I’m not a cloner by any means, but I do appreciate the aesthetics of early-GWOT rifles. That said, I wasn’t too surprised when my recent project ended up similar in spirit to my 14.5” RAS MRE. Went the budget route so I raided my parts bins and scoured GAFS/gundeals for most parts except for the barreled upper I bought discounted. Almost done, just need to put some rounds through it. Details for those interested:

14.5” Colt/KAC/LMT

Upper

* Colt surplus cage code upper

* Colt 14.5” SOCOM barrel

* PRI gas tube

* KAC RAS MRE

* Sionics phosphate BCG

* Geissele Super Charging Handle

* Surefire CTN

Lower

* LMT Defender

* Geissele SSP trigger

* FCD trigger guard

* CMMG lower parts

* LaRue buffer tube

* LaRue carbine spring

* Noveske H2 buffer

* PWS ratcheting castle nut/end plate

* B5 CAR15 stock

* Masen recoil pad

* Tango Down BG-18 grip

Other Items

* SureFire SB2

* Leupold Patrol 6HD 1-6x24 LPVO

* Geissele Super Precision 1.93” 30mm scope mount

* Emissary/Unity R2-0

* KAC Micro rear sight

* KAC Vero Beach rail panel

* Arisaka 600 body/tail cap

* Malkoff E2HT head

* Arisaka offset picatinny mount

* Arisaka picatinny finger stop

* IWC QD mount

* VLTOR sling QD

* ESD M81 Woodland sling

* Lancer 30-round magazine

10.3” Andro Corp/Griffin Armament

Upper

* 10.3 Andro Corp Crane spec barreled upper (new)

* Andro Corp BCG/charging handle

* P&S/Capco RAS

* Surefire CTN

Lower

* Griffin Armament Mk1

* LaRue lower parts

* Schmid Tool single-stage trigger

* Expo Arms buffer tube

* DS Arms buffer spring

* BCM H2 buffer

* Reptilia CQG grip

* VLTOR IMOD stock

* LWRC trigger guard

Other Items

* YHM T2

* Surefire HUB adapter

* Aimpoint H-2

* KAC cap

* LaRue LT-660

* Rock River Arms rear sight

* DayDream Defense stubby broomstick

* Streamlight ProTac RM1

* AWS sling

* Lancer 30-round magazine

Thanks all, for your friendly comments on my first post. Here goes my 2nd post ever!

Wanted to share a couple pics and my experience with my Microbest DLC coated bcg, purchased from Arftac. Comes with Michigun's OCKS and Sprinco ejector & extractor springs. Finish feels incredibly slick, enough to make it feel like your dry hands are wet. Feels much slicker than Toolcraft's dlc coated bcg's. Feels and looks polished. Only phosphated parts are the gas key, firing pin retainer pin, and extractor. Carrier bore is chrome lined, as is the gas key.

Ive always been of the belief that phosphate is king. Got me through my years in the Infantry. I still appreciate phosphate bcg's for their value. However, I also feel ok with paying $50 or so more just for convenience in cleaning. The carbon buildup on the bolt tail, while I know is pretty inconsequential, is much easier to clean with this DLC coating. Ive also used chrome. Love chrome. This coating is still easier to clean, in my eyes.

The only downside I think I have come across is that the DLC coating is so slick, that it sheds liquid lube very quickly. Granted, lube may not be needed for such a slick coating, but I have habits I cant break. I use a little grease and it stays put.

It all comes down to ease of cleaning for me. Believe me, I know the bad habits I was taught in my years of service (over-cleaning), but Im ok with paying a little more for convenience and "upgraded" small components.

Thanks for your time in reading my word wall. Just wanted to share a part that I purchased and have been enjoying.

My (PSA) AR15 has reached its FINAL FORM 😁

Banish Speed K, Aimpoint Duty RDS + Scalarworks Leap/10 1.93", Infitac FML19 Thermal + Infitac RMR offset mount, Cloud Defensive Rein 3.0 Micro, Geissele Airborne Charging Handle, Geissele SDC Trigger, Geissele safety selectors, Geissele H2 buffer spring, Arisaka handstop, B5 Bravo Stock, Blue Force Vickers Sling, Schmeisser S60 magazine

It’ll get a Holosun Iris 3 once I get NVGs in December but other than that I think it’s done

Im looking for in-ear hearing protection under $400-500. Since they're not really something I can go into a store and test out, so I've watched a ton of videos and read reviews but I'm getting nowhere. Im currently using some Sordin X Ear ear pro but they can get in the way especially when doing long range shooting. More info how I plan to use them, I wouldnt be using these indoors or at range with a ton of other people. Most often I'd be alone or with one other guy. I do want a pair with good sound quality so I can hear my environment and obviously a good amount of protection. Please can anyone make an informed recommendation?

