Horse 39 Posted January 7, 2011 Report Share Posted January 7, 2011 For those that have been asking for more info I thought I would start a thread to answer your questions in one place. Production has begun, though I can't quote a release date as I am still trying to speed the process by a couple weeks if possible. We will be attending SHOT if anyone would like to take a hands-on look at the mounts. Thank you for the patience, it's been a lot longer coming to market than we originally planned, but we have used the delay to shed weight and costs dramatically. Quote Link to post Share on other sites
schultze13 354 Posted January 7, 2011 Report Share Posted January 7, 2011 (edited) This is the first time I am seeing this and it is bad ass saves me from putting a pic. rail on the cover or a big bulky mount with a rail to mount my aimpoint. Does it hold zero? Can you post pics of what the other side of the mount looks like? Do you need a beta tester on a S-12 and AK-74? Edited January 7, 2011 by SCHULTZE Quote Link to post Share on other sites
jimdigriz 580 Posted January 7, 2011 Report Share Posted January 7, 2011 From a marketing standpoint, the name of the mount ("RS AKM") is not helpful. It's non-distinctive and confusing (in that "AKM" already has another significance for AK users). Just my two cents... 1 Quote Link to post Share on other sites
Horse 39 Posted January 7, 2011 Author Report Share Posted January 7, 2011 (edited) It's a catch 22 for marketing - but I completely understand your point. The models will follow a somewhat cohesive naming structure wuth obvious ties to their intended host platforms. AKM (AK mount for M-Aimpoints) AKOG (AK mount for ACOG's) AKML (AK mount for compact Aimpoint [Light weight models]) AKS (AK 30mm scope mount) Still working on the PSL/SVD mounts as well as names. Schultze: Beta was already completed, here is the review from Chris of http://www.defensiveconceptsnc.com/ and my asociated response: From NCPatrolAR: As Horse stated, I've been testing this mount for a short time (approximately 2 weeks at this point). I received the mount the day I was scheduled to leave town to assist with teaching a weekend of classes. One of the first things I noticed when looking the mount over was how "beefy" it appeared to be. The mount looked extremely well built with a weight of just over 7.6 oz. Once the initial observations were complete I was able to get the optic (Aimpoint M2) secured in the mount and the mount secured to the test rifle (WASR-2) without incident. Tension of the locking bar was set so that there was no movement of the mount when the bar was pushed against the receiver, but allowed the optic to slide of the rail when the locking bar was moved away from the receiver and slight pressure was added to the front of the mount. The following day I was able to put approximately 120 rounds through the gun with mount in place. These rounds included zeroing followed by various drills conducted on paper and steel targets. During these drills I would use both the optic and the iron sights. The iron sights are located in an approximate "lower third" location in the optic. The irons were easy to pick up even though the optic wasn't completely centered over the bore (center of the optic was slightly to the right of the center of the bore). I was able to adjust the windage of the mount by loosening the 2 screws and drifting the mount to the left with a small hammer. The upper and lower portions of the mount were fitted tightly together and this lead to easy adjustments of windage for the mount. The following day I was able to show the optic to several friends and associates and received their feedback. Most people cited how heavy the mount looked, but didn't feel the actual weight of the mount was excessive. My opinion mirrored theirs. While the mount is heavy by modern standards, the weight wasn't as noticeable to me since it was located close to the rear of the gun. Had that much weight been located forward of the receiver, I'd likely be singing a different tune. Once I was able to get back into town, I informed Horse of my initial opinions of the mount and possible ways it could be modified. While my recommendations focused on shedding of weight, one of my friends made contact with Horse and offered some other suggestions to include rounding the edges and a few other weight saving ideas. Horse quickly put our ideas to "paper" and sent me preview images of the potential new mount. The new mount looked better than the mount in my possession in terms of appearing "lighter" but equally as robust. This weekend I was able to go out and put more rounds through the gun, mount and optic. This time I decided to try a few tests. My first test was to fire a single round of 5.45 with the mount in place, switch the mount to a 308 Saiga and fire a round, move the mount to a 12 ga Saiga and fire one round (#4 Buck), and then move the optic back to the WASR. This was done for one complete 30 round magazine. The mount, while loose on both Saigas (permitting forward and rearward movement), did not have any noticeable up or down movement and did not lead to any zero shift in the optic. While doing this test, I did notice that the mount appeared to be coming loose on the WASR. The mount remained in position when the locking lever was pushed against the receiver, but once the lever was pulled away from the receiver the mount slid off with significantly less force than required on previous occasions. Once the mount-remount test was completed, I proceeded to bang some steel at 50 meters with no apparent zero shift being present. With light fading fast, I proceeded to test the advertised ability to field strip the rifle while leaving the mount in place. The WASR field stripped easily and the gun went back together with an equal amount of ease. For fun, I decided to place the mount on the 308 Saiga and see if I could also field strip it. Everything went smooth until I tried to remove the bolt carrier assembly. The bolt carrier began to come out of the receiver but stopped once the bolt carrier became wedged against the bottom of the Aimpoint and the top of the receiver where the recoil spring assembly locks into place. With this completed, I packed things up and headed home. Once home; I tightened the mount to the point that I needed a hammer to tap the mount off of the side rail when the lever was pulled away from the receiver. While the review has been positive for the most part, there are two issues with the mount so far. One is weight, but this is currently being dealt with. As mentioned before, the weight is toward the rear of the gun so it isnt terribly noticeable. The second issue involves the front lens cap of the Aimpoint. As the optic sits in the mount, there is a clearance issue with the opening of the front lens cap on the Aimpoint. When trying to open the lens cap and move it to a 7 o'clock position I was unable to do so due to the rear sight blocking the movement. I was able to overcome this issue by raising the rear sight, moving the lens cap to the 7 o'clock position and then dropping the rear sight back into position. While this isn't a deal breaker for me, it is a headache to deal with. If worse came to worse and the user was unable to rotate the cap out of the way, the user could run the optic as an occluded sight and deal with the lens cap later. Of course this is less than ideal since the closed cap would prevent the user from using his iron sights. One positive thing about this issue though; at least the user doesnt have to worry about the lens cap closing and blocking his view. In closing, while my rounds through the mount remain low at this point (approx 300 rounds); it appears to be a fairly robust piece of equipment so far. I've hit the mount with a hammer multiple times with no damage to the mount. The moving of the mount from gun to gun didnt do any damage to the mount and led to no zero shift. I will have to spend more time with the mount before I give it a seal of approval, but so far the mount is off to a good start. Thanks for the beta test! A couple initial observations: I have never even thought of running my Aimpoint with covers at the 7 o'clock though I can immediately see why it could be an advantage vs 12 o'clock. Since it never occurred to me I never tested for it - thus the interference. When I had mine mounted I had the optic pushed all the way to the rear of the mount ring - yours seems to be about middle. That may solve some of your scope cover issues, maybe not. I also didn't have a Saiga 308 or 12 to functional check. I am glad it all went well for the most part. The new upcoming lighter weight AKM model will fix the weight issue ( projected to be about 30% less than the 7.6oz current beta model) and a slight tooling change can potentially alleviate the field stripping problem on the bigger guns. For those who are not familiar with Russian style optics mounts, Russian side mounts are a little different than western style optics. Here are a few things to point out: 1. There is no standard for side mount plates. There are many variables including country of origin, model, year etc. 2. Side plates on the gun are made from steel, mounts usually something softer. This is because most "modern" mounting solutions are made to fit many if not all side mount plates and their accompanying variables. 