View Full Version : How much weight can you drop w/o losing capability?
I've been thinking about this for a few days, but then someone posted in the Technical section asking about a $60 Ti A2 flashhider. :fie: I'm not a complete weigh weenie, but oz add up quickly. Just as a thought exercise looking at my wife's gun, it could easily lose half a pound or more with a new optic/mount combo and a more minimalist sling and lose almost no capability. It doesn't seem like you have to start throwing $$$ after Ti doo-dads if carefully choose a handguard, gas block, light, optic, mount, BUIS, ect.
How much extra are you carrying around on your setup? Where can you trim some fat w/o losing capability?
Dr. Bullseye
05-04-20, 11:59
Its gotta function first. Then consider weight and tacticool factors. So function, weight, looks. If you have to have THAT red dot then it is not something that can be sacrificed, for instance. But I think everyone has felt their rifle get too heavy and questioned what they were doing.
I would like to start here.
https://www.midwestindustriesinc.com/MI-Tactical-Bottle-Opener-M-LOK-compatible-p/mi-mtbo.htm
We all know the difference between tactical and non-tactical bottle openers. A tactical bottle opener is obviously needed if you are shooting and drinking beer. It may even be more important in combat but I'll let others answer that critical question.
crusader377
05-04-20, 13:55
I think people go a little crazy on cutting weight. IMO it is very easy to build a fully functional and affordable carbine in roughly the 5.5-6lb range if you use a lightweight barrel. Add .5 lbs or less for a quality lightweight optic and mount, Aimpoint T or H series or Trijicon MRO, 1lb for loaded 30rd magazine, .25lbs for a weapon light. Given these weights you can have a full capability carbine in the 7.25-7.75 lb range loaded, ready to go.
Honestly if those weights are too much, you probably need to invest more in your own personal physical conditioning.
justin_247
05-04-20, 14:47
This is something I've been pondering for some time, especially since IR lasers/illuminators and LPVOs add a lot of weight to the weapon. At a minimum, I don't think you can compromise on the following:
(1) Mil-spec BCG
(2) Mil-spec receiver extension and buffer weights
(3) Mil-spec upper receiver group (you're going to lose some rigidity with lightened ones, I fear, especially since there's so much stress on the forward part of the upper receiver where the barrel and handguard are attached)
(4) Good gas system components (avoid aluminum gas blocks)
(5) A rigid, lightweight rail (something like the KAC URX 4), especially if you're using aiming devices on it
I think you can probably cut some weight off the lower receiver, although you need to be careful that you're not cutting weight away from the area where the receiver extension screws in, as this is a weak point in the system. Maybe something like 2A Armament's Palouse-Lite lower receiver would be a good compromise here.
The barrel is where it gets contentious. You can obviously cut a lot of weight by going short (10.5" or 11.5", or about 18.5 to 20.5 oz.) or going with a pencil-weight barrel (such as a 16" Colt 6720 or Sionics LW barrel, which is about 22 oz.). Or you can do something in-between, like a 12.5" Centurion Arms CHF barrel (about 21.5 oz.), without much of a compromise.
If low weight and capability/speed are desired.... NOTHING can touch the BCM 14.5 middy with ELW barrel and pinned Gunfighter muzzle device.
That gun can shoot faster and smoother than any AR I've ever shot. It easily beats even my BCM SOCOM 14.5 when I try to get 30ish yard double and triple tap type volleys of fire.
I think people go a little crazy on cutting weight. IMO it is very easy to build a fully functional and affordable carbine in roughly the 5.5-6lb range if you use a lightweight barrel. Add .5 lbs or less for a quality lightweight optic and mount, Aimpoint T or H series or Trijicon MRO, 1lb for loaded 30rd magazine, .25lbs for a weapon light. Given these weights you can have a full capability carbine in the 7.25-7.75 lb range loaded, ready to go.
Honestly if those weights are too much, you probably need to invest more in your own personal physical conditioning.
