PDA

View Full Version : Ultra Lightweight AR-15 Build


David the Gnome
September 6, 2010, 01:10 PM
Last year I purchased this CMMG carbine because I wanted an AR that I could add some accessories to. I put an EO Tech red dot on it and a vertical fore grip and it felt pretty good when I practiced bringing it up to the firing position at home. Here is a picture of it as I had it configured:

http://img29.imageshack.us/img29/3144/m4small01.jpg

Fast forward to this Labor Day weekend; I went to an all-day tactical shoot with some friends and had to lug this thing around all day long. By the end of the day, all those accessories that seemed so cool at home made my carbine a lot heavier than it needed to be when it came time to actually use it.

So now I'm looking at lightening this carbine. The first thing I want to do is get rid of the quad-rail. I actually did a lot better without the fore grip so there's really no point in having that metal quad rail if I'm not going to hang anything off it. I was thinking about replacing it with a Magpul MOE hand guard, I liked the feel of it and it looks nice and light.

The butt stock isn't really very heavy at all but I was thinking of replacing it with the Magpul CTR stock, just to match with the hand guard more than anything. The weight gain/loss would be negligible compared to the factory M4 style butt stock.

I'm not sure what to do with the EO Tech. I really like having the red-dot but that thing adds a lot of weight on top of the rifle. I might be able to balance the rifle a little better by moving it back some more or something. I feel like it may be too far forward right now.

Other than those small changes, what would you suggest to help lighten this carbine a little more? I thought maybe a thinner barrel would shave off a decent amount of weight but I'm not too sure how involved that would be to replace/have replaced. I guess there's always the option of purchasing a polymer upper too. I'm also using polymer mags as another way to save some weight. I'm liking the 20 rounders but most of the courses are set up with a 30-round mag in mind, the 20-rounders require a few more reloads per run.

I guess there's always the option of selling this and buying a Bushmaster Carbon 15 or something too. I just hate to do that since I already have this AR.

DnPRK
September 6, 2010, 02:03 PM
DPMS is having a sale on lightweight carbine kits for Labor Day. If you want a lightweight carbine, this could be for you.
http://www.dpmsinc.com/store/?cat=1922

One addition I would make to the DPMS lightweight kit is the addition of a carbon fiber free float tube (http://www.dpmsinc.com/store/products/?prod=1743&cat=1690). It weighs less than 6 ounces and tightens groups from lightweight barrels.

Other weight reductions are an Ace lightweight stock (http://www.midwayusa.com/viewproduct/?productnumber=241016) and relacing the heavy steel front sight with an EGW aluminum gas block (http://egw-guns.com/store/index.php?main_page=product_info&cPath=53&products_id=170) that is a third the weight of the steel front sight tower.

KChen986
September 6, 2010, 02:38 PM
I say go for an aimpoint T-1 or Eotech XPS to reduce some weight. When I take my TA01/DOC off my rifle and put on my T-1, I feel an immediate and drastic reduction in weight. That aside, I just suck it up because I want a weapon-mounted light and VFG.

zoomie
September 6, 2010, 02:39 PM
Ace UL stock (http://riflestocks.com/catalog/product_info.php?cPath=75_77&products_id=192), Aimpoint micro (http://www.aimpoint.com/products/aimpoint_product_lines/aimpoint_micro_h-1), carbon fiber handguard (http://www.midwayusa.com/viewproduct/?productnumber=336321&utm_source=froogle&utm_medium=free&************=10636)... That's all I can think of without going to lighter receivers.

Edit: Looks like I should have refreshed the thread before I posted as others said the same thing. Oh well.

bedlamite
September 6, 2010, 02:54 PM
A little weight on all the parts adds up quick, but the only part you can save a lot of weight on is the barrel. What is the profile under the handguard? (http://www.ar15barrels.com/prod/govt.shtml)

I have an AR built on a Cavalry Arms Mk2 lower (http://www.brownells.com/.aspx/pid=1517/Product/AR_15_CAV_15_RECEIVER), with a Clark carbon fiber handguard (http://www.brownells.com/.aspx/pid=4998/Product/CLARK_CUSTOM_AR_15_CARBON_FIBER_HANDGUARD), low profile gas block, 16" Ko-Tonics light weight barrel (similar to the old A1 profile), and a Weaver 1-3x20 scope. It tips the scales at just under 6 lbs.

