- 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
Anderson rifles and RF85 technology
Posted on 9/7/16 at 10:09 am
Posted on 9/7/16 at 10:09 am
Doing some research on AR's and stumbled across Anderson Rifles and the mention of this new RF85 technology that supposedly reduces friction to such an extent that one doesn't need to oil the gun. Sounded like BS to me but then I found some articles like this one: LINK
So what's the story on these? Legit or no? Anyone have one?
I don't keep up with the modern firearms market but am looking to get an AR. Surely if this is legitimate it would be generating mass attention in the firearms world but I'd never heard of it until last night.
quote:
“We shoot a lot of rifles during the course of a year and this rifle is truly revolutionizing the shooting sports industry,” says Bill Rogers, executive producer of the television show American Outdoors. “Because of their nano technology, that embeds at the molecular level in the gun, their treatment reduces friction by 85% and forms a protective barrier that eliminates the need for lubrication. And because the gun requires no lubrication, there is no oil present which would normally turn into tough-to-clean carbon once the gun is fired. As a result, the gun runs cleaner longer, the rifling in the barrel remains true and the gun cleans up in minutes in just soap and water. I see this as the #1 selling rifle in 2016,” adds Rogers.
Read more: https://www.ammoland.com/2016/01/andersons-no-lube-rifle-receives-prestigious-award/#ixzz4JaCXOHHL
Under Creative Commons License: Attribution
Follow us: @Ammoland on Twitter | Ammoland on Facebook
So what's the story on these? Legit or no? Anyone have one?
I don't keep up with the modern firearms market but am looking to get an AR. Surely if this is legitimate it would be generating mass attention in the firearms world but I'd never heard of it until last night.
5
Posted on 9/7/16 at 10:25 am to ChewyDante
quote:
Bill Rogers, executive producer of the television show American Outdoors
He's for sale
quote:
“Because of their nano technology, that embeds at the molecular level in the gun, their treatment reduces friction by 85% and forms a protective barrier that eliminates the need for lubrication. And because the gun requires no lubrication, there is no oil present which would normally turn into tough-to-clean carbon once the gun is fired. As a result, the gun runs cleaner longer, the rifling in the barrel remains true and the gun cleans up in minutes in just soap and water. I see this as the #1 selling rifle in 2016,”
And that sounds like something Anderson would pay him to say.
At this point I wouldn't pay for it.
Posted on 9/7/16 at 10:32 am to ChewyDante
quote:
Surely if this is legitimate it would be generating mass attention in the firearms world
We ran a RF85 upper on full auto to test it out. It ran great with easy cleanup.
Only reason I can see for it not being popular is the $200 added cost to a complete upper.
Posted on 9/7/16 at 11:05 am to ChewyDante
Lot of snake oils out there but this stuff, along with some other, military-tested, durable solid lubricant technologies seem to actually deliver on their promises. Might not be as far fetched as some of you might think that no-lube ARs might be closer to reality than not. I'll tell you all one thing, this stuff and a few DLCs are worth looking at compared to the nitride/carbide/electro/electroless/spray-/dip-cure coatings some seem to waste their money on around here.
Posted on 9/7/16 at 12:06 pm to Clames
So is this technology legit right now or no? It's surprisingly hard to find a consensus on this online.
Not having to oil the rifle and cleaning it in soap and water and being told the rifle will last longer than traditional AR's is mindfricking me right now.
Not having to oil the rifle and cleaning it in soap and water and being told the rifle will last longer than traditional AR's is mindfricking me right now.
Posted on 9/7/16 at 12:17 pm to ChewyDante
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. I would never use soap and water to clean a weapon no matter what the coating technology promised.
This post was edited on 9/7/16 at 12:20 pm
Posted on 9/7/16 at 12:22 pm to ChewyDante
quote:
hard to find a consensus on this online.
I believe it is possible that RF85 has its merits, however the lack of 'holy shite' in the industry is the biggest hang up for me as well. Which is why I say I wouldn't pay extra for it right now. I feel like if it really was the bee's knees then everyone would be talking about it. However, this could also be because it is Anderson that came out with it. Had it been Noveske, DD, BCM, etc., who have a knack for marketing and a large fanboy base, it would no doubt be the biggest thing since Carpenter 158
Posted on 9/7/16 at 12:30 pm to Propagandalf
quote:
I believe it is possible that RF85 has its merits, however the lack of 'holy shite' in the industry is the biggest hang up for me as well. Which is why I say I wouldn't pay extra for it right now. I feel like if it really was the bee's knees then everyone would be talking about it.
