Warning

 

Close

Confirm Action

Are you sure you wish to do this?

Confirm Cancel
Member Login

Site Notices
Posted: 4/23/2004 8:31:29 AM EST
[Last Edit: 5/10/2004 9:02:29 AM EST by SMGLee]
I had the chance to check out the new rail adapter TD is offering to customers with ARMS Forend.






Comparison of the difference on the two rail.






The rail will still work with ARMS throw lever.

The TD rail will require you to remove the existing rail screw from your ARMS rail and apply it to your new TD rail. the screw is held in by a clip and it is very easy to remove and reinstall.

The rail mounts very solid on the handguard and if you use enough force to twist the vertical, you can actually twist the lower portion of the plastic handguard. I think this is definitely the way to go for ARMS owners that wishes to use the TangoDown vertical grip.

The rails are avilable right now to customers ordering the Vertical. It is sold as a package. The packaged price has not been determined at the time of this review.
Link Posted: 4/23/2004 8:35:27 AM EST
Stupid question, but the TD vert. grip was not compatible with the ARMS rails before? I did not know that.
Link Posted: 4/23/2004 10:47:40 AM EST

Originally Posted By HKocher:
Stupid question, but the TD vert. grip was not compatible with the ARMS rails before? I did not know that.



There was a "debate" awhile back over this. Basically it was 3rdtk screaming bloody murder, because TD said the lower SIR rail was not Mil-Spec. And it's apparently not. So, TD has produced this adapter.


Thanks Chen! Good info, brother!


Monty
Link Posted: 4/23/2004 9:01:54 PM EST
[Last Edit: 4/23/2004 9:03:09 PM EST by militarymoron]
nice pics, chen. i miss the wood floor though
ahhh...finally...a rail on a SIR that's 1913 mil-std compliant.
cheers,
MM
Link Posted: 4/24/2004 3:34:08 AM EST
As I recall, the debate was about whether or not the dimention that did not allow the TD grip to fit on the SIR rail was required for all rails... or just the upper receiver of the rifle. If I recall correctly, 3rdtk quoted info from the spec that showed the specific height dimention in question was not required on rails other than on the upper receiver? This is just from memory.
Link Posted: 4/24/2004 4:15:58 AM EST
Always the diplomat Neil.
I'd have to agree that that is an accurate summary of the argument made.

/S2
Link Posted: 4/24/2004 7:10:29 AM EST

Originally Posted By new-arguy:
3rdtk quoted info from the spec that showed the specific height dimention in question was not required on rails other than on the upper receiver?



yes, that was the argument that 3rdtk made, but it was just an attempt to draw attention away from the SIR - he was inaccurate in his interpretation (dead wrong). (i'm saying that in the most diplomatic way i can). he didn't quote anything in the spec to that effect because there's NOTHING in the spec of that sort. in fact, the word 'receiver' is not to be found in the spec.
quoting the spec, mil-std 1913 is for the 'accessory mounting rail for small arms weapons', and accessory is defined in the spec as 'laser pointers, fire control devices, night vision devices, grenade launchers, optics, thermal weapons sights etc.'. some of them are obviously intended to be used on the receiver, some are not.
anyways, 3rdtk using the argument that mil-std 1913 is meant only for the upper receiver pretty much shoots himself in the foot, because the top rail of the SIR lacks that standoff height to make it 1913 compliant. so basically if you install a SIR on an M4, you now end up with NONE of the mounting rails being compliant, including the upper receiver. i'm not saying that's a bad thing, just a non-compliance thing
cheers,
MM

Link Posted: 4/24/2004 8:08:57 AM EST
Hah!!! There you are MM. Nice, very diplomatic of you friend

"welome to the party pal!"

Good to see you here.

/S2
Link Posted: 4/24/2004 8:47:11 AM EST
So...is the TD foregrip compatible with the KAC RAS II?
Link Posted: 4/24/2004 9:33:50 AM EST
[Last Edit: 4/24/2004 9:34:28 AM EST by SULACO2]
Absolutely, the only mating problems found were w/ SIR rails. No other rail problems were discovered.

