View Full Version : Ambi safety?
Pumpkinheaver
06-05-10, 12:36
Who makes the best ambi selector switch?
number1olddog
06-05-10, 12:46
Knights :D
I bought one from Spikes Tactical and it works fine. I think it's DPMS though:eek:
You may want to take a look at this thread. This is the best ambi saftey going. Period.
https://www.m4carbine.net/showthread.php?t=54648
I have LMT ambi's in my guns and they are great.
Army Chief
06-05-10, 13:28
I'm not sure that the BAD A.S.S. is unquestionably the best selector on the market, though it may well be the most versatile. Whether or not they hold up as well as some of the others is something that I can't address at the moment, and I tend not to be too impressed by aggressive styling or other extreme features that may or may not serve much of a purpose.
Whatever the case, this has been a topic of much discussion over the years, so a forum search is going to reveal quite a bit. To give you a quick overview of what you're likely to find, there are a number of more conventional designs available, including LMT, Stag, RRA, DPMS and KAC. Some single-sided selectors are also reversible, including JP and newer Colts. Let price be something of a guide, too, as a good selector is not going to be a discount bargain-bin part. $30 and up is about right.
Reports of problems and failures are relatively rare across-the-board; however, different selectors tend to secure off-side levers via slightly different means. They also tend to have have different lever profiles (shape, size and configuration), so it makes sense to research a few of them prior to making a purchase decision.
Personally, I try to stay as close to a stock configuration as possible, which means that a simple selector like the Stag is hard to beat.
AC
OP, it seems Chief has this ambi thing nailed. Belay my last...
Gotta agree with Army Chief. I've had good luck with Stags.
Army Chief,
We appreciate your opinion :)
We didn't put any thoughts into styling, as every single curve, straight line or serration that we put on there has a purpose. From start to finish, we only thought of function, and paid no attention to looks. Even the fluting/pocket on the face of the lever serves a few purposes: added purchase, weight saving, the pocket can be filled with paint so instructors can easily identify the condition of the weapon at a glance. We specified Torx screws with a larger diameter to allow the levers to be properly torqued, AND backed out of the selector after thread locker had been applied. An Allen screw would not fare gracefully.
As to extreme feature, we can't think of any other way to achieve the ergonomics goals afforded by having both levers detachable, and having the users decide for themselves with the levers we provide in different profiles, length and thickness. We don't consider anything on our selector extreme :)
Re: durability, it being a new item, I agree it doesn't have a history other than the rounds we ourselves, the testers, and now users have put down range, we have no heard of any problems. This is one aspect we can't control: time ;)
We're humbled to hear our kit is considered the best by some, having only been in the market for less than two weeks. We're always open to criticisms and suggestions. We made this kit to address specific shortcomings of ambi selectors with symmetrical levers, we believe we had done so :)
I'm not sure that the BAD A.S.S. is unquestionably the best selector on the market, though it may well be the most versatile. Whether or not they hold up as well as some of the others is something that I can't address at the moment, and I tend not to be too impressed by aggressive styling or other extreme features that may or may not serve much of a purpose.
Whatever the case, this has been a topic of much discussion over the years, so a forum search is going to reveal quite a bit. To give you a quick overview of what you're likely to find, there are a number of more conventional designs available, including LMT, Stag, RRA, DPMS and KAC. Some single-sided selectors are also reversible, including JP and newer Colts. Let price be something of a guide, too, as a good selector is not going to be a discount bargain-bin part. $30 and up is about right.
Reports of problems and failures are relatively rare across-the-board; however, different selectors tend to secure off-side levers via slightly different means. They also tend to have have different lever profiles (shape, size and configuration), so it makes sense to research a few of them prior to making a purchase decision.
Personally, I try to stay as close to a stock configuration as possible, which means that a simple selector like the Stag is hard to beat.
AC
Which ambi's have you personally tried extensively?
Army Chief
06-05-10, 17:44
Duffy, you may have an excellent product on your hands; I simply cannot speak to these points, because I have never seen/installed/used a BAD selector. At face value, I see a very good concept with a whole lot of individual parts.
