The FAL Files  

Go Back   The FAL Files > Weapon Specific Forums > The Daewoo Files

Notices

Reply
 
Thread Tools Display Modes
Old August 08, 2012, 15:05   #1
lawdog
Registered
 
FALaholic #: 7773
Join Date: Oct 2002
Location: Pennsylvania
Posts: 1,157
Dreaming about American made Daewoo rifles

Every now and again I wonder why an American made Daewoo rifle couldn't be pulled off.

Why not? Some trigger parts can come from AR supplies. Would it really be that much of an issue for a barrel maker to mod some AR barrels to get the job done.

The receivers are aluminum and wouldn't be overly daunting for CNC work. In fact, it might lend itself to modding the upper just enough to permit co-witnessing.

With as popular as the Daewoo seems to be, does anyone think that it could be done and sold at a price point below the plastic fantastic 5.56 rifles (ACR, SCAR) or other piston ARs?

I know I'd be in for a couple.

Yeah, I'm just dreaming, but it's a good dream.
lawdog is offline   Reply With Quote
Old August 08, 2012, 15:37   #2
N4KVE
Registered
 
FALaholic #: 19120
Join Date: Jan 2006
Location: PALM BEACH FLORIDA
Posts: 551
The start up costs would be astounding. Look at all the other 223 rifles available now. AR's by the boatload, AR 180, Sig 556/551, & soon the Beretta ARX160. Now these last 2 guns are already being made in Europe, so they just have to send the machinery here & make the guns. In the case of the Daewoo, is it possible for someone to buy the machinery in S. Korea, & send it here to make the guns like JLD did when he purchased the Portugese HK FMP factory machinery. To start from scratch would take tons of cash, & they'd have to sell a bunch before they'd break even. I already have an unfired K-2, & a DR 200, so I'm good. They are great guns. GARY N4KVE
N4KVE is online now   Reply With Quote
Old August 09, 2012, 10:27   #3
Dasho101
Registered
 
FALaholic #: 50568
Join Date: Nov 2009
Location: Richmond, va
Posts: 143
now it would be nice to get an American made complete upper receivers, with bolts and all that fun jazz.
Dasho101 is online now   Reply With Quote
Old August 09, 2012, 21:52   #4
s0b3
Registered
 
FALaholic #: 22418
Join Date: Nov 2006
Posts: 642
the XCR is pretty close a woo so you'd have an idea of what pricepoint they would need to be at.

i think a better option would be to make an upper that would mount to an ar15 lower with the daewoo gas system (piston, bolt, carrier, etc...). it would need to use the ejector in the bolt vs a fixed one like the daewoo but this is probably the most financially feasible approach.
s0b3 is online now   Reply With Quote
Old August 09, 2012, 22:26   #5
Dasho101
Registered
 
FALaholic #: 50568
Join Date: Nov 2009
Location: Richmond, va
Posts: 143
that would be nice to... but it would have to be set up to take standard ar bbls... so proly custom leinght piston and piston tube
Dasho101 is online now   Reply With Quote
Old August 10, 2012, 00:21   #6
s0b3
Registered
 
FALaholic #: 22418
Join Date: Nov 2006
Posts: 642
the rra lar pds is pretty close to a daewoo. still more than a preban daewoo though.
s0b3 is online now   Reply With Quote
Old August 12, 2012, 09:25   #7
dawg180
Registered
 
FALaholic #: 13008
Join Date: Jan 2004
Posts: 165
Quote:
Originally Posted by s0b3 View Post
the XCR is pretty close a woo so you'd have an idea of what pricepoint they would need to be at.

i think a better option would be to make an upper that would mount to an ar15 lower with the daewoo gas system (piston, bolt, carrier, etc...). it would need to use the ejector in the bolt vs a fixed one like the daewoo but this is probably the most financially feasible approach.
The XCR truly is a "modernized" or "Americanized" Daewoo, save for using an AK style bolt instead of an AR style bolt. Having handled and shot both, I was shocked how similar they were.

