Interesing, thanks for double checking. Maybe it was the URX II mid length that would continue on. Either way, unless this LW URX II blows my mind and speeds things up considerably without getting too hot, I’ll won’t be replacing my standard URX II on my 16", though that URX III rifle length does look good on a 14.5" gun. Unfortunaltely, looks mean nothing when it comes to performance.
double post
huntsimp, sorry about jacking your thread with the URX info. I’m going to post a pic of my LW URX and standard URX II in a bit, I just took some crappy cell phone pics.
The regular URX II is about 17 ounces. The LW URX II is about 10 ounces with rail sections weighing no more than an ounce when combined. That’s the reason I wanted one for my 11.5" SR15.
SR15’s with standard URX II - LW URX II by itself. I like using rail covers, so I’m just not sure yet about slick rails, like I mentioned before.
No apologies necessary. I welcome the info. I’d be asking questions about this anyway?
So is there no difference between the LW URX II and the URX III as far as design?
How did you get your hands on the LW URX II?
The URX III does not have the lightening cuts right below the top rail. Also, the slick rails are all solid, not cut open like the LW URX II for mounting rails. Lastly, the URX III has three integral rail sections at the very front of the rail on the sides and bottom.
They haven’t mentioned the weight yet, but I’d imagine it’s closer to the 17 ounces of the URX II than the 10 ounces of the LW URX II. Also, they are only available in black and rifle length so far, and that’s only for dealers as of right now.
I’m not sure how linking other threads, articles and albums goes, but if you Google “M110 carbine URX III”, it should be the second link listed. Go to the first page of the link and follow it to view the Military Times article.
Someone on another site was selling his special run KAC stuff, so I jumped on the rail.
URX is very light , Kac is my vote