Lightest weight possible ar-15

[G.barnes]

A normal ar with a pencil barrel is pretty light. I don't think I'd go polymer just for a couple ounces. My ddm4v5 with 12 inch rail, iron sights, aimpoint protac light and mount, afg, and a full mag weighs just under nine pounds. Never had any accuracy issues out of the barrel. It's not full auto and I don't do mag dump after mag dump.

 

[Cesiumsponge]

I'm a pretty small guy and I've never been overwhelmed by a lightweight Rainier RUC build tipping the scales at about 7lbs with optics and light with a lightweight 14.5" midlength barrel. The lighter weight and increased recoil is quasi-nullified by the softer recoil impulse of a middy system. It's light as reasonably possible without sacrificing reliability or durability. I could shave off a few more ounces but it would be aft of the magwell so the balance would start shifting to a front-biased gun. At one point I tried a lighter stock but it noticeably threw off the ease of pointability and center of balance. This was especially noticeable when wearing a can. I've run it suppressed all day at a rifle training course without weight issue.

 

[Hypnogator]

Or you could just...



5.2 or 5.5 pounds depending on whose stats you choose to believe.

 

[jason41987]

i dont understand peoples obsession with making things lighter.. you know, i went from lighter polymer handguns to a 2 1/2lb revolver.. that revolver weighed a ton at first but now that ive practiced with it more and have become more experienced with it, it feels as light as anything else,

too light of a barrel will begin to have an effect on accuracy.. drilling out a buffer tube will cause all sorts of problems.. and for what? to shave a few ounces off the total weight at a great cost to accuracy, reliability, and durability?, if the weight is really that much of a problem for you then maybe rifles just arent your thing?

 

[SharpsDressedMan]

Practical accuracy from a lightweight AR is dependent on the shooter. I love a lightweight AR, but shooting one standing, in the wind, gives far less hits than an AR with heavy barrel, weighted stock, etc, on the 200 yard line at Camp Perry. So, even if you have a perfect lightweight barrel, resulting field accuracy will probably be less than a standard full size AR in the field. I'd still take a LW AR carbine over the full size gun, as accuracy would be "good enough", and I thoroughly enjoy humping a reduced weight gun. Too many AR shooters just unload them from the trunk, cart them to the bench, and never really hump a rifle in the field, so weight, size, etc, hardly ever really matter to them, other than cerebrally. A lightweight AR carbine is a WORKING combat rifle.

 

[Sentryau2]

if the weight is really that much of a problem for you then maybe rifles just arent your thing?

Thats not really what I'm going for here. If you would read all of my posts on this thread you would find that the reason I'm interested in this is simply because of the possibilities that a light weight rifle gives you. I wont lie, a 5lb rifle is very appealing after walking a mile and a half through heavy brush my rifle feels pretty heavy at the end of the walk, not to mention you can build a perfectly functional rifle thats light weight.

 

[Cesiumsponge]

I prefer my lightweight AR to my precision AR for long periods of use. My Mk12 SPR is fantastic but I don't need .75 MOA out of a field gun. I guess it doesn't matter much if the majority of shooting is done at a static range off a bench or prone.

 

[MistWolf]

I think those who scorn the light rifle don't much carry them and those who champion light rifles don't much shoot them

 

[HoosierQ]

5.2 or 5.5 pounds depending on whose stats you choose to believe.

Like it!

 

[Sentryau2]

Hey cesiumsponge, what barrel,bi pod, bcg, rail and scope you running?

 

[barnbwt]

I think those who scorn the light rifle don't much carry them and those who champion light rifles don't much shoot them

HA! Smartest thing I've heard all day . You can't do both, after all, otherwise you'd be complaining more about magazine size and ammo weight

TCB

 

[Inebriated]

i dont understand peoples obsession with making things lighter.. you know, i went from lighter polymer handguns to a 2 1/2lb revolver.. that revolver weighed a ton at first but now that ive practiced with it more and have become more experienced with it, it feels as light as anything else,

Going from 2lbs in a loaded G17, to 2.5lbs to a revolver is hardly the same as lightening up a rifle that is going to be carried for extended amounts of time.

