Picatinny dust covers - Corwin Arms

[Victor Zulu 58]

Just a heads up - they have found a few more of these in a cornerstone of a building that was put up in 1871. This apparently was part of a time capsule that includes the Holy Grail & the Ark of The Covenant.
Asking price is $185 cad.
Ordered mine today. Considered buying the grail thingy, but I guess it won't hold zero once removed from the gun.

[vblue42]

Post a link.

[jb2sea]

Nice post.   

[knoxy]

Post a link.

Here ya go:

http://www.corwin-arms.com/product/vz-58-dust-cover-scope-mount

[vblue42]

Do they ship to the US?

[Victor Zulu 58]

Yes they ship to us.

[taceto]

Ruins the whole look of the weapon IMHO...but then again, I'm old school and a bit of a purest.  Although one can argue the longer barrel takes away from the original configuration I think this just makes it look too different.

[Victor Zulu 58]

Ruins the whole look of the weapon IMHO...but then again, I'm old school and a bit of a purest.  Although one can argue the longer barrel takes away from the original configuration I think this just makes it look too different.

That's why I have two ?

[Victor Zulu 58]

I too am partial to the beaver barf furniture. I swap out stuff to see what works for me & what doesn't work.
My endgame with these two - one "stock" (don't know if I can handle the pistol grip), the other "tacticool" (but not overly crazy).
I also have an ar & ak. But the Vz58 gets the most range time & attention. If I could get a vz chambered in 6.8 spc, I'd be on cloud nine.

[Knife Wounds]

I went in for a railed topcover and muzzle device from corwin.  Looking for an extended bolt release now.

[Airacuda]

Not that is matters, but the NEA or Troy front mount allows co witness of irons....and I already have them. I wanted to try out one of these but am pretty sure you couldn't use the irons with this setup.

[Knife Wounds]

I have been checking out the railed top covers for a long time, but the price has always made me hold back.  Many of them have a mlled channel to use the irons with no optic installed.  But I do anticipate there will be no co-whitness throuh the optic and im just fine with that.

[jb2sea]

Agreed.  I'm no fan of co-witnessing either.

[CitizenPete]

While I am not pro or con either way, one good feature of co-witness set up with a red dot (even 1/3) is if a red dot w/o a QD fails/dies in the field then your still in action.  I have been playing with the NEA a little bit and kinda like 1/3 - never had a co-witness before and its kinda cool.

Another potential benefit of this receiver cover is its durability.  I read that damage and deformation of the standard stamped military cover could be a problem in the field. I kinda brushed that off thinking it's a durable as an AK.  But then again, its possible to operate an AK without a receiver cover and depending on the damage to a VZ cover during a battle the springs may be affected and thus you are carrying a club. 

[jb2sea]

I prefer a see through mount.  Some people don't like that due to comfort, which I can understand.  It doesn't bother me.   If the concern is to have irons in case the optic fails, what if the glass on the optic is cracked?  There goes the optic and the irons.  I have several rifles with co-witness.  I thought it was great until it hit me one day that I'd lose both if the glass got cracked.  Now I prefer the see-through mount.  I'll even take 45d offset sights over co-witness.