I've been looking at the TWS rail for a while now. I've almost bought one several times. I like that it puts the optic as low as possible and retains zero. However, a lot of the AK gurus are still leaning towards the side mount rails and ones like the Krebs model that goes over the top of the receiver and I haven't seen any definite reason for this. What am I missing? I'm not really experienced with AK's, so it makes me wonder if they see something I don't. To me, the TWS system seems like the best way to go. Is it the "Only communists know how to design AK's!" mentality or is there something else?



Edit: For the record, I did search for TWS over the past 2 weeks with no results.

might as well throw this one in the mix

http://www.parabellumarmament.com/pasite/akarshome.htm

I bought one a few weeks ago and installed on my Bulgy 74. excellent workmanship. Works well, locks up tight, but raises the cheek weld by 1 inch (using a PWS M3 clone w/ low mount)or about 3/4 inch over that of an open sight. YMMV though. Some Com block side rails raise the cheek weld even more.I have some difficulty checking repeatability of  zero because barrel is not free-floated (if I push down hard on the stock to get a tight cheek weld, it shifts the zero) Shot about 200 rounds w/ no sign of wear on the mount.
It does require some minor gunsmithing/mechanical skills.
Areas that require work:
1. recoil spring assembly: button and forward part of guide rod. I had most trouble w/ this part because of the spring tension The button needs to be filed/sanded to fit the rear trunion
2. replacing leaf spring on rear sight. Some people leave this out but I would not recommend it because of the slight amount of slop. Need to use a clamp to place under the the front trunion and the forward part of TWS rail to line up the holes to insert pin.
3. front sight pin hole needs to be smoothed (channel is rough).

Other than that it is a well made product. It is more difficult to put on than a side-rail but allows you to mount a pic-rail compatible optics eg scope and this is more flexible than a side rail or a forward mounting rail, which is also front heavy. I like to keep the optics close to my eye.
I prefer this to a forward mounting rail such as ultimak or MI  where you have to clamp the rail on the barrel. I suspect, but cannot prove,  that doing so  (clamping the barrel) can affect the barrel harmonics and grouping.

Check under AK optics subforum for more info. There is a big thread on the TWS.

I just looked at the AKARS. In comparing w/ the TWS, it has an integral rear sight but appears to have only one model and may not fit the Yugo. Also the TWS rail's total length can be adjusted to fit  minor variance in dimensions and unless I am mistaken the AKRAS rail length is non-adjustable. As such the AKRAS may not fit all models of AK

ive seen a few people say the ultimak increased accuracy..

I just ordered the Parabellum mount, but haven't had a chance to use it.  I did a ton of research and found out that the AKARS parabellum is actualyl a floating design.  The website doesn't explain this, but I think it's a big deal.  It's very similar to the AK mini dot from MI, except it's "tethered" at the back to prevent it from flipping up.  The back of the rail simply floats in the mount on the dust cover.  

IMO, it is a hybrid of the MI mini dot and the TWS dogleg.  It is NOT a copy of the TWS dogleg by any stretch of the imagination.  It's a brilliant idea, it's a shame that the manufacturer doesn't think this is important enough to advertise on the website.  

Our favorite Sponsor AIM has them with free shipping, of course.  

I also like it because I don't have to use a different recoil rod/spring.

cool to bad I can't hear what they are saying stupid youtube...

I understand that firearm products tend to be evolutionary and derivative and built on prior work––  but that looks like a direct rip-off of the TWS part.

ETA –– after reading further, maybe not.  If they are different, they  need to assert that fact so they don't lose sales, because they certainly look similar.

Waste of money and a cheap knockoff of TWS. Does not hold zero!!!

I don't understand how you think it's the same as the TWS.  The TWS has the rail machined into the dust cover.  The AKARS has it free floating slightly above the dust cover.

It's really not.  Same concept, but they use totally different methods to make it return to zero after disassembly.

That doesn't make any sense.  The videos show it open and close like the TWS or even a krink top cover.  The rail has to be attached to the top cover somehow.

