Spike’s Tactical 18″ SPR – Initial Impressions Sunday, Mar 14 2010 

Firearm Components 87gn 12:11 am

Among the various carbines offered by Spike’s Tactical, I spotted an 18″ SPR upper on their website. Because of my previous experience with the Spike’s CHF upper, and the reasonable price of the upper considering the features offered, my interest was piqued. However, I had plenty of spare parts with which to almost complete such an upper. After contacting Tom at Spike’s about a barrel, I wound up with an 18″ LW50 barrel that had been IonBonded black and a Spike’s M4 upper receiver.

The Spike’s barrels are manufactured by Lothar-Walther, which is a highly respected barrel maker. LW50 is a stainless steel used by companies with excellent reputations for accuracy and quality, such as LaRue Tactical and Superior Barrels. And IonBond provides excellent wear and corrosion resistance. Everything that I knew about the barrel before I received it indicated that it would be a very good barrel.

I was wrong.

It’s an outstanding barrel.

My initial impression was that whoever turned this barrel is an artiste with a lathe. I have owned high end stainless barrels from Noveske, White Oak Armament, Sabre Defense, etc, and the quality of the machine work that went into this barrel is at least equal to any of them. I know, I know, this can be subjective. My opinion may also be due to the fact that I had just received a stainless “match” barrel that was roughly – bordering on poorly – machined. Clearly, the two machinists who worked on the two barrels had different priorities. On a side note, I paid less for this Spike’s product than I did for the other barrel.

Here are some images of the business end of the barrel to give you an idea of what I’m talking about.

There are many other things that make a barrel accurate, though – and the only way to tell if a barrel is decent is by hitting the range.

I went to a 600 yard match last month, but it was rained out, so I went to the 500 meter steel plate range instead. Being the generally unprepared soul that I am, I hadn’t zeroed the optic before the match, so I got a general 200 yard zero on a large steel plate before continuing on to longer ranges.

I hadn’t shot steel at distance in a long time, and I had forgotten how fun it was. I expended a fair amount of ammunition while smiling widely and going back and forth between 200, 300, 400, and 500 meter plates. Using the scope’s mil-dot reticle for range estimation, I had no problem with putting lead on steel in a very rapid manner, even if I went from 200 to 400 and back again. This ability to rapidly and accurately place rounds on target at distance is exactly why various militaries are looking to accurate AR platform rifles over bolt action rifles for certain roles.

Unfortunately, I burned through ammo so fast that I was scrounging in the back of my Jeep for more. I found a bag with about 50 rounds of 55gr FMJ handloads I had made a while back. These were loads intended for the Spike’s CHF upper – the cases hadn’t been sized properly and could not be hand cycled through any of my 5.56 ARs. The CHF upper, though, ate hundreds of such rounds without a hitch. I hesitated. Would this barrel, with a tighter Wylde chamber, function with said ammo?

The answer was yes. All 50 rounds fired without a single malfunction. Accuracy dropped off sharply after 400 meters, but it provided me with more steel-plate-killing fun for another ten minutes or so.

A friend, who is a President’s Hundred shooter, took an interest in the rifle. He even brought his own ammo! Using Mk262 (77gr match ammunition used by the military), he had no problems consistently hitting the head of a miniature ram silhouette at 500 meters – 560 yards.

Tomorrow, I plan to shoot the rifle for groups at 100 yards using various handloads. I have no doubt that this barrel will provide excellent results.

 

Spike’s Tactical M4 LE Upper Saturday, Mar 13 2010 

Firearm Components 87gn 1:51 am

Not too long ago, I wrote about the Spike’s Tactical CHF (cold hammer forged) upper that was sent to me for T&E. It’s fast become the standard by which I judge similar (M4 type) uppers.

Well, Spike’s has a new upper out, and it’s definitely worth taking a look at, for several reasons. First, it’s of the highest quality. The only difference between this upper and the CHF upper is the method by which the barrel was manufactured – hammer forging versus the more traditional button rifling. The hammer forged version commands a premium, and it does offer distinct advantages, but it’s not as if the introduction of hammer forged barrels into the AR-15 market – a relatively recent event – rendered button rifled barrels obsolete. Only you can decide which version is best for your needs – if you’re on a budget, you’re probably better off spending the extra $100-150 or so on ammunition, mags, a lower, etc. If you have plenty of funds and want the added benefits of a hammer forged barrel, you can’t go wrong with one.

The second reason is price. The upper assembly is $525 – minus a temporary $50 rebate – that’s $475 including the bolt carrier group, handguards, charging handle, and a heavy buffer – the excellent ST-T2. This is an astonishing price. Several years ago, I paid only $40 less per assembly for a large quantity of much lower quality uppers. If you’re looking to build a rifle on a budget, or if you’re looking to build a top notch carbine, this is the upper for you.

As I was saying, this upper is of the highest quality. I’ll do a basic breakdown and discuss some of its features today, with a range report to follow tomorrow. As always, in the interests of honesty and openness, I was provided with this upper assembly free of charge for T&E purposes.

Here is the upper as received. It’s as M4 as M4 gets.

The upper receiver is laser marked with the Spike’s Tactical logo.

The front sight base is the proper height and is marked as such with an “F”.

The barrel is manufactured using 4150/CMV steel, with a 1/7 twist rate, utilizing an M4 barrel extension, reamed to 5.56 NATO specifications, proof tested, magnetic particle tested, and chrome lined.

