Page 16 of 17 FirstFirst ... 614151617 LastLast
Results 151 to 160 of 166

Thread: Accu-Wedge

  1. #151
    Join Date
    Aug 2010
    Posts
    11,706
    Feedback Score
    43 (100%)
    I think we are discussing apples and oranges. My point was that for the Canadian military to put accuwedges in their C7A1s is a complete waste of money and time, and that doesn't justify Jim Bob putting it in his AR15.

    Mark and Dano, thanks for chiming in with long range precision requirements. I'm sure once you start pushing sub MOA groups for distances beyond common ranges the lower/upper fit may matter, but after seeing a wobbly Mk12 put round after round of Mk262 in a 2.5" group at 300 yards with a Hawaiian full value tradewind I could no longer justify recommending the accuwedge to anyone (because most anyone asking about it is shooting dirt clods at 100 yards or less).
    Last edited by Eurodriver; 12-30-14 at 16:50.
    Why do the loudest do the least?

  2. #152
    Join Date
    Feb 2013
    Posts
    5
    Feedback Score
    0
    I doubt it makes much difference if it is in or not. And the Canadian military does some strange things once in a while.

    When I get some optics on it and can get to a range to shoot I will see if there is any difference with it in our out. I really don't think there will be, as it does not make sense.

  3. #153
    Join Date
    Apr 2007
    Location
    FL
    Posts
    9,246
    Feedback Score
    28 (100%)
    There is a difference in upper/lower fit and smooshing a piece of rubber between the rear lug and lower.
    I agree that a more solid connection of the upper and lower (especially in 7.62 and such) results in more consistent/lessened movement between the upper, lower, and shooter while the projectile is still in the bore.
    The issue with tightening the fit by compressing a bit of rubber is that the fit is false. The force of recoil will shift the poorly fitting upper against the takedown pin and pivot pin almost as much as if the bumper was not there to start with, though the full degree of movement is slowed down. Go to a more tightly interfaced pin/lug junction and the space simply isn't there to permit movement, which results in better precision, most readily seen with better consistency throughout the ranges of positions.
    It is a fairly well known phenomena that shooting a 7.62 AR well is not as easy as a bolt gun, even if the barrel is of equal quality. Part of this is the upper to lower movement while the projectile is contained in the bore. Applying different pressure to the gun, and to different parts will result in different groups, group patterns, and group shift. This can, and should, be tracked by any shooter that is serious about performing at a higher level.
    Another issue is that the upward angle of the bolt carrier in relation to the receiver extension/buffer in a sloppy upper to lower fit can cause erratic, accelerated, and unusual wear due to exacerbation of tolerance stack.
    I prefer a solid upper to lower fit over a loose fit, but a loose fit over an upward pressure tensioning device.
    If the fit is enough to cause me concern I prefer to simply replace worn takedown and pivot pins, use NM pins, and/or replace the upper receiver to get a snug fitting unit.
    Jack Leuba
    Director, Military and Government Sales
    Knight's Armament Company
    jleuba@knightarmco.com

  4. #154
    Join Date
    Oct 2009
    Location
    Canada
    Posts
    72
    Feedback Score
    0
    I think we are all in agreement then:

    Tight upper to lower fit: can help with accuracy.

    Achieving it with a bit of rubber: not so much.

    Regards.

    Mark

  5. #155
    Join Date
    Feb 2015
    Posts
    4
    Feedback Score
    0
    This thread amazes me, and it tells me a lot about the posters here. Seems everyone has an opinion...like something else...but nobody seems to have any data. The question was about accuracy, not some perceived lack of reliability, breaking, or going to battle. Wow people! Everyone is too lazy to run the tests...yet not too lazy to post thousands of time on the internet.

    There are reasons why people glass bed the tang area of lever guns...to get a tight fit to the stock so there is no wiggle (sounds like what the wedge would help with), this will make the rifle more accurate (one less shot to shot variable which affects accuracy). Similar reasons for bedding an action to a stock...so the pressures on the action are always the same, shot to shot (sounds familiar again, like what the wedge tries to correct).

