User Panel
User Panel
User Panel
|
Posted: 1/5/2021 6:39:27 PM EDT
[Last Edit: KGLaw]
[#1]
Quote HistoryOriginally Posted By BlueDevilBrew: Now I'm confused. Are you saying the 112633's available today were issued to Marines? And are you drawing a distinction between a Marine clone and a Mk12, as if they're different? I haven't heard this, help me tamboi. https://www.snipercentral.com/wp-content/uploads/2017/10/spr1.jpg Yes, on the M38 rifle. The probable reason for Leupold retaining the TS30A2 identifier, despite being a different scope.  Attached File |
|
|
|
|
Posted: 1/5/2021 6:46:55 PM EDT
[Last Edit: Into_the_Void]
[#2]
When did the crossover from mildot to tmr happen?
When did the 3-9 become the 2.5-8? Went out and zeroed my mod 1 w/ the 3-9 today. Not a single regret ditching the big x50. |
|
|
|
|
Posted: 1/5/2021 7:06:59 PM EDT
[#3]
Quote HistoryOriginally Posted By SDMF_Rebel: When did the crossover from mildot to tmr happen? When did the 3-9 become the 2.5-8? Went out and zeroed my mod 1 w/ the 3-9 today. Not a single regret ditching the big x50. I think the last year of the 3-9 Mk4 was 2004. Was a relatively short lived scope. Mildot to TMR transition really didn't occur with Mk12s as far as I know. The Marines went with the TMR and M2s turrets for their Mod 1s. Army was Mildot and M3s all the way through the Mk12 program across the TS30 2.5-8, TS30A2 & commercial Mk4 3-9s and Vari-X III Tactical 3.5-10 scopes. |
|
|
|
|
Posted: 1/5/2021 7:30:17 PM EDT
[#4]
Now that I have the proper glass, I really want the proper rings. Still after all these years it's my favorite rifle in the safe.
 Attached File |
|
|
|
|
Posted: 1/5/2021 7:36:22 PM EDT
[#5]
Quote HistoryOriginally Posted By TW56: ricard13, Harms4x replied to my inquiry I sent to him thru the forum e-mail system regarding his faux AEM5 suppressors several months ago. He said he was planning another run. I decided to go a different route then the faux suppressor and have a AEM5 that is currently in the NFA paperwork process. I recall Harms4x had a gun shop in TX that seemed to specialize in AK-47's. You could try the yahoo e-mail address in his 2017 post. https://www.ar15.com/forums/Equipment-Exchange/WTS-Ops-Inc-AEM5-Faux-Suppressors-167-00-Shipped/159-1717797/ Ya, I’ve reached out multiple ways so we will see if I get a reply. I’m not wanting to buy four AEM5’s right now, but I also have a hard time not having a dedicated suppressor on everything I own. |
|
|
|
GA, USA
|
Posted: 1/5/2021 7:43:20 PM EDT
[#6]
Quote HistoryOriginally Posted By SDMF_Rebel: Now that I have the proper glass, I really want the proper rings. Still after all these years it's my favorite rifle in the safe. https://www.AR15.Com/media/mediaFiles/220444/20210105_181815_jpg-1765815.JPG Is that the recent Larue Leupold offering? |
|
|
|
Posted: 1/5/2021 7:45:15 PM EDT
[#7]
Quote HistoryOriginally Posted By stainlineho: Is that the recent Larue Leupold offering? Quote HistoryOriginally Posted By stainlineho: Originally Posted By SDMF_Rebel: Now that I have the proper glass, I really want the proper rings. Still after all these years it's my favorite rifle in the safe. https://www.AR15.Com/media/mediaFiles/220444/20210105_181815_jpg-1765815.JPG Is that the recent Larue Leupold offering? Nope. Like hunterex said, that scope hasn't been made in 16 years |
|
|
|
|
Posted: 1/5/2021 7:57:56 PM EDT
[#8]
Quote HistoryOriginally Posted By SDMF_Rebel: When did the crossover from mildot to tmr happen? When did the 3-9 become the 2.5-8? Went out and zeroed my mod 1 w/ the 3-9 today. Not a single regret ditching the big x50. The 3-9 became the 2.5-8 in 2006, the earlier mk4's were 2003 in their brochure in 2004. In 2006 the tmr became available. They were still buying mildot models even after 2006. |
