Schmeisser “SOLID” AR-15 Buffer Tube Assembly

Schmeisser makes upgraded AR-15 buffer tube assembly. What makes it interesting to me is the approach of the company in product development. Instead of working on a development of a single aftermarket part, they have improved all the parts of the assembly (or subassembly). In this case, it is the buffer tube (receiver extension) assembly.

The core of this system is what Schmeisser calls SOLID Sleeve. It is a U-shaped bracket that replaces the endplate, extends rearward sandwiching the castle nut and “hugs” the lower receiver at the rear threaded portion. So this part reinforces arguably one of the weakest spots of the AR-15 design – the lower receiver and buffer tube connection point. The SOLID system also features a braided wire buffer spring.

The advantages of other SOLID parts are somewhat hard to understand due to lack of explanation by the manufacturer. As an instance, in the video below, Schmeisser doesn’t really point out how exactly their buffer and buffer tube are different or what does “pure rock solid steel” mean?

Nevertheless, I think this kind of designing approach is not a bad idea. From the customer’s standpoint, it may also be beneficial, because buying a bunch of upgrades (for any particular assembly) from the same manufacturer might be a better choice than buying from different manufacturers and hoping that they are all in spec and will work as a system.

Hrachya H

Being a lifelong firearms enthusiast, Hrachya always enjoys studying design, technology and history of guns and ammunition. His knowledge of Russian allows him to translate and make Russian/Soviet/Combloc small arms related information available for the English speaking audience.
Should you need to contact him, feel free to shoot him a message at


  • datimes

    I would rather see the company produce new MP40 magazines.

    • Stephen Paraski

      For a Irma Werks MP-40?

      • Vitsaus

        Erma, but I like what you did there.

  • Lawbob

    Steel vs aluminum makes is “solid”…

    • Lawbob

      “…this part reinforces arguably one of the weakest spots of the AR-15 design – the lower receiver and buffer tube connection point”

      • Haulin’ Oats

        I always thought the weakest part has been the bolt and it’s sub-assemblies, like the extractor/ejector. Besides carrier tilt, i haven’t found much issue with a buffer tube assembly.

        • civilianaf

          I’ve just never seen one break, lots of firing pins, bolts, cam pins, buffer springs, extractors etc…

          • FarmerB

            Bloody charging handle broke my MPX

    • Jared Vynn

      It’s 6061-t6 aluminum according to their website.


    • MarcoPolo

      Only the sling loop is steel.

    • civilianaf

      Its “rock solid steel”

      • Cal S.

        Well, technically steel IS rock from a materials standpoint…

        If we’re splitting hairs down to microns.

        • Norm Glitz


          • Cal S.

            Colloquially, it is not imprecise to call steel ‘rock-hard’. In terms of Mohs hardness, steel is as hard or harder than some actual rocks (shale: 3, steel: 4-4.5).

            Forgive me for not being scientifically precise enough. Yes, steel differs from actual ‘rock’.

  • MarcoPolo

    Super-slick video, yet misspells “gram” as “gramm” at 1:11. D’oh!

    • Graham2

      I would also argue that they misspell aluminium but American spelling seems to be everywhere these days! 🙂

      • ostiariusalpha

        Pfft! Sir Humphry Davies isolated the metal first, and he settled on the name “Aluminum.” The “aluminium” spelling comes from his contemporary, Thomas Young, who despite his many accomplishments, was absolutely not a chemist, all because Mr. Young just didn’t like Davies’ spelling of his discovery. Anyone that supports the aluminium spelling is basically thumbing their nose at the rightful discoverer in favor of a presumptuous narcissist that was sticking his nose in where it didn’t belong. Good day!

        • FarmerB

          Then why didn’t he call his other discoveries: potassum, sodum, calcum, strontum, barum, magnesum?? The spelling is only different in N.A. because of Hall and ALCOA.

          • ostiariusalpha

            Davy seemed to not like going over four syllables in his naming scheme; he originally wanted to call aluminum by the much shorter “alium,” but that just didn’t have the right ring to it. Besides that, being a classically aware gentleman, he already knew that there were plentiful examples of non-ium element names: aurum, argentum, cuprum, etc. You’ll also notice that they are almost all metals, just like aluminum. The other elements you listed are not metals, and already had the “i” vowel rooted in their Latin suffix. Magnesium, for example, is an interesting case. Davy wanted to call it magnium, but that was too close to magnum, which would be a little overly aggrandizing sounding for a gentleman to call his discovery. Since one of the ancient names for Epsom salt was magnesia, it wasn’t really a stretch to call the element Magnesium. Potassium was a neologism of his, but he put -ium on all his salts as a general practise.

          • FarmerB

            Sodium and Potassium are not metals? Interesting!!
            Neither are Strontium, Barium or Magnesium? Wow!

            Ok, now you’re just making stuff up.

            Sodium isn’t a Latin word, neither is *Potassium*, Calcium, Barium, etc. In fact, -ium is not common in Latin Nominative* case, although -um is very common (Neuter ending) – which is why you have Argentum, Aurum, Cuprum, Plumbum, even Bellum!
            But the Latin is a red herring. These other metals are all -ium, and so is aluminium.
            * Yes, there is -ium in Latin, but it frequently is accusative.

