|
I worked for Cavalry Arms Corp from 2001 until it ceased operations in June of 2010, beginning as shop help and ending as Vice President of the company. During that time I was able to participate in all aspects of manufacturing, product testing, warranty and repairs, and product improvement. It is funny now to think about this all in a historical context, because at the time we were just running a business and it didn’t occur to me at the time that the information from that time frame may someday be of interest to others in the firearms community. The history of Cavalry Arms and the CAV-15 begins with Shawn Nealon. Nealon’s parents owned an injection molding and mold manufacturing company. Nealon would learn about injection molding, machine work, and manufacturing working for his parents. Not long after High School, Nealon enlisted in the US Army and served in the first Gulf War in the 1/7 CAV as a Cavalry Scout. As a Cavalry Scout Nealon learned to appreciate the benefits of lightweight equipment and minimizing the weight one carried in the field. After the Gulf War, Nealon remained active duty for a period of time, and later in the Arizona National Guard. Nealon spent some time as a unit armorer. In civilian life, Nealon spent some time working for a company that manufactured firearms accessories, then as a partner of Advanced Tactical Firearms (which was later bought by Armscor). After the sale of Advanced Tactical Firearms, Nealon founded Cavalry Arms (named after his branch of service) and began working on what would become the CAV-15 receiver.  Nealon with CAV-15 MKI and MKII and prints circa 2003. The CAV-15 injection molded AR15 receiver was first unveiled by Cavalry Arms at the 2000 Soldier of Fortune Convention in Las Vegas, Nevada. The first CAV-15 receivers shipped to consumers in December of 2000.  All CAV-15 receivers were injection molded in two halves from glass filled nylon 6, but the design went through 4 generations of revisions as assembly techniques were perfected and issues with the product addressed. CAV-15 "MKI" Generation 1: The plastic of these receivers was untextured, and the halves were assembled together using screws only. Very few of these receivers remain in existence, most were remanufactured as later versions.   CAV-15 "MKI" Generation 2: The plastic of these receivers was untextured, and the halves were assembled together using a combination of screws and sonic welding. Very few of these receivers remain in existence, most were remanufactured as later versions.  CAV-15 "MKI" Generation 3: The plastic of these receivers was untextured, and the halves were assembled together using screws and more sonic welding. Internal structural enhancements were incorporated as well.  CAV-15 "MKI" Generation 4: Same as the Gen3, except texturing was added to the plastic.  Other Notes Colors: Cavalry Arms made receivers in a wide varieties of colors including Black, OD Green, Desert Tan, Purple, Yellow, Blue, and Pink. Cavalry Arms got into manufacturing AR15 furniture out of necessity to have matching handguards for its lower receivers. Later the OEM side of manufacturing handguards, buttstocks, and pistol grips for most of the industry would make up the bulk of Cavalry Arms’ sales compared to the CAV-15. Speed Pins: To reduce scrap rate and increase product durability, Cavalry Arms switched from standard military style take down pins to "Speed Pins" that have the spring and detent built into them. The hole for the standard rear spring/detent was found to be a fail point that could crack all the way into the pistol grip. The front spring/detent area was prone to chipping. Speed Pins are still standard mil-spec diameter. Some Gen3 and roughly half of the Gen4 receivers in existence use these pins. All CAV-15 MKIIs use speed pins. Shortened Receivers: The CAV-15 "MKI" had a 14.5" length of pull, making it longer than an A2 stock. To meet the demand for requests for shorter stocks, Cavalry Arms offered stock shortenings for their receivers making them roughly A1 length. The process involved chopping off the end of the stock, running a delrin plug into the buffer tube that the buttplate would screw into. Screws were run into the sides of the stock into the plug for structural support. This process also made the receiver use a carbine buffer system. The popularity of this modification resulted in the A1 length of pull on the CAV-15 MKII.  Seven Glow in the dark receivers were made and given to company investors and staff in 2002.  