User Panel
User Panel
User Panel
|
Posted: 2/17/2016 2:25:12 PM EDT
[#1]
I'm afeard that I can't afford such lightness. Thankfully I'm strong enough to lift a 6-7lb rifle.
|
|
|
|
Posted: 2/17/2016 2:46:39 PM EDT
[#2]
Quote HistoryQuoted:
I'm afeard that I can't afford such lightness. Thankfully I'm strong enough to lift a 6-7lb rifle. You and I both. |
|
|
|
Posted: 2/17/2016 3:01:51 PM EDT
[#3]
Interesting.
Carbon Fiber is neat stuff. I'm surprised no one has done a 3-D CF model or machined a CF block into an upper or lower. Maybe they have and it's still being tested? At this point, it seems like a novelty, niche item. As a certified old fart, I too am thankful to be able to man-handle steel and aluminum. It's comforting to torque up a sling and know that nothing is going to bend or break. |
|
|
|
Posted: 2/17/2016 3:46:34 PM EDT
[#4]
Quote HistoryQuoted:
You and I both. Quote HistoryQuoted:
Quoted:
I'm afeard that I can't afford such lightness. Thankfully I'm strong enough to lift a 6-7lb rifle. You and I both. You both and I both. |
|
|
|
Posted: 2/17/2016 6:19:47 PM EDT
[#5]
The lightweight stuff is neat and all, but until I see a 3.5# 458 SOCOM I'm not interested...
|
|
|
|
Posted: 2/17/2016 7:35:00 PM EDT
[#6]
Just so long as they stop with all the skeletonized crap.
|
|
|
|
Posted: 2/17/2016 7:39:09 PM EDT
[#7]
Quote HistoryQuoted:
Just so long as they stop with all the skeletonized crap. This.. Saw a skeletonized lower the other day. Looks like a little bump in the wrong place would knock the trigger pin out of alignment and cause a inadvertent discharge. 
|
|
|
|
Posted: 2/17/2016 8:10:27 PM EDT
[#8]
|
|
|
|
Posted: 2/17/2016 8:31:46 PM EDT
[#9]
I just want to build another one. But money keeps getting in the way.
 Somebody keeps pawning suppressors off on me. Hummmmmm.....
It doesn't need to be 3 lbs. I just want an accurate rifle. |
|
|
|
Posted: 2/18/2016 9:50:52 AM EDT
[#10]
Someone once made a carbon fiber lower and upper I think they called it a "Carbon 15" Professional Ordnance was their name... sold out to Bushmaster...
Not a real success, My little GAU 5 clone is plenty lightweight, if you are having issues carrying your little rifle to the range station from the trunk or your car or what not then you probably ought to lift some weights or something... |
|
|
|
Posted: 2/18/2016 5:11:54 PM EDT
[#11]
Quote HistoryQuoted:
Someone once made a carbon fiber lower and upper I think they called it a "Carbon 15" Professional Ordnance was their name... sold out to Bushmaster... Not a real success, My little GAU 5 clone is plenty lightweight, if you are having issues carrying your little rifle to the range station from the trunk or your car or what not then you probably ought to lift some weights or something... It's an exercise in technical advancement. Competitions like this provide the impetus for improvements in metallurgy, surface treatments, design, and manufacture. Pushing the envelope is what makes the next generation of designs better. Maybe you're comfortable with the size and weight of your rifle. Maybe you'd like to get a 22-inch barrel with more stiffness and accuracy, with a 60-round mag of equivalent ammo, packed into the same size and weight of your current rifle. |
|
|
|
Posted: 2/18/2016 8:02:27 PM EDT
[#12]
There are several alum bolt carriers that are rated at 10K rounds.
I have one. |
|
|
|
Posted: 2/19/2016 12:26:15 AM EDT
[#14]
Heat treatment problem?
|
|
|
|
Posted: 2/19/2016 12:30:59 AM EDT
[#15]
No, too soft of aluminum vs steel hammer at a cyclic rate of 1,400 rounds per minute.
|
|
|
|
Posted: 2/20/2016 12:37:23 AM EDT
[#16]
Interdasting, I've never heard of an aluminum bolt carrier. How does the cam pin channel hold up? That would be my main concern with one.
|
|
|
|
Posted: 2/20/2016 12:43:39 AM EDT
[#17]
Quote HistoryQuoted:
Interdasting, I've never heard of an aluminum bolt carrier. How does the cam pin channel hold up? That would be my main concern with one. So far around 4,000 rounds. The machinist thats working on a new design addresses this possible issue. 
