+ Reply to Thread
Page 3 of 48
FirstFirst 1 2 3 4 5 13 ... LastLast
Results 21 to 30 of 474

Thread: M16, M4, HK416 et al................

  1. #21

    Turning the M-16A4 into the M-16A5

    by christian on June 24, 2010



    A Kit Up! reader forwarded me some great info on a few things that gun accessory makers are doing to improve current M4s and M16s.

    One of these is the EMod A5 combo kit manufactured by VLTOR. Basically the company is marketing the kit to the Marine Corps as a way to upgrade their inventory of M-16A4s. The company says that if the Corps adopts the kit — which they say the USMC is looking at — the rifle would thence be called the M-16A5.

    http://www.vltor.com/emod-a5.html



    The EMod A5 Combo Kit contains the following items:

    Qty 1, EMod stock kit, with storage compartments.
    Qty 1, A5 Seven-Position Receiver Extension, Part# V2-1165-C1
    Qty 1, A5 Mid-length Buffer (standard weight), Part# V2-1165-A1
    Qty 1, M16A2/A5 Action Spring, Part# V2-1165-C102
    Qty 1, Receiver End Lock Plate, Part# V2-1069-M1
    Qty 1, Receiver End Lock Nut, Part# V2-1069-M2


    A lot of the improvements to performance go over my head, but VLTOR says the improved combo kit delivers better reliability on both M16s and M4s.

    The patent pending Vltor A5 configuration stock kit is not just an EMod stock with M4 components; it’s developed as a completely new operating system. For example, the receiver extension is longer, housing a longer and specially weighted buffer, utilizing the M16A2 action spring. The A5 receiver extension features seven adjustment positions. When totally collapsed, the EMod is at the same length if mounted to any carbine length (M4) receiver extension. When totally extended (in the seventh position), the EMod can extend to a longer length of pull than an M16A2 stock assembly.

    Recently tested by a professional source, the A5 system has proven to be more reliable then the M16A2, M4 and the recently released “H6” stock systems. With the use of the M16A2 action spring, the A5 system resembles the reliability and performance of the M16 fixed stock system. By having the same characteristics of the M16 fixed stock system, the A5 has shown increased accuracy and milder/smoother function, due to the constant spring rate the M16A2 spring offers. To reiterate, the A5 system offers everything the M16 fixed stock system offers, but with increased reliability and performance.
    The company also says the EMod A5 system can help your spec ops bubbas and their gas-piston guns.

    The A5 system is a superb upgrade for piston systems. Piston equipped ARs, are usually over-gassed and show excessive carrier velocities, which can lead to unreliability and decreased accuracy. As tested on numerous piston systems (such as the HK 416 platform), the A5 system has tamed such platforms and reduced the weapons rate of fire while retaining, if not increasing, the weapons reliability. Also available for the A5 system are two heavier weighted buffers for the weapon or shooter with special needs. Each heavier buffer upgrade is offered separately, but not in “kit” form.
    We hope to have more coverage of items like this so that Kit Up! can grow into a more comprehensive resource for tactical professionals and military servicemembers. If you have any suggestions of pieces of kit you particularly find useful, please be sure to use the Kit Up! Tip Line to let us know…we’ll dot your ”i”s and cross your ”t”s and put your review up for the quarter million readers who come here every month.

    Read more: http://kitup.military.com/#ixzz0rp5aEmaD


  2. #22

    SOCOM Cancels Mk-16 SCAR

    by christian on June 25, 2010



    In an exclusive report for Military.com we reveal that US Spec Ops Command has abandoned the 5.56 version of the SCAR and will use FY 2011 money to buy more 7.62 Mk-17s to fill a “capability gap” for a 7.62 battle rifle.

    Here’s an excerpt:

    In a surprising reversal that follows years of effort to design a one-of-a-kind commando rifle, the U.S. military’s Special Operations Command has abruptly decided to abandon the new SOCOM Combat Assault rifle – the “SCAR,” as the rifle is commonly known – in favor of previously-fielded carbines.

    Details provided exclusively to Military.com reveal that SOCOM, the Tampa-based command that oversees the training and equipping of SEALs, Green Berets, Air Force Special Tactics Teams and Marine SOC groups, will stop purchasing the 5.56 mm Mk-16 Special Operations Forces Combat Assault Rifle and might require all units who now have them to turn the new weapons back into the armory.

