Stupid AR questions

[gatordev]

Mods/Admins: I'm putting this here, but I can see moving it to another section may be more appropriate. Obviously do what you need to do. Also, I've seen threads like this in other (not necessarily gun-related) forums, and they can be helpful, but if I'm off the mark, feel free to purge as necessary...

So I figured in the spirit of WEVO and it's limited passing of judgment while educating gun/AR owners, this might be a good thread to allow the facepalm-inducing questions. I'll happily start out it out and will take the ridicule.

What's the secret to running a sling from the receiver plate position and not having the sling get in your way with your cheek weld?

Problem: It seems like running a QD/MS3 type solution from a receiver plate mount (like a Noveske QD plate or Magpul ASAP) is a good idea, but I find that when I try to do that, the sling gets in my way with cheek weld. Am I just doing it wrong? My solution is to run the sling back to the buttstock mount, and it works, but it can sometimes be nice to have the mount more forward.

Thoughts?

[Computalotapus]

Now I am not current LEO or Military. And when I was military our sling only attached to the weapon and nothing else. From trying to get back into shooting and going through the motions for CQB style competition I have been practicing. I really like the idea of dropping the weapon when it either fails or out of ammo and transition to the secondary. Now I have dinked around with different positions of the sling and personally I like the sling attached to the sling plate at the end of the receiver ran to the chest rig. I run in the low ready position (butt into the shoulder, barrel down) where the butt of the stock is already over and clearing the sling so if I have to transition from weapon side to support side shooting (quick dip of the barrel ) its out of the way. Running this same setup and moving in a high ready position (butt down off the shoulder, barrel up) this doesn't work the sling gets in my way. From the high ready position the sling attached to the butt stock makes more sense and easy to transition from side to side without the sling getting in the way.

So your style of handling the weapon really determines how you setup your weapon. Now if I am completely out of the ball park on this slap me call me Susan and correct me.

[schambers]

Try mounting the QD on the opposite side of the weapon if you can (attach the QD to the side of the weapon that has the ejection port cover instead of the selector switch side). It should force the sling downwards. I've done this in the past and never noticed a a major difference in the way the weapon hangs or is manipulated... altough I was running a two point sling at the time, not a single like you.

[zero7one]

I run all of my slings off of some sort of End Plate sling mount and have never had the problem of the sling hitting my cheek weld. What sling or mount are you using? Could your sling be too tight around your body, preventing the sling from "slacking" downward, away from the stock?

[gatordev]

Try mounting the QD on the opposite side of the weapon if you can (attach the QD to the side of the weapon that has the ejection port cover instead of the selector switch side). It should force the sling downwards. I've done this in the past and never noticed a a major difference in the way the weapon hangs or is manipulated... altough I was running a two point sling at the time, not a single like you.

Whoops, I forgot to clarify...this is on a two-point sling (either a MS3 or a Blue Force Gear QD). For the Noveske QD plates or ASAPs, you can't really connect it anywhere other than the "center" and it moves accordingly. I did try what you suggested with a MI sling mount that attaches to the receiver extension and it didn't solve the problem (though it might have helped a little).


Could your sling be too tight around your body, preventing the sling from "slacking" downward, away from the stock?

Very possible. But where I have it is much more about making the gun much more stable off-hand than about weapon retention. Maybe that's the "wrong" mindset for run and gun stuff (as opposed to precision/barricade type stuff). I'll have to play with it some more, but the majority of the times I need the sling (if not in a class), it's to shoot off-hand out to 200m, and the sling certainly helps. Running it off the right side of the butt stock was my interim solution, but it has it's own drawbacks.

Again, I'll play with it some more.

[schambers]

The only other thing I can think of is that the material of the slings you are using is to thick/stiff, which forces it straight into your cheek weld, instead of going slack. I know that suggesting you use a thinner sling is a bad answer but it might be the thing that solves your problem. I use an EMDOM sling and its thin but strong enough to get the job done.


zero7one might be right, in that you might just need to get some slack into the setup. I don't know if the blue force gear sling has it, but some sings have what is essentally a pull tab that allows you to quickly adjust how tight the sling is. Maybe consider modifying yours to do that.

