Confirm Action

Are you sure you wish to do this?

Confirm Cancel
Member Login
Site Notices
1/25/2018 7:38:29 AM
Posted: 5/23/2003 4:49:33 AM EST
I own a TAONSN, looking at it, its easy to understand that, when originally designed, Trijicon wanted the scope to have the ability to mt. to the M16 family of weapons in its, then, most prolific form, the carry handle model. However, with the advent and adoption of the flattop config. of M16's, it would lead one to wonder why the see through BUIS channel machined into the bottom of the housing is not eliminated, to lower the scopes center of optic ht., in order to better work w/ todays current technologies.

On the FT, w/ or w/o a rail system the channel is not usable w/ iron sights anyway.But, it causes the scope w/ a mt. and/or a rail attop the A3 to mt. too high to be practically/ideally used. "0" benefit on a flattop.

Carry handles? It would be an easy enough fix to design/use a carry handle spacer in order to mt. the scope to the carry handle at its current/most ideal ht. should one want too.

I understand that many still use the, A1/A2 cnfig. And I don't want to discount them as legit. users whos' needs should be acknowledged. But, it seems it would be beneficial, to design a scope w/ as low a center of optic line as possible and use varying mt's/mt'ing hts. to make up for needed height. Ht's can always be added but never detracted.

Link Posted: 5/23/2003 4:58:32 AM EST
The big advantage I see to lowering the TA01NSN would be, perhaps, the ability to more accurately use the BUIS; if the scope were lower, you could conceiveably use the ghost ring on the top of the scope to view the front sight post on the barrel rather than the post on the scope, making the irons much more reliable because of the distance between them.
Link Posted: 5/23/2003 5:05:42 AM EST
Keep 'em coming guys...
Link Posted: 5/23/2003 6:45:36 AM EST
I dont understand, the ARMS 19S mounts the scope at the ideal height already. What is the problem? I think the rail on top of a rail is the incorrectly designed system, not the scope which fits both the carry handle and flat top perfectly as is. What is it your wanting? Everything works perfectly in my eyes...
Link Posted: 5/23/2003 8:04:27 AM EST
Link Posted: 5/23/2003 8:33:45 AM EST
[Last Edit: 5/23/2003 8:37:29 AM EST by SULACO2]
Yes the system works, minus a rail. Some don't like to use a rail, whatever their reasons might be. However, that does not negate the fact that there are options, like flattop mounting, w/ a rail, w/o a rail, and/or carry handle mounting that would ALL be possible minus a feature that was originally sensible from a manufacturing cost aspect, the largest percentage of M16s were A1/A2. Now, however, more and more countries/agencies are adopting the flattop. And on that percentage of M16s, I'm sure soon to be more than 50%, if not already, that feature is useless. So while a design that originally benefitted the majority of users was at one time a good idea, if it is largely no longer needed, and a re-design could now benefit some users, those that use a rail, have little to no effect, on others, the flattop w/o 2nd rail crowd, and allow the use of a riser in a carry handle model, why not redesign? Especially if the re-design, requires little to no major changes, other than the milling off of some unnecessary metal. Saving height, and weight, however negligible that weight might be. It saves AL, however small an amount, from a production POV. Why hold on to a design that locks out some, when a re-design opens the door to all? Because not everyone uses a 2nd Rail? Not everyone uses a carry handle either. Who's right? Neither. But all 3 can be accomodated. Why not accomodate? Rail+19S= system works No rail, redesigned 19S= system works Carryhandle+riser= system works Why does this not add up?
Link Posted: 5/23/2003 12:02:26 PM EST
When using an A3 receiver without a rail, the extra height of the carry handle interface is necessary. If you have a rail such as the ARMS #38, then it mounts it too high. Perhaps the answer would be to mill off/build without the rail and drill & tap it for either a base or spacer, similar to the ARMS mount for the Aimpoint. If some has access to a machine shop and the money to potentiall kill a good ACOG, they could give it a try and actually use the Aimpoint mounts. In fact, that could be the answer to some of the eye relief problems. Use the ARMS #22M68 base and the new extended, cantilever spacer. Put the spacer in backwards so that it points back instead of forward. That would move the scope to the rear and still clear a BUIS. If you aren't using the spacer, then you are probably stuck.
