View Full Version : Midwest Industries New Professional Armorer's Wrench
Midwest Industries
06-01-21, 17:19
For those of you looking for an armorer's tool that is designed to complete many of the tasks necessary in assembling or upgrading your AR platform firearms look no further.
Our 100% US made tool is great for the professional and hobby builder alike.
Designed to work with 5.56 and 7.62 AR platform rifles components
Works with encapsulated and pin style barrel nuts including the GI style nut
Drive end for all MI free float barrel nuts
¾ inch wrench for A2 muzzle devices and designed to work with the thin flats on many of the popular suppressor mounts
Castle nut driver with 3 notch engagement
Combat bottle opener
Small hammer head
Torque specs features on wrench handle.
Constructed from 4140 heat treated steel
1/2 Inch drive for torque wrench (2)
https://www.midwestindustriesinc.com/Armorer-Wrench-p/mi-araw.htm
https://www.ar15.com/media/mediaFiles/54866/MI-ARAW_s2-1963287.jpg
PETE
MI
I am routinely blown away by the quality and usefulness of the Midwest MI-URR. Geissele used to be the king of useful tools but you guys are blowing them away with updated and quality machined gunsmithing tools. PLEASE keep it up!
I will add this to my tool box just based off the quality and usefulness of the other Midwest tools I own.
Thanks for posting. Multi functional tools are nice to have for field repairs where don't have access to all your bench tools.
Yup. The MI-URR is the correct tool. I look at the G version like they had a kinda basic idea of what a barreling spud looks like, but were unaware of how they work (I’m not sorry). Kinda like a Chinese knockoff MBITR remote antenna that doesn’t...antenna.
Midwest, thanks for making this thing thin. It took a ton of focused grinding to get my current one where I like it for mounts. A lot of the older type cheapos were so thick they even sucked for A2s.
I am routinely blown away by the quality and usefulness of the Midwest MI-URR. Geissele used to be the king of useful tools but you guys are blowing them away with updated and quality machined gunsmithing tools. PLEASE keep it up!
I will add this to my tool box just based off the quality and usefulness of the other Midwest tools I own.
Ned Christiansen
11-13-21, 20:23
Funny I should run across this just now.
Last week, instructing an AR Armorer class, we were covering barrel change. I have an array of tools and demo several different wrenches for the barrel nut and tools for immobilizing the receiver. Some are not everything I think they should be and don't do everything I think they should do, but honestly, the worst among them seems to get it done.
I was showing how the barrel itself has no role here-- we are working with the upper receiver, the barrel nut, and the barrel nut extension. To demonstrate, I tightened a barrel up and then screwed the barrel out of the barrel extension (which I had prepped to be only hand tight). The barrel being there or not makes no dif, it's not in play. I then took a barrel extension only, one with no locating pin, and using the Geissele Reaction Rod to immobilize the barrel extension, started tightening. Absent the locating pin, the upper wanted to spin with it-- illustrating my idea that when the pin is in place it prevents this but a lot of torque may be imparted to it-- that tiny little pin bearing on a tiny slot cut into aluminum. Is that a real problem....? Apparently not! But it has always bugged me.
So-- I was lamenting to the students that one tool immobilizes the barrel extension, another immobilizes the receiver. And that the MagPul Bev block immobilizes both, in theory at least, so that only the nut spins, but I don't feel like it does it to the Nth degree. One student said "Hang on a sec."
He produced the MI-URR and DAMMIT why didn't I think of that!! To me it's the cat's ass for this job, holding the barrel extension and receiver in precisely the right relationship to one another, preventing side loading of the locating pin, guaranteeing 1/4 MOA groups with Chinese ammo. OK, slight exaggeration there but I ordered one that night when I got back to the hotel and had it a few biz-days later. Good stuff...... with the AR market being so flooded with mundanery, I absolutely love it when smart people come up with a great idea and then make it to a high standard. Definite stamp of approval on this.
Funny I should run across this just now.
Last week, instructing an AR Armorer class, we were covering barrel change. I have an array of tools and demo several different wrenches for the barrel nut and tools for immobilizing the receiver. Some are not everything I think they should be and don't do everything I think they should do, but honestly, the worst among them seems to get it done.