    So bash away, about something you know nothing about (cuz you haven't run the test), you're just showing your ignorance. Anyone with any target experience, or experience with quality rifles, would tell you that reducing (or eliminating) rattle/wobble/looseness from ANY rifle has got to improve accuracy. Common sense just doesn't seem that common round here.

  6. #156
    Join Date
    Dec 2009
    Location
    Pittsburgh, PA
    Posts
    2,047
    Feedback Score
    17 (100%)
    Quote Originally Posted by youngda9 View Post
    This thread amazes me, and it tells me a lot about the posters here. Seems everyone has an opinion...like something else...but nobody seems to have any data. The question was about accuracy, not some perceived lack of reliability, breaking, or going to battle. Wow people! Everyone is too lazy to run the tests...yet not too lazy to post thousands of time on the internet.

    There are reasons why people glass bed the tang area of lever guns...to get a tight fit to the stock so there is no wiggle (sounds like what the wedge would help with), this will make the rifle more accurate (one less shot to shot variable which affects accuracy). Similar reasons for bedding an action to a stock...so the pressures on the action are always the same, shot to shot (sounds familiar again, like what the wedge tries to correct).

    So bash away, about something you know nothing about (cuz you haven't run the test), you're just showing your ignorance. Anyone with any target experience, or experience with quality rifles, would tell you that reducing (or eliminating) rattle/wobble/looseness from ANY rifle has got to improve accuracy. Common sense just doesn't seem that common round here.
    Have any data to support this?

    I know what they do for my guns.

  7. #157
    Join Date
    Feb 2015
    Posts
    4
    Feedback Score
    0
    Quote Originally Posted by orionz06 View Post
    Have any data to support this?

    I know what they do for my guns.
    Read what I posted again...especially the middle paragraph. If you read slow enough you'll realize that these lessons, backed up by data, have been learned over the years. Check out what the bench rest crowd is doing, for starters.

    I'm willing to drop the $5 and run a test prior to forming a well informed opinion. But not going to bash something without data...that would be stupid.
    Last edited by youngda9; 03-05-15 at 20:09.

  8. #158
    Join Date
    Sep 2011
    Location
    NJ
    Posts
    128
    Feedback Score
    2 (100%)
    I have no beef in this as I do not own any accu-wedge products but honestly what is the tone for? You can just state that you have an opposing opinion and site reasons/your experiences and how it perhaps improved your rifle. No need to get nasty. Nobody personally attacked you so please do not do so to others. It is alright to disagree and debate in a civilized manner.

  9. #159
    Join Date
    Dec 2009
    Location
    Pittsburgh, PA
    Posts
    2,047
    Feedback Score
    17 (100%)
    Quote Originally Posted by youngda9 View Post
    Read what I posted again...especially the middle paragraph. If you read slow enough you'll realize that these lessons, backed up by data, have been learned over the years. Check out what the bench rest crowd is doing, for starters.

    I'm willing to drop the $5 and run a test prior to forming a well informed opinion. But not going to bash something without data...that would be stupid.
    You mean that middle paragraph that discusses guns that work differently?



    Are you saying that folks here haven't used one prior to forming an opinion?

  10. #160
    Join Date
    Nov 2013
    Posts
    1,141
    Feedback Score
    18 (100%)
    Quote Originally Posted by youngda9 View Post
    But not going to bash something without data...that would be stupid.
    Clearly...
    Quote Originally Posted by youngda9 View Post
    it tells me a lot about the posters here...Everyone is too lazy to run the tests...yet not too lazy to post thousands of time on the internet...about something you know nothing about (cuz you haven't run the test), you're just showing your ignorance...Anyone with any target experience, or experience with quality rifles...Common sense just doesn't seem that common round here.
    So much data you must have on these posters.

    No need for the attitude.

Page 16 of 17 FirstFirst ... 614151617 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
  •