Warning

 

Close

Confirm Action

Are you sure you wish to do this?

Confirm Cancel
BCM
User Panel

Page AR-15 » AR Discussions
AR Sponsor: bravocompany
Site Notices
Arrow Left Previous Page
Page / 13
Posted: 8/31/2011 7:04:54 PM EST
[Last Edit: rogue4]
...
Link Posted: 8/31/2011 7:06:21 PM EST
[Last Edit: rogue4] [#1]
...
Link Posted: 8/31/2011 7:24:03 PM EST
[#2]
I agree with you, a lot of special units a lot of  individuals prefer a M14, they KNOW the right weapon for the job at hand.
Link Posted: 8/31/2011 7:29:09 PM EST
[Last Edit: rogue4] [#3]
...
Link Posted: 8/31/2011 7:30:49 PM EST
[#4]
i will be watching this thread with much interest.  I am fairly ignorant on the particulars of what the military uses.
Link Posted: 8/31/2011 7:36:58 PM EST
[Last Edit: DM1975] [#5]
Rogue4, best of luck with this thread. It is always good to have real shooters here on Sesame Street to keep the armchair commandos in check and up to date. I am also interested in all you have to say as I have been out of it now for a couple years and would like to see what's new or not.
Link Posted: 8/31/2011 7:37:35 PM EST
[#6]
Oh man i must of missed a good one...but i do want to see how many on here think what the.mil uses...
Link Posted: 8/31/2011 7:57:15 PM EST
[#7]
Originally Posted By Kab4485:
Oh man i must of missed a good one...but i do want to see how many on here think what the.mil uses...


Kab4485?     Chevelle '72 ?
Link Posted: 8/31/2011 8:02:03 PM EST
[#8]
So do we ask a question about what certain people use?
Link Posted: 8/31/2011 8:04:34 PM EST
[Last Edit: rogue4] [#9]
...
Link Posted: 8/31/2011 8:10:49 PM EST
[Last Edit: sinlessorrow] [#10]
Originally Posted By rogue4:
Go for it.


Ok do some navy eod use the Noveske kx3 on their mk18(M4CQB?)?

ETA: TAG hopefully this stays on track, this is an awsome thing your doing
Link Posted: 8/31/2011 8:16:43 PM EST
[Last Edit: rogue4] [#11]
...
Link Posted: 8/31/2011 8:27:33 PM EST
[#12]
I have seen pics of supposed   SOF m4s  that where pretty much stock but with a "match barrel" adn a FF rail.    and other standard stuff.    seen any liek that? its not a recce or Mk12 etc etc. just a   sort of AMU tricked out M4,   any thoughts?
Link Posted: 8/31/2011 8:31:20 PM EST
[Last Edit: rogue4] [#13]
....
Link Posted: 8/31/2011 8:43:34 PM EST
[#14]
special units? or any?
Link Posted: 8/31/2011 8:45:22 PM EST
[Last Edit: rogue4] [#15]
....
Link Posted: 8/31/2011 8:45:42 PM EST
[#16]
Originally Posted By rogue4:
I have never seen a KX3 on a Mk18, that's not to say they're not out there. I've never seen Navy EOD carry a Mk18 in the first place, just M4 varients. NSW Mk18's on the other hand, all the ones I've seen have the KAC flash hider for the NT4 can.


ok this is the rifle im making and ive been calling then navy eod(granted idk jack about that stuff), who are these guys, i wanna make sure when my clone is finished ill have the right name for it

Link Posted: 8/31/2011 8:51:46 PM EST
[Last Edit: rogue4] [#17]
...
Link Posted: 8/31/2011 8:58:16 PM EST
[#18]
Seems like this has taken, years.  
When are you going to be done?
Link Posted: 8/31/2011 9:05:40 PM EST
[#19]
Originally Posted By rogue4:
Definitely not any. You won't see any of the conventionals doing this. If there is, I've never seen it.


