What you said is true, billet/machined parts are stronger than forgings. Also Forgings leave stress in the metal that causes another set of problems. WITH THE EXCEPTION OF HAMMER FORGED BARRELS. HAMMER FORGED ARE MUCH DIFFERENT THAN REGULAR FORGINGS THE HAMMER FORGED BARRELS ARE HAMMERED MILLIONS OF TIMES WITH FOUR MACHINE HEADS. THEY ARE COLD FORGED TOO, SO WITH THE COLD FORGING AND MILLIONS OF HAMMERS THE BARRELS ARE SUPER STRONG. WHAT HE SAID IS TRUE.
You got it wrong dude... forgings are stronger than Billet... they are hardened due to the forging process... I think you're referring to aluminum castings... Which are poured from molten aluminum. Billet receivers are more expensive because there's about triple the amount of Machining time to machine a billet receiver then there is to machine a preformed forged receiver... There's a reason every 5,000 horsepower AA Funny Car and AA Dragster run forged aluminum pistons, forged steel connecting rods, forged steel crankshafts, and forged aluminum rear wheels....!
@Jake Heke You sir are an idiot... Not even close... Take some IE & ME classes in metalurgy, strength of materials , & production processes... Then you might have your head out of your ass...!
Forged is better than billet - it is not because the "molecules are packed closer together". It is because the aluminum, like all metals, has a grain structure. Billet material is *rolled* in several stages, and as result the grains end up oriented in one direction. If you look at (real) engineering data, you'll see that the strength of aluminum differs in different directions relative to the grain direction. With a forging, on the other hand, the grain follows the flow of the metal as it is deformed by the forging operation. This generally results in a stronger part, or a lighter part for the same strength. Highly stressed parts, such as race engine crankshafts, connecting rods or pistons, or airplane parts such as landing gear, are generally forged. I have no idea what happened to that destroyed upper you showed, but I never saw one that did that. I would never use anything but a 7075-T6 forging for an AR upper or lower receiver.
I applaud your reliance on evidence based material purchasing, but this reminds me of what happens at my research job when folks outside our research department design experiments without a professional researcher. What you have in the experiment is a sample of 1 for each receiver type. What that means, is that you have zero data as to whether if you did the same experiment again, that you wouldn't get opposite results. It's literally like tossing coin twice, getting heads twice in a row, and using that to declare the coin rigged. Statistically, you really don't know anything until at least 5 replications each (10 total) with a robust estimate of the outcome for all forged and milled receivers until a minimum of 7 (14 total). So, your didn't save money by only doing it once each. You wasted money by doing it at all. Both receivers failed, and the exact way they failed probably won't be the same way each time. Unfortunately, we don't know anything from the experiment about forged vs. milled. We only know about those two specific receivers.
8literbeater Yeah, I do business research for a living, and I've noticed that the right number of replications or studies required by an executive usually equals the first set of results that confirm whatever the exec wanted to do in the first place. If they don't like the results, they'll ask for another study. If they like them, then all went well. It all depends on the honesty and integrity of the decision maker. That's why independent research firms are required for unbiased results. That said, I always assumed that billeted uppers were better, because they're so much more expensive. Why on earth would there be such a large market for an inferior part that costs so much more? I tend to trust the wisdom of prices discovered in free markets between interchangeable goods. I would also assume that it depended on whether the part was stamped from sheet metal, or actually forged. Then if it was heat treated or cryo treated to align the metallic crystals and relieve stresses. If the part was milled on well treated bar stock by a quality manufacturer, then I would trust it more. We can't look into the factory, so reputation is paramount. To me the most important one is the lower, because its the serialized part that has the NFA tax stamp. You can't just swap it out with another one, like an upper.
+Rick Holden milling is more a more expensive manufacturing process, but it also has lower setup costs which makes it much better suited for limited runs and also for companies that make multiple products within the same space.
You just proved that the forged reciever is harder than billet. Think about why they use soft steel bolts for seat belt; because they bend, not break like hardened steel bolts. So what happened when you used a stupid high psi round is you broke a harder aluminum and you bent a softer aluminum. I don't know where you have heard about rifles having these kinds of failures on the battlefield but from my deployment experience I don't ever remember anyone coming back from outside the wire with that kind of catastrophic failure. I feel like in a more real world scenario you'd see the forged upper receive no damage because of its hardness and you would would see the billet eventually bend. Just my two cents based on your results.
+James Dean If you knew anything about metallurgy you would realize Grant Boss is exactly right. This guy just contradicted himself, by saying the forged barrel broke and the billet bent. Thats because when a metal is harder they become more brittle, where as a soft metal will bend. Like copper versus cast iron... You probably shouldn't call people names when you dont have a clue what you are talking about.
+mavrick211 No, C.I.P. defines the maximum service and proof test pressures of the .223 Remington cartridge equal to the 5.56×45mm NATO, at 62,366 psi (SAAMI 55,114 psi). They are identical. The pressure differences occur when using either 5.56x45mm cartridge in a .223 Rem. cartridge chamber or a .223 Rem. cartridge in a 5.56x45mm chamber, as the two have different dimensions. Firing a 5.56x45mm from the smaller chamber dimensions of the .223 Rem. chamber will cause pressures exceeding safe levels, whereas, firing a .223 Rem. cartridge from a 5.56x45mm chamber will result in lower pressures due to the larger chamber dimensions, including the longer leade. The wall thickness of mil-std brass versus commercial brass has nothing to do with chamber pressures if you understand that the mil-std brass has less case volume due to the thicker case wall, resulting in the necessity of a smaller powder charge to maintain safe chamber pressures. I'll refrain from calling you names, such as you needlessly and wrongfully called +James Dean.
+betatalk357 the phenomenon you mentioned is called work hardening, which doesn't occur in hot forging processes. Anyway to achieve T designation the aluminum has to be heat treated which relieves work hardening anyway.
Mechanical engineering student here, I've worked in machine shops and do some casting and alloying at my house, from experience and some still developing knowledge of materials science, any machined piece will always be on par to or of greater strength than a part that is either cast or forged. A machined piece will always be of a uniform metal crystal because it came that way as a billet. If you were to cast a receiver (why would you do that?) it would solidify into a metal crystal conforming to the shape of the mold and thus be weaker than a uniform crystal. A forged piece would have a mostly uniform crystal if it was forged at once in a press but would also have areas in which the crystal is deformed and harder or softer than the rest of the piece. The reason that a forged receiver is still milspec is that the tolerances of the metal crystal are still good enough to function in its service life and its much less expensive.
There is no debate. Ounce for ounce forged metal is stronger. If you have a Billet receiver that is three times thicker that's not any kind of real comparison. forged receivers are cheaper because every Billet receiver has to be machined individually. You are paying more for less.
I wish everyone would stop saying forged is stronger than billet. First off it might be or it might not depend on where on the receiver you are measuring. Forging causes grain structure in the metal (it does not compact the molecules... duh). This grain structure is like that which you might see in a piece of furniture. That is if you drill a hole in a piece of wood the hole will be strong with the grain but totally crap across the grain. Same is true with forgings. Secondly, there is a BIG difference between strength and stiffness. Unless you stress your upper so much that it deforms you really don't care about strength (exploding rounds aside). Strength is the measure of where it breaks. Stiffness has much more to do with the accuracy of the shot. All things being equal the amount aluminum bends with stress (elasticity) is pretty much the same no matter what its composition or temper (go ahead look it up!). So therefore if you want your upper to deflect less when you fire that round you need to add material. More metal = stiffer. Doesn't matter if its forged or billet, 6061, 7075, or any other aluminum. Even if you plan on running your AR-15 over with a truck your receiver is still likely to hold up better because there's more material there not because its forged into super metal.
Giant Rooster Forged is stronger, but not for the reasons you cite. It is stronger precisely because it DOES have grain structure (all metals do). The difference is that with billet, the grains are all oriented in the direction that the billet goes through the rolling mill in sequential rolling steps, whereas in a forging the grain ends up being oriented according to the deformation that occurs in the forging process, which is a benefit in almost all part geometries. Also, 7075 forgings are annealed and then heat treated after forging and before machining, so work hardening is not an advantage. If the forging is heavier (and it's not true in general that a forged part is heavier than a billet part), it is because of fillet radii and such - the density of the forged 7075 is virtually identical to billet 7075.
Skivvy -- The elastic deflection of the aluminum is not much of a player in the accuracy of the shot. The round starts off in the chamber, which is cut into the barrel, and the bolt is locked to the barrel by the lugs. Thus, it's the barrel that is the determining factor in accuracy. All the receiver has to do is hold the rear sight zero so that the barrel is pointed at the target correctly *at the point of trigger release*. The bullet is moving at 3000 fps when it passes the gas port, starting the gas pressure wave in the gas tube, and exits the muzzle 100 millionths of a second later. Meanwhile, the gas pressure wave is only moving at Mach 1 and is barely an inch or two down the gas tube when the bullet is gone. Thus, the bullet is away long before the 15000-20,000 psi gas pressure makes it to the receiver. The bolt remainsis locked to the breech until the gas pushes the carrier back and rotates the lugs to start the auto load cycle. Stoner was a good engineer. All this is why a marksman or sharpshooter can make 500 or 600 yard shots with an very lightweight AR. You are right about the modulus of aluminum being the same for all alloys and tempers... but your comment on running the thing over with a truck misses the very important point that in a combat rifle, which the AR is, weight is a priority. The entire reason for the AR platform's design, starting with the little round but including the gun itself with plastic furniture, etc. was to address the realization that in the field, weight is critically important. Given that, forging the receivers makes a lot of sense... and that is why the military uses forgings. They're better.
