AR Sponsor
Posted: 9/27/2016 10:55:09 PM EDT
|
**ISSUE RESOLVED**
I received a complete lower from PSA and I can not determine if the receiver extension is made from 6061 or 7075. I want to be clear that I am only trying to determine what material it is made of, not if it is commercial or "mil-spec". Furthermore, I understand the differences between the two. I am confident that what I received is made of 6061 based on my comparison to a 7075 tube, but I want to verify this. PSA believes it is made of 7075 but I'm not convinced. I need some piece of mind! Please post photo's of your 6061 and/or 7075 receiver extensions, including the inside of the receiver extension, and feel free to share your thoughts. |
|
You will never be able to tell the difference by just looking at them. You would need to send it off to a lab and have it tested.
If you are only going off the finish, I have received tubes from PSA that were smooth and slick on the inside and some that were rough. I have Spikes tubes that are smooth on the inside and some that are more rough. It's just how they were finished at the time of coating. I only buy 7075 tubes now from Vltor or BCM because they seem to be finished better and look nice. The only issue I have ever had with a 6061 tube was from Aero. The alignment tab on the end plate seemed to dig into the threads more easily than any other tube I have ever used. Aero now only makes 7075 tubes. I have used Aero (6061 and 7075), Spikes, BCM, Vltor, Damage Industry and PSA tubes. Honestly, I have never seen a thread about a buffer tube breaking because it was 6061 instead of 7075. Unless you plan on mortaring your rifle constantly or throwing your self on the ground with your rifle under you on numerous occasion, I would not worry about it. |
|
Quoted:
I entirely agree. We can only make that determination based on the dry film lube. Quoted:
Quoted: I sincerely doubt pictures of anodized aluminum will enable anyone to tell you the specific alloy number. I entirely agree. We can only make that determination based on the dry film lube. Que? What will dry film lube tell you about the specific aluminum alloy underneath the dry film? |
|
Quoted:
Que? What will dry film lube tell you about the specific aluminum alloy underneath the dry film? Quoted:
Quoted:
Quoted: I sincerely doubt pictures of anodized aluminum will enable anyone to tell you the specific alloy number. I entirely agree. We can only make that determination based on the dry film lube. Que? What will dry film lube tell you about the specific aluminum alloy underneath the dry film? Not a single thing, obviously. I made this statement based on the fact that 6061 receiver extensions do not have dry film lube on the inside. Though it is not a guarantee, dry film lube would suggest the tube is 7075. |
|
Quoted:
No, that is a fact. Most, if not all, AR15 6061 receiver extensions do not have dry film lube. Is that relevant enough for you, or would you like to continue your argumentative and sarcastic demeanor? 
What lower did you purchase? Was it their premium line? Well in searching through the archives right here on this system, the same exact subject was discussed back in 2013 and it states that the 7075 tubes have a grey finish inside the tube and the 6061 has a black finish inside the tube. https://www.ar15.com/archive/topic.html?b=3&f=12&t=620877 |
|
Quoted:
What lower did you purchase? Was it their premium line? Well in searching through the archives right here on this system, the same exact subject was discussed back in 2013 and it states that the 7075 tubes have a grey finish inside the tube and the 6061 has a black finish inside the tube. https://www.ar15.com/archive/topic.html?b=3&f=12&t=620877 Quoted:
Quoted:
No, that is a fact. Most, if not all, AR15 6061 receiver extensions do not have dry film lube. Is that relevant enough for you, or would you like to continue your argumentative and sarcastic demeanor?