I guess I should have rephrased my thread title. What I'm looking for is whether there is any reason a side mount would be preferable to something like the TWS? I will go ahead and say that I'm not a fan of the side mounts, partially because of the height, added width, and the way it looks. The aesthetics are not that big of a deal if there is something that makes them better.

I'll have to disagree. I think MI new side mount looks fantastic and "pop" its off my rifle and on to another as needed. I hate the look of the "razor back" AK Dust-Covers.



This also does not apparet to be any higher than the dust-cover variants.

It is higher than the TWS. High enough to prevent cowitness with a T-1, no idea.

It's definitely higher, and no way will a T-1 cowitness on it.

I am anxiously awaiting RS Regulate to come out with their AKS mount.

Wpns Man

That AKARS AIM is selling looks pretty slick.

This is Andrew from Parabellum Armament Co., one of the soldiers/designers of AKARS [AK- Adaptive Rail System] .  Mark Vorobiev had called me and told me about this tread and asked me to post up for questions. Thanks for throwing us into the mix!!!

BTW:  I would like to add Krebs Custom in the mix! [/span][/span] After all... he is the granddaddy of AK Rails!  I really dig that 6.5 Grendel!!!

As a soldier, I will maintain my military barring on this one...  As the President of the company you just insulted & one of the designers of AKARS, I will also attempt to keep this professional.  

It is with that being said, you basically just called: David Fortier, Mark Vorobiev, multiple long time industry inventor geniuses (behind a lot of the products you are probably already rocking as your setup), a half dozen SF soldiers, a few PMC (former JSOC personnel), and 5 soldiers who started the project during an OIF tour back in late 08/early09 to assist us in a mission...  "knock off artists".  If I may, I would like to elaborate on the primary differences between the two products and/or what AKARS is... as opposed to what it is not!

WHAT IS THE DIFFERENCE?:
Our first generation looked a lot like the Dog Leg system does now.  In that, the rail was pertinently affixed to the top covers.  As we did many tests, such as using a laser bore sight down the barrel and another laser on the rail to check if a top cover was even paralleled/ had the same degree angles as the barrel.  That procedure was conducted on many variants and all yielding similar results.  The findings were that the top cover actually has a downward cant, ranging from .5 - 1.5 degrees. This means that if we were to attach the rail to the top cover and have it used how Mr. K intended it to be... you would be in the dirt every time past 150M.  Our conclusion was that for that reason alone we shouldn't fix a rail to the top cover. One of the biggest differences in designs, despite the obvious ones...  is the way it mounts.  

If you notice, the TWS only attaches inside of the rear sight block, where Parabellum's has always had three prong fingers to provide stability to the rail...  much like how a door hing works (as this is what I was looking at during the brain storming session).  You might have also noticed that the TWS is two separate parts, that connects much like a joint in front.  Our rail was one billeted aluminum piece. Thus our design does not force user to depend upon that screw (or its threading) to keep it together through these vibrations (for long term use).  Also, we use an actual STEEL top cover and not an aluminum one, which don't kid yourself...  your bolt carrier will eventually grind that.  Though ours is more labor intensive due to all the angle cuts on a CNC machine & we are using more expensive materials (Steel top cover) and yet with customers in mind... ours COSTS LESS!!!  So, perhaps you can help me understand how they are the same?

ANYWAYS:
It was later into our GEN2 that someone would introduce the Parabellum Crew/Soldiers to Mr. Vorobiev, as a former Spetnaz and professional gun writer, who offered to help.  Now, school was in session!  That man is a wealth of knowledge and had really set us in the right direction! He personally contributed to different aspects of what is now AKARS.  In addition, he would solidify and validate the reasons why the Motherland never put the rail on top and went with the side mount design.  One of the primary reasons was for the simple physics of vibrations not playing very nice with attempts to keep a maintained zero!  Then, because Marco saw that we actually cared about this AKARS idea (as opposed to making money), he introduced us to David Fortier.  