CAV-15 "MKI" receivers were discontinued in February of 2003 with the announcement of the upcoming CAV-15MKII at SHOT Show. Existing inventory of CAV-15 MKI receivers was sold off to wholesalers. The CAV-15 MKII replaced the CAV-15 "MKI" in the Cavalry Arms Product line.  CAV-15 "MKI" receiver (top), with its successor the CAV-15 MKII (bottom) CAV-15 MKII Receivers CAV-15 MKII receivers were released in November of 2003, replacing the CAV-15 in Cavalry Arms Corp's product line. The original CAV-15s were called "MKI" retroactively to establish their difference from the CAV-15 MKII. Cavalry Arms Corp. sold CAV-15 MKIIs until it gave up its FFL in March of 2010 CAV-15 MKIIs are the most prolific CAV-15 receiver with thousands having been produced. Standard colors included Black, OD Green, Coyote Brown, Foliage Green, and Dark Earth. Special production runs in Pink, Light Blue, Dark Blue, Blaze Orange, Electric Green, Pigeon Gray, Urban Gray, Yellow, and others. Some colors are much more rare than others. The CAV-15 MKII was also produced under marking variances for Sabre Defence as the SR-15 "Light Sabre" and for Eagle Arms as the M15P. Both of these were only available in black. CAV-15 MKII Receivers were injection molded from glass filled nylon 6, a polymer material very similar to that used by other firearms companies. Polymer offers unsurpassed corrosion resistance, finish durability. and is significantly lighter than aluminum based receivers. The receivers were molded in two halves and assembled using a linear vibration welding process. Linear vibration welding formed the two halves into one solid piece. Every contact surface between the two halves was bonded together with a weld that was even stronger than the parent material.  CAV-15 MKII Receiver Features: • A1 Length integral Stock (5/8" shorter than A2) with sling loop. 13" Length of Pull. • Carbine buffer system • Ergonomically enhanced integral pistol grip • Wider magazine well capable of accepting .45 Greasegun magazines with caliber conversion upper receivers and magazine blocks. Standard AR15 magazines can be used without modifications. • Receiver weight (complete) is 1 full pound lighter than complete aluminum receiver with A2 stock • Uses all standard mil-spec parts with the exception of the take down pins. The front pivot and rear pins are a Quick Take down style with Detents built into them, This allows for quick and easy removal of the pins while maintaining a positive lock.  CAV-15 MKIII Prototype Cavalry Arms Corp. exhibited a prototype CAV-15 MKIII at the 2008 SHOT Show. This prototype showcased several new features: • 9.5" Length of Pull Stock, that could be extended with spacer plates. • Club foot stock for supported shooting • Redesigned pistol grip allowing for a higher hold • Texture and finish enhancements Unfortunately Cavalry Arms Corp. was never able to bring this receiver to market. Only one prototype existed and it was destroyed.  CAV-15 MKIII prototype (left), CAV-15 MKII (right)    The next logical step in CAV-15 evolution may skip over the shorter stock altogether and go to a proprietary telestock that has a reinforced/thicker tube. Sale to GWACS Armory I purchased the CAV-15 Mold/Tooling when Cavalry Arms was closing operations in mid-2010. I was intending to manufacture them under my own company. After six months of interviews and meetings with BATF, and no definite answer on getting an 07 FFL manufacturing license, I elected to drop my application and sell the CAV-15 Mold/Tooling. GWACS Armory of Tulsa, OK eventually purchased it in December 2011, and began manufacturing operations in 2012. GWACS is currently offering service and support for existing CAV-15 type receivers if you already own one. Feel free to ask questions about the history of the CAV-15, how to assemble or work on them, or how to use them. I won’t be answering any questions about the Cavalry Arms legal saga other than to say that ultimately the demise of Cav Arms had nothing to do with the CAV-15 receiver or the manufacturing techniques used to make it. I will also say almost everything you’ve read online or seen in news reports is wrong or not 100% factually correct. SinistralRifleman fucked around with this message at Jan 24, 2013 around 18:12 |
| # ? Jan 24, 2013 02:11 |
|
|
|
| # ? May 19, 2013 13:35 |
|
|
