Nightone
Since I am not selling anything, not soliciting for anything, and providing factual info that can be verified and has been verified, it is not important who I am anymore than who yells four on the golf coure.
Good Shooti, Jack

Yeah, I agree, a lot of people are curious though.  I'm not one of them.  juat as long as you keep giving useful ,truthful, practical,and let us not forget candid  information, I could care less who you are.    

I apreciate your insight, but that's not what I asked. I was referring to the WHOLE RROC conversion kit (force redirection brake, gas piston sys., heat sink, counterweighted bolt carrier, new buffer) and not just the rail system forend.


[b]DITTO

THAT IS WHAT WE REALLY WANT (tell Bob if you get a chance)

if the gov't won't buy it civilians (or off duty military personell will) that is a lesson some people forget

the only thing I don't need is the break I can use a M4 QD comp[/b]

Spoke to Frank @ POF-USA yesterday, and it seems as if we will be getting a Predator to evaluate. This may take some time, so hold your horses everyone. But if it does come in the mail, you can be assured that myself and the shooters in my rifle club will be giving it the once over. And then the twice over!

So far, we've only seen it with optics.  I don't think anyone is going to buy one until you can show one with some sights mounted (and preferably one with an optic AND back up sights).

3rdtk,

I suspect as others have theorized that at least one of "you" is Dick Swan and the other "yous" are ARMS employees. If this is not the case then you should state the who, what and why of your position in the industry. Your bashing of everything non ARMS has put a stop to my desire to own ARMS products and the general tone of your posts is putting ARMS in a bad light.

Hmmmm. . . . Does anyone know if Dick Swan plays golf?  If he does, then he probably knows that golfers shout "FORE" when their ball heads toward another golfer, not "FOUR".  If Mr. Swan plays golf, we can eliminate him as a suspect RE the true identity of "Jack."

I/we haven't bashed anyones products, pointing out engineering (FACTS) is easy to verify, whether they are good idea's or bad. There are some who don't like thier products fully explained so they make personal attacks on who may not do it that way. Dimentions don't lie, heat traveling is governed by the type of material, the engineering facts govern the results. I/we have pointed out the results and so have the troops. Why a few think that Mr. Swan is the only one that knows these things was only suggested by one, nauraly like lemmings, some will will follow, right over the cliff.  ARMS and it's president have contributed a lot to the industry for over 30 years and have many patents that have helped our troops. Some of thier stuff is also enjoyed by members of this board. If I had those kind of patents, I'd be playing golf.
There is nothing so un objective as those who will do what ever they can to keep others from knowing the weapons facts. Not only documented by the gov't/end users (military) in majority of cases, but also by members of this sight.  This is not CNN, so let the engineering truth be discussed.
Good shootin, Jack

3rdtk and the Good shootin Jack,

I'm mistaken. You must not work for ARMS, you must be a politician. You dodge every question directed to you and make your own statements.

As an addition.


KAC was required to change the URX into the URXII when the M203 capability was confirmed...

Now why do I think that is they made KAC conform that they would have the same standard for the RROC/POF system?

Class Answer: It is a STANDARD...

LMT, ARMS, and KAC amongst others submittted conformign designs.

SO what does that tell you?


To me SOF RIFLE/SOPMODII is not going to be a RROC/POF system. Not w/o some major work to the rail system.

I'd like to know who the 3rdtk's are myself. Purely for curiosity's sake. Fact is however, this is an ananymous board with free information that you can take or leave. 99% of our membership is annonymous. As far as I have seen, 3rdtk has answered every single question put to him except for who he/they are and what their job is. In addition, as far as I have seen, all the statements they have made have been 100% true. If folks want to ignore what they say because he wont say who he is, thats their choice. Just as it is his choice to remain annanymous. But aside from Frank correcting him saying the rail was not made in the USA, no one has been able to contradict a single thing he has said. Therefore I tend to listen up when he has a post...

Please ship all your unwanted ARMS items to me. Address provided upon request. [:D]

Remember guys, choice and competition are good things.

Hi Frank, I was cruising a little and checking out some pics from the US Army 2002 Sniper competition.  Is this your rail system featured in this picture, just curious? [url]http://armysniperassociation.com/92.jpg[/url]

(pic is too big to post)

While not Frank...


