Results 61 to 75 of 82
Thread: Wanted: Actual OAL of Handguards
-
24 November 2014, 21:33 #61
Personally I can't believe there are so many companies that aren't exact, seekins for one. Not a complaint, I love all of my seekins rails, but I never thought to measure til I saw this thread.
-
24 November 2014, 21:56 #62
-
26 November 2014, 07:56 #63
More confirmation on MI handguard lengths as listed on their website: the MI-SS12G2 on my AR47 upper is exactly 12.625" long, as listed on MI's website.
I'll measure the DPMS high tang 15" MI-308SS15-DH on the .308 I built for my buddy as soon as I get a chance and post the actual length.
-
5 December 2014, 17:29 #64
Bumping this to the top to try and keep compiling info.
-
5 December 2014, 20:35 #65
-
9 December 2014, 23:46 #66
Does anyone here know anybody with a KAC URX III 8.0? I would really like to get the measurements for the top and bottom and the internal diameter...
-
10 December 2014, 04:18 #67
Your 7.0, 9.0, and 12.0 handguards should all be a standard length (about 0.25" longer than stated) because they need to fit behind carbine, mid, and rifle length gas systems with a standard FSB. That doesn't mean that, with so many new manufacturers, and so few with a clue, and fewer still with the depth of knowledge to understand this, that there won't be deviations.
Once you get into the 10s, 11s, 13s, etc you get off the reservation pretty quickly.
I miss the days when the choices were Larue, Daniel Defense, JP, and KAC. I'm not convinced all this "innovation" has done anything other than dilute the stream.WWW.TACTICALYELLOWVISOR.NET
-
10 December 2014, 05:08 #68
-
10 December 2014, 06:30 #69
Agreed.
I don't think much of what we've seen in the way of handguard development could be called "innovation".
Most consumers don't know the difference between "different" and "better". They are not synonyms.
From a purely practical/functional standpoint, nobody has improved upon what Daniel Defense offered in their original M4 handguard. This is especially true of all the various itterations of "quad rails" that have come since, and (from a certain viewpoint) true of all of the new-hotness non-picatinny attachment methods.
But who am I to question MOAR!?WWW.TACTICALYELLOWVISOR.NET
-
10 December 2014, 22:21 #70
You're going on the assumption that all rails that size were designed for a standard FSB which is not the case since most are now designed in mind for low-profile gas blocks to fit under. If you go back and read the confirmed sizes you also find that your statement is not always the case.
Lol... I disagree. For instance guys like Monty and the C4 rail which is now being copied by many others for it's ability to mount onto a standard barrel nut rather than a proprietary or being stuck with a drop-in unless you want to cut down or swap out your FSB which requires special tools and upper dis-assembly. Or keymod and modular systems for guys wanting the ability to have function without excess. There's been a lot of innovation, and I could go on for awhile. Just because you've found anything of use for improving your personal needs in function does not mean others haven't.
-
11 December 2014, 05:41 #71WWW.TACTICALYELLOWVISOR.NET
-
11 December 2014, 05:47 #72
-
11 December 2014, 10:33 #73
How is being able to turn a drop-in to a 12" free float without any smithing consumerism? And Keymod enables us to have slimmer profiles, less weight since you can choose where your rail goes withoug full on rail down both sides or rail covers, and the ability to place accessories on a 45 degree without special mounts. I'll agree that M-Lok is simply another version of Keymod, but to say that it serves no purpose better than a full on quad is simply not true. Again, it doesn't serve a purpose for your needs necessarily, but to say it doesn't serve any better function than a quad is erroneous.
It's not about changing the purpose of picatinny but about changing how much of it and where it's located on the rifle. John and Eric wanted to enable a user to completely customize their forearm without having excess and still maintain function.
-
11 December 2014, 10:41 #74
Hey Rob... this thread was intended to inform people about the actual OAL on handguards, not for you to show up with zero contribution other than to relay your opinion on how none of it matters. Do you have a confirmed handguard length that you'd like to contribute? If not please feel free to start another thread where you tell everyone how the DD M4 is all that they need and then we can argue it out there where it would be more suited.
-
11 December 2014, 10:49 #75
I agree but it still is doing the same thing. Yes it does the same thing with less material and it does give you more options vs a quad but they still do the same thing. Don't get me wrong I personally don't like a quad. I like my keymod a lot. But my accessory needs are minimal and I can setup a keymod, quad, or m-lok rail all the same. They all serve the same purpose, you can't say that one holds a weapon light to your rifle better than the other.
Designs have changed and the systems have changed. But the purpose is still the same. The consumers want options, because we all want to have a choice and the market has given us options.Just a regular guy.