User Panel
User Panel
User Panel
OK, USA
|
Posted: 10/1/2017 9:10:35 AM EDT
[#1]
Quote HistoryOriginally Posted By coctailer:
I think the $899 price is the tax-out PD pricing. Did you find them for that for everybody? If you want one, I’d call to order and see what they say. |
|
|
|
Posted: 10/1/2017 9:24:14 AM EDT
[#2]
Quote HistoryOriginally Posted By Firecop203:
When I bought my ARX last year, the price was $1025.00 OTD. When I got it, the box said “LE Only”. The CS rep I spoke to on the phone made no mention at all about it being an LE only rifle or if I was current or former LE. The subject never came up. I said “I want one”, they said “I need a card number and a receiving dealer in your state”. That was it. If you want one, I’d call to order and see what they say. |
|
|
|
ROM
|
Posted: 10/1/2017 11:54:29 AM EDT
[#3]
Has the plastic rail flex issue been fixed?
|
|
|
|
Posted: 10/1/2017 12:43:42 PM EDT
[#4]
Quote HistoryOriginally Posted By fadedsun:
Has the plastic rail flex issue been fixed? |
|
|
|
|
Posted: 10/1/2017 1:16:01 PM EDT
[#5]
Quote HistoryOriginally Posted By vellnueve:
There never was a flex issue Quote HistoryOriginally Posted By vellnueve:
Originally Posted By fadedsun:
Has the plastic rail flex issue been fixed? 
|
|
|
|
|
Posted: 10/1/2017 1:17:53 PM EDT
[#6]
Quote HistoryOriginally Posted By vellnueve:
There never was a flex issue |
|
|
|
WA, USA
|
Posted: 10/1/2017 1:36:47 PM EDT
[Last Edit: 556Cliff]
[#7]
Quote HistoryOriginally Posted By vellnueve:
There never was a flex issue Quote HistoryOriginally Posted By vellnueve:
Originally Posted By fadedsun:
Has the plastic rail flex issue been fixed? |
|
|
USA
|
Posted: 10/1/2017 5:45:24 PM EDT
[#8]
Quote HistoryOriginally Posted By fivepointoh:
Then why all the documented videos and an optional roll pin from Beretta? Quote HistoryOriginally Posted By fivepointoh:
Originally Posted By vellnueve:
Originally Posted By fadedsun:
Has the plastic rail flex issue been fixed? |
|
|
|
Posted: 10/1/2017 6:13:22 PM EDT
[#9]
Quote HistoryOriginally Posted By Conqueror:
Because Larry Vickers made a big deal about it and people went apeshit, so Beretta felt obligated to offer something. It's true that the rail flexes less with the pin, but doesn't appear to matter for accuracy. |
|
|
|
WA, USA
|
Posted: 10/1/2017 6:56:23 PM EDT
[Last Edit: 556Cliff]
[#10]
Quote HistoryOriginally Posted By fivepointoh:
So does the rail flex or not, or was the person I quoted just meaning it doesn't affect accuracy. We may be discussing two different things here and I apologize for that. Adding the roll pin was a "band aid fix" and is not actually part of the design. |
|
|
USA
|
Posted: 10/1/2017 7:52:03 PM EDT
[#11]
Quote HistoryOriginally Posted By 556Cliff:
Correct. Also, none of the rails on the ARX are plastic except for the bottom rail. Quote HistoryOriginally Posted By 556Cliff:
Originally Posted By vellnueve:
Originally Posted By fadedsun:
Has the plastic rail flex issue been fixed? |
|
|
|
Posted: 10/1/2017 8:24:34 PM EDT
[#12]
Quote HistoryOriginally Posted By fivepointoh:
So does the rail flex or not, or was the person I quoted just meaning it doesn't affect accuracy. We may be discussing two different things here and I apologize for that. |
|
|
|
USA
|
Posted: 10/1/2017 8:41:56 PM EDT
[#13]
Quote HistoryOriginally Posted By Master_Blaster:
The 3/6/9 position rails are plastic. |
|
|
|
Posted: 10/1/2017 8:51:56 PM EDT
[#14]
Quote HistoryOriginally Posted By Master_Blaster:
The 3/6/9 position rails are plastic. Quote HistoryOriginally Posted By Master_Blaster:
Originally Posted By 556Cliff:
Originally Posted By vellnueve:
Originally Posted By fadedsun:
Has the plastic rail flex issue been fixed? |
|
|
|
|
Posted: 10/1/2017 9:06:21 PM EDT
[#15]
Quote HistoryOriginally Posted By Frost7:
Mine are all metal except the 6 o'clock rail. |
|
|
|
USA
|
Posted: 10/1/2017 9:57:40 PM EDT
[#16]
Quote HistoryOriginally Posted By sgwlower:
Same here. Quote HistoryOriginally Posted By sgwlower:
Originally Posted By Frost7:
Mine are all metal except the 6 o'clock rail. |
|
|
|
Posted: 10/1/2017 10:02:41 PM EDT
[#17]
Quote HistoryOriginally Posted By vellnueve:
There never was a flex issue Quote HistoryOriginally Posted By vellnueve:
Originally Posted By fadedsun:
Has the plastic rail flex issue been fixed? |
|
|
|
OH, USA
|
Posted: 10/2/2017 10:49:04 PM EDT
[#18]
yup, all metal except the bottom that is cover by the hand-guard sleeve.
Quote HistoryOriginally Posted By Master_Blaster:
Well, f me, I'm wrong. |
|
|
USA
|
Posted: 10/3/2017 7:32:22 AM EDT
[#19]
Anyone put a low mount ACOG TA44 on their ARX100?
With Trijicon having a $150 rebate on ACOGs this month, I may buy one instead of a T2. Already mounted some Troy Micro BUIS, and wondering how the ACOG would work with them, and which mount to use. |
|
|
USA
|
Posted: 10/3/2017 8:36:19 AM EDT
[#20]
Quote HistoryOriginally Posted By KnightofTheOldeCode:
yup, all metal except the bottom that is cover by the hand-guard sleeve. |
|
|
|
Posted: 10/3/2017 6:27:45 PM EDT
[Last Edit: Frost7]
[#21]
Quote HistoryOriginally Posted By Conqueror:
I'm still salty at Beretta for that. They built all-new injection molding gear for US production, retooled the US rifle to use AR-style controls, but left this goofy T-rail that is of literally no use to civilians and only accepts like two Beretta-produced accessories. Retarded. It should have been a full-length picatinny rail with a redesigned hand guard sleeve. Quote HistoryOriginally Posted By Conqueror:
Originally Posted By KnightofTheOldeCode:
yup, all metal except the bottom that is cover by the hand-guard sleeve. |
|
|
|
USA
|
Posted: 10/3/2017 7:38:30 PM EDT
[#22]
Yeah, but they'd have had to retool the GLX for US sales anyway, and plenty of grenade launchers fit a pic rail.
|
|
|
|
Posted: 10/3/2017 9:31:15 PM EDT
[#23]
Quote HistoryOriginally Posted By Conqueror:
Yeah, but they'd have had to retool the GLX for US sales anyway, and plenty of grenade launchers fit a pic rail. |
|
|
|
|
Posted: 10/3/2017 10:03:46 PM EDT
[#24]
Quote HistoryOriginally Posted By Conqueror:
Yeah, but they'd have had to retool the GLX for US sales anyway, and plenty of grenade launchers fit a pic rail. No way a 203 is going on that rail. DD rails can barely tolerate the weight. |
|
|
|
USA
|
Posted: 10/4/2017 12:37:56 AM EDT
[#25]
Quote HistoryOriginally Posted By vellnueve:
When you say plenty you mean two, right? No way a 203 is going on that rail. DD rails can barely tolerate the weight. Quote HistoryOriginally Posted By vellnueve:
Originally Posted By Conqueror:
Yeah, but they'd have had to retool the GLX for US sales anyway, and plenty of grenade launchers fit a pic rail. No way a 203 is going on that rail. DD rails can barely tolerate the weight. |
|
|
|
Posted: 10/4/2017 3:46:45 AM EDT
[#26]
lol, after I made my post and review of the MAS7/T-MAS7 sight set, Fusion has since sold out of them for the first time I've seen. Must have more folks watching this thread than it would appear.
