RBF (Reinforced Buffer retainer, Forward Controls)

[Duffy]

RBF is a beefed up buffer retainer machined in 17-4 stainless steel, and heat treated to H900. Its tip is 10% larger in diameter than that of a TDP spec buffer retainer, any bigger would risk incompatibilities with RE's timing.

http://www.forwardcontrolsdesign.com/RBF-Reinforced-Buffer-retainer-Forward-Controls_p_158.html

RBF is compatible with milspec and Vltor A5 REs.

https://i75.photobucket.com/albums/i314/Duffypoo/RBF_zpsdrdxy0uv.jpeg (https://s75.photobucket.com/user/Duffypoo/media/RBF_zpsdrdxy0uv.jpeg.html)

The buffer retainer is an inexpensive part, it does it job quietly and most of us don't pay much attention to it. That is, until the tip snaps and goes into the trigger group. RBF aims to mitigate this by strengthening the weakest part of the buffer retainer. We chose to keep the TDP buffer retainer's round tip so it doesn't have to be timed, it's an install and forget component.

RBF has a light bronze sheen from heat treat, and being ever practical, we don't further coat or polish it, as it's stainless steel and an internal part.

RBF can be purchased with optional buffer retainer spring (x2), it's our practice to include more than one spring in a spring kit, if the spring or pin/detent is under pressure during installation and removal.

https://i75.photobucket.com/albums/i314/Duffypoo/RBF1_zpswtmobcxh.jpg (https://s75.photobucket.com/user/Duffypoo/media/RBF1_zpswtmobcxh.jpg.html)

[Tyrannosaur]

Sigh, I'm down for a few.

[alamo5000]

I want take a few. I've always wondered about this. Seems like a part that could take some abuse.

PM incoming.

[Pyzik]

Another FCD part I'll be swapping into rifles.

[Duffy]

Thank you guys.

As with other FCD designs, RBF's changes are modest and measured. We initially tried 20% increase, but a 20% larger tip diameter will make it incompatible with some RE timing, so it was brought down to 10%.

As you know, each RE and receiver timing will vary. While a receiver extension will time just fine on one receiver perfectly, it might not on another. 10% increase is as much as we want to go before unintended consequences come knocking.

In testing, a milspec RE can rotate past the point where the buffer retainer is retained (kept under the RE) by almost 180 degrees, while a Vltor RE-1 can barely rotate past that point by 15 degree, RE-A5 can rotate past by 15 to 20 degree. We're confident with the 10% increase and compatibility.

[UWone77]

Roger, are you seeing a lot of buffer retaining pins being broken? Never really thought about it as I personally haven't.

Are the dimensions the same as mil spec? Over the years I've run into some lowers that were out of spec and the retaining pins wouldn't fit.

[Duffy]

It's happened to me last year, and others as well. All other dimensions are TDP spec, the tip, and the flaring leading to the tip are 10% larger in diameter. Material is different as well, we use 17-4 SS, TDP is 4130, 4140, or 4340. Heat treat values are similar between TDP buffer retainer and RBF.

[pointblank4445]

Sweet; they're done!

[Duffy]

Did you get yours? How do you like it :)

[pointblank4445]

Havent ordered one yet....

[alamo5000]

I got mine. All three of them. [:D] Looks great to me! I will let you know when I install and test it.

[Duffy]

Sounds good! Please let us know. The best thing it does is you'd just forget about it because it works. It has no bling value, like other products we design, it's made for work, not for show :)

[FortTom]

HW looks to be a great idea. But having enlisted and had the honor to serve my country, I don't think I've ever seen one of these break, Apparently others have, since the of the folks here have haav hade.

FR

[Jerry R]

since the of the folks here have haav hade. FR

A wee bit of Kentucky Bourbon last night FT ?? [:D]

[Duffy]

I've had it happen, and have seen this happen.

Karl from InRange TV posted posted this on FB, this can be seen on our FB page as well:

I can't believe the amount of cognitive dissonance that exists around the buffer detent breakage video and discussions we've had here on IRTV over now YEARS.

Is it COMMON for a buffer detent failure to occur?
No.

Does it happen?
Yes. It does. I've seen it many times over 2 decades of competitive and training events.

The video posted yesterday was just one example, even if not the best one, of that part causing an issue - yet people in the thread are telling me that it didn't happen, or that it didn't happen the way we're describing it, yet they weren't there.

Here's the deal:

The buffer detent is merely a convenience component of the AR15 design that has no functional requirement to be there. If you open an AR15 lower that has no buffer detent installed the buffer slides forward by spring pressure and is retained by the hammer.

Better yet, consider a captured system like we've proposed with the WWSD build...

With that said, since the buffer detent is literally an extraneous component that *can*, but probably will not, cause a failure - why have it?