I was showing how the barrel itself has no role here-- we are working with the upper receiver, the barrel nut, and the barrel nut extension. To demonstrate, I tightened a barrel up and then screwed the barrel out of the barrel extension (which I had prepped to be only hand tight). The barrel being there or not makes no dif, it's not in play. I then took a barrel extension only, one with no locating pin, and using the Geissele Reaction Rod to immobilize the barrel extension, started tightening. Absent the locating pin, the upper wanted to spin with it-- illustrating my idea that when the pin is in place it prevents this but a lot of torque may be imparted to it-- that tiny little pin bearing on a tiny slot cut into aluminum. Is that a real problem....? Apparently not! But it has always bugged me.
So-- I was lamenting to the students that one tool immobilizes the barrel extension, another immobilizes the receiver. And that the MagPul Bev block immobilizes both, in theory at least, so that only the nut spins, but I don't feel like it does it to the Nth degree. One student said "Hang on a sec."
He produced the MI-URR and DAMMIT why didn't I think of that!! To me it's the cat's ass for this job, holding the barrel extension and receiver in precisely the right relationship to one another, preventing side loading of the locating pin, guaranteeing 1/4 MOA groups with Chinese ammo. OK, slight exaggeration there but I ordered one that night when I got back to the hotel and had it a few biz-days later. Good stuff...... with the AR market being so flooded with mundanery, I absolutely love it when smart people come up with a great idea and then make it to a high standard. Definite stamp of approval on this.
I'm very surprised that you've just discovered the MI-URR, but I'm happy you did! It's everything that the Geissele Reaction Rod should have been from the start.
Believe it or not, the inspiration for the tool comes from the barreling jig that is part of the factory assembly line tooling at Windham Weaponry (made by JC Machine & Motorsports LLC) as seen in this video around the 3:50 minute mark from back in 2012. > https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=4j_4t6Zu51I
Of course this had a bunch of us over on TOS wanting them to be made and sold very badly, unfortunately it took a few years for a machine shop that's also in Windham Maine (2UniqueLLC) to come out with their version of the Windham Weaponry barreling jig. > https://www.2uniquellc.com/product-page/m16-barreling-spud
A couple of years later the the MI-URR comes out and even though it doesn't have the gas tube/barrel nut alignment through hole in the upper receiver support block I still think the URR is the best version of the tool for the ways that I use it.
There is a long history of the Geissele Reaction Rod shearing indexing pins and damaging upper receivers ever since it first came out and the Windham/2Unique/MI barreling jigs completely put a stop to the issue and finished the half baked product that the Geissele Reaction Rod was.
Watch this video, it's a great visual show and tell of the differences in the Reaction Rod style tools that are available out there. > https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=C4AHiVGdfFQ
And this was just interesting as heck... You have take a look at this awesome foreshadowing for all these tools. > https://www.ar15.com/forums/AR-15/Anybody-ever-seen-one-of-these-AR-Jig-/118-721634/ The hidden to be forgotten history is really neat... I don't think anyone knew about this old tool and somehow people came up with the same idea years later.
I
There is a long history of the Geissele Reaction Rod shearing indexing pins and damaging upper receivers and the Windham/2Unique/MI barreling jigs completely put a stop to the issue and finished the half baked product that the Geissele Reaction Rod was.
It happens often enough that this should be common knowledge at this point. But, unsuspecting “home gunsmiths” keep falling victim to the assumption that G wouldn’t sell anything that is subpar, and for some reason, they continue to sell it.
It happens often enough that this should be common knowledge at this point. But, unsuspecting “home gunsmiths” keep falling victim to the assumption that G wouldn’t sell anything that is subpar, and for some reason, they continue to sell it.
Worse yet Geissele doesn't even really acknowledge the issue, but the fact that they came out with the Super Reaction Rod is an indication that the standard Reaction Rod isn't all that it should have been. And the SRR is way over complicated, doesn't work well and is a pain in the ass to use.
But I do see what Geissele was trying to do, and that was to bring a tool to the market that was similar to the KAC barreling tool that works with standard parts and was more affordable. Unfortunately they just didn't realize the inherent flaws in that design.
Something that I'm really not liking that I'm seeing is how the standard Geissele Reaction Rod is being used as the tool of choice by so many AR manufactures at this point that it will probably never go away. This further cements it as a good tool in peoples minds, which unfortunately it just isn't.
the AR-15 Junkie
11-14-21, 10:55
Here is the tool that Midwest Industries needs to make. Like always Geissele only went halfway with their reaction block.
Ned Christiansen
11-14-21, 11:05
Good stuff. I saw a pic out of Bushmaster years ago showing a bench-mounted tool that was kinda a blend of the two above tools.
