Warning

 

Close

Confirm Action

Are you sure you wish to do this?

Confirm Cancel
Member Login

Site Notices
Posted: 12/30/2002 2:15:15 PM EST
new-arguy,

Wondering if you had any thoughts or opinions on your RAS II yet?

Thanks,

Link Posted: 12/30/2002 8:18:50 PM EST
Ok, Well, I was trying to put off doing this until I got a chance to deck it out a little more. I will be getting a Surefire M962SU and a Knights forward grip for the RAS II gun. At that point I felt like I would be able to give a better opinion as the RAS II M4 will be set up a on par with my SIR M4. Pending those purchases, I will say this... RAS II is a fantastic system. I wanted to get an RAS II when they first came out but waited. Well, I waited too long and missed them. So when I saw Wes had some more, I went further into debt [%|] and ordered one. I got mine in short order from MSTN, delivery was at least a few days quicker than I expected which was great. He's one of the only guys who has all this stuff in stock and ready to go. It came new in the box, but the finish was a little rough. I don't much mind a rough finish on a gun if I am the one who made it rough. Gives it some character. My SIR M4 has all manner of scuffs and scrapes here and there from use, like I said, it gives it character. My USP has a boat load of character! But I put them there and its my character... so that's cool. I'm not p.o.ed at the roughness of the RAS II, but I was surprised. It looked to me as if things had been mounted to it, and there is a good size nick on the left side where the bridge goes down to the handguard. Once more, this is not really a big deal to me, but I didn't expect it and feel it is worth mentioning. It also came with no instructions. I called Wes to see if he could walk me through getting it on. He was very helpful. He went to get one of the other RAS II boxes and noted that the other one he picked up was also missing instructions. Wes called Knights and got some directions faxed to him ASAP. He then faxed me some and I got it on in short order. I may have been able to figure it out myself, but didn't really want to try and screw something up. I've been known to do that once or twice! I had just installed a SIR C model to someone's gun two days earlier, and have installed my own SIR M model (actually Hawkeye did most of it). I don't think any of these systems are hard to put on at all, so would not factor in ease of installation when deciding which to get. Each is about as simple as the next in my limited experience. I also wouldn't consider cost to be a factor. RAS II is only $25 less than an SIR and at this point, you're already spending hundreds of dollars and I don't see how another $25 more or less should be a deciding factor. Once I got the thing on and gave it some CLP (strangely enough, it was very blotchy and in bad need of some CLP) it looked pretty sweet. I have a TAO1nsn and a GG&G MAD sight on this gun. Prior to the RAS II, I had Colt M4 handguards on it. I have to tell you, the RAS II with the 3 panels installed does not change the overall look of the gun much at all. If the SIR seems a little too Terminator-like to you, the RAS II does not make such a drastic looking change at all. While I myself sort of prefer the wicked look of the SIR, I can also appreciate that the RAS II achieves much of the same goals of the SIR without being such a drastic change. The RAS II is light. It is lighter than I expected. However, once installed, I don't feel a noticeable weight difference between the RAS II gun and the SIR gun when I take the M900 off the SIR. I wish I had a better scale. The scale I do have is a silly bathroom scale, and the overall weight of the two guns look nearly the same when using that, but that is hardly an accurate way to tell. I shot the gun a little at the FDCC match yesterday. I didn't compete with it, mostly because it has a TAO1nsn on it which isn't best suited for the shooting required. But I shot with it casually a little after we were done. Again, the RAS II felt very much like it did with the M4 handguards. This may be appealing to some folks who wont be using a forward grip. The lower half of the SIR definitely has a different feel to it when compared to standard handguards. I am not saying it is not comfortable, because I think it is just fine. But it is different. I will be using a forward grip on both anyway, so it doesn't matter to me one way or the other. But like I said, for someone not using a forward grip, the RAS II with the panels will feel much more like what you may be used to. MORE TO COME...
Link Posted: 12/30/2002 8:19:28 PM EST
[Last Edit: 12/30/2002 9:04:26 PM EST by new-arguy]
