mike_f

My info is from 2015 so it may be outdated, but at that time Kalashnikov USA had no connection to the Russian Kalashnikov Concern. So sanctions shouldn't have any effect on Kalashnikov USA. At that time they were a US company seeking to manufacture AK rifles here. Their marketing material "Russian Heritage — American Innovation" implies a connection with the Russian, but as I understand it Kalashnikov USA has no ties to the Russian factory, technical info, or engineers. People more knowledgeable than me that looked at the firearms Kalashnikov USA displayed at past SHOT shows, say the firearms were converted Russian-made Saigas, not the US made firearms. Maybe Kalashnikov USA will have a SHOT Show 2017 display and we'll get some updated info.

Great story so far. The production quality of your videos is impressive.

I'm surprised that the trajectory doesn't go above the line of sight. Thanks for the info, I went and made a card for my 22LR.

I just tried to use the form and found the link still broken. Is the form available somewhere else?

Wow, excellent photos! Our family has spent a fair amount of time in northern Arizona & southern Utah and have enjoyed it every time. My wife used to attend conferences at the Enchantment every fall and I would tag along. What a beautiful place to have a very fancy resort. I'll echo what everyone else has said, if you ever get the chance to drive from Sedona to Flagstaff up Oak Creek Canyon on Hwy 89A - do it. What did you have to do to be able to take the AR into Monument valley?

Did you get the 1 serving: or 2 serving size? My wife and I eat about 3 weeks worth of Mountain House meals a year while backpacking. On the whole, we like them a lot. We usually have them for breakfast/supper on our trips supplemented with other things (not just Mt. House for each meal). As you noticed, the calories aren't usually enough for a complete meal. While its a benefit when exerting during hiking/backpacking, they usually are pretty high in sodium too.

McKenzie Brothers reference, well done.

I've ordered directly from the Dickies website before with no problems: http://www.dickies.com/ They have sales and special offers - you can get on their email list using the link on the very bottom right of their webpage.

I think I just hit "renew" instead of cancel to fix my problem. Maybe it takes a while for the system to recognize that you cancelled the invoice? You might consider PMing TGO David and asking him what to do.

I had the same problem. TGO David posted this way to fix it: "Chances are you had bought one (a subscription) at some point and you have a pending renewal invoice in your profile. Go to this link: http://www.tngunowners.com/forums/clients/purchases/ Scroll down through the purchases and find the one with a pending renewal Use either the button to cancel it or renew If you cancel, you can buy a new one. If you renew, it achieves the same thing."

Primary Arms has the Troy sights on sale for the 4th, $69.99 each for both front & rear. Not cheap, but cheaper than they are normally. http://www.primaryarms.com/troy-rear-folding-battlesight-black/p/ssig-fbs-r0bt-00/ http://www.primaryarms.com/troy-folding-battle-sight-front-m4-style-black/p/ssig-fbs-fmbt-00/ I have also used the plastic Magpul MBUS Gen 2. They work well, but are more bulky. I would expect them to be less durable than the aluminum Troy sights, but I haven't broken them. $85 for the set, also at Primary Arms.

Thank you for posting this today.

I tried to buy a Benefactor 1 yr or 6 month membership Sunday and today - but the system wouldn't let me. Said something to the effect that I had already bought one and couldn't buy another. Is the problem systemic or do you just not want me?

I have one that I bought used on this Forum a few years ago.  It is the only progressive I've ever used, and I'm happy with it.  It seemed pretty easy to figure how to set it up and operate it.  I don't have the auto case or bullet feeders.   The only fiddly thing I've encountered is the primer feed has to be cleaned out (usually stray grains of powder) occasionally during long reloading sessions.   I use it to do all of the functions for reloading pistol calibers (tumbled fired brass inserted on the first station, loaded rounds drop out the 5th).  I do my rifle brass prep separately, and use the progressive to throw the powder and seat/crimp the bullets.   I've only had to contact Hornady customer service once, but they sent out a replacement part for free (clear plastic sleeve for powder measure).

