Jump to content
Brian Enos's Forums... Maku mozo!


  • Posts

  • Joined

  • Last visited

Recent Profile Visitors

871 profile views

mrd's Achievements

Looks for Target

Looks for Target (4/11)

  1. With hiperfire competition/24/eclipse you don't need to worry about primers no more, even hard military primers go boom.
  2. I'm in EU and have looked at the holosun.eu page, but I've been unable to find it.
  3. Sorry, but I'm unable to find the spacer you mean, do you have a link?
  4. Well, I'm in Sweden, so I don't think the answer would help you much. Sorry.
  5. If ignition is borderline and you don't have the Titan hammer or Bolo interrupter already (nor the xtreme one piece sear), then you might want to take the extra hassle with fitting the bolo for a Unica hammer instead of the Titan. I have fitted one Bolo for the Titan and I recently fitted a Bolo for the Unica in my Stock 2. The Unica setup hits the primers harder. The inside arc of the Bolo needed more work with the Unica hammer (I have the v2 trigger bar), otherwise it was the same procedure for me. I took a smidge off the tip of the leg for stronger DA ignition on both, never touched the wing on either Bolo. I went with the Xtreme sear, the Unica sear had so little movement it was virtually impossible to get the Firing pin block safety to work with it and SA pull was way lighter than my preference. But the Titan is the safe and proven route, and it does hit the primers harder than the Delta. Pair with the Patriot Defense firing pin spring and their weight of trigger spring that proves most reliable. I run the 15.5 pound spring and did not need to modify it to run fine with the Unica hammer, others have reported coil bind and neede to clip a coil off, but this was not an issue for me.
  6. The Criterion Core barrels have the most interesting profile to me right now. They taper down to pencil profile slowly, so the mass is where it's needed for best distribution of weight and heat. Should be affected less by heat and still very light. Unfortunately the 16" version is not rifle length gas. If money is a big concern, cut down what you have or a Faxxon gunner 18".
  7. I did some experimenting, but I have moved on to other projects for now. I have the rifle set up the way I want now and the next thing to test is to make a powder ladder and see what load shoots the flattest. A comp makes a difference, with a 16" barrel the difference is small but noticable. I have had my barrel cut down to 10" now and the rifle shoots softer and the comp works better.
  8. https://www.thetruthaboutguns.com/308-muzzle-brake-test/ Precision Armaments Hypertap and/or APA The Answer might be even better choices, and tuneable.
  9. Nice writeup. Just asking for curiosity - isn't it better to fit the sear leg instead of the bumb on the safety? The end result is the same, but the sear is the cheaper part and the modification of the safety might make it incompatible with future hammer changes. I know this after trying to install an Eimantech SA hammer on a gun with modified safety "bump", the safety would never engage with this hammer.
  10. The target don't lie, I pretty much disregard the SD and just judge by the target. I only use SD to choose between two otherwise identically performing loads.
  11. Just wanted to follow up that I finally got time to test an initial crude charge weight ladder (0.4 gr powder steps) with these bullets and they worked just fine. Judging from this promising first test they provide more than acceptable accuracy for practice within 100 yards, and excellent price/performance ratio. Best 5-shot group was ~1.4 MOA. If I can improve this with fine tuning the powder and perhaps seating depth I'll be real happy, but just repeatable ~1.5 MOA would be great considering these are really cheap bullets.
  12. I see. The S-one has a rather unique attachment method for the handguard to the barrel nut, it does need loctite but once loctited I've not had any problems.
  13. Me neither. One other reason I don't see any cons of making the nut aluminum.
  14. I might be wrong about this, but I think there is a point to not having a too strong barrel nut - as long as it does the job. The barrel nut connects to the upper receiver. The aluminum upper receiver. If stressed one of them will break before the other and I'd prefer the barrel nut to break before the upper. I also prefer a lighter rifle to a heavier rifle, all else being equal. I get the point of going for the lowest hanging fruit, but I was at the point in the process where the barrel nut was next in line. I was improving on a rifle I already had, with a medium profile 16.5" barrel, so quite front heavy. If I would build a new rifle from scratch, I would probably just have used a lighter barrel and called it a day.
  15. I do have an aluminium nut for it that, but I've only been using it for about half a year. From what I can tell it works as well as the steel one, just 2.5 oz lighter. I have a 16.5" barrel, also medium profile. My rifle is still a bit front heavy, balance point just front of magwell. I'm running rifle length gas with the 15" S-one. If you're running intermediate gas you should probably consider getting the 12" S-one. it's actually more like 12.65" if memory serves. The S-one has sort of a space for the gas block in the front and the 15" seems to match the position of the gas block for a rifle length gas system. As I said, even with a really slim gas block there is not much wiggle room. You can pretty much forget any m-lok add-ons around the gas block. I like the ergonomics of the S-one better than any other handguard I've tried, and with the aluminum nut the weight is really good too. If it holds up and doesn't get bent like Franklys, I'm a happy camper. If it breaks I'll look for something similar but stronger.
  • Create New...