I understand where you're coming from, I don't think most would consider 7ish lbs "too much". I just don't think anything needs to be heaver than they need to be to get the job done. It's a game of oz. If I can save a few where there's little/no compromise, I might be able to add capability/weight somewhere else... or I can just enjoy weight savings in my puny girl arms. :sad:
I can probabably save 1.5+oz using a different stock, 3oz using a 14.5"PW vs 16", 2oz going Arisaka Mini vs Surefire Mini probably .5 by dumping my stubby VFG and going to a handstop, .8oz by ditching the padded Vickers sling and going non padded, probably more if I cut the ends instead or rolling/taping it up. That's over 1/2 a pound with near zero loss of capability and compromising nothing.
Hammer_Man
05-04-20, 16:06
I think a good barrel that is chrome lined 4150 CMV (or FN CHF) paired with a milspec bcg (Colt, BCM, DD, etc.) will serve you well. You can trim weight by using a quality plastic carbine hand guard (like a Magpul MOE), and keeping the rifle free of accessories you don't need.
Titanium A2 flash hider?
If y'all think some gunners obsess over weight, check out the cycling forums. A few riders will pay $4 each for titanium water bottle cage bolts, when the steel ones cost pennies. And the $18 stainless steel bottle cage becomes $60 in titanium. And you need two of them.
Titanium A2 flash hider?
If y'all think some gunners obsess over weight, check out the cycling forums. A few riders will pay $4 each for titanium water bottle cage bolts, when the steel ones cost pennies. And the $18 stainless steel bottle cage becomes $60 in titanium. And you need two of them.
Yes, my sport is obsessed with equipment as well [Rowing]. When the biggest factor is training/technique. Settle down on some good equipment and then train your a$$ off.
That's a deep rabbit hole if you spend too much time with it. If you like lightweight rails, check out BCM or SOLGW. Pencil barrels help reduce weight as well. Don't skimp on the BCG or gas block. There are some amazing AND light weight gas blocks out there.
If you really want to get crazy, check out V-Seven. Their products are INSANELY light. They use billet 2055 Lithium/Aluminum in their receivers and 2099 Lithium/Aluminum in their handguards.
As far as simple fixes, examine your build. Does it have anything unnecessary hanging off it? Could you find a lighter optic mount (LPVO or Dot).
If y'all think some gunners obsess over weight, check out the cycling forums. A few riders will pay $4 each for titanium water bottle cage bolts, when the steel ones cost pennies. And the $18 stainless steel bottle cage becomes $60 in titanium. And you need two of them.
Yes, my sport is obsessed with equipment as well [Rowing]. When the biggest factor is training/technique. Settle down on some good equipment and then train your a$$ off.
See also: backpacking.
See also: backpacking.
And motorcycle racing. Mofos drill rings of holes in Ti freaking washers.
turnburglar
05-05-20, 12:07
The two biggest places to loose weight are the barrel and rail. The myth's of pencil barrels shifting POI or dramatically increasing in group size as they get hot, have been unfounded in my case. There's also the myth of light rails burning your hands in a mag or two. You may need to do your own testing on your own components, but I know for a fact that cold or hot my pencil barrel will make sub 2" groups with 55gr ammo. Also at the end of a 60 round stage in less than 2 minutes, my rail doesn't feel any warmer then when I started. The last place you can save some weight is the optic. For LPVO's I only buy Aero mounts if I can, cause they have 3 recoil lugs and weigh less than any other mount by a lot. With my lighter LPVO, my entire match gun weighs 7.3 pounds un loaded. Thats 14.5 barrel, 13 hand guard and steiner P4Xi. If I switched to a micro red dot it would be a 6 pound gun.
And motorcycle racing. Mofos drill rings of holes in Ti freaking washers.
OK, you got me on that one.. Wow !
Was putting together a home defense (bedside) carbine. Realized I'd have no problem grabbing it and rolling if need be but it was a definitely too heavy for my wife.
Ditched the Lothar Walther medium weight chrome lined barrel & ordered a sionics lightweight 16 inch barrel. (7oz difference)
Swapped the Odin Works gas block for a Battle Arms titanium one. (1.5oz)
Swapped the Wilson Combat Q-Comp for a Rainier Arms flashhider (1.2 oz)
Ditched the EFX-A1 stock for a Lancer CF A1 stock (8oz)
Switched the HK grip for a Hexmag one I had in the parts bin (2oz)
And swapped handguards saving another 4oz.