I have been in conventional infantry units that are strickly "by the book" and regular infantry units that get the good stuff in and let you use it. When the war first kicked off in Iraq all kinds of things started to flood down to the regular infantry guys. We already had M4 and M5 rails, but a few other kinds started to show up. EBR stocks and M14's and then the M107's. Remember this was a time when it was not common to see M107's in all of the sniper units but we had more of those than we did M24's. We started to get a lot of COT's items in, but also started to field some of the newer stuff through the supply line like LMT Sopmod stocks and Jpoint sights. We got Gemtech supressors for our M4's and Raptors for our sniper rifles, and some sort of thermal for the 240's (can't remember which ones)

Link Posted: 8/31/2011 9:05:58 PM EST
[#20]
Originally Posted By 458winmag:
Seems like this has taken, years.  
When are you going to be done?


shush actually i am, im just waiting on my tax stamp now but the BATFE is taking their time
Link Posted: 8/31/2011 9:22:35 PM EST
[#21]
Originally Posted By rogue4:
Not sure what you're referring to with the M14.

We have a surplus of them. Anything from wood stocked to tricked out with the SAGE EBR chassis. Someone is going to take this the wrong way but IMO they're two steps away from junk. I'm not a fan at all. Not very many people on this side are. All of ours, no matter the configuration collect dust in the arms room.

I say all of that because I am obviously very biased towards accurate rifles.


I've heard they need to be rebuilt quite often.  Although there was a recent article that talked about putting a modern stock on them as well as setting up with a good scope and having them prepped and ready for issue.  Of course they were rebuilt guns sitting in storage.  They were putting a synthetic and metal stock on them as well as scope setup in around 7 min. apiece.  I have heard some of the SOCOM guys go through a thousand rounds in a week back home in garrison to keep in practice.  My buddy preferred the 416 but he was more interested in speed on target closer range than hitting something at 500 meters.  

Supposedly the AR based .308s don't deteriorate in accuracy as fast.
Link Posted: 8/31/2011 9:25:05 PM EST
[#22]
Originally Posted By Casper507:
Originally Posted By rogue4:
Not sure what you're referring to with the M14.

We have a surplus of them. Anything from wood stocked to tricked out with the SAGE EBR chassis. Someone is going to take this the wrong way but IMO they're two steps away from junk. I'm not a fan at all. Not very many people on this side are. All of ours, no matter the configuration collect dust in the arms room.

I say all of that because I am obviously very biased towards accurate rifles.


I've heard they need to be rebuilt quite often.  Although there was a recent article that talked about putting a modern stock on them as well as setting up with a good scope and having them prepped and ready for issue.  Of course they were rebuilt guns sitting in storage.  They were putting a synthetic and metal stock on them as well as scope setup in around 7 min. apiece.  I have heard some of the SOCOM guys go through a thousand rounds in a week back home in garrison to keep in practice.  My buddy preferred the 416 but he was more interested in speed on target closer range than hitting something at 500 meters.  

Supposedly the AR based .308s don't deteriorate in accuracy as fast.


You don't need an M14 to hit a man accurately and effectivly at 500 meters.
Link Posted: 8/31/2011 9:32:12 PM EST
[#23]
Spoken like a Marine!
Link Posted: 8/31/2011 9:35:56 PM EST
[#24]
Originally Posted By 458winmag:
Spoken like a Marine!


My first four years in the service were as a Marine Infantryman...
Link Posted: 8/31/2011 9:43:12 PM EST
[#25]
It wasn't a guess.
Well done.
Link Posted: 8/31/2011 9:50:05 PM EST
[#26]
What does Marine Eod use?
Link Posted: 8/31/2011 9:51:09 PM EST
[#27]
Originally Posted By diaz_aa:
What does Marine Eod use?


Wire cutters and go fasters
Link Posted: 8/31/2011 9:53:44 PM EST
[#28]
Originally Posted By DM1975:
Originally Posted By diaz_aa:
What does Marine Eod use?


Wire cutters and go fasters


Weapon wise.
Link Posted: 8/31/2011 10:07:41 PM EST
[#29]
Originally Posted By DM1975:
Originally Posted By Casper507:
Originally Posted By rogue4:
Not sure what you're referring to with the M14.

We have a surplus of them. Anything from wood stocked to tricked out with the SAGE EBR chassis. Someone is going to take this the wrong way but IMO they're two steps away from junk. I'm not a fan at all. Not very many people on this side are. All of ours, no matter the configuration collect dust in the arms room.

I say all of that because I am obviously very biased towards accurate rifles.


I've heard they need to be rebuilt quite often.  Although there was a recent article that talked about putting a modern stock on them as well as setting up with a good scope and having them prepped and ready for issue.  Of course they were rebuilt guns sitting in storage.  They were putting a synthetic and metal stock on them as well as scope setup in around 7 min. apiece.  I have heard some of the SOCOM guys go through a thousand rounds in a week back home in garrison to keep in practice.  My buddy preferred the 416 but he was more interested in speed on target closer range than hitting something at 500 meters.  

