Are Lightweight Builds the Pinnacle?

[vicious_cb]

Speaking of the devil,

https://loadoutroom.com/40339/ultral...-upper-part-1/

Also, I got banned in like the first week I was active on this forum. I've mellowed in my old age.

About that build, just skimming it over its already a dumb design because they are cutting weight from the reciprocal mass. In the words of Jim Sullivan when he heard of people using lightweight bolt carriers, "They're crazy". If anything you want to increase the reciprocal mass in order to achieve some form of reliability.

[jerrysimons]

Wow, this thread kinda went off the rails. Lightweight? Certainly, as long as it functions as required. How much do we want to spend? Ok go.

I do lightweight builds like this: what is the guns purpose (see the spectrum mentioned earlier)? Broad strokes are defense vs recreational. This will determine the extent to which I will consider taking weight out of the reciprocating assembly. None if not adding to it for defenseive use but have at it for recreational use. Though I will say I have added reciprocating mass back in to my Uberlight SBR range toy project in its most recent revision (still under 4lbs though ).

Down to basics: Start with a good lightweight barrel (BCM ELW or Sionics LW is my go to), add a lightweight rail (V Seven ultralight or hyperlight, BCM, Centurion CMR), a lightweight stock (CTR, BCM), put on the gold standard Aimpoint micro with ScalarWorks LEAP mount, and consider a scout light from Surefire or Arisaka if not the Rosch Works SL-1. Then keep the clutter off, it is amazing how fast rail panels add up! Then decide how much you are going to spend on the diminishing returns of small parts and the pricy but fancy receivers made out of alternative advanced materials. Prioritize spending on parts that lighten the front of the gun to reduce the effects of leverage, like a titanium gas-block and lighter muzzle device for example.

To me this topic is more about science than a pissing match of who is a bad ass and who needs to do push ups.

One point of discussion is how current stress relieving process post machining have made lightweight barrels perform much more consistently once warm/hot.

I think I was reading Mike Pannone who said of lightweight carbines that if he can save 4oz in the barrel, 4oz in the rail, 4oz in the RDS w/ mount and 4 oz in the stock, all the sudden his carbine weighs a whole pound less which is very noticeable and easily do able in today's market.

[Duffy]

The abundance of light weight components may not owe a thing to the light weight mafia, many of them already existed long before the fad came long. The manufacturers didn't advertise them as light weight, though they are very much so. Pencil barrels, Colt CAR and M4 stocks, CTR and other non-storage stocks, thinner rail panels, A2 and Battle Comp, Aimpoint Micro series, weapon mounted single battery flash lights, and hand guards without full length rails at 12, 3, 6 and 9 o'clock for a slimmer diameter, etc. Many of them weren't done in pursue of the light weight fairy, they are just sound designs that do their jobs without the extra weight.

Why, you can assemble a complete rifle without a single component bearing the words light weight in their names and product description.

[Outlander Systems]

A quick rundown of various, commonly-used AR15/M4 stocks and their weights.

.mil:

N1 CAR: 4.7 oz
Standard M4 Waffle: 7.7 oz (with metal sling loop)
SOPMOD: 10.3 oz
A2: 24.5 oz (with RE/Buffer)

Rogers:

Rogers Super-Stoc: 7.3 oz

Magpul:

MOE SL-K: 7.9 oz
MOE Carbine: 8.0 oz
CTR: 8.8 oz
MOE SL: 9.6 oz
STR: 12.3 oz
MOE SL-S: 12.8 oz
MOE Rifle: 14.0 oz
ACS: 14.1 oz
Gen 2 UBR: 21.2 oz (with RE)
Gen 3 PRS: 27.8 oz

VLTOR:

IMOD: 9.5 oz
ARM: 10.1 oz
EMOD: 14 oz

[Todd.K]

I've carried them in Iraq and most of the Marine Corps did. Many dead Iraqis would disagree with your rediculas statement. M16A4 worthless. That is one of the most idiotic statements I've read on any forum.

I said the extra weight was useless, in a conversation about the A1 vs A2 barrel profiles.

[Firefly]

The AR-15 already succeeded in being a lightweight small arm. Look at the M1 Garand and the M14.

I'm not totally dismissive of LW ARs, I just don't think they are the future. I think lightening the kit will do more. Kalashnikev made an excellent point a while back about how guys whine about a "heavy" rifle but find a place for iPods, Copenhagen, Skittles, and other unnecessary items.

The old NV scope for the M16 was almost the size of the rifle.

For like a ranch or camp rifle a 6720 and a basic optic is pretty much all you would need.

I will ruffle feathers but I dont think every gun needs a WML. A good defensive/offensive pistol? Sure. No reason not to.

A Rifle that by and large will only go to the range? not really.

Needs vs Wants.

[jerrysimons]

The AR-15 already succeeded in being a lightweight small arm. Look at the M1 Garand and the M14.

I'm not totally dismissive of LW ARs, I just don't think they are the future. I think lightening the kit will do more. Kalashnikev made an excellent point a while back about how guys whine about a "heavy" rifle but find a place for iPods, Copenhagen, Skittles, and other unnecessary items.

The old NV scope for the M16 was almost the size of the rifle.

For like a ranch or camp rifle a 6720 and a basic optic is pretty much all you would need.

I will ruffle feathers but I dont think every gun needs a WML. A good defensive/offensive pistol? Sure. No reason not to.

A Rifle that by and large will only go to the range? not really.

Needs vs Wants.

Well from the basics there is not much here I don't agree with. Once you accept a 6720 barrel profile, your half way there. Used to be rails were heavy enough that a FSB with handguard was about the same weight if not lighter than a rail, lo-pro gas block, and rail mounted sight. Not so any more, good kit comes light. And for the purposes of lightweight one ought to also consider a rail shorter than the barrel, just long enough to cover the gas block (leverage and weight savings). Now I conced a flip up rail mounted sight looses out in durability to a barrel mounted FSB even if we are talking a MBUS pro and Hodge rail but the FSB is pig by itself, like 5oz. Though the venurable FSB is time proven, I have been wanting a titanium FSB for a long time now, floated the idea to an industry name but pretty much they ain't in vogue enough to take the machine time. I would dig a middy pencil barrel with titanium FSB And a 9.2" aluminum magnesium alloy rail, ScalarWorks peak rear sight, a KISS ultralight.

[MistWolf]

...If anything you want to increase the reciprocal mass in order to achieve some form of reliability.

Only to a point. Remember, for every action, there is an opposite and equal reaction. The more reciprocating mass, the more the rifle gets pushed around during cycling. Less mass narrows up the margin of operation.

There is a range of mass that gives reliable function without pushing the rifle around too much. On the light side would be a standard weight carrier with a carbine buffer. The heavy side would be a standard weight carrier with a rifle or A5H2 buffer. I'm beginning to believe the sweet spot is a standard weight carrier with the weight equivalent of an H or H2 buffer.

[Pi3]

what is the lightest quality factory AR with pinned 14.5" barrel and a rail?
This bcm is 5.7 lbs.
http://shop.bravocompanymfg.com/BCM-...780-790-lw.htm

[indianalex01]

what is the lightest quality factory AR with pinned 14.5" barrel and a rail?
This bcm is 5.7 lbs.
http://shop.bravocompanymfg.com/BCM-...780-790-lw.htm

That BCM is a great looking rifle. I've had accuracy issues with a BCM and their customer service wasn't very good. I won't go BCM ever again. I'm sure mine was a lemon but they didn't right the wrong.