Page 1 of 3 123 LastLast
Results 1 to 10 of 23

Thread: Stupid Ideas Regarding AR Rail Configurations

  1. #1

    Stupid Ideas Regarding AR Rail Configurations

    Curious to hear about bad ideas for AR rail configurations. Thereís a handful of good ways to do things, depending on context and arm/torso length of the shooter. Iím curious what are some universal mistakes we should avoid. Stuff youíve seen in classes or posted online.

    I received feedback in another thread that mounting lights so the body of the light extends past the rail can be a bad idea since it can act as a lever to rip the rail off if you fall. Interesting idea I hadnít considered.

    I also have read that using fixed front sights and lasers can result in the laser splashing back against the front site post.

    Iíve long know having the light extend past the muzzle can result in carbon on the light lens but that seems like more of a handgun phenomenon.

    Failing to locktite things down is always a mistake.

    What other mistakes can you share to help people avoid making a mistake?

  2. #2
    Magpul AFGs. Just donít.

  3. #3
    Overly complicated slings

    QD sling points

    Things mounted forward of the rail

    Super bright lights

    Offset red dots

    Eta:

    Folding stocks on guns that don't need folding stocks

    High mounts

    Bungee cord suppressor covers

    Ambi safeties

    Worrying about weight

    Pencil barrels
    Last edited by KEW8338; 04-18-2021 at 12:23 AM.

  4. #4
    Site Supporter
    Join Date
    Sep 2016
    Location
    The 603
    Quote Originally Posted by KEW8338 View Post
    Overly complicated slings

    QD sling points

    Things mounted forward of the rail

    Super bright lights

    Offset red dots

    Eta:

    Folding stocks on guns that don't need folding stocks

    High mounts

    Bungee cord suppressor covers

    Ambi safeties

    Worrying about weight

    Pencil barrels
    You are obviously more orthodox than me. Iíll enjoy my lightweight, folding stock, pencil barreled, ambi selectored, QD equipped ARs just fine, thank you.
    Ken

    BBI: ...Ēyou better not forget the safe word because shit's about to get weirdĒ...
    revchuck38: ...Ēmo' ammo is mo' betta' unless you're swimming or on fire.Ē

  5. #5
    I was doing high mounts (or rail risers) before high mounts became "it", didn't know them was stupid.
    I kinda think that AR's top rail at nearly the same height with its stock is not too smart on its own, and prefer it being higher. Like almost every other design such as AK, FN FAL, SCAR, or even HK 416 would afford.
    I like lightweight too.
    ďWell," said Pooh, "what I like best," and then he had to stop and think. Because although Eating Honey was a very good thing to do, there was a moment just before you began to eat it which was better than when you were, but he didn't know what it was called.

  6. #6
    Member
    Join Date
    Jun 2017
    Location
    Colorado Springs
    Quote Originally Posted by KEW8338 View Post
    Overly complicated slings

    QD sling points

    Things mounted forward of the rail

    Super bright lights

    Offset red dots

    Eta:

    Folding stocks on guns that don't need folding stocks

    High mounts

    Bungee cord suppressor covers

    Ambi safeties

    Worrying about weight

    Pencil barrels
    Listing off the stuff you donít like without giving any reasons seems like the stupidest thing of all.


    Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

  7. #7
    Member
    Join Date
    Jun 2017
    Location
    Colorado Springs
    Quote Originally Posted by M2CattleCo View Post
    Magpul AFGs. Just donít.
    Why not? Definitely not my preferred but they were very prevalent with Rangers for a long time.


    Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

  8. #8
    Quote Originally Posted by Wake27 View Post
    Listing off the stuff you donít like without giving any reasons seems like the stupidest thing of all.


    Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk
    True

    Overly complicated slings: I think this is self explanatory

    QD sling points: These things are absolutely prone to failure. Common problems:
    1) Poor coating that is prone to corrosion. Sweat, salt water can cause these to rust, resulting in the detents to catch or bind.
    2) Poor QC resulting in slightly out of spec parts
    3) Poor material, resulting in them wearing out
    4) They usually are not marked with a name brand on them, so it can be hard to tell quality brands from not quality brands
    5) This is an additional mechanism that is susceptible to dust fouling
    6) Why? What is the reasoning for creating a point of failure on your rifle? What does a QD sling get me? The ability to break away from the gun if I fall in water? Ill buy that. Storage limitations? One sling, multiple rifles?

    There are reasons QDs are legit. However, if you dont need it, why have it?

    Things mounted forward of the rail: I use the front end of the rail as a bumper when I fall off things to try to protect everything else mounted on the rail.

    Super bright lights: There is this thing, about wanting all the lumens, so you can see farther and reach out farther. I dont buy that logic in a combative rifle sense. For hunting, sure.

    Offset red dots: The normal red dot is coming off the right hand side of the gun for a right handed shooter. This is the side of the rifle, that when slung to the front, is going to get a serious beating. You have out a part, extruding to take all that impact. I would also rather devote my time to training on the main optic than having to work multiple sighting systems. Which I think is another stupid thing.

