sounds like a bad way to spend $1150.
Printable View
sounds like a bad way to spend $1150.
Link to Oak Ridge Testing Results
http://www.atdmachineshop.com/Letter-steffner.pdf
http://www.atdmachineshop.com/rf85.htm
I'm interested in this coating, and your test of 150 rounds.
Mike Pannone fired over 2,400 rounds in a standard BCM 14.5" upper with no lubricant and no malfunctions.
Why is this RF85 necessary?
I considered getting one of these as my first AR but after researching I have settled on DD M4 V5. Picking it up today. :) Hope I made the right choice on my first AR.
Holy crap, this might be the best first post I've ever seen. This carbine looks like a pretty decent example of the fact that all ARs are not created equally.
Hello again all and thanks for responding to my review...
I honestly didn't think the review was as bad as all that. I hope you all don't miss the positives I mention about the rifle. Like I concluded originally, overall I'm satisfied with the "Final" quality of the parts. IMHO Anderson Manufacturing's problem is not one of quality, but quality assurance. I imagine that even the top tier manufacturers have products that wouldn't pass a close final inspection; it's having that process in place which would have saved A.M. the embarrassment in this case.
I really believe they are committed to producing an excellent rifle, they just need to up their game a little.
I too noticed this upon first inspection and felt a little let down ( my fault for going with an unknown manufacturer). It would be nice to have the cuts in the receiver however, from what I read, they are not necessarily essential to a well-running rifle.
Also, I reassembled the rifle without the BCG and placed a loaded magazine in it just to see if the bullets' path necessarily struck that part of the upper receiver before being pushed into the chamber. To my surprise, it does not. The tip of the bullet is always "caught" by the barrel's feed ramps. So, while i'm sure they can't hurt, at least in a semi-auto it doesn't seem essential.
- Barrel is not chrome lined but, treated with the RF85. If independent tests are to be believed this will effectively extend the life of the barrel by 1.5 times.
- Bolt is SA
- Don't have a scale and the buffer is not marked so, I'll assume H
- **
- Receiver extension is not slanted in the rear and has thicker threads toward the rear so I'm gonna say Mil-Spec
Read this article and by far this was the most surprising read about the AR platform I've ever come across. Thought I did a lot of research but somehow I missed this one. Thanks for the reference.
In light of it, my 300 round "test" does seem to fall very short of conclusive and I'll continue to reserve my opinion on the RF85 treatment until I have a MUCH higher round count.
I will be making the modifications recommended in the study.
Thanks again for everyone's input.
I think H buffers are usually marked 'H'. Unmarked ones are generally CAR buffers. Safe to assume that that's a CAR buffer, assuming they didn't swap one of the steel weights for a tungsten.