Magpul MOE Stock question

[DILLIGAF]

So I placed my order for my NEA and I need to order a Magpul MOE Stock

The 2 version are milspec and comercial

What the heck is the difference and witch one will fit the NEA without buying new Tube..

Thanks

by the way this is my 1st AR so keep the flaming to a minimum...

 

[cptseawolf]

Commercial is what you want.

There are just difference in respect to diameter and shape of the tube in mil spec vs commercial. I got my NEA 15 last night and popped on the commercial moe stock I bought no problem

 

[sky52]

Dont buy the MOe stock., you will hate it, it slops around like there is no tomorrow. Spend that extra 30$ and buy the CTR

 

[DILLIGAF]

To late I allready ordered it... I have a tight budget right now with X-mas on the way... I can allways upgrade later on if I dont like it...

 

[matty86suk]

I have the MOE stock on my m14 and cz858, commercial, minor(minor) play, tough as nails, the commercial tube is slightly larger in diameter and the wall thickness is slightly thicker...stronger than mil-spec...YMMV

 

[MWL]

Wrong!

Matty,

You are wrong about the commercial tubes (or Lower Receiver Extensions, to give them their proper name) being stronger just because they are thicker.

They are thicker because they have to be. They are generally extruded from 6061 Aluminum and have the threads cut into them afterwards. As they have to have a specific internal diameter due to the diameter of the spring, buffer and BCG; and a specific external diameter due to the diameter of the threads on the lower receiver, they must be a certain thickness.

"Mil-spec" LRE's are forged from 7075 Aluminum, and don't need to be as thick, but are more expensive to produce.

The same thing goes for AR receivers, when some manufacturers will have you believe that their thicker billet 6061 receivers are stronger than 7075 forged receivers. They are thicker because they have to be, unfortunately, they can not be made thinker in certain areas, and are more prone to failure at these points.

Sorry for the thread hijack, but when people with high post counts post this type of stuff on forums, noobs might actually take it for the truth.

Regards.

Mark

 

[matty86suk]

Most mil spec you'll find on the market (ie magpul) will be made from the same stuff ad the commercial...

 

[otilram]

Dont buy the MOe stock., you will hate it, it slops around like there is no tomorrow. Spend that extra 30$ and buy the CTR

Not all the time. My CTR got more play than my MOE stock.
Both on commercial tubes.

 

[Stevo]

Not all the time. My CTR got more play than my MOE stock.
Both on commercial tubes.

Yep. My CTR isn't that much more solid than a regular carbine stock.

 

[blaxsun]

Mil-spec CTRs are pretty solid; the additional locking mechanism over the MOE certainly helps, too. Even so, you'll always get a tiny amount of play.

 

[MWL]

Magpul Lower Receiver Extensions?

Magpul don't manufacture LRE's, they only produce the stocks. All actual "milspec" LRE's have to be made from forged 7075, as that is what the TDP calls for in order to make them actually "milspec". There may be a couple of 'just as good as' manufacturers out there that call their LRE's "milspec", when they are not.

As for the stocks themselves, if the external dimensions of both commercial and "milspec" stocks are exactly the same (I am assuming this, as I have never heard anyone measure them and say they are different), then as they are made of the same material, the commercial ones will be made thinner in the area around the LRE, and will therefore not be quite as strong.

If someone who has both commercial and "milspec" MOE or CTR stocks (Blaxson?) could measure these with a micrometer, then we would know for sure.

Regards.

Mark

 

[Claven2]

Matty,

You are wrong about the commercial tubes (or Lower Receiver Extensions, to give them their proper name) being stronger just because they are thicker.

They are thicker because they have to be. They are generally extruded from 6061 Aluminum and have the threads cut into them afterwards. As they have to have a specific internal diameter due to the diameter of the spring, buffer and BCG; and a specific external diameter due to the diameter of the threads on the lower receiver, they must be a certain thickness.

"Mil-spec" LRE's are forged from 7075 Aluminum, and don't need to be as thick, but are more expensive to produce.

The same thing goes for AR receivers, when some manufacturers will have you believe that their thicker billet 6061 receivers are stronger than 7075 forged receivers. They are thicker because they have to be, unfortunately, they can not be made thinker in certain areas, and are more prone to failure at these points.

Sorry for the thread hijack, but when people with high post counts post this type of stuff on forums, noobs might actually take it for the truth.

Regards.

Mark

I agree with your point about FORGED receiver extensions. Milspec is built to have better durability and performance in the field. I only use mil spec, but mostly because there are more accessory options for mil spec tubes. Both are fine for paper punching.

WRT billet receivers, you are wrong. There is no measurable advantage in using 7075 over 6061 in a MACHINED BILLET lower. 7075 is much better for a FORGED lower, but these are VERY different processes. You don;t have to believe me if you choose not to, but look up the ALCOA materials sheets for both and compare for yourself. It's really quite obvious.

 

[MWL]

Receiver material and thickness.

