Accuwedge gimmick or useful piece of kit?

Nothing for accuracy, but I like a solid feeling AR.
I'm pro wedge.

Hey Colt even has and accuwedge so can't be that bad.
Won't hurt anything and I'd prefer it to a setscrew in all honesty.


***edited to add: I can see it helping accuracy if you're doing serious National Match stuff... Sloppy will never beat tight. ;)
 
Last edited:
Lastgun said:
I hate to do this but I have to do this.

You better believe if you want to shoot small groups or hit at long distance consistently with your AR you have to get rid of the upper to lower play...As well, you better have a butt stock that has no play on the buffer tube.

A simple way to prove how much POI variance you are getting with upper to lower slop or a sloppy fitting butt stock...Get your rifle on a bipod with a solid sand bag at the butt stock...If your rifle has a lot of slop your not even going to need much of an optic...Now focus the reticle or red dot on a distant object and with your free hand carefully manipulate the upper or butt stock at the points that have slop and watch thru the optic at your POI dance around...If you have a reticle with MOA or Mill markings you can even measure the amount of POI error.

Yeah if you are running and gunning with commercial ammo a sloppy fit means nothing to your accuracy but if you want to bear down shooting match or hand loaded ammo with your AR and want small groups or consistent hits at long range your rifle has to be tight...Just ask Les Baer or JP.
Click to expand...

See my post #55. The upper and lower play as well as any movement in the butt of the rifle will only affect poa/poi insofar as affecting the shooter and how they are engaging the rifle. As already stated several times, it has no bearing on how the rifle shoots (that is to say it has no bearing on the mechanical accuracy of the rifle).
 
The Accuwedge is the answer to a non-existent problem.

The AR was designed in such a manner as to allow a modicum of play between upper and lower receivers. The US Army Marksmanship Unit has been pushing the envelope of what the AR-15/M-16 platform is capable of in terms of accuracy for years. As other posters have pointed out, the AMU went so far as to weld upper and lower together, removing any potential for play. There was no statistically significant difference in accuracy.

That should be sufficient to end any further debate on the issue, or at least it is for me. However, if a shooter prefers to eliminate all play via an Accuwedge just 'cuz...have at it. ;) At the end of the day it's your rifle and the only person you need to please is you.
 
Lastgun said:
I hate to do this but I have to do this.

You better believe if you want to shoot small groups or hit at long distance consistently with your AR you have to get rid of the upper to lower play...As well, you better have a butt stock that has no play on the buffer tube.

A simple way to prove how much POI variance you are getting with upper to lower slop or a sloppy fitting butt stock...Get your rifle on a bipod with a solid sand bag at the butt stock...If your rifle has a lot of slop your not even going to need much of an optic...Now focus the reticle or red dot on a distant object and with your free hand carefully manipulate the upper or butt stock at the points that have slop and watch thru the optic at your POI dance around...If you have a reticle with MOA or Mill markings you can even measure the amount of POI error.

Yeah if you are running and gunning with commercial ammo a sloppy fit means nothing to your accuracy but if you want to bear down shooting match or hand loaded ammo with your AR and want small groups or consistent hits at long range your rifle has to be tight...Just ask Les Baer or JP.
Click to expand...

The accu wedge is a gimmick that solves an imaginary problem .
If you were shooting an FN C1A1 this I could believe as the sights are on two receivers / sight planes. The AR has the sights on the upper receiver the sight plane and is not subject to deflection or movement from the lower receiver , The real issue is for the shooter to consistently hold the rifle the same way for each shot. I have shoot lots of matches with my AR and yes the upper and lower have play in them I have shot out to 800 m with it and it still got 2 moa . That in my books is good
 
beltfed said:
See my post #55. The upper and lower play as well as any movement in the butt of the rifle will only affect poa/poi insofar as affecting the shooter and how they are engaging the rifle. As already stated several times, it has no bearing on how the rifle shoots (that is to say it has no bearing on the mechanical accuracy of the rifle).
Click to expand...

Well I guess if you can engage your rifle the same in all respects every shot in all positions then upper/lower/butt stock play will have no bearing on your shooting accuracy...........Good luck.

Mechanically the AR is no different then a bolt gun when it comes to bedding the barreled action into the stock...No one looking for any degree of accuracy would consider a bolt rifle that did not have a well bedded action to stock fit...Let alone a noticeable amount of play you can feel when handling...I find it funny how the AR platform is considered by some to be immune to a degradation in accuracy due to sloppy fitment of it's upper and lower...Meaning it's barreled action and stock.

Keep in mind I am talking about fine accuracy at long range...The worst fitting AR I have dealt with had measurable play in the Upper/lower fit that equated to around 2MOA in both the vertical and the lateral plane...That's how it grouped as well...After tightening things up with shims and the JP tensioning pin it turned into a half inch shooter...Mechanics is mechanics simple as that.
 