I should e-mail them and ask for my cut. 
|
|
|
|
USA
|
Posted: 10/4/2017 1:34:31 PM EDT
[#27]
Quote HistoryOriginally Posted By Master_Blaster:
Redesigning the lower rail would've been a major undertaking, & besides, the pic rail adapter was developed for the -160 anyway. The strength modulus of the plastic material necessitated the lower rail being designed as it is; the picatinny config in plastic couldn't handle the GLX recoil. Not even. |
|
|
|
Posted: 10/4/2017 3:03:55 PM EDT
[#28]
I think people miss the point that the ARX is not an attempt to take the US rifle market by storm. Hell, it seems to be simply a "me too" product that Beretta could introduce based on their service rifle. It's pretty obvious that Beretta doesn't have the inclination to introduce a lot of accessories or support for this rifle. They seem to have done the bare minimum in order to import it. It's almost like their attitude is if they can get some sales, good- if not, oh well. Their marketing for the ARX is almost nil. Has anyone even seen an advertisement for it?
Not too long ago I watched a sales presentation on the ARX by a Beretta rep (it's what got me interested in the rifle). He could talk all day long about pistols and shotguns, but didn't know anything about the ARX except the features and the take down. Barring any change from Italy, the ARX is going to remain a niche rifle. |
|
|
|
|
Posted: 10/4/2017 3:14:56 PM EDT
[Last Edit: Frost7]
[#29]
Quote HistoryOriginally Posted By glklvr:
I think people miss the point that the ARX is not an attempt to take the US rifle market by storm. Hell, it seems to be simply a "me too" product that Beretta could introduce based on their service rifle. It's pretty obvious that Beretta doesn't have the inclination to introduce a lot of accessories or support for this rifle. They seem to have done the bare minimum in order to import it. It's almost like their attitude is if they can get some sales, good- if not, oh well. Their marketing for the ARX is almost nil. Has anyone even seen an advertisement for it? Some of the seeming disinterest may also be just they still don't have the new plant at 100%. Parts for a lot of Beretta and Benelli products have been drying up and taking forever to get replaced due to that, as well as things like the M9a1 going totally out of production temporarily. They also can't keep up with barrel production on the M9a3, so getting spare or replacement barrels is almost impossible right now. |
|
|
|
USA
|
Posted: 10/4/2017 6:43:43 PM EDT
[Last Edit: Master_Blaster]
[#30]
Quote HistoryOriginally Posted By Conqueror:
Since so many civilian users need a rail that can handle a grenade launcher? It would have been far better for 99.999% of their customers to change it to a pic rail. And it wouldn't have been nearly as big an undertaking as it was to redesign the FCG for the US market the way they did. Having to use the adapter just adds an extra part, an extra expense, and moves your accessories farther from the bore line. Quote HistoryOriginally Posted By Conqueror:
Originally Posted By Master_Blaster:
Redesigning the lower rail would've been a major undertaking, & besides, the pic rail adapter was developed for the -160 anyway. The strength modulus of the plastic material necessitated the lower rail being designed as it is; the picatinny config in plastic couldn't handle the GLX recoil. Not even. |
|
|
USA
|
Posted: 10/5/2017 8:22:08 AM EDT
[Last Edit: Conqueror]
[#31]
Quote HistoryOriginally Posted By Master_Blaster:
Redesigning the HG would've meant building an entirely new, very high precision mold - a high 5-figure cost (at a minimum) tool. |
|
|
|
Posted: 10/5/2017 10:21:38 AM EDT
[#32]
Their mistake was not including the rail as an accessory packaged with the rifle.