    “The Mk-16 does not provide enough of a performance advantage over the M-4 to justify spending USSOCOM’s limited … funds when competing priorities are taken into consideration,” officials at USSOCOM said in an email response to questions from Military.com. “Currently, three of USSOCOM’s four components receive the 5.56 mm M-4 from their parent service as a service common equipment item.”


    A couple things to note here, so far SOCOM has purchased 850 Mk-16s and 750 Mk-17s — way below their original requirement. The weird thing to consider here is that the requirement was for a 5.56 and that was what was competed. Now they’re buying a 7.62 that has no written requirement document attached to it.

    Further, the SEALs are going to be particularly in the hurt locker on this one since the Navy doesn’t buy their guns, SOCOM does. I hear that it was Naval Special Warfare that really pushed this program and that it was the USASOC that basically killed it. More of the Mk-16s were fielded to SEALs than any other unit within SOCOM.

    Also of note: I hear that the services who have them will have to hand back their Mk-16s when they’re back from deployment and pick up their old SOPMOD M4s or HK-416s. So so a final goodbye to your SCAR-16 when you’re back from The Box.

    Two well-informed industry analysts tell me that SCAR-maker FNH-USA will try to sell SOCOM on the idea of a Mk-17 common receiver that can be turned into a 5.56 or other caliber by switching out part of the lower receiver. So FNH-USA is positioning itself to rescue the Mk-16 through the Mk-17. But there’s no indication that SOCOM is biting.

    There will certainly be more on this story as it develops, but I wanted Kit Up! readers to be the first to know.

    Have a great weekend!

    Read more: http://kitup.military.com/#ixzz0rv0OxAbY

  3. #23

    Spec Ops Command Cancels New Rifle

    June 25, 2010

    Military.com|by Christian Lowe

    In a surprising reversal that follows years of effort to design a one-of-a-kind commando rifle, the U.S. military's Special Operations Command has abruptly decided to abandon the new SOCOM Combat Assault rifle – the "SCAR," as the rifle is commonly known – in favor of previously-fielded carbines.

    Details provided exclusively to Military.com reveal that SOCOM, the Tampa-based command that oversees the training and equipping of SEALs, Green Berets, Air Force Special Tactics Teams and Marine SOC groups, will stop purchasing the 5.56 mm Mk-16 Special Operations Forces Combat Assault Rifle and might require all units who now have them to turn the new weapons back into the armory.

    Read more about the Mk-16 SCAR cancellation in Kit Up! see article above this post...........

    "The Mk-16 does not provide enough of a performance advantage over the M-4 to justify spending USSOCOM's limited … funds when competing priorities are taken into consideration," officials at USSOCOM said in an email response to questions from Military.com. "Currently, three of USSOCOM's four components receive the 5.56 mm M-4 from their parent service as a service common equipment item." (Naval Special Warfare Command is the only component that does not purchase its weapons with Navy funds.)

    SOCOM said it will instead purchase additional Mk-17 variants that use the heavier 7.62 mm round, more Mk-13 Enhanced Grenade Launchers, and a newly-designated Mk-20 Sniper Support Rifle. (Industry observers say the Mk-20 is basically the Mk-17 with longer barrel and other sharpshooter enhancements.)

    News of the cancellation of the Mk-16 variant of the SCAR is a major reversal for a command that spent six years and millions of dollars fielding a rifle specifically made for use by special operators. It was the first rifle since the M-16 that was competed, tested, and built from the ground up for the military.

    This cancellation will certainly be poorly received by program advocates who touted the weapon's mission flexibility, better gas piston operating system, and performance in dusty environments as clear advantages over the current M-4.

    Elaine Golladay, spokeswoman for FNH-USA, the weapon's manufacturer, declined to comment on the cancellation for this report.

    Ironically, the company announced May 4 that it had passed the final hurdle from SOCOM's weapons buying office to go into full production and fielding of both the Mk-16 and Mk-17. It is unclear if SOCOM had made the decision to cancel their buy of the Mk-16 when FNH-USA issued that announcement.

    Additionally, sources tell Military.com that SOCOM is leaning toward requiring that all Mk-16s currently fielded be returned as retaining limited numbers of them would complicate training and logistics support.

    Officials with SOCOM said the services have so far fielded 850 Mk-16s and 750 Mk-17s throughout the SOF community, but did not specify which units got what rifle. As of last count, Military.com reported Army Rangers, most SEAL teams and Naval Special Warfare Combat-Craft Crewmen had received a mix of Mk-16s and 17s.

    Original program documents from SOCOM show a requirement of over 120,000 Mk-16s and nearly 40,000 Mk-17s.

