Trijicon ACOG Quality?

[titsonritz]

As for FF handguards, MLOK has been tested and proven to be stronger than picatinny, they're also lighter.

They may be lighter but can't see them being stronger or as easy regarding attachment.

Picatinny handguards are dead.

Not in my gun safe. Plus I am thinking swapping out my MCMR-13 for a QRF-12.

In my book...Picatinny > MLok > KeyMod

[Hank6046]

In my book...Picatinny > MLok > KeyMod

Agreed, I don't have an issue mounting lights or for grips to keymod or Mlok but lasers, sights all go on the top picatinny rail

[Mysteryman]

They may be lighter but can't see them being stronger or as easy regarding attachment.



Not in my gun safe. Plus I am thinking swapping out my MCMR-13 for a QRF-12.

In my book...Picatinny > MLok > KeyMod

Not opinion. NSW Crane spent millions testing all three and MLOK actually broke the Picatinny mount it was bolted to.

https://soldiersystems.net/2017/05/0...at-nswc-crane/

[grizzman]

I don't think anyone who stated in this thread that they prefer Picatinny are referring to attaching Picatinny rail sections to M-LOK or KeyMod handguards.

Please provide the info in Crane's test that shows that handguards with M-LOK attachment is stronger than a Picatinny rail.

[titsonritz]

Not opinion. NSW Crane spent millions testing all three and MLOK actually broke the Picatinny mount it was bolted to.

https://soldiersystems.net/2017/05/0...at-nswc-crane/

That is a MLok vs. KeyMod test and has zero to with a Picatinny handguard.

[Mysteryman]

I don't think anyone who stated in this thread that they prefer Picatinny are referring to attaching Picatinny rail sections to M-LOK or KeyMod handguards.

Please provide the info in Crane's test that shows that handguards with M-LOK attachment is stronger than a Picatinny rail.

Look again, the page titled "failure load: Analysis" The pic rail segment is bent beyond use and the light mount failed where it attaches to picatinny. The light mount isn't a direct comparison, but it demonstrates that picatinny mounts are not the be all to end all. The bent picatinny section and the data associated clearly illustrate that the pic mount or the pic base failed, whereas the Mlok mount used to attach said pic section to the handguard did not. It's a simple data set to follow.

[1168]

Yet, almost every rifle in the US DoD has picatinny. And the DoD continues to buy them.

[556Cliff]

Look again, the page titled "failure load: Analysis" The pic rail segment is bent beyond use and the light mount failed where it attaches to picatinny. The light mount isn't a direct comparison, but it demonstrates that picatinny mounts are not the be all to end all. The bent picatinny section and the data associated clearly illustrate that the pic mount or the pic base failed, whereas the Mlok mount used to attach said pic section to the handguard did not. It's a simple data set to follow.

A thin pic rail/MLOK attachment piece is not the same as an integrally machined part of a quad rail handguard. All that shows is the failure of an MLOK bolt on accessory attachment piece. The literal weak link in the system is that in between accessory attachment piece. You don't want to bolt on an accessory to a bolt on attachment piece. It just goes against all common sense and gives you more failure points.

Warping like that would not have occurred with a solid machined part of a quad rail handguard.

[Mysteryman]

Yet, almost every rifle in the US DoD has picatinny. And the DoD continues to buy them.

No sh*t. The DOD is heavily invested in pic handguards and accessories. The cost to change over would be staggering. I have no doubt they will transition to Mlok as new procurements are filled.

A thin pic rail/MLOK attachment piece is not the same as an integrally machined part of a quad rail handguard. All that shows is the failure of an MLOK bolt on accessory attachment piece. The literal weak link in the system is that in between accessory attachment piece. You don't want to bolt on an accessory to a bolt on attachment piece. It just goes against all common sense and gives you more failure points.

Warping like that would not have occurred with a solid machined part of a quad rail handguard.

I understand that. Here's the important part. The Mlok mount did NOT fail. The picatinny rail failed. In the other example the light mount itself failed at the picatinny claw. An integral pic rail does not have the potential failure points that a bolt on pic piece does, this is true. The testing showed for Mlok that such a fear is unfounded as the Mlok mount isn't what fails.

Honestly I want my lights/lasers etc to break before the handguard does. Much sooner replace a mount than replace a handguard. I'm all for pic rail sections on Mlok. Mount what you want where you want without the extra weight and bulk of a full pic handguard. You also get 6-8 surfaces to select from vs 4. Most don't use the rails anyway, they end up covered in rail panels that add more cost and weight and increase the diameter of the handguard.

[556Cliff]

I understand that. Here's the important part. The Mlok mount did NOT fail. The picatinny rail failed. In the other example the light mount itself failed at the picatinny claw. An integral pic rail does not have the potential failure points that a bolt on pic piece does, this is true. The testing showed for Mlok that such a fear is unfounded as the Mlok mount isn't what fails.

Honestly I want my lights/lasers etc to break before the handguard does. Much sooner replace a mount than replace a handguard. I'm all for pic rail sections on Mlok. Mount what you want where you want without the extra weight and bulk of a full pic handguard. You also get 6-8 surfaces to select from vs 4. Most don't use the rails anyway, they end up covered in rail panels that add more cost and weight and increase the diameter of the handguard.

I agree that when *properly* (key word) installed the MLOK attachment design/method is plenty strong enough, but it's very open to installation error. Picatinny quad rail handguards are dummy/grunt proof in that department, which makes them the obvious best option for military use.