The RROC was at the US ARmy Sniper Competion, in the Vendor area (where any invited buiness can come and display their wares)

but

as you will see here [img]http://www.canadiantactical.ca/Images/Dual.JPG[/img]
Here is Rock MacMillan shooting a suppressed .308 Bolt Gun at the 2002 Canadian SNiper Concnetration in Gagetown.
Does not mean we bought, or where interested in .308 boltguns...




It seems like a very nice system, and don't get me worng I would like ot own one for a personal gun, but I cannot see how it will get accepted in a US Mil trial.

-Kevin

Sorry, Kevin.  I hope you weren't thinking that I was implying that the POF rail must be military if it was at the competition.  I just saw the pic while looking at the winning team's AR10 pictures, and thought that pic looked like the POF rail system on the table there.

Thanks

I think the recessed areas in the 1913 rail are a great way to flush fit things like a sling mount or bipod mount.  However you cant change the dimensions of the bearing surfaces and still have something that will meet milspec.

KAC products have recessed holes in the non bearing sections of the rail system.  They reduce certain ad on parts by mounting things in these holes.  However this does not alter the load bearing surfaces of the rails.

You cant just make changes like that and claim its better without some substatial testing.  I could just make a wire frame of a 1913 rail made of aluminum and call it the lightest and best forearm rail design ever!  

Would it be the lightest?  Yes.

Would it shear the lugs off in short order?  Probably.

Since the rails are now weaker, what testing has been done to see how much strength has been lost with this new design?  If you dont know this you cant just make a claim of the designs superiority... its really just an opinion at that point.

If you knew what loads the 1913 rail were supposed to stand up to and this design met that and had new features and lower weight as well then you would really have a chance at having the spec changed for 1913 rails.

However I feel fairly confident this level of testing has not been done.

Polyak,

Your correct. This is some of the RROC systems.
Best regards,

Frank
POF-USA

Dead on, Jack!  Those who have not gone through the WHOLE PROCESS of satisfying the gov't are in for a rude awakening!  The only way around the various programs and requirements that I know of is commercial items purchased OTS with the credit card.

Quick

Now THAT was funny!

i swear i've read all FIVE pages of this thread, but i must have missed the part where someone described how the military's approval/rejection of a product made a difference on whether or not i (civilian) would buy/use/be happy with one...
i mean, the US Military doesn't even use Glocks....(!).  that doesn't seem to stop many people from choosing them for personal defense weapons.
as long as any picatinny mountable product fits on it, i could care less if it meets the mil-spec (i must admit, i buy Safeway brand toilet paper, and it sadly lacks an NSN #...seems to keep my butt pretty clean though).

3rdtk,

I appreciate your input and would like to continue our dialogue regarding engineering issues.

You have told us you speak from facts and engineering issues (you test products for a living), from all the post you have submitted about the RAS system and some statements you have discussed about our "Predator" rail design.

From an engineering stand point, I'm sure you would agree, to do a true engineering evaluation of a product, one must have a product to evaluate.

We both agree heat rises. What material is used by the SIR system for the top portion of their system? Could it be a metal product? Isn't the top rail of the SIR system thick (3/8"), and would retain heat as stated by you on some of your posts about the RAS rail design?

I'm sure we can both agree that the SIR rail design is also a deviation from the
1913 mil-spec picatinny drawings.  

Talking from an engineering stand point, I would contend that you would be unable to truly know if the "Predator" rail design doesn't reduce heat compared to the SIR design without testing both systems.
One can only evaluate to know how one system works compared to another, by having both products in a side by side test. This is the only way to truly evaluate each product.

I quote 3rdtk: "Since the FIRSH is all alum with alum. dovetail rails that have to be covered to protect the hands, and the RAS2 was mentioned, but not included in the test, it is not objective to say the RAS2 is cooler if it wasn't in the test. The point being that since alum. gets very hot and needs to radiate to be cooled and panels go over it that actualy seriously retards the needed cooling, the RAS2 should not be compaired to the SIR."

Reading your post and statements regarding the RAS system, I assume you agree with me that the only way you would be able to know if a product works is to do a side by side test to truly evaluate the product.