I had not heard that people were shearing pins or damaging receivers but it always was in the back of my mind that "could be". I just don't change that many barrels I guess to statistically have it happen to me. I have a friend in the biz who installs barrels daily and early on actually ripped the threaded front portion out of a few uppers by radically over torquing but I don't believe he ever had an issue with the pin-- to my surprise. I guess I'm not nearly as strong as him because I end every barrel change session with my trying to do just that-- go full gorilla on the wrench to try and destroy the upper. It is already cracked from a blow-up but in maybe 5-6 tries now I cannot rip the end off it!
My own setup for barrel change, even though I have the many available tools for it, is to use my mill vise, some 1-2-3 blocks, and an angle plate bolted to the mill table which I use to clamp the barrel to, to keep the barrel extension from trying to turn. This is an imperfect setup since I'm relying on the thread hookup between the barrel and the extension, but it has worked very well just the same. I will modify my URR to accept a length of gas tube to help with alignment and that'll probably be my default setup from now on.
Again I will say the Bev Block (MagPul) is designed to immobilize both parts.... whether it does it as well or not, I do not have the time to explore as a stand-alone test. Having that big 1" shaft all the way through the upper with the URR sure makes everything seem good and solid.
This is the little secret of who really benefits from me giving a class-- me! As often happens, this time I got a few guys from NY who are new to the AR15 and have climbed the learning curve super-fast by doing tons of research and taking lots of classes, and so, are more up to speed than me on everything new that's out there. Glad they showed me the URR.
Even though Geiselle didn't put the key on top I remain a big fan of the company and always take pleasure in saying "extremely smart people interested in quality and utility way more than turning a buck, who come up with great ideas and turn them into quality products."
One thing about any Rod-type tool I'd like to point out is that I've seen guys using them to install and remove muzzle devices, which in my book is sub-optimal (although admittedly very handy). But there again we are relying upon the thread hookup between barrel and extension to hold up to our efforts. True it should not affect anything because that is one tight threaded joint, but much better to immobilize the barrel itself since that's the part we're working against.
Nuts. Is there a thread that lists these mistakes that are supposed to be common knowledge?
Here is the tool that Midwest Industries needs to make. Like always Geissele only went halfway with their reaction block.
100% agree! I'd love it if MI did something like this. Pretty much everything that's been used for receiver extension installation and removal has been suboptimal up to this point.
And of course I agree with Ned, barrel blocks for muzzle device work only... Using any Reaction Rod type tool for that task is just asking for trouble IMO.
Nuts. Is there a thread that lists these mistakes that are supposed to be common knowledge?
I wish I had started collecting them up as they were posted through the years since the Geissele Reaction Rod came out, I'd have quite a mountain of them by this point if I did.
Fortunately Google searching "broken index pin" or "sheared index pin" usually brings up a lot of them, but not all. Most were posted about on AR15.com of course, so try including that in your search.
The thing that I always found odd was the math showing that the stresses on the indexing pin were pretty much identical no matter if you use a Reaction Rod or a set of clam shell upper receiver vise blocks. but the physical evidence only indicates an obvious and recurring problem with index pins shearing when using the Reaction Rod. You pretty much never hear of pins shearing with upper receiver vise blocks which have been in use for far longer and very likely been used for barrel installation and removal countless more times than the Reaction Rod has by this point.
So either the math is wrong or something in the math isn't being accounted for between the 2 differing tools/methods.
@lysander has done the math indicating that before (I think) and it's far out of my wheelhouse. All I know is that the math doesn't make sense with what I've seen.
100% agree! I'd love it if MI did something like this. Pretty much everything that's been used for receiver extension installation and removal has been suboptimal up to this point.
And of course I agree with Ned, barrel blocks for muzzle device work only... Using any Reaction Rod type tool for that task is just asking for trouble IMO.
I made my own to work on Muzzle devices. They're pretty effective, their length helps ensure the barrel doesn't move even enough to tweak the gas block / tube.
https://hkguns.zenfolio.com/img/s/v-10/p3621063863-5.jpg
I made my own to work on Muzzle devices. They're pretty effective, their length helps ensure the barrel doesn't move even enough to tweak the gas block / tube.
That's another good way to do it. The important thing is just securing the barrel itself as close to the work being done as possible.
I made barrel blocks for muzzle devices, particularly 9mm ones, but I sometimes use my MI-URR because URX4.
I wish I had started collecting them up as they were posted through the years since the Geissele Reaction Rod came out, I'd have quite a mountain of them by this point if I did.