X-man said:
The Accuwedge is the answer to a non-existent problem.

The AR was designed in such a manner as to allow a modicum of play between upper and lower receivers. The US Army Marksmanship Unit has been pushing the envelope of what the AR-15/M-16 platform is capable of in terms of accuracy for years. As other posters have pointed out, the AMU went so far as to weld upper and lower together, removing any potential for play. There was no statistically significant difference in accuracy.

That should be sufficient to end any further debate on the issue, or at least it is for me. However, if a shooter prefers to eliminate all play via an Accuwedge just 'cuz...have at it. ;) At the end of the day it's your rifle and the only person you need to please is you.
Click to expand...

Wonder what the accuracy potential of the rifles and ammo AMU was using...Chances are the potential was less then the amount of play in the rifles they tested...2MOA of play in a rifles fitment feels terrible to most when handling such a rifle.
 
Lastgun said:
Keep in mind I am talking about fine accuracy at long range...The worst fitting AR I have dealt with had measurable play in the Upper/lower fit that equated to around 2MOA in both the vertical and the lateral plane...That's how it grouped as well...After tightening things up with shims and the JP tensioning pin it turned into a half inch shooter...Mechanics is mechanics simple as that.
Click to expand...

The half moa AR, got any pics of it?
 
Savage said:
The accu wedge is a gimmick that solves an imaginary problem .
If you were shooting an FN C1A1 this I could believe as the sights are on two receivers / sight planes. The AR has the sights on the upper receiver the sight plane and is not subject to deflection or movement from the lower receiver , The real issue is for the shooter to consistently hold the rifle the same way for each shot. I have shoot lots of matches with my AR and yes the upper and lower have play in them I have shot out to 800 m with it and it still got 2 moa . That in my books is good
Click to expand...

The sights on a bolt gun are essentially the same as on an AR and bedding is a big deal...I'll bet dollars to donuts if your AR had no play in it you would be grouping less then 2MOA at 800 meters more often and have an even bigger grin on your face.
 
Lastgun said:
Well I guess if you can engage your rifle the same in all respects every shot in all positions then upper/lower/butt stock play will have no bearing on your shooting accuracy...........Good luck.

Mechanically the AR is no different then a bolt gun when it comes to bedding the barreled action into the stock...No one looking for any degree of accuracy would consider a bolt rifle that did not have a well bedded action to stock fit...Let alone a noticeable amount of play you can feel when handling...I find it funny how the AR platform is considered by some to be immune to a degradation in accuracy due to sloppy fitment of it's upper and lower...Meaning it's barreled action and stock...Mechanics is mechanics simple as that.
Click to expand...

Ok then, please explain post #11. Seriously, if upper to lower fitment is so important, why is it that in experiments repeated many times by many different people where the upper and lower are welded together, there is no increase in accuracy?

Maybe it's not "mechanics" as you say...maybe it is a psychological effect whereby a shooter feels like a tighter gun shoots better and therefore has more confidence and manages to shoot better. Sound plausible?
 
My 2 cents= someone DID do an informal accuracy comparison (?Glenn Zeidker maybe in his "Black Magic" rifle book--I think) and there was a very subtle improvement, but the author admitted that statistically it was insignificant and could be coincidental.
 
Runningfool said:
Ok then, please explain post #11. Seriously, if upper to lower fitment is so important, why is it that in experiments repeated many times by many different people where the upper and lower are welded together, there is no increase in accuracy?

Maybe it's not "mechanics" as you say...maybe it is a psychological effect whereby a shooter feels like a tighter gun shoots better and therefore has more confidence and manages to shoot better. Sound plausible?
Click to expand...

Wonder what the accuracy potential of the rifles and ammo AMU was using...Chances are the potential was less then the amount of play in the rifles they tested...2MOA of play in a rifles fitment feels terrible to most when handling such a rifle.

Psychological effect or placebos don't help to ring steel at long range...Tight with precision ammo does.
 
Lastgun said:
Wonder what the accuracy potential of the rifles and ammo AMU was using...Chances are the potential was less then the amount of play in the rifles they tested...2MOA of play in a rifles fitment feels terrible to most when handling such a rifle.

Psychological effect or placebos don't help to ring steel at long range...Tight with precision ammo does.
Click to expand...

Not sure what you mean by long range but if the AMU and NGMTC can't find a difference at 300yds, that tells me everything I need to know about the practicality of the accuwedge for me. And I will confess I'm not a long range shooter but presume you are...which makes me confused that you would suggest long range shooting has nothing to do with psychology and is simply about the rifle being tight with precision ammo.
 
Lastgun said:
Well I guess if you can engage your rifle the same in all respects every shot in all positions then upper/lower/butt stock play will have no bearing on your shooting accuracy...........Good luck.
Click to expand...