Hike a few miles with an 9lb gun, then do the same thing with a 5lb gun, and let me know what you think about the "obsession" with light weight.

 

[jason41987]

you know.. going from the polymer handgun to a larger revolver increased the overall weight by atleast a pound.. and thats being held in just one hand.. drilling a bunch of holes in your AR is likely to save you what?.. a pound in something youre carrying with two?.. if youre so concerned about having to hike with a heavy rifle, id recommend hiking with it more often..

you know there are people who hikes for miles and miles for weeks at a time with 16lb BARs during WWII two that would have loved to have a 9lb rifle.. the tommy gun weighed about 11lbs.. the garand was actually the lightest for a long time at 9.5lbs before the M1 carbine came around.. and people hiked all over europe AND korea with those garands.. so to complain your AR15 weighs 5 1/2lbs and not 5lbs is kinda wimpy.. and i bet a lot of those old WWII vets could STILL out hike a lot of the AR15 crowds with those garands on their backs

women in the military now hike with M4s, M16s.. are you really going to tell me you dont even have the upper body strength and stamina to do what they can?.. and isnt it kind of pointless if youre just going to hot glue everything and the kitchen sink to the rifle?.. laser sight, red dot sight, flashlight, bipod, forward grip

 

[Sentryau2]

Can I do it? Yea for quite a while, do I enjoy doing it? No, I'm not in the military which means I also dont have to lug around 60lbs + of gear. Can I do it? Yea probably, do I want to or would I enjoy it? Absolutely NOT. Comparing a BAR which is all they had at the time, wood stock .30-06 battle rifle to an ar-15 dosent make sense. My .270 was around 12lbs (Heavy barrel walnut stock etc) I hiked 3-4 miles with it, didnt enjoy it and it was anything but fun. I'm not in a war zone, My life dosent depend on the rifle to be able to take a sand bath and function flawlessly.

Its a thought experiment anyways. I wouldent drill holes in the buffer tube that just seems like a bad idea but everything else thats been mentioned seems like a fine idea for a rifle that might get shot 12 times a year or so with no more than 100-300 rounds through it. The thought experiment build would be relying on iron sights to keep weight absolutely at a minimum this area of hunting is so dense with brush you have MAYBE 20 yards of clear sight and up on the high rises the grass (wheat)? is taller then I am and so thick it reminds me of a predator movie, you literally have to force your way through with some momentum or you wont get anywhere.

Just because you can do something does not mean you want to.

 

[jason41987]

if youre shooting it at a range, the weight shouldnt matter, youre not carrying it.. but if youre doing some kind of military like training where youre carrying it a lot outdoors, are you really going to rely on some rifle thats been lightened up to the point where you could start questioning the structural integrity of the thinner metal parts or the accuracy of that pencil thin barrel or dont you think it would be better in the long run to get used to that extra pound or two and keep what would be sacrificed?

i hope you can see my point that potentially reducing the effectiveness, reliability, or durability of a rifle may not be worth saving the effort of getting used to the added weight of it?

 

[barnbwt]

Comparing a BAR which is all they had at the time, wood stock .30-06 battle rifle to an ar-15 dosent make sense.

Well, unless we've grown weaker as a race since those days, I think comparing our capabilities to what our forefathers endured can be useful. For instance, they didn't carry nearly the total load folks are expected to haul these days; thus the need for a super light gun in the field.

There does come a point of diminishing returns, though. Especially for a slung rifle. 5lbs is, what, 2-3% of your body weight? Whether you missed breakfast or ate a large turkey dinner recently is an infinitely bigger factor than what drilled-holes amount to. And that difference isn't even close to a "critical point" that determines whether you are injured or exhausted by your burden.

