Wiland USA

[JJM7288]

Finally spoke with Todd today. We had a great conversation, so much so I ordered a second chassis!

[WildPete]

On 4/13/2021 at 8:26 PM, JJM7288 said:

Finally spoke with Todd today. We had a great conversation, so much so I ordered a second chassis!

Did he have any in stock when you placed your order?

[JJM7288]

No, the current batch is sold out. My second order will be a month or two.

[Carrie]

My husband ordered a chassis February 22 and still hasn’t received it. He has called and emailed with no response. I can understand things can take longer but to not respond is unacceptable. Todd said lead time was 2.5 to 3 weeks. It’s been 11 weeks. This is ridiculous. 

[RaylanGivens]

I understand that he has some orders held up waiting for a part that he does not make.

 

His online email form always worked for me.

[ShredderTactical]

Finally received my Wiland chassis today!  WooHoo!!!

Placed my order the end of February...took right about 3 months until delivery.  Communications was...different, as others have mentioned.  Had to be patient and creative to get any response to my numerous attempts, sent via all available means and multiple times, to check the status on my order.

Despite some frustration with the waiting game and lack of communication, I can say the end result appears well worth the wait!  Spent a couple of hours putting all the pieces together and playing with customizing the many adjustments available on this chassis system.  Did some dryfiring and I'm very impressed with how everything fits, functions, and performs.  Overall workmanship is top notch.  Being a perfectionist myself, when I say I'm impressed with something, that is the highest level of praise!

Can't wait to get to the range this weekend to verify adjustments and get the setup locked in.  Got a match to shoot in a couple of weeks for the ultimate test.  Still bummed I didn't get this in time to shoot the Area 8 Steel Challenge Championship last weekend, but I'm a happy camper that I have it in hand now!

So, if you are the impatient type, or in a hurry, best to look elsewhere for a chassis.  But if you can endure the wait and want what I believe is the best chassis system available for steel challenge type competitions at the current time, then place your order quick for a Wiland chassis!!!

[EarlKeese]

Is there a long wait for items he shows as "in stock" like barrels? 

[nso123]

2 hours ago, EarlKeese said:

Is there a long wait for items he shows as "in stock" like barrels? 

It usually isn’t bad if he has them in stock. The chassis situation was made worse by outsourcing the Cerakote work. I ordered some sights about two weeks ago and they were to me in less than a week. One thing that sometimes throws people off is the way the online store works. It generates a shipping label immediately, so you get a tracking number right away. That gives the appearance that an item is going to ship sooner than it does. 

[mscott]

On 5/26/2021 at 6:32 AM, EarlKeese said:

Is there a long wait for items he shows as "in stock" like barrels? 

I ordered a barrel listed as in stock and had it within a couple of weeks.

[Hoops]

Is anyone using Wiland's iron sights kit for 10/22 and his ultra-light barrels?   The front sight is a barrel clamp with slot for the front fiber optic blade.  The rear sight picatinny adaptor secures the ghost ring.

 

If one of you have tried these, any issues with getting the proper zero sight line?  

 

For SCSA matches, I prefer a sight line similar to my red dot.  For me, the Wiland 10/22 kit front blade and rear ghost ring is too short.

 

Thanks for your input.

 

 

[nso123]

3 hours ago, Hoops said:

Is anyone using Wiland's iron sights kit for 10/22 and his ultra-light barrels?   The front sight is a barrel clamp with slot for the front fiber optic blade.  The rear sight picatinny adaptor secures the ghost ring.

 

If one of you have tried these, any issues with getting the proper zero sight line?  

 

For SCSA matches, I prefer a sight line similar to my red dot.  For me, the Wiland 10/22 kit front blade and rear ghost ring is too short.

 

Thanks for your input.

 

 

I am going to sight mine in this week. I do know there are some folks using the PCC sights instead since it gets the sights up higher. 

[Hoops]

45 minutes ago, nso123 said:

I am going to sight mine in this week. I do know there are some folks using the PCC sights instead since it gets the sights up higher. 

I'm curious.  I'm gathering info for me and a couple of friends for this project.  What receiver do you have? 

 

I have a Magnum Research.  It is .6585" from top of picatinny rail down to top of barrel.  At this point, the Wiland barrel top of flute is very close to standard barrel before it tapers down.  A friend of mine has Tactical Innovations.  His is .4550".....a little over 3/16" shorter or nearer the barrel than mine. 

 

I want my front sight to be 1-7/8" above the top of barrel.  My friend is similar.  But with his lower picatinny rail his rear ghost ring needs to be longer than mine.  

 

I found the PCC sights to be too high for me.   The blades can be lowered but not that much before you run into the screw depth issue.  I prefer to have the ghost ring at the same location my red-dot is off the rail.

