Okay, you might be on to something.....but DD's website lists the same thing.  Scroll down Material and Construction and it says Finish: Black

https://danieldefense.com/rail-systems/m4a1-fsp-rail-interface-system-ii-ris-ii.html

It's a typo. It has been discussed on here at great lengths that FDE is the only color supplied to SOCOM and thus the only color appropriate for clones (unless your black is painted)

....

Got it...I was just confirming it wasn't a BCM typo.  Technically speaking, even using a black RIS that has been painted still has a black RIS stock number.  After reading this thread for two hours, my brain hurts so forgive my impropriety and discussing subject matter that has been regurgitated ad nauseam.

No worries. It can get confusing. Since the FDE ones are so hard to find right now, I highly doubt people are gonna give you crap for buying a black one and painting it if you wanted to build a clone.

Thank you for contacting Daniel Defense.  Unfortunately due to an order
backlog we won't be able to offer those rail system for sale anytime in
the near future.

-Joe

Joseph Scull
Law Enforcement & Military Sales


DD got back to me in 2 minutes.......interesting though, because they list the FDE RIS available on their complete uppers and builds.

Yeah why make $300 on a rail when you can make $600 on the upper.  Makes sense to me.

To build or purchase the upper would be over $1,300....insane

Guys quit selling your FDE rails and B2 uppers. You know you're going to regret it.

I just checked EE, and there are several SOPMOD related products for sale.....fascinating

That's why you always build two.

My FSP is currently in the EE. And while I will remember it fondly, I won't regret selling it.
 

 

I bought my Block 2 upper from Bravo Company like 2? summers ago and I think I paid $840 or $850 for it.  I remember it being one of the most expensive options for a 14.5'' upper from them as well.  As much fun as it is to toy around with the RIS II I think you'd be better served by the availability of something like Centurion / Geissele at this point.  Kinda sucks when DD or any other MFG starts playing these games.

Those barrels are not any more or less "clone correct" than any other commercial M4-profile barrel, and not the same thing as a military contract barrel in the same sense an LE6920 barrel would be in all ways besides OAL.  

Military contract barrels are marked either with "FNMI" or FNMI's CAGE, and in a different style, while the FN barrel that PSA is selling has the commercial, stylized logo most frequently associated with FNH, not FNMI, though PSA does advertise (and I'm sure they are) the barrels being made by FN Manufacturing.  

What is different, however, is not the markings, but the fact that last I heard, neither FN entity is authorized under the terms of the licensing agreement for government production of M16s and M4s to use any of the proprietary data contained in the TDP for commercial sale.  

This is not a statement of judgment about the PSA FN barrel being good or bad - just an FYI for those who care about building "totally correct" clones using as many "clone correct" parts as possible.  

For the price, it sounds like a good barrel, though.  

~Augee

FSP is the only option AFAIC.

 
































 

While it makes things more inconvenient for us cloners - considering the matter from DD's point of view, with a very limited number of RIS IIs to offer for commercial sale - their "M4A1" line is one of their "flagship" products.  

When you're running a business and trying to keep your brand alive - you do not want to be turning people away from buying your flagship product, it's not necessarily about making money per se, but something a little bit more intangible, but arguably far more important.  

At the end of the day, if someone builds a put-together upper using a DD rail, and various odds and ends and bits and pieces, Daniel Defense doesn't really... "gain" much from that, versus what they stand to gain from keeping their flagship product available to people who want to buy them, where they don't just represent a DD rail - but a complete DD product.

I'm not sure where the rumor that the RIS II was being discontinued came from, as far as I know, DD has continually made it clear that they're going to be of limited availability while they fulfill military orders - but they will be back - they're trying to rapidly field enough units to equip a relatively large component within SOCOM - once they're back to simply sustaining the force, there's not going to be as much of a "shortage."  

I typically try not to "name names" as far as units go - but if you've been paying attention, and you look back through this thread - look at who "first" started showing up with RIS II equipped 14.5" URGs, then who came next - over how long it took for them to all be "fully fielded" and who seems to be getting them now, and how timeline for their "conversion," and then compare the relative size of those different components and consider their necessary support infrastructure and distribution to boot.  It becomes fairly easy to understand why DD was always able to maintain a reliable supply available for commercial parts sales, and why "all of a sudden" they're not able to keep up.  

