Modern Sporter builds Q&A

DILLIGAF said:
The only people that complain about this issue must not know how to use google.
Click to expand...

I actually fixed mine, it only required a shim thick washer to push the part(sear?) to the side to engage properly.

greg olmstead said:
Except you couldn't be more wrong. I'd never own a piece of crap like a su16. I've never touched an 858 and I wouldnt touch an slr.

If YOU are having problems with YOUR Ms maybe it something that YOU are doing wrong. Every think of that there bud? I haven't had a single problem with mine. I dont know what you are doing to yours or what kind of cheap Chinese garbage you put in it. But dont assume I'm some clown that doesnt know anything about guns. Just makes you look like an ignorant fool. You probably dont even have a modern sporter and are just stirring the pot. You asked a question about someone's OBSERVATION. and I gave you a real first hand experience with what I have experienced with my rifle.
Click to expand...

No I actually think by discounting other people’s experience with the charging handle, it makes your point ignorant and not required in this trouble shooting discussion. Tell me why I’m incorrect.
 
PinaKaleada said:
I actually fixed mine, it only required a shim thick washer to push the part(sear?) to the side to engage properly.
Click to expand...

Yup I also did it to mine JIC, But I had actually never experienced it. I think CGN keyboard commandos blew that way out of proportion back in the day. At least it wasnt a 6K MG34 that cost me 1K to fix and get working properly...lol...
 
DILLIGAF said:
Yup I also did it to mine JIC, But I had actually never experienced it. I think CGN keyboard commandos blew that way out of proportion back in the day. At least it wasnt a 6K MG34 that cost me 1K to fix and get working properly...lol...
Click to expand...

I was actually able to induce this on two of mine, but shim method was definitely much cheaper than getting it tabbed. 6K MG34 damn what do you do for a living!

Anyway I posted on the other thread, but can anyone take a picture of where the cutout is located? Also a measuring tape beside it would be great. Maybe we can do some thinking on behalf of ATRS.
 
Dietz said:
Careful there. It's a valid concern and issue. Doesn't matter who made the charging handle, it will always have a tendency to catch on a corner of the insertion pocket because the corners are not radiused to prevent this from happening. The interaction of the bolt carrier, charging handle and upper dimensional tolerances and variances plays a big role in this.

Lots of guy's CH have been snagging, you're just lucky yours doesn't.
Click to expand...

Number of emails received regarding instances of charging handles snagging currently sits at zero by my count?

That aside, if you are who I think you are, I think I may have some good news for you later this coming week. :)



PinaKaleada said:
I was actually able to induce this on two of mine, but shim method was definitely much cheaper than getting it tabbed. 6K MG34 damn what do you do for a living!

Anyway I posted on the other thread, but can anyone take a picture of where the cutout is located? Also a measuring tape beside it would be great. Maybe we can do some thinking on behalf of ATRS.
Click to expand...

This is where the charging handle will insert, and I can't fathom a reason to change it nor a better location for it. Here's why: On our prototype units the insertion point was located rear of the hook assembly, and left too little material around the latching point for the charge handle. So the decision on production models was to move the insertion point forward of the hook. The only other thing I've seen mentioned regarding this is to have the slots extend all the way to the rear and not have an insertion point inside the upper. The issue there is once again the notching location for the charging handles being too thin and the aluminum will likely blow out as our prototypes and beta testing indicated.

We bent handles, we twisted handles, we pulled up on them, we pushed down on them, all without issue. (Radian Raptor, Colt, DPMS, BCM, Geiselle, PRI, Strike Industries and Brownells brand, to name a few off the top of my head)
This appears to be a hypothetical observation rather than an issue encountered during use, which is fine, many great ideas and suggestions come from this same sort of discussion. But I can assure you a lot of time, energy and thought went into testing the charge handle insertion point, and it wasn't a decision made lightly.

If you've actually experienced any form of a jam or "dislocation" of the charging handle during use please do email us at info@albertatacticalrifle.com.

I've been following the "observation" thread linked previous, as it was also sent in email to us and a more detailed response is forthcoming.
 
ATRS Shaun said:
Number of emails received regarding instances of charging handles snagging currently sits at zero by my count?
Click to expand...

I've seen it mentioned on the forum a bunch of times. I shouldn't have said "lots" tho...

You know what they say, if there's one guy saying something, at least 10 more are thinking it.

I should have mentioned in that post that there does need to be some tolerance discrepency between the CH and BCG for a CH to actually be able to catch. Two parts at opposing ends of the allowed tolerance meeting eachother, for example. All manufacturers put out parts within a certain tolerance.

I honestly think it's more of a charging handle vs bolt carrier dimentional relation issue, and charging handle use technique, rather than the upper being the culprit (the design of the pocket/rails only reveals the dimensional discrepency between the CH and BCG, rather than being the issue itself) I have a bunch of charging handles from different makes and there are definite variations. The more high grade you go the less variation you have (wear plays a role too). An Armalite milspec CH I have (the lowest grade CH I own) has a very strange combination of an out-of spec nose, top pimple and rail ears, along with a slight bend in the body. That CH could cause such issue. The BCM handle I selected for the upper was working nice and worry-free.
I bet some guy's charging handles are ever so slightly bent or flex because of the way they use the CH or because of the stock height, which could cause this to happen if the bolt carrier has enough of a discrepency too. Still, the upper is not the issue, rather I think it's design highlights the potential discrepency between some of the CH and BCG manufacturers, by letting the ears catch.

Some could be twisted in a way by charging one handed and would catch a corner ever so slightly without actually getting stuck. I bet that's what the guys are experiencing.

I think it's not really an issue of the upper per say, rather it has more to do with the wild variation of parts on the market up here, with chinese and unkown parts floating around.

ATRS Shaun said:
That aside, if you are who I think you are, I think I may have some good news for you later this coming week. :)
Click to expand...
Oh that's great! I didn't want to bother you, I preferred letting you guys do your thing without me intervening. :)




Honestly I've never seen a Canadian manufacturer care as much about the end user as you guys.
 
Last edited:
Very very very nice you guys rock !!!...the wait is well worth it ...
I pray you folks get ahead of schedule
Modern sporter with black level or label front stock (the one with the intragraded front bipod .....is going to look oh so sweet the only thing sweeter are women !!!!!......mmmmm yummy!
Keep up the good work
 
Does anyone have a quick list of handguards that are compatible with the MS that do not require any sort of filing or modifications? BCM? Midwest?
 
Midwest industries handguard with anti rotation tabs will need the tabs filed off. It wasn't that bad for mine.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top Bottom