Posted: 1/15/2012 8:24:53 PM EDT
|
eta: Its been a long day! The images more or less speak for themselves but Ive typed up a bit to explain what the hell all of this is. I cant make sense of it anymore. Ill be back tomorrow to answer questions and clarify where possible!!! It may not be for everyone, but surely someone has to be in the same boat as me. My goal was to make a QD mount but not along the lines of what LT currently offers. I find a flashlight at the end of my rifle to be incredibly annoying but, under certain circumstances, invaluable. The end result is a two part product. The first part, the mount, is what binds directly to the rails on the rifle. The second part is the harness... a sort of QD mechanism in itself that is both secure when installed and low profile(ish) when uninstalled. This is one way I thought do do it. I am not familiar with the limitations of machining so I stuck with the smallest dimension I found on my Larue mount as the basis for how small I could go. I would assume some pieces could go much smaller to make it an even more low profile harness. Why its good for shooters: Allows weapon lights to be installed and removed quickly. ––Less bulky rifles ––––Dont snag on gear ––––Dont mess up transport setups ––Less felt weight between light weight and torque ––––Less fatique over long periods of time? ––Allows the operator to have only one light. ––––Potentially useful for LEO who always have a flashlight handy but rarely equip their rifles. ––Allows the operator to quickly change out lights. Why its good for LT: ––Another part to sell, of course! ––––Rather than one static mount with one light, customers may get multiple harnesses for one mount. ––Many reused parts between models. ––––So far, only the rings change depending on flashlight diameter. Mount This is more or less like all LT mounts. Typical throw lever. Uses a small bearing preloaded by a spring set by a screw to hold the harness in the rear. By turning the set screw, the operator can change the ease at which the light can be removed. Depending on light location, light size, how much abuse a rifle takes, and how often the operator uses a light all can determine a personal taste for how difficult the light would be to remove.   Harness The harness is new. Essentially, one harness base fits all lights. From there, different rings must be selected depending on the diameter of the operators flash light. Gentle curves on either side of the harness keep it retained in the mount. That is to say forward, rearward, and outward forces will not remove the light from the mount. The harness must be turned about a transverse axis to be removed. The spring preloaded bearing in the mount aids in keeping the harness from rotating unintentionally.   The end result is QD functionality where it matters. Lighten the end of your rifle at the drop of a hat. Install the light when you need it. Keep the light more accessible in the mean time.   Installed (harness is seated)  Uninstalled (harness is unseated)  Section Views (note mechanical interference to prevent accidental removal)    In the current state of the harness, the design is not near as low profile as I want. That said, I have many ideas to get it even smaller without additional manufacturing information. You guys that know machining may see this as bloated (which would be great!). note flashlight model is 1" in diameter by 4" long.  That said, this currently is the only means of removing a light from the rifle without the rest of the mount. Feedback is greatly appreciated. My ultimate goal is to have one in my hands. Im hoping some of you and LT may share my interest! Cheers guys. |
|
I'm nowhere near the level of some others as far as using CAD and whatnot... Color me very impressed with the time and thought that you've obviously put into this.
I have two questions: 1) LT offers their flashlight rings in different diameters, to accomodate different makes / models of flashlights. Same plan here? 2) How strong of a spring are you thinking for the harness? It would seem to me (layman) that to prevent the flashlight and harness from popping out if you snagged on something, the spring would have to be rather strong... Suggestion: perhaps instead of (or even in addition to) the ball / spring mechanism, you could use a screw (specific name escapes me) like the ones that you find on EOTechs, where you can feel the clicks as your turn it one way or the other. Perhaps that would add the "final element of security". I mount the light into the harness, and the harness into the mount, and with three clicks, I know the SOB isn't going to move. When I need to take it off, three clicks the other way and it comes out with just a little bit of brute force and ignance... FWIW, my $.02... |
|
Quoted:
Suggestion: perhaps instead of (or even in addition to) the ball / spring mechanism, you could use a screw (specific name escapes me) like the ones that you find on EOTechs, where you can feel the clicks as your turn it one way or the other. Perhaps that would add the "final element of security". I mount the light into the harness, and the harness into the mount, and with three clicks, I know the SOB isn't going to move. When I need to take it off, three clicks the other way and it comes out with just a little bit of brute force and ignance... FWIW, my $.02... First, great idea, Reiko. I like where you're going with this. As our friend posted above, a more secure way to "lock" the harness would be great to prevent the light from disengaging whilst being snagged. With that done, the mount would not need to be a quick-release. Buy a couple of mounts...put them on your rifles...and have a small/streamline harness attached to one light that would be able to mount to all of them quickly and still be able to be taken off and stowed in a pocket. Cool idea, Reiko. |
|
Neat idea. I have a few thoughts on it.
