PDA

View Full Version : How much weight can one save by removing the front sight?


davy
06-30-2010, 11:08 AM
I have a front iron sight on a F-Marked base on my bcm upper. I'm thinking of all the ways I can to slim down the rifle. Does anybody pay enough attention to their rifles as to notice how much weight the rifle can loose by replacing the front sight and base with some kind of low profile, low weight gas block? Would the weight saving be worth the effort? My rifle weighed in at 7.6 pounds WITHOUT a magazine inserted. I need to put it on a diet.

That's without ANY accessories, only the optics (acog + mini red dot on top).

tomd1584
06-30-2010, 11:09 AM
This should be helpful: AR parts weight chart (https://spreadsheets.google.com/ccc?key=0Ajl2UPK0UHPsdHNVX2tBak9OS29HR2ZrRFBhUVpYM VE&hl=en)

davy
06-30-2010, 11:24 AM
This should be helpful: AR parts weight chart (https://spreadsheets.google.com/ccc?key=0Ajl2UPK0UHPsdHNVX2tBak9OS29HR2ZrRFBhUVpYM VE&hl=en)

Wow, that's helpful. I wonder who went through the trouble of weighing all the different parts from the manufacturers to complete the picture. Thanks Tom.

LaRue's low profile gas block is by far the lightest in the group at only 1.5 ounces. But the chart didn't show how much the a front iron sight with the F-Marked base weighs. I still need that number to figure out how many ounces I can save by replacing it with LaRue's gas block.

It's really a matter cost vs. savings. I have to decide if the weight saving is worth paying Riflegear to replace the front sight with the gas block, as I don't have the tools to do it myself.

davy
06-30-2010, 11:34 AM
Does anybody have any suggestions on slimming down my rifle? It's coming in at 7.6 pounds without a mag, which is not heavy, but I feel cheated because I don't have ANY accessories mounted on it. I don't mind having the weight, but I'm not getting anything in return from it because I didn't mount anything on it.

Here's the spec on it:

BCM BFH 16' midlength upper
Mega lower
Magpul MIAD grip & trigger guard
Magpul MOE stock
Some generic buffer without the "H" marking
BCM gunfighter charging handle
Daniel Defense Omega rail 9
ACOG + mini red dot

= 7.6 pounds

:confused:

tomd1584
06-30-2010, 11:40 AM
Wow, that's helpful. I wonder who went through the trouble of weighing all the different parts from the manufacturers to complete the picture. Thanks Tom.

LaRue's low profile gas block is by far the lightest in the group at only 1.5 ounces. But the chart didn't show how much the a front iron sight with the F-Marked base weighs. I still need that number to figure out how many ounces I can save by replacing it with LaRue's gas block.

It's really a matter cost vs. savings. I have to decide if the weight saving is worth paying Riflegear to replace the front sight with the gas block, as I don't have the tools to do it myself.


Look at line #67, looks to be 5.2 oz.

tomd1584
06-30-2010, 11:44 AM
Does anybody have any suggestions on slimming down my rifle? It's coming in at 7.6 pounds without a mag, which is not heavy, but I feel cheated because I don't have ANY accessories mounted on it. I don't mind having the weight, but I'm not getting anything in return from it because I didn't mount anything on it.

Here's the spec on it:

BCM BFH 16' midlength upper
Mega lower
Magpul MIAD grip & trigger guard
Magpul MOE stock
Some generic buffer without the "H" marking
BCM gunfighter charging handle
Daniel Defense Omega rail 9
ACOG + mini red dot

= 7.6 pounds

:confused:

Thats really not too bad. Only thing would be to swap the ACOG/mini dot combo for a Aimpoint Micro. depending on what combo you have (and mount), you might save as much as +/- half pound.

yasushi
06-30-2010, 12:10 PM
I had a same issue with my middy built so I swapped out the barrel with a pencil barrel and replaced whe FF aluminum hand guard with standard plastic. It wasn't a huge difference in weight but it was easier to handle since the gun was no longer nose heavy. So to go further I replaced the FSB with the cut down base and took the RRA tactical comp and replaced it with a Voltor birdcage. I'm sure you can get even lighter by going with 14.5" barrel with pinned light weight hider.

With all the metal in the AR, other than barrel and other basic parts like FSB and lighter furniture I don't think there's much weight you can take off unless you start swapping them with polymer/plastic parts.

But the lightest build I had was a Cavalry MKII which is a polymer/aluminum frame lower attached to the BM Carbon 22 upper and the total package was bit shy of 4 1/2 pounds loaded. But then it was only .22

davy
06-30-2010, 12:40 PM
Thats really not too bad. Only thing would be to swap the ACOG/mini dot combo for a Aimpoint Micro. depending on what combo you have (and mount), you might save as much as +/- half pound.

So 5.2 - 1.5 = a saving of 3.7 ounces

I thought about replacing the ACOG with just a red dot, maybe primary's M3. But the magnification on the scope is very convenient, not only for shooting, but just looking around as well.

I think I can save 7 ounces by replacing the ACOG with a real aimpoint M3, plus the 3.7 = 10 ounces or so.

Not worth the trouble?

davy
06-30-2010, 12:42 PM
I had a same issue with my middy built so I swapped out the barrel with a pencil barrel and replaced whe FF aluminum hand guard with standard plastic. It wasn't a huge difference in weight but it was easier to handle since the gun was no longer nose heavy. So to go further I replaced the FSB with the cut down base and took the RRA tactical comp and replaced it with a Voltor birdcage. I'm sure you can get even lighter by going with 14.5" barrel with pinned light weight hider.

With all the metal in the AR, other than barrel and other basic parts like FSB and lighter furniture I don't think there's much weight you can take off unless you start swapping them with polymer/plastic parts.

But the lightest build I had was a Cavalry MKII which is a polymer/aluminum frame lower attached to the BM Carbon 22 upper and the total package was bit shy of 4 1/2 pounds loaded. But then it was only .22

I considered those polymer lowers, but I don't want to loose the durability factor so I didn't pursue them. Maybe replace the barrel, but that's $ right there as I can't do it myself.

tomd1584
06-30-2010, 1:00 PM
So 5.2 - 1.5 = a saving of 3.7 ounces

I thought about replacing the ACOG with just a red dot, maybe primary's M3. But the magnification on the scope is very convenient, not only for shooting, but just looking around as well.

I think I can save 7 ounces by replacing the ACOG with a real aimpoint M3, plus the 3.7 = 10 ounces or so.

Not worth the trouble?

Or go with a H-1, and save atleast another 4.8 oz between the two (depending on which mount you would go with for the M3)

Aimpoint models comparison chart (http://spreadsheets.google.com/pub?key=pwswheghNQsFFHwq_KhEISQ&output=html)

davy
06-30-2010, 3:13 PM
Or go with a H-1, and save atleast another 4.8 oz between the two (depending on which mount you would go with for the M3)

Aimpoint models comparison chart (http://spreadsheets.google.com/pub?key=pwswheghNQsFFHwq_KhEISQ&output=html)

I would like to, but I have never used either the H1 or a ML2/ML3. All that weight-saving on the H1 must come at a sacrifice? Does the sight picture suffer on the H1 in comparison to the full size optics like ML2/ML3?

Anybody tried both? If the H1 doesn't give anything up in sight picture/usability, then I may go with the H1. Thanks Tom.

tomd1584
06-30-2010, 3:45 PM
I would like to, but I have never used either the H1 or a ML2/ML3. All that weight-saving on the H1 must come at a sacrifice? Does the sight picture suffer on the H1 in comparison to the full size optics like ML2/ML3?

Anybody tried both? If the H1 doesn't give anything up in sight picture/usability, then I may go with the H1. Thanks Tom.


I personally like the smaller tube, since you shoot both eyes open with a red dot anyways. Less of the housing to obstruct the view.

