Titanium AR-15 Receiver By Amalgamated Ti

Amalgamated Ti is a new AR-15 receiver and parts manufacturer who plan on bringing their products to market later this year.  As their name suggests, their parts will all be made from titanium.  The benefit of using titanium it has a much better weight to strength ratio than steel and is very corrosion resistant. The downside is that it costs a lot more than steel and it harder to work with.

Their titanium AR-15 stripped lower will sell for $199.99. It is made from the Grade 5 Titanium Alloy 6AL4V. Inside it is lined with UHMW low friction polymer. It weighs 6.75 oz, making is about 25% lighter than aluminum AR-15 lowers and about 20% heavier than magnesium-alloy lowers. Unlike magnesium lowers, the titanium lower will not corrode and is impervious to salt water. The company claims the lower will be 200% stronger than a lower made from steel.

Along with lowers they will also be making a stripper upper receiver, 7″-15″ lightweight handguards, charging handles and low-mass bolt carrier groups.

Thanks to D-Force MEGA for the tip.

Steve Johnson

Founder and Dictator-In-Chief of TFB. A passionate gun owner, a shooting enthusiast and totally tacti-uncool. Favorite first date location: any gun range. Steve can be contacted here.


  • Lance

    Wow a very lihgt weight AR lower with extremely strong material too bad its more expensive than other think this is cool.

    • gunslinger

      $200 is not expensive. sure you can get blemished lowers from PSA for less, but i’ve seen regular lowers hovering around 150. I’d pay 50 extra bucks to say i have a TI lower.

  • El Duderino

    $200 doesn’t sound too bad right now. A year ago when you could have bought 3 aluminum lowers for $200 not so much.

    • allannon

      Even a year or so ago, well-finished lowers–even without getting into top names–were north of $100. Accounting for the higher material cost and somewhat more difficult machining, $200 is entirely reasonable.

      • El Duderino

        It’s all about alternatives. The least expensive lowers are naturally the starting point for the build-your-own guys. So if the Ti one is better, I would expect it to cost more…

  • Nadnerbus

    Coupled with the upper they are working on, I can see this carving out a nice little niche for the shooters out there that have to have the absolute lightest AR possible. Titanium upper and lower, pencil barrel, lightweight hand guard, micro optic, you’d have a very light and fast gun.

    • Mark

      I wonder how light you could get an AR wi that setup. My current gun is 8.2LBs with light and micro dot. In fact I also have an AKM platform that is exactly 8.2LBs with no flashlight or micro dot. A titanium upper/lower combo with the right compensator and pencil barrel might be a appreciated by female shooters as well.

      As El Duderino points out, $200 in today’s market? Why not get a titanium lower?

  • saiga556

    I’m most interested in some narrow ultralight ti handguards to reduce swing weight and maybe an ultra strong charging handle. (@ $200 for a lower hand guards and the like will probably be ridiculously expensive)

    • Garrett

      If you look at Amalgamated Ti’s website, they have an upper for $250 (which I will admit is expensive), the charging handle is $80, free floating railed fore-ends range in length from 7 in to 15 in ($150 to $180 prices respectively), complete semi-auto bolt carrier groups for $250 (on the high side), and a complete buffer tube assembly for $100 (twice that of standard assemblies). Overall, these prices are pretty competitive against similar products with a few oddballs.

      • Rick

        The prices make me worry about the quality. The last i heard of a complete titanium Ar it cost 100k. The fore ends are dirt cheap, some billet handguard cost nearly $400 and most good name brands are in the $200 range. Quality might be crappy and way out of mil spec, parts might not fit right.

    • Cymond

      FWIW, DS Arms makes a steel charging handle, but I don’t have any experience with it.

  • TangledThorns

    Pretty fair price. When I first saw the article I expected $500, lol. I’d like to see reviews when the lowers are released first.

  • Igor

    How much impact does the lower have to withstand? If it’s much, the lower may become brittle in the long run (very, very long run anyway), because of the Ti hardness (like the russian Ti subs in the Cold War).

    Regardless, good idea with a reasonable price.

  • allannon

    I’m curious about the “UHMW low friction polymer”; how fast will it wear, how will it effect functionality if it does?

    I’ll have to keep an eye on this. Maybe once I finish my current DMR/varminting build, I’ll look into an ultralight build. Might make a really nice SBR…

    • Garrett

      I’ve worked with UHMW before. On one of the machines my company built, we used it a linear bearing for steel rods. To this day, the steel rods had to be replaced due to wear and the UHMW STILL holds its tolerance.

      For $200, I think I’ll have to pick one up. UHMW is a lightweight material too, so probably helps with the weight reduction as well.