          • ostiariusalpha

            Lots of classical-period Latin words have foreign origins: persona, satella, and triumpus are a few of the many Etruscan loan words, and there are the numerous borrowings from Greece (such as calx, from the Greek χάλιξ). Medieval Latin was no different, their word for saltwart was soda, possibly of Arabic origin. The root etymology of Barium, the alchemist’s baryta, is also Greek, but was usially found in Renaissance Latin texts. As for your assertion that -ium is in any way an uncommon nominative suffix, that is simply false; there are several hundred examples just from classical Latin that .

          • FarmerB

            Alkali metals and alkaline earth metals weren’t a thing back then? My God – who do you think discovered them all? It’s like saying time wasn’t a thing in Hawking’s day.
            Etruscan? Really? I’m talking of some stupid idiot cannot spell -ium – what do the Etruscans have to do with it? You are the father of non-sequential arguments – you start by appealing to Latin, and when that’s shown to be completely false, you’re off to Greek.
            Use it as a declension? That was my whole point – you were arguing about use in nominative – I was talking about declension for which I make no argument because most of them are accusative. So, you rewrite my proposition to be false, so that you can claim it’s false!!
            BTW – my Latin training is classic – Cicero, although there’s 9 years of Church (medieval) Latin mixed in with it.
            BTW – Ostrichalpha – do you have South African Boer heritage?

          • ostiariusalpha

            “…what do the Etruscans have to do with it?”
            My point was that you claimed that sodium, calcium, and barium weren’t Latin, and though each one had origins outside that language, they had been morphemes inside it for centuries before Davy was ever born. So creating Latin neologisms from those words means that, unlike his dog-Latin name for potassium, he was simply creating new declensions for morphemes that he knew were already in Latin. Can you make the mental connection now? Is this too hard for you?
            “BTW – my Latin training is classic – Cicero, although there’s 9 years of Church (medieval) Latin mixed in with it.”
            If you had actually put that training to good use, you would have realized that most of those -ium accusative cases were also the nominative case for the same lexeme. I said there were hundreds of such examples of the nominative use of -ium, which you asserted as “not common.” Do you need me to list a couple hundred of them off for you?

          • FarmerB

            Yes, please.

      • BBLEE

        As I drink My Coffee and Think, Speaking OF American Spelling, I wonder, if they come in other Colors? LOL

    • FarmerB

      It’s the German spelling of Gramme 🙂

  • Twilight sparkle

    They claim to make a more “solid” receiver extension and yet they use inferior aluminium? Good job guys…

    • civilianaf


    • Cal S.

      Aluminum bracing aluminum makes the aluminum stronger.

      By how much is the subject of complex equations I won’t get into right now. However, 7075, what most AR receivers are made of, is strong enough. Of all the problems I’ve allegedly associated with AR-15s, breakage at the buffer tube isn’t one of them. Unless you practice the butt-whip as often as the mag-flip, then I can’t fathom how this would aid the average shooter.

      However, I do see this as a help for a paranoid ATI polymer receiver AR owner. Those things can be had for $380 now, so I could see someone viewing this as a worthwhile investment to allay fears.

  • DanGoodShot

    That U shaped bracket is a good isea. I can see how that would reinforce the buffer tube and I would be interested in purchasing that. But I have no need for the rest of it. Too bad they don’t sell that alone. Also, why didn’t they go with 7075 for the aluminium?

  • civilianaf

    I don’t get it, I’ve never seen a buffer tube fail? Its the 40 Caliber of firearm accessories. An answer to a question nobody asked.

    There is a reason the buffer has weights in it, because of bolt bounce. If you watch slow motion video, you need the weights to ensure good lock up.

    The buffer is solid aluminum? Wont that reduce inetria too? Doesn’t a heavier buffer improve reliability?

    • Kurt Ingalls

      …I concur….when I went to an M-16 weight bolt carrier and a Heavy buffer it cured my Stag 2L with “russian” ammo not extracting……..near 10,000 rnds later will still bust ’em…………………..

    • CavScout

      You think .40s&w was a ‘answer to a question nobody asked?’
      God how short people’s memories are…

  • Kurt Ingalls

    Ummmmmm….gimmick………….just sayin’ 🙂

  • Cal S.

    I could see this being a worthwhile add-on to an ATI Omni-maxx hybrid polymer AR-15.

    Not that I doubt their failure analysis, but bracing plastic makes a lot more sense than bracing aluminum.

  • Sledgecrowbar

    Seems like the collar might be worthwhile if you do a lot of butt-stroking and stuck-BCG work. Or if you want to do that sort of thing? I don’t see an AR as ever being a decent blunt object. Not that that’s a detractor.

  • mazkact

    Solution looking for a problem.

  • mazkact

    It’s all the “Bro” shooters mortaring their ar’s while wearing 511 tactical rompers.

  • ToddB

    I spent 4 yrs in the marines and broken buffer tubes was not something I ever saw. If marines couldn’t break it, doubt most civilians will. Maybe its an M4 stock issue. I have always disliked the M4 stock and buffer. All mine use a fixed stock, which can actually be hard to find. All I see in gun shops is 20 versions of the M4. Even heavy barreled varmint rifles will have a collapsing stock.

  • Norm Glitz

    Another silly change labelled as an upgrade. All it upgrades is the price.

    And the spring isn’t “braided”. It’s twisted. Two very different things.