Supposedly the AR based .308s don't deteriorate in accuracy as fast.


You don't need an M14 to hit a man accurately and effectivly at 500 meters.


I know.  I intended to say 500 plus.  I know guys who could hit a 500 meter target all day with a good AR.  I was referring to a specific friend who carried a Eotech on a 416.  He went through lots of ammunition back at Bragg and the 416 stood up to it.  I doubt anyone would choose a M14 to use for that much practice.  I would have preferred one of the rifles that was being built by the AMU for longer range shooting and standing up to alot of shooting.  Hell,  I wouldn't have been willing to tote around a M14 for anything I would have been doing in the Army.  The only 7.62 that looked of interest to me was the SCAR 17 because it handled as quick in my hands as a M4 Carbine.
Link Posted: 8/31/2011 10:11:55 PM EST
[Last Edit: sinlessorrow] [#30]
this is one ive wondered, have the seals gone exclusively HK416's for their SBR's?

everything you see online makes it seem that way, but you seem to know more
Link Posted: 8/31/2011 10:11:56 PM EST
[#31]



Originally Posted By sinlessorrow:



Originally Posted By rogue4:

I have never seen a KX3 on a Mk18, that's not to say they're not out there. I've never seen Navy EOD carry a Mk18 in the first place, just M4 varients. NSW Mk18's on the other hand, all the ones I've seen have the KAC flash hider for the NT4 can.




ok this is the rifle im making and ive been calling then navy eod(granted idk jack about that stuff), who are these guys, i wanna make sure when my clone is finished ill have the right name for it



http://i203.photobucket.com/albums/aa273/SinlesSorrow/qq8v91zq0.jpg


Oooh, a Magpul 93. Sweet.

 
Link Posted: 8/31/2011 10:18:07 PM EST
[#32]
Originally Posted By Casper507:
Originally Posted By DM1975:
Originally Posted By Casper507:
Originally Posted By rogue4:
Not sure what you're referring to with the M14.

We have a surplus of them. Anything from wood stocked to tricked out with the SAGE EBR chassis. Someone is going to take this the wrong way but IMO they're two steps away from junk. I'm not a fan at all. Not very many people on this side are. All of ours, no matter the configuration collect dust in the arms room.

I say all of that because I am obviously very biased towards accurate rifles.


I've heard they need to be rebuilt quite often.  Although there was a recent article that talked about putting a modern stock on them as well as setting up with a good scope and having them prepped and ready for issue.  Of course they were rebuilt guns sitting in storage.  They were putting a synthetic and metal stock on them as well as scope setup in around 7 min. apiece.  I have heard some of the SOCOM guys go through a thousand rounds in a week back home in garrison to keep in practice.  My buddy preferred the 416 but he was more interested in speed on target closer range than hitting something at 500 meters.  

Supposedly the AR based .308s don't deteriorate in accuracy as fast.


You don't need an M14 to hit a man accurately and effectivly at 500 meters.


I know.  I intended to say 500 plus.  I know guys who could hit a 500 meter target all day with a good AR.  I was referring to a specific friend who carried a Eotech on a 416.  He went through lots of ammunition back at Bragg and the 416 stood up to it.  I doubt anyone would choose a M14 to use for that much practice.  I would have preferred one of the rifles that was being built by the AMU for longer range shooting and standing up to alot of shooting.  Hell,  I wouldn't have been willing to tote around a M14 for anything I would have been doing in the Army.  The only 7.62 that looked of interest to me was the SCAR 17 because it handled as quick in my hands as a M4 Carbine.


I'm lost.....

Link Posted: 8/31/2011 10:24:49 PM EST
[#33]



Originally Posted By 458winmag:



Originally Posted By Casper507:


Originally Posted By DM1975:


Originally Posted By Casper507:


Originally Posted By rogue4:

Not sure what you're referring to with the M14.



We have a surplus of them. Anything from wood stocked to tricked out with the SAGE EBR chassis. Someone is going to take this the wrong way but IMO they're two steps away from junk. I'm not a fan at all. Not very many people on this side are. All of ours, no matter the configuration collect dust in the arms room.



I say all of that because I am obviously very biased towards accurate rifles.




