I have been asked on multiple occasions whether I prefer M-Lock or KeyMod rails. My answer has always been that I did not think it mattered. I have always been a Mil-Std-1913 rail fan. All the rifles I have built I have kept the quad Mil-Std-1913 rails. Now you all know how I feel about the term "Picatinny rail". It just down right pisses me off. Picatinny had nothing to do with it, other than to be the project manager. The standardized rails were developed by Richard Swan of Arms, Inc. The correct term is Mil-Std-1913 rail.

I have to say after having a lot of experience with both M-Lock and KeyMod on rifles sent in for evaluation I can now say I have a clear cut opinion. Hands down I prefer the M-Lock. I have had several rifles with KeyMod that I have had extreme difficulty both installing and removing the rail segments. In fact, one was so bad I sent my rail segment back with the rifle because I could not get it off. I had never had that problem with the M-Lock segments. I have received some really cool segments from Kinetic Develop Group that had spring loaded arms. You drop the segment in place, hit two tabs and the arms engage and the segment was as solid as a rock. I also had many of the Keymod segments come loose while firing where I did not with the M-Lock.


Part 1 of the Brownells retro rifle A1 build is now available on Youtube to watch. Here is a complete part list with links to the products on Brownells website.

Brownells Part Numbers and Product Links:

100-021-012 AR15 20 A1 Rifle Barrel 1/7 Assy  -  https://goo.gl/Ph99gW
078-101-154 A1 Flash Hider -  https://goo.gl/FY7LRK
100-003-639 Bushmaster Lower Parts Kit  -  https://goo.gl/sTjr3o
430-00-522 Charging Handle  -  https://goo.gl/E1iMsD
231-000-063 Tear Drop Forward Assist  -  https://goo.gl/MMzRPh
100-024-755 Luth AR15 A1 Rear Sight Assy. -  https://goo.gl/QmYogP
430-000-523 Ejection Port Cover Assy  -  https://goo.gl/cDJZ8D
100-010-658 AR15 Gas Tube  -  https://goo.gl/Z3D8oZ
078-000-358 Rifle Buffer and Receiver Extension Assy  -  https://goo.gl/xsA8h4
080-001-303 A1 Retro Upper  - https://goo.gl/K6XGKz
080-001-304 A1 Blemished Lower -  https://goo.gl/YB8yn6
078-000-353 Retro Black Furniture -  https://goo.gl/S1h5ye
078-000-347 Retro Pistol Grip Black -  https://goo.gl/jyBgd4
078-000-344 Retro Triangular Handguards - https://goo.gl/Uhx2ZH
078-000-350 Retro Black A1 Stock  -  https://goo.gl/nwWo5g
All parts are from Brownells https://goo.gl/MZ466Z


A Comparison Between Internal and External Piston Systems

Around the 2004 time period with the introduction of the HKM4 (HK416) the industry as well as the military have been on a kick that somehow the external short or long stroke piston systems were more reliable than the M16/M4 direct gas systems. Well, is it???

I can recall the time when this debate began, the regular Army was very happy with the performance of the M16/M4 series rifles. They were functioning well in both Afghanistan and Iraq. In fact the M4 was so well received that the Army stopped procurement of the M16A2 and A4 in favor of a pure fleet M4 carbine for all ground elements. Reports came back (Soldiers Perspective on Small Arms) that the M4 was the most preferred of all the small arms, and that relatively few had any major issues, not that there weren't criticisms. The top critique was that soldiers wanted a larger caliber cartridge which they felt would increase stopping power. In my opinion, the real problem was the poor performance of the M855 ball cartridge. Other rounds have been proven to be extremely effective such as the Mk262 Mod1 and Mk318 SOST rounds. The Mk262 Mod 1 ammunition is used by SOCOM in MK12, MK18 and M4 carbines. Due to the poor performance of the M855, the Marine Corps have developed and issued the MK318 ammunition. This is a barrier blind projectile which improves the ballistics and performance majorly over the M855.





    Technical Specialist, 10 years in forensics, veteran, technical writer and armorer instructor.