One of the major difference in the two systems is that the SIR raises the top mounting platform a little (Wes would know the exact height). Some folks feel like this will create a problem with mounting some optics to the SIR. The only problem I can see is for mounting an Eotech. You just cant mount a Eotech to an SIR and be able to co-witness the irons. With the integral mount of the Eotech, you are just limited in your mounting options. You can mount a Eotech to a RAS II and co-witness, but you will have to mount it out over the handguards. Though I have not used one like this, I think that would be the best place to mount it anyway. I really like forward mounting the dot sights I do have, and mounting the Eotech up there, you will be able to use whatever rear sight you choose to install through the Eotech. If you mount the Eotech behind the bridge of the RAS II, I don't believe you will have room to also mount a BUIS. If this is in fact true, you definitely want to get it out over the handguards with a BUIS. It seems like most folks running Aimpionts on the RAS II will be putting them on the bridge, or hump of the RAS II. Like I said earlier, I am a big fan of forward mounting dot optics, and would rather see the Aimpoint mounted to the handguard section of the rails. While you can do this and still co-witness with the RAS II, an Aimpoint, and a correct mount, I think it might look a little goofy and uneven. Of course, when it comes to function, this doesn't matter at all, but I cant help but thinking about the hump of the BUIS, then the valley of the flat top receiver rail, then the hump of the bridge on the RAS II, then the valley of the top rail of the handguards, then the tall mountain of the Aimpoint plus mount sticking up in the air, then the valley of the rest of the handguards, then the front sight. Know what I mean? Other than that, I personally feel there is no problem mounting any other optic to the slightly raised mounting platform of the SIR. If you use a Aimpoint, get any one of the many mounts without a spacer and it is at the correct height. Use ARMS #15 mount if you have a Reflex. If you have a magnified ACOG, you cant co-witness your sights without removing the optic anyway. And while mounting an ACOG with any of the flat tops mounts it uses, directly to a flat top, puts it at the correct height over bore, I have not a problem whatsoever using my TA31/TA51 mounted to the SIR. I thought I might, but I don't. In fact I don't even notice the difference. To be fair, I should say that I generally am not very sensitive to small changes like that, so its no surprise to me that I don't really notice. If you are sensitive to small changes like that, maybe you would notice? I don't know. Aside from this, I will just copy and paste some text from a previous post about my feelings about the small, but noticeable differences between the two systems. I like the fact that the SIR has removable rails. Rails are good thing to have on your handguards. But unwanted rails are uncomfortable to hold on to and they can heat up very quickly. The RAS II's answer to this is to cover the rails with panels. Panels are ok, and they do shield your hand from the edges of the rails and the heat they will acquire. But the panels are directly attached to these aluminum rails and even they will heat up eventually. The SIRs answer to unwanted rails is to allow you to take them off completely. I like that. You don't have to worry about having or losing panels, or having the panels heat up. You don't need the rail on that part of the gun, take it off. I also like that the lower half of the SIR is synthetic, not aluminum. I am telling you, the lower portion of the SIR simply does not heat up. Period. In some testing I did, I ripped 5 mags through the SIR on full auto as fast as I could load the mags. It got warm, but no where near too hot to hold. I did the same thing to an Oly FIRSH which is another aluminum rail handguard, and it became too hot to handle. If all goes well, I will be doing the same test to the RAS II. We used a digital thermometer in these tests and will have precise figures to show people just how hot they got. In the end, I can hear someone saying that the synthetic lower of the SIR is weaker and they would rather have an all aluminum handguard. I disagree, but not so strongly I don't want an RAS II myself! I can also hear people saying they would rather lose the removable panel of the RAS II than the aluminum rail of the SIR. Again, I can see the point, but the off chance that I lose the actual rail does not outweigh the advantage of not needing panels to begin with that I get every time I shoot the gun. Others might disagree and I don't feel strongly enough about it to make an argument. Comparing the RAS II and the SIR is not like comparing apples and oranges. They are the same type of system. They do much of the same things in somewhat different ways. It is much more like comparing orange juice to orange juice. Which do you like better, Minute Maid or Sunkist? Pulp or no Pulp. Both are awesome systems, but do just what they are supposed to. I think each have somewhat small advantages over the other. The only problem will be in determining which of the advantages will be most beneficial to you. Once you find out, you wont know which is the better system, but you will know which is the better system for you. Sorry for the long post. I didn't think I would have this much to say.
Link Posted: 12/31/2002 5:51:26 AM EST
[Last Edit: 12/31/2002 5:54:21 AM EST by Scott_Hall]
Actually I was hoping for a long response :) I've had mine for several months now but the only accessory it is currently wearing is a Knight's forward sling mount. Thanks,
Link Posted: 1/1/2003 10:01:54 AM EST
What kind of rifle did you mount your RAS II on?
Link Posted: 1/1/2003 10:07:44 AM EST
Same as the SIR, a preban Bushmaster with a 14.5" M4 barrel. Only differences is the flash suppressor and stock. SIR gun has the new Vortex and ribbed stock, RAS II has the old Phantom and standard 4 position stock.
Link Posted: 1/1/2003 11:41:21 AM EST
Question: I want to mount an Eotech on a FF RAS system, and be able to cowitness with a BUIS ...which RAS system do I want to use?
