Page 1 of 4 123 ... LastLast
Results 1 to 10 of 37

Thread: Which handguards are suitable for active aiming with a laser?

  1. #1
    Join Date
    Jul 2010
    Posts
    9,529
    Feedback Score
    45 (100%)

    Which handguards are suitable for active aiming with a laser?

    A while back I was watching a bunch of videos on all things NV and one of the subjects was how setup a dedicated NV gun. One of the guys, not 100% sure but I think it Chuck Pressburg, made a comment to the effect that the majority of handguards were not rigid enough to trust while using a laser due to POA/POI shift. Basically that everything but a Geissele, with its long barrel nut and hell stout construction, was shit for this purpose. Now I get that a drop-in style like the old KAC RAS is probably not a very good option, but wonder how big of a deal is really with todays quality offering.

    So my question is Which handguards are suitably rigid enough for active aiming with a laser? It seems to me that a Wedgelock or URX4 would be just a rigid as a Geissele maybe more so. What about M-LOK vs Picatinny? Seems like Picatinny, with its increased mass would be stouter than an M-LOK, say a BCM MCMR13 vs a QRF12? Anyone have a lead on tests on this subject?
    Gettin' down innagrass.
    Let's Go Brandon!

  2. #2
    Join Date
    Oct 2006
    Location
    Midland, Georgia
    Posts
    2,058
    Feedback Score
    6 (100%)
    Geissele, White Oak, and Midwest Industries Nightfighter all have long barrel nuts for longer stability. A Picatinny truss-type profile helps a thinner-walled tube from bending slightly.

    Midwest Nightfighter:



    White Oak:


  3. #3
    Join Date
    May 2010
    Location
    Tucson, AZ
    Posts
    1,665
    Feedback Score
    0
    Quote Originally Posted by M4Guru View Post
    Some deflection testing has been done on a few popular hand guards for these purposes, and the Wedge Lock had the least deflection of the ones tested.
    Quote Originally Posted by texasjim View Post
    Hey guys...hope all is well with all of you. I want to address rail and barrel deflection. First off in my observations, rail and barrel deflection can come from various sources. What is deflection, to me it's when a constant load is being placed on the rail, and how much it moves under a load. Why is deflection important to you....to me, it's in the use of aiming devices such as lasers etc. What causes deflection....here is where it gets sketchy....so your results may vary.

    Type of fitment of rail onto barrel nut.
    Type of barrel nut and how long, and how much bearing surface it has to the rail.
    Upper receiver, how tight the barrel extension goes into the upper, concentricy of face of upper, threads, torque value, heat, demential mass in the upper, etc...can be variables.
    Type of fitment between the lower and upper.

    Basically if one were to test the "flexibility" in a rail not attached to a barrel/upper, you would not likely see much flexibility to make any real difference.

    If you see barrel deflection under a rail load, it's the upper flexing via the threads the nut is attached to.

    You have to ask yourself, what is important to you in the way you use your carbine, and how much difference does it really make? Not everyone runs lasers, not everyone loads a bipod, and will a sling and or a barricade effect you enough in a dynamic environment.

    I have tested mine, as well as others, we did great, but yet there are others out there who did great as well.

    There is no standardized testing that I know about... so yet another variable ��

    DD, Geissele, KAC... I've used them all, and all with good results.

    Cheers, Jim Hodge
    Allegedly, P-LOKs and S-Locks have even less deflection than the WedgeLock and its variants (e.g., Zev, Mega, TRIARC, SoLGW). Same with the SoLGW DriveLock, though it is my understanding that this was developed in concert with Hodge.

    The problem with quad rail handguards that I can think of is that I can't think of many off the top of my head that has the long barrel nut to help with deflection issues. While the handguard itself may flex less due to the additional material, if it's deflecting due to the barrel nut being short, it makes it a moot point. Same thing with something like the classic Centurion Arms CMRs with no cooling slots; a very stout tube, but with a barrel nut that small, I'd be concerned about deflection happening at the interface.
    Plus ça change, plus c'est la même chose.

    老僧三十年前未參禪時、見山是山、見水是水、及至後夾親見知識、有箇入處、見山不是山、見水不是水、而今得箇體歇處、依然見山秪是山、見水秪是水。

    https://www.instagram.com/defaultmp3/

  4. #4
    Join Date
    Sep 2007
    Posts
    47
    Feedback Score
    2 (100%)
    Interesting - do you have anything to reference on that? I thought Wedge was king hence Jim’s selection thereof.

  5. #5
    Join Date
    May 2010
    Location
    Tucson, AZ
    Posts
    1,665
    Feedback Score
    0
    Quote Originally Posted by dont_tread_on_me View Post
    Interesting - do you have anything to reference on that? I thought Wedge was king hence Jim’s selection thereof.
    You'd have to go searching for it, but essentially, the P-LOK, S-Lock, and DriveLock all have more mass than the WedgeLock to help with rigidity of the handguard itself. Jim Hodge chose the WedgeLock because that's what he designed back then. He then designed the P-LOK as a cheaper, easier to manufacture, and larger overall tube (due to the fact that a skinny handguard simply heats up too fast under sustained fire). He then designed the S-Lock to split the difference in size between the WedgeLock and P-LOK. As for the DriveLock, I haven't really kept up, but it sounds like it was again something that Hodge himself had a big hand in creating; SoLGW specifically claims that the DriveLock has more rigidity than the WedgeLock, which they also sell.

