fly weight breakdown skeleton single shot pack rifle?

[MongooseV8]

The recoil would be double what my 6LB 7MM Magnum produces. A 2.5LB mild 308 would be in the 55ftLB at 37fps range. That is extreme.

But none of this idea is feasible anyway so it doesnt matter.

[CHAD PEZZLE]

I bought a couple lowers for $50 on sale and they SEEM cast with some machining but can't be sure due to paint.

Yeah, I just waving my arms around and hoping for someone who knows something to tell my the right way, cheap obvious way to do this with Rem 700 or AR barrels. If a whole AR can sell for under $500 (when Dem Party panic markups not in effect) I don't think a single shot kit for $150 is too far fetched but I'm not too much worried about rock bottom price point. Mostly concerned with ultra light weight and ultra small size when packed with still good rifle accuracy. I think I can figure out the stock/canteen but how to make a SIMPLE center fire rated single action and a GOOD trigger on a full break-down single shot. They tell me realistically the trigger will be more important that the barrel especially after exertion (which is reason for ultra light/packable).

To be fair I don't really know squat about most of the existing rifles that guys have mentioned already, but I've machined a fair number AR lowers, and run a CNC machine everyday for work, and have messed around with some sand casting a long time ago.

Casting with any sort of accuracy is difficult and usually requires post machining work which is going to add cost. Trying to partially fill an existing casting/mold to any sort of desired level with accuracy will be difficult to impossible and won't yield accurate results.

I don't think you'll find a Remington 700 design that will get anywhere near your budget. It's a pretty expensive design to machine as far as bolt, bolt lugs and such.

I think an AR pattern might work as far as cheapness and availability goes, but your .223 and .308 in the same platform may be impossible since the size of the existing bolt and barrel extension are completely different.

I think the biggest advantage for the AR platform is it's ability to be massed produced, that's how it becomes affordable. If your gun uses almost all the same components as an AR but requires a proprietary upper/lower and stock that is using exotic metals (titanium stock) with a hinge mechanism I don't see you ever hitting your price point. You're design hasn't eliminated anything to save money, the heart of the rifle is a niche product that doesn't exist and isn't already massed produced, that is going to be inherently more expensive to manufacture than a forged lower that is stamped out by the thousands every day.

[pacrat]

Yeah, I just waving my arms around and hoping for someone who knows something to tell my the right way, cheap obvious way to do this with Rem 700 or AR barrels.

Well OP we've been trying for a couple of days. Not that I'm an expert on any given subject, other than residential housing construction. But I do know something about many facets of firearms feeding, using, and smithing.

CHAD said;

[1] ... Casting with any sort of accuracy is difficult and usually requires post machining work which is going to add cost. Trying to partially fill an existing casting/mold to any sort of desired level with accuracy will be difficult to impossible and won't yield accurate results.

[2] ... I don't think you'll find a Remington 700 design that will get anywhere near your budget. It's a pretty expensive design to machine as far as bolt, bolt lugs and such.

I do believe in his ignorance of metallic manufacturing processes. OP has conflated "casting", with MIM. Metallic Injection Moulding. Which is a totally different process, and only similarity at all, is that both use moulds. Many "gun guys" also mix up the two. Ex... Ruger does NOT CAST their receivers. They are MIM'd. As are post 64 Winchester 94s.

[2] ... For clarity, OP mentioned "700 barrels". Which itself is again OUT OF LINE with his price point. Even many if not most, Rem takeoff barrels are going for as much, or more than his overall price target.

IMHO, I believe OP had an inkling of a concept. And is, so to speak, "Throwing Ch!t" against the wall and seeing what will stick. Which is becoming difficult because of the many TYPICAL CG "out of parameter" suggestion posts. And the ever expanding wall, to make room for more "Ch!t".

[Imageview]

The nice upside of this thread for me personally was it lit a fire under me to go out and shoot my handi rifle. Man I love that thing, probably my favorite rifle aside from maybe my marlin 1894. Shoots everything from 17 hmr to 45-70, easy to use and fun. I wish whoever owns the brand now would bring it back, but can't see that happening for all the reasons listed in this thread. Only problem with the rifle is the desire to own more barrels!

[MongooseV8]

I have the same addiction with Encores. Ive really enjoyed swapping and trading barrels.

[Imageview]

I'm tempted to get an encore, of course now they are out of production as well too but at least there is good aftermarket support. Encores are actually pretty relevant to this discussion as a counter example, because they were fairly well machined. This enabled them to have a much better degree of barrel interchangeability, but also contributed to the higher cost. Bare frames right now run about 2.5x the high end cost the op desires.

[LynnJr]

Pacrat
The shovel should be used by the OP to cover your advice with dirt before it smells.
You ever wonder why bees don't tell flies honey is better than *****?

[Big Chudungus]

How brutal do you think the recoil of a 2 pound .308 with a wire/metal stock is going to be? People whine about 5 pound lighweight hunting .308's all the time. Sorry, but I'm not seeing what your after, and what I think I see makes no sense.

This invention has two primary aspects:

1)extreme packability (volume/size).

2)extreme lightweight with low tech "magic" recoil mitigation by incorporating weight you by lugging anyways, your drinking water (or other beverage of choice).

To quote my OP....

" To add much needed weight to mitigate recoil the stock frame could accept a standard USGI hip canteen, because you will always want to carry water and the base of the canteen is an OK shape to work with butt-stock.....

Maybe provision to add two canteens (about 2.3lbs each full) to AR-10 kit stock frame."

So figure a 308 gun might weigh 3lbs (w/out scope or extra ammo) + 2.3+2.3=5.6lbs which seems about exactly right for very lightweight single shot that you aren't going to be plinking with all day, but focused on taking that one important shot.

One of reasons I'm leaning toward a stock of 3 pieces of stamped metal strips (top, bottom and butt), as opposed to single tube as similar designs, is to secure the canteens between them with straps, spring catch, screw/bolt, etc.

Mossberg made a bolt action with skeleton plastic stock that was said to be great for reducing recoil but then they all started breaking.

I'm thinking that wouldn't be an issue with spring steel, titanium or even aluminum, and even if they break or bend beyond rebending it will be the cheapest and easiest to replace or DIY. Also, amount of flex could be adjusted by simply adding a leaf spring as is done with cars and trucks. Its the simplest possible external attachment.

I'm keeping my mind open about other weight adding items particularly commercial disposable and re-usable beverage containers but USGI canteen seems to be best combo of shape, durability and availability/universality and it comes in several plastic and metal versions. Also keeping open mind about what "gonna have one on you anyways" items could be used for recoil padding. Buddy once Bubbadized a recoil pad out of one of his small kids running shoes and it worked great. Not sure about effects on sub-MOA.

Also, Muzzle Brakes are a thing, and I'm assuming at least some that are used on AR-10s actually function at least somewhat besides CA Compliance.

[LynnJr]

The gun can be built just not at the price point you are stating. If you build one gun only for your own *****s and giggles it will cost even more. The Henry AR-7 is very compact and clever but won't handle a centerfire round.

The stock is the easy part and most do it yourself types can make one at home themselves that will be cheap and functional even if it looks hideous.

Sourcing the action is the expensive part as would be a carbon fiber barrel to save weight.

I actually have the Topper with the modifications I listed but the picture won't upload and it's not truly lightweight. I built it to go inside a dry bag for my rafting hunts.

[Big Chudungus]

The gun can be built just not at the price point you are staying.
Sourcing the action is the expensive part

Why can't I just cut off most of the back of an upper and maybe weld a little handle to the bolt (might lose some of the bolt that isn't needed for a full/semi-auto extraction, feeding, firing....if extraction and chocking require manual operatons that would be OK but don't think they will, but might need to grip bolt handle and use finger pressure to replace extractor spring or something).

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=wAqE-KLbiYc About 1 min mark. I'm assuming YOU know this stuff I'm just showing you whats making me think what I'm thinking.

Looks like you could lose the entire upper receiver, the rear 70% of the bolt, and manual insert a round, manually insert what left of the bolt (locking lugs) and manually rotate into battery, and insert a firing pin and give it a "short sharp shot" and it would go bang.

Now I'm thinking instead of the modded bolt coming completely loose and dangling from a chain it would be worth it to have it cycle back into a low tech, low spec "receiver" which which would very loosely (1mm clearance or more) hold it. Now the question becomes should the receiver be long enough to hold the bolt far enough back to allow insertion of next round or should be Break Action after retracting bolt? I'm thinking make it long enough and receiver tube will have slot for bolt handle and will have internal rails for bolt lugs to ride on after bolt is rotated out of battery. Receiver will have larger slot for loading and ejection and a simple flat spring that is always trying to gently push casing out of the ejection port (as well as gently resist loading). You would manually insert the next round all the way or nearly all the way into the barrel with finger inside the loading/ejection port. Guys with really fat fingers, thick gloves or just phobias about inserting body parts into mechanical devices could use pen or pencil, etc to ram it home, but once round is into receiver the bolt should do the rest.

Have a modded semi-manual extractor pinned to whats left of the bolt. When you remove the bolt it will be loose so small cord or chain to keep it from falling into the mud.

Not sure how to make a "pretty good" trigger for this, and that will be interesting if the bolt and pin are removed and loose with every reload.

Might keep some of the upper but mostly just to mount sights, scope and stock frame but I guess would make nice starting point for trigger/sear etc.

[ojisan]

OP; Couldn't use the threaded sleeve barrel attachment. Which works for 22lr but a NOGO for the 55K PSI 223.

An AR15 barrel is held in with a threaded collar nut, it's just a larger version of the AR7 nut.
The collar nut simply holds the barrel in place, chamber pressure is contained by the barrel.

If a bolt and wing nut combo is used, and if the bolt shank is of the correct diameter, it won't make any difference to the gun.

[LynnJr]

Big Chudungus
The only drawback to a semi is length. I took it from your original post you wanted it as short as possible that's why everyone chimed in with the TC suggestions.
You already know how the little beaver stock is setup so the only variables left are the action and barrel. You could use a welded on muzzlebreak to shorten up the barrel even more to save on weight and the carbon wrapped barrels are already really light just expensive.

[Big Chudungus]

An AR15 barrel is held in with a threaded collar nut, it's just a larger version of the AR7 nut.
The collar nut simply holds the barrel in place, chamber pressure is contained by the barrel.

If a bolt and wing nut combo is used, and if the bolt shank is of the correct diameter, it won't make any difference to the gun.

I'm also toying with using a single large diameter tube to replace upper receiver, and maybe slight bend to become stock, and maybe squished a little flat for more traditional butt shape with the idea the user would wrap something of his own to make it bigger and more padded, and interface with barrel similar to AR7/15, then the rifle would break down and barrel would store inside the receiver-tube/stock, and the trigger assembly would store in the squished part.

I guess it would be OK to strap canteens or other weights to a tubular stock.

[gunsmoke50]

OP, ya know, you could just buy a Kel-Tec SU-16, and you'll already have most of what you're asking for, in a semi-auto. Just saying.

Sent from my moto x4 using Tapatalk

[Big Chudungus]

Big Chudungus
The only drawback to a semi is length. I took it from your original post you wanted it as short as possible that's why everyone chimed in with the TC suggestions.
You already know how the little beaver stock is setup so the only variables left are the action and barrel. You could use a welded on muzzlebreak to shorten up the barrel even more to save on weight and the carbon wrapped barrels are already really light just expensive.

Actually, length, stowed or deployed is my least important dimension, since everyone seems to tote long slender object just fine behind truck seats, under cars seats, in airplanes, horse back, MCs, or strapped to backpacks, or inside larger backpacks. This isn't going to be first choice for room clearing or fighting from inside AFV (or Unarmored FV doing drive by lol). Small diameter and straight shape of packed unit would be nice so it can be stuffed into top loading pack and otherwise pack nice. One of the main probs I have with existing rifles is they are very awkwardly shaped objects. Like they say, there is no good way to ship a bicycle. I'd like to be able to carry 20 rifles in a standard Carry On size suitcase (not that it would be 1st choice of firearm for doing so, but you get the point). But more likely carry one behind the car jack in your trunk or at the back of your wide flat top desk drawer.

If I need to add a receiver tube long enough to carry the bolt to allow loading, and as a practical matter that will remain assembled in the field and that will add that much length to barrel when packed that would be perfectly fine. 20" barrel and another 8" of stuff for a 28" packed unit would be A-OK if it packs into slender straight shape. Just pack the stock frames, scope and silencer in sequence alongside the long barrel/receiver. OK, thats a bit long for Carry On but just barely.