surfmaster Posted February 29, 2012 Share Posted February 29, 2012 I notice there's a new lightweight bolt carrier from Loki, http://www.ar15news.com/2012/01/06/new-loki-weapon-systems-light-weight-bolt-carrier/. Anyone use it and how does it compare with the JP LMOS carrier? Is the Micro Slick-coated Loki carrier finish just as good as JP's QPQ black hard coat treatment? Thanks in advance for your responses. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
five six Posted March 1, 2012 Share Posted March 1, 2012 I notice there's a new lightweight bolt carrier from Loki, http://www.ar15news.com/2012/01/06/new-loki-weapon-systems-light-weight-bolt-carrier/. Anyone use it and how does it compare with the JP LMOS carrier? Is the Micro Slick-coated Loki carrier finish just as good as JP's QPQ black hard coat treatment? Thanks in advance for your responses. I just bought one, believe its less than 3 oz (heavier than the JP light weight carrier). Seems to work well but I'm new to the 3gun game. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
midget Posted March 1, 2012 Share Posted March 1, 2012 Seeing how JP is still back ordered on theirs, I tried calling Loki several times yesterday and kept getting the voice mail.. According to spec, there is a .5oz difference between the JP and the Loki (in favor of the JP). I notice there's a new lightweight bolt carrier from Loki, http://www.ar15news.com/2012/01/06/new-loki-weapon-systems-light-weight-bolt-carrier/. Anyone use it and how does it compare with the JP LMOS carrier? Is the Micro Slick-coated Loki carrier finish just as good as JP's QPQ black hard coat treatment? Thanks in advance for your responses. I just bought one, believe its less than 3 oz (heavier than the JP light weight carrier). Seems to work well but I'm new to the 3gun game. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
MarkCO Posted March 1, 2012 Share Posted March 1, 2012 It looks like the rails are the same as a mil-spec. The JPs are increased in surface area contact. The weight reduction looks unbalanced as well. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
midget Posted March 1, 2012 Share Posted March 1, 2012 The rails look like they are about the same length actually JP: Loki: Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
MarkCO Posted March 1, 2012 Share Posted March 1, 2012 It is the width. From the JP website: Machined from 416 stainless steel for optimum durability and longevity. Does NOT have forward assist serrations but does feature dust cover notch. 100% increase in bearing surface for smoother operation, improved alignment and lower wear in the upper receiver. I've seen more than one completely trashed receiver that had been run with a lightened Mil-Spec bolt. There is a lot more to it than just weight reduction. Also, a lightened Mil-Spec bolt will wear the cam path much faster and a POF roller cam is almost a necessity. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
MickB Posted March 1, 2012 Share Posted March 1, 2012 So does JP's increased bearing area mean their lightweight carriers do not need a roller cam? Mick It is the width. From the JP website: Machined from 416 stainless steel for optimum durability and longevity. Does NOT have forward assist serrations but does feature dust cover notch. 100% increase in bearing surface for smoother operation, improved alignment and lower wear in the upper receiver. I've seen more than one completely trashed receiver that had been run with a lightened Mil-Spec bolt. There is a lot more to it than just weight reduction. Also, a lightened Mil-Spec bolt will wear the cam path much faster and a POF roller cam is almost a necessity. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
MarkCO Posted March 1, 2012 Share Posted March 1, 2012 So does JP's increased bearing area mean their lightweight carriers do not need a roller cam? Mick There is more there than meets the eye, and it is not just the outer bearing area of the bolt. I don't use a roller cam in the JP LMOS carrier (which I have in every competition rifle I own) because I see no added benefit. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
R-Bros_JLR Posted March 1, 2012 Share Posted March 1, 2012 ... Also, a lightened Mil-Spec bolt will wear the cam path much faster and a POF roller cam is almost a necessity. What causes them to wear faster? I haven't messed with lightweight carriers much so excuse the ignorance. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
hax Posted March 2, 2012 Share Posted March 2, 2012 Great topic Please carry on Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
MarkCO Posted March 2, 2012 Share Posted March 2, 2012 ... Also, a lightened Mil-Spec bolt will wear the cam path much faster and a POF roller cam is almost a necessity. What causes them to wear faster? I haven't messed with lightweight carriers much so excuse the ignorance. So to unlock the bolt, the gas enters the gas key and forces the bolt forward (initially) and the carrier backwards. The cam, in the slot on top of the BCG necessarily rotates unlocking the bolt. This creates a multi-directional force on the bolt and the carrier components and the surfaces they are in contact with. The linear force is transfered to the buffer and spring. The non-linear forces to the various mating surfaces. When the weight goes down, the speed goes up, but more importantly, the inertia is reduced. The JP design has accounted for these changes. A mil-spec carrier that had been machined to reduce weight has NOT. I have not held one of the LOKIs in my hands, but I can see two obvious stress concentations in the cam path that have been created by material removal, just from the photo. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
hax Posted March 2, 2012 Share Posted March 2, 2012 Let me know if I'm understanding you right mark. Your saying that with a lightened bolt carrier you want less weight but more area to make contact? If this is true then why on 1911's do we not have the rails tightened at .001 the whole length of the frame? Usually gunsmiths try to releave some metal around the mag area so that it only has front and back lock up and less friction. But maybe I'm wrong with the whole 1911 reason. I have never messed around with a lightened carrier. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