|
|
|
|
USA
|
Posted: 10/5/2017 8:37:43 PM EDT
[#33]
Quote HistoryOriginally Posted By Conqueror:
I know about injection molding, and I think you missed the fact that they were already doing all of that. They set up an entirely new injection molding line in the United States to make these, and they already revamped the injection mold for the lower because the US market wanted AR-style controls (look at the original Italian version's controls). This would not have significantly altered production costs because they were already shelling out for new molds, new machines, and new designs. Altering the T-rail to a full-length Picatinny would have been the easiest change of them all. Quote HistoryOriginally Posted By Conqueror:
Originally Posted By Master_Blaster:
Redesigning the HG would've meant building an entirely new, very high precision mold - a high 5-figure cost (at a minimum) tool. |
|
|
USA
|
Posted: 10/6/2017 8:19:40 AM EDT
[Last Edit: Conqueror]
[#34]
"A new scratch design"? That's complete rubbish. The rail is not a load-bearing structural component of the upper, changing it would amount to a cosmetic change and a couple hours of CAD time. Yes, it would require a new mold, but once again, Beretta was already buying new molds to set up a US production facility. If they made the change before buying those new molds, it would literally be a zero-net-cost alteration. They spent probably tens of millions of dollars developing the rifle in Italy and millions more bringing production here. Your argument that a new injection mold would represent an insurmountable expense just doesn't hold water. It has everything to do with corporate laziness. "It already has the T-rail, that's good enough."
|
|
|
USA
|
Posted: 10/7/2017 12:03:39 AM EDT
[#35]
Quote HistoryOriginally Posted By Conqueror:
"A new scratch design"? That's complete rubbish. The rail is not a load-bearing structural component of the upper, changing it would amount to a cosmetic change and a couple hours of CAD time. Yes, it would require a new mold, but once again, Beretta was already buying new molds to set up a US production facility. If they made the change before buying those new molds, it would literally be a zero-net-cost alteration. They spent probably tens of millions of dollars developing the rifle in Italy and millions more bringing production here. Your argument that a new injection mold would represent an insurmountable expense just doesn't hold water. It has everything to do with corporate laziness. "It already has the T-rail, that's good enough." The lower rail is designed to be load bearing, specifically for the GLX. Pic rails are also load bearing by design. The alteration would've been more than a cosmetic task, even if we rule a GL out of the list of the possible accessories. |
|
|
USA
|
Posted: 10/7/2017 9:32:04 AM EDT
[#36]
I meant load-bearing for the rifle. You could basically sand off the entire rail and the rifle would stay operational, there's nothing about the T-rail's presence that is critical to the rifle's functionality. They've already engineered how to mold a sturdy pic rail into the bottom of the upper, since that's already there. To do this, they would basically just delete the T-rail and copy/paste the existing 6 o'clock pic rail rearward until it hits the magwell/barrel release. That's why I've been so resistant to the idea that this would have really added any expense. The rail engineering is already done, they were buying new molds anyway, so the only expense left is an hour of some designer's CAD time to swap one rail for the other.
|
|
|
USA
|
Posted: 10/7/2017 5:17:05 PM EDT
[#37]
Perhaps Beretta brass perceived that the US market would want as close to an "as-issued" rifle as possible, even if they couldn't really use certain features like the proprietary rail. Let's be honest, this is a rare opportunity to get a modern foreign service rifle, comparable to the FAMAS or SA-80 rifles that came in 30 years ago. They may have felt that this, plus it's "space gun" looks would differentiate it in a very soft market awash with strong competitors. However I think it's clear that the US market is judging it on features vs its competition and not collector appeal.