All in a pound and a half saved, and I now have spare parts giving me an excuse to build 2 more rifles.
The light weight mafia isn't looking for utility, it's a trend (at least their brand of light weight) that can't go away fast enough. If you wonder if they balanced utility, dependability with light weight, you usually won't find a well balance there. Light weight for the sake of light weight, to the exclusion of other useful attributes is a fool's errand. Light weight for many is just something trendy folks wanted and manufacturers rushed in to fill a demand.
I refuse to use ti on anything, we're not building race cars and aircraft. For these vehicles there is no room for nonsense, everything is streamlined and efficient, but for most lightweight makers it's anything but.
We have several products with the H designation, for heavy. We're not trying to say light weight isn't good, only practicality and dependability is more important to us. Our sling mounts aren't ti or aluminum, they're 4140 steel so they last. We shave off weight where we can so they don't weight too much over their TDP counterparts, there's a practical side to weight saving, it should never get to the point of sacrificing reliability and practicality.
Well, there you go!
The light weight mafia isn't looking for utility, it's a trend (at least their brand of light weight) that can't go away fast enough. If you wonder if they balanced utility, dependability with light weight, you usually won't find a well balance there. Light weight for the sake of light weight, to the exclusion of other useful attributes is a fool's errand. Light weight for many is just something trendy folks wanted and manufacturers rushed in to fill a demand.
I refuse to use ti on anything, we're not building race cars and aircraft. For these vehicles there is no room for nonsense, everything is streamlined and efficient, but for most lightweight makers it's anything but.
We have several products with the H designation, for heavy. We're not trying to say light weight isn't good, only practicality and dependability is more important to us. Our sling mounts aren't ti or aluminum, they're 4140 steel so they last. We shave off weight where we can so they don't weight too much over their TDP counterparts, there's a practical side to weight saving, it should never get to the point of sacrificing reliability and practicality.
With that rant out of the way, weight is an issue for my wife, I don't discount or dismiss that light weight is a good feature, but still maintain that in achieving it, we'd do well do balance that with other aspects of the weapon that are more important than weight alone.
Going after an artificial weight is best left to experiments, learn what you can from it and apply it where you can. As for my wife for whom my AR is too heavy, she shoots something else more to her ability to lift and shoulder. To me, a light weight rifle itself isn't the issue, M16s back in the days were light and nimble, I'm all for that, I just don't want to give up capabilities and durability for it.
justin_247
05-05-20, 20:00
Going after an artificial weight is best left to experiments
Thankfully, we have people in this industry who are willing to go a little outside the norm and experiment to see what works and what doesn't.
It makes no sense to reduce the mass of the barrel if you don't reduce mass everywhere else first. The barrel is the single component where added mass has utility. Barrel mass controls heat and aids cooling. A barrel with more mass runs at a lower temperature with the same amount of heat. One benefit is reduction of mirage in the sights. It makes no sense to lighten the barrel if an AR has a heavy handguard, stock or optic for example.
The light weight mafia isn't looking for utility, it's a trend (at least their brand of light weight) that can't go away fast enough. If you wonder if they balanced utility, dependability with light weight, you usually won't find a well balance there. Light weight for the sake of light weight, to the exclusion of other useful attributes is a fool's errand. Light weight for many is just something trendy folks wanted and manufacturers rushed in to fill a demand.
I refuse to use ti on anything, we're not building race cars and aircraft. For these vehicles there is no room for nonsense, everything is streamlined and efficient, but for most lightweight makers it's anything but.
We have several products with the H designation, for heavy. We're not trying to say light weight isn't good, only practicality and dependability is more important to us. Our sling mounts aren't ti or aluminum, they're 4140 steel so they last. We shave off weight where we can so they don't weight too much over their TDP counterparts, there's a practical side to weight saving, it should never get to the point of sacrificing reliability and practicality.