Yet again, Parabellum would find themselves in the School of Guns, this time however, with Professor Fortier.  He had very similar thoughts, but from western mindset. In fact, the implantation a back up sight into the rail was Mr. Fortier's idea.  The culmination of the Eastern & Western philosophies conjoining was what set Parabellum in motion to design this rail system right. A free floating/non self sustaining rail system.  One that must be adaptive too not only "fit" every variant (minus the yugo), but tightly fit each individual rifle (as they all vary about .00249).  That way the vibrations from the action would not directly transfer to the rail and then to the sight.  In addition, in the spirit of Russian philosophy, the rail would be able to remain fluid through the transfer of energy of the powerful 7.62x39 and all while maintain its ability to be self sustaining.

Over a 3 1/2 year time period, this little rail project would go through many hands, each adding something that created value to what you see now in our 5th and final Generation of AKARS.  Parabellum has been vary blessed to be taken in under the wing so so many from this industry.  People who helped Parabellum and/or AKARS along the way are not only stand up individuals, but masters of their craft. Such as: Troy Storch (Midwest Industries), Marc Krebs (Krebs Custom), David Fortier (review & writer), Mark Vorobiev (review & writer), and many more.  

Feel free to check us out at ParabellumArmament.com, or come hang out with us and talk guns at:  www.facebook.com/parabellumarms

That video was from Gen1 of AKARS...    We haven't made a video for anything newer, b/c most of my staff was recently to an OEF mission.  The loss of staff, has cause us (Parabellum) to re-prioritize...  basically catching up on the outstanding orders not filled b/c of the K-Var situation.  They never fulfilled our order of Top Covers.  We still only have received 130 out of 500 from that order we placed back in July.  We/Parabellum had to shift fire to secure a new Top Cover supplier...   after turning over a few rocks and coming up with nothing, we made the decision to design and build our own die.  That way we could be solid with the quality and accuracy, making sure the design would give us top covers that yield a .0005 tolerance between the .00293 difference between ALL variants of AKs [minus the Yugo].  

Point being that it's an old, old video and we just haven't had time enough to really promote ourselves or anything, ya know?  I am sorry about that though for the confusion on that.  Thanks for bringing that to my attention.  It is a good point and I probably should get that updated... to better represent ourselves.  Thank you sir.

BTW: I was going to add a solid works model diagram of the parts...  but I can't figure out how to put a picture on here.  If my jpeg doesn't show up, will some one give me the run down on how to do that?

Edge- OUT

Aw SNAP!!!!

I told you guys.  

1 OTW from AIM!!!!!

Cool, thanks for clearing that up.  The video definitely wasn't showing what was being described, so I was a little confused.  Looking forward to seeing the latest version as I'm interested in something like this and hate how the TWS has their name gigantically engraved on the side of it.

To post the picture, go to http://imageshack.us/ and upload it there.  When it is done uploading, the site will give you the code to post it on forums.  Just copy and paste that code into a post here and the pic will show up.

This is Edge from Parabellum Armament Co...  the guys who do the AKARS.  To be honest with you it has a lot to do with preference.  Obviously I encourage you to check our mount out, but I will say that MI does a side mount.  I know Troy Storch (owner) personally and how he runs his machine shop.  The guy is SERIOUS about his quality and makes great product.  His side mount is phenomenal and he has managed to keep the profile low!  

To answer you question fully, there are two basic trains of thought.  Eastern & Western.  The arguments for the side mount (Eastern) is that there is less moving parts and it attached at one fixed point.  The rail that the side mount slides onto follows the track of the bolt carrier....  Thus it zeros on the principle that it is aligned with the bolt/barrel. It is free floating from the top cover which illuminates any vibration interference. The top mount style... like TWS or Parabellum's comes from a war fighter/ tactical perspective.  Also, to follow the tactical perspective...  there is more rail for advanced combat optics (i.e. eoTech w/magnifier, nightvision, etc.).  I hope that helps!  If you want..  I would be happy to elaborate and I promise to be as unbiased as possible! -lol

http://img833.imageshack.us/img833/5719/akarsmk3exploded.png
By parabellum_innovations at 2011-12-01

If you want a low mount, go with the TWS gen2 or Ultimak. Side mount? RS Regulate, Midwest Industries or a mod'd BP-02. What optics are you planning to mount on your AK?

tws only adds an ounce; side rail a lot more weight.  My tws is solid

Having used the TWS for a little over 3K rounds now I have to disagree. I also will disagree with the notion that the vibrations will knock off zero or the aluminum makes it less strong. Mine is tight & has continued to be tight & holds my Eotech's zero. The TWS rail is also molded into the top cover, & not a separate rail attached to the top cover. Makes the mount lower, & less complex as there are no pins other then the hinge pin.

