Page 44 of 78 FirstFirst ... 34424344454654 ... LastLast
Results 431 to 440 of 776

Thread: Magpul M-LOK

  1. #431
    Join Date
    Apr 2014
    Location
    SE Texas
    Posts
    488
    Feedback Score
    22 (100%)
    It seems to me that M-LOK went from unveiling to multiple options shipping, a lot faster than keymod did in it's first 6 months.

  2. #432
    Join Date
    Nov 2009
    Location
    Norway
    Posts
    1,476
    Feedback Score
    0
    Is anyone making an M-Lok rail for use with MR223/HK416 and MR308/HK417?
    It's not about surviving, it's about winning!

  3. #433
    Join Date
    Jan 2010
    Location
    Poland
    Posts
    1,688
    Feedback Score
    0
    Quote Originally Posted by Arctic1 View Post
    Is anyone making an M-Lok rail for use with MR223/HK416 and MR308/HK417?
    So far now, but if you can get hands on M-Lok interface blueprints you can convert OFM rails into M-Lok by milling down rail and milling slots in flats that will be left in place of rails. At least this is what I want to do with my 11" HK rail.
    Montrala

    I'm sponsored competition shooter representing Heckler&Koch, Kahles, Hornady and Typhoon Defence brands in Poland, so I can be biased

    http://montrala.blogspot.com

  4. #434
    Join Date
    Sep 2014
    Posts
    85
    Feedback Score
    0
    I'm still to be convinced that either system is that much better than the other, and would temper my enthusiasm that MLOK is the KM killer people claim it to be--when it's just an alternative negative space mounting system... that and I only mount accessories to the top rail and find VFG/AFG to be useless.
    In the future, PMAGs will be the currency standard.

  5. #435
    Join Date
    Jan 2011
    Location
    South Texas
    Posts
    2,740
    Feedback Score
    52 (98%)
    That was the whole reason for the movement to slick tubes a few years ago.

    Then the accessorizers showed up and had to find a way to attach junk to a thing that was designed for no junk.

    I still see absolutely no advantage to KM or MLOK vs 1913, but I'm obviously missing something.

  6. #436
    Join Date
    Mar 2008
    Posts
    130
    Feedback Score
    0
    Quote Originally Posted by samuse View Post
    That was the whole reason for the movement to slick tubes a few years ago.

    Then the accessorizers showed up and had to find a way to attach junk to a thing that was designed for no junk.

    I still see absolutely no advantage to KM or MLOK vs 1913, but I'm obviously missing something.
    It is simple. Cost, Weight and Usability. 1913 Rails are complex to machine, uncomfortable to hold onto without additional covers and add weight to the front of the rifle.

    A rifle with three accessories that direct attach in to negative space on the handguard will weight a lot less than the same three accessories bolted onto the same rifle with a quad rail.

  7. #437
    Join Date
    Jun 2006
    Posts
    4,229
    Feedback Score
    21 (100%)
    I eventually plan to retro fit some uppers with this one day. Makes sense in the weight and bulk department. I wonder when folks will make direct attach front sights? (meaning no rail section)
    GET IN YOUR BUBBLE!

  8. #438
    Join Date
    Sep 2014
    Posts
    85
    Feedback Score
    0
    Quote Originally Posted by RichFitz View Post
    It is simple. Cost, Weight and Usability. 1913 Rails are complex to machine, uncomfortable to hold onto without additional covers and add weight to the front of the rifle.

    A rifle with three accessories that direct attach in to negative space on the handguard will weight a lot less than the same three accessories bolted onto the same rifle with a quad rail.
    I understand the benefit of negative rails--I just don't see why MLOK is so different from Keymod. I've been using MI Keymods, and about the only time I mount anything to them is a bipod when sandbags aren't convenient.

    I love the idea of negative spaces--but is it really that revolutionary to mount a bipod, light, low profile foregrip using MLOK over KM? Magpul already had a precursor to MLOK with their MOE mounts which no one was enthusiastic about until they decided to introduce it as an industry standard to anyone who wants to offer it.

