MK203 - Update and poll

What rail system would YOU mount your MK203 to?

  • Total voters
    51
M

MikeH

CGN Regular
Rating - 100%
27   0   0
Location
Finally made it to AB!!!
Hi all.

Well and update for y'all, I have a new job - with it came more time. Once we are moved and settled in I will be able to focus on this project and get it rolling.

Anyhow enough of my personal life and to why you are opening this thread.

What mounting options would YOU like to see for this as I will focus on the development on the appropriate models of rails systems.

For other - please list as many details as you can reguarding it, and if possible link to it somewhere on the web

that about it,

Mike
 
You can mount an M203 just to an RIS? Recoil isn't and issue?
I run a POF Predator rail on my 180B but wouldn't trust it with an M203. Not that I don't trust the rail, just the way I've mounted it.

Also, I was just wondering the other day what the status of this project is.
 
Greentips -

One of the driving factors in starting this project was to allow for the capabilty to FF the rifle barrel, hence basically cutting off the exisiting mount and starting from scratch. There is definatly the potential to make a mount that replicates the old M203 mount, however it will attach to reciver of the M203, just like the URX mount shown in the old pics posted oh so long ago.

If there is enough demand, I can look @ the old style mount for sure.

Another question back @ y'all....If a non-FF mount was designed, would it have to be QD like the KAC M203 QD mount? As it would be silly to make a mount to accept the KAC mount - that is just asking for reliability problems.

And I am not sure what type legalities in making basically a copy of the KAC mount would involve, whether it be licensing or what....that opens back up the ITAR regs can of worms, as a license to make something designed in the USA also needs an export permit - and the M203 is named in the ITAR as a Grenade launcher - so it would only be availible to LE/.mil folk as they are the only signed off end user certs that are being accepted at this point.
 
Armed - Not sure about mounting direct to the rail, like on the LMT M203 for the MRP....can look @ it. I have heard that that particular M203 did not hold up to the US Mil testing for it....with war shots

BUT it did hold up to the testing regime with practice rounds.....all most folk that are looking @ this thing will use.

I hate to build a mount that cannot be used for something, as it will get used for what it would not be @ somepoint, and having it fail in a moment of need.

Not saying we wont make it but that one has been though about quite a bit, and that is why it is not on the list.
 
I like the idea of buying 1 Mk.203, a mount that is solidly attached to my M4gery, another mount that is solidly attached to my Vz.58, another mount for the M305, another for the 10/22 :eek: whatever, and then swapping the actual launcher between mounts.

That being said, how much recoil do typical black powder based fun shots actually generate compared to a warshot? Is that even going to be an issue?

And I'm going to be doing up my M4gery with an ARMS 50, not sure wether it will be C or M yet!
 
KevinB would be the guy in the know on the warshots. I am sure he will be along sometime.

GT - How QD do you want it? As QD as the KAC mount? Or is no tools sufficiant?

That testing you refer to is the same that I am refering to on the rail and 203 mount failing.

KAC also went from URX to URX II for the same reason - M203 mounting longevity. IIRC they went from an AL barrel nut to a steel one.

FF carbine barrel is huge to a potential customer, and they were the reason this project was started. Contray to belief this project was not undertaken to provide lower cost M203, there was a real customer with a need. Granted I think they lost their patience but time will tell. The concept demo was liked a while back so who knows for sure.

Skullby - see previous posts as to why larue is not a viable options - btw neither is KAC FFRAS, or the original DD.
 
Also another point to think about.

What is the demand for CDN rail, that has many(but not all) the advantages of a URX? The cost would be quite high I am afraid. 650 would probably be bit on the light side
 
Voted DD RIS II but for cost the ARMS RIS II is probably a better option.

I'm not too confident about rail mounting.
 
KAC and others found that withing 2k of warshot ammo the M1913 mounting systems would tear away the rail or severly damage the lower rail so it had problems.

Freefloating the GL gives a lot of added bonuses. Many of these are not as transparent to civilian usage - since the majority will not be shooting a high round count weapon with a GL attached - nor will the use of IR and other aiming systems be an issue - nor inline NV etc.

That said -- due to the load the M203 put on the M16 and M4 barrel, when I spoke to Gus Taylor (SOPMOD PM) in 2004 he felt their testing had shown that the added load was decreasing the life span of the bolt by aprox 50%.
So if you want to add a M203 to your plinker - it would be nice to Free float it.


KAC went to a steel bbl nut on the URXII since they required M203 compatibility (URX was compatible to the KAC EGLM) and a 5k warshot life span.

"Warshot" recoil is about 3x the force (IMHO) as factory training/practise ammo. The home loads that Koldt, myself and other have done are (IMHO) about 75% of factory practise.
 
The mount is modular -- in a sence the body will remain intact and the mount for the specific host rail can be added to the body.

I have three of the URXII systems, however the ARMS RISII SIR and the DD are likley to be the larger civilian available systems - since KAC contiunes to focus on the Gov't delivery.

IMHO - for civilian usage - a 1913 mount or a Troy/Sampson system would stand up for 99% of CGN'ers no problem at all.
 
I was thinking the same thing. For civilian/recreational use, a picurweenie mount would probably do for the life of any user and then some.
Similar to the LMT system.
LMTmount.jpg
 
So if I am reading this correctly. One of the plans is to provide interface(s) that replace the removable bottom rail (handguard) of FF rails such as Troy or ARMS SIR. Correct?
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top Bottom