Page 5 of 13 FirstFirst ... 34567 ... LastLast
Results 61 to 75 of 187
  1. #61
    Join Date
    Aug 2007
    Location
    Bragg
    Posts
    1,205
    Downloads
    1
    Uploads
    1
    A few random thoughts ...

    LaRue - Stick covered this already, but it is time to let go of the "some of you don't like Mark" schtick. I've never seen WEVO worship at any particular altar, nor have I even seen anyone -- LaRue included -- openly maligned here. Perhaps this is baggage carried over from someplace else, but we surely don't have any room to store it here.

    BUIS - Concur that the new Magpuls would be an ideal choice. Everyone seems to be interested in these, but the one wild card here seems to revolve around how they will hold up because of their polymer construction. Might as well put that to the test along with everything else.

    Billet Lower - The more I think about it, the more I like this idea. Tactical Innovations would probably get my money, but if you're interested in Sun Devil, by all means have at it. It would prove most enlightening if a billet actually proved to be less resilient than a conventional forged lower in certain situations.

    Redimag - Wouldn't mind seeing this added to the mix if we go with a standard lower, but my interest is largely academic, as the Redimag doesn't really suit my applications. (Given the choice, I would opt for the billet.)

    Barrel - If a Noveske is available, I can't see the logic in going with anything else. If not, then I suppose that opens up a parallel discussion. Colt?

    VIS - I've already weighed in on that, but I think it is a natural selection for a purpose-built gun. Perhaps we can put the monolithic vs. polyithic debate to rest, once and for all.

    Trigger - No contest. I'm a single stage guy myself, but am open to new ideas.

    Lights - Any reason why we haven't ventured down this path? A Surefire M600C would probably be my choice here.

    Optics - Still wide open ... and dependent upon the range(s) we're optimizing for. I would think a mid-distance gun would prove the most versatile.

    AC

  2. #62
    Join Date
    Feb 2009
    Location
    az
    Posts
    9
    Downloads
    0
    Uploads
    0
    The only issue I'd see with more expensive triggers, receivers, optics, and lights is that if the rifle is going to be a hard-use ar15/carbine, in the same vein of an AK-47. I don't see a lot of value added on your end by running more expensive accessories/components into the ground when on their best day, they are no more reliable and durable than something that costs 1/4 the price and is still relatively pricey (IE aimpoint M4 vs S&B short dot.)

  3. #63
    Join Date
    Aug 2007
    Location
    Bragg
    Posts
    1,205
    Downloads
    1
    Uploads
    1
    I wouldn't take issue with that, save to say that we aren't trying to duplicate the AK's cost versus return factor nearly so much as we are trying to dispel some of the more popular notions about the AK versus AR durability question.

    If I recall correctly, one of Stick's original premises was simply that he felt the AR was needlessly being handicapped in these kinds of discussions, and the object was to build a hard-use rifle to prove his point. I don't know that we're talking about subjecting the rifle to outright abuse in the typical T&E sense (i.e. throwing it under a bus or packing the receiver full of mud), so much as we are just allowing it to be dropped, tossed about and neglected in the way that Joe Average might handle a typical garden tool.

    No matter how we choose to configure it, the AR will inevitably be the more costly (and more refined) rifle, but your observation is on point. Why use an Aimpoint M4S when an earlier generation model will do? Why go with a two-stage trigger when the stock unit is known to offer trouble-free performance? I guess, in that sense, some concessions are being made largely to satisfy a few of our lingering curiousities.

    We could rigidly adhere to a more minimalist formula, and to some degree that would be quite logical, but we already know what a stock carbine can take in most respects; the idea here seems to be to build a carbine with selected components that should enhance the AR's inherent durability even further. How much further? I think that is what we're trying to find out.

    AC

  4. #64
    Join Date
    Aug 2008
    Location
    Arizona
    Posts
    274
    Downloads
    0
    Uploads
    0
    Stick - I believe putting the MBUS through the test would answer a lot of questions about them early in their development. Why not discover how they perform? The consensus seems to be to mount the MBUS if you decide on a flip up configuration. A WEVO evaluation would provide a reliable source rather than a joe blow "hit it with a stick" test. This is assuming you decide against using fixed BUIS.
    -Mitch-

  5. #65
    Join Date
    Aug 2007
    Location
    Bragg
    Posts
    1,205
    Downloads
    1
    Uploads
    1
    You know what we're missing here, Stick? Photos of little piles of receivers, sights, grips, stocks, barrels, mags, bolts, slings, mounts, flash suppressors, charging handles, selectors, optics, rail panels and triggers that you have laying around for us to choose from. You may not have everything on hand, but I'd be willing to bank that you've got a lot of this stuff just sitting around the bench, calling out your name. LOL

    AC

  6. #66
    Join Date
    Jan 2009
    Posts
    31
    Downloads
    0
    Uploads
    0
    Stock -- Sully. Solid urethane. Can't get much tougher than that. If you need a tad more pull length, add the optional 1" spacer.