I've heard they need to be rebuilt quite often.  Although there was a recent article that talked about putting a modern stock on them as well as setting up with a good scope and having them prepped and ready for issue.  Of course they were rebuilt guns sitting in storage.  They were putting a synthetic and metal stock on them as well as scope setup in around 7 min. apiece.  I have heard some of the SOCOM guys go through a thousand rounds in a week back home in garrison to keep in practice.  My buddy preferred the 416 but he was more interested in speed on target closer range than hitting something at 500 meters.  



Supposedly the AR based .308s don't deteriorate in accuracy as fast.





You don't need an M14 to hit a man accurately and effectivly at 500 meters.




I know.  I intended to say 500 plus.  I know guys who could hit a 500 meter target all day with a good AR.  I was referring to a specific friend who carried a Eotech on a 416.  He went through lots of ammunition back at Bragg and the 416 stood up to it.  I doubt anyone would choose a M14 to use for that much practice.  I would have preferred one of the rifles that was being built by the AMU for longer range shooting and standing up to alot of shooting.  Hell,  I wouldn't have been willing to tote around a M14 for anything I would have been doing in the Army.  The only 7.62 that looked of interest to me was the SCAR 17 because it handled as quick in my hands as a M4 Carbine.




I'm lost.....





Yeah.

 
Link Posted: 8/31/2011 10:28:24 PM EST
[#34]
Originally Posted By 458winmag:
Originally Posted By Casper507:
Originally Posted By DM1975:
Originally Posted By Casper507:
Originally Posted By rogue4:
Not sure what you're referring to with the M14.

We have a surplus of them. Anything from wood stocked to tricked out with the SAGE EBR chassis. Someone is going to take this the wrong way but IMO they're two steps away from junk. I'm not a fan at all. Not very many people on this side are. All of ours, no matter the configuration collect dust in the arms room.

I say all of that because I am obviously very biased towards accurate rifles.


I've heard they need to be rebuilt quite often.  Although there was a recent article that talked about putting a modern stock on them as well as setting up with a good scope and having them prepped and ready for issue.  Of course they were rebuilt guns sitting in storage.  They were putting a synthetic and metal stock on them as well as scope setup in around 7 min. apiece.  I have heard some of the SOCOM guys go through a thousand rounds in a week back home in garrison to keep in practice.  My buddy preferred the 416 but he was more interested in speed on target closer range than hitting something at 500 meters.  

Supposedly the AR based .308s don't deteriorate in accuracy as fast.


You don't need an M14 to hit a man accurately and effectivly at 500 meters.


I know.  I intended to say 500 plus.  I know guys who could hit a 500 meter target all day with a good AR.  I was referring to a specific friend who carried a Eotech on a 416.  He went through lots of ammunition back at Bragg and the 416 stood up to it.  I doubt anyone would choose a M14 to use for that much practice.  I would have preferred one of the rifles that was being built by the AMU for longer range shooting and standing up to alot of shooting.  Hell,  I wouldn't have been willing to tote around a M14 for anything I would have been doing in the Army.  The only 7.62 that looked of interest to me was the SCAR 17 because it handled as quick in my hands as a M4 Carbine.


I'm lost.....



Me too... Something about 416 M14's doing something hard and bragging about it I think.
Link Posted: 8/31/2011 10:30:45 PM EST
[#35]
Originally Posted By rogue4:
In some units it's as easy as a trip to the armorer. You will have the choice of barrels, limited rails etc.


This is the most important thing stated so far in this thread, and what most of the "clone-builders" either don't know, or realize.  

I've been out since early 2007.  Both the civilian armorers that I went to for a decade left the group recently - we're all out now, and back in touch in touch with each other, bitching about the old times...  

If you wanted one of the issued lasers on the side of your 240, you just went to them and said it - "I want it right here...  ^^^...  on this side, right here in this spot, so I can reach it."  A day or two later, there was a piece of rail right where you said you wanted it, and you could toss your laser on there and head to the range and sight the thing in for whatever you thought you need it for.  Done.  Anything was possible - nothing was unpossible.  All kinds of crazy shit left that armorer's den.

When the M4A1 heavy barrels were sent out to the units en mass (lin 2000? - something like that), there was a big mess with them.  Something about barrel torque being way fucked up, or something along those lines - and that was coming straight from Colt.  We ended up with something like 650 of them, unusable.  Our civilian armorers had to fix them all before issue and use, so they went about it, and got the shit straight.  Colt had us send some of them back, but not all of them - most were already fixed, in house, so there was no need to send them back.  

