unclekuster
New member
While you are shopping around for parts and such, you come across terms for receivers such as "Billet" and "Forged". Is this a sales gimmic or is one better than the other ? what's the difference ?
You are using an out of date browser. It may not display this or other websites correctly.
You should upgrade or use an alternative browser.
You should upgrade or use an alternative browser.
Receiver Terms ?
- Thread starter unclekuster
- Start date
Billet usually indicates a part is machined from a "billet"(block) of monogamous material.
Forged usually indicates a blank has been "forged" or stamped while in a semi-flexible state to the general form of the finished part.
Both are machined to final size and shape. Forging may impart more structural integrity to the finished part but there are too many variances in materials and processes to state this specifically.In most cases, the forged part may require less machining and suffer less wasted material than a part machined from a chunk of whatever the material may be.
Forged usually indicates a blank has been "forged" or stamped while in a semi-flexible state to the general form of the finished part.
Both are machined to final size and shape. Forging may impart more structural integrity to the finished part but there are too many variances in materials and processes to state this specifically.In most cases, the forged part may require less machining and suffer less wasted material than a part machined from a chunk of whatever the material may be.
stagpanther
New member
On the other hand--generally a billet-machined receiver means it's machined from a "first generation" aluminum bar stock--usually more direct from the original manufacturer and less likely to have internal irregularities form re-melting and/or casting. A billet receiver will involve more work and finishing--but is generally superior in strength and resistance to internal fracturing. Interestingly enough--the much-derided DPMS budget smooth-side receiver is machined from a billet and has thicker walls than most "regular" uppers.
marine6680
New member
When it comes to the aluminum alloys used in AR receivers... If all things are equal, meaning same alloy type, and identical dimensions, the forged receiver will usually be stronger. This is due to the compression that the forging process imparts to the metal.
Billet can be stronger due to the fact that the dimensions are more easily changed from standard, adding material in various places to increase strength. As its easier to reprogram the milling machine with new dimensions than it is to make new forging dies. This and the custom design/look of billet is the reason they sell.
Most makers of Standard forged AR receivers, source unfinished forgings from one of the handful of forgers in the US, then they do the final milling and anodizing themselves. This is where the different manufactures differ, as their QC and tolerances are different, even if the basic design and dimensions are the same.
The biggest confusion around the forged vs billet is from other products like custom car parts, where billet is typically superior. This has lead to many assuming the same applies to AR receivers.
Car parts tend to be made from steel, and the steels that are suitable for forging, are not as strong as other steel alloys typically used in billet parts. So the difference isn't because one is forged and the other billet, but due to the physical properties of the materials used. Should a manufacturer use the same steel used in forged parts to make a billet part, the forged part would be superior, as it would gain the benefit of the work hardening from the forging process.
It is a materials difference, not a process difference. Due to the fact that the aluminum alloys used in AR receivers is well suited to the forging process, and that billet receiver makers use the same alloy... There is no difference in material strength, it must be done through design/dimensions.
Unless you want the custom look of billet, forged costs much less and you loose little to nothing to the billet.
Billet can be stronger due to the fact that the dimensions are more easily changed from standard, adding material in various places to increase strength. As its easier to reprogram the milling machine with new dimensions than it is to make new forging dies. This and the custom design/look of billet is the reason they sell.
Most makers of Standard forged AR receivers, source unfinished forgings from one of the handful of forgers in the US, then they do the final milling and anodizing themselves. This is where the different manufactures differ, as their QC and tolerances are different, even if the basic design and dimensions are the same.
The biggest confusion around the forged vs billet is from other products like custom car parts, where billet is typically superior. This has lead to many assuming the same applies to AR receivers.
Car parts tend to be made from steel, and the steels that are suitable for forging, are not as strong as other steel alloys typically used in billet parts. So the difference isn't because one is forged and the other billet, but due to the physical properties of the materials used. Should a manufacturer use the same steel used in forged parts to make a billet part, the forged part would be superior, as it would gain the benefit of the work hardening from the forging process.
It is a materials difference, not a process difference. Due to the fact that the aluminum alloys used in AR receivers is well suited to the forging process, and that billet receiver makers use the same alloy... There is no difference in material strength, it must be done through design/dimensions.
Unless you want the custom look of billet, forged costs much less and you loose little to nothing to the billet.
stagpanther
New member
Could be--but I know from many year's experience in the climbing industry that forged aluminum always rates to a lower tensile strength than billet and also tends to hide internal brittleness.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=w8Zzw7XaBZM
http://02eadee.netsolhost.com/SunDevilJan07.pdf
6061 and 7075 are aircraft grade aluminum extrusions. To the best of my knowledge--I know of no instances of forged aluminum being used in critical aircraft frame components such as wing spars.
