Forward Controls Design LDFA

[Duffy]

Thank you :) I look at the LW and super LW movement with mixed feelings. Some are attempt at reducing weight while maintaining versatility and reliability, some appear to be engineering exercises to see what can be achieved, no matter the cost.

There's nothing wrong with these exercises, they're not for me but they're not meant to be for everyone.

When a design adds a feature but also either adds a problem, or remove another feature in so doing, I drop the design. The benefits must outweigh the shortcomings, or there is little point in it. Not everyone sees things that way though.

The LDFA's rimless design reduces its plunger face's surface area, so it's not without any compromise. In view that many of use don't use the FA, its reduced surface area is deemed acceptable, especially when the reduced area doesn't impart any real difference when in use.

[UWone77]

I find that the LW movement has some merit, but most of the time I'm confused on what people are trying to accomplish. If they have a purpose in mind, say building the lightest gun possible, then yes go for it.

Too many times though, I see people building guns with some lightweight parts, but those gains are negated by going with heavier parts in other areas. Prime example is someone I saw at a LGS recently who built up a BAD LW set, but used a UBR stock, Government profile barrel, ect.

Back on topic... I'm looking forward to seeing what else you have on the drawing boards.

[Pyzik]

Too many times though, I see people building guns with some lightweight parts, but those gains are negated by going with heavier parts in other areas. Prime example is someone I saw at a LGS recently who built up a BAD LW set, but used a UBR stock, Government profile barrel, ect.

Now that's just being silly.

[Computalotapus]

I find that the LW movement has some merit, but most of the time I'm confused on what people are trying to accomplish. If they have a purpose in mind, say building the lightest gun possible, then yes go for it.

Too many times though, I see people building guns with some lightweight parts, but those gains are negated by going with heavier parts in other areas. Prime example is someone I saw at a LGS recently who built up a BAD LW set, but used a UBR stock, Government profile barrel, ect.

Back on topic... I'm looking forward to seeing what else you have on the drawing boards.

Ha. I don't like to consider my rifles LW builds, I think of them as lighter than standard tho. Personally around 6.5lbs with a RDS is about perfect for what I use my rifle for.

I have one of the LDFAs and I am very please with it and would purchase it again if it fit my build requirements. I too am looking forward to what else comes out of FCD

[Duffy]

When I was with BAD, which makes many of the OIP (Ounce is Pounds) super LW carbine components, folks kept asking for ability to mount backup sights, rails on the handguard, etc. that were omitted in order achieve a sub 4 pounds AR.

So here we have a misunderstanding of purpose and execution. The OIP isn't meant for everyone, so it's not built for everyone. It is for folks that appreciate the super light weight that heretofore had not been attempted or fully achieved, and seeing the work that was put in to reach the objective, which was quite a lot. The OIP carbine doesn't make too many compromises that would affect reliability, others that went overboard with skeletonizing make me scratch my head lol.

[six8]

When I was with BAD, which makes many of the OIP (Ounce is Pounds) super LW carbine components, folks kept asking for ability to mount backup sights, rails on the handguard, etc. that were omitted in order achieve a sub 4 pounds AR.

So here we have a misunderstanding of purpose and execution. The OIP isn't meant for everyone, so it's not built for everyone. It is for folks that appreciate the super light weight that heretofore had not been attempted or fully achieved, and seeing the work that was put in to reach the objective, which was quite a lot. The OIP carbine doesn't make too many compromises that would affect reliability, others that went overboard with skeletonizing make me scratch my head lol.

Nice to see you around again, Duffy. Good luck with the new company!

[Duffy]

Thank you, it's good to be back, I missed many of the things I used to do while I put myself in exile (before my new company had products to offer) :)

[Stone]

Abc/r went to tactical link, rainier, red barn armory and high velocity arms today. Can't order yet but you can get one from those dealers probably later this week

Thanks for the tips guys! Keeping my eyes on those sites...

[Txfilmmaker]

I bought the LDFA and the EMR-C. The LDFA seemed like a good idea for this lefty or anyone using an ambi charging handle. I will be paying attention to FCD, as well. If I get the ABC/R, FCD will take the lead for most parts from one manufacturer on my build. Right now FCD & BAD are tied at two each. :)


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

[Duffy]

We're collaborating with another small but innovative company to bring another ambidextrous control component to the market.

We'll be tackling the SCAR system for a bit after that :)

[UWone77]

We're collaborating with another small but innovative company to bring another ambidextrous control component to the market.