Link Posted: 5/23/2003 8:10:00 PM EST
[Last Edit: 5/23/2003 8:10:37 PM EST by DevL]
Let me put this another way. A rail on a rail is unneeded and inherantly WRONG. Its unneeded weight and height. I really hope that the rail on a rail goes the way of the dodo bird because its a flawed design with ANY magnified optics. Why conform to a design that should not have come into existance? If you want to redesigen something redesign the rail on the rail to make IT work correctly. The Trijicon scopes are perfectly designed as is. They will never change. The improperly designed rail on the rail must change or its just not gonna work. Your "Improvement" to the ACOG is a step backwards not forward. I say "Improve" the rail on rail instead.
Link Posted: 5/23/2003 8:50:12 PM EST
[Last Edit: 5/23/2003 8:53:03 PM EST by Winston_Wolf]
... A bit off tangent, but in addition to my BUIS I'm making one of these mounts for the [b]Docter Optic[/b]. I've had setbacks, but it's moving along. Plan is to have them available to ARFCOMmies shortly. [img]http://members.cox.net/stevenaz1/Winston_Photos/AC_a_1.jpg[/img] [img]http://members.cox.net/stevenaz1/Winston_Photos/model.jpg[/img] [img]http://members.cox.net/stevenaz1/Winston_Photos/acog_mnt1.jpg[/img] [img]http://members.cox.net/stevenaz1/Winston_Photos/acog_mnt2.jpg[/img]
Link Posted: 5/24/2003 4:33:11 AM EST
The Carrying Handle on the M16A1 and A2 was, in the form it was finally, fielded; "wrong" and "Unneeded". Its original use was negated, by the relocation of the charging handle. That, was a flawed design, any optic gets placed too high, even if slightly. However, ACOG did not refuse to design a scope that would sit in its carry handle, siting a flawed design and hoping to change the military's use of the carry handle. Whether or not the design of the buffer rail, attop the receiver, and its design advantages and/or disadvantages, suit all, it suits some. (SPR, SIRS, SWAN Sleeves, Knight's Aimpoint RAS they are all being considered, if not used on the professional level.) The ACOG's channel/carry handle mount is useless on ANY flattop. Rail or no rail. The Aimpoint could have an integral carry handle mt., it doesn't. Why not? Its not needed, when its current design allows it to be mounted n any configuration currently used and/ or considered. Note, the Tri-power has no integral carry handle mt. However when mt. designers wee contacted by Trijicon, the makers of the Tri-Power, they were asked for mounting options that would work w/ all commonly accepted mounting configuration. Hence the ARMS #16T, and Aimpoint type settups. I wonder what Trijicon's thinking was. That the integral mt. design on their previous combat scopes was so effective AND currently appropriate that they woulg go with it again? No. Mt's and varying monting height rings, spaces etc. should add height when necessary. Not the addition of, now, largely useless metal equaling a design that eliminates a potential use/configuration. That carry handle mt. on the ACOG, which I own, is yesterday's design, not a progressive one , and it amounts to a "better buggy whip." "It will never be re-designed" and "Perfect"; strong words. Pretty certain they were used by suppoters of the caburetor, too.
Link Posted: 5/24/2003 12:42:08 PM EST
Originally Posted By DevL: Let me put this another way. A rail on a rail is unneeded and inherantly WRONG. Its unneeded weight and height.
