The Firing Line Forums

Go Back   The Firing Line Forums > The Hide > The Art of the Rifle: Semi-automatics

Reply
 
Thread Tools
Old May 27, 2012, 10:10 AM   #26
eldorendo
Senior Member
 
Join Date: May 8, 2012
Posts: 224
Quote:
The extra weight would compare to the extra weight of some of the "bull barrels" out there. Extra strength can't be denied, even if perceived as unnecessary - I sure would want that SS receiver if I were planning on dropping a Lightning Link or RDIAS in it, or even a belt-fed upper. The little bit of extra weight would be a benefit in .308 AR's
It's not just that the "extra strength" is perceived as unnecessary, it ACTUALLY is unnecessary.

The weight of a bull barrel isn't analogous to the weight of a stainless receiver, vs. an aluminum receiver.

Fact is, in my humble opinion, there just isn't any cogent reason to craft an AR receiver out of stainless steel.
eldorendo is offline  
Old May 27, 2012, 11:35 AM   #27
Master Blaster 2
Junior member
 
Join Date: May 29, 2011
Posts: 895
Here get this:
http://www.joeboboutfitters.com/New_...a-stripped.htm
Master Blaster 2 is offline  
Old May 27, 2012, 12:05 PM   #28
Jimro
Senior Member
 
Join Date: October 18, 2006
Posts: 5,441
Quote:
Fact is, in my humble opinion, there just isn't any cogent reason to craft an AR receiver out of stainless steel.
I disagree, when I was pricing out parts for my match rifle I looked long and hard at the stainless steel receiver only because of the added mass. A lot of match rifles tip the scales at double what a normal AR weighs, so every little bit helps.

In the end the difference in mass wasn't enough to overcome the difference in price and I passed.

Jimro
__________________
"Gorsh" said Goofy as secondary explosions racked the beaten zone, "Did I do that?"

http://randomthoughtsandguns.blogspot.com/
Jimro is offline  
Old May 27, 2012, 12:16 PM   #29
RT
Senior Member
 
Join Date: September 9, 2000
Location: San Antonio, TX
Posts: 2,191
Steel is for mall ninjas.
Tier 1 Delta SEAL Recon Operators shoot Titanium ARs
http://nemoarms.com/worlds-titanium-...o-arms-100000/

Derp
RT is offline  
Old May 27, 2012, 03:30 PM   #30
eldorendo
Senior Member
 
Join Date: May 8, 2012
Posts: 224
Quote:
In the end the difference in mass wasn't enough to overcome the difference in price and I passed.
Like I said, a cogent reason! Sounds like you actually DON'T disagree!
eldorendo is offline  
Old May 27, 2012, 03:56 PM   #31
Jimro
Senior Member
 
Join Date: October 18, 2006
Posts: 5,441
Now you are trying to twist my words to agree with you when I clearly wrote "I disagree."

If the cost were the same I would have bought stainless steel in a heartbeat. But the cost for the bare reciever was still two hundred over a complete lower.

I make more money now, so that might not be such a problem, but I'm not in the market to build another match rifle.

Jimro
__________________
"Gorsh" said Goofy as secondary explosions racked the beaten zone, "Did I do that?"

http://randomthoughtsandguns.blogspot.com/
Jimro is offline  
Old May 27, 2012, 04:32 PM   #32
eldorendo
Senior Member
 
Join Date: May 8, 2012
Posts: 224
Was just twisting your words to make a funny, not to challenge your conclusion about ss receivers. I do agree that you made a cogent decision not to spend the extra money for the ss receiver. I'd also assume that you're using a lead stock insert and other methods of increasing weight?
eldorendo is offline  
Old May 27, 2012, 04:40 PM   #33
Jimro
Senior Member
 
Join Date: October 18, 2006
Posts: 5,441
My lead stock insert has been backordered since Custer was a Corporal, so I've been using home made weights that I made by inserting lead bullets into balloons for my buttstock. When I shoot out my current barrel a front lead sleeve will get put under the NM freefloat tube (the barrel sleeve weight is never backordered). Eventually I'll have to figure a way to fill the pistol grip with lead too.

I may not be a good enough shooter to see the difference between a few ounces on the target, but once you add a couple pounds of lead it gets a lot easier to keep the rifle on target (once you get their with NPA).

Jimro
__________________
"Gorsh" said Goofy as secondary explosions racked the beaten zone, "Did I do that?"

http://randomthoughtsandguns.blogspot.com/
Jimro is offline  
Old May 27, 2012, 05:49 PM   #34
zippy13
Senior Member
 
Join Date: August 23, 2008
Location: SoCal
Posts: 6,391
If you've got money to burn, a titanium lower would be way cooler than one in stainless steel. Or, at the other end of the spectrum, why not make one from wood -- how cool would a one-piece lower and butt stock be?
zippy13 is offline  
Old May 27, 2012, 05:54 PM   #35
saands
Senior Member
 
Join Date: November 14, 1999
Posts: 1,551
Plenty of reasons stated not to make the lower out of Stainless ... but I find myself wondering why they wouldn't make one out of a glass filled polymer. You might need an aluminum insert where the buffer tube attaches, but I'm thinking that would be it.

Saands
saands is offline  
Old May 27, 2012, 08:12 PM   #36
Master Blaster 2
Junior member
 
Join Date: May 29, 2011
Posts: 895
See post #27 for link to poly lower reciever.
Master Blaster 2 is offline  
Old May 27, 2012, 11:08 PM   #37
Crosshair
Senior Member
 
Join Date: December 16, 2004
Location: Grand Forks, ND
Posts: 5,320
Quote:
Plenty of reasons stated not to make the lower out of Stainless ... but I find myself wondering why they wouldn't make one out of a glass filled polymer. You might need an aluminum insert where the buffer tube attaches, but I'm thinking that would be it.
They do make them, but from what I hear, they tend to break at the front receiver pin and sometimes have other problems. For whatever reason they don't/can't reenforce that. I can't find the weight figures either, but you don't save that much weight either.
__________________
I don't carry a gun to go looking for trouble, I carry a gun in case trouble finds me.
Crosshair is offline  
Old May 27, 2012, 11:38 PM   #38
saands
Senior Member
 
Join Date: November 14, 1999
Posts: 1,551
I figured post 27 was a link to a SS lower and didn't even follow it.

That is interesting, but I am a little surprised that they didn't do an insert in the buffer tube thread. Anyway, I guess when you can get an aluminum stripped lower for $79, there just isn't much you can do to improve on it price-wise. I got used to buying complete Mausers in nice condition for $39 ... now everything looks SOOO expensive

Saands
saands is offline  
Old May 28, 2012, 11:04 PM   #39
dvdcrr
Senior Member
 
Join Date: July 5, 2010
Posts: 249
the AR is already too heavy for a steel receiver. Stay back from those prairie dogs they carry the plague and can kill you.
dvdcrr is offline  
Old September 6, 2012, 02:08 PM   #40
saleen322
Senior Member
 
Join Date: March 8, 2010
Posts: 282
Stainless lower

When I built mine it was for service matches. The stainless lower put just under a pound on the weight of the rifle plus lead in the butt got the total to around 13 pounds. Also it is where it adds weight, low. This rifle produced my first perfect scores in the rapid fire stages as it did not move under recoil. Besides, back then the bare receiver was under $100 so I thought why not. Still have that rifle and would not part with it.
saleen322 is offline  
Old September 7, 2012, 07:04 AM   #41
madcratebuilder
Senior Member
 
Join Date: November 2, 2007
Location: Northern Orygun
Posts: 4,868
Quote:
Plenty of reasons stated not to make the lower out of Stainless ... but I find myself wondering why they wouldn't make one out of a glass filled polymer. You might need an aluminum insert where the buffer tube attaches, but I'm thinking that would be it.
There is one manufacturer that uses a insert around the RE, not sure if it's NFA or who. The poly lowers save about 8oz in weight

A SS lower would be of benefit on a bench gun with the added weight. I think the cost would hamper sales.
madcratebuilder is offline  
Old September 7, 2012, 08:15 AM   #42
Skans
Senior Member
 
Join Date: November 20, 2008
Posts: 7,685
Just my opinion, but if someone built stainless lower's and uppers for around $200/per, people would buy them - I would particularly like to see them on an AR-10. Plastic is for toys; Aluminum is for beer; Steel is for war.
Skans is offline  
Old September 10, 2012, 09:51 PM   #43
berettaprofessor
Senior Member
 
Join Date: November 23, 2008
Posts: 576
If they were stainless steel, could we still refer to them as EBR's?
berettaprofessor is offline  
Old September 10, 2012, 09:56 PM   #44
SIGSHR
Senior Member
 
Join Date: September 13, 2005
Posts: 3,045
Only reason to make stainless-or even blued steel-receivers and uppers for thr AR-15 would be to entice us members of SNM-Sons of Neanderthal Man-who turn up our noses at aluminum firearms.
SIGSHR is offline  
Old September 10, 2012, 10:59 PM   #45
the rifleer
Senior Member
 
Join Date: March 5, 2008
Location: Sunny California
Posts: 1,252
I want it made out of D2 tool steel, then blued and powder coated, then por15'ed and then gun coated that way I know for sure it will last me when the entire world explodes...
__________________
There is no such thing as a stupid question, only stupid people.
the rifleer is offline  
Old September 10, 2012, 11:11 PM   #46
HiBC
Senior Member
 
Join Date: November 13, 2006
Posts: 3,516
I recall when Brownell's sold them,IIRC,they weighed 12 oz.

Seems like if folks bought them they would still be there.
HiBC is offline  
Old September 11, 2012, 02:41 AM   #47
10-96
Senior Member
 
Join Date: October 19, 2005
Location: Tx Panhandle Territory
Posts: 3,121
Well, yeah, they'd be heavy- and I guess that's a big evil for the run and gun guys- but there's still some of us old farts that do silly things like buy lead weight kits for high power competition rifles.

I personally like a balanced AR in the 8lb to 9lb ballpark. That's the glory of how the AR grew and evolved- the basic meat and taters of the things don't have to only make one group of folks happy.
__________________
Rednecks... Keeping the woods critter-free since March 2, 1836. (TX Independence Day)

I'm going to use the words "clip" and "Long Colt" every chance I get. It grinds my gears to see new members attacked when we all know dang good and well what's being refered to.
10-96 is offline  
Old September 12, 2012, 10:53 PM   #48
481
Senior Member
 
Join Date: April 18, 2011
Posts: 469
Quote:
Originally Posted by Palmetto-Pride:
Why not make it out of platinum so you can really shoot the cost up for no reason........
Besides being very expensive, it'd also be a very heavy receiver, too- at about 8x what an aluminum receiver would weigh.
__________________
My favorite "gun" book -

QUANTITATIVE AMMUNITION SELECTION
481 is offline  
Old September 12, 2012, 10:56 PM   #49
TheSILENTtype
Senior Member
 
Join Date: September 11, 2012
Posts: 139
There are stainless available WHOLESALEing for 369$

however, I would suggest to move past that entirely and come to the world of titanium.
__________________
THE SILENT TYPE

Last edited by TheSILENTtype; September 13, 2012 at 06:50 PM.
TheSILENTtype is offline  
Old September 13, 2012, 06:48 PM   #50
tobnpr
Senior Member
 
Join Date: August 1, 2010
Location: Tampa Bay
Posts: 2,837
I'm sure Red Jacket or Gunsmoke will make them...
tobnpr is offline  
Reply

Thread Tools

Posting Rules
You may not post new threads
You may not post replies
You may not post attachments
You may not edit your posts

BB code is On
Smilies are On
[IMG] code is On
HTML code is Off

Forum Jump


All times are GMT -5. The time now is 09:39 PM.


Powered by vBulletin® Version 3.8.7
Copyright ©2000 - 2014, vBulletin Solutions, Inc.
This site and contents, including all posts, Copyright © 1998-2014 S.W.A.T. Magazine
Copyright Complaints: Please direct DMCA Takedown Notices to the registered agent: thefiringline.com
Contact Us
Page generated in 0.13488 seconds with 7 queries