The M16 bolt carrier group is laser marked with the Spikes logo and the gas key has been properly staked.

The bolt has been individually MP tested, and the extractor has a strong spring as well as the black rubber baby buggy bumper.

“But enough about features,” you say…”tell me something I wouldn’t know just by looking at the spec sheet on the Spike’s Tactical webpage.”

Well, I’m big on attention to detail. I am writing this article on a dusty computer which sits on a horribly messy desk in a messy office, so I can’t claim to be a neat freak. I do, however, pay attention to very minor things, because I’ve found that in the AR world, attention paid to the little things most often means that the overall piece is of high quality.

For example, I like it when things are properly indexed. A flash hider, for instance, or a FSB that has been attached in an absolutely vertical fashion. I failed to get a proper picture, but rest assured, both items were done perfectly on this upper.

Earlier today, I examined a Ruger SR556, which, among other things, had been assembled by someone who allowed the receiver extension tube to rotate clockwise about 3 to 5 degrees when tightening the castle nut. This is easily avoidable. Furthermore, the castle nut was not staked, which is something I consider to be an absolute necessity whenever carrier tilt is even a remote possibility.

What does this sort of thing tell me? That the Spike’s Tactical upper was assembled by someone who took their time and cared to do the job right – possibly even following a checklist, the upper was so perfectly assembled – and the Ruger lower was assembled by someone who was probably hurrying to get as many lowers done as they could in a specified period of time.

Although I check these (and other) things regardless of manufacturer, it’s nice to see this level of attention to detail on a bargain-priced upper assembly. Sometimes I get an attitude – an attitude that I have to find something wrong with something - and that’s the attitude I had earlier tonight when I inspected the upper. However, I just couldn’t find fault, large or small, with the upper.

One additional item is test firing. The SR556 appeared to have been fired three to five times. I would be surprised to find that less than a full 30 round magazine had been fired from this Spike’s upper – and it’s not even a complete rifle! Even if I downgrade my estimate to 20 rounds per upper, this is a significant expenditure for a small company, and it’s unheard of at this price point.

As I said, I will continue my review tomorrow at the range. However, if my initial observations are correct, I will have a boringly reliable day.

Update 3/15:

Well, I made it to the range today. As I predicted, the weapon functioned without a hitch. Because I had issues with my reloading equipment, I had to purchase ammunition locally. 40 cents per round hurt, I’m not going to lie.

Anyway, with 100 rounds of Federal 55gr and an assortment of steel case Wolf and Silver Bear, I was ready to kill paper.

Using TangoDown ARC and Magpul PMags, I experienced no malfunctions with any of the types of ammunition used. In total, I fired approximately 270 rounds, some at a “real” shooting range, some at a private shooting location in the desert – the latter affords me a little more freedom in how and when I use my firearms.

Most of the rounds were fired using the provided ST-T2 buffer, but I also experimented with other buffers. Function was perfect with everything from a carbine buffer with the weight removed to a rifle buffer. The action felt, for lack of a better word, violent with the “weightless” carbine buffer, and yet, as I said, it did not malfunction.

One thing I didn’t cover yesterday was handguards. The M4 LE ships with double heat shield handguards, which is a nice bonus. At some point in the near future I’ll do a breakdown of the benefits of double heat shield handguards vs. single heat shield handguards.

I wasn’t able to get to the 100 yard range to shoot for “real” groups yet, but here’s an interesting tidbit: when I attached the EOTech 552/LaRue Tactical LT-110 which had been previously zeroed for the Spike’s CHF upper, the M4 LE upper shot to point of aim perfectly at 25 yards. How’s that for consistency?

Considering that you could conceivably build a complete rifle using this upper for under $750, including a quality rear back up iron sight, it’s my firm belief that this is the upper to beat when it comes to top notch quality at a very affordable price. Now, if only it was available in a lightweight barrel profile, or, dare I say, a lightweight midlength…

 

Surefire Alternatives: Solarforce and FiveMega Monday, Feb 15 2010 

Reviews and Tactical Gear 87gn 10:10 pm

I love Surefire flashlights. Don’t get me wrong.

However, recently, I’ve found myself needing – perhaps wanting is a better term – stuff that Surefire doesn’t offer.

I’ve been using some of the following products for a few months now, and I’m pretty impressed with what they have to offer.

Before I get started, I should explain a few things.

Your average Surefire 6P flashlight uses two 3 volt lithium batteries, type CR123. It has a xenon, or incandescent, bulb designed to be powered with 6 volts.

There are batteries that are similar in size, but are actually 3.7 volts. These are sometimes called RCR123A or 16340. If you delve into the world of rechargeable batteries, make sure that you know what you’re buying. If you see a 5 digit number for a battery, for example, this refers to the size of the battery – 16mm wide, 34mm long. An 18650 is 18mm wide, 65mm long, etc. Some won’t fit in regular Surefire bodies

Furthermore, LED drop ins – or replacement bulbs for Surefire and other flashlights – are not necessarily designed for 6 volts. Some are designed for only 0.8-4.2v, or a single AA (1.5v), CR123 (3v), 14500 (3.7v), 16340 (3.7v), or 18650 (3.7v) battery. Others are designed for 3.2-9 volts, or one or two 16340 or 18650s or two or three CR123s. Still more work with 3-18 volts…you can do the math. If you decide on a drop in, be sure that you understand the minimum and maximum voltages.