As for the "rest of the market," I've owned, installed and/or used several ambi selectors over the years. If I had to guess, I would say that I've probably flipped the switch on products from at least four or five different vendors -- to include Stag and LMT from my earlier list. Once upon a time, I even bought one from the old "Quality Parts Company" in Windham, ME. Sound familiar?
Given equal steels, quality hardware and a reasonably sound design, I just haven't found a lot of difference from one product to the next, save to say that subjective considerations such as lever width, profile , design and method-of-attachment do come into play. As stated, my own preference runs toward units that closely replicate the stock selector, and which have one "fixed" lever, as per the original. I mentioned the Stag simply (a) I have used them, and (b) they serve as a good example of the breed. There are a host of worthy contenders.
Trident, your enthusiasm is obvious, and I mean you no disrespect; that said, I've been a career soldier for more than 25 years, and I've learned (as a southpaw) to manipulate the standard selector without any real difficulty. On a personal carbine, I can definitely relate to the added convenience and appeal of an ambi configuration, but I would not go so far as to describe it as a life-changing event.
When, as a professional soldier, I see a review that involves an in-your-face product name, the language of unbridled enthusiasm, gimmicky trigger guards and color-fill component mods, it is hard not to be somewhat dismissive. I'm not suggesting that you are wrong, nor that that reviewed part isn't a stellar upgrade, but rather that it comes off as "hype" -- and a lot of garbage products get marketed that way these days. Hopefully, that makes sense, and will be interpreted in the spirit of goodwill in which it is offered.
Is the BAD ambi a garbage product? I seriously doubt it.
Does it do something that a standard USGI-profiled ambi cannot? I simply do not know.
Is an ambidextrous selector essential kit for a southpaw? No, it isn't -- but it can be awfully nice to have, so long as you aren't living in a world (i.e. on a tactical team, for example) where a baseline configuration is important.
Selectors are easy. Start talking about ambidextrous charging handles, and you'll have a real can of worms on your hands. =]
AC
AC, point well taken. We didn't go out of our way to name it, our naming convention for both our M14 platform and AR platform start with BAD (company name), M14 products have -Tx, e.g. BAD-T1, BAD-T3, etc., while the AR15 products have names, such as BAD-BSM (bracket, screw for Matech).
Ambidextrous Safety Selector is what Bushmaster, RRA other many others call it, we didn't invent it ;) Put together, it does sound contrived, we go out of our way to spell it out, abbreviating only the ambi portion.
Re: too many parts, on that we are agreed. Already in development is the CASS version (Combat Ambi Safety Selector, no human's behind in THIS name lol) where the left lever and the selector center are machined as one piece. It takes away some configurable options, everything has a cost, just like the current version has its tolls too (extra parts)
It's always been in our plan to have the CASS for folks that do not want extra parts, or screws that could come loose.
The SCAR and ACR have removable charging handle that can go on either side of the rifles, is it better to have it fixed on one side or another and force the user to train for it? Depends on who you ask.
By the same token, our approach is similar, with same merits/drawbacks that can be argued and debated.
In the end, we're after the same thing: let users decide what works for them, within reason, instead of imposing the one size fits all that often fits badly.
Thank you for your input, as always :D
Army Chief
06-05-10, 18:31
Without question, the CASS would hold more of an interest for me, personally, though as stated, I am able to see the merit of the current concept as well.
Please check your PMs.
AC
AC,
As we had solicited advice and opinions from our beta testers, one of the things that was strongly suggested was the CASS version, by military/police folks ;)
To not have a CASS version (the select fire version will be in CASS only) is not an option for us, we planned for it and will have it, hopefully this Fall.
Your opinion is appreciated, and validates the CASS even more :D
FWIW I've had a good experience with the JP ambi selector. Size seems right, adj. screw for contact with tail of trigger a plus.
Not impressed with DPMS; lumps of metal too big.
