AR Sponsor
Posted: 5/31/2012 8:35:15 PM EDT
|
Ran a couple searches and came up empty handed. I've read good things and bad things in the past about Bushmasters but I've never owned one. I'm wondering how these hold up? Mainly, how durable are the "carbon 15" receivers, are there any known issues with late-model Bushmaster rifles I should know about? I'd ditch the optic that comes with it and install a MI SS rail to run MBUS (I'm aware that I'll have to modify the gas block to do this), so I don't care about the quality of the red dot. I'm looking at buying one mainly for a hiking/backpack gun, with occasional range use. It won't be used heavily - but with that said, I like to buy all my firearms knowing they could be used heavily if needed.
Oh, and what exactly are the receivers made of? Is it carbon fiber or polymer or what? Thanks in advance for any replies. |
|
They're made out of injection molded polymer. The upper won't accept a standard barrel nut, so you won't be installing an MI rail. Heavy use has a pretty decent potential to snap the receiver, usually the lower below the buffer tube ring or the upper right behind the barrel nut. Also, if you torque the barrel nut much tighter than hand tight you'll strip the threads on it. Personally if you want a lightweight rifle, I'd find a CavArms lower and mate it up with a lightweight upper. |
|
Quoted:
They're made out of injection molded polymer. The upper won't accept a standard barrel nut, so you won't be installing an MI rail. Heavy use has a pretty decent potential to snap the receiver, usually the lower below the buffer tube ring or the upper right behind the barrel nut. Also, if you torque the barrel nut much tighter than hand tight you'll strip the threads on it. Personally if you want a lightweight rifle, I'd find a CavArms lower and mate it up with a lightweight upper. Thanks for the quick reply! Looks like the Bushy is out, sounds like a POS as I feared. CavArms lowers are hard to find nowadays and I've heard not so great things about them also. I've definitely considered building my own again, but builds have a tendency to get real pricey real fast. 
|
|
Quoted: CavArms are generally good to go. Problem is they currently have no factory support. A company did buy them out, but they haven't released their version yet. The ARFCom store does still have some of them in stock.Quoted: They're made out of injection molded polymer. The upper won't accept a standard barrel nut, so you won't be installing an MI rail. Heavy use has a pretty decent potential to snap the receiver, usually the lower below the buffer tube ring or the upper right behind the barrel nut. Also, if you torque the barrel nut much tighter than hand tight you'll strip the threads on it. Personally if you want a lightweight rifle, I'd find a CavArms lower and mate it up with a lightweight upper. Thanks for the quick reply! Looks like the Bushy is out, sounds like a POS as I feared. CavArms lowers are hard to find nowadays and I've heard not so great things about them also. I've definitely considered building my own again, but builds have a tendency to get real pricey real fast. |
|
Quoted: Quoted: CavArms are generally good to go. Problem is they currently have no factory support. A company did buy them out, but they haven't released their version yet. The ARFCom store does still have some of them in stock.Quoted: They're made out of injection molded polymer. The upper won't accept a standard barrel nut, so you won't be installing an MI rail. Heavy use has a pretty decent potential to snap the receiver, usually the lower below the buffer tube ring or the upper right behind the barrel nut. Also, if you torque the barrel nut much tighter than hand tight you'll strip the threads on it. Personally if you want a lightweight rifle, I'd find a CavArms lower and mate it up with a lightweight upper. Thanks for the quick reply! Looks like the Bushy is out, sounds like a POS as I feared. CavArms lowers are hard to find nowadays and I've heard not so great things about them also. I've definitely considered building my own again, but builds have a tendency to get real pricey real fast. +1 I have a couple of them. One of those lowers has thousands of rounds through it with no problems. |
|
Here's another idea that some will still complain about...check out the New Frontier Armory lowers. They are polymer lowers complete with LPK, stock, buffer, spring, etc for $99.
I picked one up for the hell of it to throw on an extra upper I had laying around. They are not bad and I just had it out to the range this week without complaint. |
|
Quoted:
Here's another idea that some will still complain about...check out the New Frontier Armory lowers. They are polymer lowers complete with LPK, stock, buffer, spring, etc for $99. I picked one up for the hell of it to throw on an extra upper I had laying around. They are not bad and I just had it out to the range this week without complaint. Check the thread on those. Guy managed to break 2 or 3 of those inside of a few weeks. Better than a carbon 15, but not much. |
|
this you can build one under 6lbs without going to plastic or carbon fiber, mine weighs in right in at 6lbs without a mag and has a vltor imod stock. With standard crap you can pull off 5lbs 10oz or less rather easily.
Quoted:
With some thoughtful component selection you can build a quality lightweight AR without resorting to plastic receivers.  |
|
This may be a matter of semantics. Bushmaster made a standard upper with what they called the super light barrel. It was not polymer. They even made a run of them in 1/7 twist. Those uppers / barrels were really pretty nice. A lot of people used those for the basis of an IDF build. They also made a complete rifle called the super light, again with a standard lower that was not polymer. |
|
Quoted:
With some thoughtful component selection you can build a quality lightweight AR without resorting to plastic receivers. I built my wife a 16" AR that she thought was too heavy. The first thought that entered my mind was "She needs a SBR....". Why is this 'thought' almost always overlooked when people want to go lightweight? Other than the potential for a state not allowing SBRs, I just don't get it. On the polymer receivers, the recurring theme that I see is that they can be offered at a much lower cost than an aluminum one. I don't think that 'lightweight' is the main intended goal with them. I think in a few years there will likely be a polymer offering that could rival aluminum, but it isn't here yet. I have some experience with the NFA lowers and see them as a good value, but would not use one as-is for my 'go-to' rig. I see them as an economic way to get into an AR and get a quick home for that extra upper, but not for serious use as they come from the factory. I'm waiting for Glock to come out with one that will accept their mags. I will build a 9mm AR then  FYI I'm not holding my breath....
|
| That's what I remember as well, the superlight was a pencil barrel on an aluminum receiver and the carbon 15 was a poly upper & lower with an M4 profile barrel. Never understood why they didn't put the pencil barrel on the carbon 15. I've got a poly lower and I haven't had any issues with it, but if you're looking for a lightweight setup there's more weight to be saved in the upper than the lower. I like my poly lower cause it was cheap, but in the long run aluminum will last longer, and I don't remember the carbon 15s being cheap. |
|
working on one for the wife right now here are the weight totals so far. I got some more work to do. It is a metal lower.
part oz barrl30 up rec8.65 hand guard4.4 charg0.9 stock ass17 grip2 gas tube0.6 delta0.5 bolt 11.3 barrel nut2 lower w/ par12.6 totals oz89.95 lbs5.621875 |
AR Sponsor