100% agree with you on the LW Mafia, they can get stupid, which is why I framed the conversation the way I did. I'm not suggesting that anyone "chase a number", I'm just realizing that I should have paid a little bit closer attention to weight on some of the components.
I really do appreciate the thought that you put into your products. I'm about to order some flat TGFs from you though.
ASF (Ambidextrous Selector, Forward Controls) is launching next week ;)
62208
ASF (Ambidextrous Selector, Forward Controls) is launching next week ;)
62208
45° throw? How much are they gonna be?
zombiescometh
05-06-20, 19:45
https://www.battlearmsdevelopment.com/shop/product/oip-002-battlearmstm-oip-002-ultra-lightweight-rifle-gen2-3741?category=38
3lbs 13oz $3200
https://www.vsevenweaponsystems.com/11-5-lr-enlightened-5-56-sbr/
4lbs 11oz $3000
https://www.gandrtactical.com/BCM-MK2-RECCE-11-MCMR-PISTOL-ELW-Barrel-w-SBA3-Brace_p_1412.html
5lbs 8oz $1400
It’s not quite a perfect comparison since one is a rifle, a sbr and one is a pistol configuration. But gives you a basic idea of what’s possible. And what you give up or have to spend more on to lose weight.
Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk
This isn't the 1960s any more. Many companies and individuals are utilizing software and advanced materials to optimize the functionality and ensure dependability of any given component or assembly. We see it in the automotive industry, the semiconductor industry, medical industry, etc. These improvements are generally expected, new and improved is basically normal. Our understanding of how to manipulate and maximize materials today has never been more advanced. Why the majority of firearm owners are not open to these improvements just blows my mind.
Is it because we may need to depend on our weapons to save our lives or the lives of our loved ones that we are afraid of something new and improved? Is it that when i look to my peers to see what they build to protect themselves, I assume that if the masses come to that conclusion then that must be what i should do to?
Its easy to understand how the fear of malfunctions or part failure would prevent people from trying something different. What i don't understand is the assumption that a component made out of a superior material with an improved design must be a sacrifice because it doesn't weigh as much.
Do not misinterpret this post for anything other than encouragement to keep an open mind. Im not saying lighter is better, im not saying heavy is bad. What i am saying is, optimization and continuous improvement should be welcomed.
Now.... who wants to buy my brand new and improved, high tech ultralight aluminum gas tubes!? :p
This thing is $499 and just over 3 lbs before the brace. Swap the polymer trigger group for standard metal parts, slap on a red dot and it’s good to go.
62224
https://www.battlearmsdevelopment.com/shop/product/oip-002-battlearmstm-oip-002-ultra-lightweight-rifle-gen2-3741?category=38
3lbs 13oz $3200
https://www.vsevenweaponsystems.com/11-5-lr-enlightened-5-56-sbr/
4lbs 11oz $3000
https://www.gandrtactical.com/BCM-MK2-RECCE-11-MCMR-PISTOL-ELW-Barrel-w-SBA3-Brace_p_1412.html
5lbs 8oz $1400
It’s not quite a perfect comparison since one is a rifle, a sbr and one is a pistol configuration. But gives you a basic idea of what’s possible. And what you give up or have to spend more on to lose weight.
Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk
This one has become one of my favorites.
https://www.gandrtactical.com/BCM-MK2-RECCE-11-MCMR-PISTOL-ELW-Barrel-w-SBA3-Brace_p_1412.html
If I had a taco every time I hear "solution in search of a problem" used to describe one of our products, why, I'd open a Mexican restaurant. A wheelchair is a solution in search of a problem for an able bodied person, but that solution wasn't meant for him. This is a long way of saying we're not afraid to step outside of the established confines and experiment with ideas that seem unconventional. Some of these lightweight rubbish should have been kept as experiments, but they're marketing and selling them as if they were "innovations", they are not.
I can't speak for others in the industry, though I think I understand others because we're of the same mind here re: the use of titanium on a duty/defense firearm. For us, if we want light weight, 7075 is our go to material. If we want durability, 4140, 4130, 8620 heat treated. We're not building race cars and aircraft where every ounce exacts a price in performance, this is the reason it's not the right application for us.