Lower Parts Kit Install Video: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=GnpFfieMZrY CAV-15 MKII Receiver Assembly Instructions Notes to Gunsmiths and Armorers: * Takedown Pins: Use the supplied speed pins to secure your upper receiver to your CAV-15 lower receiver. If you lose or misplace the supplied pins, replacement pins can be ordered from Cavalry Arms at a cost of $5.00 a piece. * The CAV-15 MKII lower receiver uses a carbine buffer and spring. * The CAV-15 MKII lower receiver uses standard mil-spec fire control pins. Though the area of the receiver that accepts the hammer pin is wider than aluminum AR15 receivers, it uses a standard fire control pins. Simply center the pin in the hole, and ensure it catches on the J-pin in the hammer. * Check all pinholes before you Assemble gun! Parts vary slightly between manufacturers and some parts may fit tighter than others, especially the safety selector detent. * Safety selector detent pin/spring load from the top. The spring may need to be trimmed for proper fit. The top of the detent should sit at 0.20” (+/- 0.020) from the base of the selector hole. * Bolt hold open spring will need to be trimmed 1 to 1½ coils for the last round hold-open to function with older/weak magazines. * The 5/64th roll pin attached to this sheet is to capture your buffer detent pin and spring. CAV-15 Technical Notes ·If the Safety Selector Detent will not fit into the hole for the selector spring and detent, this is usually because the base of the detent itself is too wide. The base can be cut or ground off to fit. ·Selector spring and detent load from the top. Selector then slides over. Note: Selector does not need to ever be removed. Fire control parts can be installed and removed with it in place. Before inserting selector check spring tension and trim spring if needed. Safety can be removed by placing half way between safe and fire and pushing out. ·The fit of the take down pins on the CAV-15 is intentionally tight. This is intended to keep the upper secured to the lower. The pins may require the use of a rubber hammer and punch to remove. The fit will wear in over time the more the rifle is disassembled for maintenance. ·If your magazines do not drop free from your lower, and you have verified that they are good magazines follow these instructions: 1.Separate the upper from the lower. 2.Looking down from the top into the lower, look to see where the mags are dragging with a magazine inserted. 3.Use a safe edge file to remove material from the mag well in the tight areas until the mags drop free. 4.Check for dropping free frequently so you do not remove too much material. ·If the buffer detent roll pin does not line up properly when hammed in to the lower, try inserting it from the opposite side to remedy the problem. ·If the buffer detent does not sit high enough to capture the buffer, it can be fixed by relieving material from the shoulder of the detent to allow it to sit higher. CAV-15 .45 ACP Technical Notes ·You will need the following parts to build a .45 ACP CAV-15 Carbine 1.Complete CAV-15 MKII Lower 2.Olympic Arms .45 ACP Upper 3.Hahn Precision M3 Grease Gun Magazine Block 4.Heavy 8oz+ buffer (Hahn Precision or Slash) 5.M3 Grease Gun Magazines ·Failure to use the heavy 8oz+ buffer will result in damage to the lower ·M3 Grease Gun Magazine Fit: The CAV-15 MKII has the center of the magazine well wider to be capable of accepting grease gun mags. Cavalry Arms Corp. designed this feature based on some USGI surplus mags it had at the time (2003). Recently new batches of magazines have surfaced and there are manufacturers making new M3 Grease Gun Magazines. These magazines appear to be dimensionally different than the older USGIs we have. Users have started to encounter problems with these magazines in the CAV-15 lower. If your M3 Grease Gun magazines are fitting too tightly into your lower, do not force them in. Doing so risks damaging the lower. Fortunately, the CAV-15 receivers' construction lends itself to end user fitting and modification. The area that is too tight is usually the very front of the mag well where it is narrow for .223/5.56mm mags. 1.Separate the upper from the lower. 2.Looking down from the top into the lower, look to see where the mags are dragging with a magazine inserted (do not insert the mag all the way if it is tight). 3.Use a safe edge file to remove material from the mag well in the tight areas until the mags move in and out frequently 4.Check the fit frequently so you do not remove too much material. 