Warning

 

Close

Confirm Action

Are you sure you wish to do this?

Confirm Cancel
Member Login
Posted: 3/17/2006 2:40:31 PM EDT
Link Posted: 3/17/2006 2:54:07 PM EDT
Nice +1!
I can't wait for the AR15 Lite Rail to come out...
Link Posted: 3/17/2006 2:56:35 PM EDT
How soon will you have them in stock?
Link Posted: 3/17/2006 2:58:20 PM EDT
Link Posted: 3/17/2006 4:05:29 PM EDT
That's nice. Are my eyes decieving me, or is the 12 o'clock rail lower than the flattop?
Link Posted: 3/17/2006 4:13:09 PM EDT
ur not the only one seeing it lower. Methinks those rails are out of spec.
Link Posted: 3/17/2006 4:29:16 PM EDT
Link Posted: 3/17/2006 4:30:52 PM EDT

Originally Posted By akula99:
Nice +1!
I can't wait for the AR15 Lite Rail to come out...



Me too!
Link Posted: 3/17/2006 4:36:12 PM EDT
How light is it? Would a 9.5 FSP variant be lighter or equal to say a LaRue 7.0?
Link Posted: 3/17/2006 4:40:03 PM EDT
Link Posted: 3/17/2006 4:47:50 PM EDT

Originally Posted By Stickman:

Originally Posted By Corporal_Chaos:
How light is it? Would a 9.5 FSP variant be lighter or equal to say a LaRue 7.0?



Check out the rail thread, it lists the various weights. DD rails come in lighter than the rest, but I am not sure you can compare longer rails to shorter ones and still win.

Then again, maybe you can, I guess I should check that thread out as well....



As near as I can tell that thread doesn't cover the new attachment method.
Link Posted: 3/17/2006 5:17:24 PM EDT
are they going to convert over to this style, or will this just be an option to add. ie are we still going to be able to get the current DD handguards
Link Posted: 3/17/2006 5:20:22 PM EDT
I kinda like the extended look. And each day I think on it, a 37mm flare and smoke launcher sounds cooler and cooler. I wouldn't mind if DD switched over to this style.
Link Posted: 3/17/2006 5:31:00 PM EDT
[Last Edit: 3/17/2006 5:31:25 PM EDT by ian187]
What ever you do, do not publicly state that the DD RIS is too expensive.

I'm in for the DD lite rail.

Link Posted: 3/17/2006 5:36:19 PM EDT
Link Posted: 3/17/2006 5:44:10 PM EDT
[Last Edit: 3/17/2006 5:44:31 PM EDT by BravoCompanyUSA]
Link Posted: 3/17/2006 5:51:22 PM EDT
Link Posted: 3/17/2006 6:08:47 PM EDT
Nice stick Steve. Damn it took me 4 times when opening this to see and nothing for me. Final I see it. OH, U should see a upper from me soon to be worked on it in the mail. The Postal man had a scared face when he asked if it was a whole gun. LOL . OUT. Tuna.
Link Posted: 3/21/2006 12:10:45 PM EDT

Originally Posted By bigbore:


It didnt catch my eye as being lower, I think its just the pictures. I'll take a closer look when I get back to the shop in the morning.






Steve,

Did you get a chance to look into this?
Link Posted: 3/21/2006 12:21:42 PM EDT
Link Posted: 3/21/2006 12:35:08 PM EDT

Originally Posted By bigbore:
I completely forgot to look. The rail is NOT the same height as the receiver.





Hmm. You'd think that would be a must these days.
Link Posted: 3/21/2006 1:10:55 PM EDT

Originally Posted By Lancelot:

Originally Posted By bigbore:
I completely forgot to look. The rail is NOT the same height as the receiver.





Hmm. You'd think that would be a must these days.


With standard forends, I've never considered it a big deal, and thought that the whole topic was over-analyzed...

HOWEVER, if you're going to have a CONTINUOUS RAIL, then the rail should be CONTINUOUS. The whole benefit (for me anyway) to a continuous rail is so I can mount an optic a little further forward, spanning the receiver and forend, without having to spend $200 on a mount. This isn't any more functional from that respect than my other (ADCO purchased and very much loved) DD forends.
Link Posted: 3/21/2006 1:29:47 PM EDT

Originally Posted By Lancelot:

Originally Posted By bigbore:
I completely forgot to look. The rail is NOT the same height as the receiver.





Hmm. You'd think that would be a must these days.



I agree. The top rail should be inline with the flat-top!!!
I wonder why it isn't? Maybe a machining problem? Do you really think they purposely designed it lower than the flat-top?

Link Posted: 3/21/2006 1:31:00 PM EDT

Originally Posted By Onslaught:

Originally Posted By Lancelot:

Originally Posted By bigbore:
I completely forgot to look. The rail is NOT the same height as the receiver.





Hmm. You'd think that would be a must these days.


With standard forends, I've never considered it a big deal, and thought that the whole topic was over-analyzed...

HOWEVER, if you're going to have a CONTINUOUS RAIL, then the rail should be CONTINUOUS. The whole benefit (for me anyway) to a continuous rail is so I can mount an optic a little further forward, spanning the receiver and forend, without having to spend $200 on a mount. This isn't any more functional from that respect than my other (ADCO purchased and very much loved) DD forends.



