A “brief,” “abridged” history of my weaponlight experiences

I experimented with a number of flashlight mounts – and mounting locations – when I was first issued an M16A2. My initial attempt involved a rail designed to attach to the bottom handguard, through the vent holes. I placed a Surefire M3 in a First Samco light mount on the rail, and a heavy aluminum vertical grip behind the light.

Needless to say, this added a good bit of weight to the weapon, and it also kept coming loose (I preferred not to use Loctite in case some senior NCO or officer wanted me to remove the whole setup in the field). Mounting a vertical grip towards the magwell was in vogue at the time, so there was a good bit of barrel beyond the front of the flashlight, despite its impressive length. I found this to be detrimental when shooting over or around barriers, as I would often rest the barrel of the weapon on whatever was at hand if I was in certain shooting positions. It would be impossible to use the light to illuminate a target unless I pushed the rifle very far forward on the barrier – which was sometimes uncomfortable or not even possible, depending on the barrier in question.

Later on, when I was issued an M4 with a KAC M4 RAS, I used a Surefire 6P in various positions on the forend, including the bottom rail. Again, I couldn’t mount it far enough forward to clear a lot of barriers – and again, I was still putting the vertical grip at one of the rearmost positions.

Of course, mounting the light on one of the side rails has drawbacks too, though perhaps not as much as a light mounted towards the rear of the handguard at 6 o’clock – if you’re peering around a corner, depending on which side your light is on, you may have to expose a little more of the rifle (and yourself) to illuminate a target.

For quite a while, my favorite method of mounting a light was to use the Midwest Industries FSB rail and a Vltor light mount or 1″ scope ring – I had since moved my support hand farther forward, and this method allowed me to place the light on the weapon without the added expense of a railed forend. I’ll still use the MI rail on some rifles, and consider it to be a relatively lightweight and low cost solution for mounting a weaponlight.

Probably the most ideal position for a light – from a “tactical” standpoint – is 12 o’clock, in front of the FSB. However, this requires railed forends of a certain design, and a carbine gas system – which not every AR owner has or wants (on either count). It also requires the use of a pistol light, which is not designed for activation from that angle, though it’s something that shooters can get used to.

The ZFH-1500

This brings me back to the Elzetta ZFH-1500. As you can see, when mounted on a midlength AR, the front (bezel) of a 6 volt flashlight is right behind the muzzle device.

Since hardly anyone rests only the muzzle device on a barrier, I don’t find that it’s a disadvantageous position. On the contrary, it’s easy to activate – the bottom sling swivel is very wide, yet doesn’t rotate from side to side much, making it very useful for activating the flashlight. When switching from strong side to weak side, the light is still easy to operate.

Beyond that, it’s pretty affordable. The standard mount, as pictured above, is $30 from Elzetta – $37 with a thumbscrew to tighten the screw holding the light in place. I found the thumbscrew to be useful and easy enough to tighten and loosen with a coin or the back of a knife blade.

My biggest complaint about the ZFH1500 – before I ever saw one in person – was that it prevented the use of a side sling swivel. Elzetta has corrected that with the introduction of both an add-on picatinny rail ($7, for use with your choice of sling swivels) and an add-on QD socket ($36). I haven’t used them, but they would appear to solve that “problem” quite nicely.

I was never too concerned about durability, though I’m sure some might be, because it’s “plastic.” It’s actually made of glass-filled polymer. It flexes just enough to allay any concerns or fears I might have had about brittleness. However, unlike the Chinese airsoft copies of the ZFH1500, it does not flex enough that a strong hand might be able to simply twist it until it broke off or was permanently deformed.

Testing

Although I did not hit the mount with a hammer or drop test it, I did attach it – and a light – to the Spike’s Tactical Midlength 5.45, which I fired 3000 times in under 2 weeks. At no point did the light come loose, nor did any of the screws keeping the two halves of the ZFH-1500 loosen up even a tiny bit. I did not use Loctite on any of the screws.

