Results 46 to 60 of 187
-
19 February 2009, 12:17 #46
Is noveske contributing a VIS to the cause?
-
19 February 2009, 13:04 #47
I'd like to see how this little guy held up..
Seen it at SHOT and It caught my eye.. Ya know, being a lefty and all..
ARMADYNAMICS ACLM, AR-15 Ambidextruous Charging Handle for 5.56
http://www.mountsplus.com/miva/merch...S/ACLM-ACH-001
CXS
-
19 February 2009, 14:34 #48
-
19 February 2009, 14:40 #49
-
19 February 2009, 14:55 #50
Stick - it looks like you already had a setup in mind, for the most part,when you initially posted this. Any more details you care to divulge?
-Mitch-
-
19 February 2009, 14:58 #51
HUH.. They don't seem to have a website.
I saw this CH at the "Mounting Solutions Plus" Booth..
Here is everything I found on the company...
Looks to be a Garage Style operation, as most companies start out before they make that "One Golden Egg" that jump starts them..
Armament Dynamics Industries Llc (Armadynamics)
10903 W 84th Pl, Arvada, CO 80005-5219
Contact Phone: (303) 868-6314
URL (web address): N/A
Business Category: Mfg Small Arms And Accessories in Arvada, CO
Industry (SIC): Small Arms
Business Information:
This company profile is for the private company Armament Dynamics Industries Llc , located in Arvada, CO. Armadynamics's line of business is mfg small arms and accessories.
Company Name: Armament Dynamics Industries Llc
Address: 10903 W 84th Pl, Arvada, CO 80005-5219
Alt Business Name: Armadynamics
Location Type: Single Location
Est. Annual Sales: $52,000
Est. # of Employees: 1
Est. Empl. at Loc.: 1
Year Started: 2006
State of Incorp: N/A
SIC #Code: 3484
Contact's Name: Thomas T Hoel
Contact's Title: N/A
NAICS: Small Arms Manufacturing
http://www.mwgco.com/Merchant2/merch...s/ACLM-ACH-001
http://www.mountsplus.com/miva/merch...S/ACLM-ACH-001
http://www.mannyusa.com/Firearms_Tra...M-ACH-001.html
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=yD1rCWy86xE
CXS
-
19 February 2009, 16:09 #52
I had an idea, but not a setup.
I had wanted an adjustable stock, but was talked into the UBR. The idea of a monothlic upper seemed well agreed to, and the VIS works out better for me than a MRP. No one came up with a reason to go away from the Geiselle trigger or LMT enhanced BCG, so I think we will go with those.
I'm still up in the air on the lower, and barrel..... and sights.
-
19 February 2009, 16:19 #53
Member
- Join Date
- Jun 2008
- Location
- In a van down by the river...
- Posts
- 69
- Downloads
- 0
- Uploads
- 0
If beat-the-snot-out-of-it durability is still the primary focus of this build, I'm sticking with the fixed LaRue BUIS. Whether you like Mark or not, and it's clear that a lot of folks around here don't think much of him, you have to admit that sight is a helluva sturdy piece of hardware and would require quite a bit of motivation to destroy. IMO, "we need to be able to break something" is tacit recognition of that sight's durability and doesn't make much sense nor justify omitting it when this thread is titled "Let's build an extreme use AR15...".
Last edited by jvencius; 19 February 2009 at 16:27.
-
19 February 2009, 17:35 #54lmmmmm Guest
How will you judge what meets your objective of heavy use/abuse.
By each individual component separately prior to adding it to the build , or as a complete rifle.
Durability tests usually take awhile to gather empirical evidence.Last edited by lmmmmm; 19 February 2009 at 17:54.
-
19 February 2009, 18:07 #55
Member
- Join Date
- Jan 2009
- Location
- Houston, TX
- Posts
- 162
- Downloads
- 0
- Uploads
- 0
Stick are you going to be loaning this out and letting people put massive amounts of rounds through it etc. or are you going to be dropping it running it over etc. ? Since I didn't get a response any chance that you'd be willing to run a redi mag system on it to see how it holds up to abuse? Also my vote if you're putting massive rounds through it for barrel would be Noveske N4 chrome lined and any billet lower that has an integrated trigger guard.
-
19 February 2009, 19:09 #56
jvencius,
I've seen no mention of why the LT sight wouldn't work, you've made implications in other threads, and its time to stop. I'm uninterested in the problems that occur on other boards, or the drama that some thrive on.
With the thread derailment over, I agree that a fixed sight platform is often more durable than a folding unit. LMT, LT, and DD all have units that would surely work, and I would hope so as we are talking simply about a fixed rear sight. The problem is that not everyone wants a fixed rear sight.
Durability and usability are two different things, and a fixed sight isn't going to be the answer for every platform. I'm half tempted to use MBUS, just to see how well they hold up.
-
19 February 2009, 20:15 #57
This isn't going to be a test conducted in a lab, and because of that, we are going to miss a lot of information that something like the military drop tests would show.
The idea is to document what abuse we can put the weapon through, and give our thoughts as users handle it. There are certainly better ways to conduct full testing, but military scale testing is beyond our means at this point.
-
19 February 2009, 20:19 #58
Not ignoring your Redimag idea, I'm just not sure what lower we'll be using, and the Redimag won't fit on the billet units.
As of right now, there are LE and MIL guys who have expressed an interest in using the upper aside from the regular guys on the WEVO Staff. Those guys will be given the upper, and will run it on their LE/MIL lowers.
I like the idea of the Noveske barrel, I'm just not sure that John N. has any which aren't spoken for, and I hate to impose on friends.
-
19 February 2009, 20:31 #59
Member
- Join Date
- Jan 2009
- Posts
- 31
- Downloads
- 0
- Uploads
- 0
How are you defining abuse? High and sustained rates of fire? Ability to withstand rough handling (banging into door thresholds, vehicles doors, sustaining drops, etc.)? All of the above?
And what ranges are you focussing on, 0-50 yds, 0-100 yds, 0-200, any need to reach further out? That would dictate, or could at least heavily influence the optic choice.
-
19 February 2009, 21:40 #60
Taken from the first post....
Think drop testing of components, thing about a carbine that will soak up loads of users worst punishment, and come back for more. Think along the lines of an AR15 that is going to get treated like a conscript treats their AK.
Different things are going to happen from different users, which is why optics will change around. Its also part of why there isn't a set list of things that will happen, or an order that they will happen in.