View Full Version : faxon firearms?
sinlessorrow
10-26-12, 00:32
Anyone else see this, it looks like a really awesome idea for a standard AR-15 lower.
http://www.guns.com/new-faxon-firearms-arak-long-stroke-piston-ar-upper-receiver-556-nato-300-aac-blackout-video-11290.html
faxon firearms (https://www.facebook.com/FaxonFirearms)
This is a very interesting concept. IMO it takes a step forward beyond the gas piston stoner style rifles by having the carrier ride on rails. Hopefully they can find sucess and sell many so options will be available.
Draufganger
10-26-12, 03:29
Thing to notice is that it is using actual AR-15 lower receiver, unlike the said XCR.
wetidlerjr
10-26-12, 08:11
Looks like an answer in search of a question.
sinlessorrow
10-26-12, 10:53
Looks like an answer in search of a question.
How so? Aside from the lower its a completely new firarm. The thing I like is that its a new rifle basically but allows use of your standard lower giving you the ability to keep your SBR if you want, instead of having to register a new sytem.
Doc. Holiday
10-26-12, 15:34
Interesting concept. It looks a little bulky as far as the receivers are concerned, but I'm interested to see if it picks up or not.
Looks very interesting. I like that the bolt group rides on rails. I think their is some refinement that could be done to the fore-end as it does appear bulky and the way the bottom section attaches seems less than ideal. Would be nice if they designed the removable bottom rail similar to the DD RIS-2 and Knights URX rails.
As for it being a solution in search of a problem, I respectfully disagree. If it is reliable and not overly heavy, this seems a very viable evolutionary design applied to the AR15/M16 series.
I hope to see a modular fire control group with a trip lever to actuate the standard M16 autosear and allow one to use this on a fullauto M16 lower (without modifying the lower). That would seal the deal for me.
I'm wondering if this will let you run a folding stock?
sinlessorrow
10-27-12, 01:10
I'm wondering if this will let you run a folding stock?
Sure will.
Magic_Salad0892
10-27-12, 04:34
I dunno... this does seriously seems like it searching for a problem.
Need a piston? HK416. (Always wondered how one would feel with an A5 with heaviest buffer.)
Need a folding stock? LAW adapter.
Need a piston with a folding stock? Get both. Or a SCAR... or an AK... or a FAL... or an FNC...
This gun does NOTHING that other guns don't....
Plus... it's not made to adhere to any spec (that we know of), so it's basically an unknown... And the upper alone is the cost of a Colt 6920.
justin_247
10-27-12, 05:59
I saw this the other day. Very interesting, and definitely a step in the right direction.
justin_247
10-27-12, 06:07
I dunno... this does seriously seems like it searching for a problem.
Need a piston? HK416. (Always wondered how one would feel with an A5 with heaviest buffer.)
Good luck getting one for a halfway decent price!
Need a folding stock? LAW adapter.
A "problem" corrected by introducing more problems... ingenious!
Need a piston with a folding stock? Get both. Or a SCAR... or an AK... or a FAL... or an FNC...
And for those with full-auto lowers who are already heavily invested in the AR platform?
This gun does NOTHING that other guns don't....
This is illogical. You could apply the same logic to the AR. What can it do that an StG 44 cannot? Or an AK? Or a G36?
Plus... it's not made to adhere to any spec (that we know of), so it's basically an unknown...
And what spec does a LAW stock adapter adhere to?
And the upper alone is the cost of a Colt 6920.
A 16" CHF upper with an RIS II from BCM costs as much as a Colt 6920. Your point?
Yeah, definately an interesting find for those in ban-states that have pre-ban lowers.
Luckily I Live in North Carolina, so I don't have any problems with that.
However I do plan on SBRing one of my lowers. Would be cool to run this with an 11.5" barrel.
The rails that should solve the carrier tilt problem in piston ARs is a big bowl of win in my book.
sinlessorrow
10-27-12, 06:46
Good luck getting one for a halfway decent price!
A "problem" corrected by introducing more problems... ingenious!
And for those with full-auto lowers who are already heavily invested in the AR platform?
This is illogical. You could apply the same logic to the AR. What can it do that an StG 44 cannot? Or an AK? Or a G36?
And what spec does a LAW stock adapter adhere to?
A 16" CHF upper with an RIS II from BCM costs as much as a Colt 6920. Your point?
+1, sure I could have an HK416 upper for $4000 or the watered down mr556 with its bare steel barrel for around $2500, but this upper only costs $1000 offers a FF CHF CL barrel, is built Around a piston and uses any standard AR-15 lower.
