Arkane wrote: ↑Mon Jan 01, 2018 11:29 am
Maybe it's me but from looking at that pic it looks like the front sight post was drilled at an angle versus the gas block being canted. I'm looking at at the space between the ears of the gas block and the rod.
Wolf needs to know about this so they can tighten up their QA/QC.
I think you're right. The ears will bipod on a table without wobbling so gas block should be straight.
We'll see what wolf says tomorrow. I'll email aim surplus too
I , and many orhers, had canted top rails on our American Sig Sauer 556s. They have lower cheek weld stocks and lower line of sight issues. The rail cant wasnt asn issue until we started putting AR height irons on. I think that T91 sights are ower because the reveiver deck height is taler and the intended users, Asians, typicaly have high cheeks. More so than Europeans. TOMA.
Not sure if this will mean anything but measuring from top of the FSB, bypass the canted FSP hole if there's any. I've got 1.6 degrees tilt to the left.
fs0.jpg
fs1.jpg
You do not have the required permissions to view the files attached to this post.
e292644 wrote: ↑Mon Jan 01, 2018 12:30 pm
Not sure if this will mean anything but measuring from top of the FSB, bypass the canted FSP hole if there's any. I've got 1.6 degrees tilt to the left.
Cant to the left is an indicator that the barrel was over torqued during installation. I see it a lot in builds that guys clamp the barrel in a vise to install it vs. clamping the upper or just take it straight to torque without backing it off a couple of times. Is 1.6 degrees a game changer? Probably not if the rifle still zeros and you can group consistently with it. Other than doing some fine tuning (i.e. lapping the upper, setting the barrel with loctitie blue, truing the barrel extension, etc. ) I wouldn't sweat that cant.
I don't know what the Taiwanese use for their accuracy but the US M16A1 spec is per MIL-R-45587A is roughly 4.5 MOA.
mil spec.jpg
You do not have the required permissions to view the files attached to this post.
rchen404 wrote: ↑Mon Jan 01, 2018 2:15 pm
Arkane any chance you have the zero target in PDF?
My rear sight is to the right by 18 clicks. I've read 22 is Max for milspec?
Fsp takes 45 clicks to completely unscrew
No, that was scanned out of a copy of the spec I have. For the rear sight it calls for being able to move the rear sight six complete revolutions of the windage drum from extreme left to extreme right without binding. The windage dial on the M16A1 has five detent holes, so what, 30 clicks from one side to the other, 15 in the middle? Like I stated, no idea what the Taiwanese spec is, and if you're using an aftermarket carbine rear sight it's going to be different, some have more, some have less due to the difference in thread pitch of the windage adjustment screw.
Called wolf. They will take a look at it. Said they will replace either sight or fsb depending on problem. Also told them fsp wobbly. They don't know if the windham weaponry tall fsp will work.
I imagine you'll end up with a new front sight block out of the deal. On the windham, they make a .060" taller sight, but I really don't know if that's enough. I pulled a standard A2 front sight post and my extra wolf tall drum out and the posts themselves are the same height, but the drum height was .184" tall on the wolf versus the .067" of the A2 sight. Adding Windhams .060 to the A2 height leaves us roughly .05" short. I called Windham this morning and they just got another batch in and should have them reposted on the website within the next couple of days, once it shows up I'm going to order one and try it for SnG's.
Arkane wrote: ↑Tue Jan 02, 2018 12:25 pm
I imagine you'll end up with a new front sight block out of the deal. On the windham, they make a .060" taller sight, but I really don't know if that's enough. I pulled a standard A2 front sight post and my extra wolf tall drum out and the posts themselves are the same height, but the drum height was .184" tall on the wolf versus the .067" of the A2 sight. Adding Windhams .060 to the A2 height leaves us roughly .05" short. I called Windham this morning and they just got another batch in and should have them reposted on the website within the next couple of days, once it shows up I'm going to order one and try it for SnG's.
Wow thanks Arkane. Are you a gunsmith?
I hope so, but if the gas block is straight, figure they could knock out the pin holding the front sight base and put in a new one. Just hope they don't screw something else up.
"Tall" sights are hard to find. Are the +.060 the tallest ones? Hmm, 0.05" could still zero for elevation...please let us know when you try it. I just don't want a front sight that wobbles. Not too concerned about not being able to use a sight tool anymore.
Anyone serve in the Taiwan military/gov't logistics? Did they solve the problem by just using a lower carrying handle rear sight? Seems inefficient to create a whole new rear sight when they could have just gone milspec on the front sight bus and post. Even SCAR has milspec AR FSP height. It's even shorter than a non-F marked FSB http://ar15barrels.com/tech/front-sight-bases.jpg
The WIndham .060 are the tallest aftermarket ones I am aware of. A good machinist could probably even turn down the wolf drum and make a functional sight that works with the sight tool pretty cheaply. The tall drum solution Wolf came up with was most likely the very cheapest route they could take and adding in an extra machining step costs money.
rchen404 wrote: ↑Tue Jan 02, 2018 7:18 pm Gotcha. I'm over being anal about the sight tool lol. But sight wobble is no go
A slight amount of movement is expected, but the detent pin should keep it in place during firing. I don't know how feasible it is on the A1, but on the A2 a lot of match shooters will tap the underside of the sight well and run an 8/36 set screw in against the bottom of the front sight post once zeroed. I don't see that as a solution with the A1 as you'd have to remove the sight block to install the screw and then replace it, almost guaranteeing loss of zero.