Fortunately Google searching "broken index pin" or "sheared index pin" usually brings up a lot of them, but not all. Most were posted about on AR15.com of course, so try including that in your search.
I meant other failures waiting to happen rather than more proof of the sheared index pin. I am prepared to take your word on that. It would be good to have a list of common problems to avoid all in one place. It's disheartening to be ignorant of something that is considered "common knowledge" despite reading this forum rather extensively.
I meant other failures waiting to happen rather than more proof of the sheared index pin. I am prepared to take your word on that. It would be good to have a list of common problems to avoid all in one place. It's disheartening to be ignorant of something that is considered "common knowledge" despite reading this forum rather extensively.
That's not a bad idea for a thread, I'm not sure if there's one like that out there already or not?
So either the math is wrong or something in the math isn't being accounted for between the 2 differing tools/methods.
On the clamshell the only rotational force on the barrel / barrel extension / index pin is friction from the barrel nut inner face on the barrel flange
Where with the reaction rod approach you have pretty much the whole torque dependent on the index pin stopping the rotation.
Early on the pin issue concern me, I believe I might have even commented way back on this forum about that in some of the early discussions. But some very prominent posters were major advocates, so it was not worth debating.
The Bev block theoretically addresses the pin issue, but in practical use there is more flex than I would like to see.
The BEV block is still a handy / useful / convenient tool to use, especially for occasional armorers as it has other uses as well. If you only have one tool it's not a bad one. But if I installed barrels frequently I would be looking for something more robust, probably something like the MI tool.
Over the years I've adopted the Alexander Arms approach of minimal GI spec torque required to do the job. Since monster torques are not involved installing you can actually get away with just about any of the methods, including the one that uses the two pins in the bottom of the receiver and HDPE blocks.
But that's just me (and AA), and I'm sure we will be out shouted by those who say must you must use extreme torque values. You can get solid lockup and keep it without having significant strains on that joint
Barrel removal is a completely different issue and usually is where people have problems with much higher torque.
On the clamshell the only rotational force on the barrel / barrel extension / index pin is friction from the barrel nut inner face on the barrel flange
Where with the reaction rod approach you have pretty much the whole torque dependent on the index pin stopping the rotation.
Early on the pin issue concern me, I believe I might have even commented way back on this forum about that in some of the early discussions. But some very prominent posters were major advocates, so it was not worth debating.
The Bev block theoretically addresses the pin issue, but in practical use there is more flex than I would like to see.
The BEV block is still a handy / useful / convenient tool to use, especially for occasional armorers as it has other uses as well. If you only have one tool it's not a bad one. But if I installed barrels frequently I would be looking for something more robust, probably something like the MI tool.
Over the years I've adopted the Alexander Arms approach of minimal GI spec torque required to do the job. Since monster torques are not involved installing you can actually get away with just about any of the methods, including the one that uses the two pins in the bottom of the receiver and HDPE blocks.
But that's just me (and AA), and I'm sure we will be out shouted by those who say must you must use extreme torque values. You can get solid lockup and keep it without having significant strains on that joint
Barrel removal is a completely different issue and usually is where people have problems with much higher torque.
Here's a thread I'm watching since yesterday on ARFCOM where a guy is having trouble trying to loosen a barrel nut on a BCM upper using a BEV Block. > https://www.ar15.com/forums/General/Any-tips-for-removing-a-BCM-barrel-nut-/5-2504599/
The amount of people in there that swear by using the Geissele Reaction Rod and that it would be somehow better than the BEV Block for the task of removing a stuck barrel nut is quite mind boggling. Some actually insist that barrel blocks are the better option for the task. :fie:
Barrel blocks are the best for muzzle device work, but they're just as bad if not worse than the Reaction Rod for doing anything with the barrel nut. Lets not forget all the issues that Old Bushmaster had with putting out rifles that had canted FSBs because they used barrel blocks for barrel installation. And now the places that are using Reaction Rods over the last few years to install barrels with standard FSBs are constantly having the same FSB cant issue as old Bushmater did... Well duh! :blink:
A major issue that's contributed to the immense popularity of the Reaction Rod is the reputation of the places that use it and make it. People are under some weird hypnoses and delusion it seems... KAC and and Geissele just can't do anything less than the best in peoples minds so they turn their brains off in regards to anything they make. And I love Geissele triggers and I like KAC, I'm just not under the spell like so many seem to be.
I'll just add to this thread, since it is in the MI section that I think MI gets far too little attention as a producer of quality parts on this site.