Not trying to pick a fight but just pointing out the HK is ridiculously priced to me. The law adaptor can't be used with the stock folded negating the point to me. The scars and etc are still high priced compared to a 1k upper that can be dropped on any lower. Plus I always like options.i love my AR but I see its faults as well.
Magic_Salad0892
10-27-12, 09:42
Good luck getting one for a halfway decent price!
The HK is a proven platform, that will last a while. The price is worth it.
A "problem" corrected by introducing more problems... ingenious!
How so?
And for those with full-auto lowers who are already heavily invested in the AR platform?
See above two answers.
This is illogical. You could apply the same logic to the AR. What can it do that an StG 44 cannot? Or an AK? Or a G36?
But it doesn't apply. This unproven not built to spec upper doesn't really do anything new.
And what spec does a LAW stock adapter adhere to?
True, but to my knowledge the LAW doesn't take the stress of actually firing a round.
A 16" CHF upper with an RIS II from BCM costs as much as a Colt 6920. Your point?
That went past you...
sinlessorrow
10-27-12, 10:08
The HK is a proven platform, that will last a while. The price is worth it.
How so?
See above two answers.
But it doesn't apply. This unproven not built to spec upper doesn't really do anything new.
True, but to my knowledge the LAW doesn't take the stress of actually firing a round.
That went past you...
The HK416 is a proven platform and if I could get an upper for around $1500 I would own one today, but instead I can get a watered down variant known as the MR556, that comes with a proprietary bolt carrier, a barrel extension that keeps me from using a HK416 bolt carrier, and best of all a plain phosphated barrel, no CL, no nitriding just plain ol' phosphate.
While this upper is not proven(no one said it was) it is a upper built around a piston and a standard lower.
DeltaSierra
10-27-12, 10:23
This upper has one really big problem that I can see, right off...
How are you gonna get a decent sight picture with irons? With a chin weld?
This is yet another problem, looking for a solution.
sinlessorrow
10-27-12, 11:18
This upper has one really big problem that I can see, right off...
How are you gonna get a decent sight picture with irons? With a chin weld?
This is yet another problem, looking for a solution.
Its no different than any other piston gun not based on the AR-15. AK, SCAR, FAL, etc you name it.
I think the concept has merit. It is an M16 upper designed from the ground up to use a traditional long stroke gas piston, as opposed to engineering a (short or long stroke) gas piston into the traditional M16 upper, where the carrier rides in a tubular reciever thus introducing carrier tilt issues which must be addressed. This is the answer to the folks who state that gas piston rifles should be designed from the ground up to use gas pistons.
Does the M16 series "need" this upgrade? No, I don't believe it does. It is an interesting piece of kit nonetheless and I look forward to following its development/production in further detail.
It is a viable concept, but the devil is in the details. Whether this is a viable addition to the Stoner series remains to be seen.
I own a transferable Colt M16 and can say unequivocally that I will buy one of these uppers with a short barrel IF they prove to be reliable, use appropriate materials (ie barrel and bolt steel, etc), and if it will run in auto without permanent alteration/modification of my fullauto lower. In my estimation the market for these lies in guys like me with transferable fullauto lowers who would love to have a transferable "next generation" assault rifle (in the true meaning of the term...ie select fire intermediate cartridge rifle).
This upper allows for M16 ergos with an upper designed around a long stroke gas piston operating system. Frankly I don't see what's not to like about it conceptually. Design execution will ultimately result in its commercial success or failure.
DeltaSierra
10-27-12, 13:07
Its no different than any other piston gun not based on the AR-15. AK, SCAR, FAL, etc you name it.
Uh, what?
Apparently what I said went right over your head....
Oh, well...
Notice the Knights Armament SCAR submission, which essentially looks to be a SIG 552 operating system in a monolithic upper with a lower adapted from that of an AR15.
It is not exactly the same as the Faxon, but the Faxon appears to be have conceptual similarities.
https://www.m4carbine.net/showthread.php?t=84439
justin_247
10-27-12, 18:23
Notice the Knights Armament SCAR submission, which essentially looks to be a SIG 552 operating system in a monolithic upper with a lower adapted from that of an AR15.
It is not exactly the same as the Faxon, but the Faxon appears to be have conceptual similarities.
https://www.m4carbine.net/showthread.php?t=84439
Looks like a solution in search of a problem to me! Those silly Knight's Armament people... :rolleyes:
DeltaSierra
10-27-12, 18:29
Looks like a solution in search of a problem to me! Those silly Knight's Armament people... :rolleyes:
If that thing was so great, why didn't KAC bring it to market...?
