GORE

Sneak Peek – Extreme Duty Bolt

Here’s a first look at the upcoming Extreme Duty Bolt from newcomer Extreme Defense.

It was designed to serve as a longer lasting, functionally improved replacement for the current TDP Bolt.  It is fully functional and compatible with TDP bolt carriers and M4/M16 barrel extensions.

The Extreme Duty Bolt maintains functional compatibility with existing systems without requiring the use of proprietary architecture or system changes.

While there are several things going on here, the most glaring is the presence of dual ejectors. Sure, you’ve seen them before, but that was on 7.62 bolts. This is the first successful use of dual ejectors on a 5.56mm bolt, using standard components.  

You’ll also notice the high lubricity coating which gives it that black sheen. This coating provides a long wearing surface which enhances part life, reduces the need for lubricants, and allows carbon to just wipe off.

We’ll share more details on the lug and body geometry as it gets closer to release. Patent Pending, the Extreme Duty Bolt will be available soon from Extreme Defense.

19 Responses to “Sneak Peek – Extreme Duty Bolt”

  1. Tuukka says:

    I would imagine there are folks reading the page who have used the HK416/HK417 family for example. The bolt coating makes even basic cleaning a lot easier.

  2. Mark G says:

    Nothing to patent… It’s going to fail the nonobvious sniff test. Dual ejectors are dual ejectors. 7.62 or 5.56 is a distinction without a difference. Body geometry is a non-starter. Prior art is going to lay waste to the claim.

  3. PTM says:

    Looks interesting and … definitely a major contender for “Shiniest New AR Part of the Year” … wonder how long that coating lasts, but sure looks super easy to clean.

  4. mudd says:

    Material or heat treating improvement?

    Geometry improvement?

    Suitable replacement for bolts life soon to be suffering premature fatigue from M855A1 pressures?

    Stick it in a schoolhouse like BUD/S or SFAUC (does the Army monitor rd ct and maintenance?) where solid data, from a relevant size n, can be had.

  5. mudd says:

    I imagine they also have a polymer pad ala Remington/DPMS, the “defender” or the old SOCOM O’ring, for more consistent extractor pressure.

  6. Sommerbiwak says:

    Dual ejectors, why? Looks like a gimmick to me introducing more failure points. Some fancy unspecified coating, like those had not flooded the market in recent years already. I bet some spacemagic metal too? I am not against improving the materials and coatings, but many tries have shown themselves as marketing gimmicks in the end.

    • Landcrusher says:

      Dual Ejectors= redundancy. If an Ejector or spring fail your AR is kaput- same with a broken Extractor. Also from what people have seen on 7.62mm guns the ejection is much more positive. No one has been able to figure out how to do it on a smaller 5.56 bolt – apparently until now.

  7. Amer-Rican says:

    More choices and innovation are great for the entire Gun Community, and it’s an example of American exceptionalism hard at work. I only protest when it’s a company that gave money to causes- or politicians- that are not truly pro Second Amendment.

    I’d love to see a long term test of drop in ready 5.56 bolts that have improved designs and specialty coatings- like the Geissele Nano bolt, the one above, LMT’s enhanced bolt, etc.

  8. Philip says:

    Can someone more mechanically-versed in this weapons system explain to this rudimentary comprehending person why 2 ejectors is more beneficial? Please?

    • Landcrusher says:

      2 is 1- 1 is none in the case of part failure. A failed Ejector makes the fired case stick to the bolt face. Also from 7.62mm experience the ejection is much more positive- the whole goal being to get the fired case out of the action.

    • Chuck says:

      “Two is one and one is none” It’s redundancy. If one fails you still have a working bolt.

      • PTM says:

        Are failed ejectors common with 5.56 AR 15 bolts? Or, put another way, is it a known weakness of the 5.56 AR bolt? (Yes, real questions, not snark). I can’t recall reading anything on this point.

  9. TKS says:

    Looks like the bolt body has some shallow flutes. Trying to think through why that helps? Also has a shallower cutout ahead of the gas rings. When DPMS shortened the 308 G2 bolt they got rid of that cutout. HK has a straight bolt (no gas rings). I thing the Steyr/Rheinmetall had a straight bolt too. The Steyr/Rheinmetall also uses the AUG locking plate which means the cam pin head can be smaller.

    I wonder what Stoner would design today with the CNC, coatings, metallurgy that was not available to him in the 50’s?

  10. Stickman says:

    Who is behind the company (if anyone knows)? This seems to be a reoccurring theme from one person, but I’m asking because I don’t know and don’t want to start any rumors.

    Overall, the bolt looks nice, buts its hard to tell from a couple cell phone pics what is really going on here.

  11. mudd says:

    Unsure of the point. Presently, in hard use schoolhouse M4’s, you can switch the barrel and bolt out @ 7500rd and be gtg with bolt function reliability and projectile accuracy.

    I’m most skeptical about any wunderbar fairy dust materials or design. HK said their 416’s needed no barrel or bolt replacements for 30K… not so much..then 25K … then 20K …. finally 10Krds. And even this depends on firing schedule.

Leave a Reply