Unofortunately for us, and despite my love of them, I do not think the Daewoo does anything special enough that would attract a large audience to it.
dawg180 is offline   Reply With Quote
Old August 12, 2012, 09:30   #8
dawg180
Registered
 
FALaholic #: 13008
Join Date: Jan 2004
Posts: 165
Quote:
Originally Posted by s0b3 View Post
the XCR is pretty close a woo so you'd have an idea of what pricepoint they would need to be at.

i think a better option would be to make an upper that would mount to an ar15 lower with the daewoo gas system (piston, bolt, carrier, etc...). it would need to use the ejector in the bolt vs a fixed one like the daewoo but this is probably the most financially feasible approach.
Won't work. Daewoo needs a longer receiver for the proper bolt stroke with the spring in the upper. RRA ran into this problem when designing their PDS pistol and rifle, when using a threaded plug in the back of the lower receiver the threads were actually deforming due to too short of a proper recoil stroke.

If you look at the AR-15 compared to AK's, Daewoos, XCR, FNC, etc, you will see the receiver of the AR-15 is about 1.5" shorter than these other rifles. It is also the reason the AR-15 has the spring riding in a buffer tube. Simple physics based on the cartridge. It looks like the design team decided good ergonomics and the ability to place the mag button where you could reach it were the first priority on the design, thus necessitating a shorter receiver.
dawg180 is offline   Reply With Quote
Old August 13, 2012, 07:10   #9
PARA FN FAL
Registered
 
FALaholic #: 17487
Join Date: May 2005
Location: las vegas
Posts: 1,120
The start up cost issue is BS. If Century Arms can make a H&K 93,CZ58 or a Galil?Golani for 500 bucks. Then why not a Daewoo? Daewoo still builds these for their armed forces so why not just send over the parts that we can't make here? We could make or use AR15 internals, US barrels, US lower receivers and an ACE or Stormworks stock. The ROK would have to supply the Bolt group, Gas piston and upper receiver.
PARA FN FAL is offline   Reply With Quote
Old August 13, 2012, 09:45   #10
dawg180
Registered
 
FALaholic #: 13008
Join Date: Jan 2004
Posts: 165
Quote:
Originally Posted by PARA FN FAL View Post
The start up cost issue is BS. If Century Arms can make a H&K 93,CZ58 or a Galil?Golani for 500 bucks. Then why not a Daewoo? Daewoo still builds these for their armed forces so why not just send over the parts that we can't make here? We could make or use AR15 internals, US barrels, US lower receivers and an ACE or Stormworks stock. The ROK would have to supply the Bolt group, Gas piston and upper receiver.
1. South Korea by their own laws can no longer export military armaments or parts. People have already tried. You aren't going to see original Daewoo parts over here in the U.S. beyond what is already here.

2. Century weapons are made off demilled parts kits, they are not at all representative of the true costs of manufacturing a rifle from scratch. Century is not having to make furntiure, gas blocks, or all those little parts from scratch. Just an AK safety selector costs about $50 when U.S. made, the $10 you pay for a surplus one does not reflect the "true" manufacturing cost of a new part.

3. You would need to make new forging dies for the upper and lower receiver, plus castings for the front sight base, and molds for the forend, stock, and grip. Dies are $3K-$6K each, casting another $1-$2K for the die give or take, molds for the furniture (not just urethane one offs a few at a time, but true fiber reinforced nylon or thermoset polymers) are going to run you $30-$40K, and you also need to do metal heat shields and a stamping die for this (both left and right) will run you $5K give or take.

So to do it "properly" and not just half ass it you are talking $40-$55K before you ever have purchased raw materials, barrels, or pay labor to assemble. You also have to machine the bolt, carrier, the rather pain in the ass gas piston carrier rod (the design pretty much sucks as far as machining and manufacturing is concerned, and it is probably easiest to make an extrusion to machine away at if you are going to make a lot of them, so shell out another $3K-$5 for that).

You can certainly get Green Mountain or whomever to make barrel blanks, and some AR-15 trigger parts would work in the fire control group, but even things like the rear sight (which is clever but extremely complex with a lot of parts) are going to cost a lot to make.

