View Full Version : The lightest lightweight AR lower receiver
http://militarytimes.com/blogs/gearscout/2012/09/26/the-lightest-lightweight-ar-lower-receiver/
The MAG Tactical Systems GEN 4 lower receiver weighs in at 5.8 ounces. That’s more than 3 ounces (35%) lighter than an aluminum lower. MAG makes the part from their own nickel-based alloy and finishes it with a patented coating process.
The coating process is an integral part of the part’s design, so if you plan on having your lower engraved as an SBR or with a custom logo, you’ll have to return the raceiver to MAG to be recoated. They told me the cost would be about $25 plus return shipping for the service.
We saw black and tan samples that looked and felt any other commercial lower, aside from the dramatic weight difference and exaggerated trigger and hammer pin holes. MAG includes longer pins to accommodate the reinforced hammer and trigger pin holes.
Details:
-integrated trigger guard
-reinforced trigger and hammer pin holes
-reinforced pivot pin points
-Available mid-November from Brownells, through ADS and directly from MAG Tactical Systems
-MSRP $160
mkmckinley
09-27-12, 07:35
Sounds cool. So I'm guessing these are magnesium alloy. If you scratch it can you just hit it with some Krylon or do you need to send it in for recoating?
Because the forged lower is just SO HEAVY!!! :rolleyes:
This stupid thing will sell like a MOFO too.
midSCarolina
09-27-12, 08:20
Gym membership maybe???
I don't see how people bitch about carrying an AR when there are guys having to carry M249s around the mountains over in Afghanistan.
I don't know if I'm willing to possibly compromise the integrity of my rifle for 3oz. I think there are a lot of other things that you could chop off your rifle if weight is that big of a consideration to you.
Reagans Rascals
09-27-12, 08:24
...I don't know if I'm willing to possibly compromise the integrity of my rifle for 3oz.
you do realize the lower receives roughly 0% of any force whatsoever right?.... I mean you could literally make it from Delrin or a Rapid Prototype media and it would last just as long as a standard lower... they play no structural role whatsoever besides simply holding onto the upper.... yeah you can say w/e you'd like about dropping it or any other random impact force, but the fact of the matter is, simply firing the M4, provides absolutely 0 force on the lower.... you could possibly crack one if made of Delrin or Nylon or any other Plastic type material by dry firing it while separated from the upper... but that is the extent of the damaging force it would be subjected to
this is why I cannot fathom why people on here continuously bitch about how Billet lowers are crap and sacrifice structural integrity over forged and blah blah blah.... when was the last time anyone on here has ever in their life witnessed first hand a cracked or damaged lower from regular use, Forged, Billet, or any other material for that matter....
I mean FFS they make wooden lowers.....
http://www.weaponeer.net/forum/forum_posts.asp?TID=8035&PN=1&TPN=1
you do realize the lower receives roughly 0% of any force whatsoever right?.... I mean you could literally make it from Delrin or a Rapid Prototype media and it would last just as long as a standard lower... they play no structural role whatsoever besides simply holding onto the upper.... yeah you can say w/e you'd like about dropping it or any other random impact force, but the fact of the matter is, simply firing the M4, provides absolutely 0 force on the lower.... you could possibly crack one if made of Delrin or Nylon or any other Plastic type material by dry firing it while separated from the upper... but that is the extent of the damaging force it would be subjected to
this is why I cannot fathom why people on here continuously bitch about how Billet lowers are crap and sacrifice structural integrity over forged and blah blah blah.... when was the last time anyone on here has ever in their life witnessed first hand a cracked or damaged lower from regular use, Forged, Billet, or any other material for that matter....
I mean FFS they make wooden lowers.....
http://www.weaponeer.net/forum/forum_posts.asp?TID=8035&PN=1&TPN=1
Buffer tube area can beak on a lower. Especially if you apply downward force to the stock.
Isn't there also stress in the hammer and trigger pin holes or is this only an issue with F/A and pistol caliber guns??
I say buy it and try it. Worst case scenario you throw it in a dumpster and eat the $160.
