Wk 180c problem, mounting eotech mount

Status
Not open for further replies.
Last edited:
MkivSupra said:
each to their own, I'm curious as to how you think the metal on that mount came to be the specific shape it is. They sure didn't mine it out of the ground in that shape. It was machined, You can use whichever tool you'd prefer but it sounds like an easy fix to me.

Some of us want everything we buy to just somehow fit absolutely everything you could possibly mount it to, some of us rely on a gunsmith for absolutely anything, some of us are capable an confident with using tools on our own. I am not judging anyone for which category they fall into, it was simply a suggestion for a simple solution to a simple problem. As stated in earlier posts, there are plenty of rifles out there that have some form of obstruction that may not allow everything that could possibly be mounted to a rail to work.
Click to expand...

It all sure sounds very wise. Perhaps you can show us your most recent dremelled workpieces?
 
PinaKaleada said:
It all sure sounds very wise. Perhaps you can show us your most recent dremelled workpieces?
Click to expand...
Here's my trigger guard that was fitted with a dremel. If you know what you're doing you can easily modify certain parts without destroying their function or value. It's like working on cars, some mods will add value, some will not, and the competency of the worker is the main factor. If the mod makes you happy and you plan to keep the rifle, more power to you. That being said i personally would not mod the eotech...
20181014_133642.jpg
 

Attachments

  • 20181014_133642.jpg
    20181014_133642.jpg
    41.7 KB · Views: 1,109
^ what I meant was dremel work done on the main frame of firearms, which would be an expensive mistake if done wrong. No doubt it’s possible on a plastic Magpul piece, but I wouldn’t do it on, say, the body of a Tavor. Nice work tho!
 
PinaKaleada said:
^ what I meant was dremel work done on the main frame of firearms, which would be an expensive mistake if done wrong. No doubt it’s possible on a plastic Magpul piece, but I wouldn’t do it on, say, the body of a Tavor. Nice work tho!
Click to expand...

i was referring to filing the quick mount. I see OPs reply and it makes sense that may weaken the mount too much so yes i agree it should fit from factory, my bad.

Also i sand/smoothen every casting mark on cast or polymer mags with a dremel. cut down rails etc. If i had any issues with clearance i'd smooth off corners etc. polish recievers. If you can show me one machinist or gunsmith who doesn't have a dremel/sand paper/files for fine tuning, I'd be surprised.
 
I'm not sure what's going on with mine, but my Elcan OS3.0 won't sit level at all, it's canted away from the (L) thumbscrew side. It doesn't appear to have interference with the receiver, but I can't figure out why it's crooked!
Pretty frustrating.
 
Why don’t ya guys just return the out of spec rifle. If I can’t mount standard equipment mines going back. What’s the point of just settling for something that doesn’t work
 
6ohmoney said:
Why don’t ya guys just return the out of spec rifle. If I can’t mount standard equipment mines going back. What’s the point of just settling for something that doesn’t work
Click to expand...

I guess because of the limited number of available NR 5.56 rifles at this price point.
I'm not even remotely saying I disagree with you: no matter the cost of the product it should be in spec, and if I can't get it to work I'll send it back however if I can figure out what the damn problem is and fix it, it would be a preferable option.
 
It's weird though: it sits perfectly level on the handguard section of the pic rail, but cants left no matter where I mount it on the receiver. Visually the two pic rails look the same, and with my limited calliper skills the receiver parts of the rail I can measure seem to be in spec, but I'm having a hard time measuring the height of the angled section on the sides (if that makes any sense).
 
I believe the issue is the clearance below the rail. The rail top is to 1913 STANAG the clearance below is not. I have corrected our spec sheet to indicate 1913 "type" rail, I am sorry but she is what she is. If you are not happy please return your rifle for a refund. We are not going to redesign the upper receiver at this point in time. If we make the upper receiver rail higher to bring it fully into NATO spec we also have to change the hand guard. There was an error in the original design that was not realised at the time, we are not competing in any military trials and for the vast majority of customers she will work as is.

Once again we apologise for any inconvenience we may have caused.
 
Mr Wolverine said:
I believe the issue is the clearance below the rail. The rail top is to 1913 STANAG the clearance below is not. I have corrected our spec sheet to indicate 1913 "type" rail, I am sorry but she is what she is. If you are not happy please return your rifle for a refund. We are not going to redesign the upper receiver at this point in time. If we make the upper receiver rail higher to bring it fully into NATO spec we also have to change the hand guard. There was an error in the original design that was not realised at the time, we are not competing in any military trials and for the vast majority of customers she will work as is.

Once again we apologise for any inconvenience we may have caused.
Click to expand...

Fair enough.

I guess in that case I'm putting it out there that the Elcan OS3.0 won't work on this rifle.

Caveat emptor.
 
So true! Never thought of it that way. Guess with Wolverines comment they will not be fixing this mistake. Up to us to figure er out boys. Still got 1 of these coming but very disappointed to hear this.
 
Last edited:
Mr Wolverine said:
I believe the issue is the clearance below the rail. The rail top is to 1913 STANAG the clearance below is not. I have corrected our spec sheet to indicate 1913 "type" rail, I am sorry but she is what she is. If you are not happy please return your rifle for a refund. We are not going to redesign the upper receiver at this point in time. If we make the upper receiver rail higher to bring it fully into NATO spec we also have to change the hand guard. There was an error in the original design that was not realised at the time, we are not competing in any military trials and for the vast majority of customers she will work as is.

Once again we apologise for any inconvenience we may have caused.
Click to expand...

Wow....just wow
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top Bottom