It really isn't difficult - hold onto the upper while you shoulder the rifle. Any play that could possibly be induced between upper and lower by a shooting position that has the shooter only engaging with the lower receiver (like firing off a bench or bipod) is eliminated. Dry firing shows this. Firing live rounds shows this.

Lastgun said:
Mechanically the AR is no different then a bolt gun when it comes to bedding the barreled action into the stock...
Click to expand...

Actually, that has been proven pretty much false. The AR is a completely different animal.
I recommend you conduct some research on what has been tried and by whom.
There is plenty of info out there - from the USAMU, Marines and many, many civilian shooters on the tweeks tried when they first switched from the M-14 to the AR-15 (M-16) in US service shooting.


Lastgun said:
I find it funny how the AR platform is considered by some to be immune to a degradation in accuracy due to sloppy fitment of it's upper and lower...Meaning it's barreled action and stock.
Click to expand...

On a typical bolt action rifle the barrelled receiver is connected to the stock set. The stock set is what the shooter engages with to fire the shot. Of course it stands to reason the barrelled action and stock need to be mated for that to function with any degree of accuracy.

With an AR, theoretically you only need the upper receiver. The only part that matters from the lower fire control group at time of firing is the hammer striking the firing pin.
The upper receiver of an AR is the piece of the rifle that needs to be held consistently firing shot to shot for accuracy to be realized. It is the primary reason so many use floating hand guards for the AR.
 
The more I write it seems the stronger you feel about your ideas of how the upper and lower relate to one another...The more I read what you write the more I can absolutely see how the upper and lower relate to one another and need to be tight fitting in order to obtain it's best accuracy.
 
On a bolt action rifle, you are basically only holding on to the "lower". The stock. So if there is play between the stock and the "upper" (action and barrel) then even the slightest movement of your body or technically even a little fly touching down on your barrel could move it and mess up your shot.

On a regular ar-15 you hold on to both the upper and lower. Meaning that they will not move unless you move your arms. When you pull the trigger the bullet will be long gone from the barrel before it starts moving.
 
Safeside said:
I am new to AR-15s. But quickly falling in love.... How could so many people be wrong, kicking myself for not trying one sooner.

Bought an AR-15 off EE. It is a Frankenstein build using almost no two parts from the same manufacturer, but put together very well by a knowledgable previous owner. Still putting it through its paces, so can't comment much just yet.

The one thing, I did notice is that there is some play between the upper and lower receivers. I have done a little research, but am getting conflicting opinions.
1) some play is normal and desirable.
2) higher end receivers have an adjustment screw.
3) does, and does not effect accuracy....love opposite opinions.
4) can be solver with an accuwedge, which is cheap and improves accuracy.
5) accuwedge is just a gimmick - from a CGN Banned member. On a NEA thread.

My questions really are what to do with the play....I don't like it, but does it need to be fixed?
And is the accuwedge the right way to fix it? Does it stop the play? And does it improve accuracy?
Are there better products or fixes? Are the any downsides to fixing it?
Thanks in advance, for your opinions.
Click to expand...

If Colt Canada uses them (and they do) I wouldn't expect there to be any issues with long term use.

Also if you don't like the rifle to have a little play in it, then by all means use one and get rid of the play; I'd do the same myself if the play of an AR-15 was annoying me.

As for accuracy I wouldn't expect a wedge to make a noticeable difference, saying that I wouldn't expect it to hurt the accuracy either. Ultimately if you like the feel and fit of a rifle better (with the wedge) you will not only shoot it better, but likely shoot it more often, leading to even better accuracy.

Cheers D
 
Last edited:
OldFrankHog said:
On a bolt action rifle, you are basically only holding on to the "lower". The stock. So if there is play between the stock and the "upper" (action and barrel) then even the slightest movement of your body or technically even a little fly touching down on your barrel could move it and mess up your shot.

On a regular ar-15 you hold on to both the upper and lower. Meaning that they will not move unless you move your arms. When you pull the trigger the bullet will be long gone from the barrel before it starts moving.
I would argue that point because the trigger needs to be moved before the bullet can take flight. Therefore it is this very movement of pulling a trigger that can and does affect the flight path of a bullet (among other things).

Which is why smooth, adjustable pound (low pound) triggers are so popular for increasing accuracy (particularly in shooters who do not shoot a significant amount or who do not dry fire a lot for trigger practice).

Cheers D
Click to expand...
Click to expand...
 
For a rack grade rifle, the accumwedge belongs to the junk bin. This is the first thing I do, lose that plastic POS.

If you have an ultra accurate AR, a non-wobbling fit does at least give you a bit more cozy feeling in the mental game. There is no reason for it to be "tight", as long as it doesn't move. It certainly doesn't make the shooter confident or the job easier to have a lower that moves to different positions every time.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top Bottom