    It is unclear how many Mk-17 rifles SOCOM will buy. The command budgeted $3 million in fiscal 2011 to purchase SCAR variants and had an additional "unfunded requirement" of $1.6 million for SCAR.

    "The Mk-17 fills the existing capability gap for a 7.62 mm rifle," officials said. "USSOCOM is in the process of determining the exact quantities of the Mk-17, Mk-13 and Mk-20 variants that will be purchased."

    © Copyright 2010 Military.com. All rights reserved.

  4. #24

    SCAR Mk-16 Death Aftermath

    by christian on June 29, 2010



    Our story on the official cacellation of the Mk-16 variant of the Socom Combat Assault Rifle rippled across the internet this past weekend and we’re still peeling the onion on this as we get more information about the program and where it stands.

    But one thing I’ve been keeping an eye on is the impression of troopers in the war zone who use both the Mk-16 and Mk-17 (as well as the Mk-13 EGLM). On a BTDT board, one trooper who appears to be an Army SOF operator said his Mk-16 is fine, but the Mk-17 and its 7.62×51 ammo is confidence inspiring…

    I will say that hands down, having 7.62 rounds (LR) flying out towards the enemy at significant range (600-800m) has been a big advantage. Most of our engagements have been at range.
    The writer says that his team has 6 Mk-16s and 6 Mk-17s and that some of the crusty Green Berets refuse to carry the new toy. He said that on one occasion his team “went black” on ammo during an engagement (he’s in Afghanistan).

    The SCAR-H works well with the GripPod forward pistol grip with internal bipod and the LCAN (what’s that?)…

    I like the capability this weapon system brings to the team. With our SR25s, 240, SCAR-Hs, M-24s, and the sketchy M110s (no more sketchy then the SCAR I suppose), we have a team wide 7.62 capability which is pretty relevant for this AO.
    The one interesting thing the writer says is that he was frustrated by the capacity of the SCAR-H magazine at 20 rounds. Now, our friends at Soldier Systems report that Socom is pushing a 25-round magazine for the Mk-17, but we haven’t been able to confirm it…though we agree that more is better.

    At the end of the day, as most of us suspected, the Mk-17 with its 7.62 round is wildly popular and we’ll keep a close eye on which direction Socom goes with its buy.

    I’ve also heard rumor the we (USASFC) will not receive more SCARs or parts, but this team has definitely enjoyed the 7.62 capability on this trip, regardless of platform. Who ever has the power, we’ve got to get the teams this 7.62 capability (besides belt feds and sniper systems) for this theater.
    Read more: http://kitup.military.com/#ixzz0sFv56gQl

  5. #25

    SOCOM Developing Caliber Conversion for SCAR

    by christian on June 29, 2010


    Mark 16 SCAR-L variants

    Officials with the Tampa-based USSOCOM followed up on our Mk-16 cancellation story with some clarifications about some of the data presented in the piece posted on Military.com.

    First off, the command took issue with my calling the program “cancelled.” Technically the SCAR program is still on, of course, but SOCOM has decided not to buy any more of the straight up 5.56 versions. OK…In my book that means the Mk-16 is cancelled, but I can see how they’d get some grief from some quarters about the legalistic terms.

    Also, to be clear, SOCOM is not buying any additional Mk-17s than it was already planning to buy. If the article gave some folks that impression, that’s an incorrect read of the “buying more” bit. They’re buying more than they have now, and no more of the Mk-16s.

    Another point. SOCOM said they are definitely having troopers turn in their Mk-16s when they redeploy and will not allow any Mk-16s in the inventory. What SOCOM is not clear on yet is what will happen to the roughly 850 SCAR-Ls once they’re back at the armory.

    Now, there was confusion on the back and forth via email with SOCOM and FNH on this, but the command wanted to make sure we made this point clear. SOCOM will “complete development” of a kit that can convert the Mk-17 into a 5.56 if desired.

    The original objective was to develop a single weapon capable of firing whatever caliber desired. That objective is met with the Mk 17 as the development of a conversion kit allows the operator to fire either 7.62mm or 5.56mm ammunition from the Mk 17.

    I did get my numbers mixed up on the original acquisition objective. What SOCOM followed up to me was that the JORD showed a requirement for 38,000 Mk-16s and 5,600 Mk-17s.