    Grip -- Magpul MOE, TD or A2. Just pick whichever one fits your hand best. Why the MOE? It's one piece.

    Lower Receiver -- any decent lower will suffice. Just as long as it's machined correctly. I highly doubt a billet lower offers any durability advantages over a forged lower.

    FCG -- stock SS. Just as long as the trigger, hammer and disconnector are properly hardened.

    Upper receiver -- same as lower, just as long as it's machined properly. Flattop config.

    BCG -- BCM, LMT. Because they're properly staked and the metallurgy is good.

    Barrel -- Noveske N4. NATO chambered, double chrome lined. Decent, useful contour. 2nd choice -- Denny's Operator. Heavier than an N4, but a good barrel. Both have fixed FSBs, the most durable config available. Operator is a ML gas system, which I think makes more sense in 16" barrels. I know ML gas system 14.5 barrels exist, but I'm just not sure if they are as reliable a carbine length gas system in the shorter barrel.

    FH -- Just about any would suffice.

    Optic -- if RDS, an Aimpoint that uses a wrap-around ring. Not sure if they are more durable than the M4/T-1 mounting system, but they look like they would be. If magnified optic, a compact ACOG or maybe a Leupold CQT. Both very durable. Mounted in LaRue QR mount system in case access to BUIS is required.

    BUIS -- fold down obviously if using ACOG or CQT. Troy, ARMs, MI, I'm not sure one is any sturdier than the other. And the Hahn looks interesting in that it's low profile and it has a unique apperture diameter that kind of splits the difference between the .072 long range app and the short range .200 app. If using Aimpoint, then maybe go with a fixed LaRue. Just about all of these would be goof proof, the main thing would be if you didn't mind the fixed sight, then it's simpler.

    Sling mount -- DD burnsed loop system. Again, not sure if more durable than a HK hook or a quick connect pin, but I just think they are less prone to accidental unhooking, snagging, etc.

    Light -- a Surefire LED model. Tailcap PB switch, no cables. Because LEDs are more durable than Xenon bulbs, even when mounted in shock isolated bezels. Unless I were operating in an area prone to a lot of fog, then I'd go with Xenon. And because tailcap switches are less hassle than pressure pad switches.

    Just my initial thoughts. I'm assuming this is primarily a 0-200 yard paltform, with the ability to reach out a tad farther, but I'd sacrifice longer range performance (i.e., other optics) to gain the durability of what I listed above.

  7. #67
    Join Date
    Jan 2009
    Posts
    151
    Downloads
    0
    Uploads
    0
    My vote for the lower would go to Defensive Edge's SLR15 forged lower. Reason: it's less expensive than most of the billet lowers i have seen and seems to be top tier for forged lowers. That and I just got one and wanna see how it holds up

  8. #68
    Join Date
    Aug 2007
    Location
    Bragg
    Posts
    1,205
    Downloads
    1
    Uploads
    1
    I got the sense that the T-6 Sun Devil was the leading billet candidate, though I could be mistaken. On the other hand, if we're selecting other premium components, why go with a budget receiver?

    AC

  9. #69
    Join Date
    Jan 2009
    Posts
    31
    Downloads
    0
    Uploads
    0
    Based on Stick's criteria, what advantages would a billet lower provide over a forged lower?

    What all does a lower have to do? Hold the upper correctly, hold a mag, hold a FCG, ensure the BCG tracks straight through the back end and doesn't bind. In my mind, what separates one lower from another is whether or not it's machined correctly, but I don't consider one mfg method any better or worse than another, given the same alloys.

  10. #70
    Join Date
    Aug 2007
    Location
    Bragg
    Posts
    1,205
    Downloads
    1
    Uploads
    1
    I'm with you, brother -- I'm just referring to some of Stick's earlier comments when we were starting all of this off. He mentioned that it might be interesting to see if the T-6 is as much of a long-term risk as some seemed to be suggesting.