It does make it a little difficult when shooting in certain positions, just have to get a good cheekweld.

I'll take that tradeoff. If you're in LA, i'd be willing to meet up one day and you can try my H-1.

pacrimguru
06-30-2010, 4:16 PM
I would like to, but I have never used either the H1 or a ML2/ML3. All that weight-saving on the H1 must come at a sacrifice? Does the sight picture suffer on the H1 in comparison to the full size optics like ML2/ML3?

Anybody tried both? If the H1 doesn't give anything up in sight picture/usability, then I may go with the H1. Thanks Tom.

the H-1/T-1 series is much better. lighter weight with nothing else sacrificed.

your rifle as it is now weighs in at 7.6 lbs with an ACOG and Red Dot on it? that's pretty light already. if that's too heavy for you, i'd say, work out your arms.

davy
06-30-2010, 4:19 PM
the H-1/T-1 series is much better. lighter weight with nothing else sacrificed.

your rifle as it is now weighs in at 7.6 lbs with an ACOG and Red Dot on it? that's pretty light already. if that's too heavy for you, i'd say, work out your arms.

I just feel a little robbed reading about other guys' sub 7 lb. AR with no accessories. How do they do it with a regular lower?

I haven't even added lights or vertical grip on it yet, and it's at 7.6 without magazine. If I put everything I want on it, it'll be in double digits territory.

shark92651
06-30-2010, 4:23 PM
I just feel a little robbed reading about other guys' sub 7 lb. AR with no accessories. How do they do it with a regular lower?

I haven't even added lights or vertical grip on it yet, and it's at 7.6 without magazine. If I put everything I want on it, it'll be in double digits territory.

Lightweight barrel.

Josh3239
06-30-2010, 4:51 PM
You could loose 3-4 ounces by switching the DD handguard to a TRX Extreme. Do you really use the rail space? That is why I switched, didn't use the rail space and wanted a lighter rifle.

I'd agree that if you want to loose some more weight an ACOG + reddot is too much. Those micro Aimpoint things are supposed to be great!

What muzzle device? Also, you could look into a lighter barrel or if it would weight less to chop it down and permanently attach a muzzle device.

railroader
06-30-2010, 6:39 PM
What profile is your barrel? The reason I ask is you could send your upper to Adco and they could turn your barrel down under the hand guards which would save some weight. http://www.adcofirearms.com/ Mark

killshot44
06-30-2010, 7:04 PM
Hmmm, must be the Lower that is the source of your weight. My 16" M4 only goes 6.25lbs with ACOG, unloaded....

pyromensch
06-30-2010, 7:06 PM
just a "light" question. are you going on the space shuttle, where a couple of ounces might mean disaster?

Josh3239
06-30-2010, 10:08 PM
What is wrong with the wanting to lighten your rifle? I switched from a MI 10'' FF handguard to a 11'' VTAC Extreme, even though the difference was just a few ounces it was a great decision and I can feel the difference. My rifle is much easier to hold and my arms don't fatigue as quickly. These rifles were made to be lightweight, that was one of the reasons why their were so successful, putting a bunch of junk on it that makes it weight the same as an LMG is crazy.

bjl333
06-30-2010, 10:22 PM
Does anybody have any suggestions on slimming down my rifle? It's coming in at 7.6 pounds without a mag, which is not heavy, but I feel cheated because I don't have ANY accessories mounted on it. I don't mind having the weight, but I'm not getting anything in return from it because I didn't mount anything on it.

Here's the spec on it:

BCM BFH 16' midlength upper
Mega lower
Magpul MIAD grip & trigger guard
Magpul MOE stock
Some generic buffer without the "H" marking
BCM gunfighter charging handle
Daniel Defense Omega rail 9
ACOG + mini red dot

= 7.6 pounds

:confused:




Maybe trimming the barrel to light weight profile.
DD Omega to Carbonfiber freeflow w/ some polymar rails.
Not a whole lot more to safe unless you get rid of the ACOG + red dot for a Magpul Mbus set ... Just a thought !!