Listen guys the round goes bang in the chamber and the part of the upper in contact with the barrel is the same as a mil spec upper (barrel extension and upper threads and barrel nut). As Tedward has tried to explain all the upper does is allow the bolt to move smoothly in and out of chamber and attaches the lower to the upper. We make ambidextrous charge and right eject but most users set it up with left charge right eject. Our best seller is the ambidextrous charge ambidextrous eject which was first shown as a different model by Quality Arms at the 2011 shot show with upward automatic ejection port doors using a standard unmodified bolt carrier, which according to one manufacturer of left handed guns was imposable. Ours and Spirit Arms are the only uppers made as side chargers at this time others mentioned are modified rear charge uppers with the rear charging handle still in place as an after thought or no longer made. Our bolt carrier without the forward assist serrations, the cut out to open the door and made to fit our upper and is not a standard carrier drilled and tapped to accept a side charging handle. We make side charge ambidextrous rifles from 17 Remington to 50 Beowulf that's right all are available with left bolts for left eject. Now we have the original ambidextrous eject upper with approx 13500 rounds through it and should anybody want to test it then please contact us and lets make arrangements to get it in your hands. Why not watch the short video on http://www.qualityarms.net/ as we explain the ambidextrous upper. I know i would rather have .25 thick billet aluminum upper than the standard forged upper used also with Beowulf.
I would buy it for that price. I would get it and change out the trigger though. But for all the products it's a good value.
Let us know if you like the bolt release setup after u shoot it. I'm thinking it may get in the way.... But I don't have one, so let me know, if you will
Posts: 1,717
Threads: 60
Joined: Feb 2013
sureshot Wrote:Let us know if you like the bolt release setup after u shoot it. I'm thinking it may get in the way.... But I don't have one, so let me know, if you will
If your talking to Ridgerider, he has used them from day one, do you get it, he makes them. Buy one and tell us about it.
Posts: 590
Threads: 52
Joined: Mar 2013
Ridgerider,
I'm in no way bagging on the product. As I mentioned I'm tempted to get a left side charger for my Grendel. I still might in the future, I just can't afford to make the switch right now. I have so much other stuff to buy for this build right now.
As far as billet vs forged, absolutely the billet upper is stonger, but not because the material properties of the billet are better than forged, because they aren't. The billet uppers are stonger because they are beefier. I agree with you, I would prefer the beefier billet upper/lowers as well. My point in the earlier post was that the billet material is not stronger than a forged, but the billet uppers are stonger because of their beefiness.
My only concern with the large amount of material removed on a left hand side charger is that you remove a lot of "meat" where load is typically transferred through.
There is no doubt though, that a left hand side charger can easily handle the forward and back motion of the carrier. There is probably insignificant side load caused from this. My only concern is from the barrel whip action. I understand the area where the barrel is attached is per mil-spec and probably even better. However, the whipping action of the barrel puts load into the front of the upper and that load does travel towards the back of the upper. Now how much load, probably not a ton and the margin of safety is probably plenty. Also with the beefier front end of the upper, it should have to transfer less load to the back than a forged, mil-spec upper.
I just brought it up because it is a lot of removed material and that just catches my eye as an engineer. Please don't get me wrong, it just a conversation on my part and I didn't intend it to be a knock on any of the products out there. I'm not criticizing your product at all. It's actually very cool and I appreciate the market place being creative and innovative in making a better machine. Keep up the good work.
Like I said I would probably buy one right now if I wasn't on a budget.
Posts: 590
Threads: 43
Joined: Mar 2013
Did somebody say group buy.........
keystone183 Wrote:Did somebody say group buy.........
NO DAMMIT. A group buy now that I finally got my side-charge upper? Salt in the wound, man.
Does it matter if the upper has or does not have Feed ramps if your barrel has them?
From what I recall, the Mega or AA does not have them.
Posts: 590
Threads: 52
Joined: Mar 2013
Group Buy Group Buy Group Buy!!
I think Ridgerider just needs to send me a left side charge upper so I can take a good look at and do some stress analysis on it. By "stress analysis" I mean break in my barrel and sight it in. Haha!
Posts: 590
Threads: 52
Joined: Mar 2013
11-26-2013, 10:00 PM
(This post was last modified: 11-26-2013, 10:10 PM by Keep The Change.)
warthog,
it seems like for the Grendel it would be very beneficial to have the M4 ramps in the upper. I've heard this brought up before concerning Mega's, but I believe they make them both ways.
Posts: 1,717
Threads: 60
Joined: Feb 2013
Keep The Change Wrote:Group Buy Group Buy Group Buy!!
I think Ridgerider just needs to send me a left side charge upper so I can take a good look at and do some stress analysis on it. By "stress analysis" I mean break in my barrel and sight it in. Haha!
He will send you one, $475 I think... I think your stress analysis is not needed. I really wonder how a "Engineer Degree" has anything to do with the strength of the upper receiver and barrel weight. Think of the trick when you were a kid before you went to collage and spent all that money to get your piece of paper. Put an egg in the palm of your hand a squeeze as hard as possible, it wont break. the upper and lower part of the receiver will soak up any rearward energy and it isn't that much, you have a tinny buffer spring throwing it back and forth into the bolt lugs and barrel extension. Those are the two points where the energy is transferred. As for whip in the barrel, come on, support over and under is what is needed. I have never had a gun kick off to the side, mine kicks backward.
