WAC QD-Pro Review (I'm not happy)

[Lance]

My William's Arms QD PRO Scope mount finally arrived last Monday. So far, not a pleasant experience. I ordered the Scope mount over a month ago (before the group buy was even announced). There were several delays and I can understand that but I was getting reports about other's "picking up" their mounts as early as 11/9. This is after I was told I was one of the first to place an order. My order was obviously not shipped in the sequence it was received and finally departed Williams on 11/15. It took 11 days in transit to Michigan via Fed-X ground.

The mount itself looks very nice and is a tight fit in my Entreprise Type 3 receiver. The finish is fine and very black. It stands in stark contrast with the park on my DSA refinished G1 and Entreprise receiver. I had expected this as I'm familier with standard black anodizing but it would be nice if there was a dark gray anodizing or other gray finish available. With the mount pushed all the way to the front, there is a small gap of about .040" between the rear of mount and the vertical part of the lower. I can (with some effort) move the mount back and forth in this area with the frame locked. I'm not sure if this is enough to affect accuracy. I'm fairly certain that this is due to receiver or trigger housing variances and hard to avoid.

The real heartbreaker is that my new Russian scope (Taiga 2U) will not fit on the mount. The Russian scope is specified as being compatible with a Weaver mount. The Russian mount has a fixed opening for the rail and a central locking tab that requires the mount to be slid onto the rail before it is tightened down. I wasn't expecting a problem as I had previously mounted this scope on a Tapco scope mount and several others with zero problems.

I called William's and spoke with George about the problem and we discussed the Picatinny rail specification somewhat. He asked me to measure the widest part of the rail and I did at .849". He said this is typical of all their mounts and according to the Picatinny spec. I was asked to email George the measurements (and I have) and he promised to forward the information to Dwight. I found a copy of the Stanag Mil 1913 (Picatinny) spec. and determined the actual specification calls for the top of rail to be no more than .835" wide. I then measured the inside part of the Russian scope mount and it's inside dimension is .835". It's now obvious why it doesn't fit. I then measured the width of the Tapco rail to be .825" and some other Weaver rails I have to all be at or less than .825". This information was also emailed to Williams.

My guess is that most scope mounts are not solid like this Russian piece and the rail's extra width (.014") will not be much of a problem with most scope's mounts. It is also obvious that even had the QD-Pros's rail been dead-on the spec. of .835", it would probably still not fit. I'm not sure why my other Weaver mounts and the Tapco mounting system (Leapers) is smaller than the spec. but I would guess that it is a well thought out safety margin for mating to parts of unknown origin. Nevertheless, according to the mount specification I've found, the QD-Pro mount from William's is not made to the picatinny specification. You may want to consider this before you purchase.

I am still awaiting a response from Williams as to what my options are. It's been a week with no contact from them and I am guessing that they just don't give a damn.

Link to Stanag Mil 1913 (Picatinny) spec.: http://www.biggerhammer.net/picatinny/1913_specs.pdf

Lance

[ December 02, 2001: Message edited by: Lance ]

[fn4bb]

Lance, I am kind of in your shoes too. I got the mount (timely though) and it looks great. Mine fits well on my CAI Frankenfal (Imbel metric upper, Aussie inch lower).

But when I tried to mount an old scope with weaver type rings, they wouldn't fit over the mount. I bought the scope mounted on a gun so I don't know who the mfg. of the rings is and just thought that the rings were bad. Now I'll have to check others.

I e-mailed George about 7 days ago, before I had even tried to mount the scope and asked which rings they tested the mount with and/or which they recommended. I have not received a response. In his/their defense in my e-mail I told him "no rush" since I am sure they are busy with the DSA debacle.

I am not flaming Williams or George. I like the mount and want to keep it, I just want to get the right rings to make it work. :) I'm sure that if the mount is too wide to be useable by most rings, Willaims will make things right. :D

[ December 02, 2001: Message edited by: fn4bb ]

Ted, are you out there? Did you find these or similar issues with your QD?

