Geissele rifles & uppers.

[BoringGuy45]

I would suspect that weight is an issue also. As loadouts (especially body armor) for troops have increased the weight they haul around, adding in a general-issue weapon that is heavier than the previous one would seem like a step backwards. The M27 isn't light by any means; having it as a general-issue weapon with a 16" barrel and longer [monster] quad rail would seem to be counter-intuitive for a 21st century Infantryman. For the HSLD types? Yeah, I can see it. But for the average grunt unit?

The M27, of course, was a bit of an end around to get a new standard infantry rifle. I figured the Marines would (and they still might) start modifying the M27 to lighten it, shorten it and, in the end, pretty much turn it into the same HK416 JSOC was using.

At this point though, I'm wondering how long the M27 will be the standard issue rifle for the Marines. I wonder if they'll go to something closer to the Geissele rifle, that is, a 14.5 mid-length DI gun, or something like that.

[Buncheong]

Does anyone here know what finish Geissele uses on the URG-I upper receiver groups? Is it phosphate or the oxide finish?

[WillieThom]

Does anyone here know what finish Geissele uses on the URG-I upper receiver groups? Is it phosphate or the oxide finish?

I was wondering the same with regard to the (alleged) new CAG guns… obviously no one but those involved would know for sure, but with all of the complaints of black oxide not holding up, I wonder if they’ve tested black oxide and it stood up to their testing protocols and they’ll go with that or if there are some sort of JSOC spec’d upper receiver groups that have the more traditional phosphate?

[Cane55]

Does anyone here know what finish Geissele uses on the URG-I upper receiver groups? Is it phosphate or the oxide finish?

If you mean what finish the barrel is, Geissele is now using black oxide (chrome lined). Geissele said they switched from using phosphate to black oxide earlier this year sometime. They said it’s done well in their testing, but to keep the exterior oiled like normal. This is their post verbatim:

“Its a very durable black oxide finish that works very well on the exterior of the barrels. You'll just need to oil like normal and the barrel will be good to go. We've seen great results with this coating and haven't had any issues with the finish on our in house cold hammer forged chrome lined extremely accurate barrels.

-GACS”

I personally haven’t heard of any problems with the new black oxide, but I’m far from an expert.

[Wake27]

Does anyone here know what finish Geissele uses on the URG-I upper receiver groups? Is it phosphate or the oxide finish?

URGI barrels are phosphated unless they recently changed. Kind of doubt it though, with the whole clone aspect. The receivers are standard type III hard anodized and the rail is whatever they've used for DDC forever.

[Diz]

I've seen guys mention this in a couple of threads and just wanted to add, a lot of these weapons get coated with camo paint of one kind or another. So whatever the base coating is, it will have a high probability of being coated with something else. So I don't see this as being any big deal, in comparison to all the anodized parts, when the whole she-bang will (probably) be camo-coated anyways.

I camo paint all my rifles, and a few of my friends as well. So the base finish isn't that much of a concern. While I prefer a tanodized or phosphate base, just about anything will do. Point is the new coating will be taking care of business, as far as corrosion is concerned. I can only imagine that a lot of the unit armorers will be thinking the same. So unless the spec calls out for a phosphate finish, I don't see this as any deal-breaker. To me it's all primers.

[georgeib]

According to Bill Geissele, the reason for the switch to black oxide from phosphate is that their particular steel didn't take the phosphate coating very well, and they weren't happy with the results. He likened it to trying to phosphate a stainless barrel, which causes all kinds of issues with the coating.

[dan1612]

According to Bill Geissele, the reason for the switch to black oxide from phosphate is that their particular steel didn't take the phosphate coating very well, and they weren't happy with the results. He likened it to trying to phosphate a stainless barrel, which causes all kinds of issues with the coating.

Did they change their steel?
My two G phosphate barrels coated beautifully.

[georgeib]

Did they change their steel?
My two G phosphate barrels coated beautifully.

I don't remember specifically if they changes it, but I do remember him saying something about "Super Mil-spec Steel" or some similar silliness. From what he wrote I got the impression that they were having to reject a bunch of phosphated barrels for the finish because the finish wasn't taking to the steel and that's what prompted the change. He did say something about the steel being more naturally corrosion resistant than standard 4150.

[okie]

Personally, I don't see it. All chrome lined barrels get shot out at about the same rate, and you have to replace the bolt then anyways. And it just so happens that under normal firing schedules, a milspec bolt is pretty much always going to outlast the barrel. So if you're no matter what going to have to replace the bolt and barrel both at 10-20 thousand rounds, it's better to spend 500 instead of two or three times that.

If you're completely in love with all the fancy doodads, then maybe it's worth it. You get a rail and a nice trigger. But that's only about 600 dollars worth of stuff, so you could just buy a milspec AR and slap those on yourself for a grand total of 1600.

If I were going to spend that much on an enhanced AR, I think the clear winners are KAC and LMT. They address fundamental issues with the platform, and it really is a better mousetrap. Still totally not worth it in my opinion, but if I were looking for that next level AR those would be it.