More SUIT questions

[Da Nerd]

OK, thanks to you all, I now have my SUIT mounted on my STG-58.
However, even with the elevation screw touching the slot,
The sight mounts ok, but if I take my hand I can rock it back and forth side to side a bit,
Is this normal or do I have something amiss.????

[fastfreddy]

It is not normal. What kind of mount are you using?

[Da Nerd]

I am using what appears to be a new suit mount on the dust cover. Looks factory.

[fastfreddy]

The factory mount has problems with loose rivets. See if the T-Bar rocks on the cover. Aftermarket T-Bars had problems with being machined to improper dimensions. If you flip the compensator cam to the forward position or raise the elevation, does it tighten up?

[Da Nerd]

The welds are solid. WHAT is suppose to hold it down on the platform, the springs?
I can raise the scope 1/16 inch off the rear platform..
????

[Windustsearch]

Tighten the elevation screw, sounds like it is most of the way out.

[Windustsearch]

But yeah, the spring holds it in place.

[Da Nerd]

Wont tightening the elevations screw throw it off??
I tightened up the elevations screw almost to max and tho it made it a bit tighter, it is still able to rock from side to side with enough force.

[Windustsearch]

Well, if it is rocking up and down then there is either not enough spring tension to hold it down or its hooked in wrong. Or its busted. But if you just put it on the gun and its wobbly then it isn't sighted in anyway. Look at the pic I posted in the support and technical nerd forum. If it is screwed down that much, then you should have lots of spring tension. If that is the case, try re-attaching it again, maybe it isn't all the way hooked up on the mount.

Also, does the removal tab stay down all the way?

[brownknees]

I had this problem with my Izzy SUIT when I mounted it first.
If the wobble goes away when you put in a bunch of elevation, and comes back when you take it out again, and the "T-bar" is solid on the dust cover then the extra spring & hook under the Izzy SUIT is the problem.
Some "Hooks" on the "T bar" are too thick front to back. What happens is that the extra "Hook" inside the base of the sight rides on the front, sloping surface of the "hook" on the bar. This will cause the 3 points of contact between the optic & the mount to not all be in contact at the same time.
Bingo! instant wobble.
You can usually spot the problem by finding a shiny,or worn patch about 1/2 to 1/3 of the way down the front sloping surface of the "Hook" on the mount.
The bad news is that the mount is not compatible with the Izzy SUIT.
You can modify the mount's hook by carefully grinding back the front surface to allow for clearance with the (extra) spring & hook under the Izzy sight.
The front surface has no contact with the sight's mounting, so you can safely remove metal from this area.
If you don't feel comfortable doing this, then your only option is to get a different mount.
I'll get some measurements on the hook I have, which works with my Izzy sight & post them here in a day or two, maybe with a pic of what the heck I'm talking about.

:eek:

[Da Nerd]

The spring latch has a screw thru it, so it stays put.
I takes a bit of force to move it side to side . and I suspect there is enough tension for it to return to zero after a shot, but I will keep checking the above advice and see if I can find the problem.
Maybe the cam is not correct. The whole unit looks new almost.

[brownknees]

Here's the dimensions I measured on my mount.
The pic will help ID the point where I measured.
front-to-back across top of "hook" part as close to Center line as I could get.
0.280"

front-to-back just under "Hook" part, but clear of raduis.
0.241"

base of mounting, but again clear of radius.
0.328"
This one fits my Izzy unit fine, but I have another that's a little "fatter" It works without any wobble, but there is contact as I can see a shiny patch.
If you do opt to grind anything off, then check where exactly the mount attaches before removing anything vital!

[brownknees]

here's the view under the sight, looking up into the recess where the extra spring & hook are.

[Da Nerd]

I don't really see any 'rub' marks except on the platform where the cam flat touches the platform..
Here is what I have done.
I also have a suit mount for a AR-15. It has the same wobble.
I took some very thin cardboard and make 'shims' for under the cam lugs and this tightened up the sight a whole LOT.
Seems that the cam lugs don't touch the mount hard enough.
SO.....should I make some shims, or look for a different cam OR...?