However it's nice to have options. I may try the rail in the future.

Can you explain how the rail is attached to the top cover?  And is the top cover included with the mount or are you expected to use your own (and drill holes in it)?  I think alot of the hesitation on our part has to do with the fact that it utilizes a standard AK top cover and recoil button, whereas the TWS GenII has a specially designed top cover and recoil button to match.  We're all familiar with those cheap, $20 UTG top cover mounts and want to steer clear of those.

What points on the rifle regulate the rail's zero?  For example, does the rear sight hinge stop the side-to-side movement and the dust cover stops the up-and-down movement?

Fair enough...  It might have just been a select few who experienced that bolt carrier rubbing.  As I didn't take the time to put 3k rounds through it myself, I suppose it was unfair to go off of what a few customers had expressed. Looking back, I didn't do a phenomenal job explaining the science and/or clearly different methods of thoughts behind the different designs attempting to solve the same problem.  In addition, the whole dissertation was to more or less to combat the extremeness and unwarranted comment that Parabellum's design was "a cheep knockoff of the TWS" and not designed to be a cheep shot at TWS, nor their design.  Honestly, I don't have any ill feelings directed at TWS and honestly don't really care to get into a propaganda war, as I would prefer that AKARS speak for itself. That being said, my honest to God unbiased opinion is that, even if I had nothing to do with Parabellum. I would still say that the design is superior.

Working backwards in your comments, I agree completely with you sir.  It is nice to have opinions and I assure you that I respect yours just as anyone else on this thread (minus the "AKARS is a cheep TWS knockoff" comment).  I sincerely appreciate someone who is willing to have a respectful intellectual debate, thus I tip my hat and hope that my comments do not give you the wrong impression of what we are all about and/or offend.  That being said, I do have some minor disagreements on the matter.

First, I still stand behind the advantage of not having a permanently fixed rail to the top cover and despite my in ability to properly express... it is for the same reason that the Russian's never design or added a rail to the top cover over the entire life span of the AK as a service rifle.  There is quite a bit of logic behind it and my comments were very, very vaguely summing up the many years of research that the Russians have done.

In regards to the structural integrity difference between metals; a decent grade steel, as opposed to aircraft grade such as 60/61-ALU or 70/75-ALU, is a whole different conversation. In attempts to shorten my point...  barrels are made from steel and not aluminum for a reason.  It is the same reason that a gas-driven piston in a car engine is steel. It is because steel has the ability to withstand the heat and friction. Our actual rail is aircraft grade ALU, but the actual rail doesn't deal with the same forces being applied, nor the same strenuous activity.  We just take a different stance on what the material of a top cover should be made from, but I appreciate what you are saying.  

In regards to the comment of TWS being lower and being less complex...  that is just not the case.  Though there may not be guide rods/"pins" as you stated, it is a two part rail.  The two parts are connecting that elbow by two screws, in which the connector piece being what connects only to the inside of the rear sight block...and with all do respect, still doesn't sit well with me. Thus the reason, we made ours one longer piece and fixing to the rear sight block on not only the inside, but bracing the outsides as well. I would also like to point out that your Dog Leg system requires a replacement of the OEM mainspring.  Which is done to accommodate the angled extrusion on another replacement part; cam action release button.  The train of thought being that the newly angled cut applies pressure against the spot where it interfaces with the dust cover rail to provide a point of stability for the systems ability to maintain a zero & generally as you had stated to give it tighter fit... as a tighter fit, keeps the rail frame stable from the "vibrations".  If you don't prefer vibrations, then it is replaced to make it tighter to counter the violently powerful action of the AK.  Regardless, my primary point is that I will have to disagree again on the Dog Leg being less complex, when it requires you to replace more original parts with it's replacement parts having to work around the original design and/or intended functions of those parts. Whereas, AKARS was specifically designed to not replace the OEM design, but rather enhance what is already there.