|
|
|
|
Posted: 2/20/2016 9:01:34 AM EDT
[#18]
Quote HistoryQuoted:
No, too soft of aluminum vs steel hammer at a cyclic rate of 1,400 rounds per minute. Is it anodized to MIL-A-8625 Type III? I ask because for Abrasion resistance it should be equal to Rockwell 75ish... It should not be taking an impact from the hammer except at the Rear of the ramp... it should just be dragging across it. |
|
|
|
Posted: 2/20/2016 9:54:03 AM EDT
[#19]
Quote HistoryQuoted: Is it anodized to MIL-A-8625 Type III? I ask because for Abrasion resistance it should be equal to Rockwell 75ish... It should not be taking an impact from the hammer except at the Rear of the ramp... it should just be dragging across it. Quote HistoryQuoted: Quoted: No, too soft of aluminum vs steel hammer at a cyclic rate of 1,400 rounds per minute. Is it anodized to MIL-A-8625 Type III? I ask because for Abrasion resistance it should be equal to Rockwell 75ish... It should not be taking an impact from the hammer except at the Rear of the ramp... it should just be dragging across it. |
|
|
|
Posted: 2/20/2016 10:38:58 AM EDT
[#20]
Carbon fiber parts will always suffer from poor pin bearing strength and low overall stiffness compared to aluminum. Doesn't matter if it's short strand fiber in epoxy, polyester, vinylester, or nylon, fabric, unidirectional tape, or mat.
Use WE-43C magnesium alloy. It will beat the snot out of burnt string and glue at less weight. I never gave much thought to taking weight out of the bolt carrier, only adding weight. But if I wanted to reduce the weight of a steel carrier I would take a careful look at where I could take material out without compromising strength, fatigue life, or wear. Then look about everywhere else to get the weight out of the gun. The payoff will be in barrels, handguards, and butt stocks. And the scope. Now, if we want to build an impractical stunt rifle, that's a different story, everything in the gun has to earn its way on. |
|
|
|
Posted: 2/20/2016 11:01:20 AM EDT
[#21]
Quote HistoryQuoted:
The post anodize sealing process is going to have a noticeable impact on abrasion resistance on a aluminum bolt carrier. Not to mention how it not a great idea to be removing operational mass from an AR is. Quote HistoryQuoted:
Quoted:
Quoted:
No, too soft of aluminum vs steel hammer at a cyclic rate of 1,400 rounds per minute. Is it anodized to MIL-A-8625 Type III? I ask because for Abrasion resistance it should be equal to Rockwell 75ish... It should not be taking an impact from the hammer except at the Rear of the ramp... it should just be dragging across it. He's having them anodized to Mil Spec Type III, his first prototype is Type III. The latest one I have is more of a proof of concept and isn't anodized. It wasn't intended to be used. As to removing operational mass from the carrier/buffer, that's been covered over and over again! Three gun shooters reduce the mass as much as possible to reduce recoil. You can easily reduce weight of the carrier/buffer by MORE than HALF without effecting reliability. The other benefit of running a Lightweight carrier/buffer is you can knock well over a quarter of a pound off of the weapon. |
|
|
|
Posted: 2/20/2016 11:13:25 AM EDT
[#22]
Quote HistoryQuoted:
Carbon fiber parts will always suffer from poor pin bearing strength and low overall stiffness compared to aluminum. Doesn't matter if it's short strand fiber in epoxy, polyester, vinylester, or nylon, fabric, unidirectional tape, or mat. Use WE-43C magnesium alloy. It will beat the snot out of burnt string and glue at less weight. I never gave much thought to taking weight out of the bolt carrier, only adding weight. But if I wanted to reduce the weight of a steel carrier I would take a careful look at where I could take material out without compromising strength, fatigue life, or wear. Then look about everywhere else to get the weight out of the gun. The payoff will be in barrels, handguards, and butt stocks. And the scope. Now, if we want to build an impractical stunt rifle, that's a different story, everything in the gun has to earn its way on. As I've stated in another thread, Mag Tactical had the right idea on their magnesium receivers, just very poor execution. Most AR shooters don't consider the fact that the platform is OVER 50 years old. Technological developments can (and should) be applied to update it, some won't work out, some will. When you start thinking outside the box and looking at where you CAN save weight (without affecting reliability) you would be surprised how easy it is to get the weight down to FIVE POUNDS! Five pounds is easy, four is DAMN HARD (and Damn expensive), three pounds is going to require a breakthrough to be achieved. Several ways weight reduction is occurring.... Replacing steel parts with Titanium (where applicable) - Expensive! Uber thin barrels wrapped with Carbon Fiber - Expensive! Lightweight carriers/buffers - Moderately priced. Removing weight from non-critical areas - inexpensive. If you hand a shooter who is familiar with AR's a sub-five pound AR, the look on their face is priceless! Here are a couple of photos of one of my earlier toys, it could be made CONSIDERABLY lighter today. It has a 16" barrel, a full stock sight base, a steel barrel nut, etc. But it's still down to 5 pounds 1.2 ounces. 
