Is there a need for more Cdn made AR parts?

Another version. Different Maple Leaf.

AT15billet8.jpg


This one has the Greek version of ΜΟΛΩΝ ΛΑΒΕ.

AT15billet9.jpg
 
Last edited:
I would love a Made In Canada AR, a lower will do. Though I will take one minus the "firepower" markings, pretty silly given we aren't allowed a fun switch.
 
Rutger said:
Well good luck, I look forwards to buying one when they are ready.

To the metallurgy question, again I am not an AR specialist, I am actually quite ignorant on the specifics of the gas-block design. If no-one does it with cast 6061-T6, then it obviously is not necessary.

What sort of finish? Anodized Black?

guess I should I start collecting uppers, stocks and furniture.
Click to expand...


Milspec hard anodizing, black is standard I am looking into other colors as well as any potential charges for different colors.
Alot will depend on the numbers. Getting a batch done is less costly per part than a single will be.
 
Before we get into the 1000 designs that we had with the CGN lower... Can we just get one... Rick if you open a pandoras box and have 1000 submissions you will have 1000 different submissions.. put your foot down at some point..
 
bear.23 said:
Before we get into the 1000 designs that we had with the CGN lower... Can we just get one... Rick if you open a pandoras box and have 1000 submissions you will have 1000 different submissions.. put your foot down at some point..
Click to expand...

I agree
To make minor alterations in a program for engraving is 1 thing.
The sample product and major marking data has been submitted and apporved by the CFC, so things like serial number prefix and manufacturer info can not be altered unless we do a Gen 2 thing, which at this time not even having Gen 1 built would be a nightmare.
Getting different colors of anodizing is not a real big deal.
Some secondary markings in places not already designated as being used for the mandatory marking in also not a huge issue.

There may be problems with use of the leaf that the DND has put on their C7s , I really don't know but do not want any issues with unauthorized use of anyones logo.


The right side of the mag well has been the area submitted for our required markings , the only thing that can be altered here is the last part of the serial number, the left side is where any other engraving may be done.

As for anodizing the spec is Type 111 HCA

What colors are available and any additional costs over the black I was quoted on, I will look into and advise.
 
Milspec is to use 6061 aluminum which is much softer and has no where near the tensile strength of 7075. I would think that if this was a concern someone in the AR building business would have brought the defect to the attention of the masses sometime over the last nearly 40 years that these guns have been in use.
Click to expand...
Understand I am not an AR15 oracle, so if anyone has info on this, now would be a great time to bring it up.
Click to expand...
I'm no oracle either, but I have some knowledge in these matters and can respond to your request to correct some errors.

Milspec is 7075-T6 Forging, not 6061. I believe all the lowers on the market in Canada are 7075 (definitely DPMS/Colt/Stag/Armalite/LMT/RRA/Bushmaster anyway).

Billet aluminums quality is vastly superior to castings or forgings, air pockets or inclusions in billet material is virtually unheard of. The reason I am using 7075-T651 is that it is considerably more structural than the cheaper alloys commonly used.
Click to expand...
Cheaper alloys are not commonly used in AR15s, 7075 is the common alloy. To the issues listed (air pockets/inclusions), I think you are confusing castings with forgings, these are/were potential issues with cast parts, not forged parts. Forged aluminum parts are inherently stronger than machined billet aluminum parts of similar grade aluminum.

Some good threads on ar15.com and elsewhere which expand on the this if you'd like to read more.

http://www.ar15.com/forums/topic.html?b=3&f=4&t=408089

All the best,
DT

PS: Nice looking lower!
 
Last edited:
Yes we need you to produce this!

I would like to see a picture of the "standard" version.
No goofy markings. :)

Do you plan a simple fire selector with just "Safe" and "Fire" and
markings on the receiver with just the company info?

I don't want zombies or Molon Labe on my rifle.
 
alberta tactical rifle said:
I agree
The sample product and major marking data has been submitted and apporved by the CFC, so things like serial number prefix and manufacturer info can not be altered unless we do a Gen 2...

The right side of the mag well has been the area submitted for our required markings , the only thing that can be altered here is the last part of the serial number, the left side is where any other engraving may be done.
Click to expand...

So something more like this is what we could have? I'm 90% for going for one, I would like to know what custom engraving is possible before commiting.

AT15billet10.jpg
 
Smoothbore you can pick. Back a few pages there is a number of ire control markings and you can pick which one you want. If you want aftermarket engravings like a zombie or writing, that is extra and has to be specified.
 
Smoothbore said:
Yes we need you to produce this!

I would like to see a picture of the "standard" version.
No goofy markings. :)

Do you plan a simple fire selector with just "Safe" and "Fire" and
markings on the receiver with just the company info?

I don't want zombies or Molon Labe on my rifle.
Click to expand...

Yes there will be 2 actual lower versions.
1 that is the standard mil type lower with the open trigger gard that has assorted different pin in place bows, like this sample

AT15lowerPics001.jpg


the other option is the "enhanced " trigger gard lower shown in other parts of the thread.

We can mark the firecontrol (safety) with simple "Safe" and "Fire" as well as a number of other options. The plan is to mark both sides around the safety for ambi use, but again this could be an option.
The zombie thing is not everyones bag
 
dangertree said:
I'm no oracle either, but I have some knowledge in these matters and can respond to your request to correct some errors.

Milspec is 7075-T6 Forging, not 6061. I believe all the lowers on the market in Canada are 7075 (definitely DPMS/Colt/Stag/Armalite/LMT/RRA/Bushmaster anyway).

Cheaper alloys are not commonly used in AR15s, 7075 is the common alloy. To the issues listed (air pockets/inclusions), I think you are confusing castings with forgings, these are/were potential issues with cast parts, not forged parts. Forged aluminum parts are inherently stronger than machined billet aluminum parts of similar grade aluminum.

Some good threads on ar15.com and elsewhere which expand on the this if you'd like to read more.

http://www.ar15.com/forums/topic.html?b=3&f=4&t=408089

All the best,
DT

PS: Nice looking lower!
Click to expand...

Good info Thanks for the help.
 
dangertree said:
Forged aluminum parts are inherently stronger than machined billet aluminum parts of similar grade aluminum.
Click to expand...
That's only correct when the "grain flow pattern is oriented in the optimal direction", and for certain alloys. TRG-42 did a nice job on this here.

The arfcom link is interesting, but TRG-42 has a more educated approach to the issue.

I'm happy with either type of build; the end result is strong enough forged or billet. Billet may retain its dimensions a bit better because of less residual stress, but it hardly matters on an AR platform.

Looking forward to my AT-15 lower in the early new year.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top Bottom