Yep, I think it is a dumb idea, regardless who puts their name on the side, though, if KAC were to put something like that on the market, I would be a little more confident that it would actually function. Even so, whether it functions or not, it is still lacking in several areas...
CleverNickname
10-27-12, 19:40
This upper has one really big problem that I can see, right off...
How are you gonna get a decent sight picture with irons? With a chin weld?
This is yet another problem, looking for a solution.
Just a guess, but it probably uses micro-height sights instead of the taller AR15 sights. Something like these Troys (http://troyind.com/back-up-iron-sights/folding/micro-sets), maybe.
If that thing was so great, why didn't KAC bring it to market...?
Yep, I think it is a dumb idea, regardless who puts their name on the side, though, if KAC were to put something like that on the market, I would be a little more confident that it would actually function. Even so, whether it functions or not, it is still lacking in several areas...
I am guessing they did not bring it to market because it did not win the SCAR competition.
It looks like a hybred between an AK47 and a AR-180.
justin_247
10-27-12, 20:39
If that thing was so great, why didn't KAC bring it to market...?
Yep, I think it is a dumb idea, regardless who puts their name on the side, though, if KAC were to put something like that on the market, I would be a little more confident that it would actually function. Even so, whether it functions or not, it is still lacking in several areas...
What the heck? How does bringing something to the market confer legitimacy upon it? Knight's hasn't brought their PDW to the market, but plenty have had good things to say about it.
I don't deny that it is lacking in several areas, but I think it's a step in the right direction... if you're going to put an op-rod driven system on an AR lower receiver, this seems to me to bring the most advantages. The HK416 is still king.
Pfft... I dunno about y'all, but I'm putting an order in for a 300blk...
I like to see people that are forward thinking, and making things, whatever it may be. I wish them financial success for their efforts. I would imagine the system will evolve as it achieves commercial success, and perhaps some of those things that don't seem to be as well thought through could be addressed.
My first thought (besides the top rail being too tall, and 'it looks heavy') was that it would be neat to see them develop a dedicated lower to take advantage of the compact recoil system, while incorporating some non-AR features like ambidextrous bolt catches, ambi mag releases, and a different stock interface for a dedicated side folder. Maintaining compatibility with an AR lower would have advantages in marketing in ban states and parts compatability.
Good on 'em. I hope they find their niche.
I like to see people that are forward thinking, and making things, whatever it may be. I wish them financial success for their efforts. I would imagine the system will evolve as it achieves commercial success, and perhaps some of those things that don't seem to be as well thought through could be addressed.
My first thought (besides the top rail being too tall, and 'it looks heavy') was that it would be neat to see them develop a dedicated lower to take advantage of the compact recoil system, while incorporating some non-AR features like ambidextrous bolt catches, ambi mag releases, and a different stock interface for a dedicated side folder. Maintaining compatibility with an AR lower would have advantages in marketing in ban states and parts compatability.
Good on 'em. I hope they find their niche.
The guys at Faxon say it weighs in at 7.5lbs for the regular profile and just under 8lbs for the heavy barrel version, yeah its heavy considering I believe that weight is just for the compete upper.... I'm not 100% sure though..
As far as the dedicated lower, I think their whole design was intended to be around the existing AR lower and I love that!!! I had hoped someone would do this for a long time now...
maddawg5777
12-26-12, 14:54
I like the idea but until it gets put through its paces ill hold off. Also would like to know what specs are being adhered to if any. For now if I Just use my AR or AK depending on what mood Im in.
Hey, the more the merrier, right?
I think it might be kinda neat. I'd like to play with one.
Cagemonkey
12-26-12, 19:11
I like the concept. A true piston upper for a AR weapon system. Looks like it won't have the negatives of carrier tilt and increased recoil impulse. As far as looking similar to the XCR, I have no problem with that. I always thought Robinson should have made a piston upper based on their XCR for the AR market. Will be interesting to see what kind a materials/specs they use in the manufacturing of this upper. I'd think it would be good to keep an open mind and see how this plays out. Maybe they might make an appearance on the Forum and answer some questions.
Getting rid of the giant buffer is always a plus in my eyes, and it does seem carrier-tilt proof.
tvfreakarms
04-21-13, 07:40
I know this is an older thread but i just heard about this and i like the idea as well.
Does anyone know someone that has shot this yet?
I wonder how it will perform in full auto (just for durability).
sinlessorrow
04-21-13, 08:11
I know this is an older thread but i just heard about this and i like the idea as well.
Does anyone know someone that has shot this yet?
I wonder how it will perform in full auto (just for durability).
It won't perform in full auot. It has no way to trip the auto sear in the lower.