FiveMega 1xAA

The first item is from a company called FiveMega. It’s a flashlight body, designed to take a single AA battery, that fits a Surefire P60 bulb and head – that is, the same as the Surefire 6P/6P LED.

It has an integrated switch – “forward clicky”, meaning that the light comes on in a momentary fashion before it clicks and stays on. After the click, it doesn’t matter if you press the button slightly, the light will stay on. With a “reverse clicky” light, the light doesn’t come on until after the “click”, at which point you can use the momentary function by pressing the button forward to turn the light off – but if you go too far forward and click it, it’ll stay off. I prefer “forward clicky”, but it’s not impossible to learn how to use a reverse clicky light for most situations.

Certain readers will be pleased to know that this body is made in the USA and is definitely of the highest quality. The body will fit VTAC and Vltor light mounts designed for Executive series Surefires. Not having a tailcap means that the light can be fixed very far forward in the mount, if necessary for your application, without worrying about preventing the cap from being rotated. On the other hand, not having a tailcap also means that one cannot “lock out” the tailcap for travel or other purposes, preventing it from inadvertant activation. That’s probably the biggest drawback to this body. You can use 1.2-15.v AA or 3.7v 14500 (14mm wide, 50mm long) batteries, depending on the bulb you choose – you’ll get a lot more brightness from the 14500 rechargeables, but you’ll generally get longer battery life from AAs. Figure on 25-40 minutes with a 14500, or 2-3 hours with a AA, depending on the drop in and the battery. With a Malkoff M30 and a AA battery, output is fairly similar to a G2 LED (80 lumens). With that same drop in and a 14500 battery, output is over 235 (honest) lumens.

Solarforce L2/L2m/L2i

I was driven to purchase the FiveMega product because it offered something “different” – AA compatibility - and that’s also what drove me to look into the Solarforce line of lights.

While most “tactical” lights are powered by two CR123 batteries, there are other batteries that offer longer runtimes, more light, or both. Also, I don’t always need a two cell light.

Solarforce L2

That’s where the Solarforce L2 line comes in. The standard L2 has a larger inside diameter than the G2 or 6P in order to allow the use of a 3.7v 18650 battery – 18mm wide, 65mm long. This is approximately the size of two CR123s end to end, but is wide enough that it won’t fit in the average Surefire. Why would you want an 18650-powered light? Well, a 3 volt to 9 volt LED drop in that will provide a lot of light for an hour with 2 123s will provide nearly as much light for over 2 hours with an 18650. In addition, 18650s are rechargeable, which will save you a ton of money in the long run over buying 3v lithiums.

Solarforce L2m (with optional extender tube for 2x123 or 18650)

That’s all well and good, you say, but what about the L2m and and L2i? Well, the L2m is designed for a single CR123 or 16340 cell (16mm wide, 34mm long, slightly longer than a CR123, and 3.7v). If a more compact size is what you desire, this is the ticket. I should mention that FiveMega also makes a single CR123 body. Sans head, tailcap, bulb, and battery, it retails for $35. The Solarforce lights – body, head, and tailcap, no bulb or battery – retail for $15. One is American made, the other is Chinese made. The Solarforce stuff isn’t made to the exact same standards as Surefire or FiveMega, but it is pretty high quality, and it’s miles better than some other Chinese lights. One caveat, however, is that the L2m head and tailcaps I have don’t fit my Surefire 9P – and of the 2 L2ms, one has a 19mm bore (for use with an extender and an 18650) and the other has a 17mm bore (meaning that only a CR123 or 16340 will fit).

Solarforce L2i

Finally, I come to the L2i. This body also accepts Surefire bulbs and heads, but takes three AAA batteries in an internal carrier. Its outside diameter is a little larger than a standard 6P, so it’s not a good weapon light, but it’s a great choice for people who may not have an interest in flashlights – and therefore not much interest in the various rechargeable batteries. 3 AAAs provide enough voltage for an XP-G drop in (claimed output of anywhere from 270 to 345 lumens) to run for about 40 minutes at max brightness, then slowly dim over a period of about 2 hours to about 5 lumens. After that, I swapped in a Malkoff M30 module, and it provided nearly max brightness. I was told that this module would run for a long time on “run down” Surefire CR123 batteries that wouldn’t even power a G2, so I shouldn’t be surprised, but I was still impressed.

One other impressive feature is that the L2i will actually accept single 14500 and 18650 batteries. It’s best to use the 14500 batteries with a spacer for some added length, but it’s nice to know that with one body, I could conceivably use three different types of batteries.

Hybrids/Frankenlights/”Legos”

If you want a runtime increase while still using as many Surefire parts as possible, the Solarforce L2 body is fully compatible with Surefire heads and tailcaps. You can use an 18650 body with an appropriate (4.2v) drop in and your Surefire switch for maximum reliability. Such drop ins include the Solarforce LC-1 (0.8-4.2v, $20), ThruNite XP-G (3.2v-9v, $33), or Malkoff M30 (1v-5.5v, $55). You’ll get the best runtime with the Malkoff or the LC-1, which will run all the way down to 1 volt and 0.8 volts, respectively. However, you’d have to be careful not to use them with 2 CR123 cells, as that would be instantly fatal to the drop in. The XP-G, on the other hand, will work with 3 CR123s, 2 CR123s, an 18650, or a 16340. It won’t run off a single 3v CR123; although it’s claimed to be a 2.7v-9v drop in, I’ve found that it needs one of the 3.7v batteries to work.