Very informative photos BTW.

[brownknees]

Just a thought. Make sure the internal spring & hook inside the sight base is engaged properly. It should go over the transverse pin in the mount. Sometimes it rides over this & that could change the fit between the 2 hooks. The pic earlier shows how it should look.
I bet money that the engagment between the 2 hooks is the source of the problem. I just cant figure out exactly why.
Shimming the cams will stop the wobble, but it won't let you get a good zero. I know! I tried that, it was WAY off.
Can you send or post pics of the same areas I did? maybe that will let me "see" something I cant get from a verbal description.
You can easily check if I'm right & the problem is the engagment between the 2 hooks.
Wiggle the sight fron to rear & left to right. then "stir the pudding" with it. You will probably be able to work out visually where the pivot is that it's rotating round.
If all else fails I have the AR15 handle mount that I used to take the pics. I have no use for it, so I can mail it to you to try out. If that helps let me know.:bigangel:

[Da Nerd]

I have ordered a weaver/suit mount from Tapco and will see how it mounts to that when I get it.
In the mean time I will 'tinker' with it and see how it is locking up.
Stay tuned.

[fastfreddy]

I had the same problem with an aftermarket T-Bar. Seemed like it needed shims on the cam bearing surface. Some searching (on FALfiles, of course :D ) revealed that there were many aftermarket T_bars produced and sold which were machined to incorrect dimensions. Shimming was the recommended course of action.

The original L1A1 T-Bar fits the Izzy SUIT perfectly. I ended up with 2 mounts, both of which work great. Mount number 1 is an original L1A1 dustcover mount with the tabs cut off and the soft T-Bar rivets replaced with bolts. I did not drill holes in the dustcover, as some do, to install the bolts. Mount number 2 is a Tapco 3rd generation dustcover mount with holes drilled and tapped so an original T-Bar from a sacrifial loose L1A1 mount can be bolted on. The Tapco mount has a longitudinal groove that the T-Bar fits into, increasing its solidity.

I have an aftermarket T-Bar that I would sell cheap to anybody who is looking for an exercise in frustration.

Just my notes from the "been there, done that" files.

[fastfreddy]

I ask again; Are you using an aftermarket T-Bar or are you using a gen-u-wine surplus British issue T-Bar?

I ask because I haven't seen an aftermarket one yet that is acceptable.


BTW, I've never tried one of those Tapco T-Bar/Weaver rail adapters. I did see recently that they had 'em in the clearance section dirt cheap. If you get one, please report if it actually fits solid.

[Mr pogo]

.

[Da Nerd]

I have NO IDEA if the FAL mount is original or after-market.
I DID have to remove the tabs (L1A1) and a fair amount of metal at the rear of the dust cover in order to get the gun to close and lock.
Mine is put on with spot welds. I would say the mount is cast and has had NO machining done to get it into some form of specs.
I am glad (or sad) to know I am not the only one who has had this problem.

[Da Nerd]

Would this idea work? I plan to add metal UNDER the neck as shown in WHITE.
And remove an equal amount from the TOP where is is shown in orange.
This should (?) draw the scope downward and make it fit tight.
Where did I put that dremel ?

[brownknees]

That might work!
Just a suuggestion: try removing the pesky little hook recessed into the base of the SUIT. It's just held in by spring tension from the coil spring under the SUIT.
Once you have it out you can do some creative grinding to make the hollow section of the SUIT's hook match up with the top of the hook on the t-bar.
You can always put the little devil back in when you're done.
If you do remove it you can always mount the sight without it, just to confirm that really is the problem.
I've never tried firing it with the extra spring removed, so that's your choice.
I'll measure the height of the mount I photographed for you as it fits my SUIT just fine, that should give you a dimension to aim for.

