No, not normal. I would not allow that to pass inspection. I'm surprised it made it to you.Originally Posted by BK14
Depending on how flat that specific plate is (it is hard to tell), it may or may not work. If CHPWS was willing to replace it cheerfully and promptly (I would hope so), and you have the time to wait on the return, personally I would get it swapped out.
Otherwise I would seek a refund and source another supplier.
There seem to be raised surfaces on the bottom, that appear like they would make the plate not sit “flat.” This is my only MOS gun, and currently has a different dot on it, being carried. So don’t want to swap until I’m confident
Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk
Just got an email back, and send pictures. Waiting to hear back.
My concern is the ridges on the bottom will make stress points and eventually break or warp.
Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk
I just got a plate for the Romeo 3 Max/MOS and it looks just perfect
A few months back, I received a 509T MOS plate from CHPWS that showed very similar tooling to what you show on your topside picture. Note the upper left section of the mounting surface: it's not milled flat; those ridges prevent the optic from lying flat, so the optic cannot be installed. I also had to return it to CHPWS for a warranty replacement.Received a 509 MOS plate with a good bit of machine chatter, and some ridges on the bottom of the plate. Emailed chpws with no response yet. Does this look normal?
Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk
Chpws DPP 509 mrd plate. Stout, one piece. Seems like a good plan. Until you install and realize it sticks your DPP a mile high and your sights become useless. Stock sights work just fine with factory dpp plates. No warning of this, no heads up. Pretty big fail imho.
Not my pics. Friends. He is rightfully upset. This took 5 months to get.
Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk
T-Posts received, both threaded. Install was boring and easy.
Well, you may be a man. You may be a leprechaun. Only one thing’s for sure… you’re in the wrong basement.
MAJOR issues between my brother and I this weekend with our new CHPWS plates for the Staccato DUO system for the ACRO. We are calling them today to see what will happen and to express our concerns, but between the original plate and the "updated" plate, there are uneven screws, wrong measurement screws (too long), and fit issues. Not to mention over the phone they recommended a .195 front sight to pair with the attached rear sight, which is about 5" too low in comparison to the zeroed-in dot, at 10ft.
I will put up a detailed post sometime this week if this doesn't do, but for starters:
On the original plate system that they released, there is only one rear screw securing the plate, and then the front two typical "DUO" divets to put into the slots. Correctly torqued down with the ACRO attached and torqued, my plate on my C2 feels like you can grab it and feel enough of a "thunk", that it is not tightly attached. So far it is holding zero after about 100 rounds, more to come though if I don't flat out purchase the Dawson "patent-pending" ACRO version.
On the "updated" version, there are 3 screws as similar to the typical DUO plate, with no two front divets for insertion. My brother noticed right away that the rear screw on his was too long, and not the appropriate measurement. So even when he used the screw from version one (the correct length), the screw inhibited the firing pin from activating from the hammer. On my plate, my ACRO was loose with tons of wobble to it, this is even with correct torque and what not. Diagnostically, his ACRO had no issues with my plate so we were guessing it may have been an ACRO housing issue with the mount on the bottom, however, with my ACRO working fine on the original plate, we are doubtful this is on Aimpoint's end.
Tomorrow when I am not working I will put up the video of the wobble, and I will also report with what their response is in general.
On the 22nd CHPWS contacted me back after I talked to them about how the rear screw was too long. They said their engineers agreed that the screw was too long and they were going to send me another one. How this passed QC in the first place I have no idea, but since the DUO plate leaves the optic canted I will try it again once I get the new rear screw.
Reply With Quote