You can even use a Surefire P60 LED drop in with a single 3.7v battery, if you’re so inclined – but output is only about 50 lumens.

From Left: ThruNite XP-G, FiveMega AA with Solarforce LC-1, Malkoff M30

Solarforce Reversible Pocket Clip

I choose to carry my “big” flashlight on my left (weak) side, clipped inside my front pocket. I carry “bezel down”, or “button up”. In addition to them being necessary for this style of carry, I prefer reversible pocket clips. Why? Well, when they inevitably snag on something and are pulled away from the light, you can do a quick field repair with a set of pliers to return them to a useful state. When I did the same with a “one way” pocket clip on a knife, I had to replace the clip. I could have repaired it with help from a vise, I guess, but I don’t carry a vise around in my car.

Solarforce L2 with Surefire tailcap and Solarforce pocket clip; Surefire 9P with Solarforce tailcap

Solarforce sells such a reversible clip. It fits any light that uses a Surefire “C” head (G2/6P/etc). You can find them on EBay for $5, or buy them from a store in the States for $10. They seem to hold up pretty well to daily use over a few months time, but we’ll see how they are faring a year from now.

Conclusion

Is the FiveMega AA body of the highest quality? Yes. Does it have some drawbacks? Yes. However, if you think you might be limited to AA type batteries, or you want to use AA type batteries and 14500 rechargeables, you’d be doing yourself a favor by looking at it.

Are the Solarforce products on par with Surefire or FiveMega? No. Are they of surprising quality, given their origin? Yes.

Would you be doing yourself a favor by checking out these products? Most definitely.

I’ll be doing a more extensive writeup on the drop-ins described here as soon as I can.

 

BulletProofMe.com Level IV Armor Plate Test Monday, Jan 18 2010 

Tactical Gear and Tests 87gn 7:38 pm

Last year, I purchased a set (front and rear) of Level IV plates from bulletproofme.com.

They fit just fine in my Interceptor, but when other plate carriers were used, the rear, which was countoured differently than the front, would not fit.

Even after I had owned them for 6 months, the company offered to swap out the rear for a front plate (for a 20% fee – very reasonable in my opinion, since they would have had to X-ray the plate before reselling it).

However, I decided to test the plate myself, and see if it really did what they claimed – stop multiple shots of .30-06 armor piercing ammunition without any supporting soft armor.

Here is a video of the test.

The plate did indeed stop 3 shots of .30-06 AP (163gr hardened steel penetrator projectiles courtesy of Rich_V on AR15.com), as well as many other rounds.

The plate allowed part of one .308 projectile, as well as 4 5.45×39mm projectiles, to penetrate.

However, these hits were in rather close proximity to other impacts. Because this was a ceramic plate, the initial impacts fractured the plate (it’s designed to absorb the impact this way) and the later projectiles “slipped through” the cracks.

Even after it had been shot over a dozen times, and it had literally come apart, it still stopped XM193 5.56×45 and a 12ga slug.

Overall, I’m very impressed with the performance of this plate, especially considering the cost ($270). I’d still probably wear soft armor underneath the plates, given the chance, but at least I know that the plate exceeds the manufacturer’s claims.

 

AR-15 Muzzle Device Comparison – Night Thursday, Dec 31 2009 

Firearm Components and Reviews 87gn 8:35 pm

There are a number of muzzle devices available to the AR-15 shooter, ranging from a $5 A2 flash hider to exotic suppressor mounts in the $400 range. I’ve collected some of the more popular examples and taken video of their performance at night on two different rifles – one in 5.45×39 and one in 5.56×45. The video will do most of my talking.

Within the week, I hope to complete a similar comparison during the day, which will focus on different attributes of the devices.

I must apologize – several video files were corrupted and I was unable to add them – namely, the performance of the PWS FSC556 on the 5.56 rifle and the performance of the PWS TTO on the 5.56 rifle while night vision equipment was being used. However, their performance with the 5.45 rifle is in the video.

Edit 1/2/10: I’ve completed a video taken from the shooter’s perspective, or as close to it as I could get.

 

“Oh” AR-15 Products Tuesday, Dec 22 2009 

Firearm Accessories and Reviews 87gn 1:14 am

In the last few years, an incredible amount of talent and resources has poured into the “black rifle” market.

Everyone in the community – from the weekend shooter to the servicemember defending our country overseas – has benefited as a result of this veritable explosion of new products and ideas.

Some of these products and ideas are surprisingly affordable. What the following products all did for me, though, was make me say “oh”. As in, this is an “oh” product – the kind of product that you just don’t really understand until you use one, and then you say “oh”.

1. Spike’s Tactical ST-T2 Buffer – $30


Many AR-15 carbines (specifically, 14.5″ and 16″ carbine length ARs) have reciprocating assemblies that are simply too light. While a high rate of fire sounds cool on paper, in extreme cases, a weapon that is cycling too fast can outrun the magazine spring, which will immediately result in some sort of malfunction.

In addition, standard buffers have weights that move a short distance in order to ensure that the bolt goes into battery and stays there (in extreme conditions, the bolt can bounce back out of battery slightly) – they slam forward inside the buffer after it has returned to its “rest” position, much like a dead blow hammer.