OK here's the dimensions I get:

From the inside (lower) face of the hook to the top of the ridge running along the base of the t-bar =0.253"

From the top of the hooks foreward projection to the bottom (thickness of the hook itself) =0.1585"

Overall height from the ridge on the base to the top of the hook=0.4065"

I'd definately take metal away from the top of the hook itself, as this is probably where its binding on the recessed part of the hook inside the sight. I'm not sure I'd try to add anything under the hook. Maybe I'd take some away from the top front part of the hook to prevent it binding there.
I think the best idea is still to match up the shape of the two surfaces on the mount & the hook inside the sight.
If I did add to the inside (lower) part of the hook I'd do it after I did everything else, and only then if the tension was too low, even after the loose wobbling stopped.
I know you said you were not real comfortable with the mike measurements, so if a loan of the M16 mount that fits will let you do some "Precisioin eyeballing" then you're welcome to borrow it for as long as you need.
Happy dremeling!

[Da Nerd]

Another thing..I dont feel real strong tension of any kind when I snap down the locking lever with the springs..!

[EMSflyer]

I'm thinking of purchasing a SUIT and I've been reading this thread with
great interest.

So, if I purchase a SUIT from DSA how can I tell if it's going to have a problem
prior to cutting the tabs of the dust cover and mounting it on my metric FAL?

Thanks,

Flyer

[Da Nerd]

I would ask DSA if they stand behind their mount and the fit of the SUIT.
If they say NO, then don't buy it expecting a perfect fit.

[fastfreddy]

Originally posted by EMSflyer
I'm thinking of purchasing a SUIT and I've been reading this thread with
great interest.

So, if I purchase a SUIT from DSA how can I tell if it's going to have a problem
prior to cutting the tabs of the dust cover and mounting it on my metric FAL?

Thanks,

Flyer

You can mount the SUIT to the dustcover without mounting the dustcover to the rifle. It will be apparant if the SUIT locks on tight. Check it before you cut the tabs. No problem.

[fastfreddy]

Originally posted by Da Nerd
Would this idea work? I plan to add metal UNDER the neck as shown in WHITE.
And remove an equal amount from the TOP where is is shown in orange.
This should (?) draw the scope downward and make it fit tight.
Where did I put that dremel ?

I respectfully suggest that you need to add material where your diagram has the word "add". That is, under the hook. That way, the locking mechanism will pull the sight down tighter against the T-Bar.

Adding material on top of the hook will just add an impediment to the SUIT being drawn all the way down. Removing material there would make more sense to me. That is, if the top of the hook is "bottoming out" somehow.

[Da Nerd]

Originally posted by fastfreddy


I respectfully suggest that you need to add material where your diagram has the word "add". That is, under the hook. That way, the locking mechanism will pull the sight down tighter against the T-Bar.

Adding material on top of the hook will just add an impediment to the SUIT being drawn all the way down. Removing material there would make more sense to me. That is, if the top of the hook is "bottoming out" somehow.

Look again, the top sez REMOVE and under sez ADD.
just like you describe doing it.

[Da Nerd]

For something that should be precise and in close tolerances, I find the SUIT mounting system a real loser.
First it is too complicated as far as hitching points,.
All the mounts are cast and not machined to certain tolerances.
Too many points that can possibly be incorrect and loose to make a solid mount.

I like the sight it self, the compactness, the post and illumination, but that mounting system sucks.

[fastfreddy]

Sorry about misreading the diagram. I had problems with loose rivets on T-Bars and with poorly dimensioned aftermarket T-Bars. Once I got it sorted out, I love it. It's bright, always on zero when I re-mount it, and looks cool and proper on the FAL. It was a frustrating ordeal. Even more frustrating than getting a good light crisp trigger pull.

I hope you get it solved. It's a nice sight.

