Page 3 of 4 FirstFirst 1234 LastLast
Results 21 to 30 of 36

Thread: How could one identify what type of Aluminum a buffer tube is made from?

  1. #21
    Join Date
    Aug 2011
    Posts
    966
    Feedback Score
    1 (100%)
    Quote Originally Posted by Joe Mamma View Post
    I know Palmetto State Armory sells both 6061 and 7075 buffer tubes in mil-spec diameter. Right now, they have the 6061 tubes on sale for $13 which might be tempting to some people.

    I talked to PSA a while ago and they told me all of their 7075 tubes have the grey dry film coating on the inside and their 6061 tubes do not.
    The thing that pisses me off with PSA is their use of "mil-spec diameter" in the description of tubes for sale on their site, and then not stating the material it is made of. Obviously these are 6061 tubes that they would like the casual observer to think are 7075...but aren't being dishonest in their description.

    Because Palmetto has such a mix of everything from great quality stuff of the "right" materials down to consumer-grade quality stuff made of "other" materials, and does not explicitly come out and say it when the lower quality materials are used, the place is like a minefield. Then they throw around non-descript terms like "premium" and "madness" that make you wonder which exactly you are getting.

    You have to REALLY be careful with what you buy, because they also seem to mix the lower quality stuff in sometimes with their kits (ergo, 6061 tubes in their "premium" rifle kits with the CMV FN-made barrel, etc).

    I like buying stuff from PSA, as many times there are quality items to be had for great prices (I'm very satisfied with pretty much everything I've purchased from them over the last three years), but their business model with this way they describe their parts sometimes annoys me.
    Last edited by HackerF15E; 11-24-13 at 15:10.

  2. #22
    Join Date
    Aug 2013
    Location
    Duat
    Posts
    730
    Feedback Score
    2 (100%)
    Genuine inquiry -

    What difference does it make?

    In half a lifetime of competitive shooting and general gun part and rollmark snobbery, I've always considered the receiver extension to be one of those very few parts where cheap is better and the cheaper the better. So long as it's the right diameter and threaded correctly, I'm happy. I've never seen or heard of a receiver extension breaking or wearing out, nor have I seen or heard of a receiver extension causing malfunction.

    Has anyone else?

  3. #23
    Join Date
    May 2006
    Location
    VA/OH
    Posts
    29,630
    Feedback Score
    33 (100%)
    Quote Originally Posted by Dead Man View Post
    Genuine inquiry -

    What difference does it make?

    In half a lifetime of competitive shooting and general gun part and rollmark snobbery, I've always considered the receiver extension to be one of those very few parts where cheap is better and the cheaper the better. So long as it's the right diameter and threaded correctly, I'm happy. I've never seen or heard of a receiver extension breaking or wearing out, nor have I seen or heard of a receiver extension causing malfunction.

    Has anyone else?
    First, there is a standard for a reason. Second, ever had to mortar a gun before??


    C4

  4. #24
    Join Date
    Aug 2006
    Location
    USA (Washington DC/Northern Virginia)
    Posts
    715
    Feedback Score
    0
    Quote Originally Posted by Dead Man View Post
    Genuine inquiry -

    What difference does it make?

    In half a lifetime of competitive shooting and general gun part and rollmark snobbery, I've always considered the receiver extension to be one of those very few parts where cheap is better and the cheaper the better. So long as it's the right diameter and threaded correctly, I'm happy. I've never seen or heard of a receiver extension breaking or wearing out, nor have I seen or heard of a receiver extension causing malfunction.

    Has anyone else?
    I've seen broken and bent ones. I've never seen one worn out.

    Joe Mamma
    "Reliability above all else"
    NRA Certified Pistol and Rifle Instructor, Life Member
    Glock Certified Armorer
    Beretta & Sig Sauer Certified Pistol Armorer
    Colt Certified 1911 & AR-15/M16/M4 Law Enforcement Armorer

  5. #25
    Join Date
    Mar 2011
    Posts
    1,542
    Feedback Score
    1 (100%)

    How could one identify what type of Aluminum a buffer tube is made from?

    Regardless wether they bend, break, or wear out faster, wouldn't you want to get the product that you paid for? Don't tell me it's this and send my that.
    Quote Originally Posted by Dead Man View Post
    Genuine inquiry -

    What difference does it make?

    In half a lifetime of competitive shooting and general gun part and rollmark snobbery, I've always considered the receiver extension to be one of those very few parts where cheap is better and the cheaper the better. So long as it's the right diameter and threaded correctly, I'm happy. I've never seen or heard of a receiver extension breaking or wearing out, nor have I seen or heard of a receiver extension causing malfunction.

