Do these make a bit of difference?  I've got a little slack between the upper and lower of my AR.

I like using one. The click-click between the upper and lower every time I move just plain bugs me.  

However, I cannot see any improvments in accuracy either.  Make sense, since all the sight radius is firmly fixed to the upper.

So for me,  it's an aesthetic improvement, but not a functional one.   I'm sure others might disagree

Also, it makes the takedown pins really stiff to push out.  I've included an old allen wrench in my field kit that I use to push the pins through.  

Snake oil.  I have one in my junk bin, came with a trade.

works as advertised, if you don't need it don't buy one and then bitch about it.

It makes people that worry about reciever rattle feel better.  

The only real downside is it can make field-stripping a bitch.

I dont use them.

It works but doesn't improve accuracy.

When field-stripping you have to squeeze the upper and lower together to pull out your takedown pin easier.

Mine has a great price, it's FREE!

Rubberized snake oil.

Try some hot glue instead. Semi-permanent, and you can size it such that you won't have an impossible time with disassembly.

Watched a shooter install one once and then could not charge his bolt back all the way cause it fell out of where it was suppose to be. If your worried more about a little play in your upper/Lower vs reliability, then by all means, get one.
They do nothing for Accuracy. That's Hype.

My ar doesn't need one, but it seems that it wouldn't matter, just like a slide that rattles on a 1911 pistol, if the barrel locks up in the slide, it doesn't matter if it rattles or not, because the sights and barrel are rattling the same.

It's rattle prevention for those super quiet ninja types that are silently chambering rounds with their FA.

Quoted: It's rattle prevention for those super quiet ninja types that are silently chambering rounds with their FA.

The Accu-Wedge is designed to eliminate play in the upper and lower receiver interface.
Accuracy enhancement due to a more solid junction is entirely realistic to assume, however, under firing conditions the operator has eliminated this "slop" with a secure weapon hold, thus negating the static effects of the Accu-Wedge.
This brings us to the position of slop in the weapon while it is not being discharged. If not engaged in real combat, the Accu-Wedge will make the weapon feel tight, and eliminate the "click-click" of the interface.
However, in combat, you have installed a device that is unsecured within the mechanism of the rifle upon disassembly. It might be said that this is not wise, as some conditions ie. mud etc. would require rapid manipulation of the pushpins and the aggressive removal of foreign matter. The Accu-Wedge would be considered a liability at this point.
If you primarily use the arm as range rifle, the Accu-Wedge makes sense to those that the "click-click" of the interface drives them crazy.
The pinned upper and lower are however, the nature of the beast, and the design creates the "slop". A quality rifle will have minimal play initially, and only after thousands of cycles might induce a noticeably looser fit.
On an "SPR" I will admit that the Accu-Wedge "feels" better, and if this is the breaking point in the confidence factor, by all means install one.
If the interface on your rifle is REALLY bad, then the Accu-Wedge would actually help the accuracy potential, as the hammer, bolt carrier, and firing pin would then cycle in a more consistent manner. But if it is that loose, that might be the least of your worries, namely the fluctuation of the position in relation to the magazine and the bolt would destroy any chance of reliable function.
If you are engaged in real combat, it is Uncle Sam's rifle, and you don't give a rat's ass about the "click-click", your crony with the SAW has 200 rounds moving in a plastic drum, and is trying to catch his breath after running about 3 clicks with 80 pounds on his back!

it is made to eleminate play and it does that well.



cut to fit so it wont be too tight

Quoted: Accuracy enhancement due to a more solid junction is entirely realistic to assume, however, under firing conditions the operator has eliminated this "slop" with a secure weapon hold, thus negating the static effects of the Accu-Wedge.

Tell me how a sloppy fit between a lower and upper can affect accruacy, when the barrel and sights are all on the upper?  The lower has absolutely nothing to do with accuracy.

Quoted: cut to fit so it wont be too tight

Speaking of which, how much should you have to cut?  I recently installed one on my RRA.  I almost have nothing left on the bottom part, I had to trim so much.

I tried to cut one down for my RRA lower, I got frustrated and tossed it, I had nothing left, all this for a tight fit. As long as my AR's shoot straight I'm fine.

None of my ARs rattle.  I guess I don't need one.

