I just heard about this company for the first time. A customer at my work mentioned it and how Anderson MFG treats the guns with a special coating that allows the gun to run without lubrication. I looked into the company and their marketing advertises exactly that.The Anderson Rifle is the only rifle in the world that never requires lubrication. It is only possible because it is permanently treated with, the nano technology that injects calcium into the molecular fabric of the metal. RF85 is permanent. It is INas the metal.
Anderson rifles that have that coating are actually labeled as such. I do not believe that the stripped uppers/lowers are treated. Unless all of the parts are known to be treated the rifle will need to be lubed as normal. Please correct me if I'm wrong. By the way Anderson customer service was very quick to respond. After numerous phone calls asking when we will be carrying Anderson RF85 treated products the wait is over! This Anderson upper is the only upper in the world that never requires lubrication. It is only possible because it is permanently treated with RF85, that reduces friction by 85%. Sportsman's Guide has your Anderson AOR 5.56 NATO/.223 Remington M4 Flat Top Complete Upper Receiver, 16' Barrel available at a great price in our Upper Receivers collection.
RF85 reduces friction 85% and wears with the metal. Under heat and pressure the calcium nano particles elongate and form a protective barrier that eliminates the need for lubrication.
An ancillary benefit arises because without an oily film to catch carbon particles, the rifle runs cleaner much longer. A typical lubricated weapon traps the carbon byproducts from explosives. Under the heated conditions found in weapons, the gooey mess turns into tar which bakes into a solid mass and fouls the chamber. The result is life-threatening weapon failure.The Anderson Rifle uses RF85 nano-technology to fire with. 85% Less Friction. 23% Faster Action. Never Needs Oiling.
Cleans Up with Soap & WaterHere is a bearing test they posted on their website.In this video, a distributor tested the RF85 Anderson firearm against another competitor. I wish I knew what gun and what distributor performed this test.Here is a factory tour. I’m gonna be hard on Anderson here, but I hope if they’re reading they take it as the constructive criticism it is.
The first thing I noticed in this video is that the AR-15’s bolt does not rotate in the animation. It is simply fixed to the carrier when the carrier moves rearward. Indeed, the barrel extension the bolt would lock into is entirely missing in that render (as is the gas tube).
I realize the full cycle of operation is unnecessary to promote Anderson’s product, but to me it looks like Anderson just does not know how their own products work, and that doesn’t put me in a position to want to believe their claims about the surface treatment. Couple that with the line about “nanotechnology” that, while perhaps accurate in a basically technical sense, brings to mind Michael Crichton novels and James Cameron’s Terminator 2, and I found the whole thing a bit silly.None of this says anything about Anderson’s rifles or their surface treatment, but it does reflect quite a bit on their marketing department.
I like how your biggest beef is over the animation. Also, there have been a lot of fancy upgrades in the world of metallurgy in the last decade and a pretty important one has been impregnating metal with other metal/materials. It’s been something that has been attempted for a long time now and with scifi stuff like Star Wars egging on the notions of transparasteel and plasteel, it’s pretty cool. Perhaps nanotechnology is not 100% accurately used here, but it involves the manipulation of very tiny particles to serve a specific purpose. Pretty close. You seem to miss that it’s not a surface treatment if it’s actually what they are claiming.I have used Anderson’s stuff and am currently putting together a new AR with a lot of their stuff.
I have not had experience with the RF-85, however, and am interested to see independent testing. Well, you just railed against a company and it’s products over an animation, soPlus, that’s one out of four videos above. I can’t say whether this process would work or not, because there’s not much of a way to at the moment. You just came in pooping all over a company, who, by the way, offers a lot of other good and affordable products, because you didn’t like the pictures basically.
If you would like to validly detract from Anderson’s company please state the evidence why. Otherwise, you’re just spouting off non-sense and adding to the chorus of negativity that the comments of this site always seem to bring.I don’t personally get my hopes up without some independent testing and seeing some more detail behind their processes. There’s always a latest and greatest in the AR market and very little seems to pan out.
Anderson Rf85 Cost
In fairness, a company I worked for once did some 3D animation for a firearms industry company. I was a programmer, not a designer, but I had to sit down with the designer and explain, in detail and repeatedly, how the components of the AR-15 are assembled and disassembled. He did his best, but not being a gun person there were still errors. A higher up decided it was ‘close enough’ to send on to the client.I would blame the keyboard jockeys for the animation more than Anderson. Fixing it was probably either too costly (additional design iterations bump up the price) or impossible to accomplish due to unfamiliarity with the operating system on the part of the design/marketing team.I’m not excusing the other dubiousness, just saying I have felt their pain on this subject before. Disclaimer: I have not watched the video produced by Anderson.
Based on the comments, I’m not sure I want to. Just wanted to throw a couple cents into the ring here.This claim is actually not all that outlandish.
Anderson Rf85 Treated Complete Upper Leg
This is a technology that is being looked at by a lot of machinery companies, and really is not all that far out. Already well-known are dry lubes (how many of you guys Moly your bullets?) which work quite well.An extension of dry lube is to be able to impregnate the surface of the metal with dry lube that is actually attached to, or part of the structure. This poses its own challenges, like being able to retain the bits of lube over the course of the part’s lifetime as it wears, but the theory is totally sound. It is not totally outlandish to call this nanotechnology either, although the term has sort of turned into a media buzzword more than a scientific term in the modern era. I have no idea if this is what they’re actually claiming, I’ll sit on it until someone actually reviews this product. But I just wanted to point out that despite the claim, it’s not immediately dismissable as snake oil.
Like I said, the animation says nothing about RF-85, it just doesn’t represent the company very well.Almost 4300 rounds is pretty impressive, but note that they don’t say the Anderson didn’t malfunction, they said they couldn’t get it to fail. Pannone’s test resulted in no gun-related failures of any kind, and he didn’t test his rifle to destruction. So he didn’t run his gun without lube for as long, but maybe it could have done so.Why did “the leading rifle” – lubed up – fail at 900 rounds? What does “fail” mean? Did they get a stovepipe and just toss out the other gun?
Did something break?Maybe RF-85 is a major improvement, but unfortunately even if we take what Anderson says in the video you embedded at face value, we don’t really learn anything.