THE FORGED UPPER IS STRONGER. Keep reading for an explanation. This video is misleading but I do believe that he is probably being genuine about the circumstances and results leading to the condition of the two uppers... Forged is stronger, it contains the expanding gases for longer leading, to higher pressures and eventual kaboom. The milled upper was weaker, flexed and gave out earlier thus venting the gas at a lower peak pressure. Is this better/worse? In my opinion it doesn't mean JACK. It's like saying if you have a kaboom by your face it is better that your gun be made out of harmless paper instead of dangerous metal, get over it and don't try to pass off earlier failure as safety feature WHILE ALSO saying it is stronger. By that same argument you can claim that a billet upper is stronger than steel pipe used in a pipe bomb. It's just plain faulty logic. You want a stronger upper to soak up a little more abuse; go forged. You want more custom touches, go billet. END OF STORY. Furthermore, he starts off talking about LOWER receivers and the shows INDUCED catastrophic failure in UPPERS. Apples to oranges my friends.
Ironcurtains Forged is stiffer than milled. Though with that being said for things like explosion and impacts you want something that absorbs the pressure the best way to absorb that pressure is through flexing this is what the milled will do better in. The forged have a far better chance at harming the shooter if something was to happen because the forged is trying to fight the pressure instead of slightly going with it (like the milled). Long story short, just because something is stronger doesn't mean it's better.
I'm not saying u are right or wrong but I would rather take the mild receiver do to the fact that they were both put under the same test and the forged receiver blew up and shot shrapnel everywhere and the milled only stretched and broke on a thinner piece of the unit. Thuse showing that the milld could take more of a beating... That's just my 2 cents like I said I'm not saying ur right or wrong that just my opinion
The upper and lower receivers of the AR15 only serve one purpose, to keep all the moving parts in place. They were not designed nor intended to contain the energy of a 556 round. All of that takes place in the chamber and is contained by the chamber, the barrel extension, and the multi lug bolt. The upper receivers were destroyed because the chamber pressure created by the "proof" rounds could no longer be contained by the bolt, which failed and split the hardened steel of the bolt carrier. The fragments of the bolt carrier shattering is what destroyed the aluminum upper. I'm sure the bolt was missing some lugs on it and it was probably stuck in the receiver extension. Again, the aluminum receivers were never designed to contain the pressures that occur in the chamber. It's the job of the hardened steel of the barrel, chamber, barrel extension, bolt, and bolt carrier. It's why stoner used aluminum for the receivers.
+GunsGearNGrub It's hard to make much distinction from the two types of material. Aluminium "Billet" could have been forged or not, as we cannot tell unless the manufacturer told us. Also the "forged" is lower could be equal to the "Billet" but unless a controlled test is done, we can't tell. We would need to experiment with a Extruded billet vs. a open die forging. Billet is the shape of the metal, not the actual process a metal piece has undergone to achieve its strength. There isn't much stress but on the receivers anyways so it might not even matter.
while I agree with you in this instance, your "military grade! HOORAH HOORAH HOORAH!" aurgument is flawed. "Military issued" & "Military Grade" often means the most cost effective junk unlce sam is going to pay for. Sometimes it's good and sometimes it's bad but most of the time it means there was something better but a budget committee wouldn't aprove the spending.
+Lance Walker Or worse yet, maybe even something inferior that a certain constituent makes, and his senator just so happens to be an influential member if said committee.
Why didn't you compare apples to apples a billet 7075-T6 to a forged 7075-T6 cause all you done is showed that a 7075 aluminum is stronger then 6061 aluminum
Major fail... go read up on hot and cold forgings please and then do a little failure analysis on the two differently shaped receivers that you showed us.
Am I missing something? You talk about a lower receiver and then show two damaged uppers. All of the pressures occur in the upper. Why, then would it be "better" to spend the money on a billet lower ($250.00 v's $75.00)? Real world the comparison is pointless and to me it is just trying to justify the expense. Even considering the pin issue. A $27.00 set of anti-roll pins eliminate most of the wear. The fact is, the only real difference between billet and forged is cosmetic. I, for one, did not build my AR based on looks.
GGnG, I enjoy and learn from your videos, and I'm sorry that you stopped making them. Just wanted to let you know that I appreciated your fine and knowledgeable efforts. --- David
I prefer forged and function over form any day. But, here's a question for you. Why don't they forge a received to excessive size, then CNC mill it to a nice pretty shape? It's would be a hybird, milled/forged receiver. Stong as a forge, but pretty as a billet?
Let's us be clear folks, MOST if not, ALL raw billets are not hardened for the purpose of additional milling, or more specifically 80% lowers, so we can complete milling into a usable lower receiver for our build. None of us is in the right mind considers annealed (hardened) aluminum after milling. The complete billet receivers sold by high-end gun manufacturers such as Ruger, Colt, Savage etc. are hardened. Fly by night manufacturers of billet receivers to include Aero Precision, Spikes, PSA, Anderson, etc. may not be hardened, then claimed as Mil-Specs when it should not be considered as Mil-Specs. That's a fact. I am an aircraft mechanic, working in making aircraft parts, and all aluminum must be hardened to specification to meet the FAA requirement, but normally started out as soft (weaken) aluminum for welding drilling and milling purposes. It is true that forged billets are stronger when compared to non-hardened billets, and can mass produce in a short time period. That is why the military chose forged because it's cheaper and manufacturers can build it faster, it was not for the sole reason that forged receivers are stronger.
I have been using fire arms for more than 50 years. I've dropped my rifles on rocks when hunting in the mountains but I can't say I have ever had any break. So I just don't see how this makes any difference. When a company claims that there lowers are bomb proof it doesn't have one stitch meaning to why I buy them.
A billet upper is milled from a forged blank. (machined into the correct shape) the standard upper is milled from a cast blank (poured into a basic mold)
Incorrect. A billet upper is milled from......you guessed it....a billet!!! A "standard" receiver as you call it is forged from hot aluminum not milled from a casting.
WTF is going on here? The lower receiver is nothing but a shell that holds parts. It doesn't really matter what type of metal is used--there is NO STRESS OR WEAR to speak of--even the plastic ones work if made correct. The upper is a different story so why not separate the topics?
there is stress on the trigger pins when the hammer drops, that slowly wears out the lower. It will make stress fractures in the lower over time. It would take tens of thousands of rounds, between 50 and 70, which no one will ever shoot and the user would go through many barrels and bcg's and possibly uppers. The difference in negligible and i doubt anyone, even the factories testing and designing these lowers would even reach, but it does put stress on lower.
Alex Morrison We have Colt AR-15's on our rental range that have passed 100,000 rounds, some nearing 150,000 and while all the moving parts have been replaced, the uppers & lowers have NOT been affected by any means so I don't know where you are seeing these damaged receivers at the 50K mark. I didn't see it in the military either. On a SCAR yes. AR NO.
Alex Morrison By the way if you are basing this AR-15 information on what you have heard from the videos you have watched from Yankee Marshal, James Yeager, Larry Vickers, or Aregularguy90 , (aregularguy90 shouldn't be allowed to touch a gun LOL) I suggest you stop--NOW!
***** I have extensive use with the carbon fiber receivers and found them to be very durable with none of the cracking you talk about. Bushmaster feels the same way--which is why they still sell them. I would trust a carbon receiver on an AR to last longer than that piece of shit plastic SCAR folding stock that all the GI fan boys rave about--until they actually use them that is.
***** I don't base my statements on what I see on Google. DO YOU? If I believed anything on the web we should soak out 1911's in oil to work (they don't need oil to work) and any Glock I have should have blown up by now. The original carbon AR's were designed by Professional Ordnance. The rifles had many problems due to bad quality control, but NEVER had an issue with the carbon material receivers failing. Bushmaster bought them out and covered warranty issues for years, NONE of which had to do with the carbon material on the frames. They continued with a redesign and still do today. All these Google "blow up" videos are mainly bullshit. We are rarely told what ammo the Goober was using (often crappy reloads) or other facts. There is NO WAY a carbon fiber receiver is going to cause an AR to go KABOOM. The lower receiver is just a shell that holds parts, and the fired cartridge is in the chamber, so if something blows it is going to blow even if the receivers are made of steel. The metal might offer more protection to the shooter but to say the frame material caused the explosion is totally absurd. Further more if they had all these "problems" you talk about they would have been taken off the market long ago. They have not and are not.
What do overpressure rounds have to do with the upper receiver? The chamber, barrel and bolt take all the pressure. How many tests did you perform? Did you use the exact same barrel for each test? That kind of test makes no sense to me. Where's your data?
Where can I order one of those lower receivers that accepts a.k. magazines? is it from your company? what is the name of your company? Do you offer the complete rifle or pistol in that configuration?
You have to test things that are exact on all sides. Get a milled receiver that meets all the same thickness dimension as a forged, same style (no forward assist, no carry handle or visa versa). Milled receivers tend to be thicker due to the fact that the process isn't as strong as forged aluminum. Forged can be lighter due to less mass cause of its strength. This has been tested and tested and tested over and over again in strict testing requirements, with all test being equal on all levels. Same barrels, same ammo, same forces, same build parts. I have seen rifles take an IED blast and survive. I have seen people drop their milled rifle off a bench at the range and it cracked.
+Malon Labe I love it when people like you have to resort to bullshit. LOL dropped a billet receiver and it cracked......hahaha yeah right. Oh and not just one time multiple times and you haven't ever served you bitch.
+James Dean: I would like to see your DD214. My guess is you never served. ........even if Malon Labe never served that does not exclude his opinion or knowledge.....your service makes you nothing special in regard to common courtesy......if you did serve your general attitude of belligerent name calling disgraces whatever branch you served in and those you served with......
I'm sorry, but the only thing this shows is that forged receivers have a lower malleability than one milled straight from billet stock. This is normal for all non-ferrous metals, where shaping them work hardens them (same reason why brass cases eventually split, and why there is such demand for annealing machines to extend the brass life). A better test would be to put them in both a tensioning machine that tests to failure (hopefully everyone's seen them before in steel testing) to show how much force the piece has to be under before it starts to deform, and eventually break. There are also machines that bend sample pieces to failure, testing tension strength on the side that stretches (outside bend) and compression strength on the inside bend. These two tests will give better insight to how strong each receiver could be instead of blowing each of them up with an overpressure round.
catastrophic failure is catastrophic failure reguardless. If you shoot the standard pressure or even reload to the standard pressure there should be no problem!! Show me the forged part on ANY gun that fails at or under normal pressure and I will be concerned. With due respect you video seems to be a justification for spending money not needed
Wouldn't a forged receiver blow to pieces ( shrapnel ) if something happened then just bend like a billet receiver tends to do ? I mean a forged one is more brittle yes ?
