Page 2 of 4 FirstFirst 1234 LastLast
Results 11 to 20 of 31

Thread: The lightest lightweight AR lower receiver

  1. #11
    Join Date
    Jul 2012
    Location
    Oregon
    Posts
    335
    Feedback Score
    0
    a 3 oz savings saves 10% (assuming an 8 lb gun). Even though it would probably be a $5k barrel that would be cool if somebody made a titanium barrel (I have never seen it done so it might not be possible). That would probably save a lot of weight and it would balance the rifle better.

  2. #12
    Join Date
    Dec 2011
    Location
    Hamburg PA
    Posts
    3,506
    Feedback Score
    1 (100%)
    Quote Originally Posted by 500grains View Post
    I say buy it and try it. Worst case scenario you throw it in a dumpster and eat the $160.
    My thoughts exactly Must say I like the looks of this over the polymer lowers that I have been seeing around. Not sure if I would use this for a mainline rifle, at least not yet, but for a rifle that will see light to moderate use and is being built as a light weight build... I am interested and will be looking out for one for that project.

    I am not going to pass judgement until I see these in use. Don't see the point in condemning something until it has proven it is junk.

  3. #13
    Join Date
    Apr 2012
    Location
    Northern VA
    Posts
    341
    Feedback Score
    0
    Quote Originally Posted by trackmagic View Post
    a 3 oz savings saves 10% (assuming an 8 lb gun). Even though it would probably be a $5k barrel that would be cool if somebody made a titanium barrel (I have never seen it done so it might not be possible). That would probably save a lot of weight and it would balance the rifle better.
    8lb is 128oz, so 3oz is a less than 4% reduction. The lower being central mass, it isn't the ideal location to shave weight. A shorter barrel would be more effective for balance.

  4. #14
    Join Date
    Mar 2010
    Location
    Maine
    Posts
    7,868
    Feedback Score
    0
    On anything but a featherweight build, it's pointless.
    We miss you, AC.
    We miss you, ToddG.

  5. #15
    Join Date
    Mar 2008
    Location
    NW Montana
    Posts
    85
    Feedback Score
    0
    There's a company by the name of NEMO in Kalispell, Mt that makes thier own high end AR-15 and .308 AR like long range stuff.

    Anyway, just to prove they could they made an all titanium fuctional display model. After hefting that beast nothing seemed heavy.

    Now their normal models are very light and high tech but shaving ounces off of a lower is going to make what difference when you put a quad rail, light, laser, optic, can opener etc?

  6. #16
    Join Date
    Dec 2009
    Location
    Utah
    Posts
    8,420
    Feedback Score
    3 (100%)
    Quote Originally Posted by trackmagic View Post
    a 3 oz savings saves 10% (assuming an 8 lb gun). Even though it would probably be a $5k barrel that would be cool if somebody made a titanium barrel (I have never seen it done so it might not be possible). That would probably save a lot of weight and it would balance the rifle better.
    Quote Originally Posted by everyusernametaken View Post
    8lb is 128oz, so 3oz is a less than 4% reduction. The lower being central mass, it isn't the ideal location to shave weight. A shorter barrel would be more effective for balance.
    I don't understand this concern over the balance point. Does an AR carbine have poor balance? Mine doesn't. Just how much will a shorter barrel change the CG. Probably not much. Just look at the change in CG from opening and closing an UBR stock. (I picked the CG photos of the UBR because it's a heavy stock)
    Open


    Closed



    That's not much of a shift at all. While shaving weight from the lower won't change the balance, it does make the rifle lighter. Where are you guys looking to place the CG? Behind the magwell?
    INSIDE PLAN OF BOX
    1. ROAD-RUNNER LIFTS GLASS OF WATER- PULLING UP MATCH
    2. MATCH SCRATCHES ON MATCH-BOX
    3. MATCH LIGHTS FUSE TO TNT
    4. BOOM!
    5. HA-HA!!

    -WILE E. COYOTE, AUTHOR OF "EVERYTHING I NEEDED TO KNOW IN LIFE, I LEARNED FROM GOLDBERG & MURPHY"

    http://i115.photobucket.com/albums/n289/SgtSongDog/AR%20Carbine/DSC_0114.jpg
    I am American

  7. #17
    Join Date
    Apr 2012
    Location
    Northern VA
    Posts
    341
    Feedback Score
    0
    It won't make a significant difference, that's the point. Similar to a car, removing nose/tail weight reduces polar moment of inertia, reducing inertial resistance to change of direction, which is the only way a small weight reduction will make any noticeable change to the handling of a rifle. Expecting a significant change of CG by 3oz on a carbine is absurd.

  8. #18
    Join Date
    Dec 2009
    Location
    Utah
    Posts
    8,420
    Feedback Score
    3 (100%)
    3 ounces is almost a quarter pound and is a significant savings on a rifle like the carbine. While lightening the lower doesn't change the polar axis of movement very much, it doesn't make it worse either. By itself, it's not much but couple that with a pencil barrel, light handguards and and a buttstock like the MOE or CTR, you'll have a lighter, livelier rifle. If they also come out with a lighter upper receiver, that will save even more weight.

    They have lighter profile barrels, lighter buttstocks and lighter handguards. The only places left to shave weight is the lower and upper receiver and the receiver extension. While this lower may not be be for everyone, it could be a good start to build a lighter weight carbine
    INSIDE PLAN OF BOX
    1. ROAD-RUNNER LIFTS GLASS OF WATER- PULLING UP MATCH
    2. MATCH SCRATCHES ON MATCH-BOX
    3. MATCH LIGHTS FUSE TO TNT
    4. BOOM!
    5. HA-HA!!

    -WILE E. COYOTE, AUTHOR OF "EVERYTHING I NEEDED TO KNOW IN LIFE, I LEARNED FROM GOLDBERG & MURPHY"

    http://i115.photobucket.com/albums/n289/SgtSongDog/AR%20Carbine/DSC_0114.jpg
    I am American

  9. #19
    Join Date
    Feb 2008
    Posts
    154
    Feedback Score
    3 (100%)
    Looks like the next upgrade for Project Featherweight
    https://www.m4carbine.net/showthread.php?t=39599&page=8

  10. #20
    Join Date
    Apr 2012
    Location
    Northern VA
    Posts
    341
    Feedback Score
    0
    Quote Originally Posted by MistWolf View Post
    3 ounces is almost a quarter pound and is a significant savings on a rifle like the carbine. While lightening the lower doesn't change the polar axis of movement very much, it doesn't make it worse either. By itself, it's not much but couple that with a pencil barrel, light handguards and and a buttstock like the MOE or CTR, you'll have a lighter, livelier rifle. If they also come out with a lighter upper receiver, that will save even more weight.

    They have lighter profile barrels, lighter buttstocks and lighter handguards. The only places left to shave weight is the lower and upper receiver and the receiver extension. While this lower may not be be for everyone, it could be a good start to build a lighter weight carbine
    Sure, it will contribute to a lighter overall rifle. I suppose that's a useful application for a 3oz savings. By itself, I believe the lower is where one would notice the difference the least. Having that much cut off from the outer end of the barrel would be be getting more for your money. My personal concern would be what others have mentioned - integrity of the RE attachment point.

Page 2 of 4 FirstFirst 1234 LastLast

Bookmarks

Posting Permissions

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