5.Magazines themselves can also be fitted depending on the area that is dragging in your lower. CAV-15 MKII Armorer Instructions. Secondary Finishing (Post Vibration Welding) These steps should be done at the factory, this is for reference in case they are not. Trim all excess flash Chase all holes ·Bolt Catch Detent ·Bolt Catch Cross Pin ·Buffer Detent and Cross Hole ·Safety Detent ·Front/Rear Take Down Pins Differences between CAV-15 MKII Receiver and standard aluminum receiver. ·Selector spring and detent load from the top. Selector then slides over. Note: Selector does not need to ever be removed. Fire control parts can be installed and removed with it in place. Before inserting selector check spring tension and trim spring if needed. Safety can be removed by placing half way between safe and fire and pushing out. ·Safety Detent may need sizing ·Hammer pin will be recessed on both sides of hole. Insert until “J-Pin” engages center notch. ·Bolt catch may need spring trimmed to ensure proper tension. ·Take down pins are intentionally tight. Pins insert left to right into the receiver and are not captured in the receiver. Long pin in front, short pin in rear. ·Buttplate and Trap Door Top Screw ¼-20x1” Bottom Screw 10-32x1” ·Calibers larger than .223 will require 3H or heavier buffers. Unlocked blowback pistol caliber uppers must use appropriate weights (9mm 5.5oz, .45 8 oz. Or heavier to avoid damaging the lower) ·Buffer Detent is held in by 5/64thx1” Roll Pin (Buffer Detent Assembly is not needed for function of the rifle) Parts Needed to Complete Lower: 1 Carbine buffer and spring 2 Hammer/Trigger pins 1 Hammer with spring 1 Trigger with spring 1 Disconnector with spring 1 Bolt catch with roll pin 1 Bolt catch detent with spring 1 Safety selector 1 Selector detent with spring 1 Buffer detent with spring 1 5/64thx1” Roll Pin 1 10-32x1” Flat Head screw 1 ¼-20x1” Flat Head screw 1 Mag Catch with button and spring 1 Long ¼” Speed Pin 1 Short ¼” Speed Pin 1 Butt plate with trap door assembly Tools for assembly and armorer level repair: Roll Pin Driver 5/64” Roll Pin Holder 5/64” Hammer Razor Knife Small file (safe edge) Diagonal pliers #24 Drill bit (bolt catch detent) #27 Drill bit (safety detent) ¼” Reamer (take down pins and buffer detent) 5/64” Drill bit (buffer detent cross pin) 1” ½ Round file #40 Aircraft drill (bolt catch cross pin) 6/32” Allen Wrench 1/8” Allen Wrench SinistralRifleman fucked around with this message at Feb 15, 2013 around 01:31 |
| # ? Jan 24, 2013 02:13 |
|
|
Some examples of the more extreme things the CAV-15 can withstand: http://sinistralrifleman.com/2012/0...ower-receivers/
|
| # ? Jan 24, 2013 02:20 |
|
|
king of the bongo posted:I had a question on how much material i had to play with. How far can you safely cut the stock down to and is it possible to thin out the grip by sanding it down? Some people have cut them down significantly, back filled them with marinetex and reshaped them.  It's safe to cut down the stock to the red line there. DFW Guns used to offer this service for an even shorter CAV-15. You will need to make a custom buttplate. I would assume doing it today would void your warranty with GWACS or at the least require you pay the replacement fee.
|
| # ? Jan 24, 2013 02:45 |
|
|
SinistralRifleman posted:It's safe to cut down the stock to the red line there. DFW Guns used to offer this service for an even shorter CAV-15. You will need to make a custom buttplate. I would assume doing it today would void your warranty with GWACS or at the least require you pay the replacement fee. DFW Guns? I believe that's Joe, the owner of Echo 93 (the AK sling plates) correct?
|
| # ? Jan 24, 2013 03:35 |
|
|
28_days posted:DFW Guns? I believe that's Joe, the owner of Echo 93 (the AK sling plates) correct? Yep, same guy.
|
| # ? Jan 24, 2013 03:37 |
|
|
I'm curious about the general properties of the polymer. How does it respond to heat? I've got a lower and I'm contemplating doing a bit of stippling. Does it melt/behave more like a softer plastic or a harder plastic? I know that's a kind of awkwardly phrased question, but I'm trying to figure out if I need to expect it to act more like a brittle/burning prone plastic (think SIG grips) or a softer more melt-prone one (think Glock frames). Are there any chemicals that should just flat out be avoided? I love to use all sorts of non-gun chemicals for cleaning my stuff, but am always wary of loving up plastic. In particular I'm wondering how it behaves with non-CL brake cleaner and penetrating oils like PB Blaster. Thanks for the write up by the way, really interesting read.