MarkCO Posted March 2, 2012 Share Posted March 2, 2012 Let me know if I'm understanding you right mark. Your saying that with a lightened bolt carrier you want less weight but more area to make contact? If this is true then why on 1911's do we not have the rails tightened at .001 the whole length of the frame? Usually gunsmiths try to releave some metal around the mag area so that it only has front and back lock up and less friction. But maybe I'm wrong with the whole 1911 reason. I have never messed around with a lightened carrier. Yes. I will bet a big box of doughnuts that if you measure the surface area of contact on a AR-15 BCG and compare that with a 1911/2011, you will be shocked at the difference. Add to that the fact that pistol cartridges are about 30 to 35 Kpsi and rifle is about 50 kpsi. Energy is not linear either. One of those 7 laws applies here, but let's not go overboard. WADR to JMB, the materials in 1900 were far below the grades we use now. JMB had no stress analysis package or FMEA. Fact is that a "stock" 1911 pattern gun has WAY more surface area in the rails than is necessary given the configuration, materials and stresses. When the M-16 was designed, material and stress analysis were used and the bearing areas were evaluated. There was a marginal factor of safety. I trust that explanation makes sense without getting too technical. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
hax Posted March 2, 2012 Share Posted March 2, 2012 Tu Che Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
MarkCO Posted March 2, 2012 Share Posted March 2, 2012 Tu Che Um, I'm an Engineer, is that French or Chinese? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
thrlskr Posted March 2, 2012 Share Posted March 2, 2012 Mark, I just ordered Loki's light weight BCG this week and am having buyers remorse based on your comments. I might cancel my order tomorrow. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
BigBets Posted March 2, 2012 Share Posted March 2, 2012 Trust JP..they have been doing this longer than anyone for a reason...i just got another of their lightened bolt carriers, moves in the LaRue upper like a piston...Say it with me now...trust JP...trust JP....trust JP Bets Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
hax Posted March 2, 2012 Share Posted March 2, 2012 It's French and it means: It is a term made in fencing when you acknowledge the opponent made a point. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Chris Posted March 2, 2012 Share Posted March 2, 2012 (edited) Don't forget Young Manufacturing makes a Super Light carrier as well. The JP design has accounted for these changes. A mil-spec carrier that had been machined to reduce weight has NOT. Prove it. Edited March 2, 2012 by Chris Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
thrlskr Posted March 2, 2012 Share Posted March 2, 2012 I think you meant touché. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
MarkCO Posted March 2, 2012 Share Posted March 2, 2012 Don't forget Young Manufacturing makes a Super Light carrier as well. Yes, and they have also increased the surface area of contact. Prove it. I'm not going to deconstruct the JP design. I don't think it has a patent and I see no need to feed JPs competition with engineering analysis. Likewise, I'm not going to do the engineering for Loki. I have pointed out the issues with the Loki carrier and the discussion already presented above should be sufficient to illustrate the issues. If you can't see those issues or don't beleive the discussion, feel free to ignore it. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
midget Posted March 2, 2012 Share Posted March 2, 2012 Thank you for your input! I am just going to try to be patient and wait for JP to ship me one... Don't forget Young Manufacturing makes a Super Light carrier as well. Yes, and they have also increased the surface area of contact. Prove it. I'm not going to deconstruct the JP design. I don't think it has a patent and I see no need to feed JPs competition with engineering analysis. Likewise, I'm not going to do the engineering for Loki. I have pointed out the issues with the Loki carrier and the discussion already presented above should be sufficient to illustrate the issues. If you can't see those issues or don't beleive the discussion, feel free to ignore it. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
hax Posted March 2, 2012 Share Posted March 2, 2012 I think you meant touché. You are correct Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
CliffP Posted March 2, 2012 Share Posted March 2, 2012 (edited) Thanks for the technical info. I love this discussion as I have talked to shooters that want to mill things down. Me included... to get lighter this or that. The point about the original design having science applied in the design (countless hours and dollars) has to be considered with pressures / forces at work here. I cycle as my second favor hobby and i am ate up with titanium this and carbon that and ceramic bearings everywhere. There are forces at work there as well that if catastrophic failure accrues you get hurt. we need more of this kind of education for us newbies Peace Edited March 3, 2012 by CliffP Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
trickpony Posted March 3, 2012 Share Posted March 3, 2012 (edited) I've run various lightened mil-spec carriers for years with absolutely zero issues in the upper or the carrier itself. My original, oldest carrier is hacked with the best of them and has over 20k rounds on it with no issues anywhere in the rifle (I've had a few bolts through it over the years and installed a new LOKI 16" barrel to replace the worn out Bushmaster). I'd run whatever you like as I doubt most of us will ever put enough rounds through any carrier/upper to have issues. I had a JP carrier in my competition rifle for a short time but didn't like the light weight as it seemed to impact my 50 yard splits negatively. I'm trying a LOKI lightweight carrier now and it seems to give me a better feel but the rifle has changed as well. I still don't know if I like the lightened carriers so just run whatever you like and try light vs. heavy to see if you feel a difference Edited March 3, 2012 by trickpony Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Create an account or sign in to comment
You need to be a member in order to leave a comment
Create an account
Sign up for a new account in our community. It's easy!
Register a new accountSign in
Already have an account? Sign in here.
Sign In Now