This test and subsequent report was generated by someone not on ADM's or LT's payroll.  

FWIW and FYI, we did play a part, and our part was acquisitioning an ADM, putting it along with one of our LT-129 mounts into the tester's hands.   Therefore, keep that in mind and choose or don't choose to take this all with a grain of salt.

Be advised, I disagree with the part about tools required.  Our mount requires a simple 3/8" wrench for adjustment.  3/8" wrenches are as common as catsh*t.  Additionally, and as a convenience, we provide what is essentially a throw-away 3/8" wrench, for the initial setup and adjustment, just so someone doesn't have to go looking for anything, say  screwdrivers and such.  If after a long time, some small adjustment is needed, then any of the myriad of multi-tools in service will suffice with their needle-nose plier features to move our adjustment nut the minute amount that might be required.

End of rant.

Mark LaRue
___________________________________________________________


Evaluation of the ADM AD-68C Aimpoint Mount, December 2007

Over the course of several weeks in December 2007, an American Defense Manufacturing LLC (ADM) AD-68C Aimpoint cantilever mount ($140 list price) was examined and evaluated. A LaRue Tactical (LT) LT129 Aimpoint cantilever mount ($140 list price) was on hand to serve a baseline for comparison. These mount are shown in Figure 1. The ADM mount was subjected to an initial inspection, some limited live-fire testing, and a post-test inspection. Comments and corresponding photographs for the evaluation of the ADM mount follow, as do some limited conclusions.


Figure 1. ADM and LT mounts.

INITIAL INSPECTION
Overall Design
As shown in Figure 1, the overall configuration of the ADM mount is very similar to the LT mount, differing primarily in the clamping and throw lever system. The ADM mount, however, lacks the extra battery storage of the LT mount, a useful feature which adds significantly to the complexity (and therefore cost) of manufacture. The measurements compiled in Table 1 show just how similar the mounts are in overall configuration.


Table 1. Summary of measurements.

The ADM mount uses a cross-bolt clamping system actuated by a throw lever, with an 8-32 cross-bolt screw, as shown in Figure 2. All of the clamping force is provided by tensile loading of the cross-bolt screw, and screws used in this configuration can be torqued excessively (yielded, or permanently stretched) without much difficulty. The clamping pressure is adjusted via the cross-screw using a common flat-blade screwdriver or a coin, which is convenient. Of course, if the mount is used on the same gun, the clamping tension should not need to be readjusted (unless the cross-bolt stretches). By comparison, the design of the LT clamping system results in the clamping cam force relying on both the tensile strength and the shear strength of the throw lever shaft, reducing the chance of yielding the throw lever shaft or any other part of the throw lever system. Figure 2 also shows what is presumably the model marking of the ADM mount, though it is illegible.


Figure 2. ADM mount cross-screw.

When mounted with the front of the base as close to the front of the receiver as possible, the ADM mount overhangs the front of the receiver slightly, as shown in Figure 3. In order for the entire length of the base to be on the receiver rail, the ADM mount must be moved back one slot on the receiver rail, as shown in Figure 4. By contrast, the LT mount can be mounted so that the front of the base is in line with the front of the receiver, as shown in Figure 5. Compared to the ADM mount, the LT mount offers better positioning on the receiver rail.


Figure 3. ADM mount on receiver rail, forward position.


Figure 4. ADM mount on receiver rail, aft position.


Figure 5. LT mount on receiver rail, forward position.

The corners of the base of the ADM mount could use more chamfering to reduce sharpness, as shown in Figure 6. The corners are not extremely sharp, but they are significantly sharper than on the LT mount.


Figure 6. ADM and LT mounts, showing corners.

The design of the quick-detach system (clamp and throw lever) of the ADM mount appears to be extremely similar to that of the Ergo system by Falcon, as shown in Figure 7. There are also similarities between the ADM and the GG&G quick-detach systems.


Figure 7. Egro QD system.