    AC

  11. #71
    Join Date
    Aug 2007
    Location
    Texas
    Posts
    774
    Downloads
    0
    Uploads
    0
    Quote Originally Posted by Custom-X_Sponjah View Post
    I know personally that the CTR can handle a lot. I wanna see what some CAA and El Cheapo Stocks can handle..

    Your pretty much right about nobody wanting to "break" their expensive stocks though..
    I like this idea. I've got a CTR that I might be willing to abuse. May have a VLTOR too.

  12. #72
    Join Date
    Aug 2008
    Location
    Arizona
    Posts
    274
    Downloads
    0
    Uploads
    0
    Quote Originally Posted by Stickman View Post
    I can't help but think that the standard lowers have seen loads of abuse in the military, which makes me lean towards to the billet lower a little more.
    +1
    -Mitch-

  13. #73
    Join Date
    Jun 2007
    Posts
    5,596
    Downloads
    0
    Uploads
    0
    Quote Originally Posted by Army Chief View Post
    I'm with you, brother -- I'm just referring to some of Stick's earlier comments when we were starting all of this off. He mentioned that it might be interesting to see if the T-6 is as much of a long-term risk as some seemed to be suggesting.

    AC

    My understanding is that the original M16/ AR15 lowers were 6061, and that they were later changed to 7075. I don't think there is any doubt that the 7 series is higher quality, but I do have question as to whether it will make a substantial difference.

    Sullys lower would be a good candidate as well, I ran into him at SHOT and talked to him a bit. I should touch base with him again. Sullys forged lower is a little different, which would be the main reason to stray from traditional forging if we didn't go billet.

  14. #74
    Join Date
    Sep 2008
    Posts
    606
    Downloads
    0
    Uploads
    0
    I like the shift towards the VIS upper - I agree that it's a keeper, especially paired with the Noveske barrel.

    Lower - only remaining reason I can see to go with a forget unit would be if mission dictates a redi-mag setup - that's on you, Stick. If a RediMag is a required item, then forged is fine. Otherwise, my preference will be towards a TI or SD lower, with ArmyChief on that one.

    Abusing a UBR stock would be of special interest to me, but I can't help but think that the flexibility of this platform to test what works and what doesn't with a mil-spec stock extension is almost too good to pass up. I'm sure that proving the UBR can handle abuse would be aworthwhile venture, but I'm comparbly curious about how the ACS, EMOD, CTR, MOE, MOD, and other stocks would stack up.

    As far as BCG - my final suggestion would be an IonBond coated BCM unit (or if you can get an LMT Enhanced or standard LMT unit coated with the DLC job) - Denny carries them from time to time, and I think it would be a supreme quality test of those BCG's to see how much abuse these can handle.
    Alternative would be trying to get ahold of a Young BCG and have it diamondblack (not sure on difference from the DLC IonBond coating) from MSTN.


    ArmyChief brought up a good question with weaponlights - obviously the X600 as a go-to, but maybe consider an E2D LED light as a means of testing the various flashlight mounts. Both are comparable lights and will no doubt handle any abuse, but the mounting 'restrictions' posed by the X600 might pose a minor limitation for some shooters.

    MBUS are still my preference for sights, although maybe running a set of TROY or DD/LMT/LT fixed sights for a while with an Aimpoint would be worth a shot too - I would just prefer that flip-up sights be used since it's already been concluded that a variety of optics will be used, presumably to include variable and fixed zoom optics.


    My last question is on lubricant used - I'm assuming you'll run your preferred whenever possible (EWL/Slip2k), and whatever else gets used is okay as long as proper PM/cleaning gets applied?

    Enough drunken rambling... thanks, can't wait to see how this comes out, Stick.

  15. #75
    Join Date
    Aug 2008
    Location
    Arizona
    Posts
    274
    Downloads
    0
    Uploads
    0
    Quote Originally Posted by JustMatt View Post
    My vote for the lower would go to Defensive Edge's SLR15 forged lower. Reason: it's less expensive than most of the billet lowers i have seen and seems to be top tier for forged lowers. That and I just got one and wanna see how it holds up
    Sully certainly has a top shelf lower...I completely overlooked them. Definitely add it to the list of candidates!
    Last edited by Uglyduck; 22 February 2009 at 14:53.
    -Mitch-

Posting Permissions

  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts
  •