I am not saying it can't be done, but the startup costs to do it as a production rifle in the 1000+ units really are not B.S.
dawg180 is offline   Reply With Quote
Old August 13, 2012, 14:31   #11
mountainman
Registered
 
mountainman's Avatar
 
FALaholic #: 14702
Join Date: Jun 2004
Location: Deltona FL
Posts: 3,448
Not to mention dancing through ITAR hoops here in the US. Would there be enough demand out there to pay for a couple of 6 year old or younger FADALs and Haas VMC's. forget about dies, lost wax or billet machined parts will do it.
mountainman is online now   Reply With Quote
Old October 25, 2012, 19:50   #12
crosse
Registered
 
FALaholic #: 29510
Join Date: May 2007
Posts: 9
Quote:
Originally Posted by dawg180 View Post
1. South Korea by their own laws can no longer export military armaments or parts. People have already tried. You aren't going to see original Daewoo parts over here in the U.S. beyond what is already here.

2. Century weapons are made off demilled parts kits, they are not at all representative of the true costs of manufacturing a rifle from scratch. Century is not having to make furntiure, gas blocks, or all those little parts from scratch. Just an AK safety selector costs about $50 when U.S. made, the $10 you pay for a surplus one does not reflect the "true" manufacturing cost of a new part.

3. You would need to make new forging dies for the upper and lower receiver, plus castings for the front sight base, and molds for the forend, stock, and grip. Dies are $3K-$6K each, casting another $1-$2K for the die give or take, molds for the furniture (not just urethane one offs a few at a time, but true fiber reinforced nylon or thermoset polymers) are going to run you $30-$40K, and you also need to do metal heat shields and a stamping die for this (both left and right) will run you $5K give or take.

So to do it "properly" and not just half ass it you are talking $40-$55K before you ever have purchased raw materials, barrels, or pay labor to assemble. You also have to machine the bolt, carrier, the rather pain in the ass gas piston carrier rod (the design pretty much sucks as far as machining and manufacturing is concerned, and it is probably easiest to make an extrusion to machine away at if you are going to make a lot of them, so shell out another $3K-$5 for that).

You can certainly get Green Mountain or whomever to make barrel blanks, and some AR-15 trigger parts would work in the fire control group, but even things like the rear sight (which is clever but extremely complex with a lot of parts) are going to cost a lot to make.

I am not saying it can't be done, but the startup costs to do it as a production rifle in the 1000+ units really are not B.S.

+1
Definitely difficult. I too as well heard about the restrictive korean legislation to keep Daewoo military weapons within their borders. Sucks as a Korean American to not have access to weapons my friend rave about when they get back from service in Korea.
crosse is offline   Reply With Quote
Old October 27, 2012, 06:11   #13
cz75fan
Registered
 
cz75fan's Avatar
 
FALaholic #: 985
Join Date: Sep 2000
Location: Springfield, Mo USA
Posts: 137
Check this out!!!! Not a Woo, but probably as close as we'll ever get these days. Watch the video where the upper is taken apart. Very similar to the K2/DR200 gas system & bolt carrier.

http://www.guns.com/new-faxon-firear...deo-11290.html
cz75fan is offline   Reply With Quote
Old November 03, 2012, 17:24   #14
dwkfym
Registered
 
FALaholic #: 67326
Join Date: Sep 2012
Location: Orlando
Posts: 35
I heard rumors that people are in talks (all legit, of coruse) to get some of these rifles available for sale again in the U.S.
dwkfym is offline   Reply With Quote
Old November 04, 2012, 01:50   #15
vandal968
Registered
 
FALaholic #: 23530
Join Date: Dec 2006
Location: AZ
Posts: 65
You guys are not the only ones dreaming of a US-made woo.