I really think it needs a solid lock on it rather than just, or even a ball detent. I just don't think it would be secure enough with the mass of the flashlight combined with shooting and or getting thrown around, dropped, snagged, etc. I think the best solution would be either a push button, or lever that you would need to engage in order to attach or remove the flashlight. First thing that comes to my mind is the QD lever and base system used on some tripods for cameras... Basically the same concept as the LT lever as well. Simple, robust and proven. My second thought is about the QD of the mount itself. There is really no need to have a QD lever on the base mount. All it adds is bulk. I know this is a LaRue themed idea, but I think that a cross bolt or something similar would make for a better footprint when the light is off the weapon... Another idea that you could use for the police officer types that carry a light on their belt, is to make a mount for a belt so you can clip the flashlight onto it when it's off your gun. I have done lots of CAD design and machining, and while I'm no expert, there's a couple things you should be aware of. On your design, you have a lot of inside (concave) corners that have very small radii. If you are planning to CNC this in a mill, you need to be aware that the holes are being cut with a round tool therefore the corners need have a radius at least the size of the endmill they will be cut with. I'd put maybe a 1/8" radius on those inside corners, that would allow them to be cut with a 1/4" endmill. The larger the radius, the larger the endmill, the more metal you can take off in a pass, the faster it is to make the part = more $$ in terms of production. If you need to make a hole that will fit a square part with non-radiused corners, you can get creative with the radius placement on the pocket. For example, you could "dog bone" it so that the circle's center is on one edge and it is tangent with the other. With a few adjustments, I think this would be a product many people would buy. If LaRue doesn't get on board, you could try marketing it yourself. You might even want to try selling it to HSP. |
|
Very interesting indeed.
One thing I noticed is why make the cradle a QD too. I would prefer it to be solid since the mount will be QD. Second, with the ball detent it seems like the first time you snag it on a door, wall, or something it would pop right out. With the amount of space we are dealing with, I don't think they make a spring strong enough to work. It is cool though. Interested to see what LT thinks about it. |
|
Hey guys... Thanks for the awesome feedback so far! Im glad that, so far, this is pretty well received. I agree with all of you in regards to the fastening method. Currently, I can see where it may be an issue. Currently, ramming the light in the front or side shouldnt dislodge it. It requires outward (with respect to the barrel) force on the rear of the light to disengage. However, I did overlook the notion that most people use the tail caps for activation which means most people will be constantly pusing the rear of the light outward. Thats no good for this! Rather, this is no good for that. This is just a quick sketch of another retainer mechanism. Its basically a button/key that would lock the harness in place until depressed. Probably not the best route.  Back to the drawing board! These are some sketches I threw together this morning. I should have time to make a model tonight. Basically, I have some new constraints to design within. Chief among them are limiting the inner radii as mentioned above (thanks!). @25MMSSG72 - I think the different sized rings may be necessary. I have always had success with 1" rings but I only ever mount Surefire lights so I am not familiar with the differences other brands bring. @BCV - My intentions were to make the light removable without taking a bulky mount with it. Given the spec for the picatinny rail and the fact that most lights are cylindrical, a mount that stays fixed to a light is already bulky at its smallest size. This leads to the two part system. Granted, the above solution is definately not ideal! @RD001 - Excellent thought with the belt clip. Something like that is exactly the functionality I would like to see in this. Basically, multi-purposing the role of a $100-$400 light. Additionally, the use of the detachable remote cables can be applied here. That is to say, if the operator has a tail switch with a port for the remote switch, they can use the remote switch by quickly plugging it in. Along those lines, I believe a method to stow the unconnected wire for daytime use might be another feature to add. Basically, mechanically capture the loose wire. As for a QD mount in a QD mount (yo, dawg), I dont know which route to go. I was thinking that, b/c QD is something LT has incorporated on all their products, this shoud be no different. I wonder what the cost difference would be between QD functionality and a more static mount given LT has probably standardized their process. That said, the QD mount flexibility might be important to people in the same fashion that a QD bipod would (niché?). Perhaps LT may know whether or not removing the QD function would change the price enough to make it worth while. Alright... on to new sketches! I have done a better job of making the harness much smaller. This is accomplished by making the mount almost twice as tall (3/8 rather than 3/16) and adding a small extrusion. The mount is still very small, incredibly so when compared to having a light mounted continuously.   So the way this works is the mount portion cradles the light more than the model I first posted. This allows the harness to be wayyyyyy smaller and have less protrusions. Rather than a preloaded bearing, a rolling button (not sure what the technical name is) secures the rear. Manufacturing should be easy, it would be two machined parts with an angular spring secured by a roll pin. Placement of the roll pin could allow for different torques on the rear of the harness. Oh yeah, lets make the part that the operator presses match the profile of the index clips. You know, stay consistent. Thoughts? Thanks guys. Ill bum out a model tonight to clarify what Im thinking. Have a good one! |
|
Reiko, I had another thought or two to offer...
