My Nordic is complete!!! (for now) :)

motoman said:
very nice maybe you can get one of those metal tactical solutions mags
Click to expand...

Unfortunately the aluminum TI mags cost twice as much as the plastic TI mags and the only real advantage is looks. I just received my plastic TI mags yesterday and I have to admit that the mottled plastic they use looks pretty darn ugly. The pictures I had seen on the net made them look like a nice, solid black but in real life they look like they are made from recycled ashtrays. Compared to BC mags however, they still have the advantage of being adjustable and you can take them apart to clean them.

I remember reading someones comment "Buy one aluminum TI mag for pictures, and buy as many plastic ones as you need for the range."
 
CanFire said:
I remember reading someones comment "Buy one aluminum TI mag for pictures, and buy as many plastic ones as you need for the range."
Click to expand...

well put! I have a hard time justifying paying double for the metal mags, I regret getting the BC mag vs the TI one for the cleaning, and adjusting abilities though
 
If they redo that top rail so it lines up with the handguard rail like an AR,and has the correct spacing.
i'll be all over one of these stocks.
 
(Ronin) said:
If they redo that top rail so it lines up with the handguard rail like an AR,and has the correct spacing.
i'll be all over one of these stocks.
Click to expand...

True, it is unfortunate that the rails don't like up. If they had just not spaced it up, and put the rail right on the reciever it'd be perfect. Maybe if they fix it I'll be able to get just a top piece. ...or maybe I should just quit dumping money into this project!!:eek:
 
If i did one i'd want to put a Troy quad rail on it and have it line up..
Like so:
troyMRF2.jpg


As it is now..a BUIS set wouldn't even line up
 
It's kind of a tricky problem to solve. The current design mimicks the ergonomics and dimensions of an A4. If they create a "low profile" rail for the top of the receiver then whatever sights you mount will be too low to get your eye behind. Unfortunately the Ruger barrel is ~ .7" lower than that of an AR. The best compromise I've seen suggested is to build a .7" riser that mounts onto the top rail of the freefloat tube so that the receiver rail and the barrel rail are all the same height. It wouldn't look as clean as the continuous rail you posted above, but at least rail mounted sights would line up.
 
CanFire said:
It's kind of a tricky problem to solve. The current design mimicks the ergonomics and dimensions of an A4. If they create a "low profile" rail for the top of the receiver then whatever sights you mount will be too low to get your eye behind. Unfortunately the Ruger barrel is ~ .7" lower than that of an AR. The best compromise I've seen suggested is to build a .7" riser that mounts onto the top rail of the freefloat tube so that the receiver rail and the barrel rail are all the same height. It wouldn't look as clean as the continuous rail you posted above, but at least rail mounted sights would line up.
Click to expand...

Agreed.

Sounds like a rather cheap (economically speaking) solution to me.
 
Hillbilly said:
I find the scope to be too low. I might have to get a riser.
Click to expand...

I bought this ~ 1" riser from futong.com (a B.C. company) for $10:
Riser-1.jpg


I wouldn't use it on anything more powerful than a .22LR. Here's why:
Riser-2.jpg

That little stub and some side pressure is all that holds it in place on your rail. Unfortunately shipping will cost more than the riser so you might want to shop around or buy a bunch of cheap scope rings from Futong to make it worthwhile.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top Bottom