Woo!
v

Last edited by vandal968; November 04, 2012 at 13:43. Reason: Better pic
vandal968 is offline   Reply With Quote
Old November 06, 2012, 21:25   #16
Murphyd
Registered
 
FALaholic #: 1045
Join Date: Sep 2000
Location: Texas
Posts: 24
THAT is way cool
Murphyd is offline   Reply With Quote
Old November 07, 2012, 01:31   #17
vandal968
Registered
 
FALaholic #: 23530
Join Date: Dec 2006
Location: AZ
Posts: 65
Thanks

Thanks. Here's a pic that includes the stock adapter block. These are tricky parts, I don't know if I can machine all of them or not.


cheers,
v
vandal968 is offline   Reply With Quote
Old November 07, 2012, 10:03   #18
dwkfym
Registered
 
FALaholic #: 67326
Join Date: Sep 2012
Location: Orlando
Posts: 35
You'll want to be very careful reverse engineering any product that was designed by someone else, even if any applicable patents have expired.
How did you take the measurements? Tolerances are surprisingly narrow even on lower receivers.
dwkfym is offline   Reply With Quote
Old November 07, 2012, 15:45   #19
vandal968
Registered
 
FALaholic #: 23530
Join Date: Dec 2006
Location: AZ
Posts: 65
I'm a mechanical engineer and I've been reverse-engineering parts for over 20yrs, so I'm pretty confident. Most of the measurements have been taken using a surface gage, angle-blocks, gauge pins, radius gages, etc. Daewoo borrowed very heavily from the AR-15, so many of the dimensions just need to be confirmed against an AR blueprint which includes tolerances. Other dimensions are derived from the AR, but shifted by a fixed amount. These values were measured from multiple datums and cross-referenced against each other to check the math. I've been doing this type of thing for a long time and I am very confident in the quality of this model. The machining, however, is tricky. For the moment, I'm just concerned with making a perfect model, once it's done I'll see if it will be practical to machine one or not.

cheers,
v
vandal968 is offline   Reply With Quote
Old November 07, 2012, 20:39   #20
frigginchi
Registered
 
FALaholic #: 67395
Join Date: Oct 2012
Location: Saratoga/usa
Posts: 3
Looks really, really nice. Maybe leaving out the hinge will make things simpler machining wise. You can always add the hinge as an accessory later.

Quote:
Originally Posted by vandal968 View Post
Thanks. Here's a pic that includes the stock adapter block. These are tricky parts, I don't know if I can machine all of them or not.


cheers,
v
frigginchi is offline   Reply With Quote
Old November 07, 2012, 21:18   #21
s0b3
Registered
 
FALaholic #: 22418
Join Date: Nov 2006
Posts: 642
my opinion would be to change the specs a little to ar15 dimensions so you can utilize easy to find replacement parts.

things like the mag catch. the receiver also needs to be made a little narrower so ar15 trigger/hammer pins can be used and an ar15 safety would work.

unless there is a reason to have the magwell so short, i'd lengthen it so a standard ar15 trigger guard could be used as well.

what are the plans for an upper?
s0b3 is online now   Reply With Quote
Old November 07, 2012, 21:36   #22
frigginchi
Registered
 
FALaholic #: 67395
Join Date: Oct 2012
Location: Saratoga/usa
Posts: 3
I request a MP5 style collapsing stock option please.

frigginchi is offline   Reply With Quote
Old November 07, 2012, 21:43   #23
dwkfym
Registered
 
FALaholic #: 67326
Join Date: Sep 2012
Location: Orlando
Posts: 35
Quote:
Originally Posted by vandal968 View Post
I'm a mechanical engineer and I've been reverse-engineering parts for over 20yrs, so I'm pretty confident. Most of the measurements have been taken using a surface gage, angle-blocks, gauge pins, radius gages, etc. Daewoo borrowed very heavily from the AR-15, so many of the dimensions just need to be confirmed against an AR blueprint which includes tolerances. Other dimensions are derived from the AR, but shifted by a fixed amount. These values were measured from multiple datums and cross-referenced against each other to check the math. I've been doing this type of thing for a long time and I am very confident in the quality of this model. The machining, however, is tricky. For the moment, I'm just concerned with making a perfect model, once it's done I'll see if it will be practical to machine one or not.

cheers,
v
Very cool, and an even cooler project. Good suggestions here too. I was referring to legal problems. Firearms industry is full of sometimes frivolous and other times not so frivolous IP lawsuits. Its also full of a lot of BS patents. Its one of the ways the big companies keep little guys out.