The FSB is pretty much the hottest part of the barrel once serious firing commences, and at several points during my test, FSB temperature was over 600 degrees Fahrenheit. However, when I removed the ZFH-1500 to examine it after the test, it looked practically new on the inside. In fact, other than some scuffs on the inside of the flashlight mounting ring from the knurling on an aluminum light, I doubt anyone could tell that it wasn’t brand new.

The light I used for the test – a Solarforce L2 with Malkoff M30 drop-in – has a slightly larger outside diameter than Surefires of the same ilk, so the tailcap couldn’t be rotated with the mount clamped properly. However, Surefire 6Ps and G2s, as well as the Elzetta ZFL-M60, did allow the tailcap to be rotated with the mount clamped. I did experience a few “negligent discharges” of the flashlight when picking the rifle up off a table or bench and catching the sling swivel on the edge of said table or bench. If the end user found this to be an issue, they could remove the sling swivel, or “lock out” the flashlight by unscrewing the tailcap.

Conclusions

The ZFH-1500 is one of a growing number of products that I was initially skeptical of – but after a detailed examination, have come to use with enthusiasm.

At 2.1oz, it’s about an ounce and a half lighter than the MI FSB rail/simple flashlight mount combo, and cheaper to boot. For someone on a budget looking to put a light on a home defense rifle, this would be ideal. A quality light such as a Surefire G2 LED could be procured along with this mount for under $100. There would be no worries about reliability or durability, and no apologies to be made in terms of quality. Police officers may find the ZFH-1500 especially interesting because it will fit, with a light, in many patrol cruiser rifle racks easier than some side-mounted lights.

Of course, if one has a railed forend, the need for an FSB light mount diminishes. Elzetta makes light mounts for those applications as well, and I’ll be reviewing one of them soon.

Here’s what’s on deck for the next few days:

- Cerakote 1911 refinish

-Deliberate Dynamics hand stop

-Elzetta ZFH1500/ZORM flashlight mounts

- PLUMCRAZY polymer AR-15 lower

- Del-Ton 1/7 M4 upper assembly

- Montie Designs AR-Rest

- Doug Ritter RSK knives in M2 and M4 steel

- An article on why cleaning your AR-15 is pretty much a waste of time

I’ve been a fan of 5.45x39mm for quite some time. It’s a caliber that allows me to shoot “full recoil” ammunition for practice purposes, but at a fraction of the cost of 5.56mm ammunition. I like it so much that I suggested to Spike’s Tactical that they build a more corrosion resistant version than was available at the time – namely, the S&W M&P15R, which I had been using for a while. As it turns out, they had already been considering a 5.45 – so it didn’t take a whole lot of convincing on my part.

Although my initial concern was for more corrosion resistance, when I heard the effort that Spike’s Tactical planned to put into the uppers, I was concerned about cost. The whole idea of 5.45 is cheap shooting – and that extends to the upper, as well. Naturally, there will be less demand for 5.45 than 5.56, so prices will be higher, as components are ordered in the dozens or hundreds instead of the thousands.

When I was told that the barrels, gas tubes, front sight bases, and flash hiders would be finished (treated) in melonite, and the bolt carrier group and barrel extension would be nickel boron plated, I envisioned a retail price of 800 to 1000 bucks, and figured that demand would be low. However, now that the product is almost at hand, pricing has been released – $620 shipped from AIM Surplus, including a 5.45x39mm magazine and a more powerful hammer spring, required to fire the hard primers found in surplus 5.45 ammunition. That’s hardly more than I paid for my S&W upper, which had rather severe corrosion issues after being fired several thousand times without cleaning. Even after being assured that the price would be low, I was still thinking that it’d be $750 or so.

If I hadn’t been sent one for T&E, I definitely would have pre-ordered one from AIM as soon as they were available. But I did get a T&E sample, along with 1830 rounds of 5.45, and happily hit the range. Before I received the ammunition, I put a full tin (1080 rounds) and a few extra boxes of surplus 5.45 through the upper. I was pleasantly surprised with the way the weapon shot – while I was constantly seeking ways to make my S&W carbine gas upper shoot like a 5.56 carbine, the Spike’s midlength 5.45 shoots exactly like my Spike’s midlength 5.56 upper. I was also very happy with the reliability of the weapon.