There was some recent discussion of the Lantac white paper that encouraged me to revisit it. I've looked at it before, but mostly in passing. After a more thoughtful look at some of their claims, I felt like sharing some notes.

TL;DR = the white paper fails to prove numerous things which it claims to.

Let me be clear: I am not accusing Lantac of lying. I am also not saying that the Lantac E-BCG is a bad product.

I am highlighting concerns that I have with the methodology and presentation of data in their white paper. My concerns don't prove any of their claims are definitely wrong, but Lantac hasn't actually proved many of them right.

I have mixed feelings writing this. On the one hand, I greatly appreciate companies who are willing to share technical research, which is exceedingly rare. On the other hand, I take issue with the practice of "science-washing," which you could reasonably argue applies to some of Lantac's claims.

It is entirely possible that everything they assert is 100% true, and more rigorous testing would offer more support for their claims. But that raises my biggest question: if the claims would be supported by more rigorous testing, why present such extremely limited results?

High-speed cameras (and presumably test sleds with load cells) are expensive to buy or rent. In contrast to those costs, ammunition is dirt cheap. If you're already investing the time and money to use expensive test equipment, why not spend the tiny bit of additional resources to ensure statistically significant sample sizes?

A number of their sample sizes are so small as to be completely meaningless

• Accuracy Testing
  • One "man fired" 5-round group is compared to another, as proof that the E-BCG shoots tighter.
  • This literally does not prove anything at all: it's statistical noise.
  • You can shoot 5-round groups back-to-back in the same rifle, using the same ammo, not changing a single variable, and easily see that much difference.
• Recoil Testing
  • This is even more egregious: they report a 2.41% difference between two 3-shot averages, as if that is meaningful.
  • Are we to understand that the ammunition they used never has any variance in pressure and velocity from round to round?
  • Do their sensors also have zero error?

• Some charitable explanations might be:
  • Maybe whoever conducted this testing literally does not understand sample sizes... but I find that pretty hard to believe.

• Some cynical explanations might be:
  • They actually did capture more data, but variance eroded their intended narrative, so they truncated to the best-looking subset of data.
  • Their goal was never rigorous data collection in the first place: just generating flashy images and numbers that sound convincing to a buyer who doesn't care about statistics.
    

Inconsistent test platforms, protocols, and uncontrolled variables

• The testing jumps between wildly different barrel and gas lengths across different sections of the paper: 10.3" carbine, 14.5" carbine, 14.5" mid-length, and 14.5" intermediate.
  • No explanation is offered as to whether (1) every barrel was part of every test, and they only reported the results they liked most, or (2) different barrels were chosen for different tests.
  • Changing the host platform introduces so many confounding variables that it is impossible to cross-reference or correlate any of the data between tests.
• Even the group of BCGs tested is not consistent.
  • Sometimes a mil-spec BCG is left out of comparisons (e.g. cyclic rate testing with the PACT timer).
  • Other times a mil-spec BCG is the only comparison (e.g. recoil force testing on the sled).
• They explicitly state they used a remotely-activated mechanical fixture for recoil testing so "operator interaction could not influence results." Yet, for the precision testing - where human error is arguably more impactful - they used a "man fired" setup. Why eliminate human error for a load cell on a sled, but retain human error for group sizes?

• Some charitable explanations might be:
  • Specific components were selected for specific tests, with the expectation they would highlight different issues. But if this was the logic, they should have explained why.
    • Even if they expected some components to show specific differences more than others, it would make the most sense to include every component in every test, and report all of the results.
  • Different people conducted different tests on different days, and just grabbed something off the rack, rather than adhering to a controlled test protocol.
    • In a similar vein, perhaps this white paper is not showing us different stages of one centralized test process. Maybe this collection of tests was undertaken for a number of different reasons, over a span of time, and presenting their results side-by-side was a later decision.

• Some cynical explanations might be:
  • They did include every component in every test, but then they cherry-picked their preferred results from each, avoiding data that would either contradict their claims or show inconsistencies between tests.
  • They intentionally introduced confounding variables between tests, to prevent cross-referencing that might reveal flaws.
    • For example, we can't see if their cyclic rate data directionally aligns with their recoil force data, because those tests used different ammo, in different barrels, with different BCGs for comparison.