  Great minds think alike (well, similarly anyway).  :D  I went with an SLR handguard too.  I ended up with a 14" Solo Ultralight M-Lok.  I arrived at that particular SLR handguard mainly because I got a good deal on it through Rainier Arms.  I've received it, but haven't installed it yet.  Looks great and is surprisingly light for its size (13.8 oz including barrel nut and all mounting hardware).

Great looking build, look forward to seeing it as it progresses.   Working on a similar project myself.

  As a lefty I really like the A2 brass deflector.  Range time with my SP1 leaves nice circular burn marks on the right side of my face. :)

martinjd - Thanks for posting the model numbers of the sights that worked with the MOS system.  The plate makes the optic sit a little higher, so I was interested to see what worked.   martinjd & KahrMan - You both have great looking setups!

Sorry in advance for the length of this reply.   I had a pre-‘94 A2 for years, but sold it to someone in Connecticut for a pile of money after the federal AWB ended in 2004.  Here’s why I don’t currently prefer the A2 configuration.   New features of the A2 rifles according to Small Arms of the World (Ezell, 1983):   Single fire & 3-round burst – moot on civilian semi only rifles   Improved round & stronger front handguards – I’ve cracked a couple of teeth on the triangular handguards, so stronger is better.  It appears they went with the round handguards so they didn’t have to stock different left & right handguards. I prefer the shape of the triangular handguards.   New tapered slip (delta) ring – Less frustrating to remove handguards than the earlier flat one.  Good, functional change.   New 1 in 7” twist barrel with heavier diameter towards the muzzle – Twist change made over the earlier 1 in 12” twist to stabilize the new M855 62 gr “penetrator” and M856 tracer ammo. I don’t shoot either of those types of ammo. Historically, I've shot mostly 55 gr FMJ, which does well in a 1 in 7” twist barrel. I do also shoot the now-available 77gr BTHP which requires the faster twist, so that’s a useful change for me.    The heavier diameter of the barrel at the muzzle is actually somewhat detrimental for me. The extra weight at the muzzle end is the opposite of what most barrel designers would do for enhanced accuracy.  Per user “coldblue” (who claims on arfcom ( http://www.ar15.com/archive/topic.html?b=3&f=118&t=260598 ) “The M16A2 Product Improvement Program (1980-1983) was my program”):   We (Marines) were replacing a lot of "bent" barrels that were determined to be "bent" because the Armorer's Bore Drop Gauge would not freely pass through some barrels during Ordnance Inspections (LTI's). So the Logistics people had "Barrels Bending" on their list of "M16A1" things to "Improve" right after listing "Handguards Breaking."   We "experts" thought this bending was from rough handling like during bayonet drills, etc., as an absence of any mid-barrel handguard damage in these rifles made one assume the fulcrum of such bending was the bayonet lug. So we made that part of the barrel thicker because we did not want the excess weight of a full length heavy barrel. In testing using the bayonet lug as a fulcrum, and applying calibrated mechanical pressure to the muzzle, the new barrel was about 9 times more resistant to bend and take a set than an M16A1 profile. So we went with this "improvement."   However, soon after I started using a bore scope with a video recorder and monitor to inspect "bent" barrels. What I found was a mound of bullet jacket material at their gas ports. This build up was caused by a burr left from drilling/reaming the gas port. This was where the Armorer's Drop Gauge was getting stuck. When we removed this "mound", the barrels would all pass the Drop Gauge. We let Colt know what we had deduced, and that is one reason they kept models of "A2's" in their line-up with A1 profile barrels. However, the A2 profile was already down the road for the US Military. So about the only advantage of the A2 profile was to give the rifle a little more muzzle hang. This was noted by most all the Operational Test participants, especially when they fired the standing/off-hand leg of our rifle qualification course.   So it appears that we’ve been stuck with the heavy muzzle A2 contour (that was subsequently used on the military 14.5” and civilian 16” barrels) to fix a problem that didn’t really exist and for Marines to get better qualification scores.   New, stronger, longer buttstock: Stronger is good, but the utility of the longer length (outside classic marksmanship shooting positions) is debatable. With the proliferation of collapsible stock configurations, its easy for me to find one of those that work.  The adjustments also make it easier for smaller statured shooters to find a length of pull that works well for them.   New, fully adjustable rear sight: A lot nicer than the A1 rear sight. But I’ve got old man eyes now and tend to use optics, so this improvement is currently of little value for me.   So if you like the A2 configuration for nostalgic reasons – I think that’s great.  I have retro ARs and love them for what they are.  But for my use there are now configurations that work better – A1 barrel contours, collapsible stocks, and flat tops for easier optics mounting. 

I have the plain black Ameriglo Glock Suppressor Sights on my G19.   http://www.brownells.com/handgun-parts/sights/sight-sets/suppressor-sight-set-for-glock--prod70515.aspx   The top of the rear sight is approx. 0.305" above the top of the slide.  The bottom of the notch is just slightly above the base of the RMR.  The irons are usable by sighting just over the top of the RMR base.   Don't know if it's your intent, but I don't think it would be desirable to have the iron sights sticking up to the middle of the optic lens. It would block too much of the field of view.

Not to enable to your reloading habit any further, but if you're going to reload in quantity, check into Shooter's Pro Shop for over run/blem Nosler bullets.   They frequently run good sales (on bullets and loaded ammo) and have a military/first responder discount. Shipping is a fixed rate of $12.   In stock right now they have .308" 168 gr BTHP Match bullets for $21.95/100.    http://www.shootersproshop.com/nosler-products/nosler-blemished-2nds/nosler-blemished-bullets/nosler-30-168gr-custom-competition-hpbt-blem-100ct.html   I've found the Nosler match bullets to generally be as accurate as Sierra or Hornady match bullets (but I'm not a great shooter or shooting in accuracy matches).  I buy either 155 gr, 168 gr, or 175 gr match bullets solely based on price.  I'm not shooting past 600 yards, so there's not a significant difference for me.

    I'm happy to share my $0.02, FWIW.  Also, there's nothing original or magical about the way I do it.  It's is heavily influenced by the fact that I've had to disassemble at least my share of reloaded rounds.        I reduce loads in anything 30 caliber with the "LC" headstamp by 1 grain.  The LC 5.56 brass that I've loaded doesn't seem to have the volume difference vs. commercial brass, so I don't do the 1 grain difference on that (YMMV).  I also reduce load by 1 gr for nickel plated brass.

  You're right, I was looking at the load for the Barnes bullet that lists the max @ 44gr.   You mentioned Lake City brass and nickel plated brass in your previous posts.  If you're using either one of those, it is customary to reduce the published charges by 1 grain.  Military brass tends to be thicker and the nickel plating adds thickness. If the rule of thumb of reducing the charge by 1 gr is applied, then max load would be 44.4 grains with your initial load being 43.5 gr.   Personally, I still wouldn't start there (assuming this is the first time loading with these components for this rifle), but it's up to you. :) (my intention is to be helpful and not scolding, but it's hard to convey that online)

  The max load for that bullet weight in the online IMR Loading Data is 44 gr, with a starting load of 41 gr.   If you haven't already worked up to the 43.5 grains of IMR 4895 with those components in that rifle, I advise against starting there.   If you already worked up to your current powder charge, then never mind. :)

I haven't loaded for a 308 AR, but for M1A/M14 type rifles IMR 4895 was a common powder used in highpower matches.   Typical top loads were 42gr for military brass / 43gr for commercial brass with a Sierra 168 gr BTHP, OAL 2.800".   As always, start low and work up to those loads to see what works in your rifle.