|
|
|
|
Posted: 1/5/2021 8:01:49 PM EDT
[#9]
Quote HistoryOriginally Posted By BlueDevilBrew: Now I'm confused. Are you saying the 112633's available today were issued to Marines? And are you drawing a distinction between a Marine clone and a Mk12, as if they're different? I haven't heard this, help me tamboi. https://www.snipercentral.com/wp-content/uploads/2017/10/spr1.jpg Quote HistoryOriginally Posted By BlueDevilBrew: Originally Posted By tamboi: 67925 came out 2010, except for the tethered cap and tube markings basically the same as the 112633, both have the slab sided illumination housing. By that time, the mk12 program had dissolved. Not sure why Leupold reused #112633, those particular scopes imho, are simply not correct, although it is the same nsn as earlier models such as 67920 and 60150 which again didnt come around until the MK12 program was basically over. 112633 is perfect for a Marine clone, not on a MK12. Now I'm confused. Are you saying the 112633's available today were issued to Marines? And are you drawing a distinction between a Marine clone and a Mk12, as if they're different? I haven't heard this, help me tamboi. https://www.snipercentral.com/wp-content/uploads/2017/10/spr1.jpg I suppose I didnt put that in the right context, the early mk12 optics the leupold ts30 and ts30a2 have nothing in common with the 112633. Why leupold named the 112633, the ts30a2 is probably just marketing. |
|
|
|
|
Posted: 1/5/2021 8:08:52 PM EDT
[#10]
Quote HistoryOriginally Posted By tamboi: I suppose I didnt put that in the right context, the early mk12 optics the leupold ts30 and ts30a2 have nothing in common with the 112633. Why leupold named the 112633, the ts30a2 is probably just marketing. Quote HistoryOriginally Posted By tamboi: Originally Posted By BlueDevilBrew: Originally Posted By tamboi: 67925 came out 2010, except for the tethered cap and tube markings basically the same as the 112633, both have the slab sided illumination housing. By that time, the mk12 program had dissolved. Not sure why Leupold reused #112633, those particular scopes imho, are simply not correct, although it is the same nsn as earlier models such as 67920 and 60150 which again didnt come around until the MK12 program was basically over. 112633 is perfect for a Marine clone, not on a MK12. Now I'm confused. Are you saying the 112633's available today were issued to Marines? And are you drawing a distinction between a Marine clone and a Mk12, as if they're different? I haven't heard this, help me tamboi. https://www.snipercentral.com/wp-content/uploads/2017/10/spr1.jpg I suppose I didnt put that in the right context, the early mk12 optics the leupold ts30 and ts30a2 have nothing in common with the 112633. Why leupold named the 112633, the ts30a2 is probably just marketing. This has always confused me. Other than the illumination housing, how are they different? |
|
|
|
|
Posted: 1/5/2021 8:12:25 PM EDT
[#11]
Quote HistoryOriginally Posted By SDMF_Rebel: This has always confused me. Other than the illumination housing, how are they different? The issued TS30A2 with the Mk12s is the same scope as your commercial Mk4 but with TS30A2 written on the side basically.  So Mildot, M3s, 3-9, 62GR turret, blended illumination housing. The later TS30A2 (112633) is TMR, M2s, 2.5-8, 77GR turret, slabside illumination housing. Alignment lines and a battery cap tether added. |
|
|
|
|
Posted: 1/5/2021 8:46:46 PM EDT
[Last Edit: Engineer5]
[#12]
Issued TS30...
     
|
|
|
|
|
Posted: 1/5/2021 8:53:19 PM EDT
[Last Edit: Engineer5]
[#13]
Same scope off the rifle...
J = 2001    
|
|
|
|
WA, USA
|
Posted: 1/6/2021 2:52:55 PM EDT
[#14]
Quote HistoryOriginally Posted By Engineer5: Issued TS30... https://www.AR15.Com/media/mediaFiles/84711/FDNY_100-1086765.jpg https://www.AR15.Com/media/mediaFiles/84711/FDNY_101-1086764.jpg https://www.AR15.Com/media/mediaFiles/84711/FDNY_102-1086763.jpg https://www.AR15.Com/media/mediaFiles/84711/FDNY_9112-1086766.jpg https://www.AR15.Com/media/mediaFiles/84711/FDNY_911-1086767.jpg https://www.AR15.Com/media/mediaFiles/84711/Mk12_Mod1_GWOT_JPG-1069196.jpg What's the most likely paint/color in the downrange photo? |
|
|
|
Posted: 1/6/2021 3:21:53 PM EDT
[#15]
Quote HistoryOriginally Posted By SDMF_Rebel: When did the crossover from mildot to tmr happen? When did the 3-9 become the 2.5-8? Went out and zeroed my mod 1 w/ the 3-9 today. Not a single regret ditching the big x50. Why? I just picked up a 2.5-8 mk4 for a song and I'm not sure what to do with it. I had one before I had my mod 1 and tried it one my Holland. Didn't like it that much and got rid of it right away. Guess I need to give it another chance now that I have a good load worked up for them and have switched from paper punching to steel smacking. |
|
|
|
USA
|
Posted: 1/6/2021 4:20:28 PM EDT
[#16]
Does anyone have a formal breakdown of the year-code for Leupolds?
|
|
|
|
Posted: 1/6/2021 4:52:34 PM EDT
[#17]
Quote HistoryOriginally Posted By j-dubya1: Does anyone have a formal breakdown of the year-code for Leupolds? Not being snarky, google Leupold Scope Year Codes and it's under the Leupold FAQ on their website. |
|
|
|
IN, USA
|
Posted: 1/7/2021 12:01:44 AM EDT
[Last Edit: oneofus]
[#18]
ok to shed a little more light on the optic discussion.
I have data on a true ts-30 a2 3-9x, a commercial round body 3-9x, and a modern 112633 2.5-8x ( all pictures are in that order)  The ts-30 a2 and the commercial round body 3-9 both have mil dots while the 112633 has TMR body to body there is almost no difference between the ts30-a2 and the commercial version. Aside from the ts-30 a2 marking, the ONLY difference externally is on the objective lens end there is no identification engraving in the ring on the ts-30 a2. the commercial is marked leupold mark 4mm 3-9x36 mr/t. The 112633 is marked, in white text the exact same, however i have seen these marked with engraving only and no white fill on other 112633. Also as pointed out earlier the 112633 has a slab body illumination housing, a tethered cap ( tether to body removed from this example). As well as laser lines for scope mounting.  On the body itself there are obvious branding marking differences, and serial number location. I will note here on the commercial 3-9 the " leupold" is much lower than on the ts-30 a2 if you ever notice a ts-30 a2 mark that is trending very low it is possibly a commercial version that was later laser on as a fake. Also not the hex bolts used to tighten the elevation and windage caps, on the original OG stuff they are always black. on anything newer they are silver. Also you can see the difference in the BDC engravings on the 77gr turret used on the 112633, the text is larger and layout is different.  Finally the biggest difference of all is the Ocular lens. this is true for all 3-9 VS 2.5-8 & all 3-10 mk12 variants including Vari-x III. as you can see in this picture of the ts-30 a2 on the left and the 112633 on the right. The ocular lens is smaller on the 3-9 which does produce a smaller image.  |
|
|
OR, USA
|
Posted: 1/7/2021 12:14:49 AM EDT
[#19]
Quote HistoryOriginally Posted By SDMF_Rebel: Now that I have the proper glass, I really want the proper rings. Still after all these years it's my favorite rifle in the safe. https://www.AR15.Com/media/mediaFiles/220444/20210105_181815_jpg-1765815.JPG CAR stock is best stock. Looks great on the mod 1. I think the 2.5-8x and 3-9x have the same actual magnification. If I remember correctly the 3.5-10x is slightly less than 10x on top in reality too. I’ve had at least 1 example of each and all things considered the 2.5-8x TMR is the best fit IMO. |
|
|
|
Posted: 1/7/2021 12:33:59 PM EDT
[#20]
Quote HistoryOriginally Posted By oneofus: ok to shed a little more light on the optic discussion. I have data on a true ts-30 a2 3-9x, a commercial round body 3-9x, and a modern 112633 2.5-8x ( all pictures are in that order) https://i.imgur.com/wqye3SI.pngD The ts-30 a2 and the commercial round body 3-9 both have mil dots while the 112633 has TMR body to body there is almost no difference between the ts30-a2 and the commercial version. Aside from the ts-30 a2 marking, the ONLY difference externally is on the objective lens end there is no identification engraving in the ring on the ts-30 a2. the commercial is marked leupold mark 4mm 3-9x36 mr/t. The 112633 is marked, in white text the exact same, however i have seen these marked with engraving only and no white fill on other 112633. Also as pointed out earlier the 112633 has a slab body illumination housing, a tethered cap ( tether to body removed from this example). As well as laser lines for scope mounting. https://i.imgur.com/a0cTV3O.png On the body itself there are obvious branding marking differences, and serial number location. I will note here on the commercial 3-9 the " leupold" is much lower than on the ts-30 a2 if you ever notice a ts-30 a2 mark that is trending very low it is possibly a commercial version that was later laser on as a fake. Also not the hex bolts used to tighten the elevation and windage caps, on the original OG stuff they are always black. on anything newer they are silver. Also you can see the difference in the BDC engravings on the 77gr turret used on the 112633, the text is larger and layout is different. https://i.imgur.com/RenqIno.png Finally the biggest difference of all is the Ocular lens. this is true for all 3-9 VS 2.5-8 & all 3-10 mk12 variants including Vari-x III. as you can see in this picture of the ts-30 a2 on the left and the 112633 on the right. The ocular lens is smaller on the 3-9 which does produce a smaller image. https://i.imgur.com/WyBznco.png Nice writeup |
|
|
|
WA, USA
|
Posted: 1/7/2021 2:19:08 PM EDT
[Last Edit: BlueDevilBrew]
[#21]
Quote HistoryOriginally Posted By oneofus: ok to shed a little more light on the optic discussion. I have data on a true ts-30 a2 3-9x, a commercial round body 3-9x, and a modern 112633 2.5-8x ( all pictures are in that order) https://i.imgur.com/wqye3SI.pngD The ts-30 a2 and the commercial round body 3-9 both have mil dots while the 112633 has TMR body to body there is almost no difference between the ts30-a2 and the commercial version. Aside from the ts-30 a2 marking, the ONLY difference externally is on the objective lens end there is no identification engraving in the ring on the ts-30 a2. the commercial is marked leupold mark 4mm 3-9x36 mr/t. The 112633 is marked, in white text the exact same, however i have seen these marked with engraving only and no white fill on other 112633. Also as pointed out earlier the 112633 has a slab body illumination housing, a tethered cap ( tether to body removed from this example). As well as laser lines for scope mounting. https://i.imgur.com/a0cTV3O.png On the body itself there are obvious branding marking differences, and serial number location. I will note here on the commercial 3-9 the " leupold" is much lower than on the ts-30 a2 if you ever notice a ts-30 a2 mark that is trending very low it is possibly a commercial version that was later laser on as a fake. Also not the hex bolts used to tighten the elevation and windage caps, on the original OG stuff they are always black. on anything newer they are silver. Also you can see the difference in the BDC engravings on the 77gr turret used on the 112633, the text is larger and layout is different. https://i.imgur.com/RenqIno.png Finally the biggest difference of all is the Ocular lens. this is true for all 3-9 VS 2.5-8 & all 3-10 mk12 variants including Vari-x III. as you can see in this picture of the ts-30 a2 on the left and the 112633 on the right. The ocular lens is smaller on the 3-9 which does produce a smaller image. https://i.imgur.com/WyBznco.png Great stuff. Makes you wonder if the changes over time were based on feedback and repairs from Crane. The battery cap, for example, is missing on a lot of the in field photos, so adding the tether makes sense. The slab illum housing could've addressed durability issues there and the lens change might've improved field of view as issued buttstocks and use of body armor dictated over time. |
|
|
MN, USA
|
Posted: 1/7/2021 3:11:35 PM EDT
[#22]
The DoD photo of a Marine with a 112633 scope on what appears to be a Mk12 rifle in July 2013 considered a one off “in the wild”? Or can a 112633 scope be considered correct for a late USMC Mk12?
|
|
|
WA, USA
|
Posted: 1/7/2021 3:31:36 PM EDT
[#23]
Quote HistoryOriginally Posted By TW56: The DoD photo of a Marine with a 112633 scope on what appears to be a Mk12 rifle in July 2013 considered a one off “in the wild”? Or can a 112633 scope be considered correct for a late USMC Mk12? Got a link? Here's a 112633 in the wild. Exif data on the image shows Nov 2014. 
|
|
|
|
Posted: 1/7/2021 3:33:03 PM EDT
[Last Edit: KGLaw]
[#24]
Quote HistoryOriginally Posted By BlueDevilBrew: Got a link? Here's a 112633 in the wild. Exif data on the image shows Nov 2014. https://i.postimg.cc/d3FbfvMJ/1-472.jpg That should be the same one he's referencing. It's been tagged as July 29th, 2013. |
|
|
|
MN, USA
|
Posted: 1/7/2021 6:24:36 PM EDT
[#25]
Quote HistoryOriginally Posted By BlueDevilBrew: Got a link? Here's a 112633 in the wild. Exif data on the image shows Nov 2014. https://i.postimg.cc/d3FbfvMJ/1-472.jpg Quote HistoryOriginally Posted By BlueDevilBrew: Originally Posted By TW56: The DoD photo of a Marine with a 112633 scope on what appears to be a Mk12 rifle in July 2013 considered a one off “in the wild”? Or can a 112633 scope be considered correct for a late USMC Mk12? Got a link? Here's a 112633 in the wild. Exif data on the image shows Nov 2014. https://i.postimg.cc/d3FbfvMJ/1-472.jpg Yes, that is the photo I was referencing. Another DoD photo of the Lance Corporal Wilson in Afghanistan on the same date. https://www.defense.gov/observe/photo-gallery/igphoto/2001119841/ |
|
|
|
Posted: 1/8/2021 3:12:13 AM EDT
[#26]
That scope may have been a replacement or even T&E as the Corps was in the process of killing the Mk12 as it was taken. Time wise it falls after Leupold made the changes and added the 112633 to the actual Mil and LE catalogs and added it to the NSN for the Mk12 optic.
The stuff I've heard from the guys that actually pulled the Mk12s apart and sent the lowers off to captain crunch in the Marines lines up that this would have been while all that was going on. 2012 and onwards is when that was happening, someone in the FB group saw the lowers with his own eyes around then. Like the Army SF and Ranger side there may have been the odd one seen collecting dust in the armory in the following years but effectively the Mod 1 was pulled out from line infantry units around then and unlike the SF, that means they aren't coming out anymore because someone on the ODA still thought it was cool. If you want to do this properly then I suppose anyone with a 112633 would have to set up their Mod 1 as a Marine rifle, no paint, yet their overpriced Leupold down the driveway, and then say you specifically built a 2012/2013 last deployment gun. |
|
|
|
|
Posted: 1/8/2021 8:15:41 AM EDT
[#27]
Form 3 from Capitol Armory for my AEM5 finally got approved. Finally going to start the long Form 4 process
|
|
|
|
GA, USA
|
Posted: 1/8/2021 9:03:27 AM EDT
[#28]
Quote HistoryOriginally Posted By Yumago: Form 3 from Capitol Armory for my AEM5 finally got approved. Finally going to start the long Form 4 process Nice! May your wait be quick and short! |
|
|
|
Posted: 1/8/2021 10:56:26 AM EDT
[#29]
Quote HistoryOriginally Posted By lancecriminal86: That scope may have been a replacement or even T&E as the Corps was in the process of killing the Mk12 as it was taken. Time wise it falls after Leupold made the changes and added the 112633 to the actual Mil and LE catalogs and added it to the NSN for the Mk12 optic. The stuff I've heard from the guys that actually pulled the Mk12s apart and sent the lowers off to captain crunch in the Marines lines up that this would have been while all that was going on. 2012 and onwards is when that was happening, someone in the FB group saw the lowers with his own eyes around then. Like the Army SF and Ranger side there may have been the odd one seen collecting dust in the armory in the following years but effectively the Mod 1 was pulled out from line infantry units around then and unlike the SF, that means they aren't coming out anymore because someone on the ODA still thought it was cool. If you want to do this properly then I suppose anyone with a 112633 would have to set up their Mod 1 as a Marine rifle, no paint, yet their overpriced Leupold down the driveway, and then say you specifically built a 2012/2013 last deployment gun. One of the Plt Sgts in my old unit painted their Mk12s. It was right towards the ends of the Mk12 era |
|
|
|
|
Posted: 1/8/2021 10:59:44 AM EDT
[#30]
|
|
|
|
|
Posted: 1/8/2021 11:23:56 AM EDT
[#31]
Quote HistoryOriginally Posted By Yumago: Form 3 from Capitol Armory for my AEM5 finally got approved. Finally going to start the long Form 4 process Oh good. Maybe mine will get approved soon. Have a tax stamp waiting on my Silencer Shop account for it. |
|
|
|
|
Posted: 1/8/2021 12:17:20 PM EDT
[#32]
Quote HistoryOriginally Posted By Paulie771: Oh good. Maybe mine will get approved soon. Have a tax stamp waiting on my Silencer Shop account for it. Just purchased my tax stamp this morning from Silencer Shop. Hopefully can start the process next week for it. |
|
|
|
|
Posted: 1/8/2021 7:55:01 PM EDT
[#33]
Quote HistoryOriginally Posted By dangerdan: https://www.AR15.Com/media/mediaFiles/80601/19667924_10158804330820161_5987495061129-1769635.JPG 
|
|
|
|
|
Posted: 1/9/2021 11:37:27 AM EDT
[Last Edit: latheman]
[#34]
Quote HistoryOriginally Posted By Engineer5: Issued TS30... https://www.AR15.Com/media/mediaFiles/84711/FDNY_100-1086765.jpg https://www.AR15.Com/media/mediaFiles/84711/FDNY_101-1086764.jpg https://www.AR15.Com/media/mediaFiles/84711/FDNY_102-1086763.jpg https://www.AR15.Com/media/mediaFiles/84711/FDNY_9112-1086766.jpg https://www.AR15.Com/media/mediaFiles/84711/FDNY_911-1086767.jpg https://www.AR15.Com/media/mediaFiles/84711/Mk12_Mod1_GWOT_JPG-1069196.jpg I thought issued optics were illuminated? |
|
|
|
|
Posted: 1/9/2021 12:51:19 PM EDT
[Last Edit: KGLaw]
[#35]
Quote HistoryOriginally Posted By latheman: I thought issued optics were illuminated? TS30 was issued with early Mod 1s. It's a non-illuminated 2.5-8 with a fairly unique profile. Has the Leupold European type turret housing and classic focus ocular housing versus the fast focus of the non-illuminated MR/Ts. |
|
|
|
|
Posted: 1/9/2021 1:02:36 PM EDT
[#36]
Thanks for the info, much appreciated.
|
|
|
|
MN, USA
|
Posted: 1/9/2021 1:12:08 PM EDT
[#37]
Thanks to everyone for their replies and information.
|
|
|
|
Posted: 1/9/2021 5:30:58 PM EDT
[#38]
|
|
|
|
USA
|
Posted: 1/9/2021 6:53:51 PM EDT
[Last Edit: Maddy21]
[#39]
Finally found some #22 mediums and mounted my scope today. I noticed some play in one of the ring bases, is this normal for these rings? This is my first set of ARMS rings.
