Warning

 

Close

Confirm Action

Are you sure you wish to do this?

Confirm Cancel
Member Login
Site Notices
Posted: 2/11/2006 2:02:41 PM EDT
Some interesting designs for Monolithic Uppers coming out. Who plans on using these instead of the "legacy" multi-piece AR uppers?

At last, they are being made so that Standard barrels are compatible.

But, do you see that much of an advantage that will offset their higher cost? The plusses I see are an uninterrupted top rail, stronger upper unit, and de-stressing the barrel nut. Anything else? Is that enough for you to make the move to monolith?
Link Posted: 2/11/2006 2:04:21 PM EDT
I wish I could see more of the Larue rail.

The removable fa/rass defletor on the Vltor kind of bugs me
Link Posted: 2/11/2006 2:12:50 PM EDT

Originally Posted By AyeGuy:
Some interesting designs for Monolithic Uppers coming out. Who plans on using these instead of the "legacy" multi-piece AR uppers?

At last, they are being made so that Standard barrels are compatible.

But, do you see that much of an advantage that will offset their higher cost? The plusses I see are an uninterrupted top rail, stronger upper unit, and de-stressing the barrel nut. Anything else? Is that enough for you to make the move to monolith?



I plan on replacing my AR with a SCAR, either L or H, as soon as it comes out.

i am not going to waste the money on a half-assed attempt at improvement.

I only have the one AR, and i KNOW some one here will buy it.
Link Posted: 2/11/2006 2:13:34 PM EDT

Originally Posted By JBowles:
I wish I could see more of the Larue rail.

The removable fa/rass defletor on the Vltor kind of bugs me



Curious, what about the removable FA bothers you?
Link Posted: 2/11/2006 2:39:08 PM EDT

Originally Posted By Gunzilla:

Originally Posted By JBowles:
I wish I could see more of the Larue rail.

The removable fa/rass defletor on the Vltor kind of bugs me



Curious, what about the removable FA bothers you?



I dont know, I just don't see the point I making it removable, its just one more part to come loose or go wrong, I just seems like a solution looking for a promblem.
Link Posted: 2/11/2006 4:10:11 PM EDT
I like the VLTOR. I'm sure I'll be buying one when rifle lengths are offered.

The extra top rail stability, cutting down on parts count, and extra ease of disassembly/assembly have me sold.

I also wouldn't mind having piston uppers from LW/HK/POF, and especially the Colt when it has some proof behind it. I hope they have plans to offer it in rifle length as well.
Link Posted: 2/11/2006 5:19:56 PM EDT
I like the rigid one-piece idea but I don't plan on replacing my junk. I can't get over the fact that if the rail is damaged the whole upper is. While this doesn't happen often (and I have never done it) it is just something that I can not get past.

Cheers
Link Posted: 2/11/2006 6:06:24 PM EDT
I am stockpiling parts to create four new uppers...if I went the monolith route I'd have to sell all that stuff on the EE...so I was looking for input from you guys to help me make my decision.

I have a couple of Larue FF rails in my stockpile, and in a recent thread about 16" barrels with rifle length FF rails the point was made about how the flexing rail putting stress on the barrel nut could lead to a misalignment of the operating parts and the bolt impacting the locking lugs...in extreme circumstances. Just how relevant this "problem" is remains to be seen, but it was confirmed by a knowlegable member.

The VLTOR monolith is interesting, but I'd like to see the Larue as well...I doubt Larue would do something as frivolous as putting a removable forward assist system/brass deflector on their upper.
Link Posted: 2/11/2006 7:43:24 PM EDT

Originally Posted By AyeGuy:
The VLTOR monolith is interesting, but I'd like to see the Larue as well...I doubt Larue would do something as frivolous as putting a removable forward assist system/brass deflector on their upper.



Wes,

While Mark may not have it, it hardly makes the existance of it frivolous... I answered this in another post where you were talking about it, but I guess you did not see it?

That cut out, while it does hold a brass deflector or forward assist, is located where is it and designed like it is for a device requested by the military -- If you would like, feel free to get the word out? The truth never hurts...
Link Posted: 2/11/2006 9:10:46 PM EDT
No offense taken or given, Mr. 'zilla. I saw the post you reference but details were lacking...or I just plain missed it. What is this "device" the military requested? Tell me and I'll gladly get the word out...unless it's Area 51 stuff and you want to keep it under your hat.