From a engineering stand point, wouldn't you agree the "Predator" rail design has more air flow to radiate heat for cooling with the panels on than the 1913 mil-spec picatinny rail design does with panels on the rail, since our deign have a "VEE" in the center of the rail and uncuts on the side of the rail. We designed our rail system around the panels, and have vertical and horizontal passages for air flow to radiate heat, since panels are always used on picatinny rail systems.

Can the SIR system accept a integral silenced barrel? The Predator system is able to do this.
Wouldn't you agree from a engineering stand point that a product would have to have more air space between the barrel and the hand guard,
if the hand guard was able to accept a integeral silenced barrel?

3rdtk Quote: "Oly, your are very observant and correct to notice there is a trade off reguarding heat sink verses mass. Mas is also dependant on heat volume generated, the (material), shape, external force factors, distance between generator and material (air space), and other criteria."  

3rdtk quote:  
"One of the other things that ARMS did was to consider how heat radiates from something round like a gun barrel, and they took advantage of it. Not only did they figure out heat radiation, they tested several things and it was discovered that the heat on the barrel was equell all around dpo to the fact that since the bullet was spinning the friction which couses the heat also caused the heat to have motion on the outside of the barrel. Since the radiant heat had motion, the experimented to see how to best expell the heat in a faster way than other old type round tbpe shape hand guards. They actually ended up with a type of vortex design that works to rapidly expell heat via the shape of the SIR."

3rdth quote: "If handguards are getting hot does not mean the barrel is getting cool because of heat sink, it means the barrel is generating the heat that is making the handguards get hot. The heat from the barrel is transfered the the handguards via two prevelent means. One is radiant heat and the second most problimatic is the conductive heat via direct barrel contact such as a RIS/RAS devices do. Yes, heat realy screws up the lasers, big time, and I don't need to go into all the other problems it causes as those have been well covered previously."

From an engineering stand point, you have theories to base your evaluations from, but will not have the "FACTS", unless you have the product to conduct a side by side test.
Best regards,

Frank
POF-USA

PS: The "Predator" rail system is manufactured in Phoenix, AZ. (USA).

hey frank,

stop beating el caballo muerto.

give up on 3rdtek, he ain't gonna do it.

send one to new-arguy, he will do a review that will be cool, one that we as consumers will trust as he is one too.

okey dokey?

62nd_assasin-
Exactly!  I don't give a flying F if the military adopts the Predator rail system or not.  As I can see from Frank's and Ilove2shoot's images, the ARMS mounts WILL fit, and this is all that I am concerned about.  My concern is whether the system is or is not adequate for my "civilian" needs (Read: Is it worth the money I am about to spend on it.).

BTW, 62, from one Glock Nut to another(I assume): They just DON'T UNDERSTAND.

2minkey,

Not trying to beat on anyone. Just trying to
convey engineering theories are for bases/guide to go by only.

They are still only engineering theories, until testing is conducted between the different rail designs.
Once testing is done between the rail designs,
then they become "FACTS".
Best regards,

Frank
POF-USA

A little birdie told me my friends full length SIR gun will probably be done by the end of the month... I just got my PRI/ARMS SPR back. I wonder if a loaner POF system is in my future to compare/contrast?

For the record, I dont think you need something in front of you to make some basic judgements about it. Especially ones like 3rdtk made.

new-arguy,

Your statement is correct.
They are only "judgements", or engineering theories. When testing is completed, only then the data becomes "Facts".

Some "Facts": The "Predator" rail isn't designed for the M203(great weapon, 1960's technology), and the "SIR" is.

Fact: A free floating hand guard is no longer free floating once the M203 is clamped onto the barrel(Why spend the money for a free floating hand guard?). This is a miliatry spec.
Go figure?

Fact: The "Predator" rail and the "SIR" rail design, deviate from the 1913 mil-spec picatinnay rail drawings.

The future weapon systems that the military will have are modular in design like the XM8 program. They will use the rail to mount items to the weapon.

Why design a New product that would be used with old technology and then be phased out.
We chose to design our product for the New weapon systems.
Best regards,

Frank
POF-USA

PS: TREETOP: GREAT PICTURES!!! I would like to post these picture on our website. I could hardly stop laughing when I seen them.
Question:
Is that the 16 POUNDs of SHIT I always hear about?