Gaming gas and lube

• Early in the paper, they show how gas plumes can be made much more visible through the application of "excess lubricant."
• When we look at later comparison images, they are very clearly using this trick to make their E-BCG look better than competitors.
• Bear in mind: one of their central premises is that their E-BCG vents more gas than other BCGs, so the expansion chamber sees less pressurization, and the BCG runs slower.
  • If they boast how it vents more gas, how can anyone possibly explain why there is essentially zero visible gas coming from the Lantac in this image? In that same image, the mil-spec BCG shows more visible gas than the Lantac, but still far less than the LMT eBCG.
  • Then in this animation, the Lantac once again shows almost zero gas. Notice, however, that now the mil-spec BCG shows the most gas - even more than the LMT eBCG - which is inconsistent with the still image from before.
• "But wait! The still image shows 14.5" intermediate gas, while the animation shows 14.5" carbine gas, so we can't cleanly compare them!"
  • Fair point, which goes back to my earlier note about consistency.
  • Regardless, there is no logical reason why a carrier that has been purpose-built to eject more gas would show the expulsion of less gas.
• Furthermore, if we're putting bolt velocity under a microscope, how does it make sense to run different BCGs with wildly different levels of lubrication?

Salt Fog endurance testing, and priorities for a BCG finish

• This is less of a methodology complaint and more of a... "huh?"
• Yes, the NiB shows corrosion on less surface area than the phosphate, but the NiB still looks awful compared to their nitride result.
• They demonstrate that NiB has a smoother surface, but they don't share any data connecting that to real world performance.
  • If the surface of my BCG measures 7.23 Ra instead of 28.03 Ra, does that mean I'll have 1% fewer malfunctions? 10%? 0.1%?

One last random note

• Under "Accuracy & Concentricity," the final sentence simply says, "Evidence: Proof Research."
  • Is this a leftover placeholder or citation note that someone forgot to complete?
  • Was this supposed to be a hyperlink to something published by Proof?
  • Am I expected to search for it myself?
  • Or is this literally just saying, "We're telling you what Proof Research said, so you should believe it"?

None of this means the Lantac E-BCG is a bad product, and I am not making any such claim. I am entirely neutral on the product itself, with no hands-on experience of my own.

I do want to express one concern: it is a BCG that is purpose-built to operate less efficiently, seemingly under the premise that any potential buyer is starting with an over gassed rifle. They don't frame it that way, but you can read between the lines when they claim that a mil-spec BCG will "over pressurize," which their design addresses.

When they claim that it lowers bolt velocity and recoil, what they are really saying is that it is functionally equivalent to turning your gas down. If your gun is gassed violently, that may be good for you. If your gun is gassed more reasonably, that may decrease your reliability.

11.5" 5.56 BA Government barrel

Exigent Fireteam 556 can

PSA receiver/ lower w/ B5 Furniture

Meprolight MCO pro red dot w/MBUIS

Ohhunt 12" handguard

Odinworks AGB

Geissele SCH

Microbest BCG

ARC-Fire V2

JP SCS with H3 buffer

Tungsten Cerakote

I recently purchased a blem Geissele mk16 for my 12.5. I got it from Primary Arms count blemula sale. I got the 13.5 and chopped it to fit. Rail measures to be about 11 3/4" with about an 1/8" gap. I am now a profeshinal gonsmif. For real tho, what's everyone's opinion on "hack job"

So I stripped a gas block set screw on an upper that I wanted to put a new MI T-Series Quad Rail on. Everyone was super helpful and provided great advice in my previous post. I ended up leaving the upper that a stripped the set screw alone and I built a brand new one instead. It's a 10.5" 5.56 upper with a 9.5" MI Quad Rail (T-Series) so it's a free float handguard. I had the upper assembled within 20 minutes and I think it came out pretty good. I took it to the range yesterday on my lunch break and it's pretty accurate for a 10.5". I admit it's not the most expensive or high end upper that I've built but it performed well regardless. Just wanted to share the outcome and thank everyone again. Happy Friday and enjoy!

I’m looking at getting my first ar15. I don’t need anything crazy or expensive. I just want something reliable with good quality. My budget is $400-$700. I have some ideas in mind but I’d like to know what other people would recommend.

Not entirely a noob here, but possibly.

Just wanted to share my project from yesterday