Link Posted: 1/1/2003 1:37:58 PM EST
Link Posted: 1/1/2003 4:00:17 PM EST
I mount my EOTEch 551 to my M4 with KAC RAS MRE I got from Wes. FF RAS is probably the best way to mount the EOTech. New-ARGuy, excellent write up on the RAS2. Looking forard to a pix of the beauty.
Link Posted: 1/1/2003 5:37:13 PM EST
Does anyone have pictures they can post?
Link Posted: 1/1/2003 6:31:50 PM EST
[Last Edit: 1/1/2003 6:32:33 PM EST by CANADIAN_TACTICAL]
The EoTech 551 on a 11.5" FFRAS gun [img]http://photos.ar15.com/ImageGallery/IG_LoadImage.asp?iImageUnq=2953[/img] I did not mount the Eotech out on the FFRAS but it does give the picture
Link Posted: 1/1/2003 6:48:20 PM EST
[Last Edit: 1/1/2003 6:58:46 PM EST by Cerebus]
I asked this on another thread but don't think I ever got a clear answer ...do I have to remove my existing front sight to use the FFRAS (like in Kevin's picture)? In every picture of the FFRAS systems I've seen, the front sight has been replaced with the flip up system pictured ...same thing with the M4 FFRAS.
Link Posted: 1/1/2003 7:07:13 PM EST
Ok so I'm sitting here trying to decide whether to get a M4 RAS or a RAS II. I have an AimpointMl2 with ARMS mount. I just ordered a ARMS BUIS. I want to be able to co witness through the Aimpoint. My concern is the bridge on the RAS II. 1) If I mount the Aimpoint on the bridge I can't cowitness correct? 2) If I mount the Aimpoint ahead of the bridge won't the bridge obscure some of the sight picture? 3)And mounting it behind with a BUIS is difficult correct? If you want to answer with yes and no thats ok. Thanks. :)
Link Posted: 1/1/2003 7:19:56 PM EST
[Last Edit: 1/1/2003 7:22:28 PM EST by Cerebus]
1. KAC (I think) makes a low profile mount for the Aimpoint scopes. See bottom of this page: [url=www.quarterbore.com/kac/kacrasii.html]Aimpoint Mount[/url] Unsure of the other two questions.
Link Posted: 1/1/2003 7:22:11 PM EST
Cerebus, just to install it it can be re-installed THellURider, no the bridge is a good spot - with the ARMS M68#22 Ring, you can use it fine w/o the spacer. As far as a BUIS goes it will not interfer. -Kevin
Link Posted: 1/1/2003 7:24:47 PM EST
Originally Posted By Cerebus: I asked this on another thread but don't think I ever got a clear answer ...do I have to remove my existing front sight to use the FFRAS (like in Kevin's picture)? In every picture of the FFRAS systems I've seen, the front sight has been replaced with the flip up system pictured ...same thing with the M4 FFRAS.
View Quote
Cerebus, I also had the same thing done with a FF RAS short and had a GG&G flip up sight installed. The others can correct me if I am wrong, but I believe the the FF RAS system requires the removal of the front sight and flash suppressor for installation. As long as the front sight is being removed, it is common to replace it with a flip up though you can have the original sight tower reinstalled. It's kind of like tearing down a vehicle engine - as long as you are at it, you might as well overhaul some of the other stuff you will have access to while you are at it. If you are using a system that goes on without having to remove the front sight, easily (relative) done by the end user, leaving the original front sight on just means less work and something you don't have to do, which would require tools, skill, and work (relative again). Hope that helps.
Link Posted: 1/1/2003 7:48:25 PM EST
Originally Posted By AK_Mike: The others can correct me if I am wrong, but I believe the the FF RAS system requires the removal of the front sight and flash suppressor for installation. As long as the front sight is being removed, it is common to replace it with a flip up though you can have the original sight tower reinstalled. It's kind of like tearing down a vehicle engine - as long as you are at it, you might as well overhaul some of the other stuff you will have access to while you are at it.
View Quote
Mike - exactly right and good analogy
Link Posted: 1/4/2003 2:50:06 PM EST
[Last Edit: 1/4/2003 9:05:46 PM EST by SlimHazy]
Originally Posted By Cerebus: Does anyone have pictures they can post?
View Quote
I've some pictures of my new RAS-II installed, with EOTech 552 on the rail, but alas nowhere to post them yet. If someone has a host and can make them smaller... Oops, RAS-II, not FF RAS
Link Posted: 1/4/2003 7:56:31 PM EST
You had a FF RAS on your rifle at the last shoot??? How in the HECK did I not notice that? Anyone who wants free image hosting, go to [url]www.imagestation.com[/url]. I've been using it for a while and its great. 100% free as far as I can tell.
Link Posted: 1/4/2003 9:02:35 PM EST
Neil- I had the EO-Tech mounted on the flattop. I ordered the RAS-II from MSTN the day before the shoot and it got to me on the 2nd. It's on there now, and I'm hoping to sight it in again today. I'll see if it makes much of a difference to the zero to move it forward at all.
Link Posted: 1/4/2003 9:24:38 PM EST
Very cool Kevin! You're geared up now! We better see you out there every month!
Link Posted: 1/5/2003 3:07:06 AM EST
Originally Posted By new-arguy: Very cool Kevin! You're geared up now! We better see you out there every month!
View Quote
I wish. Moving time again; third time in as many years. I'm hoping to get something started with the AR15.com board members in ol' Virginia. I'm definitely going to miss the FDCC shoots!
Top Top