Attention to detail matters in its application, same can be said of material. Steel and aluminum have done very well on AR15/M16, we simply don't see the need ourselves for ti, there are easier and less expensive, and let's be honest, more effective ways of reducing weight on an AR without ever using ti, which seems to be the favorite for many hobby grade AR and AR components maker because it's flashy, another reason we'd avoid it, bad optics.
Companies like vSeven makes light weight components without sacrificing utility, I can get behind that.
This isn't the 1960s any more. Many companies and individuals are utilizing software and advanced materials to optimize the functionality and ensure dependability of any given component or assembly. We see it in the automotive industry, the semiconductor industry, medical industry, etc. These improvements are generally expected, new and improved is basically normal. Our understanding of how to manipulate and maximize materials today has never been more advanced. Why the majority of firearm owners are not open to these improvements just blows my mind.
Is it because we may need to depend on our weapons to save our lives or the lives of our loved ones that we are afraid of something new and improved? Is it that when i look to my peers to see what they build to protect themselves, I assume that if the masses come to that conclusion then that must be what i should do to?
Its easy to understand how the fear of malfunctions or part failure would prevent people from trying something different. What i don't understand is the assumption that a component made out of a superior material with an improved design must be a sacrifice because it doesn't weigh as much.
Do not misinterpret this post for anything other than encouragement to keep an open mind. Im not saying lighter is better, im not saying heavy is bad. What i am saying is, optimization and continuous improvement should be welcomed.
Now.... who wants to buy my brand new and improved, high tech ultralight aluminum gas tubes!? :p
It is interesting to me that the pendulum has swung from light to heavy a few times since I originally was introduced to the AR platform in 1986.
In my mind, it took too long to arrive at the continuous taper barrel profile, which provides a significant gain in stiffness without adding unnecessary weight.
As far as weight vs capability - with a light, MRO, and BUIS, my 16" BCM lightweight runs in at 7 lbs 3 ounces. It may be possible to drop that weight down a pound, but the $ per ounce would get high fast. Admittedly a 11.5" barrel would shed a bit of weight, but then you are either running a pistol brace or paying $200 for a tax stamp.
A magnified optic adds both weight and capability - my AR built around a 16" BRT light optimum barrel wearing Trijicon 1-4 scope is 7 lbs 13 oz without a light or BUIS.
Andy
We don't follow trends or fashion, I think it's a poor business model to chase after something that changes every 2 or 3 years, not to mention fashion never helps make a gun or component better, so they're merely window dressing disguised to look functional. Reliability and practicality aren't fashion, they are the foundation, and not subject to change because of fads.
justin_247
05-08-20, 11:28
I really like how Duffy / Roger Wang has hijacked this thread to make it all about him and his company. Nice.
IMHO, It sure isn’t the first time.
I edited the posts to share less of what we do, figure it might be a matter of sharing, not free advertising. I will share less info from now, I've been here since the early days and haven't been accused of this till now, maybe you guys have a point, I'll share what we do in our closed FB group and not in a place where I thought it might be informative and helpful for others.
My thought was/is that we have Mods to determine if your posts were too product heavy.
I have benefitted from learning about your products here, generally speaking, and don't Facebook.
I am also going to add that I do not remember you ever disparaging another company's specific products, and that says a lot about your character.
Andy
Duffy is focused on the actual design and manufacture of items that are useful and pertinent to the subject of this thread.
His view is valuable as someone who has expertise and experience about the trade offs of weight.
To those who do not see this, try harder to come up with something other crow cackles please.
Well said Andy
We don't follow trends or fashion, I think it's a poor business model to chase after something that changes every 2 or 3 years, not to mention fashion never helps make a gun or component better, so they're merely window dressing disguised to look functional. Reliability and practicality aren't fashion, they are the foundation, and not subject to change because of fads.
It seems like you might be making the assumption that weight reduction is fashion or a fad. I would suggest try to look at that a little differently.