[ December 02, 2001: Message edited by: fn4bb ]

[EMDII]

I am still awaiting a response from Williams as to what my options are. It's been a week with no contact from them and I am guessing that they just don't give a damn.

How did the conversation w/ WAC end? What day was this? Did you ask for some resolution, or was it an open-ended discussion?

You're right, the Rev A Picatinny is 0.835" -.005, so we're oversized. My QD Pro is 0.854", but I did not use any Russian scopes in the trials yesterday. I did use a couple of mounts, including Leupold rings, Millett, and then a BSA red-dot w/ integral mount.

I used a Hesse FALO-C, and my QD Pro did not have any axial (.040) clearance. In fact, the Hesse left small marks on the back of the QD Pro, it was quite snug axially and L/R.

Why don't you call again and ask for resolution, or a schedule toward resolution? I don't believe they 'just don't give a damn'. But I'm not having any difficulty, either.

[Lance]

My initial contact with George was on Monday, 11/26. I last spoke with George on the telephone this past Tuesday, 11/27. He is a heck of a nice guy. He acknowledged the discrepancy in the specification and said that he had already forwarded the information I gave him to Dwight and that he would follow up with him right away. He seemed genuinely concerned. I even resent my email to him at his request. I do think I conveyed my sense of urgency to him and truly expected a response by now.

I didn't ask for a specific remedy as I feel that it's their responsibility to provide the solution. I don't really feel I can demand a mount that fits this Russian scope because as I said, If the QD Pro was made exactly to the 1913 spec., it would probably still not fit. But it would be nice if they followed the apparent lead of some of the the mount manufacturers in providing some level of tolerance for mating components.

No flames uttered here either, just the facts.

Lance

[ December 02, 2001: Message edited by: Lance ]

[EMDII]

Well, I too hope that Dwight and George have this in order. I don't speak for them, but I think they want to continue selling their products. Call them back and set high expectations if you want something done.

[rboos]

is there a difference between the picatinny rail and the weaver rail?? i feel dumb but i have wondered about that for a long time.

[screech-fnfal]

is there a difference between the picatinny rail and the weaver rail?? i feel dumb but i have wondered about that for a long time.


Excellent question,

:confused:

[Lance]

Originally posted by FALFITTER:
<STRONG>is there a difference between the picatinny rail and the weaver rail?? i feel dumb but i have wondered about that for a long time.</STRONG>

I researched this and didn't find a definitive answer. I did find dialog references that suggest the the picatinny dimensional specification was derived from the weaver mount spec. with the addition of the recoil slots in the top of the rail.

Lance

[Mr. Pink]

I noticed my rings didn't seem to seat real well on the mount - the bent sheet metal clamps specifically didn't really seem to grip the angled edge right. But I figured it was the cheap Tasco high rings I had to go buy to get a scope to fit. I'm heading home for the dial calipers tonite and to do a little test fitting with some other rings. I'll post pics tues.

[Lance]

To follow up, I had several email exchanges with Williams Arms today concerning my scope mount. In the exchange, I expressed my desire (several times) to get the problem fixed with only the last resort being a refund. Williams' response (several times) was to return the mount for a refund. This leads me to believe they have no interest in fixing the mount to bring it into conformity with the picatinny spec., at least in the immediate future.

While the exchanges were polite, I interpret their lack of interest in my satisfaction as a customer to be the epitome of poor customer service. I suspect they have many faulty mounts and do not wish to scrap or rework them regardless of the reasonable expectation that a customer should receive what is advertised and ultimately be satisfied with their purchase. This lack of concern leaves me with reservations regarding other products they may manufacture.

This was my first and last purchase from Williams Arms. I'm sorry to say, this story has no happy ending for me. I'm thoroughly disappointed.

Lance

[Lance]

Your "straight" is a little crooked George..

My first contact with you was on Monday by telephone. What is "almost demanded"? I desired customer support. I waited a long time to get something that doesn't work as advertised.