–– QD isn't the only mounting option that LT offers, they also have the VFZ option on a few of their mounts... I don't know what the difference would be as far as the internal mechanical components, between the QD and the VFZ, but as I understand the idea, the VFZ is basically QD without the external lever / locking lever (it's probably a bit more than that, but I haven't had my coffee yet this morning). The second reason for considering VFZ is the cost. Just about every LT mount that offers VFZ is a little bit cheaper if you choose the VFZ option over QD... –– Like I said before, I'm not a CAD or CNC guy... It's not someting I have gotten into, but I read what suggestions others have posted, about the challenges of machining rounded edges, and the thought comes, do you need to have rounded edges? Let's say the cross-section of the harness / mount was a parallellogram, with angular edges. Would it be structurally weaker than the same parallellogram with rounded edges? Or would having the angled edges make the installation / removal that much harder? I'll keep an eye on this one, and after I've had some coffee, I may have some other ideas / suggestions for you if you're interested. 
ETA: Forgot to mention the different sized rings... I would definitely consider making different diameter rings... Some folks use different brands / models of flashlights, while others use lasers. Maybe about the same diameter as the flashlight bodies, but I dunno, don't have a closet full to compare, or a set of caliper micrometers to measure with... 
|
|
Quoted: Reiko, I had another thought or two to offer... –– QD isn't the only mounting option that LT offers, they also have the VFZ option on a few of their mounts... I don't know what the difference would be as far as the internal mechanical components, between the QD and the VFZ, but as I understand the idea, the VFZ is basically QD without the external lever / locking lever (it's probably a bit more than that, but I haven't had my coffee yet this morning). The second reason for considering VFZ is the cost. Just about every LT mount that offers VFZ is a little bit cheaper if you choose the VFZ option over QD... –– Like I said before, I'm not a CAD or CNC guy... It's not someting I have gotten into, but I read what suggestions others have posted, about the challenges of machining rounded edges, and the thought comes, do you need to have rounded edges? Let's say the cross-section of the harness / mount was a parallellogram, with angular edges. Would it be structurally weaker than the same parallellogram with rounded edges? Or would having the angled edges make the installation / removal that much harder? I'll keep an eye on this one, and after I've had some coffee, I may have some other ideas / suggestions for you if you're interested. ETA: Forgot to mention the different sized rings... I would definitely consider making different diameter rings... Some folks use different brands / models of flashlights, while others use lasers. Maybe about the same diameter as the flashlight bodies, but I dunno, don't have a closet full to compare, or a set of caliper micrometers to measure with... I have never seen the VFZ hardware! I must just be blind at this point looking at the same style of mounts across multiple manufacturers. Could be an interesting route! I havent seen anything on the LT site that demonstrates a use of screws to hold the mount (static) so perhaps the VFZ may be a better route! As far as the rounded edges go... There are three sets. One set is r1/128 which is just to simulate, in a 3D environment, imperfections of the milling process. Its a way of cheating to make a model look more... real... but does not represent something that will be cut. Another set is the r1/8 which now I understand is getting a little too intricate. Some of that is just to smooth the part out though I would be curious how that effects the milling process. The last set of curves are the two important ones on the harness. Basically, between the front and back radius on the model, there is one shared centerpoint. What this means is the harness, in an installed state, has *only* one axis of motion and it is strictly rotational. That is to say there is mechanical interference keeping the harness from moving in the X,Y,Z directions and rotating in the X,Y axissssssss'ss's'ss (sp?). Additionally, rotation in the Z axis is constrained to -Z only, when installed. So any rotational force in the +Z