AR Sponsor
Posted: 5/12/2004 10:50:42 AM EDT
|
I've stared collecting parts for my post sept. rifle, and was wondering if there was benifits to having the M4 feedramps, or should i just stick with the RRA upper i'm looking at? thanks |
 Feed ramps are generally considered as beneficial in reducing the possibility of "set-back" in the shorter barreled full-auto M4s. While not entirely necessary, alot of us prefer an upper with them for alternate reasons. Use of Winchester 64 grn. Power Point and Power Point Plus round, and other brands (Fed trophy-bonded rounds for instance) of bullets that are "lead-nosed" also benefit from "ramped" uppers, as the nose tend to catch at times on normal uppers creating FTF malfunctions. There is also the "crimped" issue, while mil-spec rounds (M193/M855) are crimped, reloaders do not always load crimped round and "ramps" also provide an extra measure of prevention against "set-back" with these rounds too. Hope this is some help toward making your decision, Mike |
Just for the record, I've had a class 3 converted SP1 carbine since 1978, have fired hundreds of handloaded, uncrimped rounds thru it (and thousands of crimped factory rounds ) and never had either feeding failure or, to my knowledge, pushed back bullets.My own opinion is that Colt came up with this "patented ldea" for one reason only ; to keep FN from using it in the M16s they now build for the US armed forces, and to give their buddies in Army Ordnance one more excuse to give Colt a contract for the M4, that FN couldn't bid on, because they couldn't meet the specs due to Colt's patent. Yes, I know that a bunch of aftermarket builders are M4 ramping their pieces these days. Colt doesn't care about that. That's chunp change business to them, and it's not worth the legal costs to file suit. Note, however, that niether Rock River nor Bushie violate the patent. |
There is only one, little, tiny, hole in this theory. Colt's does not now, nor ever has, had a patent on the M4 feedramp profile. |
AR Sponsor