Results 1 to 15 of 83
Thread: NEW Hodge Defense AU Mod 2
-
21 October 2014, 20:22 #1
NEW Hodge Defense AU Mod 2
Some new details:
Aluminum Lithium Forged Recievers
Titanium Barrel Nut
7075 Aluminum Handguard available in both M-LOK and Keymod
http://soldiersystems.net/2014/10/20...etails-emerge/
-
21 October 2014, 20:29 #2
I'm wondering how well this aluminum lithium would stand up as suppressor material? Even if it's just the tube, that's a decent weight reduction for a rifle can.
-
21 October 2014, 20:35 #3
The Aluminum Lithium is said to be lighter than 7075% , and only 7% weaker than Titanium. The weight savings over 7075 would probably not benefit me, but may work in a can.
-
22 October 2014, 00:24 #4Senior Member
- Join Date
- Jul 2013
- Location
- Bentonville,AR
- Posts
- 783
- Downloads
- 0
- Uploads
- 0
Aluminum is not a substitute for Inconel...no-matter how awesome it is, an AlLi is awesome. It's just not...THAT awesome. A .22 rimfire suppressor, sure!
At any rate, I'm surprised to see this much of MOD2 revealed in public at this point.Last edited by JGifford; 22 October 2014 at 00:33.
-
22 October 2014, 00:25 #5
I didn't think it would hold up as baffles, but what about the tube?
-
22 October 2014, 00:33 #6Senior Member
- Join Date
- Jul 2013
- Location
- Bentonville,AR
- Posts
- 783
- Downloads
- 0
- Uploads
- 0
-
22 October 2014, 06:03 #7
I wonder what the odds of just getting a matching upper and lower set on these would be...
-
22 October 2014, 06:16 #8
Innovation is always a good thing but I'm not sure what value the AU Mod 2 brings to the platform. Al-Li is an interesting alloy but it doesn't mean the new receiver is going to be lighter than a standard 7075-T6 receiver unless it's identical dimensionally. Why do we need stronger receivers? When is last time anyone has wore out a mil-spec receiver? At this point, I have more questions answers. Time will tell...
-
22 October 2014, 06:28 #9
-
22 October 2014, 06:40 #10Senior Member
- Join Date
- Jul 2013
- Location
- Bentonville,AR
- Posts
- 783
- Downloads
- 0
- Uploads
- 0
-
22 October 2014, 06:42 #11Senior Member
- Join Date
- Jul 2013
- Location
- Bentonville,AR
- Posts
- 783
- Downloads
- 0
- Uploads
- 0
Why not just use 6601, then? Why did the MK18 platform spec 7075 for the RISII?
Better is better.
The advantages?
Less chance of corrosion. Stiffer upper = more accurate as well as less bolt wear (receiver/barrel/rail flex is part of why FF rails reduce bolt failures).
Further, its a beautifully executed ambi control lower, if nothing else. The rail is sexy as hell and feels great to hold/point. It will also accept accessories that other rails cannot, at this time.
-
22 October 2014, 09:30 #12
-
22 October 2014, 09:40 #13Senior Member
- Join Date
- Jul 2013
- Location
- Bentonville,AR
- Posts
- 783
- Downloads
- 0
- Uploads
- 0
-
22 October 2014, 10:55 #14
-
22 October 2014, 11:39 #15
Just because you can doesn't mean you should...
Until you post some data sets from a vetted testing process, it's very much subjective. Comparing materials on a chart is comparing materials on chart. How those materials perform over time for their intended purpose creates objective data points for the specific use. The arguments for or against the use of a certain material should be necessity driven. Contrary to your "better is better" statement, your earlier comparison of 6061 to 7075 on a DD RISII is an example of trading strength for corrosion resistance. Nothing more, nothing less. When you can prove that a carbine manufactured by Hodge with Al-Li lasts longer and and is more accurate, let's have another discussion. Until then, let's put this red herring to bed.