wobblinwheel

Are the Magpul folding front & rear sight set designed to work on the same-level rail? My colt has a flat-top receiver, but has a gas-block instead of the regular front sight. The gas-block has quad-rail set-up, but sits a little lower than the foregrip top rail.I want to mount a folding sight on the gas block rail and the receiver rail. Will this set work? To be clear, the front sight rail is about 1/4" LOWER than the receiver rail. If it will work, I'm interested.

Actually, a 1 in 13.75 is not too bad for a .22 rifle. It's my understanding that the standard for most .22's nowadays is 1 in 16. I've been told by people who know a lot more than me, that a 1 in 13.75 twist in a 16" barrel should put an unusually good SPIN on the bullet. Still remains to be seen. If I could find one 50 round box for 4 bucks or so, I would still be willing to give them a try.

I notice my rifle does not have anywhere NEAR the size of notch in the receiver opening! Mine only has a slight "rounded-off" area where the cover catch hits. It seems really evident that the cover was originally designed to work. The way they made it NOT work was to physically "shear off" the spring-loaded cover latch. Since the little plunger was made of plastic, I simply drilled a really TINY hole there and threaded-in a teeny round-headed screw to serve as a catch. Wasn't easy at all, but it works well. Possibly better than the plastic one would have. I,ve seen copies of the FIRST manuals for the M4, and they refer to an "operating dust cover". Then, about a year later, the manual refers to a "non-functional dust cover". Now, on the new online Colt/HK catalog, the M4 is stated to have an "operating ejection port cover". As I've said earlier, Ms. Dalton at Umarex actually refused to send me a new "operating" dust cover assembly, saying the notch in the receiver (which I don't have) would not let it work! I even stated I would assume the risk & cost if it didn't work. Still no luck! These corporate people seem "brainwashed" sometimes!

I'm interested in the new (yet to be released?) Winchester "M22". They are also advertised as "tactical 22" specific, and designed to cycle well in "high-capacity magazines". They are 40gr. plated round nose with 1255 fps muzzle velocity. They also say they'll only be sold in 1000 rnd. value packs. Winchesters always seem to work particularly well in my Colt.

Seems there's a slight chance they might work in my M4. She's pretty well broken-in now, and eats almost anything (except Remmington, of course). I'm curious about the ballistics of a 60gr. bullet. It seems logical that WIND would have less effect on such a heavy bullet.

Next time, try the Winchester 555's. They're $19 at Wally-World. They shoot REALLY good and have a BIG hole in the end of the bullet. Leave a big mess when they hit a critter!

Just saw a video on U Tube of a guy shooting these in a Ruger 10/22. He appears to not have any issues at all with cycling semi-auto. They're really quiet, too. The Ruger's are much more forgiving as far as ammo than the Colts, though.

Trying to reply to your post, but my reply looks like PART of your post. Anyway, did you get what I meant?

If you really want to fix your front sight, drive out the pins, remove the bottom set screw (it goes in a slot in the barrel anyway, not much room for adjustment), and remove the sight. THEN tap the pin-holes in the sight to the smallest thread size that fits the holes (did it, but forgot the thread tap I used). Then get 4 itty-bitty allen set screws to fit the holes. Slide the sight just a tad forward of the pin holes in the barrel, so the set screws don't enter the pin-holes. Then you can position the sight ANYWHERE YOU WANT IT! Just tighten the four screws a little at a time until snug. Believe me, it won't move until you loosen the screws and move it!

I didn't do that right, did I?

When I first got my Colt, the online Umarex video said to screw the bolt spring "till it bottoms" for hi-velocity ammo, back out flush for standard. Then I read somewhere that Colt Service Dept. recommends 9 full turns in (from flush) for Hi-vel. ammo. Now they suggest 4?? They got new springs in them or something? Mine stays screwed in all the way, all the time. Works great, even with sub-sonic ammo! Wonder what they've changed this time?

Aw c'mon. You never wanna try somethin' DIFFERENT?!

See if Anna Dalton at Umarex will send you a NEW-STYLE cover assembly. The newest rifles have a WORKING dust cover. She will probably tell you it "won't work", and the notch in the receiver opening will prohibit it's function. I know for a fact the notch does NOT cause the cover not to latch, it's the design of the catch itself. My brother's .223 AR has the same "notch" that simply allows the ball-catch on the cover to snap over edge of the opening. Try to talk her into sending you one. Maybe you'll have better luck than I did.

After reading some of the reviews on CTD's site, apparently they DO cycle fine in SOME semi-autos. Given the ammo-finicky nature of the Colt, it would be interesting to know if they work. Read the reviews on CTD. It seems most of the reviewers using semi-autos had good results. I like shooting subsonics (suppressed), and it seems the 60 gr. bullet would still pack a PUNCH even at under 1000 fps.

Has anyone tried the Aguila 60-grain "sniper subsonic" .22lr rounds in any of the Colt/Umarex M4 rifles? Iwonder how well they cycle the mechanism, and how long it takes them to dirty-up the chamber to where they start "sticking" and misfiring? I also wonder how they sound suppressed? That 60 grain bullet sounds like it might be rather DEADLY to some of these squirrels in my yard! Also, Cheaper-Than-Dirt has them on sale by the brick.

I use an NcStar 4X32 "tactical" scope as well, but in some cases I could still see an annoying "shadow" of the front sight. Sight had to go. Now I still can stick it on there when I use carry handle and open sights. Takes about 20 seconds for the switch.

That last picture was a goof.

Here's the UTG setup. With and without sight.

Cheaper than Dirt has the Umarex front flip sight for $43.90, if you're interested.

I;m not familiar with any of the other stocks out there. Once I got this one, I was very happy with it. the only drawback I can think of is the lack of the internal storage tubes that come with the more expensive versions that I've seen advertised. From the pictures I've seen, these are the exact same stocks, under a different name, sometimes in other colors, but externally IDENTICAL. As demonstrated earlier, a dollar's worth of rubber hose solves the storage issue. I wonder what made the BAD review??

It is MUCH more comfortable to shoot with than the original. the built-in cheek rest and the rubber butt pad work really nice. Not to mention the smooth looks....

Umarex makes a fold-down sight that pins the same way. I think the best solution is to get the $20 clamp-on gas-block/quad-rail and the rail-mounted sight (also about $20, I think). This arrangement covers the ugly holes, and gives you the option to use a multitude of sights, bipods, lasers, etc. Most come on and off with just a thumbscrew. Also, it has a place for the original sling swivel. I believe acompany called UTG makes this stuff.

Actually, no more slop than the original stock. I put a small length of good ole duct tape down the top of the tube, and no more slop!

Get your mind outta the gutter!!

I have for sale a Colt/Umarex Carbine Original-equipment two-piece foregrip with Delta-ring, spring, snap-ring, and barrel nut. Removed from brand new rifle to instal custom grip (quad-rail). The barrel nut is slightly buggered-up from removal, but works fine and can't be seen after installation. Asking $25.00 plus actual shipping. Thanks, Mike Crafton Blackstone, Va.