You later emailed that it was "Nice to talk to someone from back there". I thought we had a pleasant conversation. I was polite and I did exactly what you asked me to do. Exactly.

I emailed all the information you requested and then did some research to discover what I thought was the real problem and forwarded that to you Monday Evening also. I thought it might be helpful.

I spoke with you again on Tuesday and explained my travel situation and why I was in a bit of a rush. I interpreted your answers to mean that I was to expect a response soon. You claimed that Dwight had the information and I felt or took your answers to mean that Dwight may be disinterested or too busy to respond to my problem. I explained to you that I had written a review for the FAL files and asked you if it would help interest Dwight if I posted it with the current information. You said "no" and that you would talk to Dwight that evening. I waited before posting my review in an attempt to be fair. Guess what? I was still waiting after a week (sorry, 4 business days) for some acknowledgement or contact. After I posted this review, I finally heard from you via email that Dwight "is evaluating and re-adjusting the next run". Whatever that means... All I wanted from Williams was some kind of commitment to my satisfaction. I never got it. I think a week was long enough to wait for Williams to say "Don't worry, we'll take care of it" but it never happened.

I never demanded anything. This was my request as emailed to you this morning, verbatim:
"Since I cannot currently use this scope mount for it's intended purpose, I would like to know what you want me to do with it. I would like to send it back to exchange it for one that will work as advertised or in absence of that, send it back for a full refund and I will buy a scope mount elsewhere.

If you plan on redesigning the rail, I would like a time estimate of when the new mount will be available to me" This was followed by a "Thank you" and my regards.

It's funny.. You didn't seem to think I was "pissy" "rude" or "snotty" until after I posted this review. I'm sorry you didn't like it. I stand by it as accurate and factual. The readers can judge for themselves.

Lance

[RossD]

Can't help but notice that Lance was pretty specific in listing the design problems in the scope mount and that George didn't even once address that issue. All he did was skip over it and attack Lance for "demanding" that a product he bought work the way it was supposed to.

If nothing else this just swayed me away from buying the scope mount I was mulling.

And coming on the heels of the whole "Exploding receiver" controversy it makes me just want to stay away from the Williams' product line.

[Master Blaster]

Oh, come on George, you know you are just being a richard! HeHeHeHe!
But seriously folks, for those of you who have not dealt with George before, you will find that he is a straight shooter and good to his word. Being that he has to keep his employer informed, the time line stated above does not sound excessive. I am not known for having a great deal of patience so I can empathise with Lance, but, In my experience with the Internet and doing business on it, it can and often does extend normal response times. Lance if George said he would take care of it, I think that you can bank on it. Maybe not in the time that you would like but it will be done. From my experience, and I haven't bought the first item from WAC, it appears that their customer satisfaction and service policy is geared strictly toward making the customer happy!
Regards,
Jim :D :D :D

[ December 04, 2001: Message edited by: Master Blaster ]

[Templator]

If you don't like someones product for whatever reason, and they offer to undo the transaction and refund your money, what's the problem? Send them back the product,.. get your money back and buy it from somebody else. Seems like much ado about nothing, to me. Now,.. on to something important.

Hey George!,.. when are those machined from billit inch type 1 receivers gonna be available? I didn't put a deposit down on one,.. but are any of the first lot of 75 still around?

['TUDE]

Lance, I know where you are coming from.
Been there, done that, and sold the shirt.

[RossD]

George,
I resent your implication that because I am "new" that my opinion has no merit or is in any way less credible than anyone else's.

Maybe you didn't notice me, but I was here well before you started getting flack over your exploding aluminum receivers. I didn't just pop up yesterday and start ripping into you so don't try to paint me that way.

My point in my comments yesterday was that Lance brought a very specific complaint forward about your scope mount being out-of-tolerance to the point where it was unusable. He documented his measurements vs. what they should have been, and his complaint sounds credible on it's face. You were given a chance to respond to that complaint but all you did was attack Lance for "being rude".
You skipped right over the problem with the scope mount.