So, I suppose, if you're a "must have it now" type, then yeah, your choice is really pretty much to pay the piper.  Personally, I'm still working on my "MK 12 for 2012" build, so waiting a little bit is no issue.  

~Augee

Hey man - can you substantiate this claim?  The issues that plague 553 are pretty well known (mount and battery orientation and etc).  In fact I believe it kind of gave EOTech a bad name.  There have been people who run the guns we are trying to clone here for a living posted here that pretty much says otherwise.  In any case EOTech has discontinued 553, please let that "553 is the s__t" BS die.  















 

 


















 

Yes. The issues with 553s have more than been documented.

Frankly, the EXPS line is in its own realm in comparison.

Another barrel question!

I would go with the SOCOM.



Besides being "clone correct", they have been incredibly accurate (for CL barrels); in my experience.



 

What I was referring to is the specs that make the 553 different from any other EOTech made to date such as it being able to dive to 66ft for 2 hours, every other model being 33ft/2 hrs or less depth than that on certain models, SOCOM put it through various drop/torture testing, that as far as I've been able to tell wasn't done on the EXPS. I'm not saying it's the most rugged optic ever made, just that it's the most rugged EOTech made in my opinion. I haven't had any of my EOTech's fail on me to be fair though (that includes an EXPS)
The last thing I'm going to do is get in an argument about this, but my opinion stands.

I've yet to encounter a CL barrel more accurate than DD. My test group is large as well. Numerous DD barrels, Colt barrels, KAC barrels, BCM barrels, Noveske barrels, FN barrels, Spikes barrels, PSA barrels.

DD barrels are stupid accurate. I don't even bother with SS barrels anymore because of them.

And a CHF barrel is always nice to have. Even if you don't think you'll need the added lifespan and durability.

You claim the 553 is the most rugged EoTech ever made solely because it's advertised to be submersible to a deeper depth than the newer models?

I see...

553s have a borderline terrible reputation for overall functionality.

Like I've told you before Ryan, if you want to talk to me you can talk to me in person. I'm not playing your little Internet argument games.

Constructive conversations don't always need to be met with hostility.

But you're always welcome to come visit me in AZ whenever you'd like. I'd be sure to clear my calendar just for you.

DD has been selling complete receivers and rifles with FDE RIS IIs for quite a while now, far longer than the relatively recent "shortage," they just didn't advertise them - or really any of their complete rifle/upper line the same way.  The "rollout" of the DD M4A1 DD MK18 coincided with a general expansion of their product offerings - but again - for obvious marketing reasons, they are often in the "forefront," because what manufacturer isn't going to use "SOCOM uses this!" as a marketing strategy if they can?  

Re: the SU-231/EOTech 553 failures - some things to consider -

The EOTech 553 in SU-231 form is/was probably the most widely fielded EOTech model in military service, we're talking about a rate of nearly 100% across components within SOCOM, versus much smaller numbers of earlier versions - such is one of the consequences of being "officially adopted."  

Higher numbers in service = higher number of failures - regardless.  

Anyone who thinks that Aimpoints do not break has not seen milk-crates full of deadlined M68CCOs - it is what it is, it's not to say that Aimpoints are bad sights either - it's just what happens when you have that many in service being used by people with no personal stake in them (i.e. - they didn't pay out of pocket for them).  

Honestly, the optics I've seen with the lowest failure rate across the board are ACOGs, and they break plenty, too.  Joe can break anything - this is a truism well known service-wide and beyond.  

Early batches of EOTech 553s had a defect with the battery compartments that was well known at the time - and EOTech sent out repair kits for them - whether or not they were installed 100% service-wide is nearly impossible to say.  

Meanwhile - as far as the EXPS goes - rated specs being rated specs - the EXPS has been adopted as the SU-231A/PEQ - concerns about it being tested are not grounded - once again, there are certain requirements that go along with receiving an official designation as official issue versus "used by some folks purchased COTS."  

