Should AR15 handguards be made of 6061 or 7075 aluminum?

>>35151726
There should be a wide selection of multiple styles available in each.

Because variety is the spice of life, not everyone's needs are the same, there is no one "best", and fuck you.

File: 1504044914451.jpg (70KB, 720x720px) Image search: [Google]

70KB, 720x720px

>>35151747
200% American

>>35151747
There are relatively few 7075 handguards

>>35151757
That's because it's expensive and brittle.

When was the last time you saw a bare aluminum anything and when was the last time you say aluminum corrosion on anything that didn't involve acid

>>35151766
I thought 7075 was significantly stronger. Most ar receivers are 7075

>>35151771
There are different forms of strength.

7075 has much higher burst strength, at the cost of much lower shear strength and ductility.

It's also (significantly) lighter per volume. A 7075 milspec-dimension lower weighs a full 2oz less than a 6061 milspec-dimension lower.

Bill Geissele is an autistic mechanical engineering genius. His rails are 6061, so provided the rail is from a reputable manufacturer, 6061 should be just fine.

File: 1504111358166.png (194KB, 576x699px) Image search: [Google]

194KB, 576x699px

>>35151792
That makes a lot of sense. I always thought 7075 was heavier and more durable than 6061.

>>35151813
For most applications involving firearms, yes 7075 would be more durable than 6061.

The problem is, everything about 7075 is more expensive due to more expensive alloys, higher cost of making the billets due to lower ductility, and the fact that 7075 machines like ass compared to 6061 so you have more tool wear and waste product. And the first time someone cracks a handguard instead of bending it like would've happened with 6061, they're gonna lose their shit (remember the whole KMR debacle?).

File: 1500259555019.png (516KB, 500x587px) Image search: [Google]

516KB, 500x587px

>>35151878
>remember the whole KMR debacle?

>>35151804
https://geissele.com/super-modular-rail-hk.html

What?

They should be in stainless steel like every other parts of a gun besides grip and stock. If you can't deal with the weight you're numale

>>35151951
Gr8 b8 m8 I r8 8/8

>>35151726
I prefer plastic.

>>35151951
The entire fucking point of the barrel extension is that the receiver doesn't have to handle the locking.

If you think a 5.56mm rifle should weigh the same as a fucking FAL then you're an inbred moron, you could carry more ammunition for all that weight, or something else entirely.

>>35153605
It's like you don't like modern technology

>>35151726
if I were mounting sights to the handguard I'd use 7075 so the sights stay on target better.
if I were just mounting grips and lights I'd use 6061 so it would last longer.

>>35155166
Why does 6061 last longer if it's weaker? Is this a brittleness thing?

>>35155314
in theory yes, also Im pretty sure 6061 is more corrosion resistant

>>35155166
Not only that, it's mostly a matter of recristallization.
Basically all aluminium alloys are unstable and they decompose and recristallize in their composing elements - so after a while instead of an aluminium alloy you end up with a mix of individual crystals of aluminium and whatever elements they added to it. Of course when that happens the mechanical resistance of the piece goes to shit. No, the way you take care of that alloy part has no importance whatsoever, only exposure to heat matters - it accelerates the decomposition. Some have a halflife (the time it takes for half of its mass to decompose) of decades or even a couple of centuries for the best of them , 6061 is somewhere in the middle, with a halflife of about 80 years or 40 years of part service in spec. On the other hand you have alloys that decompose in years, or months for the worst of them. 7075 is not brilliant here, with a halflife of less than 20 years or 10 years before it fails in use.

>>35155152
I do. I just don't see myself needing numerous attachments, I like keeping them relatively 'KISS', keeps weight down.