MP
Gentlemen,
First, I would like to say that as one of the designers of the BAD-Ambidextrous Safety Selector that's been on the market for barely two weeks, it is very humbling to see that we received so many praise and even been suggested as the best on the market.
We are proud of our product and we do strive to be the best, but will never claim that we are the best without qualification. There are many great companies out there making their own version of the ambidextrous safety selector, no question.
The question raised in this thread, in my opinion, is mostly subjective to each individual user's preference and the intended purpose or goal. What we have done here is to offer the user the choice to configure the selector to his/her preference, bias, training, etc. We do not believe in the "one-size-fits-all" approach, but in offering "choices."
It is something that you definitely have to try first hand. Once you have personally experienced the tactile feel of the selector, you will know instantly what works for you. The "best" selector would be the one that best fits "you" and your needs.
Army Chief,
With regards to you comments:
The name of our product is a coincidence. As all of our products are named with "BAD-XXX" short for "Battle Arms Development - XXX". BAD-BSM (Bracket Screw Matech), BAD-T1, T3, and T4, (Tool #1, #3, #4). As for BAD-A.S.S., it is short for Ambidextrous Safety Selector, which is the industry standard.
The "aggressive" 30 degree grooves appears simple but serves an important purpose. Due to our offering of the SHORT and THIN levers, we needed compensate for the reduction in "purchase". If the standard GI lever profile were to be reduced in LENGTH and/or in THICKNESS, it would no longer function very effectively vs. standard size.
We chose the larger grooves vs. smaller/thinner grooves to minimize dirt, mud, etc. from being trapped between them, which over time would make the selector "smooth" and offers less purchase. The larger grooves is almost self cleaning as any debris would simply slide off its 30 degree grooves, and it also works well with gloves on.
In our case, FORM follows FUNCTION in every detail. There is no intent for any aesthetics or "cool factor" for hype. The end result of it ended up being a handsome looking selector, is an added benefit.
As for "durability", we believe our product will stand up to the test. The BAD-Ambi. Safety Selector is precision CNC machined out of solid bar stock steel and properly heat treated. It is certainly on par, if not exceed, comparable Cast or MIM products in strength and tolerance.
We will be offering the BAD-Combat Ambi. Safety Selector which will have one of the levers be CNC machined from one and the same solid block of steel as the selector axis for additional durability. You do, however, loose more flexibility in this setup as a trade-off.
Please do send me a PM or Email with your contact information. I'd be happy to get you one for testing.
PS - It looks like I need to learn how to type faster as there are many posts since I started writing this reply. Please forgive any redundant/repeat information from Duffy's.
Thank you.
George
militarymoron
06-05-10, 23:17
to the OP - 'best' is a relative/personal term, and differs from person to person depending on their needs/situation.
it'd be more helpful to list specific qualities that are important to you, like 'which is the strongest/slimmest/shortest/easiest to manipulate etc', which are easier to answer than 'best'.
Army Chief
06-05-10, 23:34
MM,
I wish that I had seen your review prior to spotting the other thread on M4C, as it surely would have altered some of my first impressions with respect to the BAD unit. That is not to take anything away of Trident's post, but I am more immediately familiar with your work, your background, and your never-ending quest to help design, field and test the very best ambidextrous components on the market.
Though I am persuaded that standard fare ambi selectors work well enough as a rule, there is surely room for improvement, and I can see that we're really talking about optimization here. With that in mind, I can also see where BAD may be on to something special. It would appear that some additional research and testing would be in order.
AC
MM,
I wish that I had seen your review prior to spotting the other thread on M4C, as it surely would have altered some of my first impressions with respect to the BAD unit. That is not to take anything away of Trident's post, but I am more immediately familiar with your work, your background, and your never-ending quest to help design, field and test the very best ambidextrous components on the market.
Though I am persuaded that standard fare ambi selectors work well enough as a rule, there is surely room for improvement, and I can see that we're really talking about optimization here. With that in mind, I can also see where BAD may be on to something special. It would appear that some additional research and testing would be in order.
AC
Lol....MM's pics would not include the "gimmicky trigger guards and color fill options"....that alter the actual units design and utility:rolleyes:
the BAD is good kit.
the design is simple and robust. it would take alot for a screw to come out far enough for it to quit working and both sides would have to come out. and a little loctite goes along way. I can understand some the skepticism i had it to and was waiting for the troy but theve pushed there date to many times and i was tired of waiting. is it a necessary addition. No. but it is nice to have.
http://i269.photobucket.com/albums/jj41/leeindy/guns/DSCF2038.jpg
http://i269.photobucket.com/albums/jj41/leeindy/guns/DSCF2036.jpg
Pumpkinheaver
06-06-10, 01:37
to the OP - 'best' is a relative/personal term, and differs from person to person depending on their needs/situation.
it'd be more helpful to list specific qualities that are important to you, like 'which is the strongest/slimmest/shortest/easiest to manipulate etc', which are easier to answer than 'best'.
Sorry I wasn't specific enough with my original post. I'm a lefty and I am wanting to put a safety on the right side for my use. My main concern is fit, function and durability. I have read that some(or maybe all) ambi selectors are wider than needed and leave a gap between the lever and receiver. This wouldn't be the end of the world to me as long as it works. I'm putting this on my coyote gun and am mostly soncerned that it will work well. A shorter lever on the left would be nice as the stock lever digs into my index finger while shooting.
Sorry I wasn't specific enough with my original post. I'm a lefty and I am wanting to put a safety on the right side for my use. My main concern is fit, function and durability. I have read that some(or maybe all) ambi selectors are wider than needed and leave a gap between the lever and receiver. This wouldn't be the end of the world to me as long as it works. I'm putting this on my coyote gun and am mostly soncerned that it will work well. A shorter lever on the left would be nice as the stock lever digs into my index finger while shooting.
I'll paste this from another ambi selector thread;)
We had dealt with the gap issue for a long time. What it comes down to is mostly the thickness of the receiver. The milspec thickness is .880 +.015 -.002, or .878 to .895. We based our selector axis off one of my Colt SP1s, which is 0.898 and on the thick side. We took measurement from more than a dozen receivers, even within the same company, there are variations.
Colts are usually on the thicker side, Bushmaster Armalite, DPMS, LMT and KAC are all pretty well within specs. POF and another billet lowers are notably thicker, at 0.905 and 0.911, while Olympic Arms are notably thinner than specs.
There's NO way to make a safety selector and have it fit flush with all brands of receivers, as mentioned, even within the same manufacturer there's slight changes.
The same ambi selector that fits flush on a Bushmaster, LMT, and KAC will almost be too tight for a POF. With a standard, non-ambi selector, this isn't an issue. If you haven't noticed, the axis usually sticks out a little on the right side, while some don't. This can be a problem for ambi selectors, too much protrusion on either side, it won't be as low profile as can be, and the lever will pinch your finger when you rotate the lever from Safe to Fire while its extended in the "finger outside the trigger guard" position (this is actually somewhat unavoidable, we just try to minimize the pinching).
Army Chief
06-06-10, 08:54
Lol....MM's pics would not include the "gimmicky trigger guards and color fill options"....that alter the actual units design and utility:rolleyes:
It would be more accurate to repeat that I am just far more familiar with MM's work, though for the record, you should give me a bit of credit, as I did try to give you a pass on the ridiculous magazine release. lol
In all seriousness, we all know that "style choices" like these obviously have nothing whatsoever to do with the BAD selector's design or utility. You obviously made a number of other component choices for that weapon which are truly best-in-class, and your base rifle is a Hartford original, which I also find worthy of a nod.
The "style choices" in evidence simply provide the reader with clues as to which shooting demographic might find the reviewer's opinion most relevant and/or credible. If perhaps the rifle does primary duty bolted up to the back of a custom HD Fat Boy or somesuch, then there would be a certain logic to this kind of creativity. If it is intended as a general purpose go-to rifle that may be used to defend hearth and home, well ... more power to you, but that is pretty much where I have to get off of the bus.
I'll put the BAD selector through its paces, and report back once I have an informed opinion based upon actual experience. There are admittedly a few minor annoyances commonly associated with conventional ambidextrous selectors, and most of them appear to be addressed in this product. We'll see how it goes.
AC
Army Chief
06-06-10, 09:10
There's NO way to make a safety selector and have it fit flush with all brands of receivers, as mentioned, even within the same manufacturer there's slight changes.
The same ambi selector that fits flush on a Bushmaster, LMT, and KAC will almost be too tight for a POF.
The fact that you're tracking on this tells me that BAD has done their homework. This is also why I hesitate to offer a definitive opinion that "Brand-X is unquestionably the best ambi selector option," because what works well in your 6920 or N4 may be a very poor fit for your project billet lower.
It's effectively a problem of trying to build a standardized part for an industry that has no standard or TDP for this particular component. You can shoot for the mean, or go with the original Colt dimensional standard, but with so much variation out there, this is a battle that probably has to be won one receiver at a time. Fortunately, the current approach sounds like it will be compatible with the overwhelming majority of rifle types/makes/designs.
AC
Thanks AC, not to bore you gents with too much detail, the selector center/drum/axis, the detent groove and holes were the most time and resource intensive parts of the project, both during development and in production.
There are quite a few minute details in the detent groove and holes that most don't think about (I sure as hell didn't before working on this). In the end, we actually improved ours to make it easier and smoother to rotate, the difference is in the depth of the cuts, the ramp from the detent hole to the groove, and the geometry of the groove that naked eyes cannot detect.
On a non-ambi selector, the nub on the right may or may not stick out, and most people don't notice it. On an ambi selector, this will be far more pronounced and noticeable.
We played with the length of the selector axis, location of the detent groove on the selector axis (very important), and measured the gap between the receiver and the under side of the levers.
Here are just a few from the production candidate (note the variation between the two Colt receivers):
Colt (reference): Left 0.100, Right 0.102
Armalite: Left 0.110, Right 0.120
Colt #2: Left 0.110, Right 0.100
Protrusions on the reference Colt:
http://i75.photobucket.com/albums/i314/Duffypoo/Mod0protrusionsonColt1.jpg
Factory selector on the Armalite:
http://i75.photobucket.com/albums/i314/Duffypoo/Armalitefactoryleverleftprotrusion.jpg
We finally produced a production candidate that has even protrusions on both sides on test hosts, which became the production model.
I'm not sure if anyone else checked the things we did, what I do know is that the gap bugged us a great deal and we wanted it gone. That being impossible, we did what we could to produce an even protrusion on both sides.
I hope this hasn't turned into a hijack to pimp our kit, I think the data and observations we gathered are helpful in clarifying things regarding ambidextrous selectors in general :D
Army Chief
06-06-10, 10:22
Given the OP's broad opening question, I'm not sure that any of this would qualify as a hijack, though I know that my input has been a lot more pronounced than I would have otherwise wanted it to be.
Whatever the case, these are necessary details, and I find value in graduate-level consideration of a topic like this; especially given that most members would probably be inclined to do a quick search and place an order based upon what is readily available from their favorite dealer, as opposed to what might best meet their needs.
I jokingly referred to ambi charging handles early on, but the point is that "off side" controls were not really a design criterion in Gene Stoner's day. In bringing the weapon system to a more modern standard in this respect, we are forced to confront some rather unusual problems. Some are certainly more visible than others.
Norgon made all of this look pretty easy when they tackled the ambi magazine release, but something as simple as a two-sided selector lever is proving that things are not always as easy or straightforward as they appear to be. Short of a modified receiver (or learning to off-hand a Bolt Assist Device), the bolt release problem will likely endure. Still, for those who have spent entire careers deftly mastering one "work-around" after another, the advent of dedicated solutions -- like the BAD-A.S.S. -- has been a very welcome sea change.
AC
I appreciate the info here considering I am L/H AR shooter and had looked at the ambi lever market. The BAD ASS looks interesting.