|
| # ? Jan 24, 2013 04:27 |
|
|
Does anyone sell these with a California bullet button installed? I have a new frontier lower on a lightweight build that I'd like to replace with one of these.
|
| # ? Jan 24, 2013 04:36 |
|
|
Cyrano4747 posted:I'm curious about the general properties of the polymer. It's 33% glass filled nylon. Melting temperature is around 450 degrees; it goes molten at that temp. Higher temps will burn it. If you have a stock or Handguard you don't want you can practice on it. Nylon is chemical resistant. No standard cleaning solvents will damage it. Nylon can absorb moisture though, so dont let it sit in water then expose it to freezing temps.
|
| # ? Jan 24, 2013 04:39 |
|
|
BaronW posted:Does anyone sell these with a California bullet button installed? I have a new frontier lower on a lightweight build that I'd like to replace with one of these. That'd be a question for GWACS.
|
| # ? Jan 24, 2013 04:41 |
|
|
SinistralRifleman posted:Some people have cut them down significantly, back filled them with marinetex and reshaped them. looks like the design could accomidate an A5 legnth buffer with a little modification. Would really be tempted to pick one up if they ever made them like that. Would pick one up for sure with an A5 and that adjustable butt plate...
|
| # ? Jan 24, 2013 04:44 |
|
|
Neo Mara posted:looks like the design could accomidate an A5 legnth buffer with a little modification. Would really be tempted to pick one up if they ever made them like that. Would pick one up for sure with an A5 and that adjustable butt plate... The problem is removing plastic from the part means adding metal to the mold. This is a lot harder than removing metal to add plastic. Logistically it's not something they'd likely want to do because A5 buffers remain relatively uncommon and nowhere near as available as carbine. I suppose it could work if they offered it with a spacer to make using a carbine buffer an option. Changing this stuff takes time and production stops in the mean time. I don't see any changes coming until the panic dies down.
|
| # ? Jan 24, 2013 04:54 |
|
|
I sort of dropped out of TFR not long after the whole ATF "incident." I've wanted to build a rifle around a CAV-15 for some time, so I'm glad they're back in production. Thanks for the retrospective. Has the MkIII design been sold to GWACS as well, or is the prototype truly a one-off?
|
| # ? Jan 24, 2013 05:16 |
|
|
This is awesome thread, thanks for making it! I've always been kind of fascinated with the CAV-15 receivers.
|
| # ? Jan 24, 2013 05:21 |
|
|
Tetraptous posted:I sort of dropped out of TFR not long after the whole ATF "incident." I've wanted to build a rifle around a CAV-15 for some time, so I'm glad they're back in production. Thanks for the retrospective. Has the MkIII design been sold to GWACS as well, or is the prototype truly a one-off? It was merely a one off mockup made from a MKII that got destroyed. I told GWACS if they were going to bother changing anything to go straight to a telestock of some kind. Again, probably not likely to happen until the market stabilizes and they can determine if investing tens or hundreds of thousands in R&D and tooling is worth it.
|
| # ? Jan 24, 2013 05:25 |
|
|
CAT ON THE COUCH!! posted:This is awesome thread, thanks for making it! I've always been kind of fascinated with the CAV-15 receivers. I got about half way through a super-lightweight retard whim build before poo poo went all crazy. Since then I've just been loving around with my lower on a friend's M4gery upper and I like it a lot. The only real complaint I can even think to make is that the balance of the gun is a little wonky with how drat light the lower is, but I figure once I get my lightweight upper finished it should handle like a goddamned dream. Then again, it doesn't help that the afore mentioned friend's M4gery is kind of a fatty for a carbine with some unnecessarily heavy (and pretty much flat out unnecessary) rails on it.
|
| # ? Jan 24, 2013 05:26 |
|
|
The CAV-15 MKII I'll be shooting under the GWACS banner at some matches this year has a 16" palmetto pencil barrel with Samson Evo rail. The balance is nice with that kind of set up.