    Read more: http://kitup.military.com/2010/06/so...#ixzz0sITEDe7c

  6. #26

    Nice poster that you can buy for a nice cause..............

    http://markfingar.com/Product.htm

    International Orders
    are being taken exclusively at:
    www.evotactical.com
    __________________________________________________ ______________________________

    Size: 24" x 36"
    Full-Color (commercially printed on a 4-color press, with an aqueous gloss coating)
    Bright White, 100 lb T, Gloss Paper

    Arrives rolled, in protective plastic sleeve, in a heavyweight shipping tube
    (with foam inserts to protect the ends) ready for framing



    10% of the profits from this poster will go to CAUSE



    Colt M4
    (SOPMOD STYLE) with KAC RAS Handguard & KAC Vertical Grip.


    Optics & Iron Sights:
    ACOG TA33
    ACOG TA31 RCO
    ACOG TA11
    ACOG TA01 w/ T1COG Aimpoint Micro Mount
    EOTech 552
    EOTech XPS
    EOTech 3X Magnifier
    Aimpoint T1 Micro
    Aimpoint Comp M2
    Aimpoint Comp M4s
    Aimpoint 3X Magnifier
    Burris XTR 1-4 24
    Leupold Prismatic
    Leupold CQ/T MK4
    Leupold 1.5-5 MK4
    Nightforce NXS Riflescope
    Colt C-MORE Tactical Sight
    A3 Detachable Carry Handle
    LaRue Tactical IronDot
    Troy BUIS
    Matech BUIS
    LaRue BUIS
    LMT BUIS
    Troy Front Sight
    PRI Front Sight

    Lasers:
    PEQ-2A
    PEQ-15
    PAQ-4C
    DBAL-A2
    OTAL

    Lights:
    Surefire L72
    Surefire M910
    Insight M6
    Surefire M95
    Surefire M98
    Surefire Scout
    Surefire Mini Scout

    Silencers & DD's:
    Knight's Armament M4QD
    YHM Phantom, and QD Flash Hider
    GemTech M496D
    Surefire M4FA556-BK
    Ops Inc CQB 15th Model
    M203 Grenade Launcher

    Night Vision:
    PVS-22
    PVS-14 & Magnifier
    PVS-17
    PVS-24
    KAC UNS
    CNVD-T

    Misc Hardware:
    LMT SOPMOD Stock
    Magpul CTR Stock
    Magpul UBR Stock
    Colt M4Stock
    LaRue Tactical Free-Floating Handguard
    LaRue Tactical Vertical Grip
    Magpul MIAD Grip
    Magpul Magazine Pull
    Harris Bipod with LaRue QD mount

    ...and much more

  7. #27

    Corps Set to Field SAW Replacement

    July 01, 2010

    Military.com|by Matthew Cox



    The Marine Corps will field its new, lightweight auto rifle this fall to five combat battalions preparing for war-zone deployments.

    Commandant Gen. James T. Conway gave Corps officials the green light in April to issue approximately 450 M27 Infantry Automatic Rifles, enough to replace every M249 squad automatic weapon in four infantry battalions and one light armored reconnaissance battalion.

    The limited fielding is a final test to find out if the Heckler & Koch-made weapon performs as well in an operational environment as it has in testing, said Charles Clark III, who oversees infantry weapons requirements at the Corps' Combat Development and Integration office at Quantico, Va.

    "The battlefield test will be a verification of what we have already established through extensive operational testing," Clark said. "We want to get a user assessment prior to full-rate production."

    Conway's decision comes despite his past concerns about replacing the M249 with a magazine-fed automatic rifle. His main worry is whether the M27's light weight and accuracy will be enough to make up for the loss of suppressive firepower Marine gunners will give up when they go into battle without the belt-fed M249.

    Program officials acknowledge that a 30-round magazine cannot produce the high volume of fire the M249 is capable of when loaded with a 200-round belt. The Corps is considering high-capacity magazines that can hold 50 or 100 rounds of 5.56mm ammo, but Marines that deploy with this first batch of IARs will carry only 30-round magazines.

    We know Magpul have the 50-round, quad-stack, magazine under development and there's that lovely 150-round dual drum effort from ARMATAC,the SAW-MAG...........plus they are also going to do a quad-stack, 50-round effort............I'd have thought it proper and SAFE to have waited for one of these to be qualified for use with the IAR.........using 30-round mags wouldn't make me a happy bunny!

    "The initial limited fielding will not include a high-capacity ammunition source, but that remains an option," Clark said, explaining that such magazines will have to undergo a separate round of testing.

