Warning

 

Close

Confirm Action

Are you sure you wish to do this?

Confirm Cancel
Member Login
Page Armory » 50 Cal
Posted: 1/23/2006 8:02:11 AM EDT
[Last Edit: 1/23/2006 9:11:47 AM EDT by Cape_hunter]
I am looking at one of tannery shops dummy recievers and wonder if anyone has gone this route. Only have to mill the trigger area and drill for FC parts. I like the idea of the solid magwell as I plan to d&t the front of it and screw in an extentsion to mount a bipod on. I am not a big fan of them on the barrel shroud.

Anyone ever go this route???

Thanks
CH

Image pouched from Gunbroker
Link Posted: 1/23/2006 9:01:19 PM EDT
i'd like to get one of those too
Link Posted: 1/24/2006 3:57:44 AM EDT
What upper assembly do you plan on going with?


That's a LOT of pressure to be putting on the pins if the barrel isn't going to be supported from either a rest or a bipod.

I too once had the thought of drilling and tapping an 80% lower receiver's unmilled magazine well inorder to install a peg for attaching a bipod.

However, once I picked up my ALS 50BMG upper, the fact that 90% of the rifle weight comes from the barrel alone was enough to convince me I don't want to be torquing my pins/receiver walls like that.


I shoot my ALS 50BMG almost entirely off of a pack with the rifle resting on it's sturdy tube handguards.
Link Posted: 1/24/2006 6:02:58 AM EDT
[Last Edit: 1/24/2006 6:52:27 AM EDT by Cape_hunter]

Originally Posted By uglygun:
What upper assembly do you plan on going with?


That's a LOT of pressure to be putting on the pins if the barrel isn't going to be supported from either a rest or a bipod.

I too once had the thought of drilling and tapping an 80% lower receiver's unmilled magazine well inorder to install a peg for attaching a bipod.

However, once I picked up my ALS 50BMG upper, the fact that 90% of the rifle weight comes from the barrel alone was enough to convince me I don't want to be torquing my pins/receiver walls like that.


I shoot my ALS 50BMG almost entirely off of a pack with the rifle resting on it's sturdy tube handguards.



I already have an Ultralite50.
I see what your saying. However I think the differance in recoil to the pins will be minimal. The amount of recoil sent down a bipod mounton the barrle versus one one the front of the reciever I dont think will be enough to cause a problem as long as the fit between the upper and the lower is tight. I thought also about thru bolting the pins to further reduce any play that may have gone un noticed.

CH

ETA: Tannery lists a 70% BMG lower listed for $119. William replied to a thread in the build it yourself secton of this site with the above info. Will check it out.
Link Posted: 1/25/2006 6:25:02 AM EDT
[Last Edit: 1/25/2006 6:29:17 AM EDT by uglygun]
I'm not talking about recoil directly on the pins.


I'm talking about torque and the forward weight of the barrel causing the rearward portion of the receiver to want to lift upwards due to it pivoting on the front pin and acting like a fulcrum.


Imagine holding the pistol grip with just one hand while the stock is tucked under your arm pit. Where are the forces being applied as the barrel just hangs free? The rear take down pin is going to have a lot of force put on it. By installing a bipod on the lower receiver, the weight of the barrel is going to hang virtually the same way effecting the rear take down pin.


Personally I don't like the idea of stressing aluminum, aluminum does have a fatigue life in that every stress placed upon it counts towards it's eventual failure. The aluminum is pretty thick in those areas but I prefer to try and keep the loading on those areas to a minimum.



With a properly set up lower/upper fit, the recoil should transfer between the upper and the collar of the receiver extension/buffer tube.

My ALS is certainly rock solid with it's clearances between receiver extension and upper receiver, very little recoil is likely being transfered through the pins themselves.
Link Posted: 1/25/2006 6:48:46 AM EDT

Originally Posted By uglygun:
I'm not talking about recoil directly on the pins.


I'm talking about torque and the forward weight of the barrel causing the rearward portion of the receiver to want to lift upwards due to it pivoting on the front pin and acting like a fulcrum.


Imagine holding the pistol grip with just one hand while the stock is tucked under your arm pit. Where are the forces being applied as the barrel just hangs free? The rear take down pin is going to have a lot of force put on it. By installing a bipod on the lower receiver, the weight of the barrel is going to hang virtually the same way effecting the rear take down pin.


Personally I don't like the idea of stressing aluminum, aluminum does have a fatigue life in that every stress placed upon it counts towards it's eventual failure. The aluminum is pretty thick in those areas but I prefer to try and keep the loading on those areas to a minimum.



With a properly set up lower/upper fit, the recoil should transfer between the upper and the collar of the receiver extension/buffer tube.

My ALS is certainly rock solid with it's clearances between receiver extension and upper receiver, very little recoil is likely being transfered through the pins themselves.



Good point. I had not thought about that. Have to give this some more thought.
CH



Link Posted: 1/25/2006 7:05:56 AM EDT
The UL50 uppers are lighter, the 29 inch barrel being significantly lighter than my 30 inch ALS upper.


I'm at around 40 pounds for my ALS 50BMG. I think the 29inch UL is around 22 pounds.


But I probably wouldn't be comfortable with anything but maybe the shorter 18 inch barrel in such a configuration.
Page Armory » 50 Cal
Top Top