I also wonder about the durabilit of the bolt. While it features rounded lugs it has two tiny 1/2 lugs that surround the extractor that may be a weak point.
http://i43.photobucket.com/albums/e394/erikhamel/Faxon/Lugs_zpsfc09c337.jpg
I have an upper on order so upon arrival I'll try to put up some pics and info.
tvfreakarms
04-22-13, 08:44
Well that is to bad that in cant engage the auto sear. It would be nice to how well it would hold up.
Its a new company so hopefully the owner will make the changes. It will be a nice way of showing how well it would hold up in auto mode and his barrels as well.
What he should or someone should do is a torture test.
I'm also curious how well it would perform if debris get in the upper rec ( where the bcg slides).
It won't perform in full auot. It has no way to trip the auto sear in the lower.
I also wonder about the durabilit of the bolt. While it features rounded lugs it has two tiny 1/2 lugs that surround the extractor that may be a weak point.
http://i43.photobucket.com/albums/e394/erikhamel/Faxon/Lugs_zpsfc09c337.jpg
tvfreakarms
04-22-13, 08:44
I'll be looking forward to it.
I have an upper on order so upon arrival I'll try to put up some pics and info.
sinlessorrow
04-22-13, 08:54
Well that is to bad that in cant engage the auto sear. It would be nice to how well it would hold up.
Its a new company so hopefully the owner will make the changes. It will be a nice way of showing how well it would hold up in auto mode and his barrels as well.
What he should or someone should do is a torture test.
I'm also curious how well it would perform if debris get in the upper rec ( where the bcg slides).
Giventhe design im not even sure it would be possible to add a way to engage the auto sear. It woukd require extending the carrier to the rear, then there would be way for the carrier to travel rearward. They could add like a spring loaded collapsing object but that would add a lot of complexity to the system.
Giventhe design im not even sure it would be possible to add a way to engage the auto sear. It woukd require extending the carrier to the rear, then there would be way for the carrier to travel rearward. They could add like a spring loaded collapsing object but that would add a lot of complexity to the system.
One could design a modular fire control box that supports a sear release lever and a redesigned auto sear that has a bearing surface to engage the sear release lever. Add a trip surface to the rear/lower aspect of the carrier. The carriers trip surface contacts the sear release lever, which cams the automatic sear, and releases the hammer. Analogous to the workings of the HK roller lock series, SIG 55x series, and AK...albeit with the automatic sear in a different location.
The modular fire control box just allows support for the automatic sear release lever without needing to drill an additional hole in an expensive transferable lower (as is required by ZM's select fire compatible kit).
tvfreakarms
04-23-13, 07:11
Personally i don't think i would buy it if the owner of the company doesn't show how it will be shooting in full auto.
i know i can never own one in full auto but for me it will show how it will stack up against otherproven ar or ak.
The quality of the barrel and among other stuff like how accurate it is, etc.
This upper has one really big problem that I can see, right off...
How are you gonna get a decent sight picture with irons? With a chin weld?
This is yet another problem, looking for a solution.
What?!.... Too, cheap to buy a cheek riser?! You gotta be kidding me. Like sinless said:
Its no different than any other piston gun not based on the AR-15. AK, SCAR, FAL, etc you name it.
POF, ACR, etc. MOST piston systems have a higher cheek weld. Come back when you have a better excuse.:mad:
This upper is bringing AK reliability not to mention ambi controls to a(n)/any MilSpec AR lower. What's not so great about it?
Yes, HK has a proven system but that price tag is not for the gun, it's for their name.
Here's today review from Defense Mark. Group (http://www.ar15news.com/2013/07/11/faxon-firearms-arak-21-complete-uppers/)
sinlessorrow
07-14-13, 14:43
What?!.... Too, cheap to buy a cheek riser?! You gotta be kidding me. Like sinless said:
POF, ACR, etc. MOST piston systems have a higher cheek weld. Come back when you have a better excuse.:mad:
This upper is bringing AK reliability not to mention ambi controls to a(n)/any MilSpec AR lower. What's not so great about it?
Yes, HK has a proven system but that price tag is not for the gun, it's for their name.
Here's today review from Defense Mark. Group (http://www.ar15news.com/2013/07/11/faxon-firearms-arak-21-complete-uppers/)
We actually do not know if it is bringing "ak" reliability aince so few are out there and I doubt anyone has put it through extensive dust tests and shots many thousands of rounds through it. Even then the AK is not really as reliable as the internet claims.
We actually do not know if it is bringing "ak" reliability aince so few are out there and I doubt anyone has put it through extensive dust tests and shots many thousands of rounds through it. Even then the AK is not really as reliable as the internet claims.