Just answer the question George--was the moount within the specification tolerances or not? Was Lance's complaint valid? when you duck straightforward questions we all have the right to be suspicious of you.

I stayed out of the receiver mess because I'm not a metalurgist and don't know/don't care about aluminum receivers. I was considering one of your scope mounts but then I read Lance's complaint and saw how you responded to him. When I pointed out that you didn't address his concern, you jumped on me. Is this what passes for customer relations on your planet? That's why I won't buy your products George.

They may be fine or they may be badly made but I'm basing my decision solely on the way you've responded to the complaints.

[Fallschirmjäger]

George,

My advice is to do a search for some of the Tapco customer service responses on the assorted forums, then read and learn. While you may have a dedicated following of customers, if your responses here are indicative of your C/S skills, you may run a risk of not expanding that base of dedicated customers. I am in the market for a scope mount, as I'm sure others are, and personally this thread does not instill confidence in my buying decision. Afterall, honey catches more flies than shit... ;) I'm more interested in the resolution of the scope mount and Picatinny width situation before I order the mount, as I have an Armalite mount I was planning on using and would like to see it fit.

As to the Pickett's reference... :(

[Lance]

George,

If you want to continue to post about the level of customer service provided to me by Williams Arms, please be accurate.

Initially, All you asked me to do was make a measurement of the rail which you told me was typically .849" in your production runs.

At no time was I ever asked to return the mount for anything but a refund and that was after my review was posted. The only "offer" I received was the refund. I would have preferred you fix the problem but the refund is okay by me too.

I haven't called or written because you made your position very clear to send the mount back for a refund. And this was after I asked you to fix this mount or replace it with a functional one.

Rest assured, the mount is on it's way back and I do expect that refund. After all, this is precisely what you instructed me to do in your last 2 emails to me in reply to my last 2 emails to you all dated Monday, 12/3/01.

Slainte Mhath,

Lance

[Augie]

First Rule of doing Business

CUSTOMER SERVICE with out it you are out of business.

I have read what Lance has written and what George has written. Lance has not been nothing but Honest and non-attacking. He is like the rest of the consumers we want a product that works as stated. I would feel the same way as Lance does.

Peace and God Bless

[Timber Wolf]

Will the scope mount I have ordred be in spec and will it accept all standard rings or not? If so I will continue to wait on it and the two receivers on the order. If not I need to know so I can cancel my order. Please answer this simple question George.

[sportsnut]

George, i see you are showing your true colors over here also. Typical George .

[sportsnut]

I wonder how long before Mr. Williams takes George's keyboard away. For Williams Arms sake it better be soon. IMHO

[Batman]

Shouldn't this thread be in dumping Brass!?!? :(

[EMDII]

Originally posted by Timber Wolf:
<STRONG>Will the scope mount I have ordred be in spec and will it accept all standard rings or not? If so I will continue to wait on it and the two receivers on the order. If not I need to know so I can cancel my order. Please answer this simple question George.</STRONG>

Mine is .849" across the lug. It accepts all standard rings and mounts I could affix to it. Leupold, Millet, Weaver, BSA red-dot, and a Trijicon Reflex II a friend has.

[Dwight]

To: Timber Wolf

The QD-PRO mounting rail was purposely manufactured oversize from the MIL-STD 1913 specifications. I've always disliked having a overly sloppy mount to mate up with a quality set of rings. I'm not aware of any fitting problems with U.S. manufactured rings. If you should have any problems with fitting your rings to our mount, we will be happy to make it right with you.

To Lance:

It is unfortunate that your Russian Scope doesn't fit our scope mount. However, it seems from your description that it will not fit a scope base that is manufactured to Mil-STD 1913 either.
We have since modified our scope mount to accommodate imported scope mounts. Our rail will still be slightly oversize to better fit the majority of scope rings, but will also accommodate the imported rings and scopes as well.

