Aimpoint C8 problem

DaveMachine said:
I went to the weapons techs to have the square pins on my American Defense mount milled/filed down. Turns out a sergeant walked in a flipped out.
Click to expand...

retarded. who was this sgt? the wpn tech supervisor? :mad:

guess it's easier to take the gerber file to the upper then... :evil:
 
KevinB said:
Keep in mind I have a soft spot for the CF given my time in it, and I think that Canadian Solider deserves more than he/she is getting, especially due to the conflict in Afghanistan and it irritates me to no end that the Canadian Forces is not doing all it can to modernize its STANO abilities.
Click to expand...



Who are the decision makers involved? Are they bureaucrats?
 
Last edited:
The issue with the CF is the procurement system,at best it is 5 years behind the curve. The former CDS Gen Hillier did much to streamline it but the system is very flawed.
 
Reaper said:
better yet to adopt the weapons to the much more compliant NATO STANAG 2324 Rail (MIL-STD-1913 rail).
STANAG 2324 is the NATO compliance agreement which covers mounting of optic and night vision devices, which all parties are required to adopt, Canada is in violation of this standardization at this time with the Weaver rail system.
Click to expand...

Truns out that it would be a bad idea to adopt the old 1914 standard, since it does not locate sights as accurately as weaver (they use different surfaces for locating sights and accesories) and 1913 has a poor straightness and flatness tolerance that shows up badly in new longer 1913 rails.

That is why we are adopting the NEW standard: The NATO Accessory Rail (NAR), STANAG 4694.

http://www.janes.com/news/defence/land/idr/idr090520_1_n.shtml

As the article hints, old 1913 components (made to proper spec) will be back compatible for at least ten years.

Essentially, the slot width will be the same as 1913, sights will be located the same as weaver, and all with tighter tolerances.
 
Canadian Sig said:
The gerber will eat through that slot faster than a hot file through butter.
Click to expand...
Good to know. My ACOG fits fine (round cross bolt) but a Troy BUIS I have on the way will take a little finesseing of the upper to make fit. I was wondering if I would have a to pack a file to take with me on ex or if the Gerber would get the job done.
 
Dirty Dog said:
Good to know. My ACOG fits fine (round cross bolt) but a Troy BUIS I have on the way will take a little finesseing of the upper to make fit. I was wondering if I would have a to pack a file to take with me on ex or if the Gerber would get the job done.
Click to expand...

If your in Pet give me a buzz and i'll mill it for you "free" Why do a hack job?
 
C77 said:
Truns out that it would be a bad idea to adopt the old 1914 standard, since it does not locate sights as accurately as weaver (they use different surfaces for locating sights and accesories) and 1913 has a poor straightness and flatness tolerance that shows up badly in new longer 1913 rails.

That is why we are adopting the NEW standard: The NATO Accessory Rail (NAR), STANAG 4694.

http://www.janes.com/news/defence/land/idr/idr090520_1_n.shtml

As the article hints, old 1913 components (made to proper spec) will be back compatible for at least ten years.

Essentially, the slot width will be the same as 1913, sights will be located the same as weaver, and all with tighter tolerances.
Click to expand...

Yes but that standard has yet to be adopted.
 
DaveMachine said:
I went to the weapons techs to have the square pins on my American Defense mount milled/filed down. Turns out a sergeant walked in a flipped out.

The only solution I've got left is a riser on order from P&D. Hopefully it works.
Click to expand...

My friend over in the Stan did a similar thing for his ADM mount, he got an ARMS spacer. Keep in mind, it will need to be trimmed down a bit for the riser to fit. (the cross bar) Yankee Hill Machine said their risers are unable to fit on a Weaver spec rail.
 
Dsiwy said:
If your in Pet give me a buzz and i'll mill it for you "free" Why do a hack job?
Click to expand...
You know, I might take you up on that.... Only problem is the next time I'll be holding my issue rifle will probably be in the Californian desert.

hoddie said:
I ran a Troy BUIS with no issues on my C8, no need to use a file. My Larue mount, that was a different story.
Click to expand...
I thought the Troy was going to fit with no issues, it's what attracted me to it, but the previous owner said he had to file his upper. I guess we'll see...
 
Dirty Dog said:
You know, I might take you up on that.... Only problem is the next time I'll be holding my issue rifle will probably be in the Californian desert.
QUOTE]

Just give me your mount, it will take 10mins "i have weaver uppers to try it on"
Click to expand...
 
C77 said:
Truns out that it would be a bad idea to adopt the old 1914 standard, since it does not locate sights as accurately as weaver (they use different surfaces for locating sights and accesories) and 1913 has a poor straightness and flatness tolerance that shows up badly in new longer 1913 rails.

That is why we are adopting the NEW standard: The NATO Accessory Rail (NAR), STANAG 4694.

http://www.janes.com/news/defence/land/idr/idr090520_1_n.shtml

As the article hints, old 1913 components (made to proper spec) will be back compatible for at least ten years.

Essentially, the slot width will be the same as 1913, sights will be located the same as weaver, and all with tighter tolerances.
Click to expand...

Blah Blah Blah, thats Europe.
Per Ardvisson was just here, he admits the Brits and Americans are 1913 and will likely not change.
1913 has no issues with mouting tolerances, and when you paint a gun either at factory or in the field your super tolerances are just nice on paper.
In theory STANAG's are great but if you look at the UK/Germans etc they did not even follow the STANAG magwell on their weapons.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top Bottom