|
| # ? Jan 24, 2013 05:31 |
|
|
Engineer here. I've been involved with some injected molded projects and I have a few questions about having a molding shop do the work. Maybe I am touching a nerve here with regards to Cavalry Arms legal history, so feel free to tell me to shut up if I am being a jerk. Wondering if you could give a quick run-down on how the BATFE views the molds and the parts that come out of them. I am guessing that any individual half is not considered a firearm, but once they are ultrasonically welded then its considered a firearm? That is - an injection molding house could hold the molds and even make the two halves (not firearms manufacturer), but whoever welds them together needs to have a 07 FFL? How much of the injection molding process can be "outsourced" to an unlicensed injection molding shop by the licensed manufacturer? Or does the manufacturer need to own the injection molding machines and do it in-house?
|
| # ? Jan 24, 2013 05:35 |
|
|
SinistralRifleman posted:The CAV-15 MKII I'll be shooting under the GWACS banner at some matches this year has a 16" palmetto pencil barrel with Samson Evo rail. The balance is nice with that kind of set up. I'm planning on doing a 14.5" pencil barrel with TRX handguard. I'm pretty pumped about it.
|
| # ? Jan 24, 2013 05:35 |
|
|
sbyers77 posted:Wondering if you could give a quick run-down on how the BATFE views the molds and the parts that come out of them. I am guessing that any individual half is not considered a firearm, but once they are ultrasonically welded then its considered a firearm? That is - an injection molding house could hold the molds and even make the two halves (not firearms manufacturer), but whoever welds them together needs to have a 07 FFL?
|
| # ? Jan 24, 2013 05:37 |
|
|
Cav Arms never got "in trouble" for its manufacturing techniques; it did have to change them several times to comply with BATF rulings and regulations. They did try to make issue of some of these things but the attorneys dealt with it and we complied with required changes as they happenned. Part of the issue was using processes unfmailiar to ATF industry operations inspectors and doing things tech branch hadnt really thought of before. Initially Cav Arms operated in good faith that the halves were not a firearm until they were welded together at the licensed location. An IOI annual inspection in 2002 concurred with this. In 2006 another IOI audit resulted in the halves being sent to tech branch. Tech branch ruled they were a firearm as soon as they came out of the mold because they could be duct taped together to fire at least one shot. The local IOI then said it was ok to mold them elsewhere as long as Cav staff was present for the process. After the raid in 2008 Cav was told this no longer was ok and had to bring injection molding equipment in house. Cav Arms ran in that manner with all manufacturing operations in house until it closed. (2008 was also the year that ATF issued a new ruling as to what processes were considered manufacturing and significantly changed the way the industry operated as a whole) ATF Tech Branch never issued a ruling if only molding one half at a time off site was ok. The reason Cav never wanted a press on site until required was the press used for the CAV-15 was too large to run any other molds we used. We only needed to run parts for 2-3 weeks to have a years worth of inventory. We did also have to change the serial number tag to make it more tamper proof as did many other polymer based firearms. Look at old vs new glocks for example. In any case manufacturers should submit all their plans to tech branch in advance to avoid issues and get approval first particularly if it's something new that hasnt been done before. The up front legal costs are better than trying to explain why what youre doing makes sense later. SinistralRifleman fucked around with this message at Jan 24, 2013 around 06:02 |
| # ? Jan 24, 2013 05:55 |
|
|
Thanks for answering my earlier question. How long did the glow last for with the glow in the dark furniture and lower? Did you get a set? 
|
| # ? Jan 24, 2013 08:09 |
|
|
Very interesting! Thanks for writing it up. Was the 6+ months of interviews, etc with the ATF and still nothing definite pretty typical? Does it even happen often enough for any application to be considered "typical"?
|
| # ? Jan 24, 2013 08:12 |
|
|
king of the bongo posted:Thanks for answering my earlier question. How long did the glow last for with the glow in the dark furniture and lower? Did you get a set? I did have a set but I sold it to a individual that has the most extensive Cav Arms collection around. He owns every color ever made. I wouldn't have sold it to anyone else. As a shooter it didn't really do me any good having it in my safe, but it was something a collector would appreciate. I never timed how long the glow lasted, but the longer it was charged in the light, the longer it lasted. Mister Sinewave posted:Very interesting! Thanks for writing it up. Normally licenses are issued within 3-4 months. Unfortunately, the BATFE wasn’t convinced there was a complete separation from the former owners. My association with the old Cavalry Arms prompted the government to want me to fulfill more requirements than a “normal” applicant would have had to do. I chose to drop the application because I was losing money every month with no clear answer in sight. That's really as much as I want to say on the subject. SinistralRifleman fucked around with this message at Jan 24, 2013 around 10:53 |
| # ? Jan 24, 2013 10:42 |
|
|
Once this panic settles down, I want a Cav-15, now. This thread is pretty cool.