I want to send you a PM; I'm interested in your project. I am a n00b to this forum and not really sure how !
dwkfym is offline   Reply With Quote
Old November 08, 2012, 01:43   #24
vandal968
Registered
 
FALaholic #: 23530
Join Date: Dec 2006
Location: AZ
Posts: 65
Quote:
Originally Posted by s0b3 View Post
my opinion would be to change the specs a little to ar15 dimensions so you can utilize easy to find replacement parts.

things like the mag catch. the receiver also needs to be made a little narrower so ar15 trigger/hammer pins can be used and an ar15 safety would work.

unless there is a reason to have the magwell so short, i'd lengthen it so a standard ar15 trigger guard could be used as well.

what are the plans for an upper?
I might change some areas to accommodate more common AR parts, specifically I was thinking about the mag release. The AR trigger pins work fine even though they are a little short and look funny. The magwell seems to be short mostly to reduce the amount of wasted material when the part is machined, I intend to keep the short magwell, but may incorporate the trigger guard into the lower itself as many others have done on cnc'd AR10/15 lowers. This first version of the solid model is intended to be as close to original as I can manage, once complete, I'll tweak it to make it easier to machine.

I'm considering making an updated upper incorporating modern conveniences like a built-in rail, but that is a MUCH lower priority than completing the lower. A lower would allow DR200's to be converted into K2's, it would also allow K2's to be legally brought into certain kommunist states that ban the K2-type rifles by name. For now, this is just something that I want and can't buy so I'm seeing if I can make it myself.

cheers,
v
vandal968 is offline   Reply With Quote
Old November 08, 2012, 15:08   #25
Sicarius
Registered
 
FALaholic #: 28542
Join Date: Apr 2007
Posts: 67
Thank you for thinking of us in CA. You can also make it an 80% which may make it easier for you and easier for us too.
Kevin
Sicarius is offline   Reply With Quote
Old November 09, 2012, 00:10   #26
bykerhd
Dinosaur
Bronze Contributor
 
FALaholic #: 2798
Join Date: Mar 2001
Location: Burlington Vermont area
Posts: 13,211
Very cool.
As the Daewoo was basically an upgraded AR, with some AK flavor thrown in, it would seem logical to incorporate some of the ARs generational advancements in to a "new" American version.

A folding AR style multiple position stock would be a first thing as the standard Daewoo K2 stock is too short and flimsy and has funky angles for some of us.

Ambidextrous AR type selector/safety would be another.

Daewoos use longer hammer/trigger pins than ARs.
This might be a plus but means that spares would need to be available.

It would be nice to be able to use any of the multitude of AR pistol grips that are available without needing a special adapter.
Same with the AR trigger guards.

If you get to uppers at some point ?
A picatinny rail running the length of the upper would be nice.

The ability to run unmodified AR barrels would also be a huge plus.

As would the ability to run AR forends.

Maybe even a monolithic upper with quick change caliber capability ?

Then all I would need is lots and lots of money to buy it.
bykerhd is offline   Reply With Quote
Old November 09, 2012, 00:27   #27
dwkfym
Registered
 
FALaholic #: 67326
Join Date: Sep 2012
Location: Orlando
Posts: 35
The stock is funky? I found it to be perfect! Very good for a proper cheek weld. Especially firing offhand. I found the funky fallic shape of the stock to be a major plus compared to AR stocks where you are forced to accept a less than ideal cheek weld. Furthermore, changing the cheek weld height would mess with the geometry of the weapon (more muzzle movement when firing) as well as make the sight axis too low.
dwkfym is offline   Reply With Quote
Old November 09, 2012, 13:06   #28
bykerhd
Dinosaur
Bronze Contributor
 
FALaholic #: 2798
Join Date: Mar 2001
Location: Burlington Vermont area
Posts: 13,211
Funky stock ?

Yup, for me anyway.