I say this as a backpacker familiar with all the gram-weenies of that hobby. Their argument, hard to argue with, is that lighter = happier hiking, but that the goal has a highly obsessive-compulsive bent as well, which also feels good to indulge

Reminds me of the fat guys who get carbon fiber hoods on their race cars

TCB

 

[Girodin]

Dang Giroden. That's a blast from the past. It's been acouple years since I shot that blue carbine but it's still in the safe.

I still think it is a pretty sweet example how light one can go with a lot of steps few other's take, such as the carbon fiber barrel. Do you have any thoughts or insights about the carbon fiber barrel. I've considered one a time or two for my own light weight build but without knowing more about them the steep entry price makes me balk.

i dont understand peoples obsession with making things lighter..

Well when it comes to AR's I think there are a few ways people come at it. One is just the feat, how light can you get it. These featherweight builds are rarely if ever anyone's sole, or even primary AR. I've never known anyone to build an "as light as possible" gun as a defense or duty. Rather, they are most often fun projects to see what can be done. This particularly true of the more exotic parts and more extreme lightening tactics. In these builds one often sacrifices absolute reliability for ounces here and there. Given there purposes, design goals, and uses its not much of an issue. Its much like when people build competition guns. They often are built in a way that would be unacceptable as a defensive or duty weapon and often sacrifice absolute reliability and durability for other advantages.

Then there are working guns. All other things being roughly equal a lighter gun is generally preferable for an AR. If one cannot understand the reasons for that I'm not sure how much trying to explain it would really help. Lighter guns often handle better. One can bring them to target quicker and make quicker transitions. Use a 9.5 lbs rifle back to back with a 5.5lbs one and its probably impossible not to make some insightful observations. For extended activities the old adage rings true ounces=pounds and pounds equal pain. Even if one could carry a 9lbs rifle if one only has to carry a 6 lbs rifle that is 3 lbs of something else one could have instead.

A light weight projector where the parameters are as light as possible without jeopardizing reliability, durability, or utility is a different kind of beast and will be built very differently.

you know there are people who hikes for miles and miles for weeks at a time with 16lb BARs during WWII two that would have loved to have a 9lb rifle.. the tommy gun weighed about 11lbs.. the garand was actually the lightest for a long time at 9.5lbs before the M1 carbine came around.. and people hiked all over europe AND korea with those garands.. so to complain your AR15 weighs 5 1/2lbs and not 5lbs is kinda wimpy.. and i bet a lot of those old WWII vets could STILL out hike a lot of the AR15 crowds with those garands on their backs

women in the military now hike with M4s, M16s.. are you really going to tell me you dont even have the upper body strength and stamina to do what they can?.. and isnt it kind of pointless if youre just going to hot glue everything and the kitchen sink to the rifle?.. laser sight, red dot sight, flashlight, bipod, forward grip

I find all of this rather amusing. Your first point about WWII soldiers misses a few points. First, those same guys weren't packing body armor that can weigh as much as 33 lbs. Even if one is wearing a lighter interceptor system that still weighs about 16.5 lbs. They also didn't have a lot of the kit that is pretty common place to have to haul around today.

Second just because one can get by with something doesn't mean something else is not a significant improvement. Its worth noting that everyone of the weapons you mentioned is antiquated. Furthermore almost universally the trend has been to lighter weapons. That is not a coincidence.

Given that even a guy that was 17 in 1945 would be 85 today I'd wager there really aren't that many WWII vets around who can do much hiking, let alone with garand on their backs. I'm sure that there are so horrendously out of shape people who own AR-15s but I'm not sure there is any correlation between owning one and physical condition.

I wont bother to respond at length to it but I find your closing paragraph that in sum argues even women can to it to be most amusing as well. It suffices to say that again it simply misses the point that because thing A is serviceable it in no way means that thing B would not be preferable.

 

[Girodin]

Reminds me of the fat guys who get carbon fiber hoods on their race cars

I have an interest in endurance racing (with horses). I always get a kick out of the folks who will spend a few thousand dollars to a get a new saddle that weighs 2-5 lbs less when they are 20-30 lbs over weight. All in all the new saddle is still bringing something to the table of course, but yeah its kind of amusing nonetheless.

