Product Spotlight: Forward Controls REF Receiver Extension

Описание к видео Product Spotlight: Forward Controls REF Receiver Extension

All AR-15 carbine receiver extensions are pretty much the same, right? No! Brownells Gun Tech™ Caleb Savant shows us around the REF by Forward Controls Design. The "Receiver Extension Forward (Controls)" is a substantial upgrade on the standard M4 carbine buffer tube. The official term is receiver extension, but many folks call it a buffer tube and the terms are pretty much interchangeable now. The REF is an enhanced mil-spec (1.146" O.D.) receiver extension of impact-extruded 7075 T6 aluminum alloy. This makes it even stronger than a traditional forged-then-machined buffer tube. "Is more strength really needed?" you might be thinking, "Old School buffer tubes have worked fine for decades." The receiver extension is a mission-critical component. If it fails, your AR-15 is out of commission. Period. So why not add some extra strength if you can? That kind of thinking is part of the Forward Controls Design philosophy.

The REF's upgrades don't stop there. Rather than hardcoat anodized, it's finished with super-durable, abrasion-defying Cerakote®. Of course, it's marked with the Forward Controls Design duck logo - and a spare logo for "Duck Gang" members. It has 6 notches for the adjustable stock, identified by white numbers on the sides of the tube. You can easily and quickly make a visual check that your stock is in the right position. Using a spare B5 Systems stock, Caleb shows us how handy these witness numbers are. You can also tell if somebody has moved your rifle's stock, and you may well demand, "Who the duck has been messing with my gun?"

If your rifle gets dunked under water, the REF has the standard drain hole at the rear, plus two extras on the underside to help clear any water from the tube extra fast, so your rifle is back in action pronto.

NOTE: 7075 alloy is the standard for mil-spec AR-15s. Some commercial buffer tubes are made of significantly less strong 6061 T6. Does less strength sound like a good idea for this application?

Комментарии

Информация по комментариям в разработке