We'll be tackling the SCAR system for a bit after that :)

The cat is already out of the bag... but great collaboration between you two. Can't wait to see what you guys come up with.

[JGifford]

The original "tear drop" FA doesn't have a rim on top to catch on anything, but it does have a prolonged paddle below. The paddle's location is very good, but it could pose a potential snag hazard. Until ambi charging handles became available and more popular, the LDFA would have been seen as a solution in search of a problem, like some had already labeled the LDFA elsewhere.

For those that don't have and use ambi charging handles, the LDFA would be just that, a solution in search of a problem. But it was not designed for these users.

I'd remind folks that for healthy folks, a wheelchair is a solution in search of a problem. But it was not designed for them.

The LDFA is purpose designed for use with ambi charging handles. It also follows the evolution of life on earth: useful parts get more prominent and stronger, less useful parts get smaller or go away. I don't want the FA to go away, only out of the way of my knuckle and fingernail :)

The business development manager at War Sport really likes the LDFA, he shared something with me that validates my "better to have and not need, than to need and not have" position on the FA. He said he had jumped out of too many helicopters and APCs to ever take a rifle to war without an FA. Simple and to the point statement from an experienced Army officer, I have zero experience jumping out of either, my position on the FA is derived from analysis, not experience.

In the civilian world, the FA may seem like an appendage from an era gone by. While we have fads like lightweight, super lightweight, slim handguards, different accessory attachment methods, it seems to me that for the war fighters, reliability is still king.

The FA doesn't make an AR or M16 more reliable, but the absence of it could mean removed ability/feature you might wish you had someday.

He would be the first "BTDT" guy I've heard quoted that said anything about a forward assist being useful, necessary, or desirable in any way. I simply view it as another part that can break and instantly deadline a rifle. That said...you can't find very many rifles without it, so I just want the most tasteful one made from the least likely to break components. I never use it. Never have. Never will. See zero value in it. But it's there...so lets throw a microskirt and some stilettos on it and see if we can't at least make it a SEXY worthless bimbo.

[JGifford]

I find that the LW movement has some merit, but most of the time I'm confused on what people are trying to accomplish. If they have a purpose in mind, say building the lightest gun possible, then yes go for it.

Too many times though, I see people building guns with some lightweight parts, but those gains are negated by going with heavier parts in other areas. Prime example is someone I saw at a LGS recently who built up a BAD LW set, but used a UBR stock, Government profile barrel, ect.

Back on topic... I'm looking forward to seeing what else you have on the drawing boards.

The UBR stock and .gov barrel likely swings very well, and the touch of forward weight lends to stability vs. a pure LW barrel. Think of a rifle like a sports car. Look at the Porscha. Very ass-heavy car. Now look at the Corvette. 50/50. Now consider that some cars are 50/50 and handle VERY differently...because the weight is pushed either forward, or away from their centre. You can greatly change the way a car performs when trail-braking into a corner (terrible idea with Porscha unless you desire a 360*+ panoramic...works well in Corvette) or accelerating out of a corner (Mandatory in Porscha, handle with precision/care in Corvette), ALL while both of these cars weigh within about 100# of each other...Further, if you push the weight out, or pull it in...all while keeping 50% of the weight over each axle. You can make the car want to rotate, or want to straighten. Make it lively, or make it calm. Then comes lengthening of the wheelbase, and an even greater effect on stability. A rifle may not be a car, but the concept is identical, as are many of the physics cause-effects between the two. It's not what it weighs (GTR...) that necessarily determines how quick it will handle, but WHERE that weight is, and how the end-user plans to manage it with their "software".

This man does not likely shoot this rifle because it handles like a pregnant camel.


That rifle looks like a Porscha to me. Heavy back, light front. Very lively response from steering input. A bit easy to over-swing a target if you're not dialed in like that shooter is, but once mastered, lightning fast...even with his "incongruously heavy buttstock"...which probably makes the rifle handle faster, actually.

[UWone77]

Eh, I kind of see your point.

I love UBR's and Govt Profile barrels. I don't think I need to spend $500 on a BAD Receiver set to get the performance I want. A Forged Honda will do the trick.

[JGifford]

Eh, I kind of see your point.

I love UBR's and Govt Profile barrels. I don't think I need to spend $500 on a BAD Receiver set to get the performance I want. A Forged Honda will do the trick.

S2k was an amazing drivers car. I enjoy most good rides. My old c6z still holds a special place. My one and only legit supercar. Likely ever.