To Sportsnut:

Mr. Gouger has posted with my prior knowledge and consent on this topic. Although his posting may be to the point and blunt, you should also understand the reason. Some members of this board seem to think that the only purpose of this board is to post a "Bitch & Complaint". I've gone back in the evenings and looked at some members posting, and discovered that in 30 to 40 postings, it was for the sole purpose to criticize a supplier or manufacturer. Customers who have questions or complaints would find that by calling or emailing us, instead of using the FAL Board as a “Bitch Board” would have better customer service in the long run.

To All:

I greatly enjoy this industry of manufacturing firearms. I’ve had the opportunity and honor of meeting some very fine people in the firearms industry. I fully intend on continuing to provide our customers the finest designed products at a reasonable price, now and in the future. I hope that such a fine forum as the FalFiles is, that some of it’s members don’t succeed in eliminating some very potentially exciting products from being developed and coming to market for the FAL consumer. The FAL market is currently a small part of our manufacturing, but with continued support, constructive advice, and patience, we intend on increasing our ability to supply you with improved products at a reduced cost than you are currently paying now.

Respectfully,

Dwight E. Williams
http://www.williamsarms.com

[sportsnut]

Dwight, thanks for the reply. I respect you, and the way that you handle things. It is amazing how much somthing like just addressing the person that you are talking too with thier proper name, instead of Board Troll or some other smart ass remark will get you. George should take a lesson from you!
Have a great day... :)

[Fallschirmjäger]

Originally posted by Dwight@www.williamsarms.com:
<STRONG>I hope that such a fine forum as the FalFiles is, that some of it’s members don’t succeed in eliminating some very potentially exciting products from being developed and coming to market for the FAL consumer.

Dwight E. Williams
</STRONG>

Dwight, I doubt that any members here are trying to eliminate any potentially exciting products you may have to offer. I do think that some of us wonder about the products and support after the back and forth that's been going on. Personally, all of this motivated me to simply buy the ARMS #3 mount. I'm sure someone will say "It's your choice", and that's exactly right, and how it should be.

I wish you luck in your development and refinement of products for the FAL.

[Nik]

Originally posted by Dwight@www.williamsarms.com:
I hope that such a fine forum as the FalFiles is, that some of it’s members don’t succeed in eliminating some very potentially exciting products from being developed and coming to market for the FAL consumer. The FAL market is currently a small part of our manufacturing, but with continued support, constructive advice, and patience, we intend on increasing our ability to supply you with improved products at a reduced cost than you are currently paying now.

Respectfully,

Dwight E. Williams
]

Anyone else feel like a charity case? Thank you. Thank you Mr. Williams. This would indeed be a miserable FAL Christmas without your kindness and generosity. :rolleyes:

[ December 06, 2001: Message edited by: Nik ]

[lastdefender]

Does anyone know if the Williams scope mount will be compatible with an Aimpoint Comp ML Red Dot sight?

Thank you in advace,

Gary

[Fallschirmjäger]

If you're using the railgrabber, hell yea. Mine has plenty of room for a wider rail when I mount it on my AR-15 flat-top. I doubt the rail width would be an issue at all...

[DABTL]

I do not buy Williams products.

Any question or criticism brings Gouger out on the attack and this, after a while, is followed by Williams soothing words.

They are running a scam. Wake up.

[Lance]

Dwight,

The response is appreciated. It's a little late but appreciated nonetheless. The absence of personal insults was refreshing. Thank you.

Lance

[overdriv]

I've been setting back reading all the happenings here and watching WAC handle complaints. There appears to be a pattern. As long as you are satisfied with their products and their customer service, they're real nice folks. At least that is the way it appears. But if you cross them and post a less than glowing review of their product, they and their groupies will hammer you hard. You either play it their way or you end up being made out to be the bad guy. Very hateful people, unlike any business I've ever dealt with.


It's no secret than I am no fan of D. Williams and I'm sure he not of me. Mr. Williams is a slick act that bears watching. And George, well I think everyone can figure him out for what he is.