Rings and Ring Screws
The ring screws of the ADM mount are 9/64th hex-head screws, threaded 8-32. This is likely sufficient, but Torx-head screws would be preferable. The LT mount uses T-15 Torx-head ring screws, threaded 8-40. As shown in Figure 8, two of the three lower ring screws on the ADM mount are threaded into inserts (likely steel), which is a good design feature. Note that recent online pictures of this ADM mount appear to show all three lower ring screws threaded into inserts (likely steel). However, the upper ring screws on the ADM mount are threaded directly into the aluminum ring material. Due to reduced thread strength and potential for galling, this approach is not preferred, though it does reduce cost of manufacture. By contrast, all of the ring screws on the LT mount are threaded into inserts (likely steel).


Figure 8. Ring screw threads on ADM and LT mounts.

When the rings of the ADM mount are installed to the base, minor fore-aft misalignment of the rings is evident, as shown in Figure 9. While the effect may be negligible, no such misalignment was noted on the LT mount. It should also be noted that the design of the ADM rings lends itself to inadvertent attempts at upside-down installation of the rings, which could easily damage the mount.


Figure 9. ADM mount, ring alignment.

The ADM mount has its ring screws installed from the right, which is awkward for the upper rear ring screw for the typical Aimpoint CompM2 configuration. Interference between the upper rear ring screw of the ADM mount and the Aimpoint optic during installation is shown in Figure 10. Due to the lower threaded ring inserts apparently being pressed in, reversing the rings for screw insertion from the left does not appear to be practical. However, recent online pictures of this mount show all of the ring screws inserted from the left. The LT mount also has the rings installed from the right. While installation from the left would be more convenient, the inconvenience is less on the LT as compared to the ADM due to less ring width (ring can be moved further forward) and shorter screw length. Ideally, the rings would be reversible on both the ADM and LT mounts, allowing screw insertion from either side.


Figure 10. Interference between ADM ring screw and optic.

When the Aimpoint CompM2 optic is installed in the ADM mount, threads of the top ring screws are left exposed, as shown in Figure 11. This leaves the exposed thread susceptible to damage, and more susceptible to corrosion. The significance of this is increased by the fact that any damaged thread would have to be unscrewed through the softer aluminum threaded rings, increasing the chance of damage to the ring threads.


Figure 11. Exposed threads on installed ADM mounts.

LIVE-FIRE TESTING
On 18 December 2007, a limited live-fire return-to-zero test was conducted at a distance of 50 yards. An LMT 16” AR carbine was used with an Aimpoint CompM2 optic and ADCOM M855 ammo. Both the subject ADM mount and the baseline LT mount were used in the test. The groups fired using the ADM mount are shown in Figure 12, while the groups fired using the LT mount are shown in Figure 13.
With each mount, two groups were fired on Target 1, the mounted optic was removed and re-mounted, and two more groups were then fired on Target 2. Within the limited accuracy of the tested firearm/optic/ammunition combination, both mounts demonstrated return-to-zero capability.


Figure 12. Groups fired using ADM mount.


Figure 13. Groups fired using LT mount.


POST-TEST INSPECTION
After the live-fire testing was concluded, the mounts and firearm were examined. While only minor burnishing of the rail anodizing was caused by the LT mount, the ADM mount caused more significant wear on the receiver rail. Figure 14 shows the wear on the receiver rail, as well as the corresponding points on the ADM mount. Note that this extent of wear occurred during the 80 rounds of the limited live-fire testing.


Figure 14. Wear on receiver rail caused by ADM mount.

The examination of the ADM mount after the test firing also showed that the contact points between the throw lever and the base clamp are wearing, as shown in Figure 15. Note that this mount shows no indication of long-term or abusive use, so this wear could be deemed premature.


Figure 15. Wear on ADM throw lever and clamp.