If you actually read my post a little more carefully, you will note two things:

1. I never mentioned anything about billet 7075 receivers anywhere. The general consensus is that 6061 billet is probably better than 7075 billet, due to both the material properties of each, as well as the actual process of producing the finished product.

2. I actually wrote pretty much what you stated with regard to 6061 billet versus 7075 forged. Although I did go on to state (and all the available evidence points towards it) a forged 7075 receiver being better than a billet 6061 receiver.

What I was referring to in that paragraph, is the claim by some manufacturers that their billet 6061 receivers (actually usually only the receiver walls) are thicker that 7075 forged receivers, and by implication (although they do sometimes actually state this), they are therefore stronger.

What I meant by this, is that they had to make the billet receivers thicker where ever they could, because billet 6061 has to be thicker than forged 7075. Evidence for this is seen in damage to areas such as the hammer and trigger pin holes, receiver extension attachment point, and front pivot points. There are certain areas where, due to the design, material can not be thicker, and these areas are where failures tend to occur.

Don't forget that a billet receiver is machined from a "solid" block of Aluminum, which may have any number of defects, whereas forging "can produce a piece that is stronger than an equivalent cast or machined part. As the metal is shaped during the forging process, its internal grain deforms to follow the general shape of the part. As a result, the grain is continuous throughout the part, giving rise to a piece with improved strength characteristics."

Regards.

Mark

 

[Claven2]

Mark:

You're quite right about billet receivers. Personally I don't like them and prefer forged when the price is equal. All a lower does is hold fire control bits in pre-determined positions - a lower adds nothing to, say for example, accuracy.

Where billet may matter is in the upper.

 

[MWL]

True.

Yes, with regard to the flexing of the upper when firing, etc. I believe there are some high speed videos showing how the upper flexes when firing. I'm not sure if the different uppers will flex differently enough to cause accuracy issues, and this may have about as much effect as loose upper/lower fit, i.e. none?

With regard to the lower though, I think that there is still some stress put on the hammer and trigger during the firing cycle, and the rotation of the FCG pins. I have heard of, and seen photo's of, damage to the pin holes in the lower, "egging", enlarging, and eventually actually requiring those KNS pins that everyone loves so much. I wonder what the difference in wear rate would be between the two types of lower? Again, probably not enough to matter for most use.

The main thrust of my post was actually aimed at people who claim their overpriced billet receivers are better than forged ones, and use the "it is thicker and must therefore be stronger" line, rather than say it is thicker because it needs to be.

Regards.

Mark

 

[Claven2]

Yes, with regard to the flexing of the upper when firing, etc. I believe there are some high speed videos showing how the upper flexes when firing. I'm not sure if the different uppers will flex differently enough to cause accuracy issues, and this may have about as much effect as loose upper/lower fit, i.e. none?

With regard to the lower though, I think that there is still some stress put on the hammer and trigger during the firing cycle, and the rotation of the FCG pins. I have heard of, and seen photo's of, damage to the pin holes in the lower, "egging", enlarging, and eventually actually requiring those KNS pins that everyone loves so much. I wonder what the difference in wear rate would be between the two types of lower? Again, probably not enough to matter for most use.

The main thrust of my post was actually aimed at people who claim their overpriced billet receivers are better than forged ones, and use the "it is thicker and must therefore be stronger" line, rather than say it is thicker because it needs to be.

Regards.

Mark

In my experience, you get egging primarily in three scenarios:

1) you have an older Oly Arms cast receiver
2) you run a 9mm AR with an un-ramped bolt and have a high round count.
3) You run suppression, particularly combined with FA.

Other than these scenarios, you typically don't get egged pin holes on 5.56 guns.

 

[MWL]

Cast receivers

Didn't DPMS also use cast receivers up until a couple of years ago?

I seem to remember a UK company (SGC) offering cast DPMS receivers as an option when I lived there. It was not that long ago, but it could have been old stock.

Regards.

Mark

 

[Claven2]

That's possible. Either way, I'd never buy a cast AR lower.

 

[Dietz]

Dont buy the MOe stock if you have a commercial tube., you will hate it, it slops around like there is no tomorrow when put on an out of spec commercial receiver extension. Spend that extra 30$ and buy the CTR

MOE's only rattle on out of spec receiver extensions, commercial AND milspec. Wether your RE is in spec or not is YOUR problem, not Magpul's. Mine does, but that's because Armalite's "mil-spec" RE is NOT milspec, both in material and dimentions (I wish Wolverine Supplies had other, real mil-spec tubes in stock).


And please, guys, stop putting out bulls**t like "commercial tubes are stronger than mil-spec tubes because they are thicker", that is 100% incorrect.

Right now the only true mil-spec RE's in Canada are at Arms East (Stag tubes, who are CMT), and LMT when someone magically has them in stock, Questar had them in the past.

 

[Claven2]

Right now the only true mil-spec RE's in Canada are at Arms East (Stag tubes, who are CMT), and LMT when someone magically has them in stock, Questar had them in the past.

The stag RE's are nice and unbeatable in price. In the past I have also imported the Hi-Standard RE's from Brownells - they are also very good mil specs for the cost.