Bartholomew Roberts
September 6, 2010, 03:39 PM
The biggest place to save weight is the barrel. A lightweight barrel profile can shave almost a pound compared to the HBAR. Replace the quadrail with a Clark's custom tube. The Ace UL stock - all of that will trim the rifle down. If you want to get hardcore, you can go with carbon fiber uppers and lowers and a lightweight aluminium bolt carrier. These will be more finicky about the conditions they run in; but you can get pretty light. I've seen one AR that was less than 5lbs.

Technosavant
September 6, 2010, 03:44 PM
Quickest route would be sending the upper off (I'd probably use ADCO gunsmithing for this) to have the barrel re-profiled to a lightweight profile, have a Daniel Defense Lite rail installed (if you want to keep quad rails), and chop it back to about 14.5" and have the flash hider permanently installed.

That's going to make it about as light as possible. If you want to save weight on the optics, I'd go with an Aimpoint Micro (LaRue has superlight mounts for them too... get a combo) or an EOTech XPS. You still want them mounted forward on the receiver; it preserves your field of view as best as possible.

David the Gnome
September 6, 2010, 03:46 PM
The barrel is a 16" M4 contour barrel. How involved is replacing the barrel? Is it something I could do at home or is it something I'd have to send my upper off for? Would I perhaps do better just selling my upper and buying a lightweight upper that's already built?

Bartholomew Roberts
September 6, 2010, 05:04 PM
Going from an M4 profile (assuming a true M4 profile, some companies have the M4 notch out front; but an HBAR profile under the handguards) to a lightweight 14.5" barrel will save you around 4 oz - not a lot of weight but removing it from in front of the barrel nut makes a big difference.

sonrider657
September 6, 2010, 06:50 PM
Using a stripped Carbon-15 Upper, a Bushmaster super lightweight barrel, and a Cav Arms MkII lower, I built this 16" carbine at 5 lb. 1 oz. (without magazine). It handles and shoots great.

Cav Arms Lowers are no longer in production but DSG Arms has some for $89.00. Grab one while you can!

http://www.christiancarnivore.com/magpul.jpg

kymarkh
September 7, 2010, 08:34 AM
Wish I'd have known you were looking at lightweight AR's when we met last month - I had my lightweight with me as I'd just sighted it in. It's not an ultra lightweight but it's pretty darn light for a 16 inch AR with optics.

It's a LW Bravo Company 16 inch midlength upper with standard handguards and an Aimpoint Micro. Right now I have the standard buttstock but I'm looking to go CTR also and will pick up the midlength MOE handguards when they are released. It's a little less than a pound lighter than my Bushmaster M4A3 with the carry handle mounted but you can easily notice the difference because the weight has been removed from the front of the gun. My only regret is that I didn't go 14.5 instead of 16 when I picked out the upper but I really like the midlength gas system and sight radius.

The ADCO route suggested is probably the quickest and cheapest way to go unless you want to purchase a new upper. Cutting it down to 14.5, turning the barrel down to a light weight profile and permanently attaching the flash hider would take off maybe 1/2 a pound out front where it's most noticeable.

gunmoney
September 7, 2010, 11:14 AM
Not to be to rude here but toughen up chief. Maybe rather than rebuilding your rifle you should practice with the one you have a little more. Your quad rail maybe weighs a few more ounces than a MOE. Which style are you using with your vertical grip? A vertical or AFG can make a world of difference in control when shooting, but if you are just grabbing on to it like a pistol grip, it won't really help much. My objective in shooting may be different than yours but I am trying to be as effective as I can be. Being effective does not always equal comfort and the easiest path. That being said, I have no problem with lightweight carbines. But don't use it as crutch/excuse for your shooting either.

demigod
September 7, 2010, 11:36 AM
Not to be to rude here but toughen up chief.