I started the evaluation by removing all traces of lubrication from the weapon. This is not a new test concept – Mike Pannone recently did the same with a Bravo Company upper, and has done so previously with other weapons, including a FailZero-equipped (nickel boron) carbine. However, I thought I’d repeat the test, and show some photographs of the weapon after various round counts.

Weapon Overview

Here’s the weapon out of the box. Other than minor cosmetic differences due to the Melonite process, and the 5.45x39mm laser mark on the receiver, the weapon looks, feels, and handles just like a 5.56mm government profile midlength.

The upper came tagged with various assembly and QC procedures checked and initialed.  As an end-user, I like to see this sort of thing.

Everything you see here, except for the stainless steel roll pin, the plastic single aluminum heat shield handguards, and the sling swivel, is Melonited for corrosion resistance.

The production uppers will have a different style laser engraving/marking on the upper receiver.

As mentioned, the bolt carrier group is nickel boron plated.

The feed ramps are M4 type, machined before anodizing, and the barrel extension is nickel boron plated.

Melonited gas tube – it’s my understanding that all Spike’s Tactical uppers will have melonited gas tubes in the near future.

Shooting

As I said before, I’ve fired a fair number of rounds through the upper, considering that I’ve only had it for 11 days.

I first fired 1200 rounds of Russian and Bulgarian surplus – one full tin of Bulgarian surplus, and four 30 round paper “boxes” of Russian. I shot this ammunition with carbine, H, H2, ST-T2, 9mm, and rifle buffers, along with carbine, Wolff extra power, Wolff reduced power, Tubb CS flat wire, and rifle springs. I experienced zero malfunctions. This shooting was done exclusively with CProducts 5.45 magazines with improved followers.

I then moved on to the Silver Bear supplied by Spike’s Tactical – 750 rounds of 60gr FMJ. The majority of this was done with the H2 buffer and Tubb CS spring. I also used the ST-T2 and carbine spring for a high speed video comparison of the ejection pattern of each combination. After 600 rounds of Silver Bear, at a total round count of 1800, four failures to feed were experienced. 30rd Lancer L5 magazines were being used, and proved unsatisfactory. A switch to the CProducts magazine yielded fewer failures, but two still occurred within the next few dozen rounds. All of these failures occurred while the weapon was not being properly held by the shooter – the stock was not against the shoulder. After switching back to the ST-T2 buffer and carbine spring, no such failures were experienced, even when the weapon was held away from the shooter using only one hand. The remaining 100 rounds of Silver Bear were fired without incident.

The next day, another 550 rounds were fired through the weapon, this time Russian surplus 53gr FMJ. 2 CProducts magazines were used, along with a 30rd Magpul PMag and a USGI 30rd mag. The latter two magazines were loaded with only four rounds each, and were used to practice speed reloads. The USGI mag, loaded only with 4 rounds, still proved difficult to insert, as the feed lips spread significantly. No malfunctions were experienced during this course of fire, which occurred within about an hour and a half.

At that point, having reached 2500 rounds, shooting ceased for the day.

I will continue to fire the weapon until it consistently exhibits signs of being nonfunctional. The six failures experienced were, I believe, an aberration, although in retrospect, I’m glad the weapon was fired in the manner that caused the malfunctions. It showed me several things -

• Just because a weapon works in one circumstance does not mean that it will work in all others
• Magazines not designed for 5.45 are unsatisfactory for the caliber unless limited amounts of ammunition are used
• The H2 buffer is probably a little heavy for the midlength 5.45 shooting weak commercial ammunition

Had the lighter buffer been in use, I’m positive that the malfunctions would not have occurred. Readers make take from this situation what they wish – yes, the weapon malfunctioned after 1800 rounds and no lubrication – but the cause was identified and eliminated, and the weapon has functioned perfectly for an additional 650 rounds with no lubrication.

After 2500 rounds with no lube, the weapon definitely feels more sluggish than it did at first – I get the feeling that malfunctions may be occurring soon. However, at this point, it still functions.

Carbon

Just how dirty is the weapon after 2500 rounds?

Well, it’s pretty dirty.

Notice that the “steel deflector” shows significant wear. Also note the lack of carbon where the bolt carrier rides on the upper receiver.