In all the fun and excitement, I forgot to ask, what lengths will the Predator be offered in?
I like to see new things like this come out in the market. I love ARMS products, no question there. But that doesnt mean I am not open to someone coming out with something equally as good, just different, or, maybe even better.
Some folks like Ford.
Some like Chevy.
Some like Saturn.

They all get you from point A to point B, just differently.
I am interested in checking out a Predator up close.

in addition, i have actually handled the predator (ilove2shoot's) and was very impressed.  the unit itself, before attaching to a gun, weighed mere ounces, yet seemed incredibly tough.  i've honestly never considered getting a 4-rail FF forend but now that there appears to be an affordable quality choice i'm reconsidering (maybe if Treetop will donate 2.5 pounds of his "shit" i'd have a use for 4 rails!!!)

TreeTop,

Do you have any more cool pic's?

Here's a awesome pic's of CAV ARMS weapons with our "Predator" tactical rail system.

They must be very lite tactical weapon systems.
Hope you see some pictures with the weapons in action.
Best regards,

Frank
POF-USA

[img]http://www.cavalryarms.com/furniture/pred01.JPG[/img]

Here's another cool picture of the CAV ARMS weapon system using the "Predator" tactical rail system.
I hope to see some more pictures
Thanks

Frank
POF-USA

[img]http://www.cavalryarms.com/furniture/pred02.JPG[/img]

... Great news, standing by

Is there is enough room left on the upper receiver rail to mount a back up rear sight?  It looks like you'd have to saw a portion of the Predator's rail off to make room.

right, a rear sight would be a concern.

for that matter, i wonder also about a version with a cut at the front allowing the use of a standard front sight base... and the height of the main rail for mounting something like an aimpoint on an ARMS or QRP mount and having the irons be visible still.

fill us in frank.

having all these things woudl make for one super cool product.

Well Frank,
I'm glad you listed some of the advice I provided you and others. Maybe (you) can learn from it. They are not theory, and in fact are in practice for military makers, but you wouldn't know that. If you were realy familiar with the mil std. 1913, you would know that what your going by was for the receiver of the flat top, not the other rails. The channel thru the center of the ARMS rail is approved for Gov't use as it was derived from the channel in the STANAG reg's. but you wouldn't know that either. I checked and the channel thru the center of the ARMS rail is not a deviant like yours, and the ARMS channel included rails have a specified gov't dimention with issued NSN numbers. Those under cuts in your lower rail do take away from the bearing attachment survice that the the gov't do not specify and or want. That's why I told you that it needed to be corrected, but you know it all, so I needent try to help you anymore with facts. Since I deal with many NSN's (National Stock Numbers) from many authorized contractors, and related evaluation's, and you don't, you do have room to learn if you were willing.
For instance, you say that the SIR is not free floating if the M203 is hanging off the barrel, DERRR! Of course it wouldn't be free floating, but it is when the launcher is hanging off the SIR, and does, and was designed to.
You mention that your dimentions take the picatinny rail to "new level of performance", well where are your NSN's? Why havn't any of the Gov't makers received notice to your so called "new level"? You would make a great used car salesman with all your bull S.
These are facts, not theory and not a salesmans hype. You also claim trias, you don't have a clue of what trials are, as there are no trial's listed that your a part of. All trials require all offerers to have their equipment there for TRIALS, and the gov't have to publically announce it, by law!
You misrepresent what you are offering, what you know, and several other things reguarding gov't evaluations. Your "new level" of rails claim is totaly the best all time BS claim to this forum.
Jack

ouch...

3rdtk,

Jack (who cares who you are), just because you won't answer our questions directly doesn't mean you have to attack me or our product.

The facts are our product sells for $150.00 less than the SIR (ARMS) system. Our pricing will affect what companies will charge for hand guard systems in the future. That's a huge savings ($$$), to the military and civilian markets. The days of over priced hardware being sold are numbered, NSN or not!

But I will try to assist you with some engineering facts with mechanical designs, instead of attacking you. You test for a living and I do mechanical designs for a living. Since you state you don't work for ARMS, you must be a "TOP SECRET TESTER", of only ARMS products for the military. (Sorry, Won't happen again.)

Talking strickly mechanical engineering designs. We will discuss areas of strenght between the two designs of the "Predator" rail system (patent pending), and the SIR (ARMS) system, and point out engineering designs for strenght.

1)
The "Predator" rail system has a solid one piece construction dovetail that slides over the flat top receiver. The SIR system has a two piece dovetail design. The two piece dovetail is a much weaker design that relies solely on the hardware that attaches the dovetail to the top of the upper receiver. To replace the strenght of the two piece dovetail design, you need to over compensate with added hardware (added weight).
From a engineering standpoint, the single piece dovetail is simply a stronger design period.

2)
Free float systems are aided by the barrel nut for strenght and help to free float the hand guard system and to eliminate "Flex" in a system. The amount of Flex in a system is a critical issue, and becomes a bigger issue when supporting accessories/weight extended over the barrel.
Our "Predator" rail system (patent pending), comes with a new barrel nut. Our barrel nut design has a slip fit design into the hand guard I.D., a larger dia. nut, and longer in lenght then the factory barrel. Our barrel nut is another critical area for strenght and eliminating "Flex", in our system.
The SIR design clamps around the the factory barrel nut, which is half the size in lenght and dia., and needs hardware (more parts/more weight), to attached the hand guard.
Thus our "Predator" system eliminates "FLEX", better then the SIR system because the barrel nut supports twice the area of the hand guard for strenght and eliminating "Flex", when  compared to the factory barrel nut.
Also having a slip fit over the barrel nut is another key issue in eliminating flex in the hand guard compared to clamping around the barrel nut. This is why the SIR military version needed to clamp to the factory barrel nut to reduce "Flex".

Sorry for being long winded, but we needed to explain our design better from basic mechanical engineering standpoint. This is only a couple of engineering issues.

Our system has more to compare like: will a hand guard system that centers around, slip fit over the barrel nut, having a barrel nut the is twice as long for support, and uses the full strenght of a single piece dovetail be able to rezero the optics when removed then
re-installed?
Or will a two piece dovetail design that doens't center around the barrel nut, but clamps around a factory barrel nut, have a better chance at rezero the optics when removed then re-installed?
From an engineering standpoint, the answers very simply to assume which is a better design.

We haven't even touched the rail designs, weight or heat issues yet. We would be here all night trying to explain. Maybe you could explain more as to why the SIR design features are better so I can understand a two piece dovetail, and clamp around a barrel nut is better. Please help me understand. I must be missing something. Think out of the box. There is always a better idea around the corner........... Thanks for your input.
Best regards,

Frank
POF-USA  
We have even offered to pay you since you test products for a living.

Save your fingers, Frank. 3rdtk serves three functions here: Bash anybody that doesn't immediately get a hard-on at the mere mention of ARMS, bash any product that competes with ARMS, and provide condecending non-answers to simple questions. Don't get me wrong; I like ARMS products. Having owned several, I can say that all of them were top-notch items, but the condescending attitude of 3rdtk.........pathetic.

Just an observation, but it would appear then that the Predator requires more work to install than an SIR or RAS then? Since it slides on and apparently does away with the front sight post, it has to be removed, and the barrel nut has to be removed and replaced. Correct?

Frank, it is a moot point.  If you intend to get an NSN then you can watch 3rdtk revise his story if and when you get one.  There are many commercial products that are not mil. spec. that out perform mil. spec.  What 3rdtk will not say, and I will let you in on, is a mil. spec. is often written to cover a commercial item.  When this happens; guess what?  It is mil. spec.  

Now Frank, when you say, WTF does that mean?  It is a rail.  Is it going to take itself on and off?   Will it zero my scope?  Now that would be a new level.

3rdtk,

You will not produce a Mil. Spec. or drawing number, you will not reference a ASTM number. Anecdotally you posts seem useful to the people that are interested, but I have not seen any evidence of objective comparison.

It is like saying Chevy trucks are better than Ford because they ride better and the government has used Chevy trucks for the CUCV program and the Ford is junk because Chevy invented the Blazer and the Blazer was the original SUV and all others are copies.

When you ask how that conclusion was arrived at you get, "Hey I am just the messenger, all the information is out there, any fool can find it."

If you are a real evaluator I would expect your review to be based on data and not opinion.