    The M27, a variant of the H&K 416, weighs just 7.9 pounds, unloaded. By comparison, the M249 weighs 17 pounds, unloaded.

    Marines involved in operational testing at Twentynine Palms, Calif.; Fort McCoy, Wis.; and Camp Shelby, Miss., were "very comfortable with it because it's a lot like a M16A4 and it's far more maneuverable and portable" than the M249, Clark said. "The H&K gun has performed very well throughout operational testing."

    Marine officials selected the H&K weapon in October over two prototypes from Colt Defense LLC and one made by FN Herstal. (Colt makes the M4 and FN makes the M249.) The M27 uses a short-stroke gas piston, which proved more reliable than the M16/M4's direct gas system in an Army dust test in late 2007.

    The new IAR, which fires from the closed-bolt position, is most effective when employed as a point-target weapon, program officials maintain.

    "The accuracy has been a real standout," Clark said. "The IAR has demonstrated to be a far more accurate gun" than the M249, which fires from the open-bolt position.

    In the defensive role, the M27 used "far less" ammunition to drop the same number of targets compared to the M249, Clark said.

    Program officials maintain that the increased accuracy will compensate for the M27's slower, sustained rate of fire. Unlike the M249, the new IAR doesn't have a spare barrel that can be switched out to prevent overheating. Marine gunners will have to keep their sustained rate of fire at 65 rounds per minute compared to the M249's 85 rounds per minute.

    "It has a little bit lower sustained rate of fire, but it's far more accurate," Clark said.

    The Corps hopes to begin fielding the M27s in November so Marine units have "four to six months" to train with their new weapons.

    "We are not sending these guns straight to Afghanistan," Clark said. "The units that are participating will have the guns long before they go into theater."
    Last edited by buglerbilly; 02-07-10 at 04:40 AM.

  8. #28

    Guest Blog: Get a (Better) Grip on Your Carbine

    by christian on July 1, 2010



    By Sean Fisher –

    In a discussion recently about the current issued M16 and M4, amidst the usual issues of maintenance and caliber size, a trooper blew my mind by remarking upon an issue that gets little to no spotlight: The grip.

    The pistol grip is an integral part of the M16/m4 weapons system. Proper usage and hold can make or break your shot. Not only is accuracy an issue, but you also have to take into account fatigue and plain old fire control.

    The standard A2 pistol grip was originally part of the M16A2 design adopted by the Marines in the mid-80’s and hasn’t changed much since. Thousands of troops have carried the rifle and used this design for years and fought successfully with it.

    So why change what works?

    Recently the renewed interest in Ar-15s in the civilian market has created an explosion of aftermarket parts for the AR-15/M16/M4 and its variants. A lot of these parts are “Tacticool” and serve no functional purpose other than giving Mall Ninja’s something to drool over. But when you separate the chaff from the wheat you find that the 15 odd years has generated new designs and improvements to the weapon system that can only come from good old American ingenuity and the free market.

    Back to the matter at hand, pun totally unintentional, the A2 pistol grip may have seen its final days. Today the key word is ergonomics, something rarely heard when the m16 was first introduced.

    Take the Magpul MIAD for instance.







    Cost: USD$35.95

    From the website -

    Interchangeable front and rear straps, as well as a range of storage core options allow the end user to adjust the grip for hand size as well as dynamic mission requirements.

    ■Removable and replaceable front and rear panels for a custom fit over multiple hand sizes
    ■Improved ergonomics and positive anti-slip texture on both sides and rear back-strap
    ■Removable inner core that allows for storage (3-round plug included)
    ■Custom storage of batteries (waterproof) or spare bolt/firing pin is available with optional cores
    Magpul has created a name for itself in the industry for its innovative designs and theory based products, like the MIAD, or the PMAG (which is highly in demand by troops in the Sand Box currently.)

    Having a single grip that has multiple back strap options could potentially be an improvement over the system currently in use. Or it could be an expensive logistical nightmare.

    Other manufacturers (including Magpul) offer other more ergonomic pistol grip options minus the adjustable back straps.

    Would the ability to create a more personal grip for each individual soldier increase accuracy, trigger control, and at the same time decrease fatigue?

    Probably.

    Would the cost of executing a wide scale change out of troops grips, plus the questionable loss of ability to pick any weapon up and fire the same way every time be worth the Military to look into?

    Definitely debatable..