What could it be? Shot counter?

*****

"The Truth never hurts"...I can assure you from personal experience your theory is incorrect

Link Posted: 2/11/2006 9:13:52 PM EDT
A round counter? That would be sort of neat, you know, like in Aliens.
Link Posted: 2/11/2006 10:06:11 PM EDT
I'm interested in monolithic as well just don't plan o nselling my current stuff yet.

I like the slim look of the VLTOR.
Link Posted: 2/11/2006 10:14:37 PM EDT
The cost/benefit ratio of the DI monolithic systems, for my purposes, just isn't substantial enough for me to buy one.

The Colt piston setup, and the HK416, are things that I would buy though, if they ever become available.
Link Posted: 2/11/2006 11:15:00 PM EDT
[Last Edit: 2/11/2006 11:17:09 PM EDT by Green0]
It's a superior system, but it isn't going to replace them all simply because cost should always be higher as is the case even with the VLTOR VIS (upper and FF RAS are $300-$450 and this is $200 more than the vis, and that's just comparing systems without taking into account most users allready have uppers and rail systems lieing around.

I would say it's deffinitely a tempting option. The price when thought of that way is very impressive-- VLTOR obviously did a good job being competitive.

I deffinitely would rather see the deflector and assist built in but understand that is probably a manufacturing process camoflaged as an option, than the other way around. [It can't be as involved as an MRP and still be half the cost of an MRP]
Link Posted: 2/11/2006 11:34:01 PM EDT
The Vltor looks really sexy. I'd like to try one of those, probably in Middy form. I like how it uses standard barrels. I'm not going to trash all my current stuff though. I would also like one of the LW piston uppers and GP rail system. Oh the toys I'd love to have.
Link Posted: 2/12/2006 1:14:51 AM EDT

Originally Posted By AyeGuy:
Some interesting designs for Monolithic Uppers coming out. Who plans on using these instead of the "legacy" multi-piece AR uppers?

At last, they are being made so that Standard barrels are compatible.

But, do you see that much of an advantage that will offset their higher cost? The plusses I see are an uninterrupted top rail, stronger upper unit, and de-stressing the barrel nut. Anything else? Is that enough for you to make the move to monolith?



I have no need of an uninterrupted top rail and I've never had a problem with the strength of my upper or stress on my barrel nut. I'll stick with what I got.
Link Posted: 2/12/2006 4:17:25 AM EDT
The LMT MRP is very expensive and I do like Vltor's design. I am looking for a monolithic-type platform in mid-length with a 16 barrel and the Vltor seems to fit that bill. But I'll be holding out to see how these new POF/LW/COLT gas systems will work out before jumping into one. I have 3 stripped lowers waiting patiently for uppers. D
Link Posted: 2/12/2006 5:46:25 AM EDT
tag
Link Posted: 2/12/2006 5:51:03 AM EDT
Personally, I'm not sure they give enough to warrant a wholesale changeout of receivers. Just IMO. But if I did find that money tree I've been searcing for all my life, I'd probably try one of each.
Link Posted: 2/12/2006 6:00:37 AM EDT
Link Posted: 2/12/2006 6:55:05 AM EDT
[Last Edit: 2/12/2006 6:55:24 AM EDT by bigbore]
Link Posted: 2/12/2006 7:41:37 AM EDT
I'd be interested in the Rifle length upper for the same reason I bought a Larue 20.0: to make a "Recce" type set-up, so the low-pro gas block is safley protected under the handguard...and for variety's sake. The one negative theoretical I see with monoliths is the argument that "ruin a rail and you have to trash the whole upper"...hmmm..."trashing" a damaged Larue or DD would be just about as painful, I recon...

I'll be the first to admit that the primary reason monoliths appeal to me is that they are the latest-latest and seem to be a further step in the evolution of the AR...they are BETTER than the legacy recievers, see? And why not have the best if you can? My AK went through a similar transformation: from the crap Chinese boxwood stocks to laminated to synthetic, as they became available. This is also the reason I am not interested in piston uppers: I see direct impingement as an advance over reciprocating hardware...if I wanted to regress technology, I just pick up my AK...But the possibility of a flexing FF handguard leading to a functional failure has been bothering me ever since I saw the post, considering the expertise of the member who made the comments. Similar failures were caused in actual combat by the RAS.