I agree. There isn't even a Light on that weapon, and you're already willing to dump it for a plastic piece of junk AR???

C'MON, MAN!!! :D

Skans
September 7, 2010, 01:04 PM
Just start out with an old Colt SP1 Carbine and replace the aluminum buttstock with one of those new lightweight plastic ones. Doesn't get much lighter than that. It's those heavy barrels that are adding all the weight. No need for those on a semi-auto .223.

thesheepdog
September 7, 2010, 01:20 PM
Not to be to rude here but toughen up chief.

+2

The .223 needs a heavier barrel due to it's high velocity and how it can heat up a barrel quickly. You might as well get an old series mini-14 if you want the lightweight barrel.

Skans
September 7, 2010, 01:28 PM
The .223/5.56 in semi-auto does not need a heavier barrel. That's all a bunch of hype unless you're doing long distance bench-rest type shooting. And in that case, you'd probably choose a bolt action rifle. I used to shoot a Remington 700 .22-250. That's a high velocity round, and it did not require a heavy barrel to be extremely accurate.

If you think you need something with a heavier barrel, you might as well step up to a .308.

sonrider657
September 7, 2010, 01:42 PM
Using a lightweight gun has nothing to do with lack of "toughness". Lightweight guns handle better and are easier to get on target, no matter how tough you are. Was Lance Armstrong a wuss for shaving every possible ounce off his bicycle? No, he realized that every ounce he saved was a competitive advantage. If you can get your gun trained on the bad guy quicker than he can get his on you, you win and live.

gunmoney
September 7, 2010, 01:48 PM
The .223/5.56 in semi-auto does not need a heavier barrel. That's all a bunch of hype unless you're doing long distance bench-rest type shooting. And in that case, you'd probably choose a bolt action rifle. I used to shoot a Remington 700 .22-250. That's a high velocity round, and it did not require a heavy barrel to be extremely accurate.

If you think you need something with a heavier barrel, you might as well step up to a .308.

This is a common misconception Skans. Most modern AR type rifles have heavier barrels due to the fact that their perceived use involves a high or constant rate of fire. The rate of fire will cause the barrel to heat up quickly and cause the dreaded wondering point of impact from the barrel warping. A heavier barrels helps to combat that. A heavier barrel makes a rifle more precise due to the fact that it resists the warping from heat. A thin barrel can initially be very precise, but when the barrel heats up, it will warp, and the point of impact will begin to change. Velocity in itself is not the cause but the resulting heat from the high levels of friction. Again, this boils down to a shooter being able to rely on a more precise result to place his shot appropriately(Accurately). IF a thin, heat warped barrel can cause a huge unknown deviation from your point of aim to the resulting point of impact, it will not inspire much confidence in the shooter now will it?

Skans
September 7, 2010, 02:30 PM
I'd like to see some real evidence on any AR barrel warping from semi-auto fire. I think it would take quite a bit of sustained full-auto fire to warp any AR15/M16 barrel.

I can't tell you how many rounds I've fired from my AC556 (mini-14) full-auto without warping it's "pencil" barrel. Then I'll take a few aimed shots after done playing and it's as accurate as it ever was (not a tack driver....but it never was - just consistantly accurate at 100-200 yards. No melting barrels, no warped barrel.

On an AK, I've loaded up 1 75 round drum and 2 30 round magazines, pulling the trigger as fast as I could going through 135 rounds as fast as I could pull the trigger (trying to get rid of some old Chinese corrosive ammo I didn't want anymore). I had to switch fingers, as they got sore, and my shoulder got pretty sore....Sure the gun got hot, oil on the barrel smoked, but the barrel was just fine - didn't warp, not even close.

Honestly, there is no need for heavy barrels or even fluted barrels on any semi-auto AR15. It's just for looks, that's all. Granted, some of the fancy fluted barrels do look pretty cool, though.

gunmoney
September 7, 2010, 02:36 PM
I'd like to see some real evidence on any AR barrel warping from semi-auto fire. I think it would take quite a bit of sustained full-auto fire to warp any AR15/M16 barrel.