However, this additional fore and aft movement can give the impression of greater recoil. What Spike’s did was to replace the cylindrical weights inside the buffer with heavy tungsten powder. The powder still provides that extra insurance against bolt bounce, if not more insurance against bolt bounce, while reducing felt recoil. I’ll go out on a limb and say that according to my informal, unscientific observations, the ST-T2 buffer provides an amount of recoil reduction that might challenge some small muzzle brakes.

2. Magpul BAD – $30


It’s affordable, it’s well made, it’s easy to install, it’s simple, it’s unobtrusive, and it gives you more options when it comes time to let the bolt fly home. But it also lets you lock the bolt to the rear without removing your firing hand from its proper position – that is, in my opinion, a very nice benefit. This will allow you to clear certain malfunctions faster. This is a good thing. It is, simply, a very effective device.

3. Bravo Company USA BCMGUNFIGHTER Charging Handle – $45

This is definitely an “oh” product. I didn’t think that I needed to replace my charging handles until I was sent a GFH by Bravo Co. Not only is this product stronger than the “standard” model – via design changes and high materials standards – but it greatly reduces the effort required to manipulate the charging handle. I can finally do what I was trained to do – use the knife edge of my hand against the charging handle – without slipping off the standard latch or worrying about an extended latch breaking the charging handle. The GFH does all that for about the cost of a “regular” charging handle and an extended latch. It’s a no brainer to me.

 

Primary Arms Micro Dot Gen 3 Sunday, Dec 20 2009 

Optics/Optic Accessories 87gn 11:41 pm

Some people need the most rugged and reliable product they can find.

Other people want the most rugged and reliable product they can afford.

Still more people just want a product that looks cool and functions fairly well.

I can’t tell you what your needs are, or where you fall on this scale, but I can tell you what this product does, and what it might be good for. As always, in the interests of full disclosure, I was given this “Micro Dot” by Primary Arms for the specific purpose of abusing it. In the past, I was given a Bobro Aimpoint mount for T&E by this same vendor (Marshall at Primary Arms – and he hasn’t asked for me to return it yet…I’m not going to give it up easily).

The first thing you need to know about this optic is that it is a semi-clone of the Aimpoint T-1  – or maybe I should say H-1, since this has no NV-specific settings and is not waterproof to the same depth. This particular model has a threaded “killflash” that is of surprising quality and effectiveness. Thus, the optic looks a little longer than a regular H-1.

The original price for the optic was $109 plus $29 for a riser, but because the factory messed up and the units aren’t purged with nitrogen, the price has been dropped $30. If you want the model without the killflash, the adjusted price is $59 plus $29 for the riser.

I’ll start with my negative comments.

The Bad

- The “QD” lever included with the riser, which is a copy of the American Defense lever, is not very well constructed. It’s small and difficult to manipulate. It’s not constructed of the best materials. It is, however, a good enough copy of the ADM lever that real ADM components will drop in and offer a functional level of fit. Frankly, I’d just buy a Daniel Defense mount for $70 or so, instead of the included riser – although it has been hollowed out and if you happen to have spare ADM components, it’ll work very well. I’m told that the next iteration of these red dots will have a thumbscrew mount.

- The LED inside the optic is a little high and blocks a small portion of the field of view. This also precludes proper cowitness when using aftermarket mounts.

- Battery life seems to be about a week, maybe 8 days, of continuous use. This isn’t really bad, per se, it’s just something to be aware of. The unit takes commonly available CR 2032 batteries. For a training rifle, this should not be an issue.

- As I said before, the factory messed up – they drilled the mounting screw holes too deep and the units may have fogging problems if the standard “low” mount is swapped for a different mount. Several people, including myself, have attempted to induce fogging. I put it in a bathtub under running, scalding water, then into a freezer, then back into the tub. I noticed no fogging on the inside of the optic. The front glass under the killflash did fog, but that was on the outside, and I had no problems wiping that clear after removing the killflash.

- The dot does not stay on between brightness settings. Also, it rotates continuously. There is no “stop” at 0.

- Yes, it’s made in China.

The Good

- This optic is quite durable. You can see this here.

- It maintained zero after the above abuse. I don’t know if my “custom fit” ADM throw lever has anything to do with it (yes, the nut is sticking out of the mount, it works fine). Standard Aimpoint Micro mounts should work for this optic.

- Adjusting the brightness takes a good grasp of the knob. An errant blow to the knob will most likely not change the brightness. Clicks are tactile and barely audible.

- The killflash, battery cover, and adjustment caps have good threads and were easy to install and remove, even after big dents were put in them. The adjustment and battery caps/covers have O rings. The unit seems water-resistant as far as my bathtub was concerned. I may take it on a dive trip later this week.

- The dot is clear and crisp. On setting 11, it is definitely bright enough to use when the sun is out.

In Summary

For those who have an Aimpoint Micro on a work gun, this may be a cost-effective alternative to spending another $500-600 to put one on a .22 or 5.45 training rifle. Alternately, you could use a .22 conversion in your work rifle and swap between an Aimpoint Micro zeroed for 5.56 and a Primary Arms micro zeroed for .22. It’s definitely durable enough that you won’t have to worry about it being damaged from a minor impact. I have had similar good luck with a Primary Arms M3 clone, which I compared with the Vortex Strikefire here.

I firmly believe, and so does the man who runs Primary Arms, that duty/deployment use calls for a real Aimpoint. Primary Arms does sell real Aimpoints. If your needs call for the most rugged red dot available, buy an Aimpoint. If you need an affordable duplicate for training or other purposes, consider the PA Micro Dot.