...you do realize the lower receives roughly 0% of any force whatsoever right?...
This isn't entirely true. If it was, the Plum Crazy polymer lowers would not be breaking. Another reason you can't simply carve AR lowers out of some kind of plastic is because the threads for the barrel nut and receiver extension would not be very durable
militarymoron
09-27-12, 12:52
you do realize the lower receives roughly 0% of any force whatsoever right?
except for the buffer spring and buffer impact force during the rearward motion of the bolt carrier assy.
trackmagic
09-27-12, 13:05
a 3 oz savings saves 10% (assuming an 8 lb gun). Even though it would probably be a $5k barrel that would be cool if somebody made a titanium barrel (I have never seen it done so it might not be possible). That would probably save a lot of weight and it would balance the rifle better.
I say buy it and try it. Worst case scenario you throw it in a dumpster and eat the $160.
My thoughts exactly Must say I like the looks of this over the polymer lowers that I have been seeing around. Not sure if I would use this for a mainline rifle, at least not yet, but for a rifle that will see light to moderate use and is being built as a light weight build... I am interested and will be looking out for one for that project.
I am not going to pass judgement until I see these in use. Don't see the point in condemning something until it has proven it is junk.
everyusernametaken
09-27-12, 16:08
a 3 oz savings saves 10% (assuming an 8 lb gun). Even though it would probably be a $5k barrel that would be cool if somebody made a titanium barrel (I have never seen it done so it might not be possible). That would probably save a lot of weight and it would balance the rifle better.
8lb is 128oz, so 3oz is a less than 4% reduction. The lower being central mass, it isn't the ideal location to shave weight. A shorter barrel would be more effective for balance.
Magic_Salad0892
09-27-12, 18:03
On anything but a featherweight build, it's pointless.
Fidalgoman
09-27-12, 18:17
There's a company by the name of NEMO in Kalispell, Mt that makes thier own high end AR-15 and .308 AR like long range stuff.
Anyway, just to prove they could they made an all titanium fuctional display model. After hefting that beast nothing seemed heavy.
Now their normal models are very light and high tech but shaving ounces off of a lower is going to make what difference when you put a quad rail, light, laser, optic, can opener etc?
a 3 oz savings saves 10% (assuming an 8 lb gun). Even though it would probably be a $5k barrel that would be cool if somebody made a titanium barrel (I have never seen it done so it might not be possible). That would probably save a lot of weight and it would balance the rifle better.
8lb is 128oz, so 3oz is a less than 4% reduction. The lower being central mass, it isn't the ideal location to shave weight. A shorter barrel would be more effective for balance.
I don't understand this concern over the balance point. Does an AR carbine have poor balance? Mine doesn't. Just how much will a shorter barrel change the CG. Probably not much. Just look at the change in CG from opening and closing an UBR stock. (I picked the CG photos of the UBR because it's a heavy stock)
Open
http://i115.photobucket.com/albums/n289/SgtSongDog/AR%20Carbine/DSC_0007.jpg
http://i115.photobucket.com/albums/n289/SgtSongDog/AR%20Carbine/DSC_0008.jpg
Closed
http://i115.photobucket.com/albums/n289/SgtSongDog/AR%20Carbine/DSC_0005.jpg
http://i115.photobucket.com/albums/n289/SgtSongDog/AR%20Carbine/DSC_0006-1.jpg
That's not much of a shift at all. While shaving weight from the lower won't change the balance, it does make the rifle lighter. Where are you guys looking to place the CG? Behind the magwell?
everyusernametaken
09-27-12, 19:29
It won't make a significant difference, that's the point. Similar to a car, removing nose/tail weight reduces polar moment of inertia, reducing inertial resistance to change of direction, which is the only way a small weight reduction will make any noticeable change to the handling of a rifle. Expecting a significant change of CG by 3oz on a carbine is absurd.
3 ounces is almost a quarter pound and is a significant savings on a rifle like the carbine. While lightening the lower doesn't change the polar axis of movement very much, it doesn't make it worse either. By itself, it's not much but couple that with a pencil barrel, light handguards and and a buttstock like the MOE or CTR, you'll have a lighter, livelier rifle. If they also come out with a lighter upper receiver, that will save even more weight.
