![how to connect keymod accessories how to connect keymod accessories](https://soldiersystems.net/wp-content/uploads/2019/08/image-115.jpg)
Just the basic lo-pro, ladder rail covers keeps you far enough off toasty aluminum in rapid fire. Most are bulky as sin but I’ve settled on LaRue, they’re the lowest profile I’ve found. So having been in the mix with a triangle handguard M16A1 in the beginning through to the laser and light show on the M4s this is really interesting to see the evolution in thinking and employment.įor me and my purposes though a standard railed arrangement works just fine. Later on before we went with the RAS I got to do a little test and review of some of the other systems, and one of them, the early SIR handguards from ARMS as I recall, wasn’t thought of too highly simply for its detachable rails among other things. I got a KAC RIS darn near 20 years ago and never had an issue with it. That’s actually fascinating in an odd kind of way. You can follow any responses to this entry through the RSS 2.0 feed.īoth comments and pings are currently closed.ĥ0 Responses to “Details On The USSOCOM Sponsored KeyMod vs M-LOK Test Conducted at NSWC-Crane”įirst off, how cool is it that they made a machine that simulates firing a rifle like that, and, programmed it to simulate a mag dump, reload and mag dump. On Friday, May 5th, 2017 at 15:00 and is filed under Industry, Weapon Accessories. However, it will also be available on the NDIA proceedings section of the DTIC website in the next few weeks. The takeaway here is to pay attention while attaching accessories to the rail and to check zero after mounting.įor those interested, we have provided the entire briefing here. KeyMod did a much better job of self-aligning the accessory during mounting while M-LOK required more attention. One additional point to consider Crane noted that it was extremely important to properly mount accessories to the rail. Additionally, while both systems noted cracking under impact, some KeyMod rail samples lost integrity with fracturing beteeen slots. On the other hand, testing shows that KeyMod suffered significant POA shifts during both repeated mounting and remounting as well as after impacts. In addition to repeatedly maintaining point of aim for mounted accessories during normal mounting and remounting, it also better maintained rail intagrity in spite of impacts. This test concludes that M-LOK is a more robust and more stable system. However, for SOCOM, the conclusions were clear enough to choose a path forward. Granted, the sample size of this testing is limited. In failure load testing which attempts to pull accessories from the rail from 90 Deg off-axis, Crane noted an increase of 215% in average sustained load of M-LOK over KeyMod. The imagery from the impact tests are shocking until you consider how the rails were tested. With variations measured in MOA, KeyMod exhibited a spread from 0.2 to 14.6 while M-LOK varied from 0.0 To 6.6 POA shift.įor the Endurance and Rough Handling tests, both KeyMod and M-LOK passed testing. The most remarkable differences between the two types of attachments was observed during repeatability testing. Modular rail systems were evaluated for repeatability, endurance, rough handling, drop testing, and static failure load. This briefing explains why they made that decision.Ĭrane procured Commercial-Off-The-Shelf rail systems which were offered in both KeyMod and M-LOK variants so as to offer direct comparisons. We recently published a FOIA released summary of that test which indicates that SOCOM selected M-LOK for use on the Suppressed Upper Reciever Group and Advanced Sniper Rifle programs. During this week’s NDIA Armaments Conference, Caleb McGee from Naval Surface Warfare Center – Crane conducted a briefing which detailed the test protocols used to evaluate the KeyMod and M-LOK weapon accessory attachment systems on behalf of the United States Special Operations Command.