I did finally get my refund on the WAC receiver. It took me 4 weeks to get it, but I got it.

Cheers.

[Mad Dog 7.62]

Boy, I don't want to get in the middle of this...but, a good question was raised and never answered as to the difference between Weaver and Picatiny.....
I have some civilian rings that will fit either Weaver or Picatiny bases, but I have some mil-spec stuff that will only fit the Picatiny, so I too am curious exactly where (and why?) the difference? My Picatiny rail on my M-4 measures .832 wide, a Weaver base I just mic'ed at .828. The Picatiny looks to be thicker at the shoulder, but I don't wanna take it off to measure...makes ya wonder why so close, but not quite the same. Maybe a NATO thing??
Anybody??? :confused:

[Blag]

Originally posted by Mad Dog 7.62: ... the difference between Weaver and Picatiny...

All I've found on the web so far is a couple comments to the effect that, Picatinny is a Weaver with a cross-slot spec. In other words, take a Weaver rail, add a cross-slot specification, and it gives a Picatinny. So they said. But there weren't any sources given, and I don't know if that's technically correct.

I've got no final answer, only another bump for the question.

[PowerFal]

Hardwire; read first and flip your farter after.
Dwight said
We have since modified our scope mount to accommodate imported scope mounts. Our rail will still be slightly oversize to better fit the majority of scope rings, but will also accommodate the imported rings and scopes as well.

That is not "in Spec" but as seen by him and possibly others, an improvement of "Spec" Many of these posts wind up being about what was said and what wasn't. I would just like to see people discuss what was THE REAL ISSUE.
The debate between George and Lance is unfortunate, but personalities are what they are. We should instead focus on the issue of getting a product improved to what we like and need.
Think about it folks, how often does a manufacturer offer to take suggestions on the products that they wish to sell you? Not that often. Most would tell you they are right and you can take it or leave it.

I do not believe that all things are wonderful at the Williams plant. There are issues that need to be addressed in all newly developed product lines. This company is willing to work those issues out and work with you, take your advise and make things right.
Lets get a grip on the he-said she-said stuff and get these things working right. Given the chance, I believe that Dwight will get us some great products at some great prices.
Just my 2 cents
Ross

[jdarby]

You need to look again spec is for .835 + or - .005 .

Actually the spec from ironman's prints is .835 -.005 (no +), so by spec. .835 is max.

[Sailor553]

Dwight/George,

Back to one of Lance's concerns...the fit of the scope mount to the receiver. Both of my mounts have the same gap (left forward "radius" side) when attached to my Williams receiver. As I do not have my Imbel/Springfield nearby, I can't check the fit. However, Lance did disclose that his mount has the same gap on a non-Williams receiver.

Also, in a previous thread several FAL members requested that QD PRO lettering be made smaller.

Insight please?

[alfajim]

Originally posted by jdarby:
<STRONG>

Actually the spec from ironman's prints is .835 -.005 (no +), so by spec. .835 is max.</STRONG>
Silly me you are correct should have looked closer

[gw11]

DWIGHT or GEORGE
I seem to have gotten confused by these posts.
I was intending to order two of your
mounts, but now I am concerned that I may not get a Correct Tight Fit on the Two Very Expensive Scopes I also intend to purchase.
Can you please tell me what type rings I need to purchase in order to have this correct fit?? At first I thought it was Weaver, but now it seems it is something else.
I do not feel it would be wise of me to place a scope on a mount that {MAY} start to loosen up.
Please help me if you can!
gw11

[ December 08, 2001: Message edited by: gw11 ]

[Tripleshot]

Hey guys I'm new here and don't know anybody. But after I read the fiasco on the other topic that involved GG. All I can say is I'm getting really bad vibes about George and his always having to get in the last word. He might be doing more harm to his cause than good. Just an outside observation. He is not making me want to do business with him or his company. :eek:

[gw11]

