I was all set to get another Ultimak now I’m leaning toward this instead.
http://www.facebook.com/album.php?aid=23402&id=105154162847835&l=e5e4c7b20e
http://www.tacticalresponsegear.com/catalog/product_info.php?products_id=4290
Looks rather heavy (not that the ultimak full deal isn’t).
How much rail area are you after?
The Ultimak rails seem better positioned with the side rails being not on top of the top horizontal version.
The Ultimak worked good for me, and I didn’t have a bunch of extra RE that was not needed for me.
looks to cramped against adjoining rails to mount many accessories
I prefer to have a longer lower handguard for mounting of additional items and to provide more gripping surface.
That looks like the no-claimed love child of an Ultimak and a Krebs rail system
The higher side rails are something I like about it. The lower side rails of the Ultimak makes it feel like I’m holding a football where this rail looks more streamline it the support hand area. Also the higher side rail will place a tactical light up higher out of the way where it belongs (at least IMO) and reduce the chances of accidental activation of the light. It’s, also, quite a bit cheaper than the full Ultimak rail.
I must admit it just may be me wanting to get something different. I was looking the MI rail but it is too high to co-witness with the irons where this is low enough to do so.
Even though the side rails are high, if you look at the top view they appear to be spread out far enough not to be overly crowded.
First of all, I do not own this rail.
But looking at the video I can see what might be a problem with the attachment and zero shift. The top rail is attach by six screws in slotted holes which have forward to rear movement (hence the pushing the top forward and bottom rearward on tightening). The main attachment is between the two screws on the sides of the bottom that are pushed into the gas/ sight block.
Therefore the six screws only attach the top rail to the bottom rail and the main attachment is just two screws. In comparison the Ultimak has four screws which attach with bands directly around the barrel.
At the end of the video after installation but before tightening of the screws, you can see how much slop there is in the rails. All that is taken up by only two screws on the sight block. I think this us a result of trying to make a one size fits most models rail in comparison to the ultimak which is more specific.
Also, the Ultimak tightens up drawing the rail closer to the barrel with tightening the screws, this rail removes play by extending screws into the sight block and pushhing away from the sight block.
How many screws need to fail before the Ultimak loses zero? They are in groups of two to a band with two bands around the barrel. So the loosening of one screw only compromises one band. This rail would be compromised by just one of the of the two bottom screw.
Once again, I do not own this rail and these insights are based only on watching the video. But I will stick with the Ultimak until these concerns are proven invalid to me.
Is that Yeager in the pic?
+! I will stick with the ultimak.
Another thing I just noticed about the handguards. They look like a great way to burn the hell out of your hand unless you use a VFG with a chicken choker grip. By keeping the rails in the normal position you are able to run covers that protect your hands a bit from the heat coming off the gun.
Oh; and I didnt know Keanu Reeves was a fan of Tactical Response.
The lower rail just doesnt provide enough room. If it were longer i would perhaps consider this product but after studying it, it simply doesnt offer me anything over my existing ultimak optic setup.
Checked around and found out these are made by Choate.
Video tip: if you are going to show co-witness; it helps to have something co-witnessed on said item. 
I don’t think that’s correct. I am told they are made in Indiana by Critical Dimensions, a DOD contractor that does manufacturing work for several gun-related firms. A rep from CD is on a regional board I belong to, and provided this additional information. FWIW.
[i]The rail profiles are machined to Mil-Std 1913 specs, of which there is a dimension of a height of .367 called out on every rail including the top. You can not co-witness with an optic but can use the fixed sights without an optic. Use a QD optic mount and no issues.
There is a “add-on” quick-detach optic rail that will be released later that mounts on the top and cantilevers back over the receiver and still allows use of fixed sights while mounted.
Heat transfer is minimal, I’ve had AK barrels white hot and can still hold the forearm without burning my hand. I like running my AK’s with a stubby forward grip on the bottom rail now.
These rails were made to fill a military requirement and were tested extensively on select-fire AK’s. Several AK’s were completely shot out during the test. Only a small quantity of these rails were released commercially for now, get them while you can, it may be awhile before more are available due to required Govt fulfillment.
[/i]
Really? I’ll have to see if I can dig up the Choate reference thing again. I dont recall where I read it at yesterday. Thanks for the new info though.
Eta: The owner of Choate is the designer of these rails. They are being built by someone else.
[i]The rail profiles are machined to Mil-Std 1913 specs, of which there is a dimension of a height of .367 called out on every rail including the top. You can not co-witness with an optic but can use the fixed sights without an optic. Use a QD optic mount and no issues.
So; can you co-witness or not? It seems that there is conflicting info about this.
Heat transfer is minimal, I’ve had AK barrels white hot and can still hold the forearm without burning my hand.
It would be interesting to see that.
It doesn’t appear so. I think someone was getting “use the iron sights with the rail mounted” confused with co-witnessing the optic and irons. 
It was also mentioned on the other board that Tactical Response has the exclusive distributorship on this first batch of rails.
You must understand, we hear this a lot. What military requirement and who is testing these? If you can’t provide this info, who made the claim?
My hint of weasel meter activated.
-
“white hot” really I have yet to see an AK truly red hot and be able to hold… much less the white hot you can get on a beltfed with 1000rds flaked out, or an airframe or boat mounted 1500rd can. where’s the promo youtube silliness showing this?
-
“DOD contracts”… gov fullfillment… bleh. Either, your banging out a product to meet gov contractual requirements or your not. Never caught this contract on FedBizOps, hmnnnn
Bottom rail not forward enough, enough clearance, to put a forgrip on and easily rock the magazine in.
No co-witness?
While I have no first-hand experience with this particular product, I am rather familiar with the Kalashnikov in general and with modern Western accessories.
I am not real impressed with what I am seeing.
If I hear “we can’t tell you who’s testing it nor who asked for this to be produced because it’s classified” well…I won’t be surprised.
I don’t understand why this would be requested by the military without defining cowitness capability. Particularly when the Ultimak is available COTS.
I am not, nor was I ever in the US Military. My Question is "Why would the US (which is not really stated as to which Gov ordered testing or anything) order after market stuff for the AK, with what we have for our main weapons? I’m not in any way putting down a weapon syst that can run with anything thrown into it, I just didn’t know if the US has enough of these to warrant R&D on something like this now for the “K”. I like to see something backing up statements, not just a friend of a friend of a friend who I work with or know or whatever.