AR collapsible stocks, six position ones, seem to work best for me, but not my beard. As in ouch ?
Nothing is QUITE perfect.
bykerhd is offline   Reply With Quote
Old November 09, 2012, 13:16   #29
Sicarius
Registered
 
FALaholic #: 28542
Join Date: Apr 2007
Posts: 67
AR LPK optimized and AR PG compatability would be awesome. Just adding to the wish list. Maybe an ace hinge/stock mount in the rear since they are fairly standardized.
Kevin
Sicarius is offline   Reply With Quote
Old November 10, 2012, 10:23   #30
Dasho101
Registered
 
FALaholic #: 50568
Join Date: Nov 2009
Location: Richmond, va
Posts: 143
why not start smaller... and make some extractors and bolts
Dasho101 is online now   Reply With Quote
Old November 12, 2012, 13:09   #31
vandal968
Registered
 
FALaholic #: 23530
Join Date: Dec 2006
Location: AZ
Posts: 65
Quote:
Originally Posted by Dasho101 View Post
why not start smaller... and make some extractors and bolts
Good question. The Short answer is that I currently have no need for either an extractor or a bolt and if I did, I could purchase either one from daewoorifleparts. More info in post #24.

cheers,
v
vandal968 is offline   Reply With Quote
Old January 09, 2013, 18:39   #32
D.Brown
Registered
 
FALaholic #: 21040
Join Date: Sep 2006
Location: Madison, WI
Posts: 62
Vandal,

I like the thought of the lower incorporating the trigger guard.

I would also be interested in a railed upper. Could the upper be made to use standard ar barrel, extension and bolt?

DB
__________________
Jurisprudence, the daughter of philosophy willing to compromise herself for profit.
D.Brown is offline   Reply With Quote
Old January 10, 2013, 01:20   #33
vandal968
Registered
 
FALaholic #: 23530
Join Date: Dec 2006
Location: AZ
Posts: 65
Quote:
Originally Posted by D.Brown View Post
Vandal,

I like the thought of the lower incorporating the trigger guard.

I would also be interested in a railed upper. Could the upper be made to use standard ar barrel, extension and bolt?

DB
Yes to barrel & extension, but no for the bolt.

v
vandal968 is offline   Reply With Quote
Old January 10, 2013, 15:22   #34
preston1026
Go Seminoles!
Contributor
 
preston1026's Avatar
 
FALaholic #: 38005
Join Date: Sep 2008
Location: Dallas, Tx
Posts: 1,800
Quote:
Originally Posted by frigginchi View Post
Looks really, really nice. Maybe leaving out the hinge will make things simpler machining wise. You can always add the hinge as an accessory later.
How would you source the stock? It would cost a good coin to get the mold for that.
preston1026 is offline   Reply With Quote
Old January 11, 2013, 01:51   #35
vandal968
Registered
 
FALaholic #: 23530
Join Date: Dec 2006
Location: AZ
Posts: 65
Quote:
Originally Posted by preston1026 View Post
How would you source the stock? It would cost a good coin to get the mold for that.
Molding the stock might not be too bad, it's a pretty simple part. I was thinking about machining one from a block of hardwood. Retro

I modeled a few more parts today, I've decided to do the whole thing. Here's some eye candy.

v



Last edited by vandal968; January 16, 2013 at 01:17.
vandal968 is offline   Reply With Quote
Old January 11, 2013, 03:34   #36
D.Brown
Registered
 
FALaholic #: 21040
Join Date: Sep 2006
Location: Madison, WI
Posts: 62
Vandal,

Continued excellent work. Let me encourage you to visit the Valmet dot org site and examine Sako1984 's images.

DB
__________________
Jurisprudence, the daughter of philosophy willing to compromise herself for profit.
D.Brown is offline   Reply With Quote
Old January 11, 2013, 12:08   #37
vandal968
Registered
 
FALaholic #: 23530
Join Date: Dec 2006
Location: AZ
Posts: 65
Quote:
Originally Posted by D.Brown View Post
Vandal,

Continued excellent work. Let me encourage you to visit the Valmet dot org site and examine Sako1984 's images.

DB
Thanks DB, I just found it, here's a link for anyone that's interested:
http://www.valmet.org/forum/viewtopi...298&highlight=

His work is definitely more impressive than mine, really first-rate. I'd love to look over his shoulder for a few hours and see what I could learn.

The one gotcha is that it sounds like he's guessing at some of the dimensions since he doesn't have the actual article to work with. The model that I'm doing, while less impressive visually, is 100% to-scale with an eye toward being able to machine any replacement part that is needed.

