Page 11 of 17 FirstFirst ... 910111213 ... LastLast
Results 101 to 110 of 166

Thread: Accu-Wedge

  1. #101
    Join Date
    Feb 2011
    Location
    Central Texas
    Posts
    300
    Feedback Score
    0
    on the plus side, now I don't have to haul an accuwedge back to the states.

  2. #102
    Join Date
    Oct 2007
    Posts
    2,303
    Feedback Score
    14 (100%)
    They aren't needed however I don't care for some of the slop I have experienced with some AR's over the years. I don't use the accu wedge since I don't like how it fits near the FCG and makes take down harder. I prefer to simply slide a small O Ring over the front take down lug which gets rid of the slop, stays away from my FCG, and doesn't make take down any harder......plus its cheaper. As expected there are no increases in accuracy or reliability, however there also aren't any decreases either so I see no prob using it to fix the slop if one is bothered by it.

    Sent from my DROIDX using Tapatalk 2
    Last edited by wahoo95; 05-18-12 at 06:53.

  3. #103
    Join Date
    Sep 2010
    Posts
    1,512
    Feedback Score
    0
    Quote Originally Posted by wahoo95 View Post
    They aren't needed however I don't care for some of the slop I have experienced with some AR's over the years. I don't use the accu wedge since I don't like how it fits near the FCG and makes take down harder. I prefer to simply slide a small O Ring over the front take down lug which gets rid of the slop, stays away from my FCG, and doesn't make take down any harder......plus its cheaper. As expected there are no increases in accuracy or reliability, however there also aren't any decreases either so I see no prob using it to fix the slop if one is bothered by it.

    Sent from my DROIDX using Tapatalk 2
    I've tried the O-ring thing multiple times and they always seem to break/get pinched n snap.

    It's funny that some top-tier manufacturer's are now starting to "address" u/l/ slop, while other top-tier's could give a crap.

    Noveske's are TIGHT. I've handled a lot of brand new KAC SR15's that are loose as a goose. It used to not bother me at all, but after you've had tight receivers, in multiple ARs, going to something something sloppy kinda grates on my OCD nerves - I kind of expect it now.

  4. #104
    Join Date
    Dec 2009
    Location
    Pittsburgh, PA
    Posts
    2,047
    Feedback Score
    17 (100%)
    Quote Originally Posted by Brahmzy View Post
    It's funny that some top-tier manufacturer's are now starting to "address" u/l/ slop, while other top-tier's could give a crap.


    Address or appeal to what people think they need? I think it is more of the latter. It is one more line item on a "features" list and it will not detract from the educated buyer who knows better.

  5. #105
    Join Date
    Sep 2010
    Posts
    1,512
    Feedback Score
    0
    Quote Originally Posted by orionz06 View Post
    Address or appeal to what people think they need? I think it is more of the latter. It is one more line item on a "features" list and it will not detract from the educated buyer who knows better.
    That's why I put quotes around address.

    The big military contract manu.'s could care less about the sloppy fit. (i.e. Colt & KAC) Their guns are going directly into combat and tight u/l fit is about 192 on ther priority list.

  6. #106
    Join Date
    Dec 2009
    Location
    Pittsburgh, PA
    Posts
    2,047
    Feedback Score
    17 (100%)
    I wasn't harping on you, just trying to be clear.

  7. #107
    Join Date
    Feb 2011
    Location
    Central Texas
    Posts
    300
    Feedback Score
    0
    Quote Originally Posted by Brahmzy View Post
    That's why I put quotes around address.

    The big military contract manu.'s could care less about the sloppy fit. (i.e. Colt & KAC) Their guns are going directly into combat and tight u/l fit is about 192 on ther priority list.
    Colt cares about sloppy fit. Please read above, there's a requirement for the M4 to have a certain tolerance for upper-to-lower fit.

  8. #108
    Join Date
    Sep 2010
    Posts
    1,512
    Feedback Score
    0
    Quote Originally Posted by TheBelly View Post
    Colt cares about sloppy fit. Please read above, there's a requirement for the M4 to have a certain tolerance for upper-to-lower fit.
    Ugh man. Of course there's a "tolerance" range Colt uses. It just isn't the same tolerance range other manufacturer's have, which was my original point. DPMS also has a tolerance range they use too. And Bushmaster. And Olympic Arms. And DoubleStar. Point is, they're all different.

  9. #109
    Join Date
    Feb 2011
    Location
    Central Texas
    Posts
    300
    Feedback Score
    0
    Quote Originally Posted by Brahmzy View Post
    Ugh man. Of course there's a "tolerance" range Colt uses. It just isn't the same tolerance range other manufacturer's have, which was my original point. DPMS also has a tolerance range they use too. And Bushmaster. And Olympic Arms. And DoubleStar. Point is, they're all different.
    But only ONE of them is REALLY for an M4.

  10. #110
    Join Date
    Aug 2010
    Posts
    11,706
    Feedback Score
    43 (100%)
    Quote Originally Posted by Brahmzy View Post
    I've tried the O-ring thing multiple times and they always seem to break/get pinched n snap.

    It's funny that some top-tier manufacturer's are now starting to "address" u/l/ slop, while other top-tier's could give a crap.

    Noveske's are TIGHT. I've handled a lot of brand new KAC SR15's that are loose as a goose. It used to not bother me at all, but after you've had tight receivers, in multiple ARs, going to something something sloppy kinda grates on my OCD nerves - I kind of expect it now.
    Noveske uses MUR uppers.
    Why do the loudest do the least?

Page 11 of 17 FirstFirst ... 910111213 ... 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
  •