|
|
|
|
Posted: 1/9/2021 10:43:20 PM EDT
[#40]
Quote HistoryOriginally Posted By Maddy21: Finally found some #22 mediums and mounted my scope today. I noticed some play in one of the ring bases, is this normal for these rings? This is my first set of ARMS rings.  https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=43fSrWLEJbUMine was the same way, absolute junk. I "fixed" mine by filling the dovetail with devcon. ARMS said they would fix them but I'll personally never trust them again. I ended up buying some Badger rings like I should have done in the first place! And no that's not normal! |
|
|
|
USA
|
Posted: 1/10/2021 4:31:59 PM EDT
[#41]
Quote HistoryOriginally Posted By latheman: Mine was the same way, absolute junk. I "fixed" mine by filling the dovetail with devcon. ARMS said they would fix them but I'll personally never trust them again. I ended up buying some Badger rings like I should have done in the first place! And no that's not normal! Thanks, that’s what I was afraid of. It took so long to find some new in stock that I’m hesitant to send them in to ARMS. When you used devcon, did you just smear it in the dovetail gap an wipe off the excess? Has it held up pretty well to the recoil? |
|
|
|
Posted: 1/10/2021 5:14:41 PM EDT
[#42]
I disassembled them and coated the dovetail, you can't tell I did it. As far as holding up, I have no idea i haven't put them back on but devcon is some tough stuff. I was more worried about the rings being out of alignment. I guess they'll just sit in a drawer because I wouldn't feel right about selling them to someone.
|
|
|
|
USA
|
Posted: 1/10/2021 9:16:22 PM EDT
[#43]
Quote HistoryOriginally Posted By latheman: I disassembled them and coated the dovetail, you can't tell I did it. As far as holding up, I have no idea i haven't put them back on but devcon is some tough stuff. I was more worried about the rings being out of alignment. I guess they'll just sit in a drawer because I wouldn't feel right about selling them to someone. Gotcha, thanks again! |
|
|
|
Posted: 1/11/2021 12:43:31 PM EDT
[Last Edit: SaturationTech]
[#44]
If anyone is looking for an AEM5 in Houston, Collector’s Firearms had 2 in the case Saturday. I think one was $609 and one was $669. No idea on why the apparent pricing difference... The tags were a bit obscured and the place was pretty busy, so I didn’t ask.
Edit: both gone now. |
|
|
|
TN, USA
|
Posted: 1/11/2021 3:05:19 PM EDT
[#45]
Quote HistoryOriginally Posted By BurtSaun1049: @Nikiel09 , I believe we need a family picture from you!  I need to find a new house to move into- most of my stuff is in storage currently. But once I do, I’ll post some pics. |
|
|
|
Posted: 1/11/2021 7:27:59 PM EDT
[Last Edit: tamboi]
[#46]
One on the right is correct?
|
|
|
|
|
Posted: 1/11/2021 7:43:50 PM EDT
[#47]
Quote HistoryOriginally Posted By tamboi: One on the right is correct? https://www.ar15-backup.com/media/mediaFiles/28561/20210111_142652_jpg-1775353.JPG That's the one. |
|
|
|
|
Posted: 1/11/2021 8:17:31 PM EDT
[#48]
@SaturationTech Thank you for the lead! For anyone else looking Collector’s firearms now has one AEM5 in stock as of 19:17 EST its a smooth body the other one vaporized when i called
|
|
|
|
|
Posted: 1/11/2021 8:51:53 PM EDT
[Last Edit: SaturationTech]
[#49]
No problem. If I hadn’t just picked one up from Capitol Armory, I’d have seen if I coulda gotten it transferred to my dealer...
|
|
|
|
|
Posted: 1/11/2021 9:00:28 PM EDT
[#50]
Yeah I was going to get in line with them at Capitol armory in the morning but they said it would be in the next 30 days. Hopefully this will lessen that wait by a week or two. One part less to source I guess.
|
|
|
|
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.
Attached File
Attached File
