Let's build an extreme use AR-15 (UPDATE PAGE 8 & 9)

[Uglyduck]

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?

[Stickman]

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?

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.

[jvencius]

I'm still up in the air on ... sights.

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...".

[Stickman]

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.

[lmmmmm]

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.

[bigcoastie]

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.

[Stickman]

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.

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.

[Stickman]

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.

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.

[jmart]

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.

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.

[Stickman]

How are you defining abuse?

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.

[Army Chief]

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

[medicine calf]

A few random thoughts ...


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.

AC

They've probably improved its durability since the prototype rear that appeared flopping up and down in their video.

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

The transition from the stock milspec trigger to an SSA is seamless. The SSA's first stage is relatively short, and terminates in clearly defined positive stop at the second stage. The trigger on my 6920 has about 1/16" less over travel, than the length of my SSA's first stage.

For quick first shots, I cannot detect the first stage of the SSA.

[ryanm]

As far as the LPK, I've only seen DPMS, Bushmaster, and High Standard. I think there may be a partial Colt kit out there, but I'm not sure it's a complete LPK.

Is there a better/higher grade option available? I may buy one of the Colt kits that Brownells sells to see what's actually in the kit.

I know I can single buy the colt parts from Brownells, but most are out of stock as are all of their other parts kits.

Also, ACE SOCOM stocks are advertised as being 6x stronger than a standard A2 stock/buffer tube.

The POF Sniper stock looks very strong as well

Handguard: PRI Free Float Forearm
Reason: 1 piece tube, I hear they are hard to install correctly. Pinned gas block required if deviating from FSP, PRI block most likely candidate.

Sights: POF front, LMT rear
Reason: POF front is a solid chunk of iron, LMT rear--trying to avoid a flip up mechanims. Not sure if the FSP was a standardized requirement for this build.

Optic: Not sure on this one, to me if this is an added component and deviates from the Zero fail capability of the weapon system. If an Optic is required as part of the build, I'd have to say S&B short dot with a LaRue mount
Reason: Combat proven durability--still not something I would ever think about dropping down the stairs. If this thing is going to be run over by a truck, might as well stick a walmart optic on here to be destroyed.

Grip: Hogue pistol, Bobro short vertical fore-grip on PRI rail
Reason: Hogue is rubberized, Bobro is small and lessons the leverage placed on the rail during hard impacts. A longer grip increases the potential for failure at the mount when dropped.

Stock: ACE SOCOM short
Reason: Advertised as being the strongest on the market, very simplistic desgin

Barrel including length: 16" Noveske with Midlength gas sytem
Reason: Advertised as a very durable chrome lined barrel

LPK/Trigger: Geissele DMR Trigger with Colt Lower Parts
Reason: Geissele performance, Colt is probably best possible LP option that I am aware of

Buffer: Carbine or H
Reason: Depends on weapon peformance, not sure how much the FailZero BCG weighs.

BCG: FailZero, see if EXO really does what they claim
Upper Rec: FailZero, see above

Lower Rec: POF Gen III
Reason: Very solid construction

Magazine: Brownells USGI with magpul followers
Reason: Proven durability, if plastic breaks--its broken, when metal bends--it can be bent back.

Lights/lasers/etc:None
Reason: design to follow KISS concept

Charging Handle: PRI Gas Buster
Reason: Very solid construction

Flash Hider/Comp: AAC SPR4/1000
Reason: Possible use with their Can, not sure if thats part of the build req.

Misc Stuff rail covers etc:
Reason: Magpul Rail ladders for all unused rail surface to keep railes intact during hard testing

[armakraut]

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.)

[Army Chief]

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