Maccabee defence VS SLR coyote

g3ntleBird said:
From BCL on Instagram


Thats a curious thing, reinforce 6061..

How use 6061 as upper ? Within thickening wall ? And why NEA thickening the wall if 6061 do the job ?
Click to expand...

WTF are you talking about? Maybe the steel reinforcing is where the upper and lower bolt together. If they are using steel that's likely how it's going to be used. Do you think they are going to go through the bother of making some steel skeleton, and fit it into the Alloy Lower, or something????? Think production man! They aren't going to use two different materials if one will do.
 
redshooter said:
WTF are you talking about? Maybe the steel reinforcing is where the upper and lower bolt together. If they are using steel that's likely how it's going to be used. Do you think they are going to go through the bother of making some steel skeleton, and fit it into the Alloy Lower, or something????? Think production man! They aren't going to use two different materials if one will do.
Click to expand...

We dont know for know. But "We also steel reinforced the lower receiver which adds strength well beyond 7075"
 
g3ntleBird said:
We dont know for know. But "We also steel reinforced the lower receiver which adds strength well beyond 7075"
Click to expand...

Actually it's a pretty safe bet, think cost. What are they going to do, build a steel cage and then what, cast Aluminum around it. how about machining grooves in the thing and bolting strips of steel all around? The only thing that makes sense is Steel Fasteners, and steel supporting them. You may be a Machinist, but it's pretty clear you're not an Engineer. I saw someone mention NEA used billet Receivers, that would account for the "thickening".

In the end though you keep ignoring one glaring fact 6061 works.
 
redshooter said:
used billet Receivers, that would account for the "thickening".
Click to expand...

Lol wtf ?

Hey men we don't know about this steel reinforcement, calm down with your theory. My question (and you cant answer it for now, like everybody included me) why they have to do that and not MDI.

In the end though you keep ignoring one glaring fact 6061 works.
Click to expand...

Keep in fact you don't answer to my question. How reputed company make 6061 upper and why vast majority of AR have 7075 upper.
 
Last edited:
g3ntleBird said:
Lol wtf ?

Hey men we don't know about this steel reinforcement, calm down with your theory. My question (and you cant answer it for now, like everybody included me) why they have to do that and not MDI.



Keep in fact you don't answer to my question. How reputed company make 6061 upper and why vast majority of AR have 7075 upper.
Click to expand...
MDI also uses "steel reinforcement" by way of a helicoil in the upper receiver for fastening.
g3ntleBird said:
Why NEA had to thickened upper wall ?
Click to expand...
They didn't necessarily have to. Most billet uppers are heavier than forged uppers because the external dimensions have to be machined to size instead of forged. This includes the ATRS (which is 7075). The receivers are squared off instead of round. Obviously contouring the upper receiver to the same profile as a forging would adds considerable time and cost, for minuscule weight savings.

You're clawing at air dude. Literally the original issued rifles were 6061, and if it wasn't for the very specific type of corrosion experienced in Vietnam, chances are they wouldn't have bothered making the change.
 
ThatM305Guy said:
You're clawing at air dude. Literally the original issued rifles were 6061, and if it wasn't for the very specific type of corrosion experienced in Vietnam, chances are they wouldn't have bothered making the change.
Click to expand...
Galvanic corrosion was an issues, but if memory serves me, 7075 is better suited for forging than 6061.
 
I think the problem is he's a recent graduate, or still a student, that or the ESL is getting in the way (not meant to offend, just stating what appears to be obvious).

Maybe we're just being Trolled...

Hey men we don't know about this steel reinforcement, calm down with your theory. My question (and you cant answer it for now, like everybody included me) why they have to do that and not MDI.
Click to expand...

Maybe if you'd spent sometime here reading instead of tossing about your "theory" you'd know that MDI used some Steel (read post #69), I knew this, but BLC hasn't released a whole lot of stuff regarding this collaboration, I actually try not to outreach my knowledge base...that and I was tired and couldn't spell Heil-Coil off the top of my head.

How reputed company make 6061 upper and why vast majority of AR have 7075 upper.
Click to expand...

How about because it works, or the main shareholder makes 6061, or 6061 is a "better" number if your Asian, or if you look closely Thor's Hammer has a shaft of 6061, in the end it works, proven over, and over, and over again since 1935 according to the Net in the industry it was created for, Aerospace.

How about you provide a logical paragraph that can support your argument other than, 7075 is better, why would anyone use 6061...it's not an argument.
We have provided several good reasons, best among them, IT WORKS.

Now provide an actual argument supporting your position or jam up the pie hole...please.
 
Last edited:
ThatM305Guy said:
You're clawing at air dude. Literally the original issued rifles were 6061, and if it wasn't for the very specific type of corrosion experienced in Vietnam, chances are they wouldn't have bothered making the change.
Click to expand...
Stop with the drivel.