I really hate sounding negative, but Lance gets an .849 dim. and Ted gets an .854 and .849.dim.[ one of Teds may be a Typo ]
The 1913 spec dated 1999 say's .835-.005 plus nothing.
George say's .849 is in spec with 1913.
George's attitude as far as I can see is If you don't like it don't buy it!
Dwight say's that he purposely made the rail wider than the 1913 spec., because {he} hates a lose fitting mount.
This is a bit confusing!
Aren't lose fitting parts, lose because they may be undersized? Or the mating part is possibly Oversized??
Sometimes I know I am not so smart, but usually I see a Light at the end of the tunnel!
To me it was {{ BILLS }} response.
His seems to be the most accurate, and Honest.
I don't particularly like Bill, but this is one of thoughs times were I may be wrong!
I do not think being in Lance's shoes is a very comfortable place to be.
I do not think I need to feel what he is being put through.
Frankly! I would respond in a more hash manner than he did, so I believe I will heed Bills advice!!
Thankyou to all!!
gw11

[EMDII]

I had the FALO-C out in LA (Lower Alabama) yesterday w/ Hambone and BBBill.

Some additional comments:

- There is a uniform 0.5mm gap around the LH front radius (identified above). Since I have a Hesse, I presume it's a mix-and-match and/or Hesse problem. I reason this because the gap is non-existent on my Entreprise Type 1. Perhaps the T-48 drawings that WAC uses are slighly different. This is a cosmetic, not a functional issue.

- Fired another 60 rounds, w/o any protective tape on the e-port. Got plenty of kisses, but they all rubbed nearly off by hand. Will go home a clean this particular area. Finish is unmarred, I.E.: the finish is undamaged, just kissed. So, users can be assured that no damage occurs to the finish when using the bocycover.

- RTZ: actually REMOVED the BSA from the QD Pro, and reinstalled it aft right in front of the backsight. RTZ remains: I could hit the target (a 12" paper at 100m) OFFHAND or kneeling. Did not attenmpt any bench shooting, as I'm satisfied as to the uniformity of the rails.

- Picatinny specs: mine is 0.849" across the lug. Max is 0.835". I've tried every scope ring/base I can find, including a Russian HUD, Leupold, Millett, el-cheapos, an MDL-2, and the handle from my Colt M-4. ALL fit. I think this is a non-issue for 99.9% of us. If you have USGI Picatinny components, they'll fit.

I'll let the LA guys comment on fit/finish/utility of the QD Pro, if they wish.

[sportsnut]

Originally posted by Fallschirmjäger:
<STRONG>George,

My advice is to do a search for some of the Tapco customer service responses on the assorted forums, then read and learn. While you may have a dedicated following of customers, if your responses here are indicative of your C/S skills, you may run a risk of not expanding that base of dedicated customers. I am in the market for a scope mount, as I'm sure others are, and personally this thread does not instill confidence in my buying decision. Afterall, honey catches more flies than shit... ;) I'm more interested in the resolution of the scope mount and Picatinny width situation before I order the mount, as I have an Armalite mount I was planning on using and would like to see it fit.

As to the Pickett's reference... :(</STRONG>

VERY WELL SAID..... :D :D :D

[EMDII]

Picatinny specs (http://www.biggerhammer.net/picatinny/)

[ December 09, 2001: Message edited by: EMDII ]

[lastdefender]

I just installed mine and it fits great. I have a parts gun; DSA lower and a STG 58 parts kit bought fron A&D Global. It was a little tight at first, but no wiggle and no wobble.

Regards,
Gary :)

[Lance]

To put a close to this chapter......

The QD-Pro was returned to WAC for a full refund and I recently purchased an ARMS mount from someone on this board (Thanks Dave!) The ARMS mount is a beautiful thing. The fit is excellent and the contour and finish matches the rest of the rifle perfectly. Best of all, My russian scope fits on it!