/S2
Link Posted: 4/24/2004 1:40:58 PM EST

Originally Posted By SULACO2:
Hah!!! There you are MM. Nice, very diplomatic of you friend
"welome to the party pal!"
Good to see you here.
/S2


hey bro, good to see you too. i've just been swamped lately and haven't had time to get on all the boards. shoot me an email sometime. hope you're doing well.
cheers,
MM
Link Posted: 4/24/2004 6:18:34 PM EST

Originally Posted By militarymoron:
Originally Posted By new-arguy:
3rdtk quoted info from the spec that showed the specific height dimention in question was not required on rails other than on the upper receiver?



yes, that was the argument that 3rdtk made, but it was just an attempt to draw attention away from the SIR - he was inaccurate in his interpretation (dead wrong). (i'm saying that in the most diplomatic way i can). he didn't quote anything in the spec to that effect because there's NOTHING in the spec of that sort. in fact, the word 'receiver' is not to be found in the spec.
quoting the spec, mil-std 1913 is for the 'accessory mounting rail for small arms weapons', and accessory is defined in the spec as 'laser pointers, fire control devices, night vision devices, grenade launchers, optics, thermal weapons sights etc.'. some of them are obviously intended to be used on the receiver, some are not.
anyways, 3rdtk using the argument that mil-std 1913 is meant only for the upper receiver pretty much shoots himself in the foot, because the top rail of the SIR lacks that standoff height to make it 1913 compliant. so basically if you install a SIR on an M4, you now end up with NONE of the mounting rails being compliant, including the upper receiver. i'm not saying that's a bad thing, just a non-compliance thing
cheers,
MM


Hmmm, Lets see, ARMS have been making and selling the same dimentioned dovetail rails since the early 80's, longer than anyone elese. The gov't inspectors don't know what their doing, the us gov't issue NSN's, Colt, the US and Canadian gov't get permission to use it, but a new piece of molded plastic pistol grip (not machined) made for a 30 plus lb. belt fed machine gun doesn't fit the standard industry (dovetail that everything else fits)rail, ARMS must be wrong. OH MY!
Jack

Link Posted: 4/24/2004 6:55:25 PM EST
Anyone know where this combo may be available? The grip and adapter?


Thanks!


-Hershey
Link Posted: 4/24/2004 6:56:49 PM EST
DEAR LORD!!!!!


He is back!!!!


Jack, how you been?!?
Link Posted: 4/24/2004 7:07:15 PM EST

Originally Posted By 3rdtk:
ARMS must be wrong. OH MY!
Jack


according to the mil-std 1913, yep.
MM
Link Posted: 4/25/2004 9:25:40 PM EST
1913 std or not, the new rail solved the problem TD VG has with SIR systems.

Link Posted: 4/25/2004 9:46:08 PM EST
[Last Edit: 4/25/2004 9:47:27 PM EST by LordStoner]
JESUS H. CHRIST, DICK!

THIS IS A GOD DAMN DEAD ISSUE!!!!!!!!!!!!!.

Your rail dimension didn't win over the masses, let's just move on! The US has adopted a Mil Standard. So, go back to one of your hired machine shops (the ones that you owe tons of money to) and get with the 21st century and start using the God Damn Mil-Std 1913! Who knows, you may sell more Sorry SIR Systems?

To the rest of the readers, sorry about the rant...
Link Posted: 4/26/2004 5:25:11 AM EST
[quote]Originally Posted By LordStoner:
JESUS H. CHRIST, DICK!

THIS IS A GOD DAMN DEAD ISSUE!!!!!!!!!!!!!.

Your rail dimension didn't win over the masses, let's just move on! The US has adopted a Mil Standard. So, go back to one of your hired machine shops (the ones that you owe tons of money to) and get with the 21st century and start using the God Damn Mil-Std 1913! Who knows, you may sell more Sorry SIR Systems?

