View Full Version : Composite Free Floating Rail system?
I would like to know why Free floating rail are made by expensive material like Aluminum?
Is it possible to redesign the AR free floating rail using composite material?
The requirements of composite free floating rail
1. Extremely light weight
2. Harder than Aluminum alloy.
3. Possibility of injecting color into the manufacturing process, hence scratch proof.
4. 100% not bendable, extreme rigid.
5. Very low heat conductivity
6. Very Low electricity conductivity
7. Durable and reliable
8. Cheaper than conventional Aluminum rail systems.
There are some available made of carbon fiber. Is that not what you want?
ETA: I think they're all only available in black though.
There are some available made of carbon fiber. Is that not what you want?
ETA: I think they're all only available in black though.
I was wondering why composite free floating rails are not as common as aluminum free floating rails?
An Undocumented Worker
05-15-11, 17:37
I was wondering why composite free floating rails are not as common as aluminum free floating rails?
Come up with a great design, patent it, find someone to manufacture it, and have all the money you'd ever want for ammo.:D
Biggest reason? At some point it has to integrate with metal, and that joint historically becomes a problem. The first carbon fiber BMX bikes ALWAYS failed as the pipe ends where they transitioned into metal.
On the AR handguard at some point you have to have a metal nut. how you join the composite to the metal is the weak point in the system. The old carbon fiber tube handguards weighed more than a 4-rail aluminum system because of that big-ass nut.
Honestly, I'm surprised we haven't seen polymer rails yet that are molded around metal frames similar to handguns.
That would actually be a great idea. Something purpose built.
If the nut has to be aluminum couldn't the receiving threads on the rail be incorporated as a solid pieces of rod like aluminum running the whole length of the rail kind of like rebar in concrete?(like dylan said)
It would have added weight from that but the overall weight would be much lighter.
maybe I just dont know but id buy something like that, I hate heavy rails.
Honestly, I'm surprised we haven't seen polymer rails yet that are molded around metal frames similar to handguns.
Something like the ARMS SIR?
My reasoning is: US marines have been using polymer non free floating handguard since 60', I simply ask why not composite free floating handguard.
You made a valid point. I want to points out that carbon fiber is simply one of many many many composite materials. There are many amazing new composite materials (PlumCrazy composite lower come to mind) would be perfect for this purpose.
As for the joint issue, why not design a aluminum cup that would encapsulate one end of the composite rail, the aluminum cup would be function as a reinforced bridge between the receiver and the composite rail. It could be even design in a way that the aluminum cup simple secure the composite rail in place using nothing but pressure, friction or other means without the needs of any screw holes on the composite rail system.
Nowadays we see all rail systems are based on a simple one piece design made by a single material of Aluminum alloy. I think why not a more complex design that would utilize both Aluminum and composite materials to create a rail system that could achieve the best of both world (with the properties I mentioned in the first post).
Biggest reason? At some point it has to integrate with metal, and that joint historically becomes a problem. The first carbon fiber BMX bikes ALWAYS failed as the pipe ends where they transitioned into metal.
On the AR handguard at some point you have to have a metal nut. how you join the composite to the metal is the weak point in the system. The old carbon fiber tube handguards weighed more than a 4-rail aluminum system because of that big-ass nut.
LancerSystems
05-15-11, 19:58
You made a valid point. I want to points out that carbon fiber is simply one of many many many composite materials. There are many amazing new composite materials (PlumCrazy composite lower come to mind) would be perfect for this purpose.
As for the joint issue, why not design a aluminum cup that would encapsulate one end of the composite rail, the aluminum cup would be function as a reinforced bridge between the receiver and the composite rail. It could be even design in a way that the aluminum cup simple secure the composite rail in place using nothing but pressure, friction or other means without the needs of any screw holes on the composite rail system.
Nowadays we see all rail systems are based on a simple one piece design made by a single material of Aluminum alloy. I think why not a more complex design that would utilize both Aluminum and composite materials to create a rail system that could achieve the best of both world (with the properties I mentioned in the first post).
I think this is close to what you are describing, they are free float and you can add rails where you want using the slots.
These should be available next month.
http://www.lancer-systems.com/Images/LCH_rifle_rail.gif
I think this is close to what you are describing, they are free float and you can add rails where you want using the slots.