wont do anything until the mount fails. By using straight lines for that portion, there is no strict axis of rotation and as such I cant visualize a method for retaining the harness without a brute force approach. If this is really confusing and what you were even talking about (Im only on one cup of coffee myself) check out the section views in my first post. You should be able to identify the centerpoint and see how that effects the inherent retaining cability. Im pretty confident in that system. Its strong and simple... Simplicity being the important part. Once installation/removal becomes a two-handed operation, the problems start to get significant. That said, a stronger mechanism to prevent accidental -Z rotation would only make this better. The current harness/mount system is able, as per my sketches, to be made significantly smaller. We just need a better locking mechanism that can be oberated with one hand or, better yet, the side of a hand/finger. Im hoping the rolling button may work. I wont know, confidently, until I make the model though. As for the rings, Id be curious how much variation there is. It looks like LT did their homework with their current mounts though. Im curious how repeatable a laser would be, too. I would love additional input. This is just something I wanted enough that I figured I would make a design and hopefully capture some other interest in a manner that someone *cough* this its worth their time to make. The more people that this can make happy the better! Cheers! |
I read through the original post again, paid attention to the drawings, and though it sounded like English, I barely understand a word you're saying... I are Infantry, I make go bang! Hulk smash! Ahrrrr! 
My idea / question about the rounded versus angled edges was in reference to the third drawing (side view) of your reply post... I would think, possibly incorrectly, that having the rounded "hook" edges of the mount would subject those edges to more stress than if they were angled. I can see where having the rounded edges could make the process of installing or removing the harness easier, just thinking that having angled edges would put more material in the mount, adding some weight, but also strengthening those edges more so than rounded edges... I get that the design program sometimes uses the rounded edges to create a more realistic drawing, so likely I'm just f'd up like a football bat... I know I'm reading the X, Y, and Z talk like a monkey doing a math problem..
|
|
Quoted: I read through the original post again, paid attention to the drawings, and though it sounded like English, I barely understand a word you're saying... I are Infantry, I make go bang! Hulk smash! Ahrrrr! My idea / question about the rounded versus angled edges was in reference to the third drawing (side view) of your reply post... I would think, possibly incorrectly, that having the rounded "hook" edges of the mount would subject those edges to more stress than if they were angled. I can see where having the rounded edges could make the process of installing or removing the harness easier, just thinking that having angled edges would put more material in the mount, adding some weight, but also strengthening those edges more so than rounded edges... I get that the design program sometimes uses the rounded edges to create a more realistic drawing, so likely I'm just f'd up like a football bat... I know I'm reading the X, Y, and Z talk like a monkey doing a math problem.. In the sketch you referenced, youre totally correct. I dont know why I didnt think of that! It may not necessarily be a case of strength but at the very least rounded edges are just unnecessary there! I would think the only significant benefits to rounded edges would be moreso in the opposite faces in the harness. In that case, the user would hopefully find round edges to snag less in a pocket or pouch and, of lesser importance, more even wear. Ill try to make one designed straight and one curved. Might make it easier that way, too. And thanks for the interest, folks. I hope it works out
 |
|
Reiko, I had another moment of lucidity... Please bear with me, I point out what I see as possible design flaws not to make myself look or sound intelligent (which I are not), but because you might have just overlooked them. I'm subscribed to this thread because I would be tickled pink to have any sort of positive influence on this project going from CAD to my rifle rail...