Just wondering... before it’s milled isn’t the aluminum forged into large chunk of raw material then extruded into desired dimensions? So aren’t you just milling forged aluminum?
There's a reason why wrenches, turnbuckles, chain hooks, anvils, etc. are forged instead of machined out of a block of steel. And it's not just the fact that in high quantities the piece price is cheaper than machined parts. They're tougher. If you don't believe that, machine a wrench out of steel and abuse it as much as you'd abuse a forged wrench. It will break. I know, I've done it. The other think to think about is the what happens when you do a lot of machining or grinding on a forged piece. Forging forces the grains to follow the shape. Machining disrupts the continuous grain formed by the forging process. So it gets weaker. I may be wrong about aluminum, but I don't think you're accomplishing much when you take a block of 7075, squish it down flatter in a press and then completely change the shape machining it into a AR-15 lower.
A couple of things: 1. Sample size (not enough for a statistical determination) 2. How many rounds through each before they gave out (Important because stress is accumulative) 3. What quality procedures did each of them go through? (not fair to compare a $50 forged no brand vs a $300 billet name brand with solid QC procedures) All this matter, without a proper experimental procedure, this is just conjecture and opinion. My experience, buy what ever you want, but put the proper ammo thru, either of these receives would have lasted a lifetime, if the proper ammo were to be used.
Hey bud, I'm almost finished with my build! I went slightly higher-end than I originally set out to, and I'm going to post a few videos about it. My receiver is forged by Rainier, but I will probably go to billet from Rainier in the future. Is there a forum you frequent? I'd like to keep in touch.
It's not worth it unless your very well off and have plenty of ammo. There is something wrong with his bolt or barrel or something interfering with the locking/unlocking, his confirmation bias is strong. I know the name Rainier, with the competition these days you get what you pay for or the company dies quickly. If you paid a decent amount I am sure it will last you a lifetime if you maintain your bolt and barrel.
Lol... "Uh...look...this milled up is better than the forged..." "drrrrr...Hey, check out this forged barrel. It didn't blow up even after 7 squib loads."
Usually the milled receiver advertise as such, but they mostly have a integral trigger guard. Ours don't (for some unknown reason). With milled receivers however, you can usually see milling marks on the receiver. Also, the bottom of the magwell is usually sharper since it is harder to round the corners in a cnc machine and isn't worth the added cost (in manufacturing, every extra min. on a machine costs money)
basic science tells you you're wrong. Forged is stronger than billet, the molecules are pressed much closer together making forged materials harder than billet. But you already know that because people have already told you, you're just biased because you sell billet receivers. Billet is softer, that's just fact, ever wonder why the fantastic billet lowers always have the trigger guard built in...?
Yes harder means stronger but also means more brittle. Harder materials are more susceptible to damage occurring due to shock load than softer materials. Now if you are running the proper ammunition and not shock loading the system with excessive pressure, I agree that the forged is better. Like you have said it is harder, and harder materials take wear much better than softer materials.
+Joe Loeffler yes harder materials are more brittle, common sense, but softer materials will begin to take damage faster and wear faster. The difference is that the softer material will bend and bulge as it starts to fail, and harder materials will crack, again common sense (at least I thought). You can tell this guy is full of it when he says the pins wear slower or better on billet than forged. Basically what this guy did is shoot 300 BLK in a 5.56 upper (same result). Doesn't prove anything
OK, first, metal is not a molecular structure, it's a crystalline structure, no molecules. All else being equal, forged is stronger than milled, but that's due to grain flow and grain refinement, not "molecules pressed together". The question is, how much stronger and if it's worth the extra cost. Also, there's more to go wrong with forging, IE. over heating or forging at too low a temp cause micro fractures. Each metal responds differently to forging and has it's own window for forging. The M14's receiver is a good example of forged vs. cast, and cost affective. If I remember rite, the forged receiver is good for around 60 thousand rounds, the M1a's cast receiver about 50 thousand rounds, but it's a hell of a lot cheaper to investment cast for that complicated receiver than it is to forge it, and the forged generally runs several hundred dollars more than the cast or a billet receiver. That said, my M14's are forged, but that's my personal preference. End of the day, it all comes down to personal preference, I doubt the average user will notice much difference between the two.
Im no expert but having owned a handful of forged receivers and recently picking up a milled receiver i can say the difference between them is minimal. Having said that i have limited experience with the milled but i have destroyed a few of the forged receivers and what he shows in this clip makes sense to me. The forged receivers dont act like i expect metal to. They chip to pieces like rock and snap like plastic. The milled receiver seems to bend more and doesnt snap apart. Less shrapnel is a good thing, but lets hope it doesnt come to that. I once dropped my beretta 92 slide on the edge of the frame and a tiny bit chipped off. That forged aluminum may be "hard" but it breaks apart easily. Ironically i intend to baby this milled ar 15, but i just might buy another one and put it through its paces. Good video despite the scathing comments below me.
Bullshit meter is off the charts! Forged is always stronger than billet. Forging changes the grain structure of the metal in a way that makes it stronger, billet does not. (Metals alloys have atoms that form crystals, NOT MOLECULES. Forging does not pack them tighter, this is impossible, it changes the crystal structure) Billet will always be heavier, weaker (for a given weight), and more expensive (more waste, more machining time). This is literally something you learn the first week in IME 101. Do you understand that a sample set of 2 is meaningless data? I guarantee those two uppers didn't experience the same exact event. If you want to prove which is stronger, you have to devise a test that can measure their relative strength in a repeatable experiment, and take a larger sample set than 1 and 1. Your opinion is based on a single experience and not much else. If you put the over pressure round in a rifle and fired it with out blocking the gas port, of course you caused a failure, there isn't enough dwell time for the pressure to drop to a safe level before the bolt started to cycle. There is no aluminum upper that would have survived this. This is not something that would ever happen in real life. Alternatively, you're up here talking about billet receivers and you make billet, of course you will tell people they're better! Higher margins, and and much simpler supply chain. Billet 7075 is FAR easier to get right now than raw forgings, you don't have to compete with other manufactures for them. How did you draw this out to 13 minutes? Just to re-cap; Metals + metals > alloys, Metals + non metals = ionic compounds, non metals + non metals = molecules.
Hot forging does change the molecular structure, but it also does make the material denser. Cold forging just makes the material denser. I believe that is what he was talking about when he said packing the molecules tighter. Everything else you say I agree with..
Jeremy Paulin Metals DO NOT FORM MOLECULES. You are not going to make metal denser with forging, forging changes the GRAIN STRUCTURE of the metal crystals.
either way everyone is missing a major point! billet used to mill out receivers is drop forged, forged receivers are also drop forged! i don't know of any one who manufacturers a receiver hammer forged! barrels on the other hand have and probable will continue to be hammer forged by all the top end companies and only the lower end companies will use rifling mills
GearCheck 101 You're right metal doesnt make molecules, molecules make up metal lmao. Forging does make the metal stronger and more dense, as well as change the grain structure. Its the same thing when building an engine. Forged rods are always stronger. Sorry.
Metals do not form molecules in any way. Molecules are comprised totally of non-metals. Metals form iconic compounds with non metals. Metals do not chemically combine with other metals, they alloy, which is essentially a heterogeneous mixture.
cracked or bent, you can't use it anyway. The question is, will a forged receiver with the same design crack more easily than a billet receiver will bend on stress points.
Also, did you actually test that forged receiver to see if it was from s reputable licensed mil spec forging company? Many companies make ripoff false products. Also people tend to buy cast lowers from the 90's and are told its forged. Some companies forge with a different mix of materials to lower cost and weight, thus not meeting milspec standards. There are very few certified forging companies in the US
Does anyone realize that one receiver with the integrated rail is inherently stronger because there is more material. Secondly, the upper receiver only sees serious stress after the bolt fails catastrophically... That's like having a bullet pass through your Kevlar and expecting your t-shirt to hopefully save you. Come on man, be realistic and logical lol
This guy did a horrible job explaining the difference. When dealing with receivers, Billet is a raw block of metal that then needs to be completely milled to get it into shape. Forged is when a mold is made and molten metal is poured into the mold to give it a rough shape that is then milled to final specs.
I worked in a forge that made colt uppers and lowers. If you understand the forging process when the aluminum is hammered in to shape it creates cracks some can be found some cant.
Title of the video is "Seeing is believing" then doesn't actually show footage of the upper receiver failures. You may be totally right but it's hard to actually believe anything you're saying without any footage or proof of the failures.
As far as strength, plastic is strong enough, so any aluminum that is used for receivers is strong enough. As far as I'm concerned, it doesn't matter which type of process is used. Both are stronger than they need to be.
A forged upper is harder and more dense, this means more brittle hence the severe failure. However it is also more wear resistant.The billet is less dense and softer, therefore more ductile so the failure is less severe. However it will wear faster.
Understanding this is a 7 year old video but oh well will comment anyway. A forged upper/lower receiver is hammered or forged into a rough shape, then machined (milled) after to meet the “milspec” tolerances. A billet upper/lower receiver begins as a forged blank, the blank is machined, therefore allows for a more custom finished look since the receiver starts from a block. Both are forged, one is forged into the rough dimensions and shape of the finished receiver... the quality of the tolerances of machining determines final costs, that’s why an Anderson forged receiver is generally cheaper due to the machining is not held to strict tight tolerance vs some companies with more expensive forged receivers (you are paying for the name too, but the name has earned a reputation typically due to the tighter tolerances) The billet is still a forged into the rectangular blank then machined into the final receiver... just with a lot more machining required. That is what I understand anyway, I don’t work in the industry so perhaps I am ill informed and wrong.
It's always been my understanding that a forged upper and lower can stand more punishment than that of a Billet set up. Now in three gun competitions weight considerations ten to go with a Billet set up to reduce weight during the competition however when running 5 5 6 ammo the pressures generated by such ammo can cause catastrophic failure and injury to the shooter. Headspace verification known as the Go No Go rule is very important during a custom build. Barrels during a build are very important selection and quality are key factors to consider. But this aspect would be for another discussion.