Frank,

After some prolong conversion with you on another board, I am looking forward to a rail system from you to install on a carbine system.  I think the price you set will fill a notch in the shooting community, the users whom don't want to spend the mega buck for a RAS or a SIR will look your way for solution.  of course the setup your handguard require will preclude anyone with a post ban upper using a permanently installed muzzle device, those will still have to purchase a SIR or RAS2.  The handguard has alot of potential and I believe you might have a very interesting product in your hands. all you need is a nice flip up sights to go with your setup.  may I suggest a build in pop front sight and a rear BUIS in tune of the GG&G A2.  of course some nice rail panels will not hurt either.  have you had a chance to talk to Jeff at TD??

Interesting, a guy comes on here with a big sales pitch with claims that he can't substantiate, and no one should question or point out the technical faults based on known engineering facts? I could have ignored the false propaganda and let those who may not know certain facts, be disappointed in the claims later on. There is nothing better than being candid and truthful which I am doing to my best ability, and that isn't bashing. If you go back in this thread, Frank is the one who made all kinds of inaccurate engineering claims. When called on some of them as false, he assumed it must be the makers of the SIR as it must be a concern to him, I really don't care. Frank claims his stuff is in gov't trials, and that just isn't so by definition of what gov't trials are. I pointed out that his rail does not come back far enough for N.V. monoculars to reach the soldiers eye, a gov't reqmt, doesn't allow for a grenade launcher, a gov't requirement. Some don't care what the gov't requires, that's fine, but I am answering to Franks assertions of meeting mil specs, and why he doesn't. If I was a competitor, I also wouldn't have offered all the tech info I have, but Frank brought up ARMS and so I answered it with facts to counter his ongoing nonsense.
If Frank was as experienmced in these things as he wishes he was, he would not have made so many of the false engineering claim, and certainly would not need to have me or someone else tell him where to find that gov't info.
Frank mentions that everyone knows that heat rises when talking about alum hand guards, but that wasn't the issue. Naturally heat rises, but on a weapon there are things that must be considered, one being called a gun barrel. Hand guards that touch the barrel directly get hotter faster than free float, and alum hand guards that touch get even hotter. Heat rising on free float is not the culprit as Frank has claimed, it's the radiant heat coming off the round barrel, so a free float hand guard made totally from alum. is going to absorb the heat fairly evenly, with the top rail getting hotter as the heat then travels. Naturaly the top of the barrel isn't hotter than the bottom of the barrel, hence it radiates evenly. Direct heat is the worst, so the gov't now require FF. If Frank had run TC's, he would not made some of his claims about heat.
When I and many others I know buy something like an auto, we look at reports put out by the gov't test labs, and other independant testers. Unfortunately the civ. buyers of weapons can't get that kind of info on a weapon (or accessories) to allow them to know if something is reliable or not. I thought this forum was here to assist the membership by discussing all aspects of the issue. Am I wrong or is there a proposed way to have something exposed as BS without saying it clearly and why? If some just want to go out and buy a weapon like a pair of shoes fine, but since weapons are a serious dif. story and should be looked into a little more, just for safety sake. What is attached to a weapon can also cause an affect that isn't good. Looking at everything with rose colored glasses is not for everyone, so I and others who may know some facts dif. than is being offered, I believe that most want all the info. or they wouldn't keep saying thanks for it.
Good shootin, Jack
       

3rdtk,

If you join this site you get spell check.

No, I think it should be questioned aggressively if claims are being made.



I agree!



At this point I do not think either of you have serious credibility.  One is a salesman and one is a shill.



Ok?



What is the definition?  Also, Question for Frank: Frank do you meet the requirement.



What is the source document?



Question for Frank: Frank, What spec. do you meet?



Ok?



Generally, if you dispute something, you cite the source document.



Makes sense anecdotally.



People buy things for many reasons.  If you have reliability data, please share it.



I think if it was a true discussion with a review of the relevant data it would be fine.  However, it is all BS without data.



Jack, I evaluate products for a living.  What you say is not objective or totally true.  If you are holding back to protect your job then you should not be posting.  I review all types of specification, regulatory, Mil. Spec. FMVSS, etc. and I cannot make an accurate assessment of any product based on your input.