Aimless: I'm not sure what you meant by your comment. With MRP the idea is to have a supply of various barrels, but the VLTOR is not quick-change; I did not get the MRP because I don't need this feature, plus the cost and the proprietary barrels.
Link Posted: 2/12/2006 8:04:42 AM EDT

Originally Posted By AyeGuy:
No offense taken or given, Mr. 'zilla. I saw the post you reference but details were lacking...or I just plain missed it. What is this "device" the military requested? Tell me and I'll gladly get the word out...unless it's Area 51 stuff and you want to keep it under your hat.

What could it be? Shot counter?

*****

"The Truth never hurts"...I can assure you from personal experience your theory is incorrect




Well... to be honest, it is to mount a small computerized controll device (the C2 system) that locks the bolt and renders the rifle unusable, unless the authorized user places his/her thumb on the back of the C2 System and is verified by DNA matching... Just like in the movie Doom.

There also is a button that you can press and a shrill voice announces at 104dB "Help! I've fallen and can't get up!"

or, it could be for a round counter
Link Posted: 2/12/2006 9:04:32 AM EDT
Tag.
Link Posted: 2/12/2006 9:16:35 AM EDT
[Last Edit: 2/12/2006 9:50:03 AM EDT by redfisher]
I really like the look of the monolithic uppers.

besides a solid foundation for interchangeable barrels, (not a priority or need for me) what advantages do monolithic uppers offer?

edit- Duh. same question AyeGuy is asking. oh well. call it a wordy tag

Link Posted: 2/12/2006 9:25:09 AM EDT
Link Posted: 2/12/2006 1:30:59 PM EDT
No plans to replace any uppers, however the monolithic uppers will be part of my future mid length builds.
Link Posted: 2/12/2006 1:52:40 PM EDT

Originally Posted By Gloftoe:
Nah. If I want a FF tube, I'll get a FF tube and put it on my current upper. Where's the need?



Here's why (possibly):

Question:

This has always been my favorite configuration(carbine barrel with FF rifle length handguards), but then I started thinking about, the extra leverage on the barel nut, which is attached to the upper receiver. I know I can flex a 12.0 rail, which will move the barrel, but the bolt in the receiver will not be moving with the barrel. That cant be good. Maybe I'm just thinking too much?

Response:

Well... if you are, you are at least thinking correctly. The handguards that attach to the barrel nut are known to present a problem with flexing the alignment of the bolt and barrel, this causes the load on the bolt (when fired) to be largely taken up by only a few of the lugs, resulting in binding or even breaking.

This is one of the reasons that so many people are interested in solid upper receivers and handguard mountings that transfer the load to something other than the barrel nut...


How much of a problem? This remains to be seen...
Link Posted: 2/12/2006 3:01:05 PM EDT
Too many eggs in one basket. Will stick with separate Uppers and railed FF for now it is less expensive. But they look fantastic I must say.
Link Posted: 2/12/2006 3:07:07 PM EDT
I definitely like them in principle, but I also like the idea of replacing a damaged rail vs. the whole upper receiver.
Link Posted: 2/12/2006 6:34:50 PM EDT
I'd love to see a monolithic upper with a handguard similar to the YHM modular FF tube. It would seem to be easier to produce and therefore less expensive as well. I like having rails where I need them, but I'd rather not have them where I don't need them.
Link Posted: 2/13/2006 3:58:50 AM EDT
If Larue makes one that is priced decently and uses standard barrels, it'd be hard for me NOT to buy one.
Link Posted: 2/13/2006 9:05:09 AM EDT
I'm with Wirebrush on this one. Removable rails (at least on the sides and bottom) would make a monolith cheaper and less prone to catastophic damage; the SCAR follows this design philosophy. And instead of having to put rail covers over expensive rails just to provide a gripping surface, plastic handguards should be available to mount directly to the upper.
Link Posted: 2/13/2006 10:58:28 AM EDT
i see no need to replace anything, adding to the bunch is a different story though
Top Top