Page 3 of 3 FirstFirst 123
Results 21 to 25 of 25

Thread: Sleeving Uppers

  1. #21
    Join Date
    Mar 2015
    Posts
    1,022
    Feedback Score
    0
    Quote Originally Posted by blriehl View Post
    I had no idea this question could elicit these sort of responses.

    FWIW - post forging solution treating a part will undo any grain alignment gained during the forging process. And it would need to be cold forged anyway. I don't believe these parts are cold forged.
    Oh, one other thing about sleeving.

    The inside of an AR is not a tube, it is a tube with a slot in the top (for the carrier key) and slot in the bottom (for the magazine and FCG). In order to sleeve it, you would have to make a sleeve that is open on the top and bottom, or a sleeve that is open on the bottom and has a square channel on top. Two problems come to mind:

    1) You can't shrink fit it, the open channel would tend to collapse.

    2) It would probably make things worst. The wall thickness of an upper is only .095" thick, up in the charging handle slot, it is even thinner as the two slots for the charging handle eat up some thickness. To remove some aluminum and have a thin steel insert bonded in place probably wouldn't improve the stiffness....

    If you really want to improve the stiffness, make a billet upper out of a solid rectangular block of 7075 1.25" thick and 1.88" tall (not including the lugs on the bottom), or make a regular upper out of steel.....

  2. #22
    Join Date
    May 2014
    Posts
    377
    Feedback Score
    0
    Quote Originally Posted by lysander View Post
    Oh, one other thing about sleeving.

    The inside of an AR is not a tube, it is a tube with a slot in the top (for the carrier key) and slot in the bottom (for the magazine and FCG). In order to sleeve it, you would have to make a sleeve that is open on the top and bottom, or a sleeve that is open on the bottom and has a square channel on top. Two problems come to mind:

    1) You can't shrink fit it, the open channel would tend to collapse.

    2) It would probably make things worst. The wall thickness of an upper is only .095" thick, up in the charging handle slot, it is even thinner as the two slots for the charging handle eat up some thickness. To remove some aluminum and have a thin steel insert bonded in place probably wouldn't improve the stiffness....

    If you really want to improve the stiffness, make a billet upper out of a solid rectangular block of 7075 1.25" thick and 1.88" tall (not including the lugs on the bottom), or make a regular upper out of steel.....
    I have been thinking a lot about the design of the AR receiver/barrel connection myself. This system was not originally designed for 26" 5.5# barrels. I am in the process of building exactly that. I have the MUR upper. Wonder if anyone will ever design an upper with a whole lot more meat at the receiver/barrel connection? Wonder if it would be possible to thread the receiver/barrel connection like a bolt gun? Tony Kidd is doing it with his 10/22 receivers. It would certainly be a niche market. Bet it would improve accuracy. With todays CAD milling machines it shouldn't be that hard. Varmint and long range guys would like it though.

    Another thought for the CNC guys. Make a new AR. Half way between the AR15 and AR10. That way you could use all those 6mm wildcats at mag length. A dasher AR that magazine feeds!

  3. #23
    Join Date
    Mar 2015
    Posts
    1,022
    Feedback Score
    0
    Quote Originally Posted by rcoodyar15 View Post
    I have been thinking a lot about the design of the AR receiver/barrel connection myself. This system was not originally designed for 26" 5.5# barrels. I am in the process of building exactly that. I have the MUR upper. Wonder if anyone will ever design an upper with a whole lot more meat at the receiver/barrel connection? Wonder if it would be possible to thread the receiver/barrel connection like a bolt gun? Tony Kidd is doing it with his 10/22 receivers. It would certainly be a niche market. Bet it would improve accuracy. With todays CAD milling machines it shouldn't be that hard. Varmint and long range guys would like it though.

    Another thought for the CNC guys. Make a new AR. Half way between the AR15 and AR10. That way you could use all those 6mm wildcats at mag length. A dasher AR that magazine feeds!
    That would mean making the barrel extension part of the upper...

  4. #24
    Join Date
    May 2014
    Posts
    377
    Feedback Score
    0
    Quote Originally Posted by lysander View Post
    That would mean making the barrel extension part of the upper...
    no extension needed. Just screw the barrel into the threaded receiver. Have to cut feed ramps and finish chamber/headspace after the barrel is installed like a bolt gun.

  5. #25
    Join Date
    Sep 2013
    Posts
    2,226
    Feedback Score
    4 (100%)
    Quote Originally Posted by rcoodyar15 View Post
    I have been thinking a lot about the design of the AR receiver/barrel connection myself. This system was not originally designed for 26" 5.5# barrels. I am in the process of building exactly that. I have the MUR upper. Wonder if anyone will ever design an upper with a whole lot more meat at the receiver/barrel connection? Wonder if it would be possible to thread the receiver/barrel connection like a bolt gun? Tony Kidd is doing it with his 10/22 receivers. It would certainly be a niche market. Bet it would improve accuracy. With todays CAD milling machines it shouldn't be that hard. Varmint and long range guys would like it though.

    Another thought for the CNC guys. Make a new AR. Half way between the AR15 and AR10. That way you could use all those 6mm wildcats at mag length. A dasher AR that magazine feeds!
    Check out Areo Precisions AR15 M4E1 Enhanced Upper, they have added a significant more amount of material around the barrel nut.

Page 3 of 3 FirstFirst 123

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
  •