All that said--is a forged receiver more than good enough? I believe yes it is--with the possible exception of an environment where a weapon might be dropped on hard surfaces like rock
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=w8Zzw7XaBZM
http://02eadee.netsolhost.com/SunDevilJan07.pdf
6061 and 7075 are aircraft grade aluminum extrusions. To the best of my knowledge--I know of no instances of forged aluminum being used in critical aircraft frame components such as wing spars.
All that said--is a forged receiver more than good enough? I believe yes it is--with the possible exception of an environment where a weapon might be dropped on hard surfaces like rock
Last edited:
unclekuster
New member
Guns are soooo much fun, I think I get almost as big a kick out of reading and learning about the how and why as I do actually pulling the trigger, thanks guys, you make the dark hours more fun.
stagpanther
New member
Go for it and build one--it's not all that hard and you will learn what a great rifle they can be. I haven't seen prices this low on AR rifles and components in a long time. It will only take the next notorious AR crime to create a panic rush on rifles and ammo out of ban fear--which in turn will create widespread shortages and price spikes.
mtlucas0311
New member
It sounds like the guys who've responded so far know what they're talking about, but if you're referring to AR15's it really doesn't matter which one is used. Both methods are fine because the design of the rifle doesn't put any significant load on the upper or lower receivers, unlike other rifles. It's mostly personal preference on the cosmetic appearance of each. The billet pieces do look nice though.
Last edited:
stagpanther
New member
Agreed--the only difference in my mind would be operating in extreme conditions where I might be dropping/bashing the weapon onto hard things--in which case the billet would be an investment in peace-of-mind.
marine6680
New member
Seeing as how I have used an m16 like a club, and not gingerly I might add...
I don't think the design lacks strength for rough treatment.
I don't think the design lacks strength for rough treatment.
A billet receiver will involve more work and finishing--but is generally superior in strength and resistance to internal fracturing.
This is the exact opposite of everything I've been taught to date.
Both have a good bit of machining, but forged lowers are generally understood to be stronger from what I've researched.
stagpanther
New member
I'm not a metallurgy expert--it's always possible that the firearms manufacturers have developed some kind of process whereby the forged is stronger--I'm just saying the two other industries that I'm familiar with that use 7075 and 6061 extensively--climbing and glider aviation--first generation billet extrusions are stronger and less prone to failure--in every critical life-or-death application I can think of forged aluminum use has disappeared in deference to use of billet extrusions. I have personally seen forged/casted components fail from fractures in situations where billet extrusions would bend but not break. But these are dynamic impact/shear scenarios--and as long as the weapon isn't being banged around hard against things it probably makes little difference in receivers. As a side note, I rather doubt companies like Wilson Combat would offer billet receivers simply as a way to gouge customers.
After an extensive "google-fest session" I see that the majority of opinions seem to be forged receivers are stronger--something about compression alignment of molecules--but the actual samples of test comparisons seems rather sparse.
Sorta like comparing cold-hammered forged barrels and button rifling I guess : )
After an extensive "google-fest session" I see that the majority of opinions seem to be forged receivers are stronger--something about compression alignment of molecules--but the actual samples of test comparisons seems rather sparse.
Sorta like comparing cold-hammered forged barrels and button rifling I guess : )
Last edited:
marine6680
New member
Those areas are different than the firearms world.
How the part handles stress is important, and design plays a huge role there. Billet allows for greater flexibility in design. Complex parts do not benefit from forging, as too much finish work would be needed after, making machining from stock easier.
Another factor is how the load and stress is applied to the part. And you must define what you mean by stronger.
Forging makes a part stronger in that it increases rigidity, toughness, resistance to flex, and compressive strength. You gain a lot, but at the cost of some flexibility and resistance to shock loads.
Flexibility is important in certain areas and uses. In such a case, a part that has better resistance to repeated flex loading, but is weaker in tensile strength, can out perform one that is stiffer and higher in tensile strength.
We have similar situation in the aviation world... Mostly billet parts. Complex shapes, variable force loads, and other factors are at play. Also the general low volume production as well is a factor.
It's all about the properties you need in the material to counter the forces it will be subjected to.
How the part handles stress is important, and design plays a huge role there. Billet allows for greater flexibility in design. Complex parts do not benefit from forging, as too much finish work would be needed after, making machining from stock easier.
Another factor is how the load and stress is applied to the part. And you must define what you mean by stronger.
Forging makes a part stronger in that it increases rigidity, toughness, resistance to flex, and compressive strength. You gain a lot, but at the cost of some flexibility and resistance to shock loads.
Flexibility is important in certain areas and uses. In such a case, a part that has better resistance to repeated flex loading, but is weaker in tensile strength, can out perform one that is stiffer and higher in tensile strength.
We have similar situation in the aviation world... Mostly billet parts. Complex shapes, variable force loads, and other factors are at play. Also the general low volume production as well is a factor.
It's all about the properties you need in the material to counter the forces it will be subjected to.