[Vic]

This might have been covered elsewhere, but why is it that when you torque down the castle nut on a carbine receiver extension, you use a vise block for the lower receiver instead of some sort of block for the buffer tube? The receiver extension has the male threads onto which the castle nut threads onto, and the latter pushes against the end plate. The end plate in turn locks the alignment of the receiver extension to the lower receiver. In this manner, the castle nut functions similarly to a jam nut. Is this practice the legacy of how the rifle receiver extension attaches to the M16 lower receiver?

The reason I ask this is because it might make more sense for there to be some sort of vise block for the carbine receiver extension that would eliminate the torque transmission from lower receiver to receiver end plate to receiver extension. You wouldn't have to worry about tolerances stacking and finding your carbine receiver extension to be slightly rotated to one side or another. You could just ensure that the top of the vise block was level along with the top of the lower receiver above the magazine well.

Am I being silly?

[Hmac]

I have Noveske endplates on all my rifles, but I've moved away from them toward attaching to the stock on the strong side. It's absolutely a personal preference thing, but it keeps the sling out of my cheek weld, lets the rifle hang more naturally (IMHO), and makes transitions easier for me.


http://SSEquine.net/sbrslings2.jpg

[gatordev]

I did a little testing on multiple rifles and I think it just came down to me running the sling a little too tight for the endplate method to work for me. Easy solution: run the sling looser unless I need it for dedicated off-hand support. Then I can just transition the attachment point to the strong side of the stock, like HMAC said (and I've done in the past). It's not a huge surprise when I'm going to need to sling the rifle that way, so it's something that can be set up when needed.

Thanks for the thoughts and suggestions.

[aklaunch]

I have not seen anything like that either Vic,

I think a couple of blocks off wood with some light padding around them would hold the buffer tube into a vice securely?

[Gun]

This might have been covered elsewhere, but why is it that when you torque down the castle nut on a carbine receiver extension, you use a vise block for the lower receiver instead of some sort of block for the buffer tube? The receiver extension has the male threads onto which the castle nut threads onto, and the latter pushes against the end plate. The end plate in turn locks the alignment of the receiver extension to the lower receiver. In this manner, the castle nut functions similarly to a jam nut. Is this practice the legacy of how the rifle receiver extension attaches to the M16 lower receiver?

The reason I ask this is because it might make more sense for there to be some sort of vise block for the carbine receiver extension that would eliminate the torque transmission from lower receiver to receiver end plate to receiver extension. You wouldn't have to worry about tolerances stacking and finding your carbine receiver extension to be slightly rotated to one side or another. You could just ensure that the top of the vise block was level along with the top of the lower receiver above the magazine well.

Am I being silly?


The lower is in a vice block when a rifle extension is attached to the lower. The torque value is ~ 3 ft/lbs less than what is needed for attaching a carbine extension. If you are worry about the carbine extension moving slightly during the process, misaligning the stock ever so slightly, you would have to make stationary both the R.E. and the lower receiver, even if blocking the R.E. in vise.

The castle nut does not work as a ‘jam’ nut. If it did, you probably would not have to stake it to the end plate. Basically the castle nut has a force opposite that created by the lower receiver (which can be thought of as being a nut), and the end plate is sandwiched by the imposing forces. The reason a carbine R.E. cannot be implemented like a rifle R.E. is that the carbine R.E. might not align correctly to orient the stock properly to the lower receiver. This is why a carbine R.E. does not have a shoulder. If the rifle were static (and subject to constant temperature), this assembly would not loosen, but knowing this to be impractical, the end plate was devised for anti-rotational purposes, mainly to keep either ‘nut’ from backing away from the end plate.

I have noticed that the R.E. being slightly turned after install, but my shoulder never complained.[BD]