To the rest of the readers, sorry about the rant...
[/quote
]

No problem LS, (LSD) just switch the meds.
Jack
Link Posted: 4/26/2004 6:55:11 AM EST
Ya"ll got to admit you did miss him!!
Link Posted: 4/26/2004 6:20:24 PM EST
So who has these packages? I emailed TD today and they are not offering it. Who has the rail only? TD offered it for $28+ but I would prefer to buy it from someone here; gotta help the locals. Any help?

Cheers
Link Posted: 4/26/2004 9:02:46 PM EST
Link Posted: 4/26/2004 9:20:36 PM EST
SMGLee (Chen),

Nice pictures of Tango Downs adapter and pistols grip(don't know about the billboard).
Looks like Jeff did a fine job with the mil-spec rail. Hope he does well with this new product.
Best regards

Frank

Link Posted: 4/26/2004 10:07:19 PM EST
Troy (et. al.)
Yeah, I picked up on the subtle CLTactical bit there but he clearly makes no mention of price or availablity so I thought I would throw it out there for all comers.

Cheers
Link Posted: 4/27/2004 8:02:33 AM EST
[Last Edit: 5/10/2004 9:03:34 AM EST by SMGLee]

Originally Posted By Moe-Ron:
Troy (et. al.)
Yeah, I picked up on the subtle CLTactical bit there but he clearly makes no mention of price or availablity so I thought I would throw it out there for all comers.

Cheers



Link Posted: 4/27/2004 12:44:32 PM EST
i figured chen was marking his pics the same way i put 'militarymorons.com' or 'mm photo' on mine.
btw, larry at buffertech is one of the guys to contact for this TD SIR rail as he's the main TD distributor.
cheers,
MM
Link Posted: 4/27/2004 12:47:37 PM EST
Chen,

Do you still have any, and if not when will you be getting more in?


-Hershey
Link Posted: 5/9/2004 1:13:49 AM EST
[Last Edit: 5/9/2004 11:12:17 AM EST by Moe-Ron]
I attached my (Chen Lee TACTICAL) TD gear today and the fit and finish is very well done. The threads for the ARMS (SIR) screws were a concern, but after some "aw fuck it" coercion it all worked out with no worries. The TD grip is exactly what I was looking for and essentially "completes" the rifle.

Thanks Chen
Link Posted: 5/9/2004 2:17:41 PM EST
I think we have 10 adapters in stock. Give us a call. 573-634-8529 Buffer TechnologiesBuffer Technologies
Link Posted: 5/9/2004 3:44:57 PM EST
Link Posted: 5/9/2004 5:31:45 PM EST
I'm glad that a certain book just came out with the FACTS about the mil std. 1913. It shows actual documents of the development of the receiver from day one, with Colts ACR receiver that didn't work out. It shows that the dimensions of the re designed receiver came from ARMS. The drawing came from ARMS, and it was for the receiver and that extra wide space under the lower dovetail was to accept the Swan Sleeve. All the rail and attachment devices, which are not a receiver, were covered under 6.3 of the mil std., and the rails/attachment makers should make as required so as not to make optics and lasers etc. be too bulky and so forth. The standard practice for the last 25 years was what the US and Canadian gov't adopted from ARMS designs. and placed on the Diemaco and Colt Receivers. The the extra space below the receivers bottom angles, was there to also raise the receiver from what the Colt ACR was, so the receiver would be stronger.
In other words, the Black Rifle 2 book, provides the perfect logic better than I can explain, why the attacments and rails are quite different, than one pistol grip than doesn't fit standard practices. It was just not logical that one piece of equiment didn't fit, (plastic pistol grip)out of millions of others that did/do over the years. Worst of all, in non logic, was a long time rail maker, and then another rail maker are blamed because of that one same grip with too much plastic on it that didn't need to be there to fit everything like everyone else.
If TD got rid of the extra material, they would be compliant with general practices that everyone uses.
Jack
Link Posted: 5/10/2004 10:08:53 PM EST
I will say that in looking at the two rail sections the ARMS rail looks to have the more precise machining of the two.
Link Posted: 5/11/2004 2:06:14 AM EST
Top Top