Not to knock the engineer thing but I get all these new employees with 4.0 GPA out of these ivy league schools with Mechanical and Structural Engineering Master Degrees and and have no common sense. Book smart but no life attributions to reality. It's raining, come out of the rain or you'll get wet. Degree over common sense? I'll take common sense all life long.....
Posts: 78
Threads: 13
Joined: May 2013
There was a topic on this on ar15.com someone had pictures of the barrel extension with and without feed ramps. There conclusion, Barrel extension with feed ramps and upper without is okay, but not the other way around, then barrel extension without/ upper without and extension with ramps, upper with ramps. If this makes sense.
Posts: 78
Threads: 13
Joined: May 2013
Also i just got the young NM Side charge BCG in the mail, thats one nice looking carrier, also this carrier does not have the serrations mentioned in the quality arms post above.
Keep The Change Wrote:Ridgerider,
My only concern with the large amount of material removed on a left hand side charger is that you remove a lot of "meat" where load is typically transferred through........... Also with the beefier front end of the upper, it should have to transfer less load to the back than a forged, mil-spec upper.
I just brought it up because it is a lot of removed material and that just catches my eye as an engineer. Keep up the good work. .
Ok I take your point now dont know your back ground but I know mine and like most people who think if you remove material then it has to be weaker and that would be a wrong assumption. I have held mil spec uppers in my hands and have witnessed flexing with hand pressure applied to the upper cant do that with mine. Now take a fabricated I beam made from wood, it is stronger, lighter, can bridge further than the same equivalent beam from solid wood. Oh and bye the way the Scar, the Tavor, have openings both sides they just choose to place covers over them and they are thinner material than mine
Posts: 1,717
Threads: 60
Joined: Feb 2013
Beating a dead horse here RR. Also good ol carpentry analogy too, I liked the egg trick but that worked too.
Wonder how light weight car parts these days are made lighter and stronger and fast but seem to be safer too these days compared to the old 1970 lead sleds..
Posts: 590
Threads: 52
Joined: Mar 2013
Tedward Wrote:He will send you one, $475 I think... I think your stress analysis is not needed. I really wonder how a "Engineer Degree" has anything to do with the strength of the upper receiver and barrel weight. .
Well, this was all tongue in cheek and sarcasm. Sorry it didn't translate. As far as my degree and knocking my education and experience, think about it next time when you fly on a Boeing 787, watching the wing flex, Airbus A350 watching the engine move around on the pylon and how it is attached to the wing, or the F-35 & F-16 pulling a 9g turn with wings flexing under tremendous load. But what do I know. Any concern or issue I raise in regards to strength is ridiculous I guess. Not to mention my machining experience while I put myself through college. I will definitely agree that common sense is missing in many engineering grads because they don't have real life experiences or work on anything.
It's a mere conversation and discussion not a pissing contest. Relax a little.
The load from the bolt is nothing, my concern was barrel whip after seeing some slo mo shots of barrel whip in an AR. The whipping action is transferred into the receiver and it has to be absorbed at the front of the upper and that load is transferred back through the upper. Sort of like an I-beam the whipping action is coupled out across the top and bottom portion of the upper receiver. My point initially was to discuss the effects of the missing marterial in the left charge upper.
I will contend that QA's/Ridgeriders upper is very stout at the front and even all the way back. It looks very substantial around the cutouts as well once I took time to look at some up close shots of the upper.
Any concern I had has been put at ease after getting a closer look. I was just wanting to discuss a little bit about a concern I had. Didn't mean for this to diverge into something else.
Posts: 590
Threads: 52
Joined: Mar 2013
Ridgerider Wrote:Ok I take your point now dont know your back ground but I know mine and like most people who think if you remove material then it has to be weaker and that would be a wrong assumption. I have held mil spec uppers in my hands and have witnessed flexing with hand pressure applied to the upper cant do that with mine. Now take a fabricated I beam made from wood, it is stronger, lighter, can bridge further than the same equivalent beam from solid wood. Oh and bye the way the Scar, the Tavor, have openings both sides they just choose to place covers over them and they are thinner material than mine
Thanks for the response. I was able to get a good close up look on the upper and it looks very stout. Yes the SCAR, Tavor, and I think the new Beretta has cutouts on bothsides. Good point. I think the front your receiver is substantial and even aroundt he cutout is appears to be really heavy duty upon closer inspection. My concern was unwarranted I see now that I got a better view of it.
I also like the way you didn't mill the old charging handle location and just put an insert in there like I've seen before. Very nice looking receiver, wish I could get one right now.
Posts: 590
Threads: 52
Joined: Mar 2013
11-27-2013, 03:23 PM
(This post was last modified: 11-27-2013, 03:25 PM by Keep The Change.)
Delete
Posts: 590
Threads: 52
Joined: Mar 2013
Tedward Wrote:Beating a dead horse here RR. Also good ol carpentry analogy too, I liked the egg trick but that worked too.
Wonder how light weight car parts these days are made lighter and stronger and fast but seem to be safer too these days compared to the old 1970 lead sleds..
I completely understand how this is done. It's all geometry and inertia of the cross section. As mentioned above, I'm in the aircraft industry and designing and analyzing parts to get them as light as possible is what I do.
|