    Has anyone else?

  6. #26
    Join Date
    May 2009
    Location
    Olive Branch, MS
    Posts
    521
    Feedback Score
    0
    Quote Originally Posted by HackerF15E View Post
    The thing that pisses me off with PSA is their use of "mil-spec diameter" in the description of tubes for sale on their site, and then not stating the material it is made of. Obviously these are 6061 tubes that they would like the casual observer to think are 7075...but aren't being dishonest in their description.

    Because Palmetto has such a mix of everything from great quality stuff of the "right" materials down to consumer-grade quality stuff made of "other" materials, and does not explicitly come out and say it when the lower quality materials are used, the place is like a minefield. Then they throw around non-descript terms like "premium" and "madness" that make you wonder which exactly you are getting.

    You have to REALLY be careful with what you buy, because they also seem to mix the lower quality stuff in sometimes with their kits (ergo, 6061 tubes in their "premium" rifle kits with the CMV FN-made barrel, etc).

    I like buying stuff from PSA, as many times there are quality items to be had for great prices (I'm very satisfied with pretty much everything I've purchased from them over the last three years), but their business model with this way they describe their parts sometimes annoys me.
    You would be equally pissed if you bought one of those tubes, without the labeling that bothers you, and a "commercial diameter" stock which wouldn't fit correctly on a "mil-spec diameter" receiver extension.
    Colt SP6920, LE6920, 6720
    BCM Lower/ARP 6.8SPC upper for hog hunting
    DD M4V5 clone, Troy 5.56 Carbine, S&W M&P10
    PSA Lower/BCM LW 16" middie CHF upper
    PSA Lower/BCM LW 14.5" middie upper
    2 PSA 18"6.8 rifles, PSA 20" M16A4 clone
    Remington 870, Remington 700VTR
    SA XDm9, XDm9C, , XD9SC S&W 1911
    Ruger GP100, Hawkeye77 Compact 6.8SPC
    Kel-Tec KSG, Marlin 336 30-30, HK 45C, VP9
    Sig 1911 Tacops, Scorpion 1911, M11A1, P226 Mk25

  7. #27
    Join Date
    Aug 2013
    Location
    Duat
    Posts
    730
    Feedback Score
    2 (100%)
    Quote Originally Posted by Inkslinger View Post
    Regardless wether they bend, break, or wear out faster, wouldn't you want to get the product that you paid for? Don't tell me it's this and send my that.
    Totally. My question has nothing to do with that.

  8. #28
    Join Date
    Aug 2013
    Location
    Duat
    Posts
    730
    Feedback Score
    2 (100%)
    Quote Originally Posted by C4IGrant View Post
    First, there is a standard for a reason. Second, ever had to mortar a gun before??


    C4
    As to 1, I'm intimately involved with standards and their employment, professionally. As to 2, I certainly have, and have seen others do it also- I've seen it break a stock, but never a receiver extension.

  9. #29
    Join Date
    Aug 2011
    Posts
    966
    Feedback Score
    1 (100%)
    Quote Originally Posted by fdxpilot View Post
    You would be equally pissed if you bought one of those tubes, without the labeling that bothers you, and a "commercial diameter" stock which wouldn't fit correctly on a "mil-spec diameter" receiver extension.
    Well, of course. That goes without saying.

    My point was that they are inconsistent with labeling; sometimes they go to great lengths to say precisely what material a product is made from, and other times they don't. If they're going to acknowledge that there are different types of materials at use, then it would be appreciated if they would label them all rather than occasionally here and there.

    In the case of the receiver extensions, it would be helpful for them to simply say 6061 and mil-spec diameter.

  10. #30
    Join Date
    Aug 2011
    Posts
    966
    Feedback Score
    1 (100%)
    Quote Originally Posted by C4IGrant View Post
    First, there is a standard for a reason. Second, ever had to mortar a gun before??
    This test doesn't seem to indicate that 6061 extensions are at a significant risk of damage when impacted from the rear, such as mortaring.

    http://blogs.militarytimes.com/gears...ugh-talk-goes/

    To keep things fair, we used brand new 6061 aluminum receiver extensions, provided by DS Arms, for each stock’s moment of truth. The extensions all held up as expected. An interesting aside, I hear guys talk about the need for stronger 7075 aluminum tubes and can now say that tube strength isn’t really an issue, at least in dead drops. Butt stroking and taking a hit from the side may be a different story, but as for drops, the tubes weren’t a definitive point of failure.

Page 3 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
  •