    • JumpIf NotZero

      UHMW is WEAK when it comes to scratching or wear. It’s good for compression, but it’s most useful quality is how slick it is. Makes for good pathways, ramps, claws/feet, etc. Makes for a terrible gun part though! Not sure what they are actually using it for, but I see UHMW-lined and think RUN!!!!

  • Rob

    Ti is 67% heavier by volume than Aluminum. The receiver must be very
    thin if the overall weight is 25% lighter. Personally I would like to
    see a normal-sized steel or Titanium receiver set meant for use with
    heavy barrels. The current arrangement of hanging a 4 lb. cantilevered
    barrel from a lightweight Aluminum receiver seems less than ideal.

    • JumpIf NotZero

      Yes, the only way to make this lighter is to also thin it out. Which is why the claim that it’s also 200% stronger than steel is absolute fabrication. As generic steel and Ti have about the same strengths (yield and absolute) the difference being Ti weights 1/2 as much.

      Look at the receiver extension threads… See how much thinner/smaller than the aluminum version they are? … This is definitely an AVOID product. I don’t trust joe blow’s machine shop to do the proper FEA and stress testing that needs to be done when switch materials and thinning out parts.

      There is also the issue of Ti to Aluminum corrosion…. No, this whole thing is a NO-GO.

    • Steve (TFB Editor)

      I wondered about this. I am also not sure what they mean by “strength” in this context.

    • nate

      Their stuff is made of a titanium/polymer composite. They were trying to go for a much more cost effective titanium product, and lighter weight than aluminum…stronger than aluminum as well.

  • Josh

    The static strength to weight ratio is the same as steel and the fatigue strength to weight ratio is sub-standard to high quality, alloy steel.

    The reason that the aerospace industry loves it is high fatigue strength over aluminum, good corrosion resistance over AL, and better durability and damage tolerance capability over aluminum. An AR lower with 100,000 rounds through it is probably 1/10,000 that exist and at 100k rounds through the lower the fatigue curve is only STARTING to pique interest.

    What about the potential for galvanic reaction between the AL upper and Ti lower? Are the lowers going to have a faying surface coating on them to resist this? What happens when that coating wears and the upper’s anodizing wears so that AL and Ti are touching? What about human sweat, dirt, saltwater, or blood in that joint?

    The price tag seems reasonable for the material, but what exactly is the benefit?

    60%+ higher density than 6xxx and 7xxx alloy AL
    10% stronger than 7xxx alloy AL
    –> less than 66% of the strength to weight of 7xxx alloy AL
    Galvanic reaction issues from dissimilar metals
    210% higher cost than AL lower

    Cast, forged, post machined AL lowers so infrequently fail and they are only $90 that this product seems like it is a solution looking for a problem.

    200% stronger than a lower made from steel? Which steel? You can cherry pick AL alloys that are 150%+ the strength of steel as well, perhaps we should make lowers from low-cost Aluminum?

    I’m sure that someone will buy this though, give away enough of them to sponsored folks that carry on about how nice it is and people will buy it I’m sure, they might even swear that it makes them better shooters but I see little reason to jump on this.

    • Bert Reynolds

      Yeah but apparently the Ti lower is intended to work best along with the Ti upper, which of course cancels the galvanic corrosion potential as both are of the same nobility. Doesn’t really matter, the rest of the rifle will never be corrosion proof.

      I say cool beans. I love Ti. $200 is a great price considering how difficult and dangerous Ti is to work with. Besides that I gave $265 for a Noveske Gen2 recently so hey. Too much but hey.

      They make ’em out of poly, carbon, Al, and now Ti. I’ve never seen a stainless or mild carbon steel receiver yet. I’m sure they exist. The more the merrier, don’t like don’t buy.

    • n765

      Galvanic corrosion is no concern without an electrolyte (e.g., liquid water). I would be interested in Ti from a toughness perspective.

  • Nathaniel

    The early 21st century was a time of much innovation in the area of making infantry rifles heavier.

  • Steve

    200 Bucks is alright considering the properties of titanium parts. http://www.bbaertschi.com/titanium-parts

  • Justin

    Amalgamated Ti is already earning an extremely poor reputation of being non-responsive. Including my inquiry, as noted within numerous forums, they deliberately ignore inquiries regarding their products. What happens when there’s a warranty issue? I think we all can agree that we have seen these fly-by-night companies come and go over the years.

  • motoguzzi

    Not feeling the love, the lower is not the heaviest part nor subject to the most stress so Ti would have rather limited benefits. Now, a Ti FAL receiver, drool, drool!

  • Nick

    Love the idea. I’m hesitant to make a 458 socom ar because I’ve heard over time inevitably it will streth, bend, possibly break the part where the buffer tube threads in. The “tower”?. Anyways looking forward to getting one for that reason.