I've used a bunch of their parts over the years and have NEVER had a single issue with any of them.
Something as simple as a sling swivel, if sourced from China, can be problematic and is pretty much a waste of money in my experience.
Their MLOK rails are extremely light and they're one of the companies who thought it through enough to eliminate the need to time the barrel nut for gas tube installation. Which in my limited upper building experience can be a PITA.
On the clamshell the only rotational force on the barrel / barrel extension / index pin is friction from the barrel nut inner face on the barrel flange
What about the friction between the barrel nut and the receiver threads? That is going apply torque to the entire receiver which will press against the pin.
What about the friction between the barrel nut and the receiver threads? That is going apply torque to the entire receiver which will press against the pin.Nearly all of the torque is between the barrel nut threads and the receiver threads. The only force on the barrel is from friction between the barrel nut and the barrel flange which is fairly small. Especially if you correctly grease.
If you watch/measure carefully you can see that in a properly fitting barrel/receiver there is minimal rotation even in the index pin slot. A little bit of rotation of the barrel to take up slack between the pin and the slot is okay, but that friction force on the barrel is quite small relative to the overall torqueing.
I must be misunderstanding the context. Are both the barrel and the receiver held in fixture while the nut is turned? If the barrel is fixed and the receiver is free to move, and torque is transferred from the nut to the receiver via friction the receiver slot will turn against the barrel pin, right?
I must be misunderstanding the context. Are both the barrel and the receiver held in fixture while the nut is turned? If the barrel is fixed and the receiver is free to move, and torque is transferred from the nut to the receiver via friction the receiver slot will turn against the barrel pin, right?
The only tools that fix both the barrel and upper are the MI-URR style rods, and to a lesser extent the Magpul BEV Block.
The part highlighted in red is correct for the standard Geissele Reaction Rod.
Many times you will see argument that when using the Reaction Rod the clamping force between the face of the upper and the rear facing surface of the barrel extension flange is strong enough to overcome the torque forces from being transferred through the receiver's barrel nut threads, which would force the upper against the indexing pin by way of the indexing pin notch... However, as seen time and time again in the many threads about sheared indexing pins caused by Reaction Rod use that's just not how it's playing out.
After a decade plus of assembling uppers here's where I've arrived:
The clear majority of the torque is between the barrel nut and the upper receiver... I've seen it visually, and the physics makes sense as well.
Therefore it makes sense to clamp the upper receiver as the wrench is on the barrel nut.
This means one of many options:
- the traditional clamshell, which most of us tend to not like. And yet most of the really seasoned hands say it's still one of the best solutions for mil-spec sized receivers. IE: not billet or other oddities.
- The DPMS type nylon block that holds the upper receiver through the pivot pin holes. I know individuals who assemble a lot of uppers commercially and this is all they use.
If you know how to torque and end up on the lower end of GI spec by following the procedure or by using shims, this works well. I have one and it's pretty secure even though I question the stress on the pivot pin holes.
I would not use it for untorquing unknown barrel nuts that might be significantly over torqued or have loctite.
- The Bev block is an interesting compromise, and does the job. But allows more flex than what I would prefer. Which you could say "how does the Bev block flex as it locks both"? The issue is that the barrel does not move much, the receiver does. And there is enough slack in the fit to the receiver in most cases that it allows just a little bit of flex.
The MI tool might very well be the best of all worlds.
But based on my experiences I'm kind of wishing I just bought a good clamshell way back. Though I couldn't have used it on billet (sun devil) receivers, or it's more difficult.
Reaction rods and similar are useful for other things. I know all people using them in production environments due to speed, and I sort of understand that.
The bev block is very useful for holding receivers for work, etc in addition to torquing barrel nuts. It's a bit more fiddly, so I could see folks preferring other methods for production.
Many times you will see argument that when using the Reaction Rod the clamping force between the face of the upper and the rear facing surface of the barrel extension flange is strong enough to overcome the torque forces from being transferred through the receiver's barrel nut threads, which would force the upper against the indexing pin by way of the indexing pin notch.
I follow now. The amount that the force on the pin was lessened would depend on the finish and lubrication of both the threads and the flange. This could explain why some pins shear and others do not. (lysander referenced that bolt thrust more than doubles with a lubricated chamber. (https://www.m4carbine.net/showthread.php?225767-So-you-have-a-new-AR-How-to-test&p=2893893#post2893893)) Now that I am aware of the possibility I would rather avoid the risk entirely with a better fixture.
