Not looking for 30 rounds into a 4 inch target @75 yards as fast as I can pull the trigger.Looking for accuracy for deer and coyotes and a certain criteria for weight and barrel length.
It even has an integral trigger guard (every quarter of an ounce counts, right?).
It would be cheaper to go with a polymer lower, but I'm not sure how the weight compares. On a polymer lower, I think you're probably right to look for a complete polymer lower instead of building one.
Your third lightweight lower option would be a Bushmaster Carbon lower (I'm not sure about durability on those - that would be something to check).
Edit to add: I think the lower I linked above (at Brownells) is the same as the one that Kifaru sells, but Brownells is something like $40 cheaper.
Here is a link to a table somebody put together with weights for various AR-15 components that might help you in building one under six pounds before scope.
You can schit in one hand, and "want" in the other, and see which one fills up the fastest.[/quote]
HaHA! My dad used to tell us that. Haven't heard it in a while.
If you want absolute light weight get an AR handgun. Is all this light weight going to serve to make the rifle more shootable? Build one up with custom carbon fiber parts, billet Ti lower, leave off unnecessary items like sling swivels, dust cover, any picatinny rails. You can make it light, but I think I would prefer my Colt 6920. It's plenty light enough, but with a little heft to allow it to settle enough to shoot well. I've practiced ultra-light backpacking for the past decade. You can make things light, but there is a price in dollars and utility.
You can get near 6 with a 16 inch pencil barrel for the box stock gun but once you get a mount and optic on it, you back up there. Like the man said want in one hand and sxxt in the other in this case. In my life I have found want has nothing to do with reality and have adjusted my expectations to what can be reasonably done.
I suspect he would be able to get below 6 lb, and probably close to 5.5 lb, without scope and mount with a lightweight lower (I mentioned three possibilities in a previous post).
The Colt 6720 (16" pencil barrel flat top) has a list weight of 6.12 lb (6 lb, 2 oz) without magazine. Compared to the Colt 6720, one can go lower in weight by - lightweight lower rather than standard aluminum lower (could save 3 or 4 oz there) - having a lightweight low profile gas block instead of having a front sight (save 3 to 4 oz) - not having a rear sight (a BUIS type sight comes on the 6720 - that's somewhere around 2 oz) - not having a flash hider (2 oz reduction there - would partially offset the weight of a longer, 18 or 20", pencil barrel - a longer barrel would add 1 to 2 oz per inch of barrel length) - handguard - lightweight carbon handguard rather than standard carbine handguard (probably save 2 oz) - might also be able to save a little weight on the stock
I think you could net 10 oz reduction even if using an 18" barrel and not getting any weight reduction from a lighter stock compared to the Colt 6720. That is right at 5.5 lb without magazine, scope mount, and scope.
I would guess a 5 round magazine would weigh 2 to 3 oz empty, and five rounds would weigh about 2 oz. That has you around 5.8 lb loaded without optic. A lightweight sling would weigh around 2 to 4 oz, leaving you right at 6 lb with ammo and sling but no scope mount or scope. If you could find a few ounces from a lighter stock than comes on the Colt 6720, you could get down around 5.75 or less even with ammo and sling.
The issue of mount and scope is a related but separate issue. I don't know what the lightest scope mount system would be, but that would be a make or break decision for a lightweight build. His scope options also are going to be important for getting the lightest build. I would strongly consider a Leupold 6x36 (10 oz).
I already see that I can get there with a Fluted 18 inch with a plastic or carbon lower by visiting several different boards on the net. As I said My goal is a 7 pound or less setup with scope and sling and 5 rounds of ammo. As far as a handgun goes I hunted with a Handgun exclusively for 12 years. Cobrad I like around 7 pounds total as that is still relatively easy to carry but also shoots just fine.And believe me after trying a lot of different firearms hunting in 43 years(I am 53)I know what I want. I really don't think I need a dust cover or a forward assist for that matter for the purposes of hunting . The price of utility and dollars is one that I am willing to pay. jimmyp as you said often times reality and want often have very little to do with each other and( yea I have not only heard that old saying all my life but often said it myself)But in a lot of situations in life a person will find that with effort they can get what they want with enough time and effort as well. This is one of those situations as I am finding out with my investigation of options available . I asked the question because at the time I knew absolutely nothing about how to put together such a rig. I see now that it can be done if a man is willing to part with the time and effort and money. Thanks to everyone for your input and help. Craig
Ramblin Razorback I like the way ya think ! Seems like you are actually doing some ciphering on the subject and not merely saying it cant be done. Thanks for all your input ! Craig PS your right I don't need a flash hider,forward assist or dust cover or a long handguard 0r anything more than a 10 round mag loaded with 5 rounds. Craig
The aforementioned Cav Arms lower, with an AR Gold fixed trigger, a Kifaruarms magnesium upper, and a Lothar Walther SS pencil barrel with a quality BCG and an Aimpoint Micro would be light done right.
I do intend to stay with the Leupold 4x though ,Both for weight(bout 10-11 ounces) and what I want the rifle for(hunting) .I like the Standard Duplex and would either go with a New one or a Compact M-8 matte with lightweight rings. Craig
Not looking for 30 rounds into a 4 inch target @75 yards as fast as I can pull the trigger.Looking for accuracy for deer and coyotes and a certain criteria for weight and barrel length.
????????????
OK, 1/2" MOA at 100 yards! Is that better?
My point is that the 6720 R has a pencil barrel. Even when HOT it puts rounds on target. It's a Accurate Rifle, Lightweight out of the box, so can be made lighter, Handles excellent, Short and balances. You want to Coyote hunt and you don't care if a rifle can put 30 rounds into a 4" circle?
I was simply answering your thread for the type of rifle that would work. Done.
Six Gun is right about Colt barrels. Most of 'em will shoot. I've seen Marines with M4/ACOG's shoot some impressive groups at 100+ yd, using M855, which isn't overly accurate typically. A Colt is never a bad choice.
Sixgunhuntedr,I didn,t automaticly assume that a rifle that would put 30 rounds into 4 inches at 75 yards would neccasarily put 2 or 3 shots within .75 inches of point of aim at a 100 Yards.Where I deer hunt I may see a coyote at point blank to 400 yards or more (1.5 inch group).I don't think it is a given that because a rifle will do 4 inches at 75 yards for 30 rounds that it will .75 inches from poa at a 100 for 2 0r 3 .And it doesn,t have the 18 or 20 inch barrel I would really like to have.I appreciate the input you gave me but as I said at the beginning I was trying to meet a certain criteria.I was certainly not trying to offend anyone . Take a knee,Thanks again. Craig
I like the cav lower especially with the 3# Timney skeletonized trigger. Don't know what a populared lower is. Weight was around 6.0# bare. Field ready it comes in at 7.2#, which consists of: Leupold see thru rings, a 1.5-6 Burris Signature scope with illuminated dot, a Hogue Picatinny cuff rail with Stoney Point bipod mount. I have not shot it but expect accuracy typical of the Remington R15 18" in .223 which is excellent.