It's unnecessary and can truly only be a liability while its intended function is already performed by the hammer without inducing another potential failure point.

If you see a tumor in your body, remove it before it's carcinogenic.
Simple logic - you don't necessarily want to wait for it to metastasize.

I am puzzled, literally puzzled, by why this is so hard to comprehend.

~Karl

With the Law Tactical folding adapter folder, the buffer may rest on the buffer retainer more often than a rifle or carbine with conventional RE, as when it does fold and stay folded, the buffer is resting on the tiny tip of the buffer retainer. There have been various improved buffer retainers with different means to the same end, most of them require timing. RBF retains the classic round tip that doesn't need to be timed.

My concern with a rectangular buffer retainer tip is that the RE would need to butt against the flat of the tip to prevent from rotating. Different REs and receivers produce different timing values, I don't like the odds. If a rectangular tipped buffer retain does start to rotate, I imagine the carrier would promptly shear it, with the same result as a sheared TDP spec buffer retainer. Thus the decision for RBF's round tip, in exchange for a more reinforced tip, we opted for comparability.

[UWone77]

I'm going to order a couple tonight for some piston guns.

[FortTom]

A wee bit of Kentucky Bourbon last night FT ?? [:D]

Ha..ha.. I wish. But I did have a little pain medicine for some dental work.[:D] Same thing I guess.

FT

[Aragorn]

Had one show up today. Here it is (left) along side a mil-spec. Size difference is observable though not immediately obvious. Spring it comes with is a hoss.

https://live.staticflickr.com/65535/48318211372_ed9f793a45_z.jpg (https://flic.kr/p/2gBHsRS)

[Duffy]

RBF has done rather well for us. The stainless steel used is a super high quality Swiss SS. RBF is vacuum heat treated. The material, construction (milled from bar stock with Swiss machines) and heat treat are all costly, and yet RBF is still reasonably priced.

We do have to raise the price a bit though, but we might include the springs with RBF then as well.

[alamo5000]

I just installed one of these in my lower and I am impressed. I like it.

[Jerry R]

Please pardon the (very) crappy cell phone pic, it didn't enlarge well. But ... glad I bought a few. This from a New Frontier Armory C45. Their AR45 platform.

6735

[alamo5000]

Please pardon the (very) crappy cell phone pic, it didn't enlarge well. But ... glad I bought a few. This from a New Frontier Armory C45. Their AR45 platform.

6735

Geez! That's crazy there. Maybe you should save that part or send it to somebody to test if it was out of spec or not. If it's in spec that would make me wonder about that firearm.

[gatordev]

Geez! That's crazy there. Maybe you should save that part or send it to somebody to test if it was out of spec or not. If it's in spec that would make me wonder about that firearm.

It's tough for something to be "in spec" when there isn't any set specification for the AR45.

[alamo5000]

It's tough for something to be "in spec" when there isn't any set specification for the AR45.

The buffer retainer is an interchangeable part on the two platforms isn't it?

[mustangfreek]

I’d assume so Alamo.

Looks like he’s having a similar problem like I recently posted. But worse.

How’s the front of the buffer look?

Gotta be chewed up if that pin is so bent.

[gatordev]

The buffer retainer is an interchangeable part on the two platforms isn't it?

The retainer may be interchangeable, but the platform isn't. Just because something works in a "spec'ed" M4 doesn't mean it works in any other configuration of an AR-15, let alone a PCC-type weapon. Just look at FCG pin wear/breakage on Colt 6951s (and the like).

[Joelski]

Please pardon the (very) crappy cell phone pic, it didn't enlarge well. But ... glad I bought a few. This from a New Frontier Armory C45. Their AR45 platform.

6735

Oops! Sorry, fixed it.

[Jerry R]

How’s the front of the buffer look? Gotta be chewed up if that pin is so bent.

Actually, the front of the buffer is only showing what I would consider normal wear for the number of rounds fired, just a couple of small scars. IMHO, this was just a poorly made retainer, it happens.
6736

[Joelski]

The tit looks too big. That'll get it knocked over.

[Duffy]

There's a lot of width/space on the channel, or groove under the carrier for the buffer retainer's tip. Since we wanted to keep the tip round, the size could only be increased to 10% larger in diameter.

The HK type rectangular tip works fine on HK lowers where it's pinned, but on a lower that doesn't have the pinned buffer retainer, one would have to take the chances and hope the RE and lower combination would produce a timing that will not only adequately cover the buffer's retainer, but the lip of the RE should ideally come up and bottom out against the rectangular tip itself, to prevent it from rotating.

Such problem doesn't exist for a round buffer retainer tip that requires no timing. 10% isn't a lot of increase, a rectangular shaped tip would be stronger by virtue of simply having more material, but it's a solution that might introduce a problem of its own, so it was looked at, then quickly abandoned as a possible design for RBF.