Brownell's WWSD

Status
Not open for further replies.

CapnMac

Member
Joined
Feb 27, 2009
Messages
17,700
Location
DFW (formerly Brazos County), Texas
So, is anyone else excited for this?

Me, I'm like "here take my money, now!" [:)]

That KE Arms is involved, and that they have product improved the Cav Arms/GWACS lower, which is a good thing. They also will have neary three years of other product improvements to add in, too.

The "magic" for want of a better term of an AR at M-1 carbine weight is a bit of a grail; and, with GWACS going functionally defunct, a bit of a unicorn. The various 6# ARs out there tease at this end; and I have plenty of "heavy" AR as is.

For those not in the know, Karl, Ian, and Russel explain it here:
Link: https://www.brownells.com/guntech/wwsd2020/detail.htm?lid=17958
Video (InRange):


Color me excited, and already feelign denied for having to wait a couple months [:)]
 
I watched the video, they kept stating “this is a modern evolution of the AR-15, using the same principles of the original design...”

Which misses the point of the AR in the modern environment. The AR isn’t popular today just because it is a lightweight, “handy,” fighting rifle, it’s popular today because it can be anything it’s asked to be, for an exceptionally low price.

The biggest miss in the WWSD2020 design - in my personal opinion, but also professional experience in building custom AR’s for consumers over the last 20yrs - is the decision to use a fixed A2 style buttstock. While A2’s do have a (rabidly loyal) following, they’ve not been the primary choice of most consumers nor fighting men and women for many moons. If they could have committed to a telescoping stock, MAYBE I’d be able to agree they’d created an appropriate “modern entry” as a lightweight fighting rifle - albeit watered down for non-NFA civilian consumption - but with the fixed stock, I’m fully out.
 
I suspect that they were backed into a fixed stock because of their infatuation with using a polymer lower; it would be a pretty tall ask to figure out how to design a reliable / durable polymer lower that mated with a milspec carbine buffer extension.


Well said
 
Going back to the original WWSD project (now only on Full30 or one of the parallel sites for not being YT suitable), the goal was weight savings where ever possible. Which pointed at polymer. However, most polymer lowers are "crippled" for not having enough "meat" where the buffer tube attaches--which is a huge problem for reliability. This was discussed in some detail.

The Fixed stock, in practice is really the default. Stocks are only typically collapsed to get them to fit in a case.
 
I suspect that they were backed into a fixed stock because of their infatuation with using a polymer lower; it would be a pretty tall ask to figure out how to design a reliable / durable polymer lower that mated with a milspec carbine buffer extension.

Producing this as a telescoping stock doesn’t really appear to be an engineering challenge at all - especially considering the 2 piece clamshell mold design they chose. Nobody said they had to make a mil-spec or commercial compatible receiver extension, creating a rigid one piece RE (buffer tube) integral to the lower with a telescoping adjustment similar to a Magpul UBR or to a PRS/Luth-AR stock would have been simply a matter of price point.

Instead, their “modern day evolution” incorporated a stock design which was abandoned on “lightweight, handy, fighting rifles” 25 years ago.
 
I’d have to agree. As often as I’ve admired the retro builds I’ve seen here the past few years I’m not one who gives them a moment’s thought when it comes to my own wants. When considering the 8-9 pound rifles I field during hunting season most ARs seem more than light and handy enough as is. I’m not in the same shape I was in my teens but a pound or two of extra gear has never much factored into the equation.

Still happy for those who will find the 2020 new loving homes.
 
Been wanting one of the GWACS lowers for over a year when I saw the WWSD videos. I don't feel the need for a collapsible stock, not when spacers are available to give me the best length of pull. The addition of attachment points for slings is great as is the storage compartment in the stock, also the trigger guard is enlarged for ease of use while wearing gloves.

Also having the stock be fixed means these can be sold in states with AWB laws without as much hassle, but mainly the reason is they want to maximize the strength of the design.

People talking about how an extra pound or two or three with their AR miss the point that extra weight is all additive. Carrying an 8-9 pound AR and a 2.5 pound pistol and 16 lbs of body armor vs a 5 pound AR, a 1.5 pound pistol, and 6 pounds of armor is a huge difference because it all adds up. Cut the weight where you can because when are you really going to need the aluminum lower and collapsible stock?

I'm not saying the standard aluminum AR is obsolete, it has its place, but so to does an ultra lightweight AR that's using a polymer lower.
 
People talking about how an extra pound or two or three with their AR miss the point that extra weight is all additive. Carrying an 8-9 pound AR and a 2.5 pound pistol and 16 lbs of body armor vs a 5 pound AR, a 1.5 pound pistol, and 6 pounds of armor is a huge difference because it all adds up. Cut the weight where you can because when are you really going to need the aluminum lower and collapsible stock?

... well, I’ve never needed 16lb body armor to call coyotes, hunt deer, shoot a 3 gun/Service Rifle/Precision Rifle/Benchrest match...

Despite the Leftist propaganda, civilian AR-15’s aren’t all meant for the same thing as the M16/M4 fighting rifle carried by American soldiers.
 
Wooo!! I've been trying to find a GWACs lower for 2 years. Will be buying one for sure! I am one of the rabid fixed stock fanboys.

Same here, I'm mostly interested in picking up a new production GWACs lower for a light build. My favorite AR has a fixed rifle stock that works very well for me, so I don't have any concerns about adding another to the stable.
 
... well, I’ve never needed 16lb body armor to call coyotes, hunt deer, shoot a 3 gun/Service Rifle/Precision Rifle/Benchrest match...

Despite the Leftist propaganda, civilian AR-15’s aren’t all meant for the same thing as the M16/M4 fighting rifle carried by American soldiers.
Yeah, but that's the point of the WWSD AR project.
 
The first AR I ever shot was a Cav Arms and I have wanted one ever since. That has not changed. I do really like the idea of the WWSD2020 and the guys are really passionate about the rifle and their reasoning for the design, but truthfully they need other people to be spokesmen. Ian gets overly excited and focusses too heavily on little details. Why is there no mk2 style poly 80% lower?
 
The first AR I ever shot was a Cav Arms and I have wanted one ever since. That has not changed. I do really like the idea of the WWSD2020 and the guys are really passionate about the rifle and their reasoning for the design, but truthfully they need other people to be spokesmen. Ian gets overly excited and focusses too heavily on little details. Why is there no mk2 style poly 80% lower?
Because they'd need to make a separate mold for that and molds are expensive to make given they are fully machined products.
 
Because they'd need to make a separate mold for that and molds are expensive to make given they are fully machined products.

It could have been done with just changing an insert and some pins, but yeah that all adds expense and would need to be planned for.
 
Well it's been a little over a year since this thread wound down, but I picked up my KP-15 integrated lower today.

Upon first inspection, seems solid and well made:
View attachment 963629

Looks good, the appearance is vastly improved compared to the GWACs.

Per the specs at Brownells (1.7 lbs), it looks like it shaves 1 lb. of weight compared to an A1 equipped lower.

I certainly look forward to hearing about your experiences with this once it's put in use. :cool:
 
Last edited:
The A1 stock LOP fits me perfectly, so I am all for them. Planning to buy a Brownells/GWACS lower once my money catches up a bit.
 
If I remember Russ Fagin correctly, one of the details on the buttstock is that the screws are spaced so you can use a stock buttpad if you wan an extra inch of pull to be at the A2 length. And to use off-the-shelf buttplates if desired.

I may be remembering that wrong, though.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top