AR Sponsor
Posted: 6/8/2008 10:52:47 AM EDT
|
What's the reasoning behind manufacturing comm. buffer tubes? Why would anyone want anything less than mil-spec on their AR15/M4 Type Rifle ? |
I would guess it's cheaper to make and probably 99% of people don't know the difference and some other high percentage just shoot off a bench or whatever where the chance of it making a difference is nil. |
|
I got to believe Aimless is correct. I doubt very much that very many people know what the difference is. With that being said, why do they even make a bolt carrier that isn't a M16 bolt carrier? Why doesn't every company MPI test every barrel? Why doesn't every company use chrome lined chambers, and bores? Why doesn't every company ????? You get the idea. It's cheaper, and 99% of the time it really doesn't matter. |
Lancelot is dead on correct. A commercial tube, everything else being equal, is just as good as a military diameter tube. I would imagine that it's stronger than a military spec one since the tube may be thicker. I have not measured either, so I'm just thinking out loud. Maybe somebody that knows about the manufacture of both could chime in. I know the .mil tubes are machined slightly smaller, after the threaded portion, than the commercial and that's were the added cost comes from. I have no idea why they do it like that though. |
m4carbine.net/showthread.php?t=101
|
I've broke one. Honestly though, a milspec buffer tube would have probably broke too. But after that point, I stopped using commercial buffer tubes. |
didn't the mil-spec CTR's debut first? i'd assume the ACS will follow suit... so there is still some advantage...  the other advantage is that the threads are extruded not cut so in THEORY the mil-spec should be stronger at a critical stress point... in PRACTICE i too have NEVER heard or seen a commercial tube break... |
| IIRC the difference is in the manufacturing process, mil-spec tubes have the threads "rolled" into them causing the metal to upset whereas the threads on the commercial tubes are cut into them thereby requiring that the diameter of the tube be larger to start with. either way I don’t see it making a difference in strength. |
|
Kind of a poor design either way, I bent a milspec when I was in the Army to the point where the bolt would not cycle, glad it wasn't something I bought. I really see no difference in the 2 yeah if you take a tumble and hit it right it's gonna break you only have like what 5/8" or so of thread engagement anyway and it is threading into an aluminium body, I bet I could buttstroke someone hard enough to mess up the lower also, How many barrels are jacked up every year from the old bayonet course? Use it as a rifle and you will have good luck use it as a bat or pry bar and I would rather try my luck with a Stanely product from Home Depot. Send me all your inferior Commercial tubes and I will do some torture testing 
|
|
Here is an interesting article: www.threading101.com/files/article_threadrolling-on-a-cnc.html Although I doubt tube failures that do happen result from thread failiure / the tube pulling out of the reciever(?). I would assume, perhaps incorrectly, that tube failure would most likely be a bend in the tube itself just outside of the reciever. |
It's cheaper to make a commercial tube because it has a larger outside diameter. Less machining. Mil Spec has a smaller outside diameter which requires more machining. Commercial is cheaper because it takes less machining, and time to produce. |
AR Sponsor