Yes, that bolt carrier group was originally an attractive silver color. Again, note the lack of carbon on the contact surfaces of the BCG.

Although I can’t prove it, I believe that the lighter color of the carbon aft of the bolt’s forward contact surface is due to the higher temperatures experienced in this area relative to those on the forward portion of the bolt. Again, the contact surfaces are clear of carbon – some was transferred to them during bolt removal, but they normally see no such carbon while the weapon is in operation.

Here we see a “bolt’s eye view” of the inside of the upper receiver. Clearly defined contact/bearing surfaces identify areas requiring lubrication when a “no-lube” test is not in the works. It’s also easy to see where the bolt carrier meets the barrel extension, and that the M4 ramps are actually useful for this weapon.

Cost Analysis

We often see or hear of things “paying for themselves.” Most of the time, the people selling the items tell us this.

Now, some people will skew the results depending on their personal preferences. Some will say that they don’t consider buying 5.45 surplus because it’s corrosive, so 5.45 uppers don’t save any money, because you have to buy Wolf or Brown/Silver Bear 5.45×39. That’s silly. If you’re a very high volume shooter, you’ll shoot out a 5.45 upper before corrosion becomes a serious issue. With the Spike’s upper, corrosion should not be a factor at all.

On the 5.56 side, most people seem to assume that surplus ammunition is the same quality as Wolf or Brown Bear. Not so. Surplus ammunition was produced on behalf of various militaries and was intended to be used in wartime. It’s loaded pretty hot and quality control is generally very good. Modern day Wolf and Brown Bear is weak, underpowered ammunition. Bullet construction is not what many would consider to be high quality.

That said, you can’t really compare surplus to brass case 5.56, because the remaining brass has a good bit of value, while the steel 5.45 cases really do not.

So in order to determine how quickly a 5.45 upper will “pay for itself,” I calculated the relative costs of large amounts of 5.56 and 5.45 ammunition – approaching the subject from all points of view.

As of 8/24/10, AIM Surplus ammunition prices per round are:

5.45 Silver Bear: 18.3 cents (750 rounds or more)

5.45 Russian Surplus: 12 cents per round for 1080 rounds (11.1 if you buy 2160 rounds or more)

.223 Silver Bear: 20.95 cents (500 rounds or more)

5.56 PMC X-TAC: 30.95 cents (1000 rounds or more)

The above prices are the lowest in each category – 5.45 commercial, 5.45 surplus, .223 steel case, and .223/5.56 brass case.

Let’s assume that you already own a 5.56 upper, so the $620 cost of the 5.45 upper has to be added to the 5.45 tab.

From the chart, we see that the “break even” point of surplus 5.45 vs. PMC X-TAC is roughly 3000 rounds; versus Silver Bear .223, it’s just over 6000.

Silver Bear 5.45 breaks even with PMC at around 5000 rounds. I don’t know that many folks would consider comparing Silver Bear 5.45 with brass case 5.56. On the other hand, it would take about 25,000 rounds for Silver Bear 5.45 to break even against Silver Bear 5.56. You can see why I don’t really understand the people who buy Silver Bear 5.45 when surplus is available.

Also – 5.45x39mm is only cost effective if you buy in bulk. Surplus ammunition is readily available at the moment. If you want 5.45 surplus, I would buy it now.

“What if surplus 5.45 dries up?” you ask.

Well, if you buy 6000 or so rounds of surplus 5.45 now, and use it up, you will have “broken even” against .223; after that, if you have to buy Wolf or Silver/Brown Bear 5.45, you’ll be paying about as much as you would for .223 – so you’ll be no worse off. Eventually, you could swap the barrel and bolt out for 5.56 examples, and continue to use the rest of the components.

What about the 5.45 as an only AR? That’s a definite possibility for some folks. I certainly wouldn’t be upset if this was my only AR-15. And the money you save by not buying a 5.56 upper or rifle would go a long way towards surplus ammunition.

Here’s a chart showing the rough costs of the ammunition alone.