I like to run ambi safeties and I tend to go for the LMT. I have to admit that I really didn't give the BAD safety selector thread much of a look when I opened the thread. As soon as I saw the weapon it was on, combined with name of the product I closed the thread, basically for the same reasons listed by AC. This may not have been a fair assessment of the BAD product on my part but it did come off as gimmicky in that thread and I didn't give it a fair look. Not trying to offend anyone as I do like to see new products that are quality and are a benefit to the user.
After having looked closely at the product I am indeed interested and only now I see the options of interchangeable levers which is a good thing. I too would also like to see a CASS version. I am responsible for T&E of a lot of gear / accessories before we purchase or place any item into use for our unit and after giving this product a fair look, I am interested enough to more than likely give it a try.
You guys are a tough crowd :D Many users like to accessorize their weapons, I don't think the pics on that thread are outlandish, it doesn't have Noveske pig brake, hand stop at 3, 6 and 9 o'clock, stock with Picatiney rails, or a Glock hanging below the hand guard :p
One of the problems we have, which we can't do much about, is that we're a pretty new company. Our roots are in the M1/M1A platform, and have a very good reputation for those that have dealt with us on m14tfl.com.
Re: CASS, we have been told as early as last August that some would not take it seriously until we have a version with only one detachable lever, and we took it to heart. It's been the plan to produce such a version even before last August. We can't argue that CASS will have fewer parts and be immensely strong, at the expense of fewer configuration option and added cost (or those with CNC and machining experience, it's far more difficult and costly to machine the lever and the selector center as one piece).
The possibility that due to its limited configuration options and higher cost, the CASS wouldn't be as popular, has not stopped us. As mentioned, there's no option to not have the CASS, along with the current, all levers detachable kit.
Pumpkinheaver
06-06-10, 13:02
Definatly no concern with me thinking you hijacked the thread. I have learned quite a bit in this thread that I didn't know. Such as the huge dimetional differences in reciever thickness. My lower is a billet, I didn't realize that they tend to run on the thicker side. I appreciate the knowledge base on this site.
Thank you OP for allowing us to be a part of this thread.
The billet lowers we took measurements from:
POF (.223): 0.905
POF (.308): 0.911
POF (.308): 0.904
Iron Ridge (.308): 0.911
APA (.223): 0.898
Sun Devil (.223): 0.877
Sun Devil: (.223) 0.873
The data gathered does not conclusively indicate that all billet receivers are thicker, only most of the ones we took measurements from.
The average thickness, including these billet receivers, is 0.887.
The reference, and the receiver we used to create the production model is a Colt SP1, at 0.898. While it would create acceptable gap/clearance on thinner receivers, such as Olympic Arms and Armalite, it's ensured to work on wider receivers as well.
I like to run ambi safeties and I tend to go for the LMT. I have to admit that I really didn't give the BAD safety selector thread much of a look when I opened the thread. As soon as I saw the weapon it was on, combined with name of the product I closed the thread, basically for the same reasons listed by AC. This may not have been a fair assessment of the BAD product on my part but it did come off as gimmicky in that thread and I didn't give it a fair look. Not trying to offend anyone as I do like to see new products that are quality and are a benefit to the user.
After having looked closely at the product I am indeed interested and only now I see the options of interchangeable levers which is a good thing. I too would also like to see a CASS version. I am responsible for T&E of a lot of gear / accessories before we purchase or place any item into use for our unit and after giving this product a fair look, I am interested enough to more than likely give it a try.
What's so wrong with the host weapon in the BAD product thread:confused:
It's nice to see new products come to market that gives the end user more options then standard product. Add to the fact the end user gets to configure the safety the way he wants too.
After ready this thread and seeing how "Duffy" interacted with AC, I will say that you have earned my business for these ambi-safety selectors and will buying 2 of them.
Army Chief
06-06-10, 14:31
What's so wrong with the host weapon in the BAD product thread:confused:
PM sent.
AC
We are constantly striving to improve :) With the thoughts put into this project, we couldn't think of anything else we could find wrong with it, until the kits arrived and we received additional feedback from users.