Understandable, what I should've said was "potential" reliability or something around that area. AKs are reliable as the user who takes care of it, everything is bound to fail and, yes, I understand AKs do definitely jam. Whoever claims it doesn't is an idiotic moron.
Also check out my link!
There's a lot to like about this upper. I'd like to get one to play with. To the folks putting it down, I understand their perspective too. These firearm companies are in a tough spot. They are breaking new ground with products, and these products aren't really tried and true the way traditional platforms are, like AK's or AR's or whatever. They are pressured to market their innovations as being "battle ready" and inundate forums and social media with pics of the most reputable people they can find to help them market their goods. Sometimes I wish there was more of an emphasis on what these systems are: experiments meant to appeal to tinkerers and folks who like to have something different. Whether for good reasons or poor reasons. The companies are trying to fill what they feel are voids in the current offerings, and hoping that someone with credibility will jump on board and push the product. It's too bad that the crowd they most often go for are SME's that have more to lose by endorsing a failed experiment than endorsing folks who make "known quantity" civilian-legal versions of well-established platforms. What's a safer bet for SME X? Endorse BCM or Faxon, even if Faxon has some cool ideas? Well, BCM, of course. I wish there were some more enthusiasm for the new and weird stuff. With computers, with phones, with cars and other gadgetry, there's a lot of competition for creating new innovations. But since all these companies just want the "My life depends on my weapon's efficacy and reliability" crowd, they kinda shoot themselves in the foot. Because those folks generally gravitate towards systems that have proven themselves. Just my rambling thoughts on it... :p
There's a lot to like about this upper. I'd like to get one to play with. To the folks putting it down, I understand their perspective too. These firearm companies are in a tough spot. They are breaking new ground with products, and these products aren't really tried and true the way traditional platforms are, like AK's or AR's or whatever. They are pressured to market their innovations as being "battle ready" and inundate forums and social media with pics of the most reputable people they can find to help them market their goods. Sometimes I wish there was more of an emphasis on what these systems are: experiments meant to appeal to tinkerers and folks who like to have something different. Whether for good reasons or poor reasons. The companies are trying to fill what they feel are voids in the current offerings, and hoping that someone with credibility will jump on board and push the product. It's too bad that the crowd they most often go for are SME's that have more to lose by endorsing a failed experiment than endorsing folks who make "known quantity" civilian-legal versions of well-established platforms. What's a safer bet for SME X? Endorse BCM or Faxon, even if Faxon has some cool ideas? Well, BCM, of course. I wish there were some more enthusiasm for the new and weird stuff. With computers, with phones, with cars and other gadgetry, there's a lot of competition for creating new innovations. But since all these companies just want the "My life depends on my weapon's efficacy and reliability" crowd, they kinda shoot themselves in the foot. Because those folks generally gravitate towards systems that have proven themselves. Just my rambling thoughts on it... :p
Can't agree more! +1. In short don't be afraid to test and try new things, you just might like it.
BoringGuy45
07-15-13, 21:56
It looks like a pretty sound system and a very logical concept. I'll be anxious to see if this thing catches on. It sounds like this Faxon guy is no amateur to machining. The only thing I would want is a bottom rail that runs a little bit closer to the mag well because of where I like to put my vertical grip. But if this thing gets popular, I'm sure we'll see different options.
Who knows. This could be either another gimmicky flash in the pan that creates more problems than it solves...or maybe it becomes America's new gun! You never know.
flanntastic
07-16-13, 18:35
One of the owners of Faxon shot next to me at a carbine class this weekend. He said it went all three days without lube or cleaning. Of course my ar might have done that also....but I never really wanted to try that. Very nice guy, wasn't hard selling his product.
Ran fine though, seems like another piston to me.
Sent from my iPad using Tapatalk HD
sinlessorrow
07-16-13, 18:49
One of the owners of Faxon shot next to me at a carbine class this weekend. He said it went all three days without lube or cleaning. Of course my ar might have done that also....but I never really wanted to try that. Very nice guy, wasn't hard selling his product.
Ran fine though, seems like another piston to me.
Sent from my iPad using Tapatalk HD
Mike pannone did a test like thAt and if I remember right got to 2,500 rounds before having a stoppage with a 14.5" BCM carbine bone dry.
Mike pannone did a test like thAt and if I remember right got to 2,500 rounds before having a stoppage with a 14.5" BCM carbine bone dry.