The forged vs billet was extensively tested by Kalashnikov. The stamped receiver was proven to be significantly inferior but cost less than half the price to manufacture. But with dialed down ammo it didn't matter. If someone wants to cram wildcat ammo into a cheap AK47 knock off it's their problem.
I understand that. He mentioned that rifles explode in the military and that we dump them in grease, oil, and other crap. I never saw it happen. Maybe in the army lol
Very typical in Israel. Many of the M16s, used by Israel, are surplus from the Vietnam war and early 70-80's rifles. The modern M16 is far superior material wise.
AWC said on their website that a forged receiver was forged together by 2 pieces of metal. And the break point you showed could be the joint point where that 2 pieces were forged together? what do you think? www.americanweaponscomponents.com/billet-vs-forged-lowers-whats-best/
You explain the forging (strength hardening) of the forging, show that the forged is stronger than the billet, yet mistste it midway that the billet is stronger. Maybe you want to edit?
You left out some critical details explaining how most billet receivers, including the one shown, are made to be as strong, if not stronger than forged ones. If both receivers were the EXACT same dimensions, the billet would probably look worse than the forged.
In strength when comparing any items made of the same alloy Forged>Billet>Cast Unless of course it was a cast billet and not a forged billet. Casting is cheapest especially investment casting and requires the least final machining. I don't know of anyone making cast upper or lower AR receivers. Forging takes more machining but is stronger. Billet looks the cleanest if you care about that because the entire receiver has to be finish machined, but it's generally the most expensive due to all the extra machining operations. Though not as expensive as it would have been pre CNC when said operations would've added hours to the machining process as opposed to minutes. It's really amazing when you look at older guns where parts were machined entirely from steel billets. Such things would be beyond prohibitively expensive today. I would be leery of a billet upper or lower unless the manufacturer specified that it was a forged billet. I wouldn't want a cast receiver. Yes I realize plenty of firearms use them and they are perfectly safe.I also am one of the few people intelligent enough to realize that the carbon fiber and/or polymer uppers and lowers are safe. But they feel very chintzy and I wouldn't want one.
Forged aluminum is way different than forged steel! Forged aluminum is more brittle then billet the billet will flex more without cracking, they forge mill spec uppers and lowers because it's cheaper and faster to manufacture than machining them out of a billet and the forging is stronger than casting them! Quit over thinking things people!
but why did he say that the trigger pins were wearing more on the forged vrs the billet lowers? that area is not an 'impact' area and I would think that the billet would wear more because it is going to be a little bit softer .... I am confused :)
Why does this seem like a company that can't forge is trying to fluff up the value of billeted receivers? Redo the high pressure test five more times and show me forged isn't stronger.
Totally irrelevant. Those lower failures were caused by the over pressured DI gas system driving the bolt carrier . Either lower the DI pressure with an adjustable gas block or change the gun to a single shot rifle by completely blocking off the gas will fix the problem, provided the barrel and the bolt can withstand the over pressured ammo.
Two different uppers configurations, it's not a fare comparison to start with. In general the picatiny rail on the M4 would add strength to the upper. The forging is stronger than billet, and further more both require to be milled. So the title of the vid is inaccurate. It should read Forged vs Billet.
You used different uppers, a flat top and one with a carry handle. Not only that, but the lower receivers had nothing to do with the failure of either upper. They're held together with only two generously clearanced pins that do nothing to brace the upper against the forces involved.
soon we will be selling them in America. We are just finalizing details with a certain company, and we will be shipping in 80% milled lowers, and parts kits. They will be finishing them there and assembling. They are going to be a reasonably priced higher end rifle. I'll post the name as soon as we finalize the deal.
What makes the billet stronger is the billet has way less metal removed from it...hence stronger. But billet is heaver, so that is a trade off. If a forged is cared for properly and the ammo is treated as it should be, the forged is just as good and lighter. So much for your video trying to sell billet.
A forging is stronger than billet. Is the average AR-15 owner going to be able to tell the difference in strength? No. The difference in strength isn't huge but it's there. For one of my AR builds I went with a billet lower and upper because they matched each other and the lower has a ambi bolt release. Am I going to loose sleep over the fact that forged is slightly stronger than billet? No. I have several forged and billet AR's they all shoot, they're all very nice guns, and they'll serve me for decades to come. The fact of the matter is with proper care and maintenance either one will more than likely outlast their owner. Unless you mortar the piss out of it and break the lower receiver.
You know they can CNC a billet upper and lower from forged ingots also. So you can have both. Most people think that billet uppers and lowers are made from cast ingots, there are not. They forge the ingot and then it's heat treated to the spec. that's requested. I hope this helps.
Man if that hammer forged barrel on that galil stood up to 7 rounds getting stacked on top of each other, imagine how much tougher a billet barrel would be............
jcast25 lovin' your snarky sarcasm man. Billet barrel, exactly! The whole forged vs. billet debate is as senseless as Ford vs. Chevy. Who gives a fuck. Like others have stated, if they can make a polymer AR that runs just fine (most of the time) then the argument is moot at best.
Does not prove strength a good possibility what he is showing is the less dense billet stretched releasing the pressure and the forged didn't .plus there is no way to know the pressure was the same for the examples.
It's important to note that without an understanding of the sort of stock that a milled receiver starts from, no testing is worth anything. Receivers can be milled from drop forged, extruded, or cast blocks. The block that is drop forged at the foundry has the greatest potential strength, due to being compressed by hydraulic hammers. As it comes from the foundry, there is no greater strength to be had through forging. This is the strongest piece of aluminum possible and you have a greater strength POTENTIAL milling a receiver from this block than you do with a forged receiver. POTENTIAL. Cast billets have inclusions, bubbles and other impurities that weaken the materiel at the base level. "Forged" receivers have the disadvantage of less materiel. So, given a forged receiver Vs a milled receiver cut from a quality billet of foundry forged aluminum, the advantage in strength of materiel is ALWAYS on the side of the milled receiver, because they can forge a block to a much higher pressure than they can forge a piece of aluminum into a curved, complicated shape with dies. Therefore, it can be assumed that any structural deficiencies displayed in a receiver milled from a quality billet are not inherent weakness of the materiel by comparison, but rather geometric differences that come about as a result of the stock removal process. It is much more difficult to reproduce complex geometric lines through milling than through "forging" because what we refer to as "forging" is actually a superior version of casting, and not actually forging at all in the classical sense. Think of forging as casting under pressure. The pressure forces the impurities out of the metal, and that is the end of the advantage of forging when it comes to inherent strength. Aluminum is very different than steel, and as a materiel it does not benefit from the sort of forging that strengthens steel. Steel forms various crystalline matrices according to carbon chain alignment within the grain structure, and forging and heat treating allow one to control that process to a great degree. Aluminum has no such qualities. It is a comparatively soft metal, low in ductility, low in yield strength without anodizing or other surface treatment and not so great in terms of malleability either. Steel can be any or none of that, depending on how it's treated. Aluminum just does not vary much through it's treatment. Either it's solid or it's not, and the inherent variance in yield strength, rockwell hardness, ductility and maleability are usually the results of alloying, not of the handling of the materiel. This seems to be a hot button issue and I hope this clears up some misonceptions that seem be thrown around a lot.
Forged receivers are stronger because the forging process makes the material more dense. Billet are more expensive because of excessive machining processes. Billet is not worth the extra cost.
You could actually anneal the forged receivers and get better results. You'd probably only have to anneal them shortly. Get rid of the strain hardening and promote recrystallization. They'll still be tough as nails, and actually will be less prone to fracture.
"Forgings are weaker than billet" "This hammer forged barrel is the best in the world" ...... Something doesn't add up.
What you said is true, billet/machined parts are stronger than forgings. Also Forgings leave stress in the metal that causes another set of problems. WITH THE EXCEPTION OF HAMMER FORGED BARRELS. HAMMER FORGED ARE MUCH DIFFERENT THAN REGULAR FORGINGS THE HAMMER FORGED BARRELS ARE HAMMERED MILLIONS OF TIMES WITH FOUR MACHINE HEADS. THEY ARE COLD FORGED TOO, SO WITH THE COLD FORGING AND MILLIONS OF HAMMERS THE BARRELS ARE SUPER STRONG. WHAT HE SAID IS TRUE.
You got it wrong dude... forgings are stronger than Billet... they are hardened due to the forging process... I think you're referring to aluminum castings... Which are poured from molten aluminum. Billet receivers are more expensive because there's about triple the amount of Machining time to machine a billet receiver then there is to machine a preformed forged receiver... There's a reason every 5,000 horsepower AA Funny Car and AA Dragster run forged aluminum pistons, forged steel connecting rods, forged steel crankshafts, and forged aluminum rear wheels....!
@Jake Heke You sir are an idiot... Not even close... Take some IE & ME classes in metalurgy, strength of materials , & production processes... Then you might have your head out of your ass...!
Cold hammer forged. There is a difference.
The barrel is cold hammer forged, the receivers are forged while glowing red.
Forged is better than billet - it is not because the "molecules are packed closer together". It is because the aluminum, like all metals, has a grain structure. Billet material is *rolled* in several stages, and as result the grains end up oriented in one direction. If you look at (real) engineering data, you'll see that the strength of aluminum differs in different directions relative to the grain direction. With a forging, on the other hand, the grain follows the flow of the metal as it is deformed by the forging operation. This generally results in a stronger part, or a lighter part for the same strength. Highly stressed parts, such as race engine crankshafts, connecting rods or pistons, or airplane parts such as landing gear, are generally forged. I have no idea what happened to that destroyed upper you showed, but I never saw one that did that. I would never use anything but a 7075-T6 forging for an AR upper or lower receiver.
anisotropic
I applaud your reliance on evidence based material purchasing, but this reminds me of what happens at my research job when folks outside our research department design experiments without a professional researcher. What you have in the experiment is a sample of 1 for each receiver type.