The Dog Leg has two principle points of contact to acquire the zero: (1) being where the pins attach the Dog Leg to the rear sight block, (2) being the interface between the replacement cam release button and angled cut of the aluminum top cover.  AKARS design has three points of contact and was intentionally done, as the basic principles of geometry state that the triangle being the most stable.  AKARS principle points of contact to ensure a true zero are: (1) like the dogleg, fixing the rail system to the rear sight block, (2) the OEM original design of latching the button through the original top cover, (3) in the front where the top cover normally slides into the grooved slot designed for the top cover... in the rear sight block.  Essentially the rail acts as an additional brace to how the top cover was intended to be used.  The Dog Leg top cover alters the original design to make it close like a Krink, thus loosing the third point of contact.

Again, regardless in our opinions I appreciate the conversation and respect your opinion.  In addition, I am happy that your happy with you're rail choice!  At the end of the day...  we did what we did to support our mission for OEF/OIF.  We keep improving it for our brothers in arms who follow.  Ironically, about half of the guys who make up Parabellum Armament Co. are back at it.  This time they are Afghanistan, but this time around my infantry brothers have a new tool to their arsenal... AKARS-GenV.  They were so pumped when they picked up the September 20th addition of Shotgun News that featured AKARS, by David Fortier.  They said they cleaned out the FOB's PX in theater.  Regardless of whatever the OP chooses, or anyone chooses to mount their scope with for that matter...  HAPPY SHOOTING.

Sir,
In the post that proceeds this one, I tried to explain the way it retains its zero.  I believe it is the second to last paragraph, however if that doesn't cover your question...  I would be honored to field your question.  Give us a call at 614.593.2525 and I would be honored to field your question in a more detailed explanation.

Andrew Edge
President/CEO
Parabellum Armament Co.

Sir,
Does the comment I Posted: Today 1:33:11 AM EST  help at all?  The top cover is included and pre-assembled with the rear mount already on it. It comes in the box with two basic parts: (1) Rail (2) top cover with assembled mount. Obviously the retaining pin and set screw is included and comes in the appropriate slots that they go into. I know what you mean about the UTG top cover mount and couldn't agree more.  If you are interested, I would be honored to give a more detailed explination if you want.  Give us a call and I will give you the run down!

V/R,
Andrew Edge
President/CEO
Parabellum Armament Co.
614.593.2525

If you really want to get a good look at the AKARS, the best pictures of AKARS are on AIM Surplus Inc.'s web sight. Under new products.

I'm very happy with my TWS.  Of course I won't be jumping out of any helicopters soon so YMMV.  

Looks like an interesting product.

Haha.. right on!  

Thanks, that explained it pretty well.

Do you take out the rear sight leaf spring when you install the mount?

The Parabellum guys should have just posted the series of pictures that are on the Aim Website.  The system is similar to the TWS, but when you look at the pics you can see that there are big differences in how it locks up.

I'll be getting one of these in January after the holidays are over (if they are available yet), and I'll try to post a review.

UrunUdie_Tired,

First off I too am a soldier, so don't throw the soldier card out cuz we both know alone it means jack. Being a soldier doesn't mean you know how to design weapons or their accessories. Being a gun writer means about as much. SF/Spetsnaz or not...

Beyond that let me explain my comments...

After seeing a write up in Shotgun News about the AKARS a good friend of mine purchased one. At the time I was intrigued by it but since I already had a TWS mounted I wasn't willing to spend the money so I encouraged him to as a means of seeing what it was and if it was worth it. Installing the piece was easy enuff and it seemed sturdy. We proceeded to zero his aimpoint and after putting about a spam can worth of ammo through it we then rechecked zero and found it didn't hold zero. It wasn't off alot maybe 1/2 to 1 inch at 25 meters but still.

Perhaps he got a bad piece, perhaps you have since corrected the zero issues, I don't know... What I do know is that it did not hold zero.

Bottom line is that TWS and Krebs have time and good reviews behind their top rail products... Until you can say the same I have only my own experience to go by.

