Dustysa4

I ended up with a gen 2 Viper PST 1-6x. However, a buddy bought the Atibal XP8 and Burris RT-6 for comparison. Between the two, I personally preferred the XP8, but he ended up selling it in favor of the RT-6. The Viper costs a bit more, but it is nicer than both.

+1 for flat triggers. Also, if you feel the AR grip to trigger length has your hand all scrunched up, a flat trigger + fat grip w/thick backstrap will open your hand up a bit.

Several dealers have them in stock off and on. I bought from one of them and received it on 3/7/17. It was damaged during shipment, so I returned it and received the replacement exactly 10 days later. At the time, this dealer had a 15% off coupon code, so I was willing to wait. To my surprise, I didn't even have to.

Anyone running or handled the Atibal XP8? Based on the only 2 reviews I've been able to locate, it seems interesting. Priced right above the Strike Eagle and doesn't seem to have a fisheye at 1x or a red/brown tinted image.

Never had an out of battery issue in mine, but did have extremely heavy leading with Remington Thunderbolts. I think after a few quick strings of fire it melts the bullets that you leave chambered for any length of time. Haven't really tested my theory, but that's about all I can figure to explain the amount of leading I've had with those.

I use the Taccom buffer. http://www.tacticallink.com/Taccom-Ultra-Lightweight-Carbine-Buffer-for-AR15.html

I'm curious about this BCG as well. In materials used, it seems very similar to the low mass BCG from Rubber City, which is over double the price. Rubber City's has a lifetime warranty, AIM's includes with a 30 day warranty (I emailed them to ask).

I don't run the CAEK at the moment, but I briefly had it in one of my guns. It eliminated the crappy trigger flex, but the trigger spring was so light that the trigger safety would catch on the frame of the pistol. Instead of grinding off the trigger safety, I simply went back to a factory trigger spring and that fixed the issue.

Thanks for the insight. I do roll my own ammo for this rifle. Basically, I've had minor plans for the rifle for a while, and I'm finally motivated to make it happen. Original plans were only a floated handguard (I own but have not installed it yet) and a trigger. Since the A2 FSB will need to be cut or replaced...this got me internet shopping. The handguard and trigger, those are going to happen regardless. Not to improve my skill or anything, I just think they'd look/feel cool. :-) But of course they do have some added benefits for various types of shooting. Since the rifle is going to be apart to replace the barrel nut for the handguard, and the FSB will need to be removed for that...it got me thinking about whether there is any meaningful reduction in recoil from a "slightly" lightened buffer and an adjustable gas block on a carbine. My local range has ranges up to 1000 yards. It'd be nice to see the steel bounce at the various long ranges instead of being bumped completely off target, and having to reposition between each shot. If it would help reduce that recoil, would it require adjustments when switching from 55 grain to 77 grain pills? I apologize, as I guess my original post was a bit confusing. I'm definitely doing at least some work to this rig, just curious what benefit or trade off can be expected from an adjustable gas block and a "kinda" lightened buffer on a carbine? I've seen a few threads about rifle length gas, adjustable gas blocks, and extremely lightened buffers and bcg's...the works. Not many threads regarding carbine length with minimal weight reductions. Is it not as beneficial? Not reliable across a broad range of projectiles/charges? At the end of the day I guess it's about a $75 difference between an adjustable and non-adjustable.

I've got a Colt 6920 carbine, acquired before I discovered competitive shooting. I'm hoping to get some insight to determine whether my expectations for this gun are realistic, or if I should just build another upper. The short version is that I'd like to transform the rifle to something less military spec, to something slightly more refined, but still a rounded gun, capable of occasional 3-gun, but also things like hunting & plinking. In other words, I'm not looking for a finely tuned sewing machine that requires constant tinkering. I like the general purpose aspect, I'd just like it a little more accurate, and a little lighter recoiling... Plans would include ditching the m4 handguard for a floated tube. Since the A2 front sight will not fit under the tube, I was thinking of swapping in an SLR Sentry 7 and a reduced buffer of some sort (haven't decided what yet). Then I'd throw a comp on the end and call it done. I'd keep the standard BCG and Colt 16" carbine barrel. In your opinion will there be noticeable decrease in recoil with the SLR + reduced buffer? Or do you think that because I'm maintaining the m4 bcg and carbine gas system, I'd be wasting money, with no real felt difference? I don't mind building another upper if that's deemed the better option, but since I'm just a casual competitor I'd like to avoid a 100% race gun that will be mostly wasted on me. Thanks for your experience and opinions.

Thanks for all the feedback. I really do appreciate it. The goal is a C.O.L. setting on the seater die that I can use for these bullets and some 68/69 grain projectiles as well. Basically, I'm trying to get away with one less adjustment. All brass is being trimmed prior to the crimp. I did get back out to the range and fired another 100 rounds, charges ranging from 22.5 to 24.1 grains. Again, all the primers looked flattened to me. I had a couple of seasoned hand loaders hanging around and they gladly inspected the cases. They told me basically what has been posted here. Thanks again!

I ran the rounds back through the seater and crimped again. Thanks guys, I appreciate the help.

Cool, thanks! Unfortunately, my OCD compelled me to decap the flat primers and toss the brass in the dirty pile, dangit. They looked comparable to flattened primer pics I've searched online, but no extraction markings. Also, I'm having issues with primer seating depth, so I've started uniformitng the pockets, which seems to have fixed this issue. I do wonder if the high-ish primers caused it to "look" flattened, when in fact there is no pressure issue. I'm going to be back at the range to gather data on this new batch. I'll photograph this time if the issue persists. Thanks again!

I'm pretty new to hand loading, so I just don't want to cause a problem that can be avoided. As the subject says, I've loaded 40 test rounds of various charges. They've all been kissed by a Lee FCD (collet style crimp). The pertinent data... Rifle = stock Colt 6920 Bullet = Hornady 55gr FMJBT Brass = WCC @ 1.750", reamed & uniformed COAL = 2.260" average (so +/- .005") Primer = CCI #400 SRP Powder = Hodgdon H335 Some of the longer than average bullets are a tight fit in my PMAG's, and I'm thinking now that there probably isn't a need to have them loaded at the max SAAMI length. If it's a non-issue, I'd prefer to seat them deeper instead of pulling and starting over. But obviously, safety is a priority. The crimp die is set very light, and none of the bullets are crimped at the cannellure due to long OAL. I'm contemplating pressing them in to ~2.250" or so. Experience and opinions welcome. On another note, I previously tested some of the above spec'd loads in the above rifle, with 24 grains of H335. This is a fair bit below the max load data in both the Lee and Lyman manual. I was getting great accuracy with this load, but also flattened primers. There was no other sign of pressure, so I'm not sure if the load is too hot, or if the bullet is in the lands or something?? Anyone else flattening primers below max load of H335? Again, experience and opinions welcomed. Thanks!

I had a similar experience with S&W CS. Second time was a charm. Hopefully for you too.