View Quote
I tend to disagree. But let me explain. When using a RIS/RAS system, and attaching extra weight to the front of a firearm, the barrel nut/upper receiver interface becomes stressed. So much so that the Rangers have had close to 500 bolts break on similar systems THIS YEAR. However, when a rail is integrated into the system like on the SIR (or the RIS/RAS with ARMS #38 rail), no such problems have been reported. This is because the stress from the added weight is transferred over a much larger area than just the barrel/receiver interface. However, you are correct that they just FEEL wrong. Particularly if using an ACOG. When using an Aimpoint, however, I find the rail to be the correct height. I have begun wondering about any possible problems with the RAS II and it's gooseneck type rail. It should still allow for mounting of an ACOG at the appropriate height, but the stress of any other added components is still partially transferred to the top of the receiver.
Link Posted: 5/24/2003 12:42:50 PM EST
[Last Edit: 5/24/2003 12:45:45 PM EST by DevL]
The only reason Aimpoints /Eotechs etc DONT have a carry handle mount is because they have unlimited eye relief and are unmagnified and can be used with a gooseneck mount. It does not make sense for some one to come up with an extra feature when all current militarys are served by the current design. If the ARMS SIR gets the nod for the next generation rail system then perhaps that will change but why change a design that works with ALL military firearms and a VAST majority of AR15 owners? Just so it sits at a better height for people with a SIR? Thats just not a good enough reason and its the only reason I could imagine you want a lower profile. Guess you should not have bought a SIR. [;)]
Link Posted: 5/24/2003 2:58:46 PM EST
All of my SIRS sit attop Carbine length ARs, my ACOG sits on a 20" HBar in a 19S, only because I saw little benefit to having a magnifying scope on a short range carbine, (no BAC on TAONSN), when it would better compliment my HBar's ability to reach out and touch. However, I would like to have the ability to mount a superior rail system to my HBar, when ARMS makes it available. I resent, however, that because I appreciate the ACOG and value its abilities I'm unable to use that superior rail ystem. Certainly the Aimpoint/Tri power don't magnify and therefore aren't subject to eye relief problems. But, the elimination of the BUIS/carry handle mount on an ACOG does not complicate the ACOG's eye relief issues. It has "0" effect at worst a positive effect. In fact, if it did anything, it would allow a reverse cantilever design, as stated earlier, to allow it to mount more foward or rearward depending on the shooter's desires. With that carry handle mount though, no dice. So in short I don't resent ARMS and its rail design, I resent ACOG's design for locking me out of a superior rail design, unnecessarily. For good cause, fine. "Just because" I don't accept. Again; my way: everyone, the other way, only certain someones. Still doesn't make sense to me to lock ones' self in and eliminate an option, unnecessarily, no matter how common/uncommon or likely/unlikely the option to be taken, but then I guess it never will. I'm afraid we'll have to disagree with integrity: "tastes great, less filling". I appreciate your opinion, I just don't share it.
Link Posted: 5/25/2003 4:48:23 AM EST
[Last Edit: 5/25/2003 4:50:11 AM EST by coldblue]
For "Big D", If the Rangers have had 500 M4 bolt failures, they had nothing to do with the RAS or any accessories mounted to the forend rails, they simply got a bunch of marginal Colt bolts combined with a batch of guns with too high a cyclic rate. The false "effect & cause" you are relating has become an "urban myth" however, and all I can tell you is to go back into AR15 posts where I have detailed the real "causes". Bottom line is that a slower cyclic rate 20-inch rifle bolt is only marginal in the 14.5" carbine. That means that if it is not made perfect, way up to the best end of the specification, its going to fail in an M4. And if "weighty forends" were an asociated problem, why don't you see this in rifles having heavier barrel with even more weight out front? And oh by the way, what about the barrel? Isn't it about five times heavier than any rail forend and accessory combo. So would not the barrel itself be the cause? Ever see this with a bull barrel--talk about a stress moment. I also note the all-to-familiar tone and implication of your RAS II comment/warning and also that your screen name is new to the boards. Could it be your are the world's greatest 3rd Panzer collector with a new screen name? ColdBlue sends "good shooten Jack, or Dick, or whatever"...
