Page 2 of 4 FirstFirst 1234 LastLast
Results 11 to 20 of 33

Thread: Mil-spec buffer tubes vs commercial

  1. #11
    Join Date
    Nov 2010
    Posts
    87
    Feedback Score
    0
    I had an aluminum, GI-marked stock with three positions--open, 1" closed, fully closed. Total difference was only 2", so it was closer to "adjustable" than "collapsible" and didn't save any weight.

  2. #12
    Join Date
    Sep 2010
    Posts
    354
    Feedback Score
    0
    Mil tubes, or some of them, are made of stronger aluminum. Cheap mil tubes I've seen are the same cheaper alum as commercials are.

  3. #13
    Join Date
    Sep 2010
    Posts
    32
    Feedback Score
    0
    I thought the threads on the milspec were of a different gauge that was stronger than a commercial tube too?


    This is relevant as well.

    https://www.m4carbine.net/showthread...al+buffer+tube
    Last edited by Code7inoaktown; 11-11-10 at 19:55. Reason: added link.

  4. #14
    Join Date
    Sep 2010
    Posts
    354
    Feedback Score
    0
    Quote Originally Posted by Code7inoaktown View Post
    I thought the threads on the milspec were of a different gauge that was stronger than a commercial tube too?
    They are cut differently, but both fit the threads in the receiver.
    Photo is worth a thousand words, basically the commercial tube is weaker aluminum that is easier to machine, and the threads are cut in a cheaper way. Lot more milling and strength on the mil tube. Not the end of the world having a commercial one, but the mil one is a nice touch no more than it costs in my opinion. And you might need to beat something to death with the stock one day, you never know.

  5. #15
    Join Date
    May 2008
    Location
    Occupied Territory
    Posts
    1,212
    Feedback Score
    19 (100%)
    Extruded 6061 (cheap MilSpec "sized" receiver extensions are also Commercial 6061), vs. extruded 7075.

    Translates to breaking strength of 45 vs. 75 lbs.

    Thus, if 30 more lbs. of breaking strength is important to you, it's certainly worth the money. Seems like a good way to spend the additional $20-40 to me.
    Last edited by PRGGodfather; 11-11-10 at 20:12.
    Battle Comp Enterprises, LLC
    World Class Tactical Compensators
    California Legal Compensators
    100% American Made
    www.battlecomp.com
    sales@battlecomp.com
    (650) 678-0778

    1 Samuel 17:49 / Romans 13: 1-4 / Isaiah 6:8 / Psalms 144:1 / Matthew 12:30

  6. #16
    Join Date
    Nov 2010
    Posts
    87
    Feedback Score
    0
    I'm always amazed at people who'll hang $1000 worth of accessories off a rifle, but think their trigger group, BCG and operating mechanism are "a waste of money."

    I go with top end forgings, barrel and internals FIRST. Everything else can be changed as funds and style permit.

  7. #17
    Join Date
    Mar 2010
    Posts
    429
    Feedback Score
    0
    Quote Originally Posted by PRGGodfather View Post
    Extruded 6061 (cheap MilSpec "sized" receiver extensions are also Commercial 6061), vs. extruded 7075.

    Translates to breaking strength of 45 vs. 75 lbs.

    Thus, if 30 more lbs. of breaking strength is important to you, it's certainly worth the money. Seems like a good way to spend the additional $20-40 to me.
    Is there a way easily tell which material it's made of?

    I have a mil spec size tube and have always wondered...got it CHEAP so I doubt it's anything fantastic...would be nice to know, though.

  8. #18
    Join Date
    May 2008
    Location
    Occupied Territory
    Posts
    1,212
    Feedback Score
    19 (100%)
    Unless you know the brand; nope, no easy way visually.

    The correct 7075 MilSpec receiver extensions that I know of firsthand are from Bravo Company, Daniel Defense, Vltor and Colt. There are more, but I haven't played with all of them.

    DSA makes MilSpec-sized receiver extensions for about $18-20, but they use extruded 6061. For many folks, this isn't a deal-killer, as 6061 is pretty sturdy stuff, and the ACE stocks are made of 6061, too; HOWEVER, please understand that the AR15 TDP was intended as the minimum for a fighting gun -- and the TDP calls for 7075 aluminum, forged or extruded.

    7075 receiver extensions will often go for at least $45-50 (Vltor), with Colt being the most expensive at well over $100.

    There are number of "assemblers" who will use the cheapest parts AR15 parts they can source and call it "MilSpec," with the intention of selling low and making a profit. That is a common business model, as the term "MilSpec" actually means little. For receiver extensions (AKA "buffer tubes"), the only things actually "MilSpec" is the overall size and outer dimensions.

    In the firearms industry; however, marketing that low end model as reliable for self-defense is not the way many reputable folks want to do business. Quality isn't cheap, and cheap very often isn't quality.

    You get for what you pay -- and when it comes to serious stuff, I like to think of it as cheap life insurance. If you want something inexpensive, perhaps the AR15 isn't the rifle on which to base your budget.

    Still, this is America, and we are free to choose.

    Be safe!
    Battle Comp Enterprises, LLC
    World Class Tactical Compensators
    California Legal Compensators
    100% American Made
    www.battlecomp.com
    sales@battlecomp.com
    (650) 678-0778

    1 Samuel 17:49 / Romans 13: 1-4 / Isaiah 6:8 / Psalms 144:1 / Matthew 12:30

  9. #19
    Join Date
    Nov 2010
    Posts
    87
    Feedback Score
    0
    Who makes a modern 6 position to milspec? I know there are some out there somewhere.

  10. #20
    Join Date
    Apr 2007
    Posts
    742
    Feedback Score
    2 (100%)
    Quote Originally Posted by MichaelZWilliamson View Post
    Who makes a modern 6 position to milspec? I know there are some out there somewhere.
    Bravo Company, VLTOR and I think Daniel Defense.

Page 2 of 4 FirstFirst 1234 LastLast

Bookmarks

Posting Permissions

  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts
  •