This is what's really keeping me from buying into it. This would be a game changer in future firearms production and yet it seems to have no buzz. I can't even find many personal reviews from individuals who went out and bought one and raved about it. Wouldn't those be abundant?
It's such an incredible claim that if it's true they should be the talk of the firearms world. But other than a handful of blogs, I can't find shite.
Posted on 9/7/16 at 12:40 pm to Propagandalf
quote:
I feel like if it really was the bee's knees then everyone would be talking about it.
It's probably more of a cost issue since the company that owns this product charges a flat 40% of the value of what is being treated as the cost. Be sure though, if the DoD starts using such a coating, everyone will be offering it in a hurry.
Posted on 9/7/16 at 12:42 pm to ChewyDante
Seems like a load of bullshite based on that write-up. That technical info dump that ol boy gave seemed like one of those "hey, say this and we'll pay you" deals.
Just based off the link, seems like snake oil bullshite to me. I'll read more into it, but that "award" was unabashedly bought and paid for
Just based off the link, seems like snake oil bullshite to me. I'll read more into it, but that "award" was unabashedly bought and paid for
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 12:51 pm to Propagandalf
quote:
Had it been Noveske,
I think Noveske does do some proprietary coating for lower friction.
Posted on 9/7/16 at 12:59 pm to ChewyDante
Here you are still researching an AR. Didn't want to pull the trigger on Pledgewards?
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
Posted on 9/7/16 at 1:11 pm to Clames
Also, I don't understand why the lower receiver needs RF85.
Posted on 9/7/16 at 1:36 pm to Propagandalf
Some coating systems seem to do much better against themselves. Mil-spec hard anodized aluminum can be very abrasive, especially when dry. That would require the upper to be treated to accurately make the claimed benefits of RF85, then the lower is probably treated only for cosmetic reasons.
Posted on 9/7/16 at 6:44 pm to Todd Lerfondler
quote:
Here you are still researching an AR. Didn't want to pull the trigger on Pledgewards?
That's a screen name that can easily be misinterpreted. I'd hang on to that avatar pic.
Posted on 9/7/16 at 10:55 pm to Clames
Clames,
I admit that by nature, I'm usually a skeptic. In addition, I'm fairly ignorant w/ the AR platform. Having said that, I can see where this technology would be helpful for the operation of the action if the claims are true.
I have a question arising from the following quote:
I know you're not a spokesman for the company, but I curious what you think.
Are they claiming gun oil inside the barrel turns into carbon once the cartridge is fired?
How is it that this technology to eliminate the need for lubricants in the AR action extends to the bore and the rifling to provide protection to the rifling?
The aforementioned quote seems more "snake oilish" to me than the other claims.
I admit that by nature, I'm usually a skeptic. In addition, I'm fairly ignorant w/ the AR platform. Having said that, I can see where this technology would be helpful for the operation of the action if the claims are true.
I have a question arising from the following quote:
quote:
And because the gun requires no lubrication, there is no oil present which would normally turn into tough-to-clean carbon once the gun is fired. As a result, the gun runs cleaner longer, the rifling in the barrel remains true and the gun cleans up in minutes in just soap and water.
I know you're not a spokesman for the company, but I curious what you think.
Are they claiming gun oil inside the barrel turns into carbon once the cartridge is fired?
How is it that this technology to eliminate the need for lubricants in the AR action extends to the bore and the rifling to provide protection to the rifling?
The aforementioned quote seems more "snake oilish" to me than the other claims.
Posted on 9/8/16 at 6:53 pm to TigerOnThe Hill
Thread bump, because I have someone trying to sell me one of these and I'm seriously considering it. I've looking to get an AR and spend in the $800 range, don't need any crazy accessories or anything really. But I wasn't prepared for an oilless rifle that the manufacturer recommends to wash with soap and water.
This will be my first AR. I'm a little uncomfortable with the no oil and no solvent cleaning deal.
This will be my first AR. I'm a little uncomfortable with the no oil and no solvent cleaning deal.
Posted on 9/8/16 at 7:13 pm to TigerOnThe Hill
quote:
Are they claiming gun oil inside the barrel turns into carbon once the cartridge is fired?
The oil will trap carbon and unburned propellant and the hot gasses will eventually vaporize the oil into a varnish which will make that crud harder to remove. I always run a dry patch down the bores of my firearms before firing so there is pretty much no oil, any residue would be blasted out anyway. I don't think there is much merit to the claim concerning the barrel itself unless you were in the habit of running a rifle so wet with lube that it dripped into the magazine and covered the ammo which would cause oil to foul the chamber and bore to a degree.
Page 1 of 2
Popular
Back to top
Follow TigerDroppings for LSU Football News