|
| # ? Jan 24, 2013 15:52 |
|
|
Butch Cassidy posted:Once this panic settles down, I want a Cav-15, now. This thread is pretty cool. GWACS is in a unique position to keep up with orders. If you want one, order one.
|
| # ? Jan 24, 2013 16:25 |
|
|
Wow, thanks for such a thorough explanation of the manufacturing challenges, SinistralRifleman.
|
| # ? Jan 24, 2013 16:31 |
|
|
Butch Cassidy posted:Once this panic settles down, I want a Cav-15, now. This thread is pretty cool. They really are cool. As long as you understand it for what it is and aren't going to get all frustrated that you can't swap in a non-fixed stock or whatever you'll be really happy with it. On a personal note I find the pistol grip on it to be pretty damned comfortable. You can't go all crazy with the huge aftermarket of grips/stocks/etc that the AR has, but I also feel zero need to. The only thing that I feel any real need to do is give it some texture, but I haven't been bothered enough by that to do it yet so it clearly doesn't bug me THAT much.
|
| # ? Jan 24, 2013 16:34 |
|
|
I still have these two bad boys   
|
| # ? Jan 24, 2013 16:37 |
|
|
quote:Speed Pins: To reduce scrap rate and increase product durability, Cavalry Arms switched from standard military style take down pins to "Speed Pins" that have the spring and detent built into them. The hole for the standard rear spring/detent was found to be a fail point that could crack all the way into the pistol grip. The front spring/detent area was prone to chipping. Speed Pins are still standard mil-spec diameter. Some Gen3 and roughly half of the Gen4 receivers in existence use these pins. All CAV-15 MKIIs use speed pins. I don't really understand this issue - what exactly was happening and why did the Speed Pins solve it?
|
| # ? Jan 24, 2013 16:40 |
|
|
SinistralRifleman posted:GWACS is in a unique position to keep up with orders. If you want one, order one. I hope they have OD back in stock when I get my bonus at the end of winter. I can settle for black if I have to. Cyrano4747 posted:They really are cool. As long as you understand it for what it is and aren't going to get all frustrated that you can't swap in a non-fixed stock or whatever you'll be really happy with it. I don't even like the AR platform and only ordered a lower as a gently caress you to Feinsetein/appreciation for Brownell's not going full retard on pricing and host for my Aimpoint that is gathering dust. The Cav-15 would be built into a lightweight beater carbine just because it is different enough to interest me.
|
| # ? Jan 24, 2013 16:42 |
|
|
SinistralRifleman posted:GWACS is in a unique position to keep up with orders. If you want one, order one. Is this because of the ability to create a year's worth of inventory in 3 weeks that you mentioned earlier?
|
| # ? Jan 24, 2013 16:50 |
|
|
So... the OP mentions light weight being an advantage over Aluminum lowers. What is the actual weight savings from GRN? For anyone that's used one of these nifty things, how lighter does it feel?
|
| # ? Jan 24, 2013 16:53 |
|
|
Mister Sinewave posted:I don't really understand this issue - what exactly was happening and why did the Speed Pins solve it? The issue as I understand it is that drilling the small, perpendicular (relative to the pins) holes for the detents and springs that hold in normal captive pins on metal AR lowers was a failure point on the earlier designs. To eliminate the failure point they just eliminated the need to have those detents at all by using pins that have them built in on the pin side. Basically you need a slightly more complex (and unique to that design) pin, but in return you have a more durable lower. edit: MRC48B posted:For anyone that's used one of these nifty things, how lighter does it feel? A lot. The OP has a figure of ~1 pound of difference between one of these and a normal lower with an average stock, and while I"ve never measured it that sounds about right-ish to me. Seriously, you've never felt "lightweight carbine" until you've picked up one of these lowers with a lightweight upper on it. I tried one at my local range and became mildly obsessed with the idea of a lightweight build on the spot. edit x2: to give you an idea, I've got a real mega-fatty target build that has a normal lower with a UBR on it to properly balance it all out. The whole thing is just stupidly heavy for an AR, but it's a target rifle so it's not that big a deal. I've put that upper on my CavArms lower for shits and giggles and it's actually so unbalanced that it's a real pain in the rear end to shoot standing. Cyrano4747 fucked around with this message at Jan 24, 2013 around 17:03 |
| # ? Jan 24, 2013 16:57 |
|
|
Thanks for the writeup! I back ordered one of the complete ones, pretty competitively priced compared to buying an aluminium lower and a parts kit and a stock and buffer kit, good luck finding that stuff right now anyway.