 

Primary Weapons Systems TTO Compensator Thursday, Dec 10 2009 

Firearm Components and Reviews 87gn 12:59 am

I’m going to be honest. If I had never been given a PWS muzzle device, I probably would never have bought one. “Nearly $100,” I said. “What does it do that’s worth $100? I thought the Smith Vortex was too expensive at $50.” Well, I would soon find out.

At the 2008 SAR West show, PWS was handing out their FSC 556 muzzle device like Halloween candy, so I gladly took one. Since then, I’ve fallen in love with it. I’ve moved it around between a half dozen rifles before heading to the range, especially when I’m going to introduce new shooters to the AR-15. It does a wonderful job of keeping the muzzle down between shots, but unlike traditional muzzle brakes, it’s not exceptionally loud, and it doesn’t throw huge fireballs. Frankly, the FSC 556 seems quite comparable to the standard A2 flash hider in terms of flash reduction.

But this article isn’t about the FSC556.

It’s about the TTO, or “Todd’s Tiny One” (I’m not going there). In a nutshell, it’s an FSC556 without the flash reducing “tines”. Why would you want to buy such a thing? Well, it’s short. It’s very short. It’s shorter than an A2 flash hider, in fact. But like the FSC556, it does an amazing job for something so small (and also like the FSC556, it was given to me for free).

I normally have the FSC556 on my 5.45 rifle, because the action of that weapon seems much more violent than a comparable 5.56 carbine, and the FSC does a splendid job of taming that beast. Comparing the FSC and TTO back to back at the range, I noticed little, if any, difference between the two.

If you have a rifle that you’re trying to keep as short as possible, this would be a good option for you. Many folks go with 14.5″ barrels that have permanently attached devices in order to maintain the legal barrel length of 16″. If you put a Smith Vortex or a YHM Phantom or a PWS FSC556 on a 16″ barrel, it’s effectively become a 17.5″ barrel. There are functional benefits to having a slightly shorter weapon. If you’ve ever tried to exit a vehicle quickly with a rifle or carbine, you know what I’m talking about. Beyond that, some people prefer the looks of a shorter device. Admittedly, the functional difference in the length of the TTO compared to the FSC is quite small – however, if you’re concerned about the flash hiding tines snagging on something, the TTO’s smooth “face” should make you feel warm inside.

If you’ve ever used a muzzle brake or compensator, you probably are of the opinion that they direct a lot of noise and blast back towards the shooter. Well, I am too. And in my opinion, the PWS compensators do increase the noise and blast ratio of the weapon compared to standard devices. The difference isn’t horrific – my initial thoughts on the FSC556 back in 2008 were distorted by the fact that I did a significant amount of shooting under a shade port with a tin roof – but there is a noticeable increase.

As for the effects on other shooters, well, it depends on how twisted their knickers are. I’ve had disgruntled shooters chase me away from “their end” of the range at the sight of a 16″ midlength upper with an A2 flash hider – the actual quote was “You’re going to shoot next to me with that 18″ barrel? And that muzzle brake?” I had yet to put a round downrange.

However, in over a year of shooting the FSC 556 and/or TTO at various public and private ranges, I have yet to receive any complaints or even sideways glances of disgust. I’ve attended rifle matches with the FSC 556 – matches that expressly prohibit muzzle brakes – and no one said anything. Furthermore, I can confidently say that the design of both devices has no negative effect on accuracy, because with the aforementioned 5.45 rifle equipped with the FSC 556, firing surplus Russian ammunition, I’ve been able to hold 3 to 5 MOA at 600 yards with iron sights. At 100 yards, it shoots about 3 MOA with either an A2, a Smith Vortex, or the TTO/FSC556.

On another note – I would like to say that sometimes I see competition rifles get out of hand. To me, tactical rifle competitions are a place to hone skills for the real world, not simply go beyond what’s practical for a millisecond-faster split time. I wouldn’t take any rifle to a competition match that I wouldn’t grab off a rack before going to a potentially bad place or situation. In my opinion, the PWS compensators are in keeping with the spirit of what tactical rifle matches should be.

So, in the end, are these PWS muzzle devices worth $100? To me, the answer is yes. My initial concerns about noise and flash have been, shall we say, dampened. The TTO and FSC556 perform their intended tasks without any drama. If I had to choose between the two, I’d get the FSC556 – if only because my primary home defense carbine has a PVS-14 night vision monocular, and flash reduction is a priority with night vision devices. However, for realistic competition use, or really any use during daytime, the TTO is the best compact muzzle device on the market.

Giving credit where credit is due, this device is the brainchild of Jeff C./USMC03 on various forums. His website is 03designgroup.com, and he is a fantastic resource for this sort of thing.

 

AR-15 Weight and Balance (Part 1 of 3) Wednesday, Nov 25 2009 

Firearms and Tests 87gn 12:07 am

On the internet, the debate rages on.

What is the debate? Well, it doesn’t really matter. People will seemingly argue over anything – and I’ve been guilty of that myself.

One of the more popular debates is weight. Proponents of lightweight rifles point to carbine courses where a heavy rifle can get tiring, and accessories that boost the weight of the rifle, meaning that starting with a lightweight carbine is better. Proponents of heavy rifles say that they work out a lot, and their grandfather carried a BAR while assaulting the beach at Versailles, so weight isn’t a problem.