Back to the rings... We already talked about the different diameter(s), but what about how they attach to the harness? The current LT ring design is for the rings to be attached to a screw coming up from the bottom of the (whichever) mount, where the screws pull the rings down into "trenches" as they are tightened, thus holding the flashlight in place solidly... As seen HERE Looking at the first designs, fourth picture, it almost seems like the rings are screwed into the harness from both the left and right sides, at least that's what I am seeing. I'm not sure how you would go about tightening them down so as to hold the light / laser body, without interfering with how the harness and the mount join up / fit together. A recessed screw hole on one or both sides of the harness per ring? Otherwise, at least as I'm visualizing it, the screw heads would keep the harness from seating into the mount. Using headless screws (set screws?) would not be able to tighten down the rings, as the screws would just thread through the rings and into the harness, without really buckling anything down... Again, just looking things over and having DERP! moments, not looking to snipe or shut you down... |
|
Quoted: Reiko, I had another moment of lucidity... Please bear with me, I point out what I see as possible design flaws not to make myself look or sound intelligent (which I are not), but because you might have just overlooked them. I'm subscribed to this thread because I would be tickled pink to have any sort of positive influence on this project going from CAD to my rifle rail... Back to the rings... We already talked about the different diameter(s), but what about how they attach to the harness? The current LT ring design is for the rings to be attached to a screw coming up from the bottom of the (whichever) mount, where the screws pull the rings down into "trenches" as they are tightened, thus holding the flashlight in place solidly... As seen HERE Looking at the first designs, fourth picture, it almost seems like the rings are screwed into the harness from both the left and right sides, at least that's what I am seeing. I'm not sure how you would go about tightening them down so as to hold the light / laser body, without interfering with how the harness and the mount join up / fit together. A recessed screw hole on one or both sides of the harness per ring? Otherwise, at least as I'm visualizing it, the screw heads would keep the harness from seating into the mount. Using headless screws (set screws?) would not be able to tighten down the rings, as the screws would just thread through the rings and into the harness, without really buckling anything down... Again, just looking things over and having DERP! moments, not looking to snipe or shut you down... You and me both!! Im glad to have your feedback! I really fumbled the threading and stuff on the first model! I made the holes from the wrong side, to boot! I finally refreshed myself on screws and UNF and UNC stuff. Two years of design is more than enough to forget details about threads, apparently. Anyhow, Ive remade the harness to go with the new, low, profile. I already have one intended method of securing it which should be good! That said, translating it to 3D might not be the easiest bit. The new harness addresses the issues youve pointed out. I havent measured a screw but the dimensions are pretty generous and there is room for modification. The way I imagine the harness has the screw heads flush with the outside surface of the ring:      Im seeing this secured between four pins... two on either side. One side is help in by an angular spring. The important feature though is the hole in the harness. The negative space will be, on the mount, an extruded and engraved logo. Functionally, it will keep the harness from rotating and moving in their mating plane. The pins that rest in the harness, then, are responsible only for keeping the harness from coming off the mating plane. Again, this directs force perpendicular to the 'interactive' piece's range of motion which should make for a very stable mount. Rough sketch...  I need to make a legit flash light model this one just looks awkward!! Thoughts? Cheers. |
|
Look at the LT 707 Link flashlight mount it is quick release. I dont see the point of having a second quick release within the quick release mount.
And then there is DUCT TAPE....... |
|
Just a bit of food for thought...
One of my other hobbies is roadcourse racing...I don't race, I teach. This has led me through many cars and one thing that really pisses me off is just how large the rearview mirrors are of some of them. The Lotus Elise is a really tiny car with a HUGE rearview - what I did was switch the mirror with a small mirror from PepBoys (really small mirror) but I needed to mod the mount to the windshield. What I wound up with was a small block of alum that slid into the housing and with a set-screw, held that mirror on there pretty good. With that, and all you have above (great work BTW!!!!), You could just have one strap (perhaps a half inch or inch wide), like a scope ring with a block (like your initial illustration) that would clip into the mount but not be so big. I don't have the skills to draw or CAD the part, but I'm sure you could get away with a 1"x2" block (with rounded edges for anti-snag) that could be very streamlined so as to not intrude is someone carried in their pocket, or belt, or clipped into a car...or mounted with a magnet (for automotive applications- just throwing it out there). I actually really love your idea, I think it's awesome. I am not one to drop a couple hundred on a light to just put it on my rifle, even if it had a QD mount, I don't think I'd use it for other purposes. I love the idea of having a harness that would clip into a mount that I could place on my rifle, my car, my nightstand, ... my belt. I just picked up a $30 flashlight from my local Hardware store...a Redline by Nebo...200 lumens. Yep, cheap and has some good lumens and some cool features (strobe, 1/2 power). For the price, I figured I'd just find some type of zip-tie solution (being a car guy I am a zip-tie and duct-tape addict...oh, and ShoeGoo...LOVE ShoeGoo) and put it on my rifle and forget it. I'm a banker, don't use my rifle for work, and for the life of me can't imagine ever spending a couple hundred dollars for a flashlight or a QD mount...but I don't rely on it for my life. So, your thought about a QD for a pocket/belt/rifle mounting system would be perfect for me. I really do hope you move ahead with this somehow. Be good and good luck. -TomK |