 

[MistWolf]

...you know there are people who hikes for miles and miles for weeks at a time with 16lb BARs during WWII two that would have loved to have a 9lb rifle..

You should talk to service members who have actually fought in our latest war. Many will tell you absolutely they want a lighter rifle and lighter gear as well. They regularly carry 60 lbs and more in their packs plus ammo and all the body armor they have to wear. They can tell you about the bone fractures, back problems and blown knees from having to carry all that weight. So when they say ounces equal pounds, pounds equal pain, they are not exaggerating

 

[taliv]

I still think it is a pretty sweet example how light one can go with a lot of steps few other's take, such as the carbon fiber barrel. Do you have any thoughts or insights about the carbon fiber barrel. I've considered one a time or two for my own light weight build but without knowing more about them the steep entry price makes me balk.

i loved it, but as the company screwed me and took my money on a subsequent order without ever delivering anything, i'd never recommend another one. and in fact for the money, i do not think i would get another one anyways. but it was pretty nice. since then all my lightweight builds have used .625 BCM barrels

 

[SharpsDressedMan]

Don't dis the pencil barrel for accuracy. I have seen several original Colt SP1 carbines easily do 1-1.5" groups at 100. Those older 1-12" twist barrels could shoot! Did not seen them tested for 20 shot, repeated strings, so can't comment on that, but out of the gate, the first "3-5" enemy should be hurting.

 

[Cesiumsponge]

It's important to make the distinction between necessarily and preference. Its necessary to haul a hundred pounds of gear in the form of rucks, rifles, and armor when your life is on the line. In the civilian world, we don't need that You travel faster, further, and longer with lighter gear. It's nicer on your body, something you'll appreciate later in life when wear and tear takes its toll.

Overweight comparisons vs carried weight aren't apple's to apples. The skeletal and muscular structure of an overweight person compensates to haul that excess. Take a 350lb guy who is 200lb overweight and a 150lb guy with a 200lb ruck. Ask them to jump. Ask them to sprint around or move from point A to B. Let me know how the guy carrying 200lbs is doing. I've had occasions where I'd have to pick up and muscle around cast iron machine vises at work which were about my own body weight. There's no way I could move as well as a 350lb guy even though we would be the same scale weight on paper. It's a bit different than siting on a horse or car of bike, as you're lifting your bodyweight and gear with each footstep. That extra 5lbs carried over a mile with a gait of one yard per step translates to extra energy expended to lift 8,800lbs.

What's important here is also weight balance of the rifle. Anyone here who owns suppressor can tell you that the extra 1lb hanging off the end of the barrel really changes how the rifle handles. It handles much differently amd feels heavier overall as it acts like a lever where the fulcrum is your offhand. Add more weight behind the fulcrum and the rifle feels more lively and wants to sit in your shoulder pocket. Add more weight in front of the fulcrum and the rifle wants to lift off the shoulder pocket, requiring a little more effort to stabilize. I actually prefer more weight behind the magwell even if it results in a heavier rifle overall. Anyone who's done any experimenting with European swords also understand the importance of balance and how it affects the handling of a live blade.

 

[MistWolf]

You're talking about weight distribution and you're right that it makes a difference.

Balance on a rifle I think is personal preference. The CG of a simple 16" carbine will be a bit further forward than it it is with a heavier stock. But it's been my experience that the rearward shift in CG by changing a light M4 style stock for the heavier UBR makes the rifle feel dead in my hands. It's not just the added weight. Heavier ARs also feel dead to me if they are too butt heavy

 

[Sentryau2]

I think I have found one of the lightest stocks that could still take a beating
http://www.jprifles.com/1.4.9_stocks.php
JP's ACE tactical skeleton stock.
How would a side charging ar compare to a traditional design for weight? I assume it would take off several ounces, (talking right side ejection port left side charging)
Im intrigued by the magnesium alloy receiver anyone have experience with it?
Again I'll state this is just a thought experiment