These should be available next month.
http://www.lancer-systems.com/Images/LCH_rifle_rail.gif
I like it! Length/weight/ID/OD?
Is that made by jp? Looks so much like one.
I think this is close to what you are describing, they are free float and you can add rails where you want using the slots.
These should be available next month.
http://www.lancer-systems.com/Images/LCH_rifle_rail.gif
WOW! More info please!
Why does everything have to be composite or polymer (don't say plastic!)? I don't see what will be gained once you add a few rails, as the cost will likely be up there with all of the currently available rails now.
To bad you can't remove the bottom section:
10--M4 Product Improvement Program (PIP) - Forward Rail Assembly
Solicitation Number: W15QKN-11-R-F012 (https://www.fbo.gov/index?s=opportunity&mode=form&id=0b0e62ebfbb116871ed68229dbec8c76&tab=core&_cview=0)
The forward rail assembly kit will seamlessly integrate with the M4/M4A1 Carbine without negatively impacting or affecting the current performance or operation of the weapon. The kit shall be compatible with current M4/M4A1 ancillary equipment with no modifications to the ancillary equipment and/or the equipments mounting brackets. This ancillary equipment includes but is not limited to approved 40mm grenade launchers, accessory shotgun systems, optics/sights, aiming/pointing devices, training devices, bayonets, slings, and rail covers. All forward rail assembly kit surfaces must conform to MIL-STD-1913
I don't know about "everything" but I can tell you why I am interested...
first, however, a nit to pick which is that while I tend to agree that "polymer" is a fancy way of avoiding saying "plastic", "composites" are something else entirely.
I like the idea conceptually because as hand-guards get slimmer, trimmer, and more modular, they also get closer to the barrel and thinner and therefore get hotter, faster. non-metallic materials may help in shielding the shooter's hands from that heat.
I'm also not sure if they have to cost as much or not, or weigh as much. It really all depends on that joint I mentioned earlier.
I like the idea conceptually because as hand-guards get slimmer, trimmer, and more modular, they also get closer to the barrel and thinner and therefore get hotter, faster. non-metallic materials may help in shielding the shooter's hands from that heat.
I'm also not sure if they have to cost as much or not, or weigh as much. It really all depends on that joint I mentioned earlier.
I think a heat shield could be made pretty easily with the room we have in most current tubes.
As for cost, I don't see the end cost to the consumer being any less than what we have now. In terms of production costs, the TRX Extreme tubes are pretty cost effective and they are ~$200. I don't see how adding multiple materials and a more complex joint keeps it under $250. My grasp on the production end of that may not be as good though.
I'm not sure a heat shield in an existing, TRX Extreme to use your example, is going to be effective, and it's obviously also going to increase the cost. Yes, you can bubba something in there for the price of a sheet of scrap at Home Depot, but for a production system it's going to require a way to better affix it. Will it push it to the price of a composite system? I have no idea, but until we know what the composite systems retail at when they hit the market it's all just conjecture. You project higher, I project lower, but it's all just a guess.
I don't see the downside to companies pushing the envelope of tube design. When the JP tube was competing against four-rail designs everyone thought it was stupid, and now we have Samson, Troy, and MI all producing variations on that theme.
I'd like to play with one of the tubes Lancer posted, and I'm interested to hear the answers to the questions I asked as well as cost. I have some concerns about the choice of carbon fiber as the material but applaud them for trying something different in any event.
I would like to know why Free floating rail are made by expensive material like Aluminum?
Aluminum isn't THAT expensive. Perhaps the machining time is the bigger issue.
LancerSystems
05-16-11, 13:04
WOW! More info please!
We launched the Lightweight Carbon-Fiber handguard at SHOT this year, we are finalizing testing this week and expect to have finalized pricing and initial delivery information on our web site by June 1st.
Please note the production version will have a low profile front end cap, the end cap in the pictures are prototype.
