+- 6.5 Grendel Forum (https://65grendel.com)
+-- Forum: 6.5 GRENDEL DISCUSSION FORUMS (https://65grendel.com/forumdisplay.php?fid=3)
+--- Forum: 6.5 Grendel Build-It-Yourself & Custom Builds (https://65grendel.com/forumdisplay.php?fid=9)
+--- Thread: Upper Receiver???? (/showthread.php?tid=23156)
Pages:
1
2
Upper Receiver???? - JT3 - 04-03-2021
So many manufacturers with prices all over the spectrum. I have bought 3 lowers, all are Anderson Manufacturing. Does it matter what brand of upper I buy? Ive seen prices from $80 to over $200, whats the difference?
Im planning on building 3 pistol length guns with my receivers. Probably going to build 12 and 14 deer hunting weapons in both 6.5 Grendel and 6 ARC.
Upper Receiver???? - BlogSarge - 04-03-2021
Search on snipers hide and look for the thread on thermal fit uppers for listings of the premium upper brands that are tight enough to need thermal fitting. That seems to be the goal for precision builds; having to heat the upper to make the barrel extension slide in. As it cools, it makes a rock solid connection.
Also, some recommend lapping the face of the uppers barrel receiver opening.
I did both thermal fitting and lapping and my 6ARC is averaging .86 moa with factory ammo as of my last outing, which was rounds 50-75 through the barrel.
But, if you are building a close range, minute of deer gun, probably any decent upper will do. You can lap any of them if you choose.
Me, I buy Bravo Company almost exclusively. Either the regular ones or the blemished ones are great. And prices arent too bad at about 90 bucks for blems and 120 for regulars.
Upper Receiver???? - VASCAR2 - 04-03-2021
The BCM receivers get very good reviews and usually need a thermal fit to get the barrel seated. Basically BCM receiver have close tolerances and manufacturing quality. With a forged upper your paying more for name brands and the possibility of tighter control on tolerances. I use a lapping tool on my upper receivers and use blue Permatex to coat the barrel extension when mating it to the receiver. I have used RRA, DPMS, Double Star, PSA, Anderson and CMMG upper receivers. All have been fine but Ive never used any billet receivers.
Some receiver brands have different styling and other than a slab sided DPMS upper receiver on a 22 LR upper all my receivers are mil spec A-4 flat top receivers. Ive mixed different brands of uppers and lowers and have never had a problem. Some times the exterior finish is not an exact match between upper and lower receivers. Exterior finish can differ slightly between examples from the same manufacturer and is not an issue to me.
Upper Receiver???? - Bigs28 - 04-03-2021
Uppers can change price for many reasons. Forged, billet, titanium, magnesium, etc.... for your needs any upper will do.
Upper Receiver???? - PVBoom - 04-03-2021
For your pistols anything will do.
In general, the upper won't matter unless you are spending for quality in the barrel and trigger and are a good shot.
But if you have the money and patience, get BCM/VLTOR/Noveske/JPE for a thermal fit and more accuracy.
Upper Receiver???? - Klem - 04-04-2021
JT,
I agree with the guys.
More a discussion on philosophy but instead of building three guns you could just build one; choose a calibre and put all the money and love into one gun. Or at most two; one of each. Then you have the luxury of not having to count pennies or fix factory issues which are typical of cheaper parts. If you feel the need to glue an upper to a barrel for example, you might have to admit you have a dud to start with.
In a fixed budget, rather than buy an expensive upper and an average barrel I would put all my money into the barrel and whatever is left can buy the cheapest upper and be prepared to square and glue it. Bottom line, the barrel IS the gun.
Upper Receiver???? - Red*Lion - 04-04-2021
Not to veer the thread off topic, but are folks saying that you have to have an upper that you need to thermal fit or otherwise glue and shim to have a secured barrel and accuracy? I'll hang up and listen.
Upper Receiver???? - Bigs28 - 04-05-2021
One of my barrels was loose inside my Alexander arms upper receiver. Would my barrel nut torqued to spec keep it from moving? I didn't think so as i couldn't get less then 2" groups. I took it apart, lapped it, bedded barrel with loctite and then torqued the barrel nut to spec and my groups were instantly cut in half. Everyone might not have the same experience but im convinced and lap and bed everytime now.
Upper Receiver???? - Klem - 04-05-2021
Red*Lion Wrote:Not to veer the thread off topic, but are folks saying that you have to have an upper that you need to thermal fit or otherwise glue and shim to have a secured barrel and accuracy? I'll hang up and listen.
I argue there is more to tight groups than thermal fit however it will certainly help. Help, because the interface between the barrel and scope is equivalent to being seamless, but also companies that concentrate on such tight tolerances tend to be quality manufacturers; focussed on quality, and not necessarily quantity.
Thermal fit is a more recent innovation in the AR industry. There are plenty of tight grouping guns without thermal fits. Mate an Olympic grade stainless barrel with a 7075 billet upper and you can almost guarantee sub MOA without any post-purchase fiddling or thermal.
Upper Receiver???? - BlogSarge - 04-05-2021
For a very loose fit, you can use some thin shim stock wrapped around the barrel extension to make it snug, then do the thermal fit process.
But this is for making precision builds. For close range target shooting and hunting, it probably is not necessary.
Upper Receiver???? - JT3 - 04-08-2021
Thanks everyone, much appreciated.
Upper Receiver???? - JT3 - 04-08-2021
Im probably going to buy Lilja barrels for these guns.
Upper Receiver???? - lazyengineer - 04-08-2021
As far as I can tell, there are basically 3 speeds.
-Basic upper - where there's no difference between a cheap Anderson and more expensive Spikes, or whatever.