Thanks for posting that, awesome.

cheers,
v
vandal968 is offline   Reply With Quote
Old January 16, 2013, 01:03   #38
vandal968
Registered
 
FALaholic #: 23530
Join Date: Dec 2006
Location: AZ
Posts: 65
Here it is with an upper

The upper is MUCH simpler than the lower. I've drawn it both ways, with the original optic mounting posts and with a built-in rail. I like the rail.



Uploaded with ImageShack.us



v
vandal968 is offline   Reply With Quote
Old January 16, 2013, 17:16   #39
D.Brown
Registered
 
FALaholic #: 21040
Join Date: Sep 2006
Location: Madison, WI
Posts: 62
Vandal,

How about one with the rail from one end of the upper to the other with no rear sight base. Nothing to get in the way of the scope. I am sure a riser could be made to bring any of the ar rear sights to the correct height.

If you did not live so far away, I would just bring a valmet over so we could take the measurements for Sako_1984 as well. I don't possess micrometers. I have a friend with a hobbyist shop up north, or maybe time to visit the small business incubator which also has a bridgeport.

DB
__________________
Jurisprudence, the daughter of philosophy willing to compromise herself for profit.
D.Brown is offline   Reply With Quote
Old January 16, 2013, 17:34   #40
vandal968
Registered
 
FALaholic #: 23530
Join Date: Dec 2006
Location: AZ
Posts: 65
Quote:
Originally Posted by D.Brown View Post
Vandal,

How about one with the rail from one end of the upper to the other with no rear sight base.
DB
DB,
I've been thinking the same thing (fully flat-top) but keep talking myself out of it because the height of the sights on the AR and the Woo are different. I've got a post-it note somewhere with the measurements (not in front of me). I was actually thinking about a new gas-block to match the heights so that AR BUIS sights could be used front AND rear, but I think that your idea of a riser is probably better. It certainly simplifies the machining on the upper and shrinks the billet a bit.

Keep the good ideas coming.



cheers,
v

Last edited by vandal968; January 16, 2013 at 18:01. Reason: Added pic
vandal968 is offline   Reply With Quote
Old January 16, 2013, 22:35   #41
vandal968
Registered
 
FALaholic #: 23530
Join Date: Dec 2006
Location: AZ
Posts: 65
Does anyone know of a 3/8" picatinny rail riser? 1/2" seems to be the standard, but won't work with a standard AR BUIS on this flat-top Woo. Alternatively, is there are common BUIS with a different aperature height above the rail than a normal AR style? The 3/8" rail riser is preferred if it exists.

cheers,
v
vandal968 is offline   Reply With Quote
Old January 16, 2013, 22:50   #42
ByrnieMac
Registered
 
ByrnieMac's Avatar
 
FALaholic #: 64363
Join Date: Oct 2011
Location: S. Carolina
Posts: 674
Vandal, those cad designs are awesome! If this gains any traction in the production aspect, let me know!
__________________
"Any society that would give up a little liberty for a little security, deserves neither and will lose both." -Benjamin Franklin
ByrnieMac is offline   Reply With Quote
Old January 27, 2013, 21:52   #43
Blain
Registered
 
FALaholic #: 11131
Join Date: Jul 2003
Location: The Free State
Posts: 448
Exclamation

If you try to make a Daewoo K2 without the AWESOME durable and ergonomic rear battle iron sights, then you FAIL! And FAIL HARD!!

One of the best things about the K2 is that it has the BEST iron sights on any battle rifle. Durable, fast target acquisition, precise, and quick to switch to battle range settings out to 600 meters.
Blain is online now   Reply With Quote
Old January 29, 2013, 13:15   #44
EVC-3
Banned
 
FALaholic #: 58044
Join Date: Sep 2010
Location: Apache Jct. AZ
Posts: 148
They suck. another 12 tiny little friggin' parts which don't do anything a 30 dollar set of Magpul BUISs can't do, cheaper, easier and more versatile.