They will be available in 4 basic lengths; Carbine, Midlength, Rifle Length and Extra-Long (15"). The tube is octogon shape with a 2inch"OD" across the flats, ID is 1.8inches. The weights are as follows (without rails or barrel nut)
•Weights
◦Carbine Length: 6.8oz
◦Midlength: 7.7oz
◦Rifle Length: 8.7oz
◦Extra Long (15”): 9.9oz
Other info
•Free Float Design - the aluminum receiver extension is precision machined to ensure a rigid connection
•Low profile, octagon shaped carbon-fiber tube, is as rigid and impact resistant as lightweight aluminum free float tube designs
•Available with or without cooling slots
•Cooling slots will accept accessory rail hardware
•Available with or without a picatinny rail at 12 o’clock
•Attachment points for quick-detach sling swivels at 3 and 9 o’clock
Pricing will vary based on length and rails. MSRP's start around $225 (carbine with no rails) to $375 (15" with rail at 12 oclock)
http://www.lancer-systems.com/Images/LCH_Carbine_Rifle.gif
Feel free to email me directly if you have any questions svilardi@lancer-systems.com or want info emailed to you when it is available.
Why does everything have to be composite or polymer (don't say plastic!)? I don't see what will be gained once you add a few rails, as the cost will likely be up there with all of the currently available rails now.
Before rails, very few metal forearms existed. Since rails, the market has gone full retard, installing aluminum forearms on everything just because rails are cool. Forearms are to protect the shooter from hot barrels. Metal forearms aren't much better than just holding the bare barrel.
The FAL StG58 had metal forearms and they get so hot during firing, guys were using oven mitts to protect their hand. Now, nearly all the FAL owners have replaced the metal StG handguards with either plastic or wood.
The PRI carbon fiber forearm on my AR gives good protection from a hot barrel. Last trip, the AR got so hot I couldn't touch the barrel at all, yet the temperature of the forearm was still normal
Adding a metal heat shield to a metallic forearm may help some, but it makes the forearm heavier for no real gain in performance.
It's past time to develop non-metallic forearms. We should have non-metallic rail sections, for attaching things like flashlights, as well
Why does everything have to be composite or polymer (don't say plastic!)? I don't see what will be gained once you add a few rails, as the cost will likely be up there with all of the currently available rails now.
Don't you want a rail system that are lighter, harder and low heat conductivity? Do you know aluminum has extremely good heat and electricity conductivity?
Don't you want a rail system that are lighter, harder and low heat conductivity? Do you know aluminum has extremely good heat and electricity conductivity?
Over the long term you cannot argue the durability of aluminum. For me, ladder covers and gloves do a damned good job at taking care of the heat.
For the weight, I would like to see the weights of the Lancer tubes with the barrel nut and and a sling attachment. If I were to guess it will not be too much lighter than what we have now. That is not to say I would not get one, they look nice and are priced around the same as other rails, so they will be a viable option, just not for the reasons others mention.
I am well aware of the properties of aluminum BTW. What I am not fully aware of, simply because I do not use enough of it, is the hardness of carbon fiber, specifically the epoxy on the outside, what would be contacting everything. I don't believe it is that hard, or close to anodized aluminum. Anyone have details?
I argue that aluminum is not an ideal material for making rail system. The fact that you need to wear gloves and to put rail covers already proven that.
Over the long term you cannot argue the durability of aluminum. For me, ladder covers and gloves do a damned good job at taking care of the heat.
For the weight, I would like to see the weights of the Lancer tubes with the barrel nut and and a sling attachment. If I were to guess it will not be too much lighter than what we have now. That is not to say I would not get one, they look nice and are priced around the same as other rails, so they will be a viable option, just not for the reasons others mention.
I am well aware of the properties of aluminum BTW. What I am not fully aware of, simply because I do not use enough of it, is the hardness of carbon fiber, specifically the epoxy on the outside, what would be contacting everything. I don't believe it is that hard, or close to anodized aluminum. Anyone have details?
I argue that aluminum is not an ideal material for making rail system. The fact that you need to wear gloves and to put rail covers already proven that.
Depends on the weight of the alternative.
I added 2.0 oz for the barrel nut. The way I read Lancer's post is that the stated weight includes the aluminum piece that is permamently affixed to the tube, but not the nut that attaches that piece to the upper and replaces the stock barrel nut.
Doing that does make it heavier than the same-weight aluminum TRX Extreme, and the Troy weight includes the integrated top rail.
I don't think we want to throw babies out with bathwater though, and there may yet be composites available, or ways of making composites, that will provide a better, lighter, more heat-resistant solution.
Over the long term you cannot argue the durability of aluminum...
You make a very good point
...there may yet be composites available, or ways of making composites, that will provide a better, lighter, more heat-resistant solution.