What that means, is that you have zero data as to whether if you did the same experiment again, that you wouldn't get opposite results. It's literally like tossing coin twice, getting heads twice in a row, and using that to declare the coin rigged.
Statistically, you really don't know anything until at least 5 replications each (10 total) with a robust estimate of the outcome for all forged and milled receivers until a minimum of 7 (14 total). So, your didn't save money by only doing it once each. You wasted money by doing it at all.
Both receivers failed, and the exact way they failed probably won't be the same way each time. Unfortunately, we don't know anything from the experiment about forged vs. milled. We only know about those two specific receivers.
+Rick Holden
I totally agree. Thank you for posting the most intelligent comment in this entire thread.
+Rick Holden YES! Big surprise that his company sells billet uppers.
8literbeater Yeah, I do business research for a living, and I've noticed that the right number of replications or studies required by an executive usually equals the first set of results that confirm whatever the exec wanted to do in the first place. If they don't like the results, they'll ask for another study. If they like them, then all went well. It all depends on the honesty and integrity of the decision maker. That's why independent research firms are required for unbiased results.
That said, I always assumed that billeted uppers were better, because they're so much more expensive. Why on earth would there be such a large market for an inferior part that costs so much more? I tend to trust the wisdom of prices discovered in free markets between interchangeable goods.
I would also assume that it depended on whether the part was stamped from sheet metal, or actually forged. Then if it was heat treated or cryo treated to align the metallic crystals and relieve stresses. If the part was milled on well treated bar stock by a quality manufacturer, then I would trust it more. We can't look into the factory, so reputation is paramount.
To me the most important one is the lower, because its the serialized part that has the NFA tax stamp. You can't just swap it out with another one, like an upper.
+Rick Holden milling is more a more expensive manufacturing process, but it also has lower setup costs which makes it much better suited for limited runs and also for companies that make multiple products within the same space.
+Rick Holden
Thanks for your reply, now I understand a lot more then I did before I seen this video and read your reply.
You just proved that the forged reciever is harder than billet. Think about why they use soft steel bolts for seat belt; because they bend, not break like hardened steel bolts. So what happened when you used a stupid high psi round is you broke a harder aluminum and you bent a softer aluminum. I don't know where you have heard about rifles having these kinds of failures on the battlefield but from my deployment experience I don't ever remember anyone coming back from outside the wire with that kind of catastrophic failure. I feel like in a more real world scenario you'd see the forged upper receive no damage because of its hardness and you would would see the billet eventually bend. Just my two cents based on your results.
+James Dean If you knew anything about metallurgy you would realize Grant Boss is exactly right. This guy just contradicted himself, by saying the forged barrel broke and the billet bent. Thats because when a metal is harder they become more brittle, where as a soft metal will bend. Like copper versus cast iron... You probably shouldn't call people names when you dont have a clue what you are talking about.
+James Dean the military load is a hot high pressure load in 556 you stupid fk
+mavrick211 No, C.I.P. defines the maximum service and proof test pressures of the .223 Remington cartridge equal to the 5.56×45mm NATO, at 62,366 psi (SAAMI 55,114 psi). They are identical. The pressure differences occur when using either 5.56x45mm cartridge in a .223 Rem. cartridge chamber or a .223 Rem. cartridge in a 5.56x45mm chamber, as the two have different dimensions. Firing a 5.56x45mm from the smaller chamber dimensions of the .223 Rem. chamber will cause pressures exceeding safe levels, whereas, firing a .223 Rem. cartridge from a 5.56x45mm chamber will result in lower pressures due to the larger chamber dimensions, including the longer leade.
The wall thickness of mil-std brass versus commercial brass has nothing to do with chamber pressures if you understand that the mil-std brass has less case volume due to the thicker case wall, resulting in the necessity of a smaller powder charge to maintain safe chamber pressures.
I'll refrain from calling you names, such as you needlessly and wrongfully called +James Dean.
+betatalk357 the phenomenon you mentioned is called work hardening, which doesn't occur in hot forging processes.
Anyway to achieve T designation the aluminum has to be heat treated which relieves work hardening anyway.
+Filipe Amaral You're right but it does alter the grain flow unless it's been completely annealed.
Those two receiver uppers are not comparable. Need to do comparison between ones of same configuration.
Mechanical engineering student here, I've worked in machine shops and do some casting and alloying at my house, from experience and some still developing knowledge of materials science, any machined piece will always be on par to or of greater strength than a part that is either cast or forged. A machined piece will always be of a uniform metal crystal because it came that way as a billet. If you were to cast a receiver (why would you do that?) it would solidify into a metal crystal conforming to the shape of the mold and thus be weaker than a uniform crystal. A forged piece would have a mostly uniform crystal if it was forged at once in a press but would also have areas in which the crystal is deformed and harder or softer than the rest of the piece. The reason that a forged receiver is still milspec is that the tolerances of the metal crystal are still good enough to function in its service life and its much less expensive.
I tried really hard to watch this, but the audio just wasn't tolerable.
There is no debate. Ounce for ounce forged metal is stronger. If you have a Billet receiver that is three times thicker that's not any kind of real comparison. forged receivers are cheaper because every Billet receiver has to be machined individually. You are paying more for less.
I wish everyone would stop saying forged is stronger than billet. First off it might be or it might not depend on where on the receiver you are measuring. Forging causes grain structure in the metal (it does not compact the molecules... duh). This grain structure is like that which you might see in a piece of furniture. That is if you drill a hole in a piece of wood the hole will be strong with the grain but totally crap across the grain. Same is true with forgings. Secondly, there is a BIG difference between strength and stiffness. Unless you stress your upper so much that it deforms you really don't care about strength (exploding rounds aside). Strength is the measure of where it breaks. Stiffness has much more to do with the accuracy of the shot. All things being equal the amount aluminum bends with stress (elasticity) is pretty much the same no matter what its composition or temper (go ahead look it up!). So therefore if you want your upper to deflect less when you fire that round you need to add material. More metal = stiffer. Doesn't matter if its forged or billet, 6061, 7075, or any other aluminum. Even if you plan on running your AR-15 over with a truck your receiver is still likely to hold up better because there's more material there not because its forged into super metal.
Giant Rooster Forged is stronger, but not for the reasons you cite. It is stronger precisely because it DOES have grain structure (all metals do). The difference is that with billet, the grains are all oriented in the direction that the billet goes through the rolling mill in sequential rolling steps, whereas in a forging the grain ends up being oriented according to the deformation that occurs in the forging process, which is a benefit in almost all part geometries. Also, 7075 forgings are annealed and then heat treated after forging and before machining, so work hardening is not an advantage. If the forging is heavier (and it's not true in general that a forged part is heavier than a billet part), it is because of fillet radii and such - the density of the forged 7075 is virtually identical to billet 7075.
Skivvy -- The elastic deflection of the aluminum is not much of a player in the accuracy of the shot. The round starts off in the chamber, which is cut into the barrel, and the bolt is locked to the barrel by the lugs. Thus, it's the barrel that is the determining factor in accuracy. All the receiver has to do is hold the rear sight zero so that the barrel is pointed at the target correctly *at the point of trigger release*. The bullet is moving at 3000 fps when it passes the gas port, starting the gas pressure wave in the gas tube, and exits the muzzle 100 millionths of a second later. Meanwhile, the gas pressure wave is only moving at Mach 1 and is barely an inch or two down the gas tube when the bullet is gone. Thus, the bullet is away long before the 15000-20,000 psi gas pressure makes it to the receiver. The bolt remainsis locked to the breech until the gas pushes the carrier back and rotates the lugs to start the auto load cycle. Stoner was a good engineer. All this is why a marksman or sharpshooter can make 500 or 600 yard shots with an very lightweight AR. You are right about the modulus of aluminum being the same for all alloys and tempers... but your comment on running the thing over with a truck misses the very important point that in a combat rifle, which the AR is, weight is a priority. The entire reason for the AR platform's design, starting with the little round but including the gun itself with plastic furniture, etc. was to address the realization that in the field, weight is critically important. Given that, forging the receivers makes a lot of sense... and that is why the military uses forgings. They're better.
forged 80% 308 lowers are difficult to find cheaper than machined. Do you know where I can find one for under 60?
THE FORGED UPPER IS STRONGER. Keep reading for an explanation.
This video is misleading but I do believe that he is probably being genuine about the circumstances and results leading to the condition of the two uppers...
Forged is stronger, it contains the expanding gases for longer leading, to higher pressures and eventual kaboom.
The milled upper was weaker, flexed and gave out earlier thus venting the gas at a lower peak pressure.
Is this better/worse? In my opinion it doesn't mean JACK. It's like saying if you have a kaboom by your face it is better that your gun be made out of harmless paper instead of dangerous metal, get over it and don't try to pass off earlier failure as safety feature WHILE ALSO saying it is stronger. By that same argument you can claim that a billet upper is stronger than steel pipe used in a pipe bomb. It's just plain faulty logic. You want a stronger upper to soak up a little more abuse; go forged. You want more custom touches, go billet. END OF STORY.
Furthermore, he starts off talking about LOWER receivers and the shows INDUCED catastrophic failure in UPPERS. Apples to oranges my friends.
dee pee you sound really smart,out of all the people commenting I believe you.! Seriously for real.
Ironcurtains Forged is stiffer than milled. Though with that being said for things like explosion and impacts you want something that absorbs the pressure the best way to absorb that pressure is through flexing this is what the milled will do better in. The forged have a far better chance at harming the shooter if something was to happen because the forged is trying to fight the pressure instead of slightly going with it (like the milled).
Long story short, just because something is stronger doesn't mean it's better.
GI Nicholas i was talking about lowers . sorry
I'm not saying u are right or wrong but I would rather take the mild receiver do to the fact that they were both put under the same test and the forged receiver blew up and shot shrapnel everywhere and the milled only stretched and broke on a thinner piece of the unit. Thuse showing that the milld could take more of a beating... That's just my 2 cents like I said I'm not saying ur right or wrong that just my opinion
Good point
The upper and lower receivers of the AR15 only serve one purpose, to keep all the moving parts in place. They were not designed nor intended to contain the energy of a 556 round. All of that takes place in the chamber and is contained by the chamber, the barrel extension, and the multi lug bolt.