|
| # ? Jan 24, 2013 17:14 |
|
|
Cyrano4747 posted:A lot. The OP has a figure of ~1 pound of difference between one of these and a normal lower with an average stock, and while I"ve never measured it that sounds about right-ish to me. Thank you. Read the OP twice, still can't find it. Found it on the GWACS armory website.
|
| # ? Jan 24, 2013 17:16 |
|
|
MRC48B posted:Thank you. Read the OP twice, still can't find it. Found it on the GWACS armory website.
|
| # ? Jan 24, 2013 17:20 |
|
|
wilfoy posted:Is this because of the ability to create a year's worth of inventory in 3 weeks that you mentioned earlier? Cycle time on the mold is around one minute. If you have dried plastic ready to go (moisture in the plastic causes issues), you can crank them out indefinitely. Cycle time on the welder is less than one minute. Doing all the drilling and trimming takes longer, but with enough people set up assembly line style, it goes fast. Consider that most of the medium size machine shops will make 50-60 lowers in a 24 hour period, and you begin to understand the advantages of this manufacturing process. It also eliminates several parts that would normally have to be made separately. Cyrano4747 posted:The issue as I understand it is that drilling the small, perpendicular (relative to the pins) holes for the detents and springs that hold in normal captive pins on metal AR lowers was a failure point on the earlier designs. To eliminate the failure point they just eliminated the need to have those detents at all by using pins that have them built in on the pin side. Yes, that is exactly correct. The drills also tended to walk while drilling that operation and could make a hole on the outside of the receiver; causing a lot of scrap in addition to the structural faults found later. quote:A lot. The OP has a figure of ~1 pound of difference between one of these and a normal lower with an average stock, and while I"ve never measured it that sounds about right-ish to me. With a normal telestock lower, the weight is about a half pound lighter. With an A2 or A1 stock its about a pound lighter.
|
| # ? Jan 24, 2013 17:22 |
|
|
emathey posted:Thanks for the writeup! I back ordered one of the complete ones, pretty competitively priced compared to buying an aluminium lower and a parts kit and a stock and buffer kit, good luck finding that stuff right now anyway. You still need a parts kit to finish a CAVARMS lower out. There is a full list of the poo poo you need up in SinistralRifleman's posts, but it boils down to about 2/3rds of a part kit (basically the FCG, safety, springs, buffer detent, a few other small bits I'm leaving out) a buffer spring and a buffer. Just see if you can find one of the parts kits that don't include pistol grips in them and you'll end up with fewer extra bits than you otherwise would. I bought one off Brownell's for something like $30 before everything turned to poo poo on that front. Not needing a buffer tube is a nice bonus, though.
|
| # ? Jan 24, 2013 17:24 |
|
|
|
| # ? May 19, 2013 13:35 |
|
|
Cyrano4747 posted:The issue as I understand it is that drilling the small, perpendicular (relative to the pins) holes for the detents and springs that hold in normal captive pins on metal AR lowers was a failure point on the earlier designs. To eliminate the failure point they just eliminated the need to have those detents at all by using pins that have them built in on the pin side. SinistralRifleman posted:Yes, that is exactly correct. The drills also tended to walk while drilling that operation and could make a hole on the outside of the receiver; causing a lot of scrap in addition to the structural faults found later. Ahh, I was thinking about it all wrong. I was thinking about the takedown pin holes themselves and how the original vs. speed pins were interfacing with them and what could be so different, but it's nothing to do with the takedown pins and holes themselves specifically. Excellent example of railroaded thinking on my part - stuck thinking about it in a certain direction and didn't see the forest for the trees, etc.
|
| # ? Jan 24, 2013 17:32 |
|