 

I'm hopeful others will comment on thier experience.   

 

Thanks

 

 

[nso123]

4 hours ago, Hoops said:

I'm curious.  I'm gathering info for me and a couple of friends for this project.  What receiver do you have? 

 

I have a Magnum Research.  It is .6585" from top of picatinny rail down to top of barrel.  At this point, the Wiland barrel top of flute is very close to standard barrel before it tapers down.  A friend of mine has Tactical Innovations.  His is .4550".....a little over 3/16" shorter or nearer the barrel than mine. 

 

I want my front sight to be 1-7/8" above the top of barrel.  My friend is similar.  But with his lower picatinny rail his rear ghost ring needs to be longer than mine.  

 

I found the PCC sights to be too high for me.   The blades can be lowered but not that much before you run into the screw depth issue.  I prefer to have the ghost ring at the same location my red-dot is off the rail.

 

I'm hopeful others will comment on thier experience.   

 

Thanks

 

 

Let me get some measurements for you and I will let you know. I have it on a TacSol receiver right now, but will be moving it to Magnum Research. 

[BentAero]

On 5/31/2021 at 10:20 AM, Hoops said:

I

 

 

I found the PCC sights to be too high for me.   The blades can be lowered but not that much before you run into the screw depth issue.  I prefer to have the ghost ring at the same location my red-dot is off the rail.

 

I'm hopeful others will comment on thier experience.   

 

Thanks

 

 

You tried the Wiland PCC sights and they were too tall? (Todd ships both a high and a low height PCC ghost ring with rear sight orders)

 

Two of my pals (both GM's) each have Wiland RFRI and RFRO guns. They both use a Vortex Venom and Wiland PCC height iron sights with TacSol receivers and Wiland barrels. Alan had been using MR receivers but had so many reliability problems, switched to TacSol.

 

I have a Wiland  chassis and barrel setup as RFRO using a traditional C-More on a T/CR receiver. I recently received my second Wiland that will become a RFRI, but have not assembled it yet. Just for fun, I put the PCC-height irons on my RFRO, mounting the ghost rear right in front of the C-More. It was easy to line up the dot dead center of the ghost ring on that rear sight. Front clamp on sight alignment was simply a matter of adjusting left/right.

My initial testing went very smooth. I hope to build out the new RFRI gun this weekend

[Hoops]

9 hours ago, BentAero said:

You tried the Wiland PCC sights and they were too tall? (Todd ships both a high and a low height PCC ghost ring with rear sight orders)

 

Two of my pals (both GM's) each have Wiland RFRI and RFRO guns. They both use a Vortex Venom and Wiland PCC height iron sights with TacSol receivers and Wiland barrels. Alan had been using MR receivers but had so many reliability problems, switched to TacSol.

 

I have a Wiland  chassis and barrel setup as RFRO using a traditional C-More on a T/CR receiver. I recently received my second Wiland that will become a RFRI, but have not assembled it yet. Just for fun, I put the PCC-height irons on my RFRO, mounting the ghost rear right in front of the C-More. It was easy to line up the dot dead center of the ghost ring on that rear sight. Front clamp on sight alignment was simply a matter of adjusting left/right.

My initial testing went very smooth. I hope to build out the new RFRI gun this weekend

Do you know the distance from top of TS picatinny rail to top of barrel?

 

My MR is taller than TI’s but I don’t have any info on TS receivers.

 

BTW....with the tall front and rear PCC door blades, any issues snagging in case or bumping hard enough to loose Zero or damage sights?

[KelsonAK]

On 5/26/2021 at 2:32 AM, EarlKeese said:

Is there a long wait for items he shows as "in stock" like barrels? 

Sometimes the shipping is....   erratic.  I've gotten them the same week and i've waiting 3 or 4 for delivery.  Good news is that the product is fantastic and worth the wait.

[BentAero]

12 hours ago, Hoops said:

Do you know the distance from top of TS picatinny rail to top of barrel?

 

My MR is taller than TI’s but I don’t have any info on TS receivers.

 

BTW....with the tall front and rear PCC door blades, any issues snagging in case or bumping hard enough to loose Zero or damage sights?

Sorry, I do not. I'll ask Jeff to measure his.

 

If the MR has a taller rail, I would imagine you would just uses the shorter of the two ghost rings.

 

I've never heard of anyone complaining about movement or damage. ( i shoot with 4 people monthly who have Wiland pcc-height rfri setups) The front sight has great clamping force; it would take a severe whack to move it. The rear is a bit more tender, but no more so than an optic. If you use a case, you'll need one with a tall, deep nose.

[Hoops]

On 6/4/2021 at 10:01 PM, BentAero said:

Sorry, I do not. I'll ask Jeff to measure his.