    Read more: http://kitup.military.com/#ixzz0sUcK4eAN

  9. #29

    FN Fires Back on Mk-16 Death

    by christian on July 2, 2010



    Nearly a week after we ran our story on the cancellation of the Mk-16 Socom Combat Assault Rifle, manufacturer FN Herstal sent us an on-the-record response to the unfortunate development.

    Before we get into the release, a little background. First of all, my dealings with FNH-USA in my decade as a defense reporter have been nothing but friendly and professional. The folks I’ve dealt with there have always been helpful and responsive to story queries and have on several occasions helped me in other areas of small arms and weaponry that had nothing to do with their systems.

    I asked FNH-USA to comment on the Mk-16 story the day I was running it and I got a very detailed response from them on a variety of issues regarding the Mk-16 and 17 and Mk-13 – but all of it was provided “off the record” so, of course, I couldn’t use any of it in a story.

    The statement they sent me last night was respectful and detailed, and it did not impugn my story or the command which cancelled a huge chunk of the SCAR program.

    FNH fiercely defended their weapon and recognized the difficulty SOCOM has with budget pressure and requirements.

    FNH USA believes the fact that the SCAR program recently passed Milestone C and was determined to be operationally effective / operationally suitable (OE/OS) for fielding, highlights the tremendous capability the weapons system offers deployed special operators.

    FNH USA believes the issue is not whether the SCAR, and specifically the MK 16 variant, is the superior weapon system available today …it has already been proven to be just that. The issue is whether or not the requirement for a 5.56mm replacement outweighs the numerous other requirements competing for the customers’ limited budget.
    The company also left a sort of pleading pitch for other services to consider the Mk-16 as an M4 alternative, but didn’t sound too positive about adoption of the “common receiver” concept.

    While we know that the MK 17, to include the “common receiver” and corresponding 5.56mm conversion kit is an option, other Services and SOF components will have the ability to procure the MK 16 stand-alone rifle under the contract if it better meets their mission requirements.
    At the end of the day, we all need to recognize that the folks at FNH-USA worked hard on this program and believed in it strongly. Both SCAR variants are great guns no matter how you slice it and the engineers, shooters and marketeers did their best to give operators what they needed.

    In conclusion, the management and employees of FN are proud to provide this generation of special operators their first, entirely new assault rifle that meets and, in our opinion, exceeds the demands of today’s battlefield.
    Read more: http://kitup.military.com/#ixzz0sXTgLXHU

  10. #30

    Bravo Company MFG MOD 5 Gunfighter Charging Handle

    July 3rd, 2010 | Product Announcement | Posted by Stickman

    Bravo Company MFG has followed up on their improved M4 charging handle with their newest MOD 5 offering.



    Modern training doctrine has most of us working the charging handle with our support hand while the primary hand stays on the pistol grip of the weapon. Initially, the weapon was designed for the shooter to grasp the charging handle with their firing hand, and to pull directly to the rear. This straight back method reduced the stress on the charging handle roll pin, but takes us out of a firing position.

    Most troops (MIL or LEO) are using the flat of their support hand, or side of their index finger off their support hand to pull back on the charging handle while pushing forward with their firing hand on the pistol grip. This creates a very positive action for loading or clearing malfunction clearances. The down side is increased wear on the charging handle, with most of the charging handle roll pin taking the brunt of the abuse.

    Bravo Company MFG teamed up with Vltor Weapon Systems to develop and manufacturer a unit that would create a stronger charging handle which would take the stress off the roll pin and redistribute it throughout the latch and body. Secondly, the latch was designed to keep the force inside the latch to prevent lateral pressure on the charging handle and receiver, resulting in smoother overall operation.

    It sounds good in concept, but when it came to execution, Vltor went above and beyond with their typical attention to detail. The Bravo Company MFG “Gunfighter” Charging Handle is CNC machined from 7075 T6 billet aluminum, and hard coat anodized per Mil-A-8625F, Type III, Class 2. It looks like a piece of combat art when compared to its cheaper siblings.

    The BCM Gunfighter is now available in three sizes. The GFH-MOD3 is the large latch for scoped applications, and the GFH-MOD4 is the slightly larger than standard size for increased nonslip grip. The newest GFH-MOD5 is what replicates the standard size M4 charging handle while adding texture, and retaining the above features that make for a bombproof charging handle.





    You may also be interested in the original article Military Times wrote up regarding the MOD 3 and MOD4 GUNFIGHTER Charging handles. You can see the full writeup at the below link, or just check out the pictures in the gallery.

    http://militarytimes.com/blogs/gears...arging-handle/

+ Reply to Thread

Posting Permissions

  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts