Expo Arms M4 RAS Carbine Quad rail

[Stickman]

This whole argument reminds me of when guys on the diesel forums would argue which motor oil is best.

Rotella, and you will burn in hell if you don't.


Back to the topic at hand, let us not forget that MLOK is cheaper to manufacture than a 1913 rail. I think my all time favorite non 1913 rail was the CMR from Centurion when it first came out (before MLOK). It was slick, had you can use screw holes to mount 1913 slots where needed. It looked pretty much like todays CMR aside from that.

If MLOK were so perfect, the rail tops would have MLOK slots instead of still using 1913.If you want return to zero, Picatinny is still the standard.


Speaking of Picatinny, if any of you were there last week for "the event", I hope we had a chance to talk. I would call it the best of its kind that I've been to. I have no doubt it is going to get a lot of use.

[Dutch110]

Rotella, and you will burn in hell if you don't.

DING "Amsoil" has entered the chat.

"Uh hey guys, I'm a distributor if you need cheap oil. Hit me up in the DMs"

For the record, Rotella.

[Vgex2]

Or, you know, buy a handguard that's got a large enough OD so that there's no interference... which you can do with M-LOK.

M-LOK allows you to **** up if you want. I'm okay with that for the rest of the advantages that M-LOK allows. You just need to do your own due diligence. I agree that 1913 is more foolproof, and easier to deal with. But it's typically heavier, more expensive, has more bulk, and can be more snaggy (unless you use covers, which once again adds to bulk). If you're fine with that, or don't find those issues to impact you, rock on with 1913. That doesn't mean that M-LOK is somehow a bad attachment method, or that 1913 is wildly superior.

It was a complete upper. It's not the end of the world. Just an annoyance that I can live with, and somewhat expected. Nothing to do with "due diligence", so you can save that. It is what it is.

[Disciple]

If MLOK were so perfect, the rail tops would have MLOK slots instead of still using 1913.

Midwest Combat Rail Lightweight has those, but keeps a section of 1913 for the front sight.

[Hammer_Man]

Can we get back to arguing over which lube is best??

[Dutch110]

Can we get back to arguing over which lube is best??

KY. So I've heard.

[markm]

Can we get back to arguing over which lube is best??

Froglube!!!

The price already went up, and it's back ordered. If I wasn't stocked up on Quad rails, I'd pick the B&T over this one.

[Stickman]

Full rail review is complete with a bunch of pics in my little slice of M4C...

https://www.m4carbine.net/showthread...17#post3114617

[ABNAK]

Not really. You still get a lighter, slimmer handguard with less rails to catch on things overall.

A BCM QRF is 2.12" in width, an MCMR is 1.5". I would gladly take the slightly more fiddly, one-time M-LOK install to have a much smaller OD, especially factoring in having to deal with lasers (having to wrap the hand all the way around to hit the fire button on the laser with the thumb really stretches the limits of my hands even on a WedgeLock, let alone around a quad rail).

Agreed regarding MLOK. Optics/NV should probably be pushed as far forward as possible in the groove (or just push it forward while tightening the screws even if it seems like there's no give). Thinking about it a VFG might need to be pushed to the rear of an MLOK slot, since recoil would be somewhat offset by your support hand's slight rearward pull while shooting. I also like the more slim feel---and actual dimensions!---of the MLOK. To each his own.

I must add that I do not mount anything on a handguard other than the slot fillers (like the Magpul MLOK single rail panels) and/or a VFG; that's all I put on a handguard, regardless of style. Always use a forward BUIS, as I like redundancy in sighting. Optics go on the upper receiver picatinny rail.