May. 9th, 2017

Тему "Keymod vs M-Lok", кажется, можно считать закрытой:

Drop Test Analysis
• 1 M-LOK™ system: secured and in initial position.
– Handguard B4
• 1 KeyMod™ system: loosely secured in initial position with major handguard damage.
– Handguards C1
• 2 M-LOK™ systems: secured but displaced rearwards in mounting slots.
– Handguards A4 & C4
• 2 KeyMod™ systems: accessory detached.
– Handguards A1 & B1

KeyMod™ Damage:
Complete separation of accessory rail from handguard.
– Fracture between the two KeyMod™ slots utilized.
– Fracture between utilized KeyMod™ slot and an adjacent slot.
– No major damage to KeyMod™ fasteners.
– Front of KeyMod™ slots damaged where fasteners were mounted.
– No removed material captured between accessory rail and mounting nut.

M-LOK™ Damage:
– Accessory rail remained intact and securely attached to the handguard.
– Accessory rail pushed rearwards from initial index location.
– Scraping marks on the handguards from the rearward displacement of accessory rail

• Repeatability
– M-LOK™ achieved a 73% improvement in average POA shift over KeyMod™.
• Drop test
– 100% of M-LOK™ accessories remained attached.
• 1/3 M-LOK™ accessories remained in-place.
• 2/3 M-LOK™ accessories slid rearwards but remained secure.
– 33% of KeyMod™ accessories remained attached.
• 1/3 KeyMod™ accessories remained attached, but severely damaged handguard.
• 2/3 KeyMod™ accessories completely detached.
• Failure Load
Average M-LOK™ test failure load over 3 times greater than average KeyMod™ system
failure load.



August 2017

67891011 12
2021 2223242526

Most Popular Tags

Page Summary

Style Credit

Expand Cut Tags

No cut tags
Page generated Sep. 19th, 2017 08:51 pm
Powered by Dreamwidth Studios