The upper receivers were destroyed because the chamber pressure created by the "proof" rounds could no longer be contained by the bolt, which failed and split the hardened steel of the bolt carrier. The fragments of the bolt carrier shattering is what destroyed the aluminum upper. I'm sure the bolt was missing some lugs on it and it was probably stuck in the receiver extension.
Again, the aluminum receivers were never designed to contain the pressures that occur in the chamber. It's the job of the hardened steel of the barrel, chamber, barrel extension, bolt, and bolt carrier. It's why stoner used aluminum for the receivers.
And I thought you were going to actually show real time physical stress tests.
+GunsGearNGrub It's hard to make much distinction from the two types of material. Aluminium "Billet" could have been forged or not, as we cannot tell unless the manufacturer told us. Also the "forged" is lower could be equal to the "Billet" but unless a controlled test is done, we can't tell. We would need to experiment with a Extruded billet vs. a open die forging. Billet is the shape of the metal, not the actual process a metal piece has undergone to achieve its strength.
There isn't much stress but on the receivers anyways so it might not even matter.
+Tumdeaux Agreed with all you say. I'd also like to see a larger sample size.
Yeah, the military has been using forged lowers for how long now? I think that will suit me just fine.
while I agree with you in this instance, your "military grade! HOORAH HOORAH HOORAH!" aurgument is flawed. "Military issued" & "Military Grade" often means the most cost effective junk unlce sam is going to pay for. Sometimes it's good and sometimes it's bad but most of the time it means there was something better but a budget committee wouldn't aprove the spending.
+Lance Walker Or worse yet, maybe even something inferior that a certain constituent makes, and his senator just so happens to be an influential member if said committee.
Did you even watch the video even a little bit?
In this case forged is both cheaper and stronger.
he said he intentionally used proofing rounds in these guns, which is guaranteed to cause this failure if don't block the gas port
Why didn't you compare apples to apples a billet 7075-T6 to a forged 7075-T6 cause all you done is showed that a 7075 aluminum is stronger then 6061 aluminum
Major fail... go read up on hot and cold forgings please and then do a little failure analysis on the two differently shaped receivers that you showed us.
Am I missing something? You talk about a lower receiver and then show two damaged uppers. All of the pressures occur in the upper. Why, then would it be "better" to spend the money on a billet lower ($250.00 v's $75.00)? Real world the comparison is pointless and to me it is just trying to justify the expense.
Even considering the pin issue. A $27.00 set of anti-roll pins eliminate most of the wear.
The fact is, the only real difference between billet and forged is cosmetic. I, for one, did not build my AR based on looks.
We all know and it’s common knowledge forged is always stronger and better than billet it’s science
how could you not find the BCG and the rest of the upper???
GGnG, I enjoy and learn from your videos, and I'm sorry that you stopped making them. Just wanted to let you know that I appreciated your fine and knowledgeable efforts. --- David
Excellent Video Sir !
Thank you for sharing your thoughts and Information on this topic. I truly appreciate it.
I prefer forged and function over form any day. But, here's a question for you. Why don't they forge a received to excessive size, then CNC mill it to a nice pretty shape? It's would be a hybird, milled/forged receiver. Stong as a forge, but pretty as a billet?
thats how a forged one is made...they get it close but they still have to mill them to a decent degree
Let's us be clear folks, MOST if not, ALL raw billets are not hardened for the purpose of additional milling, or more specifically 80% lowers, so we can complete milling into a usable lower receiver for our build. None of us is in the right mind considers annealed (hardened) aluminum after milling. The complete billet receivers sold by high-end gun manufacturers such as Ruger, Colt, Savage etc. are hardened. Fly by night manufacturers of billet receivers to include Aero Precision, Spikes, PSA, Anderson, etc. may not be hardened, then claimed as Mil-Specs when it should not be considered as Mil-Specs. That's a fact. I am an aircraft mechanic, working in making aircraft parts, and all aluminum must be hardened to specification to meet the FAA requirement, but normally started out as soft (weaken) aluminum for welding drilling and milling purposes. It is true that forged billets are stronger when compared to non-hardened billets, and can mass produce in a short time period. That is why the military chose forged because it's cheaper and manufacturers can build it faster, it was not for the sole reason that forged receivers are stronger.
I want to see what's behind the vault door :)
I have been using fire arms for more than 50 years. I've dropped my rifles on rocks when hunting in the mountains but I can't say I have ever had any break. So I just don't see how this makes any difference. When a company claims that there lowers are bomb proof it doesn't have one stitch meaning to why I buy them.
A billet upper is milled from a forged blank. (machined into the correct shape)
the standard upper is milled from a cast blank (poured into a basic mold)
Incorrect. A billet upper is milled from......you guessed it....a billet!!! A "standard" receiver as you call it is forged from hot aluminum not milled from a casting.
WTF is going on here? The lower receiver is nothing but a shell that holds parts. It doesn't really matter what type of metal is used--there is NO STRESS OR WEAR to speak of--even the plastic ones work if made correct. The upper is a different story so why not separate the topics?
there is stress on the trigger pins when the hammer drops, that slowly wears out the lower. It will make stress fractures in the lower over time. It would take tens of thousands of rounds, between 50 and 70, which no one will ever shoot and the user would go through many barrels and bcg's and possibly uppers. The difference in negligible and i doubt anyone, even the factories testing and designing these lowers would even reach, but it does put stress on lower.
Alex Morrison We have Colt AR-15's on our rental range that have passed 100,000 rounds, some nearing 150,000 and while all the moving parts have been replaced, the uppers & lowers have NOT been affected by any means so I don't know where you are seeing these damaged receivers at the 50K mark. I didn't see it in the military either. On a SCAR yes. AR NO.
Alex Morrison By the way if you are basing this AR-15 information on what you have heard from the videos you have watched from Yankee Marshal, James Yeager, Larry Vickers, or Aregularguy90 , (aregularguy90 shouldn't be allowed to touch a gun LOL) I suggest you stop--NOW!
***** I have extensive use with the carbon fiber receivers and found them to be very durable with none of the cracking you talk about. Bushmaster feels the same way--which is why they still sell them. I would trust a carbon receiver on an AR to last longer than that piece of shit plastic SCAR folding stock that all the GI fan boys rave about--until they actually use them that is.
***** I don't base my statements on what I see on Google. DO YOU? If I believed anything on the web we should soak out 1911's in oil to work (they don't need oil to work) and any Glock I have should have blown up by now. The original carbon AR's were designed by Professional Ordnance. The rifles had many problems due to bad quality control, but NEVER had an issue with the carbon material receivers failing. Bushmaster bought them out and covered warranty issues for years, NONE of which had to do with the carbon material on the frames. They continued with a redesign and still do today. All these Google "blow up" videos are mainly bullshit. We are rarely told what ammo the Goober was using (often crappy reloads) or other facts. There is NO WAY a carbon fiber receiver is going to cause an AR to go KABOOM. The lower receiver is just a shell that holds parts, and the fired cartridge is in the chamber, so if something blows it is going to blow even if the receivers are made of steel. The metal might offer more protection to the shooter but to say the frame material caused the explosion is totally absurd.
Further more if they had all these "problems" you talk about they would have been taken off the market long ago. They have not and are not.
What do overpressure rounds have to do with the upper receiver? The chamber, barrel and bolt take all the pressure. How many tests did you perform? Did you use the exact same barrel for each test? That kind of test makes no sense to me. Where's your data?
Where can I order one of those lower receivers that accepts a.k. magazines? is it from your company? what is the name of your company? Do you offer the complete rifle or pistol in that configuration?
Just look at engine pistons, forged are the best.
Excellent educational video, Thank you for sharing your knowledge! Take care!
I counted 2.75 million go aheads
You have to test things that are exact on all sides. Get a milled receiver that meets all the same thickness dimension as a forged, same style (no forward assist, no carry handle or visa versa). Milled receivers tend to be thicker due to the fact that the process isn't as strong as forged aluminum. Forged can be lighter due to less mass cause of its strength. This has been tested and tested and tested over and over again in strict testing requirements, with all test being equal on all levels. Same barrels, same ammo, same forces, same build parts. I have seen rifles take an IED blast and survive. I have seen people drop their milled rifle off a bench at the range and it cracked.
+Malon Labe I love it when people like you have to resort to bullshit. LOL dropped a billet receiver and it cracked......hahaha yeah right. Oh and not just one time multiple times and you haven't ever served you bitch.
+James Dean: I would like to see your DD214. My guess is you never served. ........even if Malon Labe never served that does not exclude his opinion or knowledge.....your service makes you nothing special in regard to common courtesy......if you did serve your general attitude of belligerent name calling disgraces whatever branch you served in and those you served with......
+Malon Labe; I gotta say I was all for your sentiments until the cracked reciever comment...................
I'm sorry, but the only thing this shows is that forged receivers have a lower malleability than one milled straight from billet stock. This is normal for all non-ferrous metals, where shaping them work hardens them (same reason why brass cases eventually split, and why there is such demand for annealing machines to extend the brass life). A better test would be to put them in both a tensioning machine that tests to failure (hopefully everyone's seen them before in steel testing) to show how much force the piece has to be under before it starts to deform, and eventually break. There are also machines that bend sample pieces to failure, testing tension strength on the side that stretches (outside bend) and compression strength on the inside bend. These two tests will give better insight to how strong each receiver could be instead of blowing each of them up with an overpressure round.
A 1 sample test determines nothing.
catastrophic failure is catastrophic failure reguardless. If you shoot the standard pressure or even reload to the standard pressure there should be no problem!! Show me the forged part on ANY gun that fails at or under normal pressure and I will be concerned. With due respect you video seems to be a justification for spending money not needed
that was so cool that you milled out that plugged up barrel
Wouldn't a forged receiver blow to pieces ( shrapnel ) if something happened then just bend like a billet receiver tends to do ? I mean a forged one is more brittle yes ?
Just wondering... before it’s milled isn’t the aluminum forged into large chunk of raw material then extruded into desired dimensions? So aren’t you just milling forged aluminum?