Link Posted: 5/25/2003 5:36:40 AM EST
Originally Posted By coldblue: For "Big D", I also note the all-to-familiar tone and implication of your RAS II comment/warning and also that your screen name is new to the boards. Could it be your are the world's greatest 3rd Panzer collector with a new screen name? ColdBlue sends "good shooten Jack, or Dick, or whatever"...
View Quote
Hmmm, could be, but the spelling is better [;)]
Link Posted: 5/25/2003 8:08:10 AM EST
Originally Posted By coldblue: I also note the all-to-familiar tone and implication of your RAS II comment/warning and also that your screen name is new to the boards. Could it be your are the world's greatest 3rd Panzer collector with a new screen name? ColdBlue sends "good shooten Jack, or Dick, or whatever"...
View Quote
WTF? If you want to accuse me of being somebody else, then accuse me. It turns out that I am a regular PAYING member, who just decided to start anew. Is that such a big deal? I heard the info about the Ranger bolts just a few days ago from whom I consider a very reliable source. I also doubt that there is a difference in M4 and M16 bolts. If there is, show it to me. I want to see documented proof. I've never heard of such a thing.
Link Posted: 5/26/2003 4:05:35 AM EST
[Last Edit: 5/26/2003 4:08:38 AM EST by coldblue]
BigD said: "I heard the info about the Ranger bolts just a few days ago from whom I consider a very reliable source. I also doubt that there is a difference in M4 and M16 bolts. If there is, show it to me. I want to see documented proof. I've never heard of such a thing." ColdBlue replies: [/quote] OK, if your not somebody else that's cool and I apoligize, but your choice of words was very familiar. You read my post incorrectly, I am saying they are the same bolt, but in the higher firing rate carbine they are marginal and (if this 500 number is true) break way too often. So my opinion is that the carbine bolt should be redesigned for its more intense environment and re-issued. So you heard about the bolts breaking and that the cause is the forend from a "reliable source", well I still say it is not the rails. Not only have I witnessed a ton of testing in my current job (worked for Knight's since 1992), but the 20+ years I spent in the Marine Corps as an Infantry and Ordnance Officer placed me around 100's of M203's mounted to the barrels of rifles. Now if there was ever going to be a resultant "barrel bending/bolt lug breaking" cause & effect, would not the 2 lbs.+ of the 40mm do it? Well I'll tell you, it don't. Never saw a bolt fail on a rifle with an M203 slung underneath it. I don't recall broken bolts untill we started using carbines with sound suppressor, that inadvertently take the cyclic rate up even higher. I'd also suggest you and your source look at a cross section of either the RIS, or most probably in the Rangers: a RAS, and consider how it attaches to the upper receiver/barrel, and the nature of its structure. I think you will see that the rail forend has more potential to support a drooping barrel than add to it. We have turned down some barrels to a very small diameter profile to save weight and offer a much lighter weight weapon option. We have not seen any barrel drooping regardless if the RAS was attached or not, or if accessories were also RAS mounted. ColdBlue remembering "OP Three-Niner" and PFC Soles, S/Sgt Burton, and "Dusty" Rhoades on this Memorial Day...