[Da Nerd]

My mount is spot welded and tight.
Just seems to me that there is too much 'play' between the various hard points.
Even the cam has some 'wiggle' in it on one setting on one side.
Yes I like the overall sight...and am still working on making the mount usable.

[Skilter]

Mine fits well and tight. However, it still has a bit of play in the cam contact area.

If you are trying to hit a man sized target at 400 yards in low light, mine will accomplish this task. If you are expecting to 1 MOA 3 shot groups at 400 yards with the SUIT in the same scenario, then you are probably expecting too much IMHO. YMMMV.

[Da Nerd]

I expect to hit within 6" of where I am aiming. at any distance.
Is my sight capable of that? I dont know, have not had it to the range yet.

[cabinetman]

You've received a lot of very good answers to your questions. All I can add are two things.

As another poster mentioned, the SUIT is not an MOA scope. It is totally appropriate for the FAL but it's a combat scope, not a precision sniper scope. It's designed to do just what Skilter says it's supposed to do; help you hit a man-size target in center-mass at up to 400 yards. So, don't expect to get a lot of precision from it beyond that.

My second suggestion is that you use the proper sighting-in target for the Trilux. Here's one that is the official one to use:

http://members.cox.net/romanpolaski/curiosandrelics/Target%20for%20Trilux.jpg

It's designed for 25 yards on an 8-1/2 x 11 paper. Just copy it to your printer and print a full page.

That will help you get that great combat scope working for you.

Hope that helps a little. BTW, I've got a bit of "wiggle" on my scope too but nothing that would affect zero.

Rome

[Da Nerd]

Thanks, I started this thread cause I was not sure IF any wiggle was suppose to happen, or if it was suppose to be SOLID.
I am thinking, each time it reverts to the same contact, it should shoot the same spot.
I have not had it to the range yet, so that could be the telling factor.

[brownknees]

The mount is kinda oddball!
The wiggle on a properly fitting SUIT should be eliminated by proper contact with the other mount post (the round one, behind the hook) bearing on the internal "V" block in the mouning base of the scope.
Hopefully you'll find this starts working, like mine did, after you get the geometry of the 2 hooks sorted out.

[Da Nerd]

I just find the whole mounting system bizarre.
Oh well, it is going to be a long cold winter so this will keep my idle time down to a minimum..:biggrin:

[cabinetman]

What I'd like to know is if there is any body out there who would be willing or able to recharge my Tritium holder. When I bought my Trilux, I got the original light-source holder with it. It actually still had some life left in it....honest! Anyway, I'd love to have one recharged. All it would take would be a grain-of-rice sized vial mounted in plaster. I've tried all of the sight manufacturers but they won't do it. Does anyone here know of a source??

Rome

[brownknees]

I did re-animate an LED illuminator, but I'm not sure if the dimensions of the vial are the same. The details are posted under my handle some time ago.
I do remember that the illumination vial was salvaged from aTru-glow TG40 tritium illuminated archery sight pin.
A search of the files should find all the details.
I'm also working on getting a duplicate of the origonal illuminator produced under a limited run deal with a local Mfr.
One of the thher posters has a source of supply for 3mm dia vials, but I don't have more details than that.
I'll post as the project progresses.

[cabinetman]

Thanks for that info. I'll do a search to see if I can find your post. Scavanging a vial from another type of site sounds like a plan. As long as it fits into the holder, I don't see what difference size would make unless it was too small.

Let us know if you get any interest to have them remanufactured. I've called all the major producers of tritium sights and they have all told me that they were not interested in recharging mine. If you could convince one of these producers to at least develop a program where guys like us could send their holders for recharging, that would be great! Producing new, retrofitted holders would also be great for all the guys out there without their originals.

Rome

[Potshot]

Having similar problems with one myself. When you say it has good RTZ after SUIT R&R, what are we talking within 1"

When the mount is 100% what kind of accuracy/precision is the optic capable of?

I think it's a cool sight, but short eye-releif, weight, and goose-neck shooting posture make me question really using it.