Another topic is balance, and this is a term that I have yet to see defined by a majority opinion. Some people like the weight to be on the front of the rifle. They load up their rail system with lights, VFGs, bipods, etc, over a heavy barrel profile, and with a standard or lightweight aftermarket stock out back. Others like a rear bias – they’ll get a Magpul UBR and stick it on a lightweight rifle with a pencil barrel and a pistol light on the handguard. Finally, some prefer a neutral balance – like myself (although I do prefer a very slight rear weight bias).

Before I dive into the meat of the issue, I’ll define something. Center of gravity (CG) – and if you’re a pilot, you’ll know what I’m talking about before I say it – is the point at which something will balance if it were suspended from that point. This is easier said than done, but with the AR-15, I’ve given it my best effort.

With an airplane, fuel is normally located at a point near the center of gravity, so that the flight characteristics of the airplane do not drastically change from the beginning to the end of the flight. Similarly, the cartridges in an AR-15 magazine are located at a point which is essentially right on the center of gravity of a stock M4 carbine. Thus, as the ammunition is expended, the balance of the rifle does not really change. What this means is that whether you’re firing the first round or the thirtieth, you won’t have to compensate as you bring the rifle up to a firing position.

With a CAR stock, CAR handguards, and the A2 flash hider, the weapon's CG is right at the point of suspension.This is my definition of a "neutral" CG for the AR-15.

This rifle weighs almost 2lbs more, but has a nearly identical center of gravity. How? Properly balancing the weight of accessories up front with a heavier stock at the rear.

You may not notice it without someone telling you to look for it, but if you have a forward weight bias – meaning that you’ve moved the center of gravity forward from the “stock” position – as you expend ammunition, the weapon will become slightly more nose heavy, because weight is being reduced at a point behind the CG, thereby shifting it forward.

Whether you have two rifles or twenty, maintaining a consistent center of gravity will help you shoot better when switching from weapon to weapon. Incidentally, when starting out on this project, I discovered that all of my AR-15s had almost exactly the same center of gravity, although weight varied as much as 4 pounds from lightest to heaviest.

Now, aircraft CG does not directly relate to weapon CG, because you’re putting different forces on a rifle while shooting it than you would on an airplane by flying it, but the basic principles remain the same. Furthermore, I won’t go into the details of aircraft weight and balance – weight, arm, moment and all that jazz – but I will explain what you need to know to fine tune the balance of your AR-15 to something that might be more agreeable to you.

First, understand that the closer the weight is to the center of gravity, the less effect it will have on the location of the CG. To demonstrate this fact, observe the following pictures.

Here, an A2 flash hider is exchanged for a Smith Vortex flash hider. The weight difference is .05lbs.

A tiny change in the attitude of the weapon. Now, watch as a magazine is inserted:

The only change made was the addition of a Magpul PMag with 28 rounds of 75gr ammunition – because the suspension point was slightly forward of the CG (note the muzzle high attitude), there was a tiny change in the attitude of the weapon. That magazine weighed 1.2lbs on a postal scale.

From this, we see that adding weight close to or on the center of gravity will have little effect on the balance of the weapon compared to adding weight farther away from the CG. Because I like to put my optics right at that natural CG, it doesn’t matter whether I have an Aimpoint or EOTech or even a 1-4 variable – the balance of the weapon will basically be unaffected.

Now, let’s see how other parts changes affect balance.

Adding a KAC M4 RAS, TangoDown SCAR rail panels, and a TangoDown stubby VFG shifted the weight forward slightly. Alone, the M4 RAS was, at .55lbs, .25lbs heavier than the CAR handguards and .15lbs heavier than MOE handguards; with TD panels and a TD VFG it weighed .85lbs.

The addition of a Vltor EMod stock shifted the weight to the rear significantly. This is because the CG of the EMod itself is way at the rear of the stock – so even though it doesn’t add much weight to the rifle in an overall sense, it does have more of an effect on CG than other stocks. In other words, if you want to balance out a front-heavy carbine without making the weapon a lot heavier, the EMod is for you. Some applications may still call for a heavier stock, though.

Swapping a rail panel (.05lbs) for a Surefire X300 (.25lbs) brings the nose down slightly…

The additional .05lbs of a Surefire G2 and polymer mount (.3lbs) bring the nose down just a little more (note: a metal head and metal “clicky” tailcap will add .05lbs each)

Finally, the .6lbs of a Surefire 9P in a Vltor offset mount bring the CG back to “neutral”, almost.

I brought another rifle and tested it (without optics) – with a VCAS sling utilizing QD swivels, the rifle was neutral…

Without the sling and the swivel at the rear of the stock, the nose of the rifle dipped a little. The forward swivel was mounted at the rear of the rail, so it had little effect on the CG. Yes, this rifle had a Daniel Defense M4 12.0 rail, Surefire G2 LED, Magpul MBUS front sight, several rail panels, and a TD stubby VFG. How did it balance almost the same as the other 16″ M4 profile rifle with an EMod in the same position? Well, the Vltor low profile gas block is much lighter than the standard FSB, the QD socket at the rear of the rifle helped, and the PWS FSC556 is a tad lighter than the Smith Vortex. Those minor changes allow me to drive the rifle with a “better” VFG position and increase the sight radius without significantly affecting the balance of the weapon.