Actually, so would I. It would definitely give a much better point of reference in approaching the choice of a barrel that will fill most shooting roles/uses.

Bartholomew Roberts
September 7, 2010, 02:59 PM
The M4 barrel, M16A1 barrel and the M16A2 barrel all start with a 0.675" diameter profile that tapers until 0.625" underneath the handguard. On the M16A2 and M4 barrels, the barrel diameter increases to 0.750" at the end of the handguards and continues to the muzzle (with the exception of the M203 cuts on the M4 barrel).

Your typical lightweight barrel profile is 0.625" from the handguards to the muzzle.

By comparison, a typical heavy barrel profile for an AR starts out at 1.0" under the handguards and tapers down to 0.750" at the gas block. This is why a 16" HBAR profile barrel weighs as much as a 20" M16A2 profile barrel.

In terms of heat, on full auto, the M4 barrel (0.675-0.625 taper followed by 0.750") will fire approximately 500 rounds in 4 minutes before the barrel droops and bursts. The M4A1 barrel is 5oz heavier and starts out at slightly larger than 0.750" under the handguards tapering to 0.750" at the gas block (except for the M203 cuts). On full auto, it will do 900+ rounds continuously without bursting.

You can draw your own conclusions from all of that. The conclusion I drew is that if I was ever in a fight where the difference between a lightweight and HBAR barrel's ability to handle heat became a significant factor, I was doing much better than I expected in a fight I probably shouldn't have picked.

Technosavant
September 7, 2010, 03:01 PM
When talking accuracy, people really need to be paying attention to the targets they expect to shoot and the distances at which they will be shooting them.

For a defensive carbine, it is not likely (not even remotely so) that you'll ever need to be taking shots out past 100 yards- there just aren't likely situations where someone at that distance is an active threat. Furthermore, the target is rather large. 3-4 MOA is just fine.

For this, a lightweight 14.5" barrel will more than cover you. You just won't be putting magazine after magazine through it at that distance. If you need the accuracy, your rate of fire will be slower, allowing the barrel to cool. If you're pulling the trigger as fast as you can, you aren't taking the time to aim very carefully, definitely not carefully enough for a 1 MOA capability to be realized.

A little realism is called for. Any event where extended range accuracy is needed, you'll be bringing the appropriate rifle. Any event where mobility is needed, ditto. You CAN have more than one, and no, you won't be having to make a hard choice of picking just one and heading for the hills.

gunmoney
September 7, 2010, 04:03 PM
Maybe I am misunderstanding here. While I agree with what Techno and Bartholomew have said I think I was trying to point out something different. I am not worried about the barrel heating up and melting off of the gun. I am concerned with at which point a barrel (especially a thin barrel) heats up to the point that it begins to wonder. Now, at 100, 200, 300 yards, your dead bulls eye is now a complete miss, or you wound instead of kill, or hit someone or something standing right next to your target, or you are simply wasting ammo because you can hit nothing you are aiming at. Is it unlikely, maybe, but at what exact point does unlikely become possible?

Bartholomew Roberts
September 7, 2010, 05:56 PM
I am concerned with at which point a barrel (especially a thin barrel) heats up to the point that it begins to wonder. Now, at 100, 200, 300 yards, your dead bulls eye is now a complete miss, or you wound instead of kill, or hit someone or something standing right next to your target, or you are simply wasting ammo because you can hit nothing you are aiming at. Is it unlikely, maybe, but at what exact point does unlikely become possible?

Whether the point of impact changes as the rifle heats up depends on a number of things, the quality of the barrel, how the barrel is bedded, etc. So the answer is going to be different for every individual rifle. The only way to find out is get out there with your rifle and shoot until you know at what point your groups start to open up due to heat.