CONCLUSIONS
The design of the American Defense Manufacturing LLC (ADM) AD-68C Aimpoint cantilever mount appears to borrow heavily from the LaRue Tactical (LT) LT129 Aimpoint cantilever mount in terms of overall configuration and from the Ergo and GG&G products in terms of clamping and throw lever system design. The clamping system may be more susceptible to yielding than the LT system, but it is adjustable with more common tools. Compared to the LT mount, the ADM mount has several shortcomings, including fewer ring screw inserts, inferior ring alignment, more difficult ring screw insertion, exposed ring screw threads, and wear several points of the mount. Also, the ADM design caused wear on the receiver rail of the test carbine in only 80 rounds of testing. The ADM mount, however, did exhibit return-to-zero capability within the limited accuracy of the tested firearm/optic/ammunition combination.

___________________________________________________________________

There you have it, do as you will.

ML

Mark,

How about just modifying the existing mold for a lightweight Larue mode, then let the customers pick which model of larue they want.

Originally Posted By DHSGMAN: Mark, How about just modifying the existing mold for a lightweight Larue mode, then let the customers pick which model of larue they want.

You know what I mean, make a lightweight Larue model with the cutouts. Hell they've copied you damn near exactly(Within their limited capabilities). Fair is fair.

Mark,

Most people already know which mount to buy. Why gamble with a new and unproven mount  that costs as much as a proven, and more sturdy mount? I trust a locking lever more than I trust treads in a staked insert.

Oh, and free hat=WIN!

Originally Posted By DHSGMAN: You know what I mean, make a lightweight Larue model with the cutouts. Hell they've copied you damn near exactly(Within their limited capabilities). Fair is fair.

Oh yuk, that's just gross.  ADM mounts look hideous.  Besides, is a third of an ounce such a big deal that you need litening holes?

Well, this review puts it into the simplest terms possible.  Why by an inferior product when you can have the best for the same price?

Hey Mark, clear out your inbox, or shoot me a msg with your email address. Got some stuff to throw your way (regarding this and other things)

Originally Posted By Capn_Crunch: Hey Mark, clear out your inbox, or shoot me a msg with your email address. Got some stuff to throw your way (regarding this and other things)

(Long winded kid-like whine on my part)...

... "It will take soooo long to clear out that IM container, I'll never get done."

email me -

mark(@)laruetactical.com

Hmmm, I been doin' a lot of double-tappin' here lately.

To complete the Trifecta, I copied this off of Bravo's website ...

The QD Auto Lock Lever™ will not gouge your upper receiver.

The QD Auto Lock Lever™ does not require proprietary tools for adjustments.  It may be adjusted with a coin or flat blade screwdriver.

The ad plainly states that ADM mounts "won't gouge your upper reciever" and "does not require proprietary tools" ...

... meh, who you reckon they are referring to ???

I suppose that ain't multiple gouges in the top of that upper in that pic produced from just an 80 round string, and I suppose a 3/8" wrench is proprietary only to LT now, and a screwdriver is not to them.  

And so it goes.  Oh yeah, sorry that I suck for being so small-minded as to think defending myself is just.  Geez.

ML

Complete ad from Bravo's website: "Bravoco's ADM web ad" Mounts from American Defense MFG LLC, with the patented Auto Lock Lever™ The AD-68C Cantilever features an lower 1/3 co-witness (co-witness near bottom third of optic) when used on an AR15, M16, M4 flat top with Mil-Spec size iron sights. The mounts are billet machined from aircraft quality 6061 T6 aluminum. Products are hard coat anodized for a lifetime of superior performance. Mounts are fully adjustable to fit in spec and out of spec 1913 picatinny rails. Mounts feature a large adjustable lever that incorporates the patented Auto Lock feature that will lock the lever in the closed position. The Auto Lock Lever™ system features a large clamping surface to insure maximum contact with the rail. The Auto Lock Lever™ will not gouge your upper receiver. The Auto Lock Lever™ does not require proprietary tools for adjustments.  It may be adjusted with a coin or flat blade screwdriver. All American Defense Mfg LLC products feature a lifetime warranty. Made with pride in the U.S.A.