    The reduced vertical profile means you can make a lower profile rail, if you want to make an "octagonal" rail that has diagonal mounts, those are smaller and take up less space than a keymod hole--barely.

    I've been following this off and on on various forums that have for some reason written off KM--and I think that part of it may simply be an aesthetic issue.

    In the future, PMAGs will be the currency standard.

  9. #439
    Join Date
    Mar 2008
    Posts
    130
    Feedback Score
    0
    Quote Originally Posted by 10mmSpringfield View Post
    I understand the benefit of negative rails--I just don't see why MLOK is so different from Keymod. I've been using MI Keymods, and about the only time I mount anything to them is a bipod when sandbags aren't convenient.

    I love the idea of negative spaces--but is it really that revolutionary to mount a bipod, light, low profile foregrip using MLOK over KM? Magpul already had a precursor to MLOK with their MOE mounts which no one was enthusiastic about until they decided to introduce it as an industry standard to anyone who wants to offer it.

    The reduced vertical profile means you can make a lower profile rail, if you want to make an "octagonal" rail that has diagonal mounts, those are smaller and take up less space than a keymod hole--barely.

    I've been following this off and on on various forums that have for some reason written off KM--and I think that part of it may simply be an aesthetic issue.

    The MOE slot system introduced in 2007 was a propriety system the we never released the TDP on. Even then the MOE user base is over ten times larger than the current keymod user base. Despite a TDP not being released, several companies emerged (Like IWC) to build accessories for the system. Some freefloat rails were made with the MOE slots but adoption would always be limited as MOE accessories were never designed to be direct attach with no access to the rear surface (hard to do on a freefloat rail).

    For the MOE handguard application, Keymod is inherently unsuitable for polymer or carbon fiber mounting surfaces due to it's conical engagement surface. M-LOK was created to provide an updated direct attachment system to replace the MOE system and provide the full TDP at no cost to all manufactures to use to build other items for the system.

    Here is the some of the ways the M-LOK system was designed to be a better all round system than Keymod...

    M-LOK works over a wider material thickness range than Keymod.
    M-LOK uses a flat nut that is suitable for polymer, metal and carbon fiber mounting surfaces.
    M-LOK is a true direct attach system so a line of accessories mounted next to each other do not need to be slid off to remove just one piece.
    M-LOK has better recoil/impact support than Keymod.
    M-LOK uses a larger bolt and has greater direct surface contact than Keymod resulting is greater pull out strength (a single MLOK mount exceeds 300 lbs in all materials)
    M-LOK accessories are multi directional (can be mounted forward or backwards).
    M-LOK has a uniform internal edge that can be generously chamfered allowing a better feel on the hand than Keymods 45 degree under cuts.
    M-LOK can use any of the millions of MOE accessories already fielded via an adapter plate.
    M-LOK slots are much lower cost to manufacture than Keymod resulting in lower cost to consumers.
    M-LOK nuts are much lower cost to manufacture than Keymod resulting in lower cost to consumers.
    M-LOK bolts are commonly available (user replaceable) and allow more torque to be applied than Keymod.
    M-LOK slots requires no special CNC cutters or complex injection molds to manufacture an undercut like Keymod resulting in lower cost to consumers.
    M-LOK has greater documentation surrounding manufacturing than Keymod allowing for greater compatibility between different manufactures and different M-LOK products.
    Last edited by RichFitz; 10-17-14 at 17:29. Reason: spelling and grammer

  10. #440
    Join Date
    Jan 2011
    Location
    South Texas
    Posts
    2,740
    Feedback Score
    52 (98%)
    I do think the MLOK is a result of superior engineering and issuing a TDP the way they did was really a huge way to reach out and touch the industry.

    Magpul earned a LOT of respect from me with that and I'm sure I'm not the only one.

    I would take MLOK over KM just because it looks better.

Page 44 of 78 FirstFirst ... 34424344454654 ... LastLast

Bookmarks

Posting Permissions

  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts
  •