    That being said, I'm perfectly happy with my WedgeLocks (a Hodge 10.5" and Mega 9"), and have no plans to move away from them, and probably would still prefer them over the newer handguards just because I still want the skinniest handguards, since I have tiny baby hands that can't hold a Whopper, and the WedgeLock is very much more than rigid enough for me and my uses, as I don't use barricade stops or VFGs, and my WML is on the wrong side to be used as an improvised barricade stop when shooting off the strong side, and thus I don't leverage the **** out the gun against barricades using the handguard (as I am also weak and scrawny, and thus can't just manhandle the gun that way like some folks can, even when using the sling to bear down).
    Last edited by Defaultmp3; 03-28-22 at 10:09.
    Plus ça change, plus c'est la même chose.

    老僧三十年前未參禪時、見山是山、見水是水、及至後夾親見知識、有箇入處、見山不是山、見水不是水、而今得箇體歇處、依然見山秪是山、見水秪是水。

    https://www.instagram.com/defaultmp3/

  6. #6
    Join Date
    Sep 2012
    Posts
    779
    Feedback Score
    2 (100%)
    How far do you think you will be engaging a target with an IR aiming laser under NOD's with both positive ID and a high probability of a first round hit? I have little experience shooting any sort of distance under NOD's but I can't imagine making reliable hits with positive ID beyond 150 metres. I wouldn't think the possibility for minute handguard deflection will make a significant difference. Laser aiming isn't precision work to begin with.

  7. #7
    Join Date
    Aug 2017
    Location
    Lowcountry, SC.
    Posts
    6,171
    Feedback Score
    30 (100%)
    KAC URX4 has a rather long (integrated) barrel nut. Its definitely GTG. Larue and DD quads are GTG, as is the Centurion C4 quad. I’d imagine their MLok rails are, also. Larue’s MLok is about as thicc as KAC’s, and DD sells a MLok “XL” model that is also thicc.

    Long barrel nuts aren’t the only way to make a solid rail, just the method that G chose.
    RLTW

    Former Action Guy
    Disclosure: I am affiliated PRN with a tactical training center, but I speak only for myself. I have no idea what we sell, other than CLP and training. I receive no income from sale of hard goods.

  8. #8
    Join Date
    Oct 2006
    Location
    Midland, Georgia
    Posts
    2,058
    Feedback Score
    6 (100%)
    Rigidity starts at the limited fixed length front-end upper receiver extension threads. Most solutions are variations on how to connect an extruded rail or tube.

    A monolithic upper like LMT / Aero is one solution, but can add weight and complexity.

  9. #9
    Join Date
    May 2010
    Location
    Tucson, AZ
    Posts
    1,665
    Feedback Score
    0
    Quote Originally Posted by Mysteryman View Post
    How far do you think you will be engaging a target with an IR aiming laser under NOD's with both positive ID and a high probability of a first round hit? I have little experience shooting any sort of distance under NOD's but I can't imagine making reliable hits with positive ID beyond 150 metres. I wouldn't think the possibility for minute handguard deflection will make a significant difference. Laser aiming isn't precision work to begin with.
    Well, folks like Pressburg have shown that when they bear down on the gun, they can cause 6 to 8 MOA of deflection. Pressburg has also hypothesized that handguard flex is part of what's driving some folks that he knows and respects that do significant amount of work under NODs to move their MFALs back to as close to the receiver as possible, despite the many downsides of doing so. There is also the fact that some modern guns still have significant handguard flex issues, such as the MCX, particularly the newer Virtus models, enough that folks have to come up with mounts specific for a laser to tie it to the receiver instead of the handguard:


    Not 100% sure of why GBRS created the mount they did, but it's been hypothesized that this would not only allow a better weight distribution and grip (one of the original reasons folks mounted their lasers to the rear near the receiver for more daytime oriented units), but also to completely circumvent the handguard flex issue (which was also a reason folks back in the day would mount near the receiver, even when NODs oriented, when there wasn't really many choices for low flex handguards):


    As for the URX4, I need to do my own testing, but a friend of mine has consistently shown POA/POI shifts when loading his LPR on a bipod. Makes me a bit leery of it, perhaps the IBN has some kind of interfacing with barrel that causes this? Dunno. It certainly briefs well, but given that I just haven't heard much about the URX4 in terms of real-world testesd deflection (or lack thereof) besides my friend's example gives me slight pause for straight recommending it like I would for a Hodge handguard for MFAL mounting, though let's be clear, that's a damn long handguard on the LPR, and one can generate huge forces when loading a bipod, so it might just be the nature of the beast, and the URX4 might have performed better than the vast majority of handguards under the same condition.
    Last edited by Defaultmp3; 03-28-22 at 10:14.
    Plus ça change, plus c'est la même chose.

    老僧三十年前未參禪時、見山是山、見水是水、及至後夾親見知識、有箇入處、見山不是山、見水不是水、而今得箇體歇處、依然見山秪是山、見水秪是水。

    https://www.instagram.com/defaultmp3/

  10. #10
    Join Date
    Sep 2007
    Location
    AZ
    Posts
    32,830
    Feedback Score
    14 (100%)
    I'd be leaning towards Geissele just based on the rails I've used/installed. I'd still prefer a more forward mounted laser and just be mindful not to bear down on the gun if I had to take a longer shot.
    "What would a $2,000 Geissele Super Duty do that a $500 PSA door buster on Black Friday couldn't do?" - Stopsign32v

Page 1 of 4 123 ... 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
  •