Page 1 of 2 12 LastLast
Results 1 to 10 of 17

Thread: Clamping force on various rails

  1. #1
    Join Date
    Mar 2018
    Posts
    47
    Feedback Score
    0

    Clamping force on various rails

    Thoughts on this?

    29791147_1675590969143504_273683107171794944_n.jpg

    Sorry for the Ipod pictures, but I think the visuals tell the story. I own and use both types, so not trying to advocate either way, it just seems intuitive that clamping on the bottom would try to "open the box" at the top. . .

    I sit here, and wonder about these things

    28535371_1641700989199169_1293076133_n.jpg
    Last edited by Grendelsnap; 04-05-18 at 17:56.

  2. #2
    Join Date
    Jun 2006
    Location
    CONUS
    Posts
    4,205
    Feedback Score
    6 (100%)
    It's correct - hard to argue with that. What's your question?

  3. #3
    Join Date
    Mar 2018
    Posts
    47
    Feedback Score
    0
    I guess I wonder why manufacturers seem to gravitate toward clamping on the bottom? Is there a reason we as consumers might not be aware of?

  4. #4
    Join Date
    Dec 2007
    Posts
    2,420
    Feedback Score
    125 (100%)
    IMHO, with hand guards like Geiselle and many others that have a very snug and tight slip fit on their barrel nuts, rail distortion is an absolute non issue when tightening the handguard retaining bolts. IMHO, the design of the hanguard ( its wall thickness in the barrel nut area and barrel nut length) contribute greatly to the handguards rigidity. I am sure USASOC would not have picked the Geiselle MK 16 handguard for their URG-I uppers if they thought its clamping or attachment method had issues or was not rigorously tested.
    Last edited by Biggy; 04-06-18 at 03:15.

  5. #5
    Join Date
    Mar 2018
    Posts
    47
    Feedback Score
    0
    Copy that, thank you for the reply.

  6. #6
    Join Date
    Oct 2012
    Posts
    4,653
    Feedback Score
    11 (92%)
    Quote Originally Posted by Biggy View Post
    IMHO, with hand guards like Geiselle and many others that have a very snug and tight slip fit on their barrel nuts, rail distortion is an absolute non issue when tightening the handguard retaining bolts. IMHO, the design of the hanguard ( its wall thickness in the barrel nut area and barrel nut length) contribute greatly to the handguards rigidity. I am sure USASOC would not have picked the Geiselle MK 16 handguard for their URG-I uppers if they thought its clamping or attachment method had issues or was not rigorously tested.
    All rails that clamp on the bottom are not created equally.. There aren't many that compare to the MK 16. Most are not even close.

  7. #7
    Join Date
    Dec 2007
    Posts
    2,420
    Feedback Score
    125 (100%)
    Quote Originally Posted by GH41 View Post
    All rails that clamp on the bottom are not created equally.. There aren't many that compare to the MK 16. Most are not even close.
    I agree, that’s why I did not say all bottom clamp rails were equal. I prefer handguards that have longer barrel nuts and have more material around the barrel nut area, and ideally *may * need to be thermally fit like the Hodge/ Mega wedge lock and the Geiselle’s. There are some other ones out there that seem to use a similar barrel nut clamp up method like the Geiselle’s. Even though they are not my go to handguards, I am pretty sure companies like Centurion Arms and Sionic Weapon Systems to name a few would not be using handguards with bottom bolt barrel nut clamping methods if they felt they were not up to the task at hand.
    Last edited by Biggy; 04-06-18 at 11:32.

  8. #8
    Join Date
    Jun 2006
    Location
    CONUS
    Posts
    4,205
    Feedback Score
    6 (100%)
    Quote Originally Posted by Biggy View Post
    IMHO, with hand guards like Geiselle and many others that have a very snug and tight slip fit on their barrel nuts, rail distortion is an absolute non issue when tightening the handguard retaining bolts. IMHO, the design of the hanguard ( its wall thickness in the barrel nut area and barrel nut length) contribute greatly to the handguards rigidity.
    Yup; whether it's an issue or not will depend on the design of the handguard in that area and amount of material needed to make it a non-issue. However, if you just look at the two designs, all else being equal, the top clamp would probably be the lighter of the two as it may not require as much beefing up in that area.

  9. #9
    Join Date
    Dec 2007
    Posts
    2,420
    Feedback Score
    125 (100%)
    Quote Originally Posted by militarymoron View Post
    Yup; whether it's an issue or not will depend on the design of the handguard in that area and amount of material needed to make it a non-issue. However, if you just look at the two designs, all else being equal, the top clamp would probably be the lighter of the two as it may not require as much beefing up in that area.
    Exactly, if we are only talking a few ounces in handguard weight or barrel weight for that matter, I personally prefer durability, that *may* be something *slightly* heavier, over something a few ounces lighter, but *may* be less durable. Rail distortion caused by its clamping method can be easily checked with your rifle secured in a vice and using a magnetic base indicator coming off the verticle area or wall below the Picatinny rail above the barrel nut.
    Last edited by Biggy; 04-06-18 at 13:01.

  10. #10
    Join Date
    Nov 2017
    Posts
    28
    Feedback Score
    0
    I think most of the modern, anorexic rails will fail elsewhere before they open up around the barrel nut.

Page 1 of 2 12 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
  •