I stay out of most of the clone threads as far as comments go, and usually only look at them just to see what people are building - no comments necessary from me, because that's only what the original version was supposed to be like, in someone's conceptual PowerPoint Presentation.  That's just a starting point...  

Rogue, I think it's a good thing you're doing with this thread.  Hard to tell where this one will go, but it's a good discussion point.  

Link Posted: 8/31/2011 10:38:00 PM EST
[#36]
Many a good idea has been ruined by an Officer and a Powerpoint presentation.
Link Posted: 8/31/2011 11:32:24 PM EST
[#37]
Know how all the car magazine people have the spies stationed at the factory test tracks, hoping to "catch" the latest photos of the newest vehicles coming out?  Those pics look like shit, with the factories putting the fake panels and covers all over the newest Corvette, or whatever the fuck is coming out...

I'd like to see all the clone-builders sitting outside one of the "armorer's dens" in various units, trying to catch magnified pics of what guys walk out of there with - and the guys smiling like hell - with just what they asked for when they walked in there.  

The clone builders heads would fucking explode before they could snap the pic.  
Link Posted: 8/31/2011 11:33:26 PM EST
[#38]
I always wondered why these (not this one) .mil clone threads get so heated. It seems to draw the most attention and participation from those members who are not in the USAS or never have been.
Link Posted: 8/31/2011 11:35:32 PM EST
[#39]
Maybe they should have rubber ducks decked out with Leapers and Tapco shit all over em for just that.
Link Posted: 8/31/2011 11:55:12 PM EST
[#40]
What sort of internals are preferred? BCGs or FCGs. Any fancy triggers etc?
Link Posted: 9/1/2011 12:20:51 AM EST
[Last Edit: NateTheShake] [#41]
EDIT: I was tired when I posted that...

FWIW my line company has a standard for what goes on our rifles, but we are still allowed to swap stuff as long as the rifle is still functional and has the "must have" equipment mounted and able to be used effectively by the end user.  As a result our armory doesn't really have a "standard" and going through you'll see many variations of VFG's, slings, stocks, etc.  Sometimes when we have some sort of dress-right-dress ceremony we will have to return our rifles to a standard so it's a good idea not to do anything that isn't readily reversible.
Link Posted: 9/1/2011 12:22:15 AM EST
[#42]
FYI, Marine EOD use the M4 with knights rail and acog.
Link Posted: 9/1/2011 12:35:41 AM EST
[#43]
Ok. I'm pretty new to the AR format and have no idea about .mil weaponry. I have a buddy that was in the NG and served a tour in Iraq, but we never talked about his weapon systems while he was deployed. So my questions are: What does RECCE stand for(I've seen it used, but have never seen a definition)? Is an MK18 just an M4 with a 10.5" barrel?

Please educate an ignorant civi. lol
Link Posted: 9/1/2011 12:46:00 AM EST
[#44]
Originally Posted By Quinncy81:
Ok. I'm pretty new to the AR format and have no idea about .mil weaponry. I have a buddy that was in the NG and served a tour in Iraq, but we never talked about his weapon systems while he was deployed. So my questions are: What does RECCE stand for(I've seen it used, but have never seen a definition)? Is an MK18 just an M4 with a 10.5" barrel?

Please educate an ignorant civi. lol


Definition of RECCE
Link Posted: 9/1/2011 12:48:23 AM EST
[Last Edit: 98Z5V] [#45]
Originally Posted By FunBobby:
Originally Posted By Quinncy81:
Ok. I'm pretty new to the AR format and have no idea about .mil weaponry. I have a buddy that was in the NG and served a tour in Iraq, but we never talked about his weapon systems while he was deployed. So my questions are: What does RECCE stand for(I've seen it used, but have never seen a definition)? Is an MK18 just an M4 with a 10.5" barrel?

Please educate an ignorant civi. lol


Definition of RECCE


Also, hit this one - because you're completely missing the point of this thread.

http://www.ar15.com/forums/t_3_118/546642_Who_uses_Recce_rifles_today_.html

ETA - maybe I was a little harsh - when the point of this thread is .mil myths, etc.  You're on target, and I was caught up in where the thread is now...  
Link Posted: 9/1/2011 2:05:53 AM EST
[#46]
Originally Posted By 98Z5V:
Originally Posted By FunBobby:
Originally Posted By Quinncy81:
Ok. I'm pretty new to the AR format and have no idea about .mil weaponry. I have a buddy that was in the NG and served a tour in Iraq, but we never talked about his weapon systems while he was deployed. So my questions are: What does RECCE stand for(I've seen it used, but have never seen a definition)? Is an MK18 just an M4 with a 10.5" barrel?