I may be totally mistaken, however im pretty certain material selection based on material properties in conjunction with a proper application analysis, and an optimized design, removes redundancy while offering improved characteristics.
We do lightening cuts when appropriate
62235
they're functional
62235
Perfect! You took a traditional part, You know how that part works and what that part needed accomplish. Did you cut an oval out of steel and throw a threaded hole in the center? No, you took into consideration a significant amount of details such as what stresses will be applied to the part, what environment will it be in, how does it interface with the receiver, how does it interface with the operator, the list goes on and on. Then by starting with an appropriate material, you constructed each side and surface to accomplish everything that part needs to and at the same time you eliminated nonessential material. You did this because it was redundant, the material did not need to exist for the part to perform the way you intended it to. Now apply this logic to everything, not just a magazine catch button, that is what some manufacturers are choosing to do. Your posts seem to indicate you are against this improvement, but then you show a part that you developed through the same principals with the same state of mind.
I am not saying that if its not lightweight or fully optimized that its a bad part, im just suggesting that people become a little more open minded about the endless improvements that can be made. Maybe we don't try to steer an entire forum away from other manufactures products because we don't like their methods?
For my part, though he is designer/company owner, I appreciate Duffy’s opinions and thoughts, regardless of how much he references his own designs. Doesn’t that make sense? He designs the way he likes/thinks, based on long experience with the platform. And his sharing those thoughts here brings an additional perspective, something I welcome and think is needed.
If he were saying, “F it, dudes like 2A are out of their dang minds and they get people kilt in the streets,” that would be different. He isn’t.
As far as talking about products, Clint does the same thing. Who cares? Are they also providing valuable content? Is their design the best or an excellent answer to a question or need??
justin_247
05-08-20, 13:38
Yes, I, too, am glad that Duffy came by to give us his wisdom.
I now know that companies such as FN, General Dynamics, HK, Christianson Arms, V7, and other companies that use titanium are part of the "lightweight mafia" who are chasing "fashion" "trends" while "sacrific[ing] reliability and practicality."
I also now aware that Forward Controls have a brand new selector switch to add to the 150 other ones currently on the market and made some lightening cuts to their magazine release button (which, thank god, is not made out of titanium, lest we sacrifice reliability and practicality).
We can keep this about the original post without mentioning FCD.
I look at light weight as a legitimate improvement, I don't see a trend in the opposite direction. The issue isn't as technical and narrow as "is light weight beneficial", because I think most can agree it is, with caveats. It is how too many in the industry go about it that strongly suggests this had become a bandwagon, a means to exploit the market to make profit, without balancing it with other equally, and probably more important attributes that are essential to a fighting rifle.
The key word to me is balance. I believe the AR, and really this can easily expand to other aspects in life, should be a balanced platform, without over emphasis on a single quality to the exclusion of others.
If it looks like a fad, it's because it was perverted into a fad that had legitimate and real uses in the beginning. As others have pointed out previously, there are easy and fast ways to do light weight without sacrificing the AR's reliability and functionality. Excessive lightening cuts and negative space on control surfaces are designed for show first, function second (if at all), this is what I mean by perverted.
Yes, I, too, am glad that Duffy came by to give us his wisdom.
I now know that companies such as FN, General Dynamics, HK, Christianson Arms, V7, and other companies that use titanium are part of the "lightweight mafia" who are chasing "fashion" "trends" while "sacrific[ing] reliability and practicality."
I also now aware that Forward Controls have a brand new selector switch to add to the 150 other ones currently on the market and made some lightening cuts to their magazine release button (which, thank god, is not made out of titanium, lest we sacrifice reliability and practicality).
FN’s making M4’s with Ti parts now? The 240 is a totally different weapon, that weighs more than it has to. Significantly more than competing 7.62 belt feds. Drastic weight savings were needed.
I’ve only owned one Ti AR part so far, and I destroyed it in about a week. Thread galling. Apparently thats a thing. Mag releases are threaded. They are also in contact with both aluminum and steel, which something, something, galvanic corrosion, maybe. I’m no engineer, but perhaps these are factors in material choice. I do wonder why FCD didn’t just use aluminum.