There's a reason why wrenches, turnbuckles, chain hooks, anvils, etc. are forged instead of machined out of a block of steel. And it's not just the fact that in high quantities the piece price is cheaper than machined parts. They're tougher. If you don't believe that, machine a wrench out of steel and abuse it as much as you'd abuse a forged wrench. It will break. I know, I've done it.
The other think to think about is the what happens when you do a lot of machining or grinding on a forged piece. Forging forces the grains to follow the shape. Machining disrupts the continuous grain formed by the forging process. So it gets weaker. I may be wrong about aluminum, but I don't think you're accomplishing much when you take a block of 7075, squish it down flatter in a press and then completely change the shape machining it into a AR-15 lower.
A couple of things:
1. Sample size (not enough for a statistical determination)
2. How many rounds through each before they gave out (Important because stress is
accumulative)
3. What quality procedures did each of them go through? (not fair to compare a $50 forged
no brand vs a $300 billet name brand with solid QC procedures)
All this matter, without a proper experimental procedure, this is just conjecture and opinion. My experience, buy what ever you want, but put the proper ammo thru, either of these receives would have lasted a lifetime, if the proper ammo were to be used.
I see two destroyed recievers so does it matter which one was stronger?
Thanks this is a really good video now I have a better idea on how to look for the bottom and top receivers.
Hey bud, I'm almost finished with my build! I went slightly higher-end than I originally set out to, and I'm going to post a few videos about it. My receiver is forged by Rainier, but I will probably go to billet from Rainier in the future. Is there a forum you frequent? I'd like to keep in touch.
It's not worth it unless your very well off and have plenty of ammo. There is something wrong with his bolt or barrel or something interfering with the locking/unlocking, his confirmation bias is strong.
I know the name Rainier, with the competition these days you get what you pay for or the company dies quickly. If you paid a decent amount I am sure it will last you a lifetime if you maintain your bolt and barrel.
do you guys have a website? I am interested in buying a stripped AR47 lower receiver.
May as well throw that experiment out. You used two different styles of receivers.
Lol...
"Uh...look...this milled up is better than the forged..."
"drrrrr...Hey, check out this forged barrel. It didn't blow up even after 7 squib loads."
Usually the milled receiver advertise as such, but they mostly have a integral trigger guard. Ours don't (for some unknown reason). With milled receivers however, you can usually see milling marks on the receiver. Also, the bottom of the magwell is usually sharper since it is harder to round the corners in a cnc machine and isn't worth the added cost (in manufacturing, every extra min. on a machine costs money)
basic science tells you you're wrong. Forged is stronger than billet, the molecules are pressed much closer together making forged materials harder than billet. But you already know that because people have already told you, you're just biased because you sell billet receivers. Billet is softer, that's just fact, ever wonder why the fantastic billet lowers always have the trigger guard built in...?
Yes harder means stronger but also means more brittle. Harder materials are more susceptible to damage occurring due to shock load than softer materials. Now if you are running the proper ammunition and not shock loading the system with excessive pressure, I agree that the forged is better. Like you have said it is harder, and harder materials take wear much better than softer materials.
+Joe Loeffler yes harder materials are more brittle, common sense, but softer materials will begin to take damage faster and wear faster. The difference is that the softer material will bend and bulge as it starts to fail, and harder materials will crack, again common sense (at least I thought). You can tell this guy is full of it when he says the pins wear slower or better on billet than forged. Basically what this guy did is shoot 300 BLK in a 5.56 upper (same result). Doesn't prove anything
OK, first, metal is not a molecular structure, it's a crystalline structure, no molecules. All else being equal, forged is stronger than milled, but that's due to grain flow and grain refinement, not "molecules pressed together". The question is, how much stronger and if it's worth the extra cost. Also, there's more to go wrong with forging, IE. over heating or forging at too low a temp cause micro fractures. Each metal responds differently to forging and has it's own window for forging.
The M14's receiver is a good example of forged vs. cast, and cost affective. If I remember rite, the forged receiver is good for around 60 thousand rounds, the M1a's cast receiver about 50 thousand rounds, but it's a hell of a lot cheaper to investment cast for that complicated receiver than it is to forge it, and the forged generally runs several hundred dollars more than the cast or a billet receiver. That said, my M14's are forged, but that's my personal preference.
End of the day, it all comes down to personal preference, I doubt the average user will notice much difference between the two.
+forge52100 Billet are prettier
Not really, forged will be machined and shinny as well.
Im no expert but having owned a handful of forged receivers and recently picking up a milled receiver i can say the difference between them is minimal. Having said that i have limited experience with the milled but i have destroyed a few of the forged receivers and what he shows in this clip makes sense to me. The forged receivers dont act like i expect metal to. They chip to pieces like rock and snap like plastic. The milled receiver seems to bend more and doesnt snap apart. Less shrapnel is a good thing, but lets hope it doesnt come to that. I once dropped my beretta 92 slide on the edge of the frame and a tiny bit chipped off. That forged aluminum may be "hard" but it breaks apart easily. Ironically i intend to baby this milled ar 15, but i just might buy another one and put it through its paces. Good video despite the scathing comments below me.
Bullshit meter is off the charts! Forged is always stronger than billet. Forging changes the grain structure of the metal in a way that makes it stronger, billet does not. (Metals alloys have atoms that form crystals, NOT MOLECULES. Forging does not pack them tighter, this is impossible, it changes the crystal structure) Billet will always be heavier, weaker (for a given weight), and more expensive (more waste, more machining time). This is literally something you learn the first week in IME 101. Do you understand that a sample set of 2 is meaningless data? I guarantee those two uppers didn't experience the same exact event. If you want to prove which is stronger, you have to devise a test that can measure their relative strength in a repeatable experiment, and take a larger sample set than 1 and 1. Your opinion is based on a single experience and not much else. If you put the over pressure round in a rifle and fired it with out blocking the gas port, of course you caused a failure, there isn't enough dwell time for the pressure to drop to a safe level before the bolt started to cycle. There is no aluminum upper that would have survived this. This is not something that would ever happen in real life.
Alternatively, you're up here talking about billet receivers and you make billet, of course you will tell people they're better! Higher margins, and and much simpler supply chain. Billet 7075 is FAR easier to get right now than raw forgings, you don't have to compete with other manufactures for them.
How did you draw this out to 13 minutes?
Just to re-cap; Metals + metals > alloys, Metals + non metals = ionic compounds, non metals + non metals = molecules.
Hot forging does change the molecular structure, but it also does make the material denser. Cold forging just makes the material denser. I believe that is what he was talking about when he said packing the molecules tighter.
Everything else you say I agree with..
Jeremy Paulin Metals DO NOT FORM MOLECULES. You are not going to make metal denser with forging, forging changes the GRAIN STRUCTURE of the metal crystals.
either way everyone is missing a major point! billet used to mill out receivers is drop forged, forged receivers are also drop forged! i don't know of any one who manufacturers a receiver hammer forged! barrels on the other hand have and probable will continue to be hammer forged by all the top end companies and only the lower end companies will use rifling mills
GearCheck 101 You're right metal doesnt make molecules, molecules make up metal lmao. Forging does make the metal stronger and more dense, as well as change the grain structure. Its the same thing when building an engine. Forged rods are always stronger. Sorry.
Metals do not form molecules in any way. Molecules are comprised totally of non-metals. Metals form iconic compounds with non metals. Metals do not chemically combine with other metals, they alloy, which is essentially a heterogeneous mixture.
FYI aluminum is cased in its manufacture process. How do you think a billet is made?
cracked or bent, you can't use it anyway. The question is, will a forged receiver with the same design crack more easily than a billet receiver will bend on stress points.
What did the barrels look like?
Also, did you actually test that forged receiver to see if it was from s reputable licensed mil spec forging company? Many companies make ripoff false products. Also people tend to buy cast lowers from the 90's and are told its forged. Some companies forge with a different mix of materials to lower cost and weight, thus not meeting milspec standards. There are very few certified forging companies in the US
Does anyone realize that one receiver with the integrated rail is inherently stronger because there is more material. Secondly, the upper receiver only sees serious stress after the bolt fails catastrophically... That's like having a bullet pass through your Kevlar and expecting your t-shirt to hopefully save you. Come on man, be realistic and logical lol
This guy did a horrible job explaining the difference. When dealing with receivers, Billet is a raw block of metal that then needs to be completely milled to get it into shape. Forged is when a mold is made and molten metal is poured into the mold to give it a rough shape that is then milled to final specs.
That's casting, not forging.
TheRedCelt ~ that's what I was thinking. I was hammered the night I wrote that. Thanks for squaring it up for people!
+moncorp1 It's all good brother.
+moncorp1 lol...you shouldn't drink and type ; )
Where do I get one of those AK mag lowers you showed?
What do you think about polymer receivers?
I worked in a forge that made colt uppers and lowers. If you understand the forging process when the aluminum is hammered in to shape it creates cracks some can be found some cant.
what stamping mark did your company use?
Can you temper an aluminum billet? Would that work?
I’m new to your channel is that your basement I love it
Wall thickness of the forged versus billet? Kind of important.
7075 forging is stronger than 6061 billet and if the forging is far cheaper why would anyone bother with the billet?
+tfr51 lets compare apples too apples 7075 forged is weaker than 7075 billet. 6061 billet..probly weaker than 7075 forged
They look a lot nicer. That's about it.
+tfr51 Maybe because forged billets are available as raw material?
7075 forged is stronger than 7075 billet.
Title of the video is "Seeing is believing" then doesn't actually show footage of the upper receiver failures. You may be totally right but it's hard to actually believe anything you're saying without any footage or proof of the failures.
As far as strength, plastic is strong enough, so any aluminum that is used for receivers is strong enough. As far as I'm concerned, it doesn't matter which type of process is used. Both are stronger than they need to be.
A forged upper is harder and more dense, this means more brittle hence the severe failure. However it is also more wear resistant.The billet is less dense and softer, therefore more ductile so the failure is less severe. However it will wear faster.
Understanding this is a 7 year old video but oh well will comment anyway.