Please educate an ignorant civi. lol


Definition of RECCE


Also, hit this one - because you're completely missing the point of this thread.

http://www.ar15.com/forums/t_3_118/546642_Who_uses_Recce_rifles_today_.html

ETA - maybe I was a little harsh - when the point of this thread is .mil myths, etc.  You're on target, and I was caught up in where the thread is now...  


Thanks for the links guys. And 98, I didn't find your initial response too harsh, just confused me a lil. I knew I was a lil off of the direction the thread was heading, but it was interesting to me and needed a couple questions answered so the conversation wasn't completely over my head.
Link Posted: 9/1/2011 9:21:56 AM EST
[#47]
Originally Posted By Quinncy81:
Ok. I'm pretty new to the AR format and have no idea about .mil weaponry. I have a buddy that was in the NG and served a tour in Iraq, but we never talked about his weapon systems while he was deployed. So my questions are: What does RECCE stand for(I've seen it used, but have never seen a definition)? Is an MK18 just an M4 with a 10.5" barrel?

Please educate an ignorant civi. lol


I think the majority of the thinking behind this is that they vary quite a bit. It would be nice to get a few other folks in these units to chime in with some of their examples, but this being arfcom and all I just don't think we will see much of that here.
Link Posted: 9/1/2011 10:26:29 AM EST
[#48]
Interestingly enough, we had "M4A1s" on our ship for the VBSS team that were a hodgepodge of different parts. The lowers were originally MK18 lowers but I guess someone decided to swap the uppers out with M4 uppers. However, the barrels weren't the heavier M4A1 profile, just the standard ones. They were equipped with a KAC RAS, KAC or LMT BUIS, KAC rail panels, and KAC VFG. We had Comp M2s on some sort of low-profile mount but we never used them for some reason.

You can see the MK18 markings and KAC BUIS on this one.


LMT BUIS.
Link Posted: 9/1/2011 10:44:31 AM EST
[#49]
Originally Posted By AzNooB:
Interestingly enough, we had "M4A1s" on our ship for the VBSS team that were a hodgepodge of different parts. The lowers were originally MK18 lowers but I guess someone decided to swap the uppers out with M4 uppers. However, the barrels weren't the heavier M4A1 profile, just the standard ones. They were equipped with a KAC RAS, KAC or LMT BUIS, KAC rail panels, and KAC VFG. We had Comp M2s on some sort of low-profile mount but we never used them for some reason.

You can see the MK18 markings and KAC BUIS on this one.
http://a1.sphotos.ak.fbcdn.net/hphotos-ak-snc4/39083_1185702092893_1538490807_30790071_5555922_n.jpg

LMT BUIS.
http://a5.sphotos.ak.fbcdn.net/hphotos-ak-snc6/39083_1185701932889_1538490807_30790067_6312773_n.jpg


My understanding is that most VBSS MK18s have been converted to 14.5" barrel configurations.  No solid verification on this though.  

That being said, those are not M4A1s in a technical sense, neither by nomenclature or basis of issue.  Rather, it would appear that they started out as MK18 Mod 0 complete weapon systems supplied by Crane, most likely originally with a 10.3" barred and KAC M4QD comp.  If they were re-barreled / re-uppered with 14.5" uppers as an institutional program managed by Crane, these might be much closer to what may or may not be one day considered a MK18 Mod 1.  

I wonder if you'd be good enough to post these photos in the MK18 thread as well?

Thanks,
~Augee
Link Posted: 9/1/2011 10:51:28 AM EST
[#50]
I've only built a couple of AR's but this thread cracks me up. It's like the guys who debate billet versus forged on a lower receiver. Oooooh, the forged is stronger. Well, guess what there are plenty of high rpm engines out there with billet rods that are still running just fine and they put a hell of lot more strain on the aluminum than a lower receiver that just sits there. If you want a billet one because it looks nicer and is shaped how you want it then get one and if not then don't. It's just a freakin lower receiver people!
Arrow Left Previous Page
Page / 13
Page AR-15 » AR Discussions
AR Sponsor: bravocompany
Close Join Our Mail List to Stay Up To Date! 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.


By signing up you agree to our User Agreement. *Must have a registered ARFCOM account to win.
Top Top