Link Posted: 5/26/2003 5:08:32 AM EST
I've come to the conclusion that I am simply in the minority here. But the ACOG on SIR doesnt bother me a bit. I pick the gear I like and improves the performance of my rifle and then I get used to it. For example; TA31 is not designed to be mounted to a flat top of a 14.5" barrel. Screw it. I like the donut and Im using it and making hits. I like the adantages of the SIR but it sits my ACOG higher than it is supposed to be. So what? Mount it up there and get used to it! Its not that high and lifting your head up ever so slightly helps with fast paced, CQB shooting where fluid movement is required. Even better is the fact that now that my TA31 is up a little higher than it should be, the BDC in the ACOG is practically right on even though it is meant to be used on a different gun with a different barrel. Clearly everyone is going to have different opinions and sensitivities to changes. Maybe I'm just lucky and oblivious to it. But I've been using this system since the SIRs came out and it works for me. This is just yesterday, and despite what everone else says, I wouldnt trade this rig for any other. And you know what, I own and/or have used most others so I feel fairly confident in saying so. [img]http://www.imagestation.com/picture/sraid63/pb9414a78822193ac95aa42365642b061/fc13e388.jpg[/img]
Link Posted: 5/26/2003 10:42:25 AM EST
Actually, Trijicon makes their compact ACOGS with various mounts. you don't need the carry handle mount or anything with teh Special Ring model. I've got one on order to put on my Colt M4 with SIR. I never did find out how high the Compact ACOG with 19S arms mount is though. (I doubt it's as high as being on the carry handle, but I'd like it higher than the front sight anyway...)
Link Posted: 5/27/2003 5:50:36 AM EST
Compact ACOG on a 19S is actually lower than the iron sights. About .125 lower than the iron sights. I find I have to try to sqeeze down lower than is actually possible to use a Compact ACOG at that height. Also I have to disagree with new-arguy on adjusting to the equipment on your rifle. That is the kind of thinking they have in other countries where the military is forced to use Kalashnikovs with poor ergonomics and hard to use optics and sights. Your rifle should fit YOU. YOU should nothave to adjust to your rifle. I believe that optics should be mounted at a height that allow you to bring the weapon to bear and the sights line up all on their own. The whole reason I like the AR15 is the ergonomics of the rifle and having to sacrifice cheekweld is not something that is acceptable to me. I also dont see how mounting an optic higher is somehow faster than with the optic at the correct height. I hold my head vertical when using a CQB stance and using irons or optics at the correct height. I just crane my neck forward and down. This gives me a more stable platform to shoot from. In my eyes your rifle should fit YOUR BODY. From the size and shape of grip, to the reach of the trigger, length of stock, comfort and placement of cheekweld, height of optics, ease of use of selector, bolt release and forward assist etc. Everything should be in the right place if it is designed correctly. This results in more comfortable and consistant shooting. As far as this relates to the ACOG I would say that a special ring version would be fine for mounting at various heights. Just dont take away from the simplicity and ruggedness of the one piece design that the full size ACOG uses right now. A call for a special ring version is the answer your looking for not a redesign of the original version.
Link Posted: 5/27/2003 6:36:30 PM EST
All Im saying is I dont let the fact that the ACOG is up *slightly* higher restrict me from getting, using, and excelling with the gear I want. The ACOG is not up that high. We're not talking Aimpionts mounted to the top of carry handles, or needing to use Delta cheek pieces. We're talking a matter of an inch or less. In additon, that little bit of extra height puts the BDC in my ACOG very nearly on par with my rifle. In the end, it all works if you work it. If you restrict yourself to using only that which fits into what someone might consider a perfect little package, I feel you are restricting yourself from a good many options. If you refuse to use one of the best scopes, on one of the best mounts, with one of the best handgaurd systems, just because you have to lift your cheek up a half inch, I feel you are missing out on something that works well, if you work it. Granted, if a redesign came out that put it closer to the bore and got me a solid cheek weld, I would almost certainly get it. But I wont let the fact that such an option is not yet available, and may never be, keep me from the gear I want.
Link Posted: 5/29/2003 3:35:40 PM EST
Originally Posted By DevL: Compact ACOG on a 19S is actually lower than the iron sights. About .125 lower than the iron sights. I find I have to try to sqeeze down lower than is actually possible to use a Compact ACOG at that height.
View Quote
Is that height on top of the SIR mount though?
Link Posted: 5/29/2003 8:19:24 PM EST
No its a half inch higher than that and I found it to be more "too high" than the 19S on the flat top is too low.
Link Posted: 5/30/2003 3:35:19 PM EST
Top Top