Lose the sights.
EVC-3 is offline   Reply With Quote
Old January 31, 2013, 01:14   #45
D.Brown
Registered
 
FALaholic #: 21040
Join Date: Sep 2006
Location: Madison, WI
Posts: 62
Dear Blain,

Your young, it shows, and thats fine for now. Your post mentions 600 yards. Trust me, after turning 40, optics will seem like a better and better option.

DB
__________________
Jurisprudence, the daughter of philosophy willing to compromise herself for profit.
D.Brown is offline   Reply With Quote
Old January 31, 2013, 17:27   #46
vandal968
Registered
 
FALaholic #: 23530
Join Date: Dec 2006
Location: AZ
Posts: 65
Here's a possible solution to the rail height not matching the AR rail height.


Sexy, no?

v
vandal968 is offline   Reply With Quote
Old January 31, 2013, 21:32   #47
Blain
Registered
 
FALaholic #: 11131
Join Date: Jul 2003
Location: The Free State
Posts: 448
Exclamation

An abomination! Not even a bayonet lug! Only the young tacticool crowd is so obsessed with optics and all of those stupid rails.

Quote:
Originally Posted by EVC-3 View Post
They suck. another 12 tiny little friggin' parts which don't do anything a 30 dollar set of Magpul BUISs can't do, cheaper, easier and more versatile.

Lose the sights.
Let's see, be more durable, have a better sight picture, have adjustments (fine, and field expedient for extended ranges), and one less part to buy / fiddle around with.

Optics are not good in the cold and snow, and dust. And if they have batteries....forget about it!

A rifleman should be able to engage targets in field positions out to 500 yards.

We don't have anymore riflemen. Just tacticool ninja want to bes.
Blain is online now   Reply With Quote
Old January 31, 2013, 21:50   #48
vandal968
Registered
 
FALaholic #: 23530
Join Date: Dec 2006
Location: AZ
Posts: 65
Quote:
Originally Posted by Blain View Post
An abomination! Not even a bayonet lug!
Actually, I've drawn the front sight post with multiple configurations:

1. Bayo lug
2. Original Sight post & shroud
3. Rail.

The various features can be turned on and off. I didn't stick the rail on the sight post for tacticoolness, I stuck it on there so that standard AR sights could be used if I scratch-build a flat-top upper. The factory sights, while good, increase the complexity and size of the starting billet for the upper by quite a bit.

Here's a pic of the gas block in the DR200 configuration:


cheers,
v
vandal968 is offline   Reply With Quote
Old February 01, 2013, 08:57   #49
boomerdog1
Registered
 
FALaholic #: 65218
Join Date: Jan 2012
Location: Wv
Posts: 22
Flat top, bayo lug. Let the end user decide what type of sights to use.
boomerdog1 is offline   Reply With Quote
Old February 01, 2013, 14:41   #50
EVC-3
Banned
 
FALaholic #: 58044
Join Date: Sep 2010
Location: Apache Jct. AZ
Posts: 148
The realities of manufacturing scores of tiny little parts care not for your "opinion". It's just the facts. Small American manufacturers aren't government contractors. Has nothing to do with "tacticoolness" whatsoever. I'll be sure to tell all our customers who spent time in the Sandbox that their optics were worthless. I'm sure they'll be grateful to be schooled.

Quote:
Originally Posted by Blain View Post
An abomination! Not even a bayonet lug! Only the young tacticool crowd is so obsessed with optics and all of those stupid rails.



Let's see, be more durable, have a better sight picture, have adjustments (fine, and field expedient for extended ranges), and one less part to buy / fiddle around with.

Optics are not good in the cold and snow, and dust. And if they have batteries....forget about it!

A rifleman should be able to engage targets in field positions out to 500 yards.

We don't have anymore riflemen. Just tacticool ninja want to bes.
EVC-3 is offline   Reply With Quote
Reply

Thread Tools
Display Modes

Posting Rules
You may not post new threads
You may not post replies
You may not post attachments
You may not edit your posts

BB code is On
Smilies are On
[IMG] code is On
HTML code is On

Forum Jump


All times are GMT -5. The time now is 23:36.


Powered by vBulletin® Version 3.8.7
Copyright ©2000 - 2014, vBulletin Solutions, Inc.
©1998-2012 The FAL Files