The kit is designed for users, we'd be smart to listen to criticism and learn from it ;) I registered on m4c from years ago, but haven't been very active (as I am on TOS), I didn't know who AC was but did see the merits of what he said, there was an opportunity for us to clarify things like the kit's name sake, and provide some insights to the engineering background of kit.
As a result, we've already started a PIP to be incorporated into the next production run:
1. Inclusion of a high quality detent
2. A fourth lever option
A low grade, or old/worn detent can make the selector gritty to rotate, or even stop it from being rotated at all.
We looked into the thin-short lever suggested by users, and found it sufficiently usable.
Some users already have a Torx wrench set, we'll make the key optional so they don't pay for something they don't need. The cost of the wrench is our cost to buy them.
Pumpkinheaver
06-06-10, 18:29
Thank you OP for allowing us to be a part of this thread.
The billet lowers we took measurements from:
POF (.223): 0.905
POF (.308): 0.911
POF (.308): 0.904
Iron Ridge (.308): 0.911
APA (.223): 0.898
Sun Devil (.223): 0.877
Sun Devil: (.223) 0.873
The data gathered does not conclusively indicate that all billet receivers are thicker, only most of the ones we took measurements from.
The average thickness, including these billet receivers, is 0.887761905.
The reference, and the receiver we used to create the production model is a Colt SP1, at 0.898. While it would create acceptable gap/clearance on thinner receivers, such as Olympic Arms and Armalite, it's ensured to work on wider receivers as well.
Have you by any chance measured a Bartlett enterprises lower? That's what I have.
We have not, we don't have one :(
Barlett should be able to tell you though :)
All the ambi selectors should work, I wouldn't be overly concerned about the receiver thickness since there isn't much you can do about it if one brand or another sticks out more.
Army Chief
06-06-10, 19:00
Protrusion from the receiver wall isn't really a worrisome issue here, unless by chance the unit is simply too tight. That much would appear to be unlikely with the BAD selector.
The more relevant problem with the typical ambidextrous selector has to do with how far the primary (left side) lever extends down into the path of your trigger finger, assuming a left-handed firer. In this, a short -- or narrow -- lever could well be just what the doctor ordered.
AC
KingsideRook
06-06-10, 20:11
I'm intrigued. I've been waiting to see the Troy Ambi in action, as I've had a lot of sloppy fitting ambi safeties from a few parts manufacturers. The analysis of the measured lower receiver widths from the manufacturer leads me to think that I was correct in thinking that my ambi safety fitment issues were due to that variance.
I am potentially more excited about the BAD Ambi safety. Short of being able to order one right now, I hope to see some AAR in addition to Lee Indy.
As AC said, the protrusion isn't an issue, and there's not much we can do about the receiver thickness, maybe for a perfectionist, he can find out about the thickness measurement before buying a receiver to ensure there's no undue protrusion, I'm not sure how practical it is ;)
That being the case, we tried to address an issue that bugged us, since we wanted to make the lever on the "weak side" as low profile as possible, a thin lever on the weak side sitting on the selector axis that sticks out more than it should, it partially defeats the lever's low profile.
We jokingly talked about making the selector axis differently to suit different receivers, I can't imagine the kind of logistic nightmare that would create :D
We jokingly talked about making the selector axis differently to suit different receivers, I can't imagine the kind of logistic nightmare that would create :D
Don't make me come over there...:D
As a lefty, I ordered 3 sets. A big thank you to Duffy for some excellent customer service. I had some email conversation about getting all 3 sets configured differently from the options currently provided.
He was very helpful,prompt, and accommodating on my request.
I have 3 rifles I use for duty/SWAT. I will keep one with the ambi selector that is currently on it, while I run the other two through some training days. But I'm confident that all 3 will end up with these new ambi selectors.
Aw shucks :D
Glad to be of service :)
Powered by vBulletin® Version 4.2.5 Copyright © 2024 vBulletin Solutions, Inc. All rights reserved.