He also used a Failzero self lubricating bolt & bolt carrier:
http://www.defensereview.com/the-big-m4-myth-fouling-caused-by-the-direct-impingement-gas-system-makes-the-m4-unreliable/
http://www.defensereview.com/failzero-ar-15-basic-kit-tactical-ar-15-carbine-parts-upgrade-kit-with-exo-technology-self-lubricating-firearms-coating/
sinlessorrow
07-16-13, 21:15
He also used a Failzero self lubricating bolt & bolt carrier:
http://www.defensereview.com/the-big-m4-myth-fouling-caused-by-the-direct-impingement-gas-system-makes-the-m4-unreliable/
http://www.defensereview.com/failzero-ar-15-basic-kit-tactical-ar-15-carbine-parts-upgrade-kit-with-exo-technology-self-lubricating-firearms-coating/
No he did not.
Recently, I received a milspec equivalent (barrel length/gas port size/gas system length) M4-type upper from Bravo Company USA (BCM) to test my theory that a heavier buffer and spring with enhanced extractor tension would give extraordinary reliability with no lubrication or maintenance whatsoever. - See more at: http://www.defensereview.com/the-big-m4-myth-fouling-caused-by-the-direct-impingement-gas-system-makes-the-m4-unreliable/#sthash.qp1cj4KM.dpuf
If I used those rifles or parts for my test, many would say “well those are custom coatings/guns and military guns don’t have that.” For that reason, BCM was kind enough to send me a stock 14.5” upper on which to do the test. Prior to the test I did the following:
1. Remove all visible oil and lubricant from the inside of the upper receiver.
2. Disassemble the bolt carrier group (BCG) and remove all lubricant inside and out
3. Put a Crane O-ring on the existing extractor spring
4. Use a lower receiver with a Sprinco standard Blue spring and an H-3 buffer (I used an H3 because it was close to the DPMS Extra-heavy buffer I use in most of my rifles. - See more at: http://www.defensereview.com/the-big-m4-myth-fouling-caused-by-the-direct-impingement-gas-system-makes-the-m4-unreliable/#sthash.qp1cj4KM.dpuf
After I had done that, I fired 2400 rounds of M193 through it in six sessions, often shooting it so hot that I could not hold the forend without gloves. The first of such sessions was in the presence of two Border Patrol BORTAC snipers, and it consisted of 330 rounds in 25 minutes. This included zeroing the optic so the bulk of the rounds were fired in a 20 minute period by all three of us. (Note: At the conclusion of this, I pulled the bolt carrier group out and held it by the lugs with my bare fingers. That’s another myth (to debunk) for another article. - See more at: http://www.defensereview.com/the-big-m4-myth-fouling-caused-by-the-direct-impingement-gas-system-makes-the-m4-unreliable/#sthash.qp1cj4KM.dpuf
Here is the rifle
http://www.defensereview.com/wp-content/uploads/2010/03/Mike_Pannone_BCM_M4_Upper_Receiver_1.jpg
At most he used a different spring.
My bad. The way it was written I misread it.
from: http://www.defensereview.com/the-big-m4-myth-fouling-caused-by-the-direct-impingement-gas-system-makes-the-m4-unreliable/
My Test:
Recently, I received a milspec equivalent (barrel length/gas port size/gas system length) M4-type upper from Bravo Company USA (BCM) to test my theory that a heavier buffer and spring with enhanced extractor tension would give extraordinary reliability with no lubrication or maintenance whatsoever. I have shot over 2500 rounds with the FailZero kit with EXO Technology coating on four separate occasions with no lubricant, as well as a ceramic coated rifle (to include bolt and bolt carrier group) from Next Generation Arms that currently has 4000 rounds on it without cleaning or lubricant, and also no malfunctions. I have also routinely shot a Noveske N4 14.5”-barreled rifle over 2500 rds with only 6-8 drops of oil every 500-700rds fired without any issues. If I used those rifles or parts for my test, many would say “well those are custom coatings/guns and military guns don’t have that.” For that reason, BCM was kind enough to send me a stock 14.5” upper on which to do the test.
Been keeping an eye on this thing and I notice on the video that there are gaps between the upper and lower, which imo is a problem.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=xkS7YP1Bs84
It is around 6:27 when he shows the first rifle and the second- both have gaps. I'm hoping this will be addressed but so far the "tube" videos out there does not bring it up. I was looking forward to getting this thing but now I'm not so sure. Anyone worked with this upper yet? I'd like to know its weak points, please.
I too am interested in this rifle, if anyone has any firsthand knowledge actually shooting it I would appreciate it greatly.
Civil, I'm not trying to be stupid or anything, but what are your reservations towards the receiver gap? I did notice that in the video, when the light showed through it looked almost like you could fit a piece of paper through there. Obviously it allows for more grime to get in the fire control group but is there any loss in structural soundness?