(edited for my own mistake)

When you're talking about a 3-6moa rifle, I really don't think half inch to an inch at 100m is really enough to say it didn't hold zero.  The mechanical accuracy of the rifle or inconsistencies in the ammo could have easily caused that.  Even a tiny amount of wind would have done that.

I mis-typed... I meant 25 meters not 100. Mistake of habit. But normally I'd agree... However when you are zeroing on a bench rest at 25meters with Hornady and your entire group shifts an inch that's different. We practice with surplus, we zero with quality.

Ok, 25 vs 100 is a whole different ballgame.

what was the hold zero test? just opening and closing the cover? dropping the rifle/banging it around?

disregard  

Would like to know this as well. Can't say im surprised considering the unit isn't really secured at the rear of the dustcover.

To be honest, it would be a lot easier if you just check out the photo album "AKARS" from our facebook page.  There are solid works models showing how the rail system interacts with the parts.  I really think this would clear up a lot. Let me know if that helps.
AKARS photo album

I just got mine yesterday and I have to say I'm quite impressed with it.  It doesn't see to weigh much more than a leave sight and dust cover and seems solidly built.  

I have a question about the bracket on the dust covers.  Are you supposed to fit it to the rifle and then tighten down the flat head cap screws so It's custom fitted to the top?

Thanks,
Andy

BTW - NOTHING at all like the TWS mount.

Roger that.  The first time you slide the top cover mount into place, the screws should be loose.  Slide the mount against the rail so that the guide rods are not showing.  When the mount is snug against the rail, tighten down the screws and you are good to go.  If you decide to put AKARS on a different rifle, simply loosen the screws again so that it can be refitted for the new rifle.  The beauty of the top cover mount's guide rods are that they slide into the guide rod.  Meaning that even if you didn't tighten down, the rails stability is unaffected as the rods are still in the rail preventing the side to side movement.  Also, if you notice the front of the rail there are two round tabs protruding upward.  This is a safety stop, so that you can flip the rail up with your mounted optics without risking banging the optics. Hope this has been helpful!

Thanks for your impute sir and don't hesitate to ask me or the guys anything.
Edge-out.

Hope that helps and thank you for

It wasn't a scientific test... To be honest we weren't setting out to test zero. What happened is after the first day we went home and cleaned our rifles and when we came back out the following week Jay's initial 30 rounds were all shifted to the left. It was only after we noticed this that we checked zero and found he was off. Now to be honest I wasn't there when Jay cleaned the rifle so I don't know what happened for sure between when we left the range and when we returned the following week, but Jay says he never removed the top cover or did anything that should have messed his zero up.

Like I said, I only have my experience to go on...

Im about to pull the trigger on one of these with a T1/larue 661 short mount. Any thoughts on this setup? I have a Arsenal sa-m7s

Wow !!  Just found this thread.  This is way cool.  Can I play too?

Seeing as how my design is a frequent point of reference and comparison here maybe I can put my 2 cents in. Too many points to list right now though as it's way passed sack time for me. I'll try and respond to the individual points tomorrow afternoon.

Mr. Andrew Edge, while our engineering philosophy differs, I do like what your doing and how you respond to a direct challenge by the TWS tribe. These good folks have a big investment in time and participation in helping to bring the best quality products to market and are thusly quite proud. You have a well spoken manner that is not always displayed on forums, even by industry professionals. We should meet for a drink at SHOT this year. Anyhow, it seems you're fairly familiar with our product but, I don't know much about yours. Only what I've read on the web.  Can I get one of those for a look see? I'd be happy to send you one of ours in exchange.

Lastly, let's not forget the OP.  Yes, side mounts are going the way of the dodo to use your words. While it is possible to design a very high quality side mount the fundamental drawbacks are still there. If you really like the look of the side mounts for the sake of tradition then by all means, have at it. However, even the Russians went in the direction of the top cover rail on their AK100 series. It's reported that Izhmash filed for bankruptcy in 2009 so that may have stalled their development. Who knows? Not me. Do a search and you'll find lots of pictures.

Best regards,

Nelson