- My Forums
- Tiger Rant
- LSU Recruiting
- SEC Rant
- Saints Talk
- Pelicans Talk
- More Sports Board
- Fantasy Sports
- Golf Board
- Soccer Board
- O-T Lounge
- Tech Board
- Home/Garden Board
- Outdoor Board
- Health/Fitness Board
- Movie/TV Board
- Book Board
- Music Board
- Political Talk
- Money Talk
- Fark Board
- Gaming Board
- Travel Board
- Food/Drink Board
- Ticket Exchange
- TD Help Board
Customize My Forums- View All Forums
- Show Left Links
- Topic Sort Options
- Trending Topics
- Recent Topics
- Active Topics
Started By
Message
re: Anderson rifles and RF85 technology
Posted on 9/7/16 at 12:45 pm to Clames
Posted on 9/7/16 at 12:45 pm to Clames
quote:
The technology is legit. RF85 is probably better known in motorsports and has shown to pretty much deliver on the reduced friction and wear claims. The DoD has been conducting reseach on this stuff (dry lubricant coatings) for decades and some existing commercial products are showing a lot of promise in terms of providing a realistic solution.
Interesting. If anyone would know about this, it'd be you
Posted on 9/7/16 at 1:02 pm to Carson123987
I've seen some tests where standard phosphate bolt carrier/anodized aluminum + CLP showed nearly the same or better adhesive and abrasive wear characteristics than some of the popular Ni/PTFE plating options out there. Some of the DLC coatings not only had superior wear characteristics but also survived days in a salt fog chamber and looked practically unchanged coming out. The challenge is finding something that is compatible with legacy systems. From an economics standpoint, it's much easier to just coat BCGs, buffer assy., and operational parts than all of that plus receivers. Problem is is that some coatings may make the wear on the BCG non-existent but increase the wear on the anodized aluminum receiver. To me that seems like a poor trade off and the DoD would say the same.
This post was edited on 9/7/16 at 1:03 pm
Popular
Back to top
Follow TigerDroppings for LSU Football News