The only reason the first XM rifles were 6061 instead of the specified 7075 was cost and corruption, the only reason the bores/chambers were left bare instead of being chrome-lined as specified, was cost and corruption.

Stoner, Sullivan and Fremont designed the rifle and ammunition one way and one way only, it is the Army in all it's Army wisdom, who ####ed it up like it always does. There's a reason the rifle's failures were subject to a congressional hearing in '68, and the Army was found criminally negligent for their decisions to not follow the engineer's designs and secifications.

The sole basis for the 6061 argument is corrupted and cheap Army high-rankers. That's stupid.


Saying 6061 is good enough "because XM rifles were made that way" is the same ingnorance-based statement anybody makes when they say "if it's good enough for the army it's good enough for me".
 
Armedsask said:
7075 better because number bigger.
Click to expand...

I mean, kind of... The mechanical properties of materials are listed in numbers. How else are you going to describe what something is? Engineers specify materials with numbers. Bigger numbers for tensile strengths mean stronger materials. Typically (Not always, but typically) this means better. You can't just dismiss the industry standard of material selection because "numbers mmmkay"

There's more to it than the mechanical properties of the material (Like the application), but the numbers obviously matter, unless you're an idiot. Everyone would be making everything out of plastic if they didn't.
 
Dietz said:
Saying 6061 is good enough "because XM rifles were made that way" is the same ingnorance-based statement anybody makes when they say "if it's good enough for the army it's good enough for me".
Click to expand...

Pretty sure I didn't read that in any of the replies, at least that's not what I understood, what I understood is it works. Pretty much to a person all agree 7075 is better for the application, but as others have asserted, and I agree, 6061 is perfectly adequate for the job. Ford is using Aluminum in their Car Bodies now, it's clearly superior for the application, does that make a GMC garbage, no it doesn't.

I mean, kind of... The mechanical properties of materials are listed in numbers. How else are you going to describe what something is? Engineers specify materials with numbers. Bigger numbers for tensile strengths mean stronger materials. Typically (Not always, but typically) this means better. You can't just dismiss the industry standard of material selection because "numbers mmmkay"
Click to expand...

Absolutely, but no one arguing against the use of 6061 has provided a sound argument for it to not be used in this application. All we're getting from that crew is Bigger Number = Better, completely ignoring that there's more to a Metals properties than outright tensile strength.
 
Dietz said:
Stop with the drivel.

The only reason the first XM rifles were 6061 instead of the specified 7075 was cost and corruption, the only reason the bores/chambers were left bare instead of being chrome-lined as specified, was cost and corruption.

Stoner, Sullivan and Fremont designed the rifle and ammunition one way and one way only, it is the Army in all it's Army wisdom, who ####ed it up like it always does. There's a reason the rifle's failures were subject to a congressional hearing in '68, and the Army was found criminally negligent for their decisions to not follow the engineer's designs and secifications.

The sole basis for the 6061 argument is corrupted and cheap Army high-rankers. That's stupid.


Saying 6061 is good enough "because XM rifles were made that way" is the same ingnorance-based statement anybody makes when they say "if it's good enough for the army it's good enough for me".
Click to expand...

Except for.....it is good enough, which has been proven by practical use for years and years.

No one is saying that 7075 isn't a superior alloy in most ways. We are saying that if, because of that, you believe that 6061 is garbage and shouldn't be trusted or used, then you're verifiably wrong, and a ####ing idiot.
 
Last edited:
Meeen what a joke ahah

It's works !! I don't know why engineer of DD, Colt and other use 7075, 6061 works but i don't know why !! And you compare car body and AR ahah com'n

No i'm not a student, and number of post on CGN is not a diploma dude :)
 
g3ntleBird said:
Meeen what a joke ahah

It's works !! I don't know why engineer of DD, Colt and other use 7075, 6061 works but i don't know why !! And you compare car body and AR ahah com'n

No i'm not a student, and number of post on CGN is not a diploma dude :)
Click to expand...

He was not comparing a truck body to an AR. He was drawing an analogy, saying that just because Ford uses aluminum in truck bodies, doesn't mean that a Chevy truck is now garbage because they dont.

Similarly, just because some ARs are made from 7075, doesn't mean that the ones that are made from 6061 are garbage.

Actually I just realized as well: the corrosion problems with the original M16s were actually a result of the the grain structure left by the forging process. "Intergranular exfoliation".

Meaning that, billet 6061 ARs are not susceptible to the same types of corrosion, and as a result have superior corrosion resistance when compared to 7075. Not that it actually matters, as obviously 7075 has proven more than adequate over the years.
 
Last edited:
Forgive my ignorance but what is the difference between 6061 and 7075? Types of metal I assume? Also what is ATRS?
 
Last edited:
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top Bottom