What lower did you purchase? Was it their premium line? Well in searching through the archives right here on this system, the same exact subject was discussed back in 2013 and it states that the 7075 tubes have a grey finish inside the tube and the 6061 has a black finish inside the tube. https://www.ar15.com/archive/topic.html?b=3&f=12&t=620877 Thank you, I am aware of the differences. It is difficult to determine which one I have by looking at it in person, and the photo's aren't any better. Lower: Classic Defender Lower Not their "premium" line but that doesn't necessarily mean they don't ship with 7075. I should note that I have since resolved this matter with PSA. Thanks to everyone for your input! |
|
Quoted:
PSA is 6061 unless the description states the tube is 7075. From your link: That's going to be a 6061 tube. Quoted:
PSA is 6061 unless the description states the tube is 7075. From your link: Milspec diameter Receiver Extension That's going to be a 6061 tube. This. Mil spec diameter means mil spec diameter ONLY, otherwise it would simply be "mil spec". |
|
Quoted:
PSA is 6061 unless the description states the tube is 7075. From your link: That's going to be a 6061 tube. Quoted:
PSA is 6061 unless the description states the tube is 7075. From your link: Milspec diameter Receiver Extension That's going to be a 6061 tube. No. PSA has posted numerous times over the last year or two that they do not use ANY 6061 tubes any more. They are all 7075. This was posted 10/24/15 Originally Posted By Palmetto State Armory:
Thank you for your inquiry. While it is best not to assume features not advertised, we have switched to using only 7075 buffer tubes in an ongoing effort to provide our customers with the best possible product. We have been updating the products on the website with more details and better descriptions. It is a slow process, and we apologize for any inconvenience. |
|
Quoted:
No. PSA has posted numerous times over the last year or two that they do not use ANY 6061 tubes any more. They are all 7075. This was posted 10/24/15 Quoted:
Quoted:
PSA is 6061 unless the description states the tube is 7075. From your link: Milspec diameter Receiver Extension That's going to be a 6061 tube. No. PSA has posted numerous times over the last year or two that they do not use ANY 6061 tubes any more. They are all 7075. This was posted 10/24/15 Originally Posted By Palmetto State Armory:
Thank you for your inquiry. While it is best not to assume features not advertised, we have switched to using only 7075 buffer tubes in an ongoing effort to provide our customers with the best possible product. We have been updating the products on the website with more details and better descriptions. It is a slow process, and we apologize for any inconvenience. Excuse me, I have been buying from them for some time. Back in the day they listed 7075 on the kits that had 7075 tubes. There current listing is accurate since they can't sell milspec tubes. |
|
Quoted:
It was my understanding that all PSA buffer tubes were 7075 now per a post in their forum. I have bought a couple of lower and seen several others that were bought within the past couple of months, 1 out of 3 had dry film lubed inside the tube the others were black. All the descriptions were touted as "mil-spec diameter" if the dry film is any indication of 7075 then I'd surmise that PSA is still using 6061 for their value priced lowers. Will be checking a couple more later today possibly if i don't get wrapped up in storm prep. |
|
I believe they stated that they were switching to 7075 only... BEFORE they absorbed Ptac and Freedom brands. Now suddenly we have vague descriptions on some parts. They also sell "classic" lowers with "mil spec DIAMETER" yet also "PREMIUM" lowers which specifically state 7075 tube. So tell me what's "Premium" about their premium if they BOTH use 7075?
This exact topic was brought up less than a month ago and PSA answered and chimed in every other topic EXCEPT this one. Until they clarify, specifically, if ALL are 7075 tubes or not... I will NOT believe they are (as evidenced both physically, descriptively, and price). Here's the thread they ignored: http://www.ar15.com/forums/t_2_301/278657_Buffer_tubes_on_complete_classic_lowers.html BTW, I have no hate for PSA (I use their stuff all the time), I just think they need to "come out" with the clear answer and stop playing the vague game about their RE's. |
|
Judging which alloy you have by looking at the finish seems silly.
Would you be able to tell what material your car is made of by looking at the paint?
Either trust what you bought, send it out for analysis or buy exactly what you want from a reputable company. PSA sells so many different parts and qualities that it is hard to tell. You buy the "same" part twice from them they may look different. They keep their prices low by buying in quantity and, I am sure, from the low bidder. So the "same" part may be made by different vendors. If the description said 7075 I am sure it is regardless of finish. If it said nothing about the alloy then most likely it is 6061. PSA is the Walmart of AR parts. If you have a specific requirement for your gun then you should verify they are supplying it before you buy or go to a better vendor. I have a bunch of PSA parts and while they are fine they are not premium quality by any means. |
|
Quoted:
Judging which alloy you have by looking at the finish seems silly. Would you be able to tell what material your car is made of by looking at the paint? Quoted:
Judging which alloy you have by looking at the finish seems silly. Would you be able to tell what material your car is made of by looking at the paint? Reading is fundamental... Quoted:
Quoted:
What fitment or function issues are you having with the part in question? I am having no issue with regards to fitment or function. My goal, with the help of others, is to determine if this product has dry film lube. Quoted:
Quoted:
Que? What will dry film lube tell you about the specific aluminum alloy underneath the dry film? Not a single thing, obviously. I made this statement based on the fact that 6061 receiver extensions do not have dry film lube on the inside. Though it is not a guarantee, dry film lube would suggest the tube is 7075. Your post is redundant, and this issue has already been resolved. |
|
Shooting-Blanks... Nothing has been "resolved". Dry film means nothing (even Anderson 7075 parts are not dry film lubed). PSA will not chime in (I'm sure for a reason) as to which is which. Sure, maybe at one point they decided to use only 7075... but then they absorbed Ptac and Freedom (and who knows what they are using).
Nothing has been resolved, but if "reading is fundamental", please tell what has.