Pretty decent write-up, but I find it coincidental that this independent, yet ANONYMOUS reviewer uses the term "burnishing" in the context of the contact marks for LT, but uses the term "wear" in the context of the contact marks for ADM.   Hmmm, let's see, where have we heard that before?

Maybe next time you speak with this reviewer, you can ask him [or her] what exactly the difference between burnishing and wear is?  Or, if you just tell us who the reviewer is, than we can ask them ourselves.

Originally Posted By murderman: Pretty decent write-up, but I find it coincidental that this independent, yet ANONYMOUS reviewer uses the term "burnishing" in the context of the contact marks for LT, but uses the term "wear" in the context of the contact marks for ADM.   Hmmm, let's see, where have we heard that before? Maybe next time you speak with this reviewer, you can ask him [or her] what exactly the difference between burnishing and wear is?  Or, if you just tell us who the reviewer is, than we can ask them ourselves.

I know I use the word "burnishing" repeatedly, and have drilled it into everyone's head,  as that seems to be the best description.  YMMV.  I'll take this moment to again point out that some end-users of LT mounts keep the leading radius of our levers lubed/slicked-up with a little something ... everything is better wetter.  

I can assure you the evaluator/report generator is obsessed with objectivity.   As to his name, I think he's keeping himself unknown just to be in the true fashion of ADM.

It's up to him.

ML

ETA - Again, you can certainly take it all with a grain of salt.

Originally Posted By murderman: Pretty decent write-up, but I find it coincidental that this independent, yet ANONYMOUS reviewer uses the term "burnishing" in the context of the contact marks for LT, but uses the term "wear" in the context of the contact marks for ADM.   Hmmm, let's see, where have we heard that before? Maybe next time you speak with this reviewer, you can ask him [or her] what exactly the difference between burnishing and wear is?  Or, if you just tell us who the reviewer is, than we can ask them ourselves.

Seems pretty unbiased to me, at least the ADM mount in question actually fit the upper (unlike the posts that are starting to pop up) I think it Mark (or anyone on the LaRue team) would have written it they ADM wouldn't have done as well.

Originally Posted By bullitt5172: Originally Posted By murderman: Pretty decent write-up, but I find it coincidental that this independent, yet ANONYMOUS reviewer uses the term "burnishing" in the context of the contact marks for LT, but uses the term "wear" in the context of the contact marks for ADM.   Hmmm, let's see, where have we heard that before? Maybe next time you speak with this reviewer, you can ask him [or her] what exactly the difference between burnishing and wear is?  Or, if you just tell us who the reviewer is, than we can ask them ourselves. Seems pretty unbiased to me, at least the ADM mount in question actually fit the upper (unlike the posts that are starting to pop up) I think it Mark (or anyone on the LaRue team) would have written it they ADM wouldn't have done as well.

Baah, we didn't write it.  

I would have used one of our LT Quad-S uppers (they shoot near 1/2 moa) and then I would have slapped a 25X scope in one of LT-104 mounts and I would have shown how much better our repeatability is than their cross-bolt version thing.

I would have also included the "tool" language I put in my opening post.

I would also have zoomed-in on that anodizing knocked-off by the ADM mount and compared it to the "burnished" spot our mount would have produced.  

But hey, that's just me and I am understandably biased.

ML

Originally Posted By LaRue_Tactical: Originally Posted By bullitt5172: Originally Posted By murderman: Pretty decent write-up, but I find it coincidental that this independent, yet ANONYMOUS reviewer uses the term "burnishing" in the context of the contact marks for LT, but uses the term "wear" in the context of the contact marks for ADM.   Hmmm, let's see, where have we heard that before? Maybe next time you speak with this reviewer, you can ask him [or her] what exactly the difference between burnishing and wear is?  Or, if you just tell us who the reviewer is, than we can ask them ourselves. Seems pretty unbiased to me, at least the ADM mount in question actually fit the upper (unlike the posts that are starting to pop up) I think it Mark (or anyone on the LaRue team) would have written it they ADM wouldn't have done as well. Baah, we didn't write it.   I would have used one of our LT Quad-S uppers (they