With hindsight, it's easy to say that they made a mistake in not updating the sling attachments and lower rail. However, while these two features might have been economically correctible, some other things not so much. The forend design as a whole leaves something to be desired for a market where AR-type handling is expected. The AR is an extremely handy rifle, and the ARX frankly is not. The forend is too tall (partly due to the rail sleeve, but even without it) and it's even worse at the balance point just ahead of the magazine where the QD barrel mechanism is. And the side rails badly need a redesign to make them lower profile and/or removable. Another issue is that due to the location of the side rails and the geometry of the forend, some rock-on picatinny accessories will fit in one orientation but not the other. IMO, all of these things need to be addressed to make it really viable against the domestic competition, and now we're no longer talking about quick and easy changes. We'll see what they have when the plant re-opens. |
|
|
|
Posted: 10/7/2017 5:57:00 PM EDT
[Last Edit: Frost7]
[#38]
FWIW, the IWC Mount-n-Slot 45 degree offset picatinny QD mount fits with JUST enough clearance on the 3 and 9 rails to not touch the frame, is ultra low profile and low weight, and works beautifully. It is probably much better for accuracy than using the sling mount on the barrel.
Sadly I'm still looking for a good way to attach a sling to the rear sling mount. If the hook portion on HK sling hooks were just a BIT taller they would work. But, as it is, the dimensions of HK hooks are good, but you can't get them attached. Magpul paraclip doesn't work, none of IWC's mount-n-slot mounts work... I'm thinking the only convenient way to get a sling on this sucker that will attach and detach quickly is to cheat and use a BFG belt food loop. But I'd rather use QD if possible. Meh. |
|
|
|
|
Posted: 10/7/2017 6:54:08 PM EDT
[Last Edit: sgwlower]
[#39]
Quote HistoryOriginally Posted By Frost7:
FWIW, the IWC Mount-n-Slot 45 degree offset picatinny QD mount fits with JUST enough clearance on the 3 and 9 rails to not touch the frame, is ultra low profile and low weight, and works beautifully. It is probably much better for accuracy than using the sling mount on the barrel. Sadly I'm still looking for a good way to attach a sling to the rear sling mount. If the hook portion on HK sling hooks were just a BIT taller they would work. But, as it is, the dimensions of HK hooks are good, but you can't get them attached. Magpul paraclip doesn't work, none of IWC's mount-n-slot mounts work... I'm thinking the only convenient way to get a sling on this sucker that will attach and detach quickly is to cheat and use a BFG belt food loop. But I'd rather use QD if possible. Meh. |
|
|
|
USA
|
Posted: 10/7/2017 8:33:38 PM EDT
[#40]
Quote HistoryOriginally Posted By Frost7:
FWIW, the IWC Mount-n-Slot 45 degree offset picatinny QD mount fits with JUST enough clearance on the 3 and 9 rails to not touch the frame, is ultra low profile and low weight, and works beautifully. It is probably much better for accuracy than using the sling mount on the barrel. Sadly I'm still looking for a good way to attach a sling to the rear sling mount. If the hook portion on HK sling hooks were just a BIT taller they would work. But, as it is, the dimensions of HK hooks are good, but you can't get them attached. Magpul paraclip doesn't work, none of IWC's mount-n-slot mounts work... I'm thinking the only convenient way to get a sling on this sucker that will attach and detach quickly is to cheat and use a BFG belt food loop. But I'd rather use QD if possible. Meh. 
