xxlfitness@yahoo.com

It was a test for you. lol No just kidding. I'm aware the technical name for the buffer tube is receiver extension but I haven used that term in a long time and I had a temporary brain fart. However I will say about your statement, The 7" is a nominal value in my opinion. Id say we all agree that 7" ID should be the minimum length, more often than now I measure actually 7 1/8" - 7 3/16" for this nominal 7" 308 buffer however, just to be sure we are all on the same page, this does not address the few buffer tubes (receiver extensions) that are specifically designed to be longer set ups and measure longer than 7" ID but still under 8" for certain specific set ups. If you dont mention this, someone will measure their tube to be a bit longer and throw it in the trash also because it doesn't measure within that 7"-7 3/16" range

yep agreed, not withstanding differences between AR-15's and AR-308's

when you guys say 7" extensions?? what does that mean, do you mean 7" buffer tube or? His tube now is only an 1/8" or so short, are you advocating some sort of extension of a whole new tube/ never heard of an extension for a short tube.

Thats a fair statement

Explain please

Thank you for your courtesy, much appreciated by all,

I see a number of guys discussing boat tail, hollow points, etc. Isn't it true that some have issues running these through an AR semi-auto platform? Of course all of them run through bolt guns but just curious about this. Also what would you say is the best balance of power/stability, and ideal ballistic characteristics in the different bullet weights available, from a low of say 110 grain all the way up given a 308/7.62 round, 24" barrel length. An then finally getting back to my original post, if I were looking for an extremely accurate round for long range application, but that also had high potential for a hit that would cause maximum damage to flesh but at the same time penetrate armored or hard targets as more of a do all round, what would it be? I know this is a tough question and is subjective, just trying to get a consensus.

how about some other examples of a more traditional projectile weight. That's pretty lite for some guns and doesn't run well depending on Barrel twist and setup. any other examples of more traditional bullet weight that you guys have also found to be extremely accurate and is this also further dependent upon whether the weapon is a bolt-action or an AR platform type weapon just curious?

Copy that. Thank you

Gotcha, my scope is a very new one with a 56mm objective. And guys rave about the rings that come with it as being really substantial and heavy BUT, I dont know what size or height they are. I will tell you this though, when its mounted with the factory rings, the scope barely clears the rail at the objevctive lense. But your information is very helpful

I see how this works, I understand thank you. One question, how does the set up compensate for raising the scope this much? of for that matter, any of these extending devices that mount on top of the existing receiver rail? I know its not much but it seems like that little bit would make a lot of difference in the scope adjustment and the range of elevation left on the scope after raising it? mike

Ok gotcha. Much appreciated

what makes it acceptable with this mk12 but not the ar 308? what makes it different

Well these are 35mm rings so I'm not sure if they even make extenders for that. Also I never thought about the issue of Bridging the handguard and receiver but that does seem to be a valid concern. I suppose you are saying that the traditional wisdom is that the scope should always be fully mounted on the receiver as opposed to fully mounted on the handguard and certainly might not mounted on both. Is that more or less what you were saying

tell me more please