A forged upper/lower receiver is hammered or forged into a rough shape, then machined (milled) after to meet the “milspec” tolerances.
A billet upper/lower receiver begins as a forged blank, the blank is machined, therefore allows for a more custom finished look since the receiver starts from a block.
Both are forged, one is forged into the rough dimensions and shape of the finished receiver... the quality of the tolerances of machining determines final costs, that’s why an Anderson forged receiver is generally cheaper due to the machining is not held to strict tight tolerance vs some companies with more expensive forged receivers (you are paying for the name too, but the name has earned a reputation typically due to the tighter tolerances)
The billet is still a forged into the rectangular blank then machined into the final receiver... just with a lot more machining required.
That is what I understand anyway, I don’t work in the industry so perhaps I am ill informed and wrong.
It's always been my understanding that a forged upper and lower can stand more punishment than that of a Billet set up. Now in three gun competitions weight considerations ten to go with a Billet set up to reduce weight during the competition however when running 5 5 6 ammo the pressures generated by such ammo can cause catastrophic failure and injury to the shooter.
Headspace verification known as the Go No Go rule is very important during a custom build. Barrels during a build are very important selection and quality are key factors to consider. But this aspect would be for another discussion.
so your thicker billet did better than the thinner forged? brilliant
The forged vs billet was extensively tested by Kalashnikov. The stamped receiver was proven to be significantly inferior but cost less than half the price to manufacture. But with dialed down ammo it didn't matter. If someone wants to cram wildcat ammo into a cheap AK47 knock off it's their problem.
9 years in the Marines and countless days on a range and i never saw a rifle explode.
they were stress testing
I understand that. He mentioned that rifles explode in the military and that we dump them in grease, oil, and other crap. I never saw it happen. Maybe in the army lol
Yea those idiots never clean their shit
Very typical in Israel. Many of the M16s, used by Israel, are surplus from the Vietnam war and early 70-80's rifles. The modern M16 is far superior material wise.
*****
Ya, doesn't happen in the Army...are you sure you didn't mean Air Force?
AWC said on their website that a forged receiver was forged together by 2 pieces of metal. And the break point you showed could be the joint point where that 2 pieces were forged together? what do you think? www.americanweaponscomponents.com/billet-vs-forged-lowers-whats-best/
Didn't mention difficulties of removing all the stress riser's from machined billet receivers
Most people here can't afford billet so that's why they say that forged is stronger. Billet is way stronger.
You explain the forging (strength hardening) of the forging, show that the forged is stronger than the billet, yet mistste it midway that the billet is stronger. Maybe you want to edit?
You left out some critical details explaining how most billet receivers, including the one shown, are made to be as strong, if not stronger than forged ones. If both receivers were the EXACT same dimensions, the billet would probably look worse than the forged.
How do you tell a difference between billet or forged uper receiver?
In strength when comparing any items made of the same alloy Forged>Billet>Cast Unless of course it was a cast billet and not a forged billet. Casting is cheapest especially investment casting and requires the least final machining. I don't know of anyone making cast upper or lower AR receivers. Forging takes more machining but is stronger. Billet looks the cleanest if you care about that because the entire receiver has to be finish machined, but it's generally the most expensive due to all the extra machining operations. Though not as expensive as it would have been pre CNC when said operations would've added hours to the machining process as opposed to minutes. It's really amazing when you look at older guns where parts were machined entirely from steel billets. Such things would be beyond prohibitively expensive today. I would be leery of a billet upper or lower unless the manufacturer specified that it was a forged billet. I wouldn't want a cast receiver. Yes I realize plenty of firearms use them and they are perfectly safe.I also am one of the few people intelligent enough to realize that the carbon fiber and/or polymer uppers and lowers are safe. But they feel very chintzy and I wouldn't want one.
Forged aluminum is way different than forged steel! Forged aluminum is more brittle then billet the billet will flex more without cracking, they forge mill spec uppers and lowers because it's cheaper and faster to manufacture than machining them out of a billet and the forging is stronger than casting them! Quit over thinking things people!
but why did he say that the trigger pins were wearing more on the forged vrs the billet lowers? that area is not an 'impact' area and I would think that the billet would wear more because it is going to be a little bit softer .... I am confused :)
Why not just use a Rockwell tester on a forged and a billet receiver?
Why does this seem like a company that can't forge is trying to fluff up the value of billeted receivers? Redo the high pressure test five more times and show me forged isn't stronger.
Totally non scientific test.
What do you think of Smith and Wesson's AR receivers? Mine seems pretty well put together.
Billet. Probably 6061.
Well made I like mine too
Totally irrelevant. Those lower failures were caused by the over pressured DI gas system driving the bolt carrier . Either lower the DI pressure with an adjustable gas block or change the gun to a single shot rifle by completely blocking off the gas will fix the problem, provided the barrel and the bolt can withstand the over pressured ammo.
Two different uppers configurations, it's not a fare comparison to start with. In general the picatiny rail on the M4 would add strength to the upper.
The forging is stronger than billet, and further more both require to be milled. So the title of the vid is inaccurate. It should read Forged vs Billet.
You used different uppers, a flat top and one with a carry handle. Not only that, but the lower receivers had nothing to do with the failure of either upper. They're held together with only two generously clearanced pins that do nothing to brace the upper against the forces involved.
soon we will be selling them in America. We are just finalizing details with a certain company, and we will be shipping in 80% milled lowers, and parts kits. They will be finishing them there and assembling. They are going to be a reasonably priced higher end rifle. I'll post the name as soon as we finalize the deal.
What makes the billet stronger is the billet has way less metal removed from it...hence stronger. But billet is heaver, so that is a trade off. If a forged is cared for properly and the ammo is treated as it should be, the forged is just as good and lighter. So much for your video trying to sell billet.
A forging is stronger than billet. Is the average AR-15 owner going to be able to tell the difference in strength? No. The difference in strength isn't huge but it's there. For one of my AR builds I went with a billet lower and upper because they matched each other and the lower has a ambi bolt release. Am I going to loose sleep over the fact that forged is slightly stronger than billet? No. I have several forged and billet AR's they all shoot, they're all very nice guns, and they'll serve me for decades to come. The fact of the matter is with proper care and maintenance either one will more than likely outlast their owner. Unless you mortar the piss out of it and break the lower receiver.
Can you mix a billet lower with a forged upper?
Barry The Chopper depends on definition of stronger. and billet versus forged depends materials (6065 vs 7075) and how the billet was processed.
Why would you ever intentionally shoot an over charged cartridge? 🤷♂️
You know they can CNC a billet upper and lower from forged ingots also. So you can have both. Most people think that billet uppers and lowers are made from cast ingots, there are not. They forge the ingot and then it's heat treated to the spec. that's requested. I hope this helps.
Man if that hammer forged barrel on that galil stood up to 7 rounds getting stacked on top of each other, imagine how much tougher a billet barrel would be............
it would have exploded
Yeah that was totally sarcasm dude.
jcast25 lovin' your snarky sarcasm man. Billet barrel, exactly! The whole forged vs. billet debate is as senseless as Ford vs. Chevy. Who gives a fuck. Like others have stated, if they can make a polymer AR that runs just fine (most of the time) then the argument is moot at best.
I know, right?!
now just tell us how many suppliers are really using 7075.. there is no way everybody is using 7075. the cost of 7075 is twice that of 6061.
Where was the "seeing" part?
what it looked like to me is the forged reviver is actually harder than the billet
Does not prove strength a good possibility what he is showing is the less dense billet stretched releasing the pressure and the forged didn't .plus there is no way to know the pressure was the same for the examples.
Forgot... Race cars used forged aluminum wheels instead of machined wheels. Pound for pound, they are stronger.
I feel like this video should have been about that bad ass room you’re in with a vault door on it.
It's important to note that without an understanding of the sort of stock that a milled receiver starts from, no testing is worth anything. Receivers can be milled from drop forged, extruded, or cast blocks. The block that is drop forged at the foundry has the greatest potential strength, due to being compressed by hydraulic hammers. As it comes from the foundry, there is no greater strength to be had through forging. This is the strongest piece of aluminum possible and you have a greater strength POTENTIAL milling a receiver from this block than you do with a forged receiver. POTENTIAL. Cast billets have inclusions, bubbles and other impurities that weaken the materiel at the base level. "Forged" receivers have the disadvantage of less materiel. So, given a forged receiver Vs a milled receiver cut from a quality billet of foundry forged aluminum, the advantage in strength of materiel is ALWAYS on the side of the milled receiver, because they can forge a block to a much higher pressure than they can forge a piece of aluminum into a curved, complicated shape with dies. Therefore, it can be assumed that any structural deficiencies displayed in a receiver milled from a quality billet are not inherent weakness of the materiel by comparison, but rather geometric differences that come about as a result of the stock removal process. It is much more difficult to reproduce complex geometric lines through milling than through "forging" because what we refer to as "forging" is actually a superior version of casting, and not actually forging at all in the classical sense. Think of forging as casting under pressure. The pressure forces the impurities out of the metal, and that is the end of the advantage of forging when it comes to inherent strength. Aluminum is very different than steel, and as a materiel it does not benefit from the sort of forging that strengthens steel. Steel forms various crystalline matrices according to carbon chain alignment within the grain structure, and forging and heat treating allow one to control that process to a great degree. Aluminum has no such qualities. It is a comparatively soft metal, low in ductility, low in yield strength without anodizing or other surface treatment and not so great in terms of malleability either. Steel can be any or none of that, depending on how it's treated. Aluminum just does not vary much through it's treatment. Either it's solid or it's not, and the inherent variance in yield strength, rockwell hardness, ductility and maleability are usually the results of alloying, not of the handling of the materiel. This seems to be a hot button issue and I hope this clears up some misonceptions that seem be thrown around a lot.
Forged receivers are stronger because the forging process makes the material more dense. Billet are more expensive because of excessive machining processes. Billet is not worth the extra cost.
You could actually anneal the forged receivers and get better results. You'd probably only have to anneal them shortly. Get rid of the strain hardening and promote recrystallization. They'll still be tough as nails, and actually will be less prone to fracture.