CARBINE TYPE RECEIVER EXTENSIONS FOR THE M16/M4/AR-15

INTRODUCTION

It is often asked why is “mil-spec” better than “commercial” carbine receiver extensions. Truth is carbine
receiver extensions are little more complicated than simply “commercial” vs. “mil-spec”, there really are 3 major
types to consider. First so-called commercial extensions, we’ll consider this group as anything that more or less
looks and works like the standard carbine receiver extensions. Next the “mil-spec” receiver extension, lets limit
this group to receiver extensions conforming drawing number 9390019 - Extension, Receiver and slight variations
there of e.g. 5 stock positions or extra drain holes for improved over the beach capability. The last group being
dimensionally identical to the mil-spec type but otherwise not meeting or exceeding all of the specifications for the
mil-spec receiver extensions, we’ll refer to these types as pseudo-mil-spec receiver extensions. Now on to what
makes these types different or better than one or the other.

WHY COMMERICIAL AND MIL-SPEC VERSIONS?

Ok, so a little background on some of the minutia of the carbine receiver extension. The major day to day
difference between commercial and mil-spec(pseudo types included) is the primary outside diameter of the tube
portion of the extension, typically in the Ø1.170” ballpark for the commercial types and between Ø1.143”- Ø 1.149”
for the mil-spec types. This is due to the manufacturing method and the 1.1875-16 thread used for attaching to the
lower receiver, you will notice the thread’s major diameter(Ø 1.1875”) is greater than the tube OD of the mil-spec
type extensions, keep this in mind. For the most part two types of processes are used to produce the hunk of
aluminum used to machine a receiver extension from: Extrusion and Impact Extrusion.

Think of extrusion as how spaghetti noodles are made, the aluminum is pushed through a die shaped like
the profile of a receiver extension producing a length of aluminum with a matching profile, this is typically how
commercial extensions start life.

Impact extrusion is used almost exclusively to produce mil-spec type extensions(it’s also how rifle type
receiver extensions are made) imagine a 35mm film canister filled with play-doh now stick your finger down in the
middle of it, that’s an impact extrusion, a slug of aluminum is loaded into a die and a punch is inserted into the
slug and die extruding the aluminum up and out of the die. The big advantage of impact extrusion is instead of
having a solid receiver extension shaped piece of aluminum with have a hollow tube with a closed end shaped
like a receiver extension, this saves a lot of machine time and scrap material. Additionally, the impact extrusion
process is capable of producing a shape with a taper or multiple diameters, allowing the tube portion to be formed
at Ø1.143”- Ø1.149” and the thread portion to be formed at Ø1.1875”.

This stepped diameter of an impact extrusion allows for fully formed threads to cut in to the extension
satisfying the mil-spec requirement, threads cut into extruded extensions are often truncated or not fully formed
as there is not enough material to do so. The truncated threads of the commercial type receiver extension are
one of the primary inferiorities in comparison to mil-spec receiver extension, the fit and strength of threads are
nowhere as good or strong as fully formed threads.

Why are commercial receiver extensions not just extruded at the mil-spec diameter? Well at a diameter
of about 1.149” you would have at best a barely functional thread form and you would be running a reasonable
chance of a RUD (Rapid Unintentional Disassembly, or as rocket guys say Rapid Unscheduled Disassembly).
This is where the mythical rolled threads come in, I say mythical because in my experience I’ve never come
across any real evidence of this being used on receiver extensions, anyways rolled threads are formed rather
than cut.

A note on thread anatomy first, if you look at cross section of thread you will see what appears to be a
series of peaks and valleys, the angle of these peaks and valleys being 60°. The top of the peaks represents
the Major Diameter of the thread while the bottom of the valleys represents the Minor Diameter of the thread,
somewhere between these two diameters is a mostly theoretical diameter referred to as the Pitch Diameter.
 As I said the Pitch Diameter is mostly theoretical except when it comes to rolled threads, it’s the starting
diameter(or at least close enough for this example) of the part before the threads are formed, the thread rollers
form the thread by displacing the volume of the thread below the Pitch Diameter in to the volume of the thread
profile above the Pitch Diameter. It just so happens the Pitch Diameter of the 1.1875-16 threads used on the
receiver extension is a bit smaller than the primary tube OD of 1.149”, allowing perfect fully formed threads to
made using this method. In theory a true mil-spec receiver extension can be made using a standard extrusion
and this threading method, it’s bit wasteful but it can be done.

So basically the dimensional differences between commercial and mil-spec type receiver extensions
come down to the thread size used and the different manufacturing processes needed to achieve that. Why
anyone makes commercial type receiver extension, honestly I don’t know, other than the reason would probably
cause me to sigh and put my palm to my face and shake my head. Now on to mil-spec vs pseudo-mil-spec where
there is very real reason for the difference.

ATTENTION TO DETAIL AND ADEQUATENESS

Attention to detail and adequateness are the primary talking points here but both really just boil down to
cost vs value and the time honored tradition of penny pinching in manufacturing. Let’s tackle some of the common
differences between mil-spec and pseudo-mil-spec receiver extensions, primarily final protective finish and base
material. The mil-spec receivers are to be finished with a matte(except for the thread area) black type III anodize
coating, this is pretty standard stuff for M16 parts, however the mil-spec also calls out for solid film lubricant on
the inside tube portion.

These are the details that start to separate the men from the boys, the solid film lubricant if difficult to
apply to the military’s satisfaction they have been known to reject whole lots for the slightest lack of coverage on
the inside, a common issue because of the relatively deep hole geometry of the inside of the receiver extension.
The solid film lube also adds cost and manufacturing steps due to this presence of the solid film lube is one
of the defining characteristics between a true mil-spec receiver extension and a pseudo-mil-spec extension;
pseudo-mil-spec types almost universally omit the solid film lube. The deep hole geometry also causes all sorts
of issues with anodizing, bubbles are trapped inside the tube during the anodize bath process that lead to poor to
no anodize coverage in the bottom of the inside diameter. If you section a pseudo-mil-spec I can almost guaranty
the lack of good anodize coverage on the closed end along with the lack of solid film lube, note however that even
mil-spec receiver extensions will sometime show this defect.

The other biggie in terms of mil-spec vs pseudo-mil-spec receiver extensions is the material, the mil-spec
calls for 7075-T6 aluminum, pseudo-mil-spec extensions use 6061-T6 aluminum. Honestly this is probably in of
its self not a big deal, I can’t think of a realistic and relevant situation where a 6061 extension is going to fail on
you were a 7075 extension isn’t going to fail, but it is symptomatic of overall cost-cutting, like 5 bucks per $1000
gun sort of cost cutting. Back real quick to commercial tubes, the material used for them typically varies from 6061
aluminum to the finest Chinese pot metal, and they suffer from the same finish deficiencies as the pseudo-mil-
spec extensions often do.

TL;DL

To sum up there really 3 main types of carbine receiver extensions: commercial spec, pseudo-mil-spec,
mil-spec. The commercial spec extensions are stupid and cheap, the pseudo-mil-spec extensions are just cheap,
and well the mil-spec is what sets the bar.

As with everything take this all with a bit a salt, this based on my years of experience manufacturing AR-
15 parts and rifles and my knowledge of the M16 and M4 TDPs, I’m sure there is someone out there that knows
more and has more experience, at least I hope so… as I’d like to ask them some questions.

-Jordan Bowles 01July2016

jordanbowles@gmail.com