Over the last couple of weeks, I've had occasion to examine and measure many different Weaver and Picatinny rails. I have not yet found one that measures over the .835" specification. In fact, many were well under. The smallest measured .805". The ARMS measured .820". I got some strange looks at the gun shop and gun show when taking a micrometer out of my pocket to measure a rail but I managed to compile a small list of over 30 measurements.

I also called Weaver (Outers) and managed to talk to an engineer there who kindly pulled a print for a mounting rail. Their rail width specification is .838" (+0/-.005). The engineer was not readily aware of the difference between a "Weaver" spec. rail and a Picatinny spec. rail other than the recoil slots in the top.

It's not my intention to stir up any more trouble for WAC with this post and I hope they take this information as constructive. As I said before, I suspect most rings would fit the WAC QD-Pro rail as most appear to be split to accomodate even a grossly oversized rail. But then again, some may not (Taiga 2U). I really don't agree with the idea of purposefully oversize rail to accomodate a good fit of "quality" rings. It is my opinion that this defeats the purpose of having a spec. and that a "quality" set of rings would be made to fit a spec. mount.

Lance

[red rider]

Darn, after reading this post and begging the wife to let me open my Christmas present early, I find my mount also measures .848 all the way, front to back.

Nice looking mount, I'll check in the morning if I have any problems getting rings to fit it.

Thank you Lance for bringing this to our attention. I know it can be a PIA, to bring up a problem with something, against someone in the FAL business on this board . :mad:

Peace be with you !

Brian C.

[DK]

Well, I'll throw in my .02 on the topic at hand. I too purchased a WAC QD Pro mount. I was impressed with the machining and the anodizing. Very nice finish. I like that I can look over the mount (w/o scope attached) and use my iron sights. My mount fits very well on my SAR48 (Imbel). No movement forward or aft, tight fit but went on with hand pressure alone. I attached every scope/red dot site I own without any problems.
I have had numerous FAL scope mounts over the years, and I rate the A.R.M.S. mount #1. The WAC mount ranks #2. The edge goes to the A.R.M.S. unit (IMHO) due to the steel rails.
I don't particularly care for the DSA unit as it seems blocky and marred my receiver finish. I'll place it #3, with a little used B-Square mount placing #4. I've never used the Leapers mount, and there have been others I've tried over the years and discarded. Can't remember all of those. For the $$ I'm well pleased with my WAC QD Pro mount.

DK

[GunHo109]

I really liked the look of the QD-PRO. But the bottom line is: "You can make the best product in the market, and if your customer service SUX, your sales will suffer!" I got 2 mounts from TAPCO. They may be cheap, but if something goes wrong, Cynthia will make it all better! :D TAPCO has the BEST custormer service I have seen in ANY bussiness I've dealt with! ;) ;)

[screech-fnfal]

I really liked the look of the QD-PRO. But the bottom line is: "You can make the best product in the market, and if your customer service SUX, your sales will suffer!"

WAC, YEP, check them out! GOOD LUCK!

[Lance]

Epilogue:

After waiting for what I consider an excessive amount of time for WAC to issue my refund (as promised) and several email exchanges with Dwight who seemed to routinely forward my emails to "sales" with a copy back to me, I gave up and asked the bank for a chargeback credit. The credit showed up on my statement within a few days and I guess I can consider the WAC scope mount fiasco closed. The whole ordeal left me with a nasty aftertaste but it will go away I'm sure. I consider myself lucky that the bank issed the chargeback. My credit card was charged in October, long before I received the mount. There is a time limit for chargebacks so don't wait too long to ask for one if in a similar situation. Good luck to anyone else waiting for a refund from WAC...

I am enjoying the new ARMS mount and find myself wondering why I bothered with the WAC mount in the first place... :)

Lance

[screech-fnfal]

Lance, I am glad you got your money back, you are one of the lucky few! I am in the dispute process (since November) with MasterCard to get $388 refunded. :mad:

[Derby FALs]

^

[L1A1 shooter 1]

seems to be a few replys missing,.for some reason..wonder why ???/