-Tight Upper - of which BCM is the best known. It's basically a standard spec upper, but they run their fit such that a 0.999" standard barrel extension is going to be TIGHT. In theory this is more accurate. I don't think it's a bad thing, but once you put 60 ft-lb of torque on the barrel nut, I'm not convinced it's super important. That said, given the choice, I kind of prefer this route (other route is to run a 1.000" barrel extension btw)
-Premium feature. Which tend to be the billet, or otherwise exotic configuration; which has cool personal preference points, but otherwise not functionally any different.
In general, when it comes to recievers, I find your basic Anderson is as good as anyone else, for a lot less cost - and know from a few manufacturers that Anderson tends to OEM their same lowers for some of the boutique brands. Nothing wrong with the Poverty Pony. But again, for near the same price, I hve grown to prefer BCM, for the tighter fit
Upper Receiver???? - A5BLASTER - 04-09-2021
lazyengineer Wrote:As far as I can tell, there are basically 3 speeds.
-Basic upper - where there's no difference between a cheap Anderson and more expensive Spikes, or whatever.
-Tight Upper - of which BCM is the best known. It's basically a standard spec upper, but they run their fit such that a 0.999" standard barrel extension is going to be TIGHT. In theory this is more accurate. I don't think it's a bad thing, but once you put 60 ft-lb of torque on the barrel nut, I'm not convinced it's super important. That said, given the choice, I kind of prefer this route (other route is to run a 1.000" barrel extension btw)
-Premium feature. Which tend to be the billet, or otherwise exotic configuration; which has cool personal preference points, but otherwise not functionally any different.
In general, when it comes to recievers, I find your basic Anderson is as good as anyone else, for a lot less cost - and know from a few manufacturers that Anderson tends to OEM their same lowers for some of the boutique brands. Nothing wrong with the Poverty Pony. But again, for near the same price, I hve grown to prefer BCM, for the tighter fit
60 ft lbs good lord what are you shooting? A howitzer?
Only barrel nut I ever put more then 35 lbs on was one that used a nut that had all the teeth on it to line up the gas tube properly.
All my current guns with free float tubes and non indexing barrel nuts get 35 lbs.
Upper Receiver???? - montana - 04-09-2021
A5BLASTER Wrote:60 ft lbs good lord what are you shooting? A howitzer?
Only barrel nut I ever put more then 35 lbs on was one that used a nut that had all the teeth on it to line up the gas tube properly.
All my current guns with free float tubes and non indexing barrel nuts get 35 lbs.
If memory serves, Bill Alexander recommended 60 ft lbs of torque for his Grendel barrels.
Upper Receiver???? - Klem - 04-09-2021
I think the range 40-80 ft lbs is calculated to be the distance between one tooth and the next on the old 20-tooth barrel nuts. I agree though, not needing to line up the grooves for the tube leaves the imperative to be nice and tight, which is at the lower end or handguard manufacturer recommendations.
Upper Receiver???? - montana - 04-09-2021
Klem Wrote:I think the range 40-80 ft lbs is calculated to be the distance between one tooth and the next on the old 20-tooth barrel nuts. I agree though, not needing to line up the grooves for the tube leaves the imperative to be nice and tight, which is at the lower end or handguard manufacturer recommendations.
I remember the 6.5 Grendel required a higher barrel torque than the 5.56. I'll quote LRRPF52:
Bill A. found that at least 60ft-lbs for the 6.5 Grendel worked best in testing across a wide fleet sample of rifles when he was ironing out all the details back in the days when it was under development.
I use a lot of torque on 6.5 Grendel and AR10s.
They are different animals than 5.56 NATO in many ways.
Upper Receiver???? - A5BLASTER - 04-09-2021
montana Wrote:I remember the 6.5 Grendel required a higher barrel torque than the 5.56. I'll quote LRRPF52:
Bill A. found that at least 60ft-lbs for the 6.5 Grendel worked best in testing across a wide fleet sample of rifles when he was ironing out all the details back in the days when it was under development.
I use a lot of torque on 6.5 Grendel and AR10s.
They are different animals than 5.56 NATO in many ways.
Yes but that is Bill dealing with putting together rack grade rifles for sale and trying too find a moa standard for his guns.
I have seen posted the mil spec is 30 to 90 and I have also seen posted 40 to 80. And that's to find the correct alignment for the gas tube.
With the guns we build and enjoy on this fourm, as long as the barrel nut doesnt need to be aligned for the gas tube. There is zero need too use high lbs of torque. 35 to 45 lbs of torque is more then enough.
Upper Receiver???? - montana - 04-09-2021
A5BLASTER Wrote:Yes but that is Bill dealing with putting together rack grade rifles for sale and trying too find a moa standard for his guns.
I have seen posted the mil spec is 30 to 90 and I have also seen posted 40 to 80. And that's to find the correct alignment for the gas tube.
With the guns we build and enjoy on this fourm, as long as the barrel nut doesnt need to be aligned for the gas tube. There is zero need too use high lbs of torque. 35 to 45 lbs of torque is more then enough.
The Grendel barrel required more torque on the barrel nut, "according to the inventor" compared to the 5.56. Whether this is true or not, I will leave it up to the individual to decide. Most information on the AR platform today is personal opinion based on individual experiences. Opinions vary greatly on all AR subject matters. IMO, "if a persons rifle works and does what they want" then it is a success. I personally have torqued my Grendel barrels higher than my 5.56 barrels, with great success. There is no need to have a high torque value to align a mil spec barrel nut with a gas tube. That is what shims are for.
Upper Receiver???? - lazyengineer - 04-09-2021
All the components are rated and designed for 80+ ft-lb of torque. The more torque, the less likely it is to come apart, and the tighter the parts are squeezed together. Why wouldn't you go to the middle of the span or higher?