3. Each optic is matched to a specific rifle. This is not done permanently or serialized to a rifle per-se, but because you actually crush the mount to a specific side rail plate. Because of this when you move it from rifle to rifle you might experience a little bit of movement until you "adjust" the mount to the new rail. 4. Over time each side rail will also need to be tightened from time to time. This would only need to be done if it is removed repeatedly many times or damaged in super rough handling. There is still room to improve - and we plan to fix each and every issue possible. Thank you for the support, we will keep everything updated as soon as possible. Pics to follow. If you want the latest up to date info and more pictures be sure to check out the RS Facebook page. RS-Regulate And Lastly: After Beta we made the following changes: Edited January 7, 2011 by Horse Quote Link to post Share on other sites
schultze13 354 Posted January 7, 2011 Report Share Posted January 7, 2011 Thanks for the link and all the pics I cant wait to get one. Quote Link to post Share on other sites
DrThunder88 912 Posted January 8, 2011 Report Share Posted January 8, 2011 (edited) Great work so far! Thank you for sharing the development process. While I don't know for sure if I will order one when they become available, watching the idea come to life is really cool. Edited January 8, 2011 by DrThunder88 Quote Link to post Share on other sites
Horse 39 Posted January 8, 2011 Author Report Share Posted January 8, 2011 (edited) I don't think I've mentioned this here: we are in the process of obtaining patents for the mount. Edited January 8, 2011 by Horse Quote Link to post Share on other sites
deadeye956 4 Posted January 16, 2011 Report Share Posted January 16, 2011 Anyone want to buy my primary arm and ultimak rail.... Damn you horse! I guess I need to get a vortex strike force. Quote Link to post Share on other sites
jimdigriz 580 Posted January 16, 2011 Report Share Posted January 16, 2011 (edited) Latest pics from thread at theakforum.net: Edited January 16, 2011 by Jim Digriz Quote Link to post Share on other sites
motoguy 1 Posted January 25, 2011 Report Share Posted January 25, 2011 Latest pics from thread at theakforum.net: Outstanding. I just joined theakforum.net to follow this. I'm in the process of purchasing a Primary Arms optic for my converted (back half only) 7.62, as well as my converted (back half only) S12. I want a mount that co-witnesses, does not mount as far forward as the Ultimac, and allows me to removed the cover without removing / interfering with the optic. It sounds like this mount might be just what I'm looking for. I also found the thread where the guy modifies the BP-02 mount (My link), so that may be an option as well. Quote Link to post Share on other sites
Horse 39 Posted January 26, 2011 Author Report Share Posted January 26, 2011 Is your 7.62 a .308 or x39? 1 Quote Link to post Share on other sites
corbin 621 Posted January 27, 2011 Report Share Posted January 27, 2011 How much clearance is there on the 30mm model? I'm interested in mounting a Millet 1x4 red dot/ring scope on a Saiga 308. Largest diameter is 44.7mm or 1.760", so that would require 15mm of clearnce to the top cover from bottom of ring hole, minimum. Quote Link to post Share on other sites
superA 289 Posted January 28, 2011 Report Share Posted January 28, 2011 How much clearance is there on the 30mm model? I'm interested in mounting a Millet 1x4 red dot/ring scope on a Saiga 308. Largest diameter is 44.7mm or 1.760", so that would require 15mm of clearnce to the top cover from bottom of ring hole, minimum. Would that stabilize okay with just one ring to hold it? I ask because I have HK sights on my AK and am looking for a mount that sits low but also forward enough to clear the sights that I can put a rifle scope on. Quote Link to post Share on other sites
Horse 39 Posted January 28, 2011 Author Report Share Posted January 28, 2011 This mount is not suitable for use with scopes that need two mounting rings. The good news is that I'm working on one that is. Now as to the HK sights - well - to put a magnified optic on a rifle with diopter sights it is very difficult. They usually require a cheek riser/rest as you have to mount them above the sights. Quote Link to post Share on other sites