They have lighter profile barrels, lighter buttstocks and lighter handguards. The only places left to shave weight is the lower and upper receiver and the receiver extension. While this lower may not be be for everyone, it could be a good start to build a lighter weight carbine
Looks like the next upgrade for Project Featherweight
https://www.m4carbine.net/showthread.php?t=39599&page=8
everyusernametaken
09-27-12, 20:30
3 ounces is almost a quarter pound and is a significant savings on a rifle like the carbine. While lightening the lower doesn't change the polar axis of movement very much, it doesn't make it worse either. By itself, it's not much but couple that with a pencil barrel, light handguards and and a buttstock like the MOE or CTR, you'll have a lighter, livelier rifle. If they also come out with a lighter upper receiver, that will save even more weight.
They have lighter profile barrels, lighter buttstocks and lighter handguards. The only places left to shave weight is the lower and upper receiver and the receiver extension. While this lower may not be be for everyone, it could be a good start to build a lighter weight carbine
Sure, it will contribute to a lighter overall rifle. I suppose that's a useful application for a 3oz savings. By itself, I believe the lower is where one would notice the difference the least. Having that much cut off from the outer end of the barrel would be be getting more for your money. My personal concern would be what others have mentioned - integrity of the RE attachment point.
Rayrevolver
09-27-12, 22:24
I can help with the math: 2.34% weight savings for an 8lb rifle.
Some engineers want their racecars to break on the cool down lap. If they didn't that meant they were over built.
You can carry that mindset to a fighting rifle but I think most folks would rather have survivability.
There are pros and cons to everything you do with respect to setup. Switching to 20 round mags will save more weight than 3oz. Why not use 10 round mags?
trackmagic
09-27-12, 23:08
Thanks for the math help, I'm not sure what I typed in my calculator. Probably lost it in the conversion. For the record I like the idea of a lighter lower. While we were on the topic of lightening guns I wanted to know about wether titanium would work for a barrel. Shaving weight off the front to reduce the moment of inertia is where the real benefits come in IMO. The AR's "pointability" is what attracted me to it in the first place.
When the upper & lower come as a set (ideally an upper w/o fwd assist) I'll build one. ASSuming similar weight % reduction in the upper.
I think this would be even more interesting in a 7.62.. with the greatly increased size of the receivers.. Eventually a 7lb, (.8-1.25MOA) 16-17", reliable, (naked) AR format gas gun will arise.
Because the forged lower is just SO HEAVY!!! :rolleyes:
This stupid thing will sell like a MOFO too.
my thoughts exactly
BCM's new rail is made out of a magnesium alloy.
food for thought
3 oz lighter lower?
DO YOU EVEN LIFT
As they kept the price point reasonable, I think it has merit esp. if combined with a similar built upper and a pencil barrel, light furniture, Aimpont mico, and a light(weight)-light.
Yeah, 3 ounces isn't much by itself. But ounces become pounds, particularly over long distance stretches. I humped large amounts of weight in Iraq for the Army, and am currently carrying a 72 LB load out for a different organization in Afghanistan. If you can reduce my load by a few ounces here and there, without decreasing the reliability (and that is a big "if") I am all ears. I would absolutely look at it as an addition to a lightweight build.
3 oz lighter lower?
DO YOU EVEN LIFT
It's not that the AR is too heavy as it is, it's that we can make it lighter anyway.
Because the forged lower is just SO HEAVY!!! :rolleyes:
This stupid thing will sell like a MOFO too.
Exactly. This will just screw up the balance.
BCM's new rail is made out of a magnesium alloy.
food for thought
Necroposting = bumping a thread that died 8 mos ago for ^^^that.
Why? Because we have a thread about BCM's new rail, authored 6 days ago, that's entitled...
....wait for it....
New BCM Rail
Powered by vBulletin® Version 4.2.5 Copyright © 2024 vBulletin Solutions, Inc. All rights reserved.