|
|
|
USA
|
Posted: 10/8/2017 2:07:54 AM EDT
[#41]
Quote HistoryOriginally Posted By Master_Blaster:
Why not install 2 IWC mounts on/near the F/R of the top rail? Another option is a BF Gear universal wire loop with QD socket attached on the stock sling loops: https://blueforcegear-cakc6ifvxd.netdna-ssl.com/image/cache/data/UWL-PB-P-275/MoldedUWLBlueForceGear300-600x400.jpg https://blueforcegear-cakc6ifvxd.netdna-ssl.com/image/cache/data/UWL-PB-P-275/UWL-PB-Inuse-600x400.jpg I have a gear sector QD sling mount at the front left side picatinny rail, a gear sector scout mount just aft of that, and the UWL on the left rear sling loop. It seems to work, though other people might try it for themselves. |
|
|
USA
|
Posted: 10/8/2017 5:55:44 PM EDT
[Last Edit: Master_Blaster]
[#42]
Quote HistoryOriginally Posted By Capta:
I have exactly this setup. It would be nice if there was a bit less slack in the UWL as its easy enough to get the sling twisted, but it does work. I suppose a pair of picatinny sling mounts on the top rail would also work, but the front end especially would be very crowded depending on how much crap you intend to mount. I have a gear sector QD sling mount at the front left side picatinny rail, a gear sector scout mount just aft of that, and the UWL on the left rear sling loop. It seems to work, though other people might try it for themselves. I've played around with the idea of designing a QD "block" that would clamp onto the existing sling loops, but given the mm sized clearances, I question if it affords sufficient material thickness for necessary strength. At the least, a design would involve a high quality steel & a very specific method of clamping to the loops. In particular, think the front loops are potentially too close to the bbl take down tabs to allow a practical solution. The situation at the rear isn't much better, specifically because of the aft side raised portion that provides clearance for the ejection side selector plate. I also think it would have to mount directly on top of loop to prevent creating torque about the axial length of the loop, where the design would be weakest. I might be possible, but there's not a lot of room to work with. |
|
|
OK, USA
|
Posted: 10/9/2017 2:16:57 PM EDT
[#43]
Quote HistoryOriginally Posted By coctailer:
was that for an SBR? |
|
|
TN, USA
|
Posted: 10/13/2017 9:23:57 PM EDT
[Last Edit: KP49]
[#44]
Picked up an ARX100 from acadamy a little while ago and have a couple questions.
The gas setting on mine new out of the box was set where looking from the side the circle was vertical, all the videos I have seen say it should be set horizontal (parallel to the barrel) for normal ammo. I tried it both ways with some ppu 5.56 and it doesnt really seem any different as far as ejection distance or recoil. Just curious what the 'normal' position really is. I dont see any mention of it in the manual and found a couple conflicting posts on the subject. Also after 200 rounds it got pretty hot, fairly slow 5-10 round in the mag, aimed fire at 50 yards. When I took it apart to clean it up quite a bit of the paint-like finish on the bolt carrier was bubbled up and peeling off, mostly right behind where the gas piston hits it but also in a few other spots. It was fine when I took it apart to look everything over, wondering if that was normal. Looks like its parkerized underneath so not really a big deal, it didnt get THAT hot.. |
|
|
|
Posted: 10/13/2017 10:01:28 PM EDT
[#45]
Quote HistoryOriginally Posted By KP49:
Picked up an ARX100 from acadamy a little while ago and have a couple questions. The gas setting on mine new out of the box was set where looking from the side the circle was vertical, all the videos I have seen say it should be set horizontal (parallel to the barrel) for normal ammo. I tried it both ways with some ppu 5.56 and it doesnt really seem any different as far as ejection distance or recoil. Just curious what the 'normal' position really is. I dont see any mention of it in the manual and found a couple conflicting posts on the subject. Also after 200 rounds it got pretty hot, fairly slow 5-10 round in the mag, aimed fire at 50 yards. When I took it apart to clean it up quite a bit of the paint-like finish on the bolt carrier was bubbled up and peeling off, mostly right behind where the gas piston hits it but also in a few other spots. It was fine when I took it apart to look everything over, wondering if that was normal. Looks like its parkerized underneath so not really a big deal, it didnt get THAT hot.. |
|
|
|
|
Posted: 10/13/2017 11:28:04 PM EDT
[#46]
Quote HistoryOriginally Posted By ken_mays:
My understanding was that you want it on "N" for normal fire, "S" for suppressed. I wish I could remember where I heard that. |
|
|
|
TN, USA
|
Posted: 10/14/2017 12:08:06 AM EDT
[Last Edit: KP49]
[#47]
Quote HistoryOriginally Posted By SmartDrug:
S for Standard pressure ammo, N for Nonstandard or less powerful ammo or when all gummed up (wider gas port). I'm assuming the flat part of the adjuster is what points to the N or S, there is a small notch on the adjuster that points towards the muzzle or straight up so I dont think the notch means anything since the S mark is 180 degrees away. Back in the old days they would have some kind of explanation in the manual :) Looks like the flaking paint on the bolt carrier is normal, found a few forum posts on it... |
|
|
WA, USA
|
Posted: 10/14/2017 10:55:51 AM EDT
[Last Edit: 556Cliff]
[#48]
Quote HistoryOriginally Posted By KP49:
If thats the case then then it should be in the vertical position for regular pressure ammo? I have seen it set both ways in different videos shooting regular ammo.. I'm assuming the flat part of the adjuster is what points to the N or S, there is a small notch on the adjuster that points towards the muzzle or straight up so I dont think the notch means anything since the S mark is 180 degrees away. Back in the old days they would have some kind of explanation in the manual :) Looks like the flaking paint on the bolt carrier is normal, found a few forum posts on it... The notch is the position indicator, horizontal (S) for "standard" 5.56 pressure ammo and vertical (N) for "non standard" week .223 pressure ammo that has problems cycling the bolt. |
|
|
WA, USA
|
Posted: 10/14/2017 11:03:56 AM EDT
[#49]
Quote HistoryOriginally Posted By ken_mays:
My understanding was that you want it on "N" for normal fire, "S" for suppressed. I wish I could remember where I heard that. |
|
|
TN, USA
|
Posted: 10/14/2017 12:51:10 PM EDT
[Last Edit: KP49]
[#50]
Quote HistoryI seen that video. But why have the notch not point at the 'S' on the gas block if thats the case?
I'll try to get an answer from Beretta, but other rifles I have. like the AUG, the two positions are made for normal and severe when the rifle gets gunked up it throws some extra gas into the system. Granted it could also be used as a 'low power' ammo setting. I doubt Beretta would go out of their way to make the gun more reliable with cheap ammo but who knows. I took the gas valve out today to have a look, but without seeing where the two holes go in the gas block its hard to tell which position does what. There is a slot cut in the valve, and it connects the two holes together when the notch is pointing towards the N and blocks off the lower hole when the notch is pointing toward the muzzle. The lower hole does not go directly into the gas port in the barrel, not sure where it goes, not going to try to remove the gas block to find out. I think the notch is there so it is assembled correctly, you can easily install the valve 180 degrees off then the holes would not connect in either position. If you install it 180 off then the notch either points to the S or straight down. Looks to me that bullet poking through the hole would be pointing at either the S or N and that is the 'pointer.' So I guess it depends on whether S and N means standard or non standard ammo, severe or normal like some say or south and north for all I know :) I could not tell any difference firing the rifle in either position using ppu m193 which is not the hottest ammo out there. Dont mean to overthink the whole thing, probably doesnt matter much in the big picture. I have some pretty weak wolfe .223, I'll see what happens with a few rounds of that stuff. |
|
|
Win a FREE Membership!
Sign up for the ARFCOM weekly newsletter and be entered to win a free ARFCOM membership. One new winner* is announced every week!
You will receive an email every Friday morning featuring the latest chatter from the hottest topics, breaking news surrounding legislation, as well as exclusive deals only available to ARFCOM email subscribers.
AR15.COM is the world's largest firearm community and is a gathering place for firearm enthusiasts of all types.
From hunters and military members, to competition shooters and general firearm enthusiasts, we welcome anyone who values and respects the way of the firearm.
Subscribe to our monthly Newsletter to receive firearm news, product discounts from your favorite Industry Partners, and more.
Copyright © 1996-2024 AR15.COM LLC. All Rights Reserved.
Any use of this content without express written consent is prohibited.
AR15.Com reserves the right to overwrite or replace any affiliate, commercial, or monetizable links, posted by users, with our own.