You may be getting the impression that these changes aren’t making a very big difference. However, if I installed a RAS, VFG, light, etc and left a CAR stock at the rear, the muzzle device would practically be on the ground. Every change I made was very slight and designed to have a small effect on the overall balance of the weapon. I’d also like to note that the collapsible stocks were set at comfortable shooting positions for me – your stock usage may vary, and you should balance your rifle accordingly.

In Part 2 of this article, I will do more fine-tuning of CG relative to weight and intended usage, and in Part 3, I’ll hit the range and compare forward, neutral and rear balanced carbines.

ith a CAR stock and the A2 flash hider, the weapon’s CG is right at the point of suspension.

 

Cammenga EasyMag Friday, Nov 20 2009 

Magazines 87gn 7:39 pm

If you’ve been using magazine fed weapons for a while, you’ve probably loaded quite a few magazines. Steel and aluminum AR-15 magazines are not very well known for being easy to load, and while mag loaders are available, I’ve never felt the need for one – I’ve just sucked it up and loaded mags the hard way.

This product isn’t new, but it does address this issue in a unique way. The Cammenga EasyMag, which is produced in Michigan, features a “sliding body” design that allows the user to slide the mag open, simply drop rounds into the magazine, and then slide the mag closed. At that point, the mag is ready to go. If your fingers and thumbs don’t have a whole lot of strength, this may be a good option for you. As an aside, it can be loaded and unloaded just like a standard magazine, and it’s remarkably easy to do so.

However, it’s not without drawbacks. In order to slide the magazine open, you have to have a certain amount of grip strength – I handed the mag over to the rangemaster, who is in his 60s, and he was unable to get the magazine open. Also, there are a number of sharp edges which can slice you if you’re not careful. If you don’t load 30 rounds in the mag, or close to it, it may spit out one or two rounds when the follower slams upward. I’ve found that keeping my palm at the top of the mag when closing it will prevent any rounds from flying out. Finally, rounds may slide out the back of the mag when you’re loading #28-30, so it’s best to load two rounds at a time, essentially side by side.

Now, on to function. I’ve destroyed my share of magazines in drop and crush tests, but it wouldn’t make sense to do so without ensuring that the magazine works before anything bad happens to it.

I loaded the magazine with 30 rounds of Silver Bear 62gr HP. Previously, I had fired about 150 rounds of this ammunition through the rifle (Spike’s Tactical CHF upper, Sun Devil lower) without a hitch, using several different types of magazines. The magazine was fairly easy to insert with 30 rounds in the mag and the bolt forward.

The first round fed out of the magazine just fine, but the second didn’t come out of the mag. Here’s a picture of an identical stoppage that I encountered with different ammunition. In over 1500 rounds and with a variety of magazines and ammunition, this weapon has never suffered any kind of stoppage – until now.

Interestingly, tap rack bang didn’t work with this magazine – not at all. In order to rap the bottom of the mag hard enough to have any effect on the follower or the rounds in the mag, I had to remove the mag from the weapon and slam it down on one of the tables at the range. Later, I was able to hit the bottom of the mag with the heel of my hand about a dozen times, and the malfunction was corrected.

The rangemaster and I then fired the remaining 28 rounds without any problems, however, the bolt did not lock back.

I then fired 10 more rounds of Silver Bear, the last I had brought. The bolt locked back, and continued to do so for the rest of my range session.

At that point, I was out of Silver Bear. I had loaded 100 rounds of 55gr .223, so I switched to that. I fired 5 rounds from a loaded mag of 30 to ensure function, then replaced those 5 rounds, and dropped it on asphalt, directly on the feed lips, from chest height – as if I had fumbled a reload. Here’s what the mag looked like.

Other than a few scratches, the magazine looked just fine. I loaded and made ready, and fired the first round. I could feel that the bolt had gone forward, so I squeezed the trigger again…click! I dropped the mag, and here’s what I saw.

Again, tapping the bottom of the mag didn’t work – I had to slam it on the table.

I was then able to fire the rest of that magazine without and problems.

I loaded and dropped the mag three more times, firing 5 to 10 rounds after each drop, then replenishing the magazine. During one of these strings of fire, I encountered another FTF, which is pictured above.

While it didn’t spit out any rounds during the four drops – which is very rare, in my experience – it did cause the rounds to stick out of the mag at odd angles. These problems were relatively easy to fix with finger pressure.

After the fourth drop, I noticed a crack forming at the rear of the right feed lip, on a spot weld.

At this point, I stopped drop testing, and fired the remaining ammunition without any problems.

After I had expended the 140 rounds used for testing, I opened and closed the mag a few times to see if it had gotten any easier to do so. I don’t think that it had, but on one of the cycles, I “over-closed” the mag, and this was the result.

It was pretty easy to slide back into place, and I was unable to repeat that issue, but it was interesting nonetheless.

In my opinion, a magazine has one purpose: to work. If it doesn’t work, it’s not useful. While this mag has many good points – the strength of its spring steel body, for example – the simple fact that I encountered so many stoppages and issues means that I wouldn’t use it outside of the training arena. Even if it had functioned perfectly, I’m not convinced that it is very useful for folks with bad joints or weak hands, because it does require a good amount of force to open, although closing the mag is easier. It would certainly be beneficial for those who have to continually load mags over and over and over, such as in a carbine course – but for patrol, duty or combat, magazines should be loaded prior to use, even if that takes a few extra minutes to load the “old way”.

My standard disclaimer: I was provided with this magazine, free of charge, for test and evaluation purposes, by someone connected with Cammenga.

 

Next Page »