 

If the MR has a taller rail, I would imagine you would just uses the shorter of the two ghost rings.

 

I've never heard of anyone complaining about movement or damage. ( i shoot with 4 people monthly who have Wiland pcc-height rfri setups) The front sight has great clamping force; it would take a severe whack to move it. The rear is a bit more tender, but no more so than an optic. If you use a case, you'll need one with a tall, deep nose.

Been out of town.  Sorry for late reply.

 

Thanks for feedback.   I will be looking at the various combinations/options this week.  

[BentAero]

On 6/7/2021 at 7:55 AM, Hoops said:

Been out of town.  Sorry for late reply.

 

Thanks for feedback.   I will be looking at the various combinations/options this week.  

Sorry, still don't have a measurement for you, but I did learn this when sighting my RFRI with a Ruger receiver: the PCC height front was way too tall. POI was about 6" low at 15 yards. The Ruger receiver is super short.

I had to cut off about 1/4" from the bottom edge, and elongate the slots in order to lower the front enough. This is with the rear as high was it would go. Easy-peasy, took about 30 minutes to drill and cut. Jeff had the same issue with this TacSol receiver.

[Hoops]

8 hours ago, BentAero said:

Sorry, still don't have a measurement for you, but I did learn this when sighting my RFRI with a Ruger receiver: the PCC height front was way too tall. POI was about 6" low at 15 yards. The Ruger receiver is super short.

I had to cut off about 1/4" from the bottom edge, and elongate the slots in order to lower the front enough. This is with the rear as high was it would go. Easy-peasy, took about 30 minutes to drill and cut. Jeff had the same issue with this TacSol receiver.

Thanks.

 

I encountered the same thing with the front sights.   The receiver height is the determing factor for sure.  My Magnum Research receiver appears to be the tallest receiver compared to the other poplular receivers.  I can manipulate the front the PCC sight as you did, but to get the comfortable height I want for the rear ghost ring, the rear sights currenty made by Wiland do not work for me with the taller receiver.  Wiland is aware of this and are currently looking into combinations of heights.   Note:  I have suggested to Wiland that they make the front sight slots longer which would make the adjustment (lower) a simple process. 

[bigdawgbeav]

I'm using the standard 10/22 irons.  I have the largest aperture ring for the rear and green front.  I didn't like the rear sight all the way to the rear, so I moved it to the front of the receiver, I like that better.  For me the sights are at a decent height.  The rear is bottomed out and was shooting way too high.  I had to move the front sight up to get it to zero.  My front blade is almost showing the screw cutouts.  This is actually my 2nd front sight because the first one one of the blade screws stripped out.  They are very soft and you have to be careful.

[Hoops]

1 hour ago, bigdawgbeav said:

I'm using the standard 10/22 irons.  I have the largest aperture ring for the rear and green front.  I didn't like the rear sight all the way to the rear, so I moved it to the front of the receiver, I like that better.  For me the sights are at a decent height.  The rear is bottomed out and was shooting way too high.  I had to move the front sight up to get it to zero.  My front blade is almost showing the screw cutouts.  This is actually my 2nd front sight because the first one one of the blade screws stripped out.  They are very soft and you have to be careful.

  Do you mind telling me the receiver you are using?  If it is Azimuth, TS or TI, they run about .416" - .450" lower than Magnum Research.  If your receiver top rail were to be higher by .450"  I'm guessing your combination of sights may not work.  Curious what you think.

 

Thank you

[Hoops]

3 hours ago, bigdawgbeav said:

I'm using the standard 10/22 irons.  I have the largest aperture ring for the rear and green front.  I didn't like the rear sight all the way to the rear, so I moved it to the front of the receiver, I like that better.  For me the sights are at a decent height.  The rear is bottomed out and was shooting way too high.  I had to move the front sight up to get it to zero.  My front blade is almost showing the screw cutouts.  This is actually my 2nd front sight because the first one one of the blade screws stripped out.  They are very soft and you have to be careful.

I wanted to correct a figure I just stated.  TacSol just sent me an email.  The top of their picatinny to top of barrel is 0.430".   I measured one of my Magnum Research receivers and it is 0.6610" to the top of barrel which is 0.2310" (nearly 1/4") taller than the TacSol ( and similar to my friends TI).  

[bigdawgbeav]

2 hours ago, Hoops said:

  Do you mind telling me the receiver you are using?  If it is Azimuth, TS or TI, they run about .416" - .450" lower than Magnum Research.  If your receiver top rail were to be higher by .450"  I'm guessing your combination of sights may not work.  Curious what you think.

 

Thank you

 

I'm using a 1981 Ruger receiver with a basic, screw-on pic rail