|
|
|
|
Posted: 2/21/2016 7:34:06 PM EDT
[#23]
Quote HistoryQuoted: Is it anodized to MIL-A-8625 Type III? I ask because for Abrasion resistance it should be equal to Rockwell 75ish... It should not be taking an impact from the hammer except at the Rear of the ramp... it should just be dragging across it. Quote HistoryQuoted: Quoted: No, too soft of aluminum vs steel hammer at a cyclic rate of 1,400 rounds per minute. Is it anodized to MIL-A-8625 Type III? I ask because for Abrasion resistance it should be equal to Rockwell 75ish... It should not be taking an impact from the hammer except at the Rear of the ramp... it should just be dragging across it. |
|
|
|
Posted: 2/21/2016 7:44:41 PM EDT
[#24]
Quote HistoryQuoted:
Might all that rearward beating be due to hammer bounce? Quote HistoryQuoted:
Quoted:
Quoted:
No, too soft of aluminum vs steel hammer at a cyclic rate of 1,400 rounds per minute. Is it anodized to MIL-A-8625 Type III? I ask because for Abrasion resistance it should be equal to Rockwell 75ish... It should not be taking an impact from the hammer except at the Rear of the ramp... it should just be dragging across it. I'm not sure, it appears to be worse when used on full auto. That's the MAIN issue that the developer is trying to address on his new aluminum carrier design. The wear in the cam pin slot and the where the gas rings ride are within acceptable range. |
|
|
|
Posted: 2/22/2016 2:17:42 PM EDT
[#25]
Serious question...
Why all the fuss about aluminum when TI carriers are now being mass produced at reasonable prices? From Aim Surplus "Where our Standard Nickel Boron BCG's weigh in at 11.6 ounces, this 6AL-4V Aircraft Quality Titanium Carrier version weighs only 7.8 ounces. Almost 33% in weight savings! Perfect for your light weight build." How much do you save going to aluminum? Is the reduced recoil worth it or are we only talking about carrying the darn thing? Does the weight savings trump the service life of the part itself for most users? |
|
|
|
Posted: 2/22/2016 2:44:27 PM EDT
[#26]
Quote HistoryQuoted:
Serious question... Why all the fuss about aluminum when TI carriers are now being mass produced at reasonable prices? From Aim Surplus "Where our Standard Nickel Boron BCG's weigh in at 11.6 ounces, this 6AL-4V Aircraft Quality Titanium Carrier version weighs only 7.8 ounces. Almost 33% in weight savings! Perfect for your light weight build." How much do you save going to aluminum? Is the reduced recoil worth it or are we only talking about carrying the darn thing? Does the weight savings trump the service life of the part itself for most users? Felt recoil is reduced by increasing the weight of the gun, not by reducing weight. Here are some round numbers to keep in mind when comparing materials on their density alone - aluminum alloys: 0.10 pounds per cubic inch titanium alloys: 0.16 pounds per cubic inch steel alloys: 0.30 pounds per cubic inch There is some minor variation of density depending on the details, but for practical purposes this is sufficient. The stiffnesses of parts follow the same ratios - aluminum alloys: 10 X 10^6 pounds per square inch titanium alloys: 16 X 10^6 pounds per square inch steel alloys: 30 X 10^6 pounds per square inch The strength of these alloys is complex and depends on the alloy and strengthening process (heat treatment or work hardening, mostly) Magnesium alloys have a density about 0.62 pounds per cubic inch. Strength, stiffness, and ductility depend on the details. |
|
|
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.
AR15.COM is the world's largest firearm community and is a gathering place for firearm enthusiasts of all types.
From hunters and military members, to competition shooters and general firearm enthusiasts, we welcome anyone who values and respects the way of the firearm.
Subscribe to our monthly Newsletter to receive firearm news, product discounts from your favorite Industry Partners, and more.
Copyright © 1996-2024 AR15.COM LLC. All Rights Reserved.
Any use of this content without express written consent is prohibited.
AR15.Com reserves the right to overwrite or replace any affiliate, commercial, or monetizable links, posted by users, with our own.
