You guys know that lightweight scandium alloy metal shit that Smith and Wesson makes revolver frames out of? Why don't they make more firearms out of this stuff? Is it not durable enough? What's the deal here? An AR upper and lower made from this stuff would be pretty amazing tbqh familia
>>30569643
Probably because scandium and scandium alloys are expensive as god. The 442 is sub-$500 MSRP, the 340 is >$1000 MSRP. Figure it out.
Personally, I'd love to see an AR upper, lower, handguard, and buffer tube made out of the stuff (if it was feasible engineering-wise) but it would probably rape bank accounts.
>>30569661
I would imagine someone would shell out the bucks for it. Having those speed holes in your AR exposing the action and shit is retarded as fuck.
>>30569686
Agreed.
Though I've heard of AR receivers made of magnesium as well.
>>30570076
>out of magnesium
that...doesn't seem like a good idea?
>>30569643
Pretty sure they make 1911s with scandium frames too. Or they did at some point.
>>30570094
an alloy I would hope
>>30570094
>>30570116
Magnesium-aluminum alloy. There's aftermarket SCAR-H "lowers"/"trigger modules" and KeyMod handguards made out of similar alloys, and there's been no catastrophic problems.
Well, except the magnesium alloy KM handguard I know of is softer than it ought to be, but, whatever. An M-LOK version would probably work out.
>>30570095
Yup, S&W did.
>An AR upper and lower made from this stuff would be pretty amazing tbqh familia
It's scandium-reinforced aluminum. There wouldn't be much weight savings aside from a little material shaved off in some places
>>30570094
I've heard they can catch fire if you get them hot enough, but I'm thinking you'd have to be shooting off a bunch of drums in a row
>>30572598
>I've heard they can catch fire if you get them hot enough, but I'm thinking you'd have to be shooting off a bunch of drums in a row
No, it would take a blowtorch directly on the metal to even start any form of ignition.
>>30569686
>>30570076
why not just have speed holes filled in with lightweight polymer
>>30569643
I used to own a S&W 386PD AirLite 7 shot .357 Magnum scandium frame titanium cylinder revolver. Pic is related, but not mine. Mine had a fiber-optic front sight. Its one of only two guns I've ever sold. This is the one I regret selling every time I think about it.
>>30572640
That'd look even uglier I think.
Maybe a polymer outer cover that fits into the speedholes?
>>30570144
How about a CAV15 lower? They're quite good for a polymer lower.
>>30573682
Speedholes look ugly anyway. You could just cerokote the whole thing so you couldn't tell the difference until you picked it up but then what would LEET low drag speedsters post on their Snapgrams and Instachats?
>Not carbon nanotubes
>>30572661
That looks rad as fuck
Looks like something a retro-modern Gotham city detective would use
>>30573682
Why don't they just get polymer if weight is the only consideration? A good polymer lower/upper can't possibly be any weaker than aluminum with a fuckload of holes cut out of it.
>>30574229
Maybe rigidity of the reviver is a concern for accuracy?
>>30574229
Unless its specially designed
The weakest point of a polymer reciever is the threads for the buffer tube, which would suck if you break it
>>30574256
I'm assuming "reviver" is a typo of receiver.
I'm not a pro shooter so I honestly wouldn't be able to say if that matters. You have to consider whether a solid polymer receiver is going to be any less rigid than aluminum that's been augured out to almost nothing.
>>30569643
>Why don't they make more firearms out of this stuff?
shit is expensive as fuck, and also boutique. Steel works just fine. Its the same reason you dont see titanium frames and slides with tungsten for breechlock-weight.
>>30574280
I've seen polymer lowers that are one piece A2 type stocks; no threads, no screw-on tube. They don't look very tacticool but if the true consideration is weight and not looking cool....
>>30574302
True. Though it might go back to 'it looks cooler' which is a matter of personal taste.
>>30574348
Nothing wrong with personal taste. I do think those skelly receivers look cool in some builds.
>>30574280
The CAV15 solves that problem, very strong.
Many polymer lowers are just plastic in the shape of an aluminum receiver, which just doesn't work well for plastic, the CAV15 instead is a solid piece with a stock and pistol grip, very rigid for being plastic, no problems with regular .223 and .300 use.
>>30574335
Yeah, that's the CAV15.
Only drawback is that it only exists with an A2 length stock.
It's made by GWACS now, as the ATF fucked Cavalry Arms out of business.
Scandium guns are literally around 1% scandium. They're almost entirely aluminum anyway.
>>30574139
Unfortunately, they do not make the 386PD anymore, which is one of the reasons I regret selling it. I think they may still make the 360PD 5 shot model like OP's pic.
Scandium alloys are usually used to replace steel. Maybe somebody could make a milled scandi AK.
>>30575709
Or, you know, just use stamped recivers becasue weight savings was part of the reason why they were made that way.
>>30575743
well that's no fun
