Page 3 of 3 FirstFirst 123
Results 21 to 25 of 25

Thread: Manufacturere read this, take my idea, and make product

  1. #21
    Join Date
    Jun 2008
    Location
    Seattle-ish, WA
    Posts
    118
    Feedback Score
    3 (100%)
    Quote Originally Posted by threeheadeddog View Post

    If it did happen that instead of a X300/front post combo it was simply a light-mount/front sight combo like mattj posted you could always have the light mount have a solid hole (as in no tightening screws or anything just rail lock, big hole and post on top) with the mounting tension devise seperate. Try to visualize a mount long enough to have 2 rings. One is just the sight with the tightening ring behind it so the sight doenst have a worry of loostening. One could also use a collet type tightening devise.

    Just food for thought.
    threeheadeddog: That's a really good thought about not using the front sight itself to hold the light -- I think the winner is to make the rail mounted FSP not a light mount at all, but just a FSP that has a donut hole in it, the height and size/shape of the hole designed such that all or part of "most" lights will be able to pass through the hole. That way, it could be just as "solid" as any other rail mounted FSP, and it would allow you to use a standard (or integrated into the light) light mount and either mount the light:

    a) behind the "donut fsp" so that the front of the light is inside of or passes through the "fsp donut".

    -or-

    b) in front of the "donut fsp" so that the rear of the light (and presumably the rear tail switch/button) sticks out the back of the FSP giving the user access to it.


    I suppose there's no reason that there couldn't also be a integral to the gas block version of the same concept for those who want/need the durability of having the FSP integral to the gas block.

  2. #22
    Join Date
    May 2008
    Location
    Humboldt County, CA
    Posts
    2,057
    Feedback Score
    0
    Quote Originally Posted by mattj View Post
    I think the winner is to make the rail mounted FSP not a light mount at all, but just a FSP that has a donut hole in it, the height and size/shape of the hole designed such that all or part of "most" lights will be able to pass through the hole.
    +1

    Make the whole 1", since that seems to be the "standard" size of the barrels of weapon lights...

    Bimmer

  3. #23
    Join Date
    Aug 2008
    Posts
    533
    Feedback Score
    0
    mattj
    We are thinking very similar. Your last post is a great idea. Especially for those wanting to use standard lights for this.

    I actually came to this thread again to post another idea very similar to yours that hit me today. For specifically the x300 you could make a front sight post with the donut hole that had a shelf just behind the post with 6 pre-cut holes corresponding to the threaded holes on the underside of the x300 to low mount the x300. Looking at robs' pics of the x300 and trl-1 on his websight it would probably be no higher than a standard trl-1 and if the x300 was designed to slip through donut then be screwed on it would be no longer than just using a x300 by itself.

  4. #24
    Join Date
    Aug 2008
    Posts
    533
    Feedback Score
    0
    Oh btw I thing I forgot to say that my ideal SBR size would be using a 11.5 inch barrel, which is why I am so worried about overall rail space.

  5. #25
    Join Date
    Jun 2008
    Location
    Seattle-ish, WA
    Posts
    118
    Feedback Score
    3 (100%)
    Quote Originally Posted by threeheadeddog View Post
    mattj
    We are thinking very similar. Your last post is a great idea. Especially for those wanting to use standard lights for this.

    I actually came to this thread again to post another idea very similar to yours that hit me today. For specifically the x300 you could make a front sight post with the donut hole that had a shelf just behind the post with 6 pre-cut holes corresponding to the threaded holes on the underside of the x300 to low mount the x300. Looking at robs' pics of the x300 and trl-1 on his websight it would probably be no higher than a standard trl-1 and if the x300 was designed to slip through donut then be screwed on it would be no longer than just using a x300 by itself.
    I'm totally following -- I think that would be really slick. Now we just need somebody to hurry up and make both versions! I wish I had a 3d printer and some CAD skills to rapid prototype them just to play with.

Page 3 of 3 FirstFirst 123

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
  •