This is to answer the question posted by Dace.
The lower reciever in conjunction with the upper has an effect on accuracy.
Accuracy is in fact consistency. The attitude of the hammer face, the location of the top round in the magazine to the center of the bolt, and induced harmonic vibrations on weapon discharge affect accuracy.
To illustrate we can envision a very loose fitting upper/lower interface, and inconsistent hold between rounds fired. The chambering force WILL vary in an unpredictable manner (round depletion in the magazine will also affect this, but is predictable).
The strike of the hammer on the firing pin will vary in location shot to shot, thus imparting different force upon the firing pin due to released spring energy not being confined within a consistent window.
The relation between cheekweld and ocular lenses will vary, and inconsistent locating with iron sights is even less forgiving.
Granted, the very platform that we are discussing typically is not being held to sub-moa standard, but the interface definitely has an effect on accuracy.
My buddy's M1A is loose in the stock, the sights are unitized with the barrel/receiver assembly, so it should shoot fine. WRONG.
C'mon, use your head.

Quoted: This is to answer the question posted by Dace. The lower reciever in conjunction with the upper has an effect on accuracy. Accuracy is in fact consistency. The attitude of the hammer face, the location of the top round in the magazine to the center of the bolt, and induced harmonic vibrations on weapon discharge affect accuracy. To illustrate we can envision a very loose fitting upper/lower interface, and inconsistent hold between rounds fired. The chambering force WILL vary in an unpredictable manner (round depletion in the magazine will also affect this, but is predictable). The strike of the hammer on the firing pin will vary in location shot to shot, thus imparting different force upon the firing pin due to released spring energy not being confined within a consistent window. The relation between cheekweld and ocular lenses will vary, and inconsistent locating with iron sights is even less forgiving. Granted, the very platform that we are discussing typically is not being held to sub-moa standard, but the interface definitely has an effect on accuracy. My buddy's M1A is loose in the stock, the sights are unitized with the barrel/receiver assembly, so it should shoot fine. WRONG. C'mon, use your head.

You must come here to make friends.

Quoted: Quoted: This is to answer the question posted by Dace. The lower reciever in conjunction with the upper has an effect on accuracy. Accuracy is in fact consistency. The attitude of the hammer face, the location of the top round in the magazine to the center of the bolt, and induced harmonic vibrations on weapon discharge affect accuracy. To illustrate we can envision a very loose fitting upper/lower interface, and inconsistent hold between rounds fired. The chambering force WILL vary in an unpredictable manner (round depletion in the magazine will also affect this, but is predictable). The strike of the hammer on the firing pin will vary in location shot to shot, thus imparting different force upon the firing pin due to released spring energy not being confined within a consistent window. The relation between cheekweld and ocular lenses will vary, and inconsistent locating with iron sights is even less forgiving. Granted, the very platform that we are discussing typically is not being held to sub-moa standard, but the interface definitely has an effect on accuracy. My buddy's M1A is loose in the stock, the sights are unitized with the barrel/receiver assembly, so it should shoot fine. WRONG. C'mon, use your head. You must come here to make friends.

lol and a new guy at that....he wont last long here

Quoted: This is to answer the question posted by Dace. The lower reciever in conjunction with the upper has an effect on accuracy. Accuracy is in fact consistency. The attitude of the hammer face, the location of the top round in the magazine to the center of the bolt, and induced harmonic vibrations on weapon discharge affect accuracy. To illustrate we can envision a very loose fitting upper/lower interface, and inconsistent hold between rounds fired. The chambering force WILL vary in an unpredictable manner (round depletion in the magazine will also affect this, but is predictable). The strike of the hammer on the firing pin will vary in location shot to shot, thus imparting different force upon the firing pin due to released spring energy not being confined within a consistent window. The relation between cheekweld and ocular lenses will vary, and inconsistent locating with iron sights is even less forgiving. Granted, the very platform that we are discussing typically is not being held to sub-moa standard, but the interface definitely has an effect on accuracy. My buddy's M1A is loose in the stock, the sights are unitized with the barrel/receiver assembly, so it should shoot fine. WRONG. C'mon, use your head.

ROFL.  If you say so.

Quoted: lol and a new guy at that....he wont last long here

Umm....  so, does that mean he's wrong???  

Quoted: Quoted: lol and a new guy at that....he wont last long here Umm....  so, does that mean he's wrong???

Doesn't mean he is wrong.  He just needs to learn how to speak to his peers properly.

I had no intention of creating a stir, and if anyone took offense, I apologize.
I merely was presenting the facts, and used the statement to encourage a change in thinking.
Back in the day when we were implementing the SR-25 for the first time, the use of an Accu-Wedge did permit more accurate shot placement at 600+ meters.
I myself, was not such a great shot that I could detect a difference, but the snipers could.
On a CQB weapon it is not required, but on an "SPR" it will help eliminate one of the variables, so why not use it?

Snake oil waste of money.  Shit, use a cheap rubber o-ring on the front lug.  Does the exact same thing for a lot less money.

R

Quoted: ........  Shit, use a cheap rubber o-ring on the front lug.  Does the exact same thing for a lot less money. R

+1

If it is in fact "snake oil" then why illustrate an alternative course of action to induce the same results?

Quoted: Snake oil waste of money.  Shit, use a cheap rubber o-ring on the front lug.  Does the exact same thing for a lot less money. R

Just wondering, where does this go?  I've heard of it before, but I can't picture where the o-ring would be placed.

Quoted: If it is in fact "snake oil" then why illustrate an alternative course of action to induce the same results?

The snake oil aspect comes into play when you consider some charlatan charges $4 for a chunk of rubber when a $.10 O-ring will do the exact same thing.  


R

Quoted: Quoted: Snake oil waste of money.  Shit, use a cheap rubber o-ring on the front lug.  Does the exact same thing for a lot less money. R Just wondering, where does this go?  I've heard of it before, but I can't picture where the o-ring would be placed.

It goes over the front lug of the upper.


Rich

Quoted: Quoted: Accuracy enhancement due to a more solid junction is entirely realistic to assume, however, under firing conditions the operator has eliminated this "slop" with a secure weapon hold, thus negating the static effects of the Accu-Wedge. Tell me how a sloppy fit between a lower and upper can affect accruacy, when the barrel and sights are all on the upper?  The lower has absolutely nothing to do with accuracy.

play between upper and lower can cause your barrel and sights to move off your POA. it doesn't affect accuracy of the rifle but it affect the ability of it to be shot accuratly, as minimal as it may be. same as putting a gun in a vise doesn't affect the accuracy of the weapon just eliminates the play.

Quoted: Quoted: Quoted: Snake oil waste of money.  Shit, use a cheap rubber o-ring on the front lug.  Does the exact same thing for a lot less money. R Just wondering, where does this go?  I've heard of it before, but I can't picture where the o-ring would be placed. It goes over the front lug of the upper. Rich

Newb question, but the front lug being what?  The thing the pivot pins goes through?

I paid $1 for mine.  Of course I got 12 of them.

I have some play with my RRA M4gery that I built but I've also noticed that when I have a loaded mag inserted the slight play between the upper and lower diminishes. Is it due to the rifle being loaded and chambered, because the mag is in between the upper & lower?

I think it is snake oil.

Quoted: play between upper and lower can cause your barrel and sights to move off your POA. it doesn't affect accuracy of the rifle but it affect the ability of it to be shot accuratly, as minimal as it may be. same as putting a gun in a vise doesn't affect the accuracy of the weapon just eliminates the play.

Really?  I got three expert badges and over 20 years of shooting that says this is pure:




Implied science may be your word.......


.....and no offense intended.

I did a little test on my patrol AR. Upper and lower have some play but not overly bad. This AR has 5K+ through it. With the wedge I hit 48 out of 50 times at 100yds. (10"x12" steel plate) iron sights. Without the wedge I hit 49 out of 50 times.

Conclusion = Snake oil.

All it does is tighten up the upper lower slop. Use an o-ring and save the $4.

heres my take on it.

the accu wedge is made from rubber, rubber gives. which is why take down can be hard to do with one installed. thats a no no from as far as accuracy is concerned. because you have to press down the upper, ie flex it to assemble it to the lower. that cant be good. the best way to eliminate upper and lower slop is to use release agent and JB weld. I forget where i read it but the guy is an bench rest shooter. He dyed the JB black and the bedding couldnt be seen. take down was easy.

mine has some slop, but it dont rattle, so I dont worry about it. now if i was into benchresting, and was squeezing every bit out of everything. yea i would bed the thing, free float it, etc. but as it stands now mine which isnt even broken in good yet can put all its shots inside the edge of an CD at 25 meters, ie I cant even see the edge of a CD at 25 meters, but it will do it. with a chomed bore.

Quoted: Snake oil waste of money.  Shit, use a cheap rubber o-ring on the front lug.  Does the exact same thing for a lot less money. R

i have tried this and everytime i open/close my recievers it cuts the o-ring leaving chunks of rubber lying around.



hell if you dont wanna pay for the "wedge" you can always fold paper and stuff it uder the rear lug

Take a in the ear foam plug and use that. Same stuff. If you think you need it. And its practcly free

Quoted: Quoted: play between upper and lower can cause your barrel and sights to move off your POA. it doesn't affect accuracy of the rifle but it affect the ability of it to be shot accuratly, as minimal as it may be. same as putting a gun in a vise doesn't affect the accuracy of the weapon just eliminates the play. Really?  I got three expert badges and over 20 years of shooting that says this is pure: Implied science may be your word....... .....and no offense intended.

i didn't say you'd have a toilet bowl if you didn't use an accu wedge there jarhead, precision rifles have tighter tolerences for a reason.