With all of that said, if you have a 5.56 AR, and you don’t plan on buying a lot of 5.45 surplus…the 5.45x39mm AR-15 uppers don’t make much sense from a financial standpoint alone.

But if you do…the cost savings can really add up.

Conclusion

To me, 5.45x39mm ARs are an inexpensive alternative to their 5.56x45mm counterparts for training purposes. For those looking to train with a 5.45 upper, I would recommend purchasing whatever 5.45 product is closest to your 5.56 (or 6.8, or 6.5) weapon. If you have a carbine, get the S&W. If you have a midlength, get the Spike’s Tactical. If you have a piston/op-rod weapon, get the LWRC. However, if you just want a great 5.45 to have fun with, the Spike’s Tactical 5.45x39mm is an excellent value, and one I would prefer over competing products on the market (at all price points).

Video reviews of the upper can be found by clicking on the “Videos” tab at the top of the blog.

Ammunition used was PMC 55gr, and all weapons involved in the test had 16″ barrels.

A big thanks to Joe and Nick for their assistance.

Standard midlength fare from a distance…this will make an excellent training rifle companion to a 5.56 or 6.8 midlength.

QC checklist tag, nitrided barrel and A2 muzzle device

Nitrided FSB and stainless steel roll pin

Receiver is laser marked 5.45×39

Nickel boron 5.45 BCG

Nickel boron barrel extension, M4 ramps

Nitrided barrel and gas tube – production barrels will be marked with caliber and other information

Another shot of the nickel boron BCG

If there has been a more corrosion resistant AR-15 upper manufactured, in any caliber, I’d like to know how the manufacturer did it…

Considering that the RWS was made in Switzerland, and that Winchester White Box is often looked down upon, I expected the RWS to be significantly more consistent and accurate than the WWB, and also more so than the Winchester NATO ammunition, though perhaps not to the same degree.

Testing was conducted in the desert, not at an official range, and I chose a tiny bush, perhaps 6″ across, located about 60 yards away as my point of aim. I do not claim to be any sort of master pistol shooter, so accuracy testing was informal and will not be evaluated in any type of scientific manner. The weapon used was a Glock 34. No malfunctions were experienced with any of the three types of ammunition.

Unfortunately, the RWS did not live up to my expectations. Using a chronograph and 10 shot strings, I found that the RWS had a high of 1249fps and a low of 1162, with an average of 1200. The ES (extreme spread, or difference between high and low) was 87 feet per second, and the SD (standard deviation, or how far from the average each shot was likely to be) was 30. This was not very impressive. I also found it to be the least accurate of the three, with many carefully placed shots falling short of or landing beyond the target. Recoil was stiff (for a 9mm), but manageable.

The Winchester 124gr NATO ammunition was also stiff in terms of recoil, but also quite manageable, and this turned out to be the most accurate of the three loads. I was able to keep all of my shots on or very close to the target. This load had a high of 1256fps and a low of 1210, averaging 1234, with an extreme spread of 45 and standard deviation of 12.

The WWB 115gr, true to its plinking (or “target shooting,” as Winchester says on the box) nature, had the most soft recoil of the three. It was definitely accurate enough, but I would not feel as confident in entering an impromptu accuracy challenge against a friend if I had this ammunition instead of the Winchester NATO. The high was 1254, the low 1202, with an average of 1232 and an ES of 52. SD was 17.

Which ammunition would I buy, if I could only buy one? That’s hard to say. The RWS, being the cheapest, was more than adequate for most plinking and “target shooting,” or as ammunition to use as a last resort when you’re halfway to a shooting match, realize that you don’t have enough ammunition, and start heading for the nearest Walmart. WWB is also great for those uses. I wouldn’t pay extra for the NATO ammunition unless I needed to practice with fairly hot 9mm to simulate a duty or carry load. If you’re deploying to Afghanistan or Iraq and need to train with your personal Beretta 92FS/M9 on your own dime, I’d definitely use this ammunition, as it’s almost certain to be very similar to issued ammunition.

Considering my mindset when I buy ammunition at Walmart, and what I think the mindset of most people who do the same is, whatever is cheapest will likely not disappoint. My only word of advice is not to buy the RWS and expect it to be exceptionally high quality ammunition.