I'm sure we'd all love to hear your wisdom. |
|
Quoted:
Shooting-Blanks... Nothing has been "resolved". Dry film means nothing (even Anderson 7075 parts are not dry film lubed). PSA will not chime in (I'm sure for a reason) as to which is which. Sure, maybe at one point they decided to use only 7075... but then they absorbed Ptac and Freedom (and who knows what they are using). Nothing has been resolved, but if "reading is fundamental", please tell what has.
I'm sure we'd all love to hear your wisdom. Ignorance is bliss.... If making yourself look like a fool was your goal, then you succeeded. PSA said plenty regarding my concerns in a prior thread created in their industry forum, and they are sending me a 7075 replacement. Like I said, it's been resolved. |
|
Quoted:
Link to thread? Im curious as to their answer. Here it is: http://www.ar15.com/forums/t_2_301/279037_Need_Your_Help___Requesting_Phtoto_s.html Their initial response wasn't helpful to me, until they submitted a photo. Furthermore, the lack of responses in that thread prompted me to create this thread. |
|
Quoted:
Here it is: http://www.ar15.com/forums/t_2_301/279037_Need_Your_Help___Requesting_Phtoto_s.html Their initial response wasn't helpful to me, until they submitted a photo. Furthermore, the lack of responses in that thread prompted me to create this thread. Quoted:
Quoted:
Link to thread? Im curious as to their answer. Here it is: http://www.ar15.com/forums/t_2_301/279037_Need_Your_Help___Requesting_Phtoto_s.html Their initial response wasn't helpful to me, until they submitted a photo. Furthermore, the lack of responses in that thread prompted me to create this thread. So a full week after you got the definitive answer from PSA, and 6 days after you received a photo, you started this thread? Seems odd. Why not deal wirh PSA CS and leave the public opinion out of it. Seems you didn't want to hear most opinions offered? |
|
Quoted:
So a full week after you got the definitive answer from PSA, and 6 days after you received a photo, you started this thread? Seems odd. Why not deal wirh PSA CS and leave the public opinion out of it. Seems you didn't want to hear most opinions offered? Quoted:
Quoted:
Quoted:
Link to thread? Im curious as to their answer. Here it is: http://www.ar15.com/forums/t_2_301/279037_Need_Your_Help___Requesting_Phtoto_s.html Their initial response wasn't helpful to me, until they submitted a photo. Furthermore, the lack of responses in that thread prompted me to create this thread. So a full week after you got the definitive answer from PSA, and 6 days after you received a photo, you started this thread? Seems odd. Why not deal wirh PSA CS and leave the public opinion out of it. Seems you didn't want to hear most opinions offered? Your interpretation is incorrect! I did not receive a definitive answer based on what PSA provided me. I also do not have to justify myself to your ignorance. |
|
Quoted:
Your interpretation is incorrect! I did not receive a definitive answer based on what PSA provided me. I also do not have to justify myself to your ignorance. Quoted:
Quoted:
Quoted:
Quoted:
Link to thread? Im curious as to their answer. Here it is: http://www.ar15.com/forums/t_2_301/279037_Need_Your_Help___Requesting_Phtoto_s.html Their initial response wasn't helpful to me, until they submitted a photo. Furthermore, the lack of responses in that thread prompted me to create this thread. So a full week after you got the definitive answer from PSA, and 6 days after you received a photo, you started this thread? Seems odd. Why not deal wirh PSA CS and leave the public opinion out of it. Seems you didn't want to hear most opinions offered? Your interpretation is incorrect! I did not receive a definitive answer based on what PSA provided me. I also do not have to justify myself to your ignorance. Do all of your answers contain random shit talk? Stop acting like a retard, seriously. PSA informed you that not all of their tubes are 7075 anymore. Even sent you a picture of what to look for with a description on finishes. Short of a crayon drawing what more do you need? You may not have received what you paid for (6061 vs 7075)...I can see that happening. Bad QA/QC day. But then you post here, ask for help, then challenge most who participated? Do you just like to hear yourself talk? Not every response is a verbal challenge, and no need to be so goddamn defensive when asked a question. Sounds as if PSA is making it right (swapping out the extension), good on them. And now we KNOW that PSA uses both materials. That is really the only TRUE resolution to this thread. Good luck, boss. |
|
Quoted:
**ISSUE RESOLVED** I received a complete lower from PSA and I can not determine if the receiver extension is made from 6061 or 7075. I want to be clear that I am only trying to determine what material it is made of, not if it is commercial or "mil-spec". Furthermore, I understand the differences between the two. I am confident that what I received is made of 6061 based on my comparison to a 7075 tube, but I want to verify this. PSA believes it is made of 7075 but I'm not convinced. I need some piece of mind! Please post photo's of your 6061 and/or 7075 receiver extensions, including the inside of the receiver extension, and feel free to share your thoughts. Unless OP doesnt like what you say. |
AR Sponsor