I'm still a long way away from buying one of these, I haven't even laid eyes on any of my guns for the past year, but if it shakes out that this thing proves to be reliable I see a lot of pros and only a few cons to this system.
I too am interested in this rifle, if anyone has any firsthand knowledge actually shooting it I would appreciate it greatly.
Civil, I'm not trying to be stupid or anything, but what are your reservations towards the receiver gap? I did notice that in the video, when the light showed through it looked almost like you could fit a piece of paper through there. Obviously it allows for more grime to get in the fire control group but is there any loss in structural soundness?
I'm still a long way away from buying one of these, I haven't even laid eyes on any of my guns for the past year, but if it shakes out that this thing proves to be reliable I see a lot of pros and only a few cons to this system.
You named it. Grime and potential loss of structural soundness, from my understanding this upper is suppose to fit any and/or all AR15 lowers but I guess some better than others judging from the video. I play rough with my rifles and if I were to purchase that upper, I need to know that it won't fail on me so easily
Ah, okay.
I can certainly see the issue, but I'm curious as to how much it will actually effect operation. I don't think I've ever submerged my AR in water or mud and taken a look at the fcg right afterwards, but its to my understanding that the upper and lower receiver on AR's aren't exactly airtight to begin with.
It certainly isn't good, but I'm hopeful that it won't be bad.
Hopefully Anubis will receive his upper and can fill us in.
Ah, okay.
I can certainly see the issue, but I'm curious as to how much it will actually effect operation. I don't think I've ever submerged my AR in water or mud and taken a look at the fcg right afterwards, but its to my understanding that the upper and lower receiver on AR's aren't exactly airtight to begin with.
It certainly isn't good, but I'm hopeful that it won't be bad.
Hopefully Anubis will receive his upper and can fill us in.
Understandable, not saying they have to be air tight but tight enough so that there's no wiggle room in austere environments down the road. I can't play with it, these guys are across the country from me and the shops around here don't have 'em
And I agree, hopefully Anubis gets his soon!!!
Well I feel like a jerk, knew I was forgetting something. Santa was feeling tropical this year and I just picked up a Scar 17, a KSG and my Faxon ARAk in 556 and 300BO. Fit and finish is great so far and I had fun stripping the upper and finding internals I was glad to see. Everything looks good so far I just need to throw it on my lower and head to the range. I was waiting for my scope to come for it but that may well be the infamous 2 weeks so I'll drag it out and throw some irons on it and maybe throw on my IOR 2.5-10 to shoot some groups.
Some thoughts so far. The gap doesnt really bother me. I can see through my SCAR and my M&P as well. Yes it gives you more opportunity to have crap get in but crap can also get out which I like. I ran a M4 in the desert and trust me dust sand and other stuff can get in just about anything. I really want to get a folding stock right now but I'm trying to decide between the ACE folders and the AGP side folder. I like the ability to chop 12" off the back of my gun without SBRing anything so the folding stock was a big selling point for me. Most people see this as storage goodness and I think it is handy but also I want to be able to have a small gun to shoot in small spaces and from inside vehicles.
On a personal note I called up Faxon before they started shipping guns and got ahold of Mr. Faxon himself. He took alot of his personal time talking to me about the design and was open to feedback and ideas. He could have easily ducked my call as I was transferred to him or he could have answered some basics and made an excuse but he took the time and was genuinely interested. Thats someone I want to buy a gun from. Not to pick on the guy who referenced HK but try that with HK cust service and see where it gets you. Bring a snickers cause you wont be going anywhere for a while.
As I said above I've got some 223 saved up so ill hit the range and we will see what I come up with. Ill run it along side my SPR but that gun is stupid accurate so lets not get carried away when the picks come in.
Interested in the range report.
I too am interested in the folding stock aspect. If you get the ace folding unit would you be getting a skeleton stock or running a conventional stock? My first thought had actually run to the newer law tactical folding adapter as it looks a little more slick to me, but I just checked it out and it is pricier than I remember.
Glad to hear he was a caring individual, pride/interest in one's own work is something that should be a basic inherent value in every business owner but is often times absent across all industries. If his business does well enough that its still around when I can actually have guns again I may have to consider one. My fantasy for this gun involves two tax stamps and two different barrels.
http://www.gunsandtactics.com/newspost/tactical-news-magazine-issue-6
Not endorsing the magazine or anything but there's an article about the ARAK that will hopefully hold you guys over until I get some pics and trigger time.
signkutter
07-30-13, 19:01
Since this ARAK is piston driven, it allows for the use of folding stocks. It will work with any Mil-Spec AR but you wont be able to take advantage of the stock folding feature unless you already own a piston driven AR that has a folding stock ( or you buy a separate lower specifically for this weapon).