Moreover, the EXPS is listed as a "CAR Hardened" Phased Replacement for the 553 - let the debates rage on from FN-ophiles about whether or not "SCARs eat optics" - the current USSOCOM standard for Visual Augmentation Systems (VAS) recognizes a distinction between "[S]CAR Hardened" and not CAR hardened.  

~Augee

Good points of view as always Augee. One thing I've wondered is why we find so many commercially sold 553's that are marked SU-231/PEQ, but for the EXPS I've only seen them SU-231A/PEQ marked on actual military supplied EXPS'

Just makes me wonder why they decided to change it this go-round

I can attest to this. My platoon had three broken ACOGs during our month long op in the Philippines this past October.

How many broken PEQ 15's? It would be badass to see the numbers for broken optics/lasers every 1-6 months for every branch. Bet it's a pretty high number on both accounts

No broken PEQ on this deployment. But my PEQ16 was shattered by a M240B during our pre deployment work up out in the Mojave Desert this past February. I was attached to a team of machine gunners. We were riding in AAV and those that have ridden in them know that AAV + Mojave Desert = being violently tossed around. Well, the MG lost control of his 240B and it flew into my PEQ16. Thanks God it wasn't my knee cause that wouldn't have been pretty  

I broke my TA01NSN that I had on my M4 about two months into the deployment. Had it replaced with brand new TA31 that was TPE. When I went on leave I brought back my 553 and G23 and used them for the rest of the deployment. Still have both and they work great.

Haha damn, at least it was an issued PEQ 16
I thought the Marines still used the 240 Golf, do you ever see anymore of those or is it all phased to 240 Bravos now?

I was talking to the Eotech reps at Shot Show last week.  They said only the models that go to SOCOM are tested for the 66ft/553 and 33ft/EXPS3 water depth rating, the ones that go to commercial are only tested to a few meters.
He added that the units that end up going to commercial market are not built any different, and would probably pass just the same...they are just not put through that test.  So maybe the SU marked units are the tested units?  Just a guess.  
Also, say goodbye to the 553.  It is officially discontinued per the reps at Shot Show.  The EXPS3 will be fielded instead.

That may be so. Even some 553's arent SU marked, so it makes you wonder. I noticed their 2 new models they have out, the only thing that stood out to me was the fact they take AA's, which is definitely a good thing. Ive found I actually prefer the old rear user interface though. Never really cared for the side buttons on my EXPS

+1 I've always like the rear interface as well.

Are you confusing "not available for individual sale" with "only available on complete uppers?" Last I knew they were still available for sale on complete uppers on the commercial market & I have't heard of that changing. I'm not privy to all the e-mail comm, however.

Eotech fixed the battery connection problem way back in 2007/2008 time frame for the mil & would send out the modification kit to everyone else for free if you contacted them about your 553 that didn't function correctly.

 

 






















 

Yeah, the rear interface is easier to use...you don't have to move the rifle as much to see the buttons. Only downside to the rear interface is when using it with a magnifier

This.

They wouldn't send me one.  They wanted me to send my 553 in for the repair.  No thanks I didn't want them keeping it.

Wow. Was yours one of those Lawguns specials that they were confiscating? If not, that's pretty messed up they just wouldn't send you the modification kit. They just mailed me the kit for my personally owned example back then free of charge.

Normally, people would be jumping all over an optic that was as widely issued, abused and tested as the SU-231/553.

No point in arguing; unfounded or otherwise, those who don't like EOTechs will probably never change their minds.

This, they mailed me a repair kit for one I bought off eBay once, no questions asked.

We covered this already, and verified it has nothing to do with BCM......DD RIS NSN for SOPMOD finish is listed as black

This isn't an Aimpoint vs EoTech thing.

EoTech isn't discontinuing and no longer fielding the 553 in favor of the EXPS3-0 because the 553 is a more rugged and superior optic.

I'm sure even plenty of EoTech fans would agree with that.

It's also safe to say that you have no idea what the fuck you're talking about on any topic. Anybody that just got made to look like a complete dumbass by claiming KAC makes well documented 80k round barrels, then gets found out that by "well documented" means you read ONE SENTENCE about it, EVER. Then in the same day you think a dudes weaponlight was his muzzle device?  Anybody that would trust your opinion would have to be straight up mentally challenged.