+1

My $100 YHM works great for that purpose.
Link Posted: 3/23/2006 1:03:05 PM EDT
wierd. I thought it was probably an illusion in the picture...
Link Posted: 3/23/2006 1:46:50 PM EDT

Originally Posted By Lancelot:

Originally Posted By bigbore:
I completely forgot to look. The rail is NOT the same height as the receiver.



Hmm. You'd think that would be a must these days.



Yeah, I have to say I'm pretty surprised and disappointed by that. I am (was?) really looking forward to the DD AR15 lite rail and planed to use it for my next build but if it's going to be like this rail and step down then I'll be using something else

Does DD's AR10 rail step down like this one? I know their current AR15 rails don't.
Link Posted: 3/23/2006 1:52:42 PM EDT
Link Posted: 3/23/2006 2:36:19 PM EDT
Link Posted: 3/23/2006 2:55:38 PM EDT
Cool deal. Thanks guys
Link Posted: 3/23/2006 7:18:54 PM EDT
Does the RIS II rails allow the m203 to be attached to the rail or is it still attached to the barrel? It seems like in some of the pics the m203 is attached different IIRC from the SHOT pictures.
Just a random question. Im not in the market for a m203.

Have they released the new weights for the DD Lite rails?
Link Posted: 3/24/2006 4:12:05 AM EDT
Link Posted: 3/24/2006 4:16:57 AM EDT
[Last Edit: 3/24/2006 4:18:07 AM EDT by Lumpy196]
nevermind
Link Posted: 3/24/2006 4:38:28 AM EDT
[Last Edit: 3/24/2006 4:43:58 AM EDT by ZBM2]

Originally Posted By Lancelot:

Originally Posted By bigbore:
I completely forgot to look. The rail is NOT the same height as the receiver.





Hmm. You'd think that would be a must these days.



Why? I like the 12 rail closer to the barrel for laser use.



Link Posted: 3/24/2006 4:43:07 AM EDT

Originally Posted By Onslaught:

Originally Posted By Lancelot:

Originally Posted By bigbore:
I completely forgot to look. The rail is NOT the same height as the receiver.





Hmm. You'd think that would be a must these days.


With standard forends, I've never considered it a big deal, and thought that the whole topic was over-analyzed...

HOWEVER, if you're going to have a CONTINUOUS RAIL, then the rail should be CONTINUOUS. he



Let's remember who this rail is made for! VERY few Military groups are running a scope on their weapons and the ones that do ALL use the LT SPR or SPR-EER mount.


Link Posted: 3/24/2006 6:54:22 AM EDT

Originally Posted By ZBM2:
Let's remember who this rail is made for! VERY few Military groups are running a scope on their weapons and the ones that do ALL use the LT SPR or SPR-EER mount.



Did it hurt when you pulled that "info" out of your ass?
Link Posted: 3/24/2006 8:40:06 AM EDT

Originally Posted By edwin247:

Originally Posted By Lancelot:

Originally Posted By bigbore:
I completely forgot to look. The rail is NOT the same height as the receiver.





Hmm. You'd think that would be a must these days.



I agree. The top rail should be inline with the flat-top!!!
I wonder why it isn't? Maybe a machining problem? Do you really think they purposely designed it lower than the flat-top?




OVERATED

I have used the surefire stuff for a while and had no reason for a coninuous top rail
optics should not be mounted to the HG anyway that is what the rails on the upper are there for.
I think the only reason you would use the upper rail is when you want to co-witness an aimpoint
or other optic with an A2 upper, when your only other option for a co-witness sight picture is a gooseneak type mount which makes the sight channel smaller anyway.
Link Posted: 3/24/2006 9:06:28 AM EDT
Link Posted: 3/24/2006 9:08:20 AM EDT
My guess is that the rail is lower so that the sight picture through and Aimpoint, ACOG, etc. is not too disrupted by the PEQ-2 (or whatever else they’re using).

The directions for the KAC RAS-MRE says to flip the rail up-side-sown so that the top rail is lower than the receiver to accommodate the big hunk of electronics on the rail.
Link Posted: 3/24/2006 9:13:38 AM EDT
Link Posted: 3/24/2006 9:18:11 AM EDT
Link Posted: 3/24/2006 10:14:29 AM EDT
[Last Edit: 3/24/2006 10:21:34 AM EDT by ZBM2]

Originally Posted By cgv69:

Originally Posted By ZBM2:
Let's remember who this rail is made for! VERY few Military groups are running a scope on their weapons and the ones that do ALL use the LT SPR or SPR-EER mount.



Did it hurt when you pulled that "info" out of your ass? hr


I have talked to the guys in various SF units that are running scopes (TR21, S&B ,etc). They are using LT SPR or SPR-EER's.

I guess I should add that the scope and weapons I am talking about are RECON types running 1-4 variable optics. I know that the SR25 and some other platforms come with diff. mounts, but those are generally geared towards much longer engagements.


Link Posted: 3/26/2006 1:50:51 PM EDT
Top Top