However, the AR design is very good about maintaining accuracy as it heats up. Which leads to Technosavant's excellent point regarding evaluating your likely use. Let's say that after 120 rounds, the lightweight barrel shifts point of impact 2" up and 2" left at 100yds (hypothetical numbers). Now, how many defensive shooting situations are going to see you firing more than 120 rounds at 100yds? How often is that change in point of impact going to be an issue in your personal training or instruction? If you are firing at prairie dogs, then you may want a heavier barrel. Zombie apocalpyse? Heavier barrel may be in order; but even here you have guys going into heavy combat every day with the 0.675-0.625/0.750 profile barrels that aren't that far removed from the lightweight profiles. Even the SOCOM inspired M4A1 heavy barrel is a lighter profile than your typical commercial HBAR. I think that is a pretty good clue given the high volumes of fire those rifles see.

gunmoney
September 7, 2010, 11:26 PM
Techno and Bartholomew, excellent points and information as usual. Skans, I appreciate your "edit" and the info you provided, it is good perspective.

I am trying to approach this in a scientific manner and in some way create or learn a gage that shows a cut off point, so to speak. (I think our discussion has gone a bit off topic) Anyway, for the average shooter, user, home defense, etc. the point is moot for their use, as you all have said. My mind is a bit more inquiring though and I like to know my firearms inside and out and their capabilities from one end of the spectrum to the other. If one of my carbines sh@#s the bed, so to speak, I want to know why or at least can start to recognize when it may occur. Just like a long range precision shooter should knows his rifles behavior at all stages and in all conditions I want to at least have a theoretical benchmark.

So apply that to this discussion. Scenario, If I took a lightweight, a govt profile, and a heavy Colt carbine barrels (16" or 14.5" M4 profile, either way) and did controlled tests with each, I would like to obtain at which point I should start to get nervous with each, if that point was reachable at all. AS far as most are concerned, a lightweight profile should suit most shooters. But I don't come here to argue "good enough". I want to discuss and learn. There are obviously all kinds of shooters, guns, qualities, configurations, calibers, ammunitions, and conditions related to this issue, so lets discuss them all.

The OP was honestly whining about not having fun shooting because his gun was too heavy. Instead of just practicing more and adjusting his style, he wanted completely rebuild his carbine as to guarantee that he will never have to be strained or uncomfortable while shooting ever again. One of his plans was to install a lightweight barrel. As many have said, for a shooter like this, he will never exceed the capabilities of that profile of barrel. My argument(besides the obvious) is that I would rather have the most capable and versatile barrel rather than just good enough for the average shooter. The geek in me wants to know when "good enough" falls flat and "unnecessary" becomes necessary, regardless of the fact that it is likely or not.

Sorry for the hazing OP but you can't always rely on gear to solve your problems. If I decide to go run five miles and by mile 2 I am puking my guts out and on the verge of a heart attack, obviously I made a seriously miscalculation in my planning at some point along the line. Rather than spending a fortune on new running gear, implanting a mechanical heart and lungs, and lobbying the local government to flatten and straighten all hills and roads in my area, I might want to just go out and practice a little first. Get a little advice, adjust my technique, and just keep at it and you will most likely be much better off.

Bartholomew Roberts
September 8, 2010, 06:56 AM
So apply that to this discussion. Scenario, If I took a lightweight, a govt profile, and a heavy Colt carbine barrels (16" or 14.5" M4 profile, either way) and did controlled tests with each, I would like to obtain at which point I should start to get nervous with each, if that point was reachable at all.

99% of my shooting has been with medium profile and HBAR barrels. The medium profile is because it is a precision barrel. The HBAR profile is just because that was what Bushmaster was selling when I bought it and at the time I didn't know any better. I've never gotten either barrel hot enough that I noticed a change in accuracy (and both barrels have easily hit 400F).

I've got exactly one string of accuracy testing in my records with an M4 barrel. We got it to 230F (about what you'd get from dumping a single magazine as fast as you could on a hot day) and didn't note groups opening up any. That was benched with a 12x scope on it; but we were shooting 55gr FMJ - so it would have had to open up quite a bit before we would have noticed it.

thesheepdog
September 8, 2010, 08:27 AM
HBAR/Medium porfile is just a little extra security. and if it's too heavy for you, then you may consider hitting the gym.

TimberWolf7.62
September 8, 2010, 08:57 AM
Gee, and to think that when I was in the Marine Corps, I left my M16 in the armory whenever I could in favor of the M60 . . . all 23 pounds of it, plus the 500 of rounds of belted 7.62 NATO, plus the 60 pound pack. :rolleyes: :rolleyes: :rolleyes:

David the Gnome
September 8, 2010, 07:19 PM
I was expecting the "suck it up" posts when I started this thread, there's too much testosterone on this forum to expect otherwise :). I am working on the physical fitness part for what it's worth, but that's still not answering my question, which is: what can you do to build an ultra-light AR15?

I'm not shooting full auto and I don't plan on engaging in prolonged fire fights past 100 yards (as a civilian I should probably be taking that opportunity to get the heck out of there). The thin barrel sounds like exactly what I would be looking for to help lighten up my carbine. I appreciate the people directing me to places to purchase barrels or have my current barrel re-profiled. :)

I am already aware that moving from an aluminum quad rail to a polymer hand guard isn't going to save very much weight; I said as much in my first post. However, if you took the time to read the first post, you would also know that I was shooting a lot better without the vertical fore grip. What's the point in having a quad rail if all I'm going to do is put covers over the rails and never use them?

Short of replacing the entire gun with carbon fiber or polymer I'm not going to shave pounds off this thing, therefore this becomes a game of ounces. If we're playing with ounces then every ounce counts, meaning small things like replacing a metal hand guard with a plastic one is important. Doing things to help keep the weight better balanced, like re-profiling the barrel, becomes even more important then. Much like packing a backpack, if you can't make it lighter the only thing you can do to make it easier to carry is to balance it better.

Thank you again to the people who have submitted helpful information about building a lightweight carbine, I appreciate your assistance. For the rest, please try to stay with the theme of this topic, which is how to build a lightweight carbine, not how to belittle someone for not wanting to lug around an M60 all day. ;)

thesheepdog
September 9, 2010, 08:12 AM
What are you using your "Light-weight" carbine for?

I may be able to tell whether you're crazy; or actually building a practical weapon.

Technosavant
September 9, 2010, 10:00 AM
I may be able to tell whether you're crazy

I don't know if the DSM-IV has anything related to firearm enthusiasm in there unless you actually crack and start shooting people. Of course, I hear the DSM-V is in the works, and they could well include a section on "black rifle disease spectrum disorders." :D

thesheepdog
September 9, 2010, 10:39 AM
Just a word of wisdom; don't build a less practical gun, unless you already have a practical gun.

Would I mind having an ultralight AR-15; no not at all. But as my base weapon, no!!
I like the idea of lightweight, and what you're looking to do is make a light gun even lighter. Which is fine by me, but for practical purposes, then It doesn't fit in very well, unless of course I had to chase a coyote that ran off with my prize chicken, and chase the coyote over mountains and such, then yeah, I would want the lightest weapon possible.

Technosavant,

I think the "black gun disease" will be in version 6.

amd6547
September 9, 2010, 11:16 AM
My "ultralight" AR is a retro clone of the M16A1 using a USGI surplus Colt upper. I love the full length thin profile A1 barrel, I prefer the triangle handguards, and the A1 sights work fine for me. Light, accurate, reliable.

David the Gnome
September 9, 2010, 05:55 PM
Just a word of wisdom; don't build a less practical gun, unless you already have a practical gun.
Haha, no worries on that one. I've got others that could do as well.

I've been thinking about this some more and for the cost of a complete upper or doing all this custom work to my AR I could just buy a Keltec SU-16 and have a gun that's lighter than an AR could ever be, straight out of the box. The more I think about it, the better that option seems. That way I'm not just throwing away a bunch of parts and money on my AR, potentially reducing its effectiveness or reliability.

Thoughts?

BoomieMCT
September 9, 2010, 08:37 PM
I've been thinking about this some more and for the cost of a complete upper or doing all this custom work to my AR I could just buy a Keltec SU-16 and have a gun that's lighter than an AR could ever be, straight out of the box. The more I think about it, the better than option seems. That way I'm not just throwing away a bunch of parts and money on my AR, potentially reducing its effectiveness or reliability.

Thoughts?

Shop around and get one used then. I see used SU-16's all the time (the A and B model mostly, but still). I think they might still have some cheap ones in CDNN too.

David the Gnome
September 9, 2010, 08:52 PM
I'll shop around and see what I can come up with. I like the idea of a hybrid AR/AK-style platform that still takes AR mags. I just wish it had the AR-style bolt release, that is by far my favorite feature of the AR-series rifles.

hsccox
September 10, 2010, 02:29 AM
JSE has a 16 inch flattop with a Cavalry Arms lower that come in under 6 pounds for about $550.....Cavalry Arms lower are being made again.

Volucris
September 10, 2010, 02:39 AM
Do you not have muscle mass or what?

Get a LW upper from Bravo Company USA if you plan on running it hard. Or put the money towards time at a gym with a trainer.

thesheepdog
September 10, 2010, 08:06 AM
Haha, no worries on that one. I've got others that could do as well.

That's the spirit.

My brother in law has the Kel-Tec .223 pistol and it's junk. PMAGs don't even help that thing feed right. Given it was using wolf ammo, but you would think that a weapon based off the AK would feed junk ammo better than most. Well that wasn't the case; my DDM4 was 20 times more reliable than the peice of junk Kel-Tec.

You may have better luck with the SU-16, or you can continue your plan with a lightweight AR, and get your class-III license to put a 12.5 inch barrel on it; Just another thought.

BoomieMCT
September 10, 2010, 08:52 AM
JSE has a 16 inch flattop with a Cavalry Arms lower that come in under 6 pounds for about $550.....Cavalry Arms lower are being made again.

What is "JSE"?

gunmoney
September 10, 2010, 11:28 AM
I'll shop around and see what I can come up with. I like the idea of a hybrid AR/AK-style platform that still takes AR mags. I just wish it had the AR-style bolt release, that is by far my favorite feature of the AR-series rifles.

They are called a Sig 556.

collector rob
September 10, 2010, 02:30 PM
What is "JSE"?

http://www.jsesurplus.com/

BoomieMCT
September 10, 2010, 04:10 PM
What is "JSE"?
http://www.jsesurplus.com/

I must be an idiot because I can't find complete guns there.

EDIT: Just found it, but not the rifle mentioned. Still an idiot.

David the Gnome
September 10, 2010, 04:49 PM
My brother in law has the Kel-Tec .223 pistol and it's junk. PMAGs don't even help that thing feed right. Given it was using wolf ammo, but you would think that a weapon based off the AK would feed junk ammo better than most. Well that wasn't the case; my DDM4 was 20 times more reliable than the peice of junk Kel-Tec.

There's a section in the manual for the SU-16 family of rifles that says specifically not to use Wolf ammo in them. You might want to let your brother in law know, if he still has that gun.

RG Stewart
September 10, 2010, 06:48 PM
I know carbon fiber barrels are popular among .22 custom builds, and a quick web search yielded a AR-15 product by Advanced Barrel Systems...
Maybe somebody has some experience with these.

Bartholomew Roberts
September 10, 2010, 07:34 PM
I know carbon fiber barrels are popular among .22 custom builds, and a quick web search yielded a AR-15 product by Advanced Barrel Systems...
Maybe somebody has some experience with these.

Had two of them personally. Returned both of them for a refund. Lightweight; but 4" groups at 100yds with match ammo was disappointing to say the least.

taliv over at THR has had no functional problems with his ABS barrel; but they did take some of his money and not deliver any product.

Kmar40
September 11, 2010, 10:07 AM
Had two of them personally. Returned both of them for a refund. Lightweight; but 4" groups at 100yds with match ammo was disappointing to say the least.That's would be a target gun for an AK or Mini. :)

Agreed. Hard to get excited about a Keltec.

But I do agree that the muzzle heavy AR's, especially once you start hanging everything in your rucksack on the front of it, doesn't swing well despite the fact that the weight isn't much. A FAL or M14 swings better than some ARs I've handled.

I too have an AR with a 16" pencil barrel. Not a true ultralight. My wife still thinks it's heavy. She's a sailor, what can I say?