Results 31 to 45 of 135
Thread: Forward Controls Design LDFA
-
22 April 2015, 08:28 #31
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.Last edited by Duffy; 22 April 2015 at 08:42.
-
22 April 2015, 09:45 #32
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.
-
22 April 2015, 09:53 #33Ground Defense 1, Blade Defense 1, Defensive Pistol 1 & 2, Aliance Shoot House, When Things Go Bad, YSINTG, Carbine 1, DART Medical, NRA Range Safety Officer
david@damagephotos.com
Damage Photos on Facebook
@damage_photos on Instagram
Use DAMAGE15 to save 15% at Third Pin Threads
Save 10% "JOINORDIE" http://cmttac.com/
-
22 April 2015, 10:00 #34
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 FCDJust a regular guy.
-
22 April 2015, 12:17 #35
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.
-
22 April 2015, 12:34 #36Senior Member
- Join Date
- Sep 2014
- Posts
- 556
- Downloads
- 0
- Uploads
- 0
-
22 April 2015, 12:44 #37
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) :)
-
22 April 2015, 14:50 #38
-
22 April 2015, 15:33 #39
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 TapatalkFacebook - Marty Callan
-
23 April 2015, 14:20 #40
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 :)
-
23 April 2015, 14:26 #41
-
23 April 2015, 17:28 #42Senior Member
- Join Date
- Jul 2013
- Location
- Bentonville,AR
- Posts
- 783
- Downloads
- 0
- Uploads
- 0
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.
-
23 April 2015, 17:33 #43Senior Member
- Join Date
- Jul 2013
- Location
- Bentonville,AR
- Posts
- 783
- Downloads
- 0
- Uploads
- 0
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.Last edited by JGifford; 23 April 2015 at 17:39.
-
23 April 2015, 18:10 #44
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.
-
26 April 2015, 05:12 #45Senior Member
- Join Date
- Jul 2013
- Location
- Bentonville,AR
- Posts
- 783
- Downloads
- 0
- Uploads
- 0