    Eta:

    Folding stocks on guns that don't need folding stocks: If you are required for storage purposes to fold the gun. Then yes, they are cool. If you are putting a primo on reliability and durability. Throwing a hinge into the middle of the operating system, is not the way to do that. When you have to have a special plunger, to make the system work, that is not adding to the reliability and durability department. If you pay enough mind to resiliency to use back up irons, but then put a hinge in your gun. I dont understand that.

    Even on guns where the stock is not part of the operating system, folding stocks rarely seem to go well.

    High mounts: I have covered this in previous threads. IIRC Wake, you were at a JDC LVPO course where you were having undiagnosed scope shadow issues with a high mount.

    Bungee cord suppressor covers: They generally lack the friction and grab to deal with recoil so they almost always end up flying straight off or getting the end blown off.

    Ambi safeties: I grip the pistol grip high, ambi safety will almost always bury itself in my firing hand knuckle. Most guys I know, who are chasing performance, grip the gun that way.

    Worrying about weight: I like lightweight stuff. But I dont usually define things by weight. I define things by what I need them to do, then make weight savings. The amount of lightweight rifles that have excessive plastic parts not removed, excess sling taped up, excess tape used to tape the sling, all makes me laugh.

    Pencil barrels: They have yet to perform to a degree of acceptable performance on harsh firing schedules. This has been well documented.

  9. #9
    Quote Originally Posted by YVK View Post
    I was doing high mounts (or rail risers) before high mounts became "it", didn't know them was stupid.
    I kinda think that AR's top rail at nearly the same height with its stock is not too smart on its own, and prefer it being higher. Like almost every other design such as AK, FN FAL, SCAR, or even HK 416 would afford.
    I like lightweight too.
    1) All those systems are piston in some way or form, not direct impingement

    2) The fact the bore axis and how the bolt moves in line with the stock is awesome for performance. Ever see a three gunner successfully use an AK/FAL/Scar?

    3) The top of the 416 is raised like that to accommodate its piston (IIRC)

    There are legit reasons for high mounts. Most people just think it feels good without metrics or thought to back up why they are doing it.

  10. #10
    Member
    Join Date
    Jun 2017
    Location
    Colorado Springs
    Quote Originally Posted by KEW8338 View Post
    True

    Overly complicated slings: I think this is self explanatory

    QD sling points: These things are absolutely prone to failure. Common problems:
    1) Poor coating that is prone to corrosion. Sweat, salt water can cause these to rust, resulting in the detents to catch or bind.
    2) Poor QC resulting in slightly out of spec parts
    3) Poor material, resulting in them wearing out
    4) They usually are not marked with a name brand on them, so it can be hard to tell quality brands from not quality brands
    5) This is an additional mechanism that is susceptible to dust fouling
    6) Why? What is the reasoning for creating a point of failure on your rifle? What does a QD sling get me? The ability to break away from the gun if I fall in water? Ill buy that. Storage limitations? One sling, multiple rifles?

    There are reasons QDs are legit. However, if you dont need it, why have it?

    Things mounted forward of the rail: I use the front end of the rail as a bumper when I fall off things to try to protect everything else mounted on the rail.

    Super bright lights: There is this thing, about wanting all the lumens, so you can see farther and reach out farther. I dont buy that logic in a combative rifle sense. For hunting, sure.

    Offset red dots: The normal red dot is coming off the right hand side of the gun for a right handed shooter. This is the side of the rifle, that when slung to the front, is going to get a serious beating. You have out a part, extruding to take all that impact. I would also rather devote my time to training on the main optic than having to work multiple sighting systems. Which I think is another stupid thing.

    Eta:

    Folding stocks on guns that don't need folding stocks: If you are required for storage purposes to fold the gun. Then yes, they are cool. If you are putting a primo on reliability and durability. Throwing a hinge into the middle of the operating system, is not the way to do that. When you have to have a special plunger, to make the system work, that is not adding to the reliability and durability department. If you pay enough mind to resiliency to use back up irons, but then put a hinge in your gun. I dont understand that.

    Even on guns where the stock is not part of the operating system, folding stocks rarely seem to go well.

    High mounts: I have covered this in previous threads. IIRC Wake, you were at a JDC LVPO course where you were having undiagnosed scope shadow issues with a high mount.

    Bungee cord suppressor covers: They generally lack the friction and grab to deal with recoil so they almost always end up flying straight off or getting the end blown off.

    Ambi safeties: I grip the pistol grip high, ambi safety will almost always bury itself in my firing hand knuckle. Most guys I know, who are chasing performance, grip the gun that way.

    Worrying about weight: I like lightweight stuff. But I dont usually define things by weight. I define things by what I need them to do, then make weight savings. The amount of lightweight rifles that have excessive plastic parts not removed, excess sling taped up, excess tape used to tape the sling, all makes me laugh.

    Pencil barrels: They have yet to perform to a degree of acceptable performance on harsh firing schedules. This has been well documented.
    That was me but it wasnít really scope shadow, turned out that the reticle in my razor had detached so my scope was legit broke. That said, I ditched the 1.93 once the C1 in 1.7 came out and Iíve been super happy with it.


    Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

User Tag List

Posting Permissions

  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts
  •