Page 2 of 4 FirstFirst 1234 LastLast
Results 11 to 20 of 40

Thread: Lightweight VS. maximum efficiency 11.5 build.

  1. #11
    Join Date
    Sep 2009
    Location
    Barre, VT
    Posts
    7,148
    Feedback Score
    94 (100%)
    KAC makes awesome gear. It is just not in my budget right now. I need to focus on ammo and training. Some day though. For now my DD Omega works well on my BCM 11.5" it is light and thin.



    This gun has an Aimpoint M4 on it now along with a 2 point sling from BFG.
    "Real men have always needed to know what time it is so they are at the airfield on time, pumping rounds into savages at the right time, etc. Being able to see such in the dark while light weights were comfy in bed without using a light required luminous material." -Originally Posted by ramairthree

  2. #12
    Join Date
    Jun 2008
    Posts
    323
    Feedback Score
    3 (100%)
    Quote Originally Posted by TRIDENT82 View Post
    If you believe handguards are sub-critical than you obviously are not that concerned with accuracy or modularity. Not to mention overall ergo's of a rifle. Not much special about an AR 15 once you abandon the option of running things like flip up buis's, weaponlights, vfg's, secondary optics, NVG, IR units, Bipod, and the list goes on. I personally will not own an AR that does not have a FF rail outside of a cpl. sentimental 6520's.
    I knew that would get someone riled up.

  3. #13
    Join Date
    Sep 2009
    Location
    Barre, VT
    Posts
    7,148
    Feedback Score
    94 (100%)
    Quote Originally Posted by SW-Shooter View Post
    Would you go with a UBR or CTR?

    If you already had both on hand, which would you use for a quality 11.5 upper build?

    Also would you go with a MOE fore end, or a FF (and which one)?

    Thanks
    The MOE works well for me. And I really like the CTR too.

    Last edited by usmcvet; 12-05-10 at 10:40. Reason: add photo
    "Real men have always needed to know what time it is so they are at the airfield on time, pumping rounds into savages at the right time, etc. Being able to see such in the dark while light weights were comfy in bed without using a light required luminous material." -Originally Posted by ramairthree

  4. #14
    Join Date
    Sep 2008
    Location
    Texas
    Posts
    1,316
    Feedback Score
    33 (100%)
    The UBR balances the gun out nicely. With the CTR it felt front heavy. I like a little more weight on the back end. I equate it to a 51/49 weight distribution you'd find in a car.
    Last edited by SW-Shooter; 12-05-10 at 14:13.

  5. #15
    Join Date
    Dec 2008
    Posts
    5,117
    Feedback Score
    7 (100%)
    I do think your thread title for some has been misleading by the lightweight part.

    As far as I am concerned any 11.5" AR is lightweight given one does not mount every bell and whistle on it.

    Its hard to put a value on how the UBR just solidifies and imo balances an AR build. Something is just so nice about having a stock that can bust down doors, maintains a 100% lock up when in a position just like a fixed a2, has the ability to adjust more than any other stock, perfect cheekweld that is always constant no matter what position the stock is in...and the list goes on and on...but hey, let 9ozs. stop you from all that proprietary magic
    Last edited by ALCOAR; 12-05-10 at 14:48.

  6. #16
    Join Date
    Nov 2007
    Posts
    775
    Feedback Score
    14 (100%)
    Quote Originally Posted by TRIDENT82 View Post
    I do think your thread title for some has been misleading by the lightweight part.

    As far as I am concerned any 11.5" AR is lightweight given one does not mount every bell and whistle on it.
    Fair points. However, I have a 10.5" SBR that is heavier than my KAC SR-15E3. That upper lives in fear as I am often asking myself how it can be heavier than a rifle with six inches more of barrel? I always look at it and wonder where I can shave a few more ounces off...

    One thing I've learned from the various threads on building a lightweight rifle is that among components, it is truly a game of ounces. The difference between a Micro T-1 and an Aimpoint M4S in their respective mounts is about six ounces. Doesn't sound like much. Add a stock that is a few ounces heavier, and then a handguard that is a few ounces heavier, and suddenly the rifle is a pound and a half heavier - or 20% heavier than a build with the lighter components.

    The UBR is innovative and I used one to balance out a Noveske upper that - between the stainless Recon barrel and SWS handguard - was quite front heavy. After training with the rifle in this configuration for a time, I came to the conclusion that balanced or not, heavy was heavy, and eventually migrated to the well balanced and lightweight KAC. I haven't looked back.

    Of course, this is the reason why MagPul can offer a whole line of five different stocks and configurations - it all boils down to personal preference and what the user is most comfortable with.
    Last edited by JSGlock34; 12-05-10 at 21:32.

  7. #17
    Join Date
    Jun 2006
    Location
    SE FL
    Posts
    14,148
    Feedback Score
    5 (100%)
    I would always prefer to remove weight to "improve" balance rather than add it. And I'm not conceding that the back heavy solution is the correct one.

    I'd rather have a .625" dia. barrel and a Troy TRX Extreme 9.0 and a CTR or MOE stock.

  8. #18
    Join Date
    Nov 2008
    Location
    Houston, TX
    Posts
    888
    Feedback Score
    8 (100%)
    Word up, homie!

    I tried the whole UBR thing to "balance" out a front-heavy carbine. In my case, it was an LWRC just about 2 years ago now (which is long gone). Well, I suppose it did balance out the gun, but what I immediately noticed the first time i picked up the gun and shouldered it right after installing the UBR was the whole damn thing was heavier. I realized at that moment that, at least for me, having an overall lighter weight gun is much more beneficial than one that balances all the added weight on the front and rear of the gun close to 50/50.

    That's just me though, and we all have our personal preferences.


    Quote Originally Posted by rob_s View Post
    I would always prefer to remove weight to "improve" balance rather than add it. And I'm not conceding that the back heavy solution is the correct one.

    I'd rather have a .625" dia. barrel and a Troy TRX Extreme 9.0 and a CTR or MOE stock.
    S/F
    Paul

  9. #19
    Join Date
    Aug 2006
    Location
    Northern Command
    Posts
    1,897
    Feedback Score
    2 (100%)
    I have a UBR on my 10.5" and it feels good, it feels "solid" rather than heavy. I had no problems running it through a 3 day Magpul class. Even my pixie of a wife has no problems with any AR with a UBR.





    Here she is with a UBR equipped 16" Ar with 12" rail and scope, and bipod... I just don't understand the guys that think a UBR is too heavy i suspect they may never have actually used one.


    Cameron
    Last edited by Cameron; 12-06-10 at 01:21.

  10. #20
    Join Date
    Dec 2008
    Posts
    5,117
    Feedback Score
    7 (100%)
    The UBR as time goes on is becoming a very polarizing product. Retreat mentioned the first moment he fired a UBR equipped gun he basically knew it was not for him....I had exactly the opposite experience when using one for the first time ever, as well as every time I shoot a new AR config. that has a ubr on it.

    As Cameron stated, hard to see how 9oz. in the very ass end of a boomstick can negate what it brings but to each their own and this is after all why building these guns is so damn much fun

    SW...dig the new thread title, much more fitting.
    Last edited by ALCOAR; 12-06-10 at 11:23.

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
  •