[cabinetman]

Well, again, it's not a target scope but a combat scope. You won't be able to really shoot moa with it unlike a true target scope would.

Most guys use a cheek pad with theirs. It is a tall unit on the FAL and a cheek piece makes it a lot more comfortable.

Finally, the reason most guys like it is because it's authentic to the rifle. The Trilux was widely used on both the metric and inch rifles. I've never seen a photo of a FAL, inch or metric, in the field with anything else. You could do like many other guys and mount a more traditional scope on it and get very tight groups but the Trilux is for hitting center mass at 200 yards. It provided the shooter with low-light targeting with the lighted pin out to that distance.

The other issue with the Trilux is something that's not really discussed much. That scope requires that you put you eyeball into the rubber eyepiece. That's fine with a stock rifle with the original flash hider. What I discovered, however, is that the replacment muzzle comps increase, just slightly, the felt recoil of the rifle. If you remove it entirely, the Trilux becomes very uncomfortable because the recoil slams the scope into your eyesocket. I experimented with this last year. Ouch! Now my rifle has an original flash hider on it (soldered on) and that resolved the issue. The CIA muzzle comps, however, actually do a good job of reducing felt recoil and work just about the same as the original in that situation.

Just thought I'd mention it.



Rome

[brownknees]

Maybe that explains why a lot of people are getting beat up by the SUIT & I'm not! I wondered about that, specially as I'm a stock climber to the point that the iron sights were scratching my glasses regularly.
I fitted a Que systems (Browning BOSS) to the FAL & it makes recoil really soft. If you don't mind blasting your wife who's also your spotter with the deflected muzzle blast it's a great gizmo.
:wink:

[cabinetman]

Brownknees, mail is coming your way. I put that piece in the mail on Monday.

Rome

[Arby]

FWIW, I've never had a problem with the SUIT and getting beat up around the old eye socket. But I've only used them shooting from the bench. From that position, it is easy to keep the rifle in a rigid enough hold to avoid getting a black eye from a loose hold on the rifle. I've used sevral different SUITs on several different rifles with different muzzle devices and stocks and don't get battered by the optic with any of the configurations.

IMHO, the aftermarket mounts negate to a large degree what are the advantages of the SUIT: one can quickly go from iron sights to optic and back again quickly and easily. The original dustcover mount on a rifle with a high enough sight plane makes the mounting and dismounting of the SUIT a snap. An Stg often requires an inch rear sight and an Israeli front post to get the right clearance to clear the hook and post on the dustcover when the SUIT is not mounted. I have not had this problem with the Imbel. Since the SUIT is designed for the Commonwealth rifles, I have had no problem with those, either.

I've got one aftermarket mount (DSA w/aluminum T-Bar) that I never use. Any FAL dustover mount that has to be screwed on is too much of a PITA for me to bother with. Likewise, any FAL scope mount that has to be screwed on is a PITA. The only aftermarket mount for scopes for the FAL that I find worthwhile are the Williams Q-D mounts. The FAL is ideal for a slip-on-slip-off mount for ease of maintainence. Anything else seems antithetical to the simplicity of the mounting systems to which the FAL is so well suited. That is one of the numerous features that make the FAL so versatile.

The problem with the OEM mounts is that the rivets can work loose (don't ask me how I know this). But there is a fix for this, which has been covered here by those more knowledgeable than I. I do own dustcove mounts that work fine and have never needed fixing.

I have had a problem with the Israeli SUIT and it's extra spring and clamp (Brownknees has some interesting conjecture on solutions to that problem). But a good Brit optic on a good Brit mount usually achieves its intended effect, if everything is in spec. The SUIT is an interesting piece of OEM equipment for the FAL.

But, as has been noted by many people here many times, it is not meant for MOA shooting. That is best accomplished with a good quality target scope on a rock-solid mount. As for LED tritium replacements, I have experimented with a number of variations and found all of them lacking.

Just my $0.02.