oz. The problem is the heavy bolt. The Oly pistol caliber bolt is the same weight whether it is .45 or 9mm, but the huge allen set screw they put in the bolt can be removed if it's a case of a few oz's. BTW, if the 94 ban goes away won't the 50oz limit go away too?
Link Posted: 7/21/2003 5:37:52 AM EDT
I like Good Ol Aluminium. The CF stuff seems to much like a toy and cheap to me. ( Iknow it is not it is just my opinion, nothing from experience. I just like the look of a solid looking metal gun.
Link Posted: 7/21/2003 6:41:33 AM EDT
Absolutely! Figure that a carbon fiber receiver would only weigh about 2oz? Also figure the production costs would be much less than aluminum and you may be talking a $50 or more reduction in cost.
Link Posted: 7/21/2003 1:24:46 PM EDT
Absolutely! With a big company, such as Bushmaster, behind the Professional Ordnance idea, a mil-spec (I know, it's not really mil-spec) carbon-fiber AR could be a major improvement. The military is spending big bucks to get a lighter rifle, so they may think carbon fiber is a good idea. I like carbon better than I like plastic.
Link Posted: 7/21/2003 3:05:53 PM EDT
I think I read somewhere that the rifle uses a proprietary design aluminum bolt and bolt carrier and the bolt was prone to cracking. This bolt/carrier was necessary for the pistol to beat the 50oz limit. I think the rifles used that setup too. It seems like it would be a good idea to use a standard bolt and carrier even if it weights more.
Link Posted: 7/21/2003 5:38:53 PM EDT
I would want one. I would prefer a mold. I am a much better composite materials worker than machinist. Besides, mixing a bucket of goo is simple. Pour goo in mold, wait, trim spue, done. From 0 to 100% receiver in 6 hours. Anyone see a problem with this? Pete
Link Posted: 7/21/2003 6:01:36 PM EDT
[Last Edit: 7/21/2003 6:04:09 PM EDT by SULACO2]
How about polymer/polycarbonate steel reinforced, lowers w/ dedicated mag wells settup in 5.56, 9mm and others to follow, w/ HK SEF type pistol grips integrally molded?
Link Posted: 7/21/2003 7:41:41 PM EDT
[Last Edit: 7/21/2003 7:42:58 PM EDT by strongmad]
Originally Posted By Gorto: I think I read somewhere that the rifle uses a proprietary design aluminum bolt and bolt carrier and the bolt was prone to cracking. This bolt/carrier was necessary for the pistol to beat the 50oz limit. I think the rifles used that setup too. It seems like it would be a good idea to use a standard bolt and carrier even if it weights more.
View Quote
Dude, BM is not going to use the wacky PO parts when they start selling it. They are standardizing it. Oh, and in defense of Carbonfiber, the B2 Stealth bomber is made mostly out of it.
Top Top