- the traditional clamshell, which most of us tend to not like. And yet most of the really seasoned hands say it's still one of the best solutions for mil-spec sized receivers. IE: not billet or other oddities.
This is where I misunderstood; I thought "clamshell" meant the barrel vise v-blocks.
I follow now. The amount that the force on the pin was lessened would depend on the finish and lubrication of both the threads and the flange. This could explain why some pins shear and others do not. (lysander referenced that bolt thrust more than doubles with a lubricated chamber. (https://www.m4carbine.net/showthread.php?225767-So-you-have-a-new-AR-How-to-test&p=2893893#post2893893)) Now that I am aware of the possibility I would rather avoid the risk entirely with a better fixture.
Very possible, I know it's now a very popular practice by home builders to grease the entire barrel extension (rear facing side of the flange and all). Doing so would decrease the friction between the thread face of the upper and the extension flange considerably and could certainly be a contributing factor in Reaction Rod/indexing pin failures.
I've been told I'm clueless and that it makes no difference over on TOS for saying this by some of the "experts" over there, but the only place you should be applying grease is the upper receiver's threads and the forward/FSB facing side of the barrel extension flange. Those are the only sliding surfaces that absolutely must be lubed for barrel nut installation and I put a pretty liberal coating of grease on those surfaces... Not just a uselessly thin smear like I've see so many do. I also clean and degrease all parts prior to assembly to make 100% sure that the surfaces mentioned that could cause trouble don't have any lube on them.
I've never had a problem except for the one time that I forgot to grease the forward facing side of the barrel extension flange. I was using my favorite set of clam shell upper receiver vise blocks and it was a Brownells A1 barrel with a standard GI barrel nut... I noticed that I wasn't advancing on trying to align the nut on my way up to 80 Ft-Lbs, so as I backed the nut off one last time I heard a loud squeak! I knew immediately that I forgot to grease the forward side of the flange. I degreased everything and found a perfect DEEP imprint of the indexing pin on the left side of the indexing pin notch on in the upper receiver. So the notch on the upper (at least the left side) was toast, but the pin looked fine... So I switched to the Geissele Reaction Rod (all I had for action rods at the time) to get the upper to bias the index pin to the opposite side of it's index pin notch. Greased the correct spots (making double sure to get the forward side of the flange) and it torqued and aligned just under 35 Ft-Lbs... So lube on the forward side of the flange makes a BIG difference. However, that upper did require a lot of right windage to get it sighted in, probably due to the pin imbedding a bit into the right side of the indexing pin notch because the Reaction Rod doesn't support the upper against torque. Though I'd have to take it apart to find out and it's my brothers gun. I offered to replace the upper with a new one due to the f#ck up, but he hasn't taken me up on it yet.
I've been told I'm clueless and that it makes no difference over on TOS for saying this by some of the "experts" over there
You are in good company.
Hard to imagine some of those cats actually are trusted to own guns.
You are in good company.
Hard to imagine some of those cats actually are trusted to own guns.
Oh I know, it's a cringe worthy thought sometimes. The place draws a crowd that's all over the map and I think some of them might not know how to tie their own shoes. :p
Midwest Industries
11-16-21, 06:00
I'll just add to this thread, since it is in the MI section that I think MI gets far too little attention as a producer of quality parts on this site.
I've used a bunch of their parts over the years and have NEVER had a single issue with any of them.
Something as simple as a sling swivel, if sourced from China, can be problematic and is pretty much a waste of money in my experience.
Their MLOK rails are extremely light and they're one of the companies who thought it through enough to eliminate the need to time the barrel nut for gas tube installation. Which in my limited upper building experience can be a PITA.
Thank you we appreciate that.
Troy
MI
Voodoochild
11-16-21, 22:06
I'll just add to this thread, since it is in the MI section that I think MI gets far too little attention as a producer of quality parts on this site.
I've used a bunch of their parts over the years and have NEVER had a single issue with any of them.
Something as simple as a sling swivel, if sourced from China, can be problematic and is pretty much a waste of money in my experience.
Their MLOK rails are extremely light and they're one of the companies who thought it through enough to eliminate the need to time the barrel nut for gas tube installation. Which in my limited upper building experience can be a PITA.
I will second your motion. MI does make quality kit and I've never been disappointed with anything I've gotten from them over the years.
Powered by vBulletin® Version 4.2.5 Copyright © 2024 vBulletin Solutions, Inc. All rights reserved.