I guess the question would be.. is this weapon platform any better than the many piston driven AR platforms already in existence.
A lower is relatively inexpensive and easy to piece together over time. Besides you don't really need a new lower just a folding buttock technically. Kinda like a QD barrel there are few times I can picture saying damn if only I had bought my fixed stock m4. Not being argumentative but just my view on it. I'm not sure if we can say better than the AR or AK but its better than a lot of pistons for me because its self contained so I can get the folding stock and its designed as a piston from the ground up instead of retrofitting a piston into a DI gun. Also it offers all this in a technically AR package for people who are only allowed ARs but want something different.
signkutter
07-30-13, 19:29
A lower is relatively inexpensive and easy to piece together over time. Besides you don't really need a new lower just a folding buttock technically. Kinda like a QD barrel there are few times I can picture saying damn if only I had bought my fixed stock m4. Not being argumentative but just my view on it. I'm not sure if we can say better than the AR or AK but its better than a lot of pistons for me because its self contained so I can get the folding stock and its designed as a piston from the ground up instead of retrofitting a piston into a DI gun. Also it offers all this in a technically AR package for people who are only allowed ARs but want something different.
Valid points. I dont have room in my safe for another AR... or another .223/5.56.... so purchasing another lower to build another rifle is out of the question. I suppose I could always buy another safe.
The weapon certainly looks like a well crafted design. I hope it takes off and makes its designer a richer man.
I hear you on the safe getting full. I have a "48" gun safe and it's crazy full at the moment. The folding stocks and bull pups are looking better and better:D
I liked the article but I still need to see more testing such as water, mud, and sand; jamming after 2500 or so rounds (that's the ave. for AR15 w/out oiling and cleaning judging from defense review (http://www.defensereview.com/the-big-m4-myth-fouling-caused-by-the-direct-impingement-gas-system-makes-the-m4-unreliable/#sthash.qp1cj4KM.dpuf))
Well sadly this isnt the review I offered. I will be rolling out the review when i get the chance. I got out to the range and shot miserably peppering the target with the Faxon upper. I was concerned that it was the upper til I plugged my SPR upper on there and sure enough, shotgun pattern.
I think its the public range I went to with range nazis running around finding something at every bench to point out, a guy literally yelling and screaming at his probably 7 year old kid because his shooting was off and actually snatching the gun out of his hands, the guy shooting a sawed off shotgun while wearing latex gloves with bad muzzle discipline and mostly my own fault for not being able to ignore these things. I can make excuses all day but basically I sucked and cant show you anything of value this week.
Ill reattempt next week in the woods where I normally shoot and see what i can get you guys. Some observations from putting some rounds out.
The brake is effective and DAMN loud. As loud as my SCAR 17 PWS if thats a good reference. My buddy laid ammo and a gun on the bench and I actually ripped the cardboard ammo box and spilled all the ammo due to the brake being close to it and the SCAR flipped his LC9 off the table and onto the ground. I may be wrong but there was very little if any felt recoil/climb when shooting the Faxon upper. The brake basically is ported to offset any climb so my sights stayed just about on target.
The upper had no malfunctions the first time out. The sight height threw me as the scope I intended to mount sat so high I had to chinweld instead of cheekweld. The irons sat just fine (HK 416/7 diopter) but like I said I was distracted and shot poorly. Not making excuses though its my fault not the guns.
Please stay tuned and ill try to have some proper shooting next week.
Not to dig up an old thread but has anyone else got hands on yet? This is a great concept if you ask me and I would like to get hands on if possible.
anubismp, any more range time?
plouffedaddy
01-24-14, 06:21
Not to dig up an old thread but has anyone else got hands on yet? This is a great concept if you ask me and I would like to get hands on if possible.
anubismp, any more range time?
I've been trying to work my magic but it seems these things are the new "ghost gun" :D
INTrooper4255
01-24-14, 07:55
One of the newer troops at our post is running one as his duty rifle and he really likes it. He puts a lot of rounds down range and so far, zero issues.
Cincinnatus
04-03-14, 15:34
I am also interested on any updated reports on this system.
I am also interested on any updated reports on this system.
Me too. I would like to see a legit torture test also.
FaxonNathan
06-21-15, 17:37
Me too. I would like to see a legit torture test also.
See VSO and our own gun channel. Additional testing will be completed publicly as well.
Powered by vBulletin® Version 4.2.5 Copyright © 2024 vBulletin Solutions, Inc. All rights reserved.