I’ve owned or own lots of Ti hiking and motorcycle stuff. And I’m waiting on a form 1 for a Ti can. So I’m not against the stuff. But I think Roger may be onto something, and I appreciate his insight. I also think other members like myself advertise his wares on this forum more than he does.
We use steel on the buttons based on logistics, we were happy with 7075. It's about application. Ti is great for fast movers that get very hot, but for new space faring vehicles, they use stainless steel. You'd think they want to save weight, but SS has other advantages. Should we then put SS on bicycles and anything that moves faster than our legs can propel us?
Jut because a material is suitable for one application, it's not so for everything.
Overweight GPMG vs infantry individual weapon, similar but also dissimilar in application of material and construction.
Titanium A2 flash hider?
If y'all think some gunners obsess over weight, check out the cycling forums. A few riders will pay $4 each for titanium water bottle cage bolts, when the steel ones cost pennies. And the $18 stainless steel bottle cage becomes $60 in titanium. And you need two of them.
I know a couple of guys with $5K to $6K bikes. I was shocked, not being that into it.
justin_247
05-08-20, 19:27
I see that Roger has walked back everything he said, so I think we're good now.
FN’s making M4’s with Ti parts now? The 240 is a totally different weapon, that weighs more than it has to.
Ti ARs, no. Ti parts in M240s, yes. There are tons of manufacturers who make very lightweight ARs without touching Ti, so I see the whole Ti bit as a strawman erected solely to support an advertisement.
But I think Roger may be onto something, and I appreciate his insight. I also think other members like myself advertise his wares on this forum more than he does.
That's fine, but it basically destroyed this thread. Anybody who comes to this thread looking for info will find some, but they'll have to wade through Roger's advertising and self-promoting on products not associated at all with the thread's subject.
We use steel on the buttons based on logistics, we were happy with 7075. It's about application. Ti is great for fast movers that get very hot, but for new space faring vehicles, they use stainless steel. You'd think they want to save weight, but SS has other advantages. Should we then put SS on bicycles and anything that moves faster than our legs can propel us?
Jut because a material is suitable for one application, it's not so for everything.
Overweight GPMG vs infantry individual weapon, similar but also dissimilar in application of material and construction.
What? There are over 20 different grades of commonly utilized titanium. Just like steel, each and every alloy presents vastly different properties. Material characteristics such as hardness, fatigue strength, and tensile strength very from alloy to alloy. Each and every component of any assembly has a job to do. Does a charging handle need to do the same thing a barrel? No, that is why different materials are chosen.
To state that, "titanium is great for fast movers that get very hot but not for new space fairing vehicles", is a statement based on personal feelings and not a fact.
Suggesting that Titanium as a whole shouldn't be used anywhere on a firearm is based on personal feelings and it is not a fact.
This thread should be a straight forward discussion about how much weight can be reduced while maintaining dependability.
My answer to the OP's question, "Where can you trim some fat w/o losing capability?", nearly everywhere. Some manufactures offer reduced weight components with no compromise while others with significant weight savings will remove features and or capability. If you really want to nerd out, check out the parts weight database and weigh the pros and cons of reduced weight components to build your perfect reduced weight rifle. :D
https://docs.google.com/spreadsheets/d/1I6Qb6kAJjChEJ56qhznv2291c5UHRDyNXuSXGObumqM/edit#gid=2033901686
Can we get off of Duffy's back and get back on topic?
I wonder if I'm the only one that picked up my rifle and honestly evaluated my handguard, optic, mounts, sling, stock, ect...
Sent from my Pixel 3 using Tapatalk
I edited the posts to share less of what we do, figure it might be a matter of sharing, not free advertising. I will share less info from now, I've been here since the early days and haven't been accused of this till now, maybe you guys have a point, I'll share what we do in our closed FB group and not in a place where I thought it might be informative and helpful for others.
You're GTG. Please carry on, and thank you for your informative contributions.
Can we get off of Duffy's back and get back on topic?
I wonder if I'm the only one that picked up my rifle and honestly evaluated my handguard, optic, mounts, sling, stock, ect...
Sent from my Pixel 3 using Tapatalk
I did a couple months ago and started making some small changes. The only way I can get lighter and keep what I want (though I kept the SL-S stock because it is awesome) would be to change to a 12.5” Kino barrel with a .625 front sight profile.
Edit: No one makes such a barrel.
My thought was/is that we have Mods to determine if your posts were too product heavy.
I have benefitted from learning about your products here, generally speaking, and don't Facebook.
I am also going to add that I do not remember you ever disparaging another company's specific products, and that says a lot about your character.
Andy
Same here. I have always valued Duffy's input, and M4C is where I look for it. I hope that doesn't change.
I wonder if I'm the only one that picked up my rifle and honestly evaluated my handguard, optic, mounts, sling, stock, ect...
For me, it's kind of an ongoing process of evaluating all my ARs.
#1 - 14.5" LMT M4 clone/tribute build - it's kind of a pig with a drop in quad rail and AP PRO standing in for an M68. Adding KAC rail covers and VFG doesn't make it any lighter.
#2 - 16" BCM lightweight with FSB, IWC SMC light mount with SF G2x, MRO/ADM mount, MagPul CTR stock + handguards, and Troy folding BUIS. There is not a lot of fat to trim off this one, but it's only about 7 lbs.
#3 - 16" BRT Light Optimum with 13" ALG V3 rail, Trijicon 1-4 Accupower in a Warne mount, Magpul SL stock. It's ~ 8 lbs and is only going to get heavier when I add a light, the only easy weight loss is in the optic, but I want to keep this as a LPVO gun.
So out of the 3, only the LMT would be easy to lighten, but then wouldn't be "M4" like.
My scoped 16" carbine is built with light but functional parts and the only practical way to lighten it without losing magnified optics is to run a ACOG, which is a bit pricey for the weight reduction.
Andy
I edited the posts to share less of what we do, figure it might be a matter of sharing, not free advertising. I will share less info from now, I've been here since the early days and haven't been accused of this till now, maybe you guys have a point, I'll share what we do in our closed FB group and not in a place where I thought it might be informative and helpful for others.
The Lion Ignores The Yappings Of Small Dogs. Don't let those being "That Guy" get to you. Your input is valuable and I like having discussions about improvements to the AR. Improvements that are more than cosmetic or just cool looking.
titsonritz
03-26-21, 16:30
I have noticed a decrease in Duffy's/Roger's presence as of late, I had hoped he was just super busy (and maybe that is it) but after reading this thread it makes me think maybe this has something to do with it. Personally, I've always found his input to be insightful and well thought out. Ever wonder why we have fewer actual SME on this forum these days? Perhaps is has something to do with this sort of bullshit, way to go, keep chasing them off.
Leonidas24
03-26-21, 18:31
I have noticed a decrease in Duffy's/Roger's presence as of late, I had hoped he was just super busy (and maybe that is it) but after reading this thread it makes me think maybe this has something to do with it. Personally, I've always found his input to be insightful and well thought out. Ever wonder why we have fewer actual SME on this forum these days? Perhaps is has something to do with this sort of bullshit, way to go, keep chasing them off.
It started with Doc and went downhill from there.
I've chatted with Roger a few times via email and the guy is a library of knowledge. It'd behoove those whose mouths outrun their brains to shutup and listen once in a while. Post less, read more.
Busy for the most part, btw, G&R Tactical is now an FCD dealer, one of the last for a while as we placed a temp hold on new dealers.
I'm still here soaking in knowledge and listening to different opinions. We're focusing on plans to diversity to non-AR spaces where we have a small but growing presence, such as pistol optics mounting plates (for authorized and/or issued LE and MIL models only) and soon, carbine slings.
I'm still here soaking in knowledge and listening to different opinions.
:cool:
For my uses, the best way to shave wt is a shorter bbl except for niche guns
Non-sme
Hammer_Man
03-30-21, 20:36
Deleted
Powered by vBulletin® Version 4.2.5 Copyright © 2024 vBulletin Solutions, Inc. All rights reserved.