Horse 39 Posted January 31, 2011 Author Report Share Posted January 31, 2011 First articles due tomorrow - who else is excited? I'm going to have a hard time sleeping tonight! Quote Link to post Share on other sites
superA 289 Posted January 31, 2011 Report Share Posted January 31, 2011 (edited) This mount is not suitable for use with scopes that need two mounting rings. The good news is that I'm working on one that is. Now as to the HK sights - well - to put a magnified optic on a rifle with diopter sights it is very difficult. They usually require a cheek riser/rest as you have to mount them above the sights. Thank you. I wonder about using the notch to look through though, rotate the sight so it's not a peep sight in the rear. Any thoughts? Edited February 2, 2011 by superA Quote Link to post Share on other sites
Horse 39 Posted February 1, 2011 Author Report Share Posted February 1, 2011 1st article samples: Next up- serial production and anodizing. 1 Quote Link to post Share on other sites
broberts001 0 Posted February 1, 2011 Report Share Posted February 1, 2011 (edited) Congrates on creating a product that started as an idea all the way to production. I can surely appreciate the all that went into kicking off a venture such as this. -Bryan Edited February 1, 2011 by broberts001 Quote Link to post Share on other sites
Horse 39 Posted February 1, 2011 Author Report Share Posted February 1, 2011 One more: Quote Link to post Share on other sites
motoguy 1 Posted February 1, 2011 Report Share Posted February 1, 2011 Is your 7.62 a .308 or x39? If this question is directed to me, my Saiga is a 7.62x39. Quote Link to post Share on other sites
Horse 39 Posted February 1, 2011 Author Report Share Posted February 1, 2011 Yep for you. x39 should have no issues with bolt carrier removal. Quote Link to post Share on other sites
cobravenom39 17 Posted February 3, 2011 Report Share Posted February 3, 2011 What will it cost? Quote Link to post Share on other sites
sjgusmc21 850 Posted February 3, 2011 Report Share Posted February 3, 2011 Man, that just looks sweet! So as the above poster asked...what is the estimated cost? Quote Link to post Share on other sites
motoguy 1 Posted February 3, 2011 Report Share Posted February 3, 2011 x3 on cost estimate. Quote Link to post Share on other sites
jimdigriz 580 Posted February 3, 2011 Report Share Posted February 3, 2011 Yep for you. x39 should have no issues with bolt carrier removal. How much more clearance would have been necessary for bolt carrier removal of the Saiga 308? Do you think this will be an issue for the Micro mount as well? In my thinking, the whole setup would extend less to the rear for the Micro, thus (hopefully) allowing the bolt carrier to be lifted up high enough for removal. Any thoughts? Looking forward to seeing your first CAD drawings for that project. Quote Link to post Share on other sites
Horse 39 Posted February 3, 2011 Author Report Share Posted February 3, 2011 (edited) Micro should be fine on a .308 Costing will be set at the individual retailer level. MSRP is $200 but the retail will be very easily under that (by far). Edited February 3, 2011 by Horse 1 Quote Link to post Share on other sites
cobravenom39 17 Posted February 6, 2011 Report Share Posted February 6, 2011 I can see the quality and design that went into this for sure. There are a few good options for around your price, however. Quote Link to post Share on other sites
sjgusmc21 850 Posted February 6, 2011 Report Share Posted February 6, 2011 I can see the quality and design that went into this for sure. There are a few good options for around your price, however. Your mount is most definitely a quality piece of gear, has the looks and apparently the mechanics as well. However, I do believe that is a bit steep. If it was for the AR crowd...well, that price would be on par I guess. I am sure you will sell them, just out of my set price range. Damn fine looking mount though. Quote Link to post Share on other sites
Horse 39 Posted February 8, 2011 Author Report Share Posted February 8, 2011 Thank you for the kind words guys. Pricing is what it is, but don't worry no one (except direct from me) will be at MSRP. Quote Link to post Share on other sites
joebanda1213 59 Posted March 11, 2011 Report Share Posted March 11, 2011 Any Update??? Very interested with money in hand... of course after a review or two. Quote Link to post Share on other sites
Recommended Posts
Join the conversation
You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.