If demand for non-metallic forearms becomes great enough, we will see this happening. I'm for it
Just like the smooth-side, all it will take is the right company at the right time, the right selection of shills and spokespersons, and you'll see every manufacturer scrambling for it. Is there a major manufacturer of rail systems right now that, post TRX Extreme, isn't making a slick-side free-float system?
Larue
Daniel Defense
Samson
Midwest Industries
Knight's Armament
Wilson Combat
and of course JP, YHM, Apex Tactical, and others that always have.
One guy will come up with the composite solution (and personally I don't think it's carbon fiber) that will work fantastically in this application and everyone will be scrambling to hire chemists instead of welders and machinists.
This is what bugging me the most, composite materials clearly have potentials but unbelievably the development of composite rail is still in its infancy. It is like there is no incentive to come up a better replacement than the current conventional aluminum rail systems. This goes for the whole arms industry, the innovations of this industry is extremely slow.
I added 2.0 oz for the barrel nut. The way I read Lancer's post is that the stated weight includes the aluminum piece that is permamently affixed to the tube, but not the nut that attaches that piece to the upper and replaces the stock barrel nut.
Doing that does make it heavier than the same-weight aluminum TRX Extreme, and the Troy weight includes the integrated top rail.
I don't think we want to throw babies out with bathwater though, and there may yet be composites available, or ways of making composites, that will provide a better, lighter, more heat-resistant solution.
I don't think we want to throw babies out with bathwater though, and there may yet be composites available, or ways of making composites, that will provide a better, lighter, more heat-resistant solution.
I see everything but lighter being possible.
If demand for non-metallic forearms becomes great enough, we will see this happening. I'm for it
I am too.
One guy will come up with the composite solution (and personally I don't think it's carbon fiber) that will work fantastically in this application and everyone will be scrambling to hire chemists instead of welders and machinists.
Some composites out there now come to mind, but they are quite dense. I wonder what a metal shell over a CF tube would do.
From the stand point of molded composites, a free float forearm is not a straight forward proposition. It would be QUITE difficult if not impossible to mold a forearm as a single unit. The finished product would require quite a bit of machining. Carbon fiber eats up machine tools quickly as it is very abrasive. Carbon fiber is also very conductive of electricity. Machining it creates a lot of dust which gets into places it should not go and causes problems for electronics and machines.
Most of the aluminum forearms on the market now, start off as an extrusion with a relatively small amount of machining required to finish the product. IF a company could come up with a way to injection mold a polymer forearm it could be profitable at a lower price point. Until that happens the products like the one posted by Lancer will be the rule rather than the exception. A simple tube with slots cut in it and rails bolted to it. Add an end for mounting to the weapon ( thats the hard part ) and you have a fore arm. The unique part about the one Lancer posted is that it is molded on an octagonal mandrel. Other than that it's still just a tube.
I also believe that a carbon/Kevlar composite would be better suited to weapons as it is not as brittle and I believe it could stand up to the shock and vibrations better than carbon fiber alone.
EDUB
PRI has been around for some time.
Mike
ΜΟΛΩΝ ΛΑΒΕ
I did not mean to imply that the Lancer product is the first composite free float fore arm. I'm saying that "composite" fore arms will all follow the same construction formula until someone comes up with an innovative way to mold tube and rails and mount in a single process. Molding composites is labor intensive and "with the exception of simple shapes" does not easily lend itself to mass production. The fabric has to be laid up in the mold by hand. Sometimes in multiple layers. Each lay up has the potential for errors. The product has to stay in the mold until it is cured. It is dimensionally unstable until initial curing is done. The list goes on and on.
In my opinion. The only way to break free from the current form factor of "composite" rails would be injection molded polymers.
EDUB
I think molding some composite around an aluminum skeleton could work.
There are some very touchy things you have to account for when dealing with CF.
CF is terrible for abrasion resistance.
CF (the polyester resin used to bind the carbon strands) is sensative to UV degredation.
CF (the resin again) is not a very good item where high heat is concerned.
I am also of the opinion that other options can/do exist instead of Aluminum. Right now AL is the best compromise of weight, strength and durability. But like the super 9 pistols polymer technology can and will catch up to that very quickly.
Imagine a polymer that could be molded over a chassis (think M&P/Glock/XD etc) and specifically engineered for a foregrip? Nice.
andromeda2015
05-17-11, 11:51
LancerSystems,
Has stress analysis been performed on your new carbon fiber handguard? Some companies wrap carbon fiber over various mediums with a claim of increased strength and weight savings without performing analysis to verify the strength of the part. Composite analysis is a relatively new and under utilized skill set that many lack even in the airplane industry.
I am excited to see your officially released product!
LancerSystems
05-17-11, 16:07
LancerSystems,
Has stress analysis been performed on your new carbon fiber handguard? Some companies wrap carbon fiber over various mediums with a claim of increased strength and weight savings without performing analysis to verify the strength of the part. Composite analysis is a relatively new and under utilized skill set that many lack even in the airplane industry.
I am excited to see your officially released product!
We are using physical testing to verify the strength / durability of the parts.
This is what bugging me the most, composite materials clearly have potentials but unbelievably the development of composite rail is still in its infancy. It is like there is no incentive to come up a better replacement than the current conventional aluminum rail systems. This goes for the whole arms industry, the innovations of this industry is extremely slow.
cptm4
I understand your frustration. But if you look at this from an industrial culture, rather than and industrial stand point it starts to make some sense. The fire arms industry is full of people who work with metal. It's what they know. They know how th extrude, cast, forge, machine and polish it to become a finished product. That is the box within which they work. There is a lot of inertia there and it will take a small innovative company or individual who does not have an engineer breathing down their neck to come up with something that will make the industry stop and take notice. Chance are that person wont know much about firearms either. Someone who sits at their computer and says "Box? What box?". More than likely the initial drawing will be on a napkin.
EDUB
Tennis Rackets have been built by (i.e. carbon fiber) composite materials for many many years. They are very good at absorption shocks and vibrations. They are very durable too.
A Molded composite handguard do not have to be one piece. Two pieces handguards are quite common.
From the stand point of molded composites, a free float forearm is not a straight forward proposition. It would be QUITE difficult if not impossible to mold a forearm as a single unit. The finished product would require quite a bit of machining. Carbon fiber eats up machine tools quickly as it is very abrasive. Carbon fiber is also very conductive of electricity. Machining it creates a lot of dust which gets into places it should not go and causes problems for electronics and machines.
Most of the aluminum forearms on the market now, start off as an extrusion with a relatively small amount of machining required to finish the product. IF a company could come up with a way to injection mold a polymer forearm it could be profitable at a lower price point. Until that happens the products like the one posted by Lancer will be the rule rather than the exception. A simple tube with slots cut in it and rails bolted to it. Add an end for mounting to the weapon ( thats the hard part ) and you have a fore arm. The unique part about the one Lancer posted is that it is molded on an octagonal mandrel. Other than that it's still just a tube.
I also believe that a carbon/Kevlar composite would be better suited to weapons as it is not as brittle and I believe it could stand up to the shock and vibrations better than carbon fiber alone.
EDUB
If the development of composite handguards had matured and became the mainstream products, then there is really no need for vertical foregrip anymore. All vertical foregrips would effectively obsolete. If you are counting weight benefit, don't forget to consider the absent of foregrip!
The fabric has to be laid up in the mold by hand. Sometimes in multiple layers. Each lay up has the potential for errors. The product has to stay in the mold until it is cured. It is dimensionally unstable until initial curing is done. The list goes on and on.
In my opinion. The only way to break free from the current form factor of "composite" rails would be injection molded polymers.
EDUB
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=GHWVzBcnNXc&feature=youtube_gdata_player
Cf doesnt have to be hand laid necessarily. For sophosticated shapes it does. If someone were to be so inclined as to invest in a mold (highly unlikely with this market segment) it could be done differently. Not saying anything here about handguards, just cf technology.
PRI has been around for some time.
Mike
ΜΟΛΩΝ ΛΑΒΕ
I actually have two of them, one is about 4 or 5 years old and still going strong. The thing I dont like about CF, once it gets a good nick, scrape, or cut, its been comprimised in its strength. We do allot of off road racing, and have ran CF guards, once they get a ding, nick or a good scrape, it tends to delaminate like fiberglass does. Because of that we have gone back to aluminum.
Powered by vBulletin® Version 4.2.5 Copyright © 2024 vBulletin Solutions, Inc. All rights reserved.