AR Sponsor
Posted: 6/17/2015 11:20:14 PM EDT
|
Cross Machine Tool Integrated Lower System - UHP15PDW
*** Click on the link below for ordering info and pricing *** Description: The UHP15PDW Lower receiver features the Integration of a Patent Pending Monolithic adjustable PDW type stock system. This Patent Pending Monolithic stock/lower receiver design is the result of a collaboration between BattleArms Development & Cross Machine Tool. The UHP15PDW lower also includes the Ambi Bolt release & Ambi Mag Release Lever similiar to the UHP15A lower receiver. The Ambi Mag release Lever is designed to work in conjunction with the Standard Mil-Spec Mag catch arm without the requirement of proprietary components for proper function. This mag release lever design provides the user field repair options of the mag catch typically not found with most ambi mag release systems that utilize proprietary mag catch arms. The Ambi Mag Release features a raised fence on 3 sides to protect the mag release from accidental actuation during weapon use. The Bolt release Lever & Mag Release Lever feature aggressive Texturing to ensure proper finger placement & grip during actuation. The ambi bolt release, ambi mag release & buttstock adjustment rods are Black Nitrided for corrosion protection. The Integration of the stock rod system with the lower receiver creates a stonger continuous PDW platform & also allows for the addition of a cheek weld that extends with the buttstock not currently found with bolt on PDW stocks due to the bolt on housing design that extends rearward over the buffer tube. •5 AXIS CNC MACHINED FROM 7075 T6 BILLET •TYPE III CLASS II ANODIZED BLACK •WIRE EDM MAG-WELL PROFILE •.154” DIAMETER REAMED TRIGGER & HAMMER PIN HOLES •MULTI CAL MARKED •INTEGRALLY MACHINED TRIGGER GUARD •3.3oz TUNGSTEN WEIGHTED BUFFER W/SPRING •INDUSTRIES SMOOTHEST WIRE EDM CUT FLARED MAGWELL, COMPATIBLE WITH USGI AND MAGPUL GEN 2/3 MAGAZINES •NO ROLL PINS NEEDED FOR ASSEMBLY •UPPER TENSIONING SCREW •BOLT CATCH ASSEMBLY SCREW •LIFETIME WARRANTY AGAINST MANUFACTURE DEFECTS •AMBI BOLT RELEASE/ HARDWARE •AMBI MAG ARM RELEASE LEVER •PATENENT PENDING INTEGRATED 4 POSITION STOCK WITH 4 INCHES OF PULL •PATENT PENDING PDW STOCK CHEEK WELD •PATENT PENDING PDW INTEGRATED STOCK ROD LINEAR BUSHING GUIDANCE SYSTEM •PATENT PENDING STOCK BALL LOCK MECHANISM •COMPATIBLE WITH STANDARD LOWER PARTS KITS •WEIGHT COMPLETLY ASSEMBLED- 2LBS 4OZ. ( wt. includes standard LPK & grip not included with the UHP15PDW) *** CLICK HERE to take me to the Rainier Arms website *** 
|
|
Quoted:
If it is, I'd like to hear the rationale for the stock design with the extra side rails (other than this looks like a PDW without the extremely short LOP stock). Quoted:
Quoted:
Is that a standard length buffer tube? If it is, I'd like to hear the rationale for the stock design with the extra side rails (other than this looks like a PDW without the extremely short LOP stock). I would like to know this as well. It is kind of like a reverse UBR. 
My question is this; if you are going to engineer and build this from the ground up then why not have a second carbon fiber cheek rest underneath the one that telescopes (or on top of would be even better) so that you can shoot nose to CH (like a UBR) or get a further back cheek weld like this design intends. All it would have taken was a second piece of carbon fiber on top of the tube and then put the existing piece directly on top of it (carbon fiber and can made thin and strong). That way you could have accommodated any shooting style and head positioning instead of just the one that pretty much all stocks excluding the UBR already accommodate . I also think it would have looked more finished that way by covering the otherwise exposed buffer tube too. 
My only other minor gripe is the button head screws at the back of the stock disrupting the otherwise slick and modern looking design. This drives me crazy on high end hand guards too (NSR anyone?). Fix those two things and I think it will be a real winner. That is of course assuming that is has a shorter length buffer tube than standard. Otherwise the whole concept is moot to me. The beauty of the PDW is a shorter LOP. Without that, I don't really see the point. 
|
|
Quoted:
If it is, I'd like to hear the rationale for the stock design with the extra side rails (other than this looks like a PDW without the extremely short LOP stock). Quoted:
Quoted:
Is that a standard length buffer tube? If it is, I'd like to hear the rationale for the stock design with the extra side rails (other than this looks like a PDW without the extremely short LOP stock). Negative, it is shorter. |
|
Freaking cool |
|
Quoted:
Freaking cool Quoted:
Freaking cool Thanks. 
|
|
I really like the way that the stock rails integrate with the receiver. Should make for an extremely strong, compact system.
My only complaints relate to the cheek rest and mostly would have little effect on performance. First, purely subjective, but I hate the look of raw carbon fiber. Easily handled with a rattle can, but you could offer one with a finish that matches the rest of the stock. Second, when extended, the cheek piece appears to angle down slightly. Is that intentional? Lastly, I agree with the poster above who preferred the UBR style cheek rest that allows for a nose to CH rest at all lengths, rather than having it move back. The choice here may have been due to the shorter collapsed length as compared to the UBR, meaning that it is actually a more comfortable position partially extended than fully collapsed. Again, all relatively minor things. Great design overall. |
|
Quoted:
No, it is not. That would be pretty silly. Quoted:
Quoted:
Is that a standard length buffer tube? No, it is not. That would be pretty silly. Ha, I agree, just doesn't look shorter to these eyeballs (though it looks cool as hell). What's the length on it? And are different buffer weights going to be available? |
|
Stickman-would you be so kind as to provide info on that vfg |
|
Quoted:
Ha, I agree, just doesn't look shorter to these eyeballs (though it looks cool as hell). What's the length on it? And are different buffer weights going to be available? Quoted:
Quoted:
Quoted:
Is that a standard length buffer tube? No, it is not. That would be pretty silly. Ha, I agree, just doesn't look shorter to these eyeballs (though it looks cool as hell). What's the length on it? And are different buffer weights going to be available? I'll see if I can get a pic or measurement that shows the difference. Not sure about the buffer weights, that is a good question. I'll see if I can find out. |
|
Quoted:
Stickman-would you be so kind as to provide info on that vfg Quoted:
Stickman-would you be so kind as to provide info on that vfg It is a Silynx VFG. It works the communications systems, lights, and the AN/PEQ15. No need to take hands off the weapon. |
|
Quoted: It is a Silynx VFG. It works the communications systems, lights, and the AN/PEQ15. No need to take hands off the weapon. Quoted: Quoted: Stickman-would you be so kind as to provide info on that vfg It is a Silynx VFG. It works the communications systems, lights, and the AN/PEQ15. No need to take hands off the weapon. |
|
Quoted:
Here is another 11.5". https://40.media.tumblr.com/8613dde9ce5774f1373a89d6efe28148/tumblr_nqb753a86V1rrcg2fo1_1280.jpg I was about to comment on how I liked that the rail covers were coated until I zoomed in and saw that it was your logo. Still totally awesome though! These lowers look great. If I end up building an SBR at some point, this is a nice candidate. The only other lower I'm considering at this point is the BALIOS-lite which isn't nearly as special as this. |
|
Quoted:
I was about to comment on how I liked that the rail covers were coated until I zoomed in and saw that it was your logo. Still totally awesome though! These lowers look great. If I end up building an SBR at some point, this is a nice candidate. The only other lower I'm considering at this point is the BALIOS-lite which isn't nearly as special as this. Quoted:
Quoted:
Here is another 11.5". https://40.media.tumblr.com/8613dde9ce5774f1373a89d6efe28148/tumblr_nqb753a86V1rrcg2fo1_1280.jpg I was about to comment on how I liked that the rail covers were coated until I zoomed in and saw that it was your logo. Still totally awesome though! These lowers look great. If I end up building an SBR at some point, this is a nice candidate. The only other lower I'm considering at this point is the BALIOS-lite which isn't nearly as special as this. Thanks. One of the nice things about this lower is the feel of it. Instead of being an after market part, it was designed and built to be a single piece, and it reflects that in how it feels and handles. The Cross Machine and Tool crew did a nice job with this. |
|
Quoted:
No, it is not. That would be pretty silly. http://40.media.tumblr.com/bf61067446d404c0d7494e4864de1cf0/tumblr_npryd85jly1rrcg2fo1_1280.jpg Quoted:
Quoted:
Is that a standard length buffer tube? No, it is not. That would be pretty silly. http://40.media.tumblr.com/bf61067446d404c0d7494e4864de1cf0/tumblr_npryd85jly1rrcg2fo1_1280.jpg Then does this use a standard bcg? |
|
Quoted:
This isn't just a stock, so it is apples and oranges. Quoted:
Quoted:
How does this compare in length to the MVB industries arc stock? these are exciting time  This isn't just a stock, so it is apples and oranges. I like the look but I would like to know how it compares to other PDW stocks in overall length on the lower (NEA, troy, and MVB). What I asked can be done by comparing the MVB arc stock attached to a lower receiver next to the integrated CMT lower or am I missing something on this one? |
|
Quoted:
I like the look but I would like to know how it compares to other PDW stocks in overall length on the lower (NEA, troy, and MVB). What I asked can be done by comparing the MVB arc stock attached to a lower receiver next to the integrated CMT lower or am I missing something on this one? You could probably go on the websites for those companies and find out. It is still apples and oranges in my mind, but you should be able to Google up some answers that I think may only invite more questions. A stock lower isn't the same as an ambi lower, length of pull may be offset by OAL when you include the receiver, difference in amount of stock positions, amount of propriety parts, and most importantly, reliability of the weapon with the installed components is going to be huge. Those things are not subjective in my eyes, but I can see where they would be to others. I am personally not willing to bash other manufacturers or companies, but to me, reliability is king over everything else. Like I said, apples and oranges, or your question becomes a very loaded one (though I doubt it is intentional). Lastly, your question also assumes that I (or someone else answering) has both stocks, and I know I don't. |
|
Quoted:
Is this OK for California? I assume it is still considered a stripped AR15 rifle lower, correct? It is a single unit which does not contain a fire control group, so my guess would be yes. However, insert typical legal jargon blah blah blah, only CA knows what it's own laws are for that day blah blah, and in their quest to screw their citizens, blah blah, only they can be the final judge. When in doubt, seek legal counsel. Again, personally I think it would be GTG, but your state hates you. 
|
|
Quoted:
Is this OK for California? I assume it is still considered a stripped AR15 rifle lower, correct? Because this has a stock built in, this is legally a "rifle" when sold. The stock is also a collapsible stock, and therefore would be illegal in CA, as it is a rifle that fits the assault weapons definition of CA. |
|
Quoted:
Because this has a stock built in, this is legally a "rifle" when sold. The stock is also a collapsible stock, and therefore would be illegal in CA, as it is a rifle that fits the assault weapons definition of CA. Quoted:
Quoted:
Is this OK for California? I assume it is still considered a stripped AR15 rifle lower, correct? Because this has a stock built in, this is legally a "rifle" when sold. The stock is also a collapsible stock, and therefore would be illegal in CA, as it is a rifle that fits the assault weapons definition of CA. We can have collapsable stocks in CA - it's NY I believe that requires fixed stocks only for rifles. |
|
Quoted:
We can have collapsable stocks in CA - it's NY I believe that requires fixed stocks only for rifles. Quoted:
Quoted:
Quoted:
Is this OK for California? I assume it is still considered a stripped AR15 rifle lower, correct? Because this has a stock built in, this is legally a "rifle" when sold. The stock is also a collapsible stock, and therefore would be illegal in CA, as it is a rifle that fits the assault weapons definition of CA. We can have collapsable stocks in CA - it's NY I believe that requires fixed stocks only for rifles. From the CA DOJ website: 12276.1 (a) Notwithstanding Section 12276, "assault weapon" shall also mean any of the following: A semiautomatic, centerfire rifle that has the capacity to accept a detachable magazine and any one of the following: A pistol grip that protrudes conspicuously beneath the action of the weapon. A thumbhole stock. A folding or telescoping stock. A grenade launcher or flare launcher. A flash suppressor. A forward pistol grip. This would have a pistol grip and a telescoping stock, making it illegal in CA as far as I can tell. I tried to search for updates on CA laws regarding telescoping stocks, and could not find anything. I don't want to derail this thread too much, so PM me if you want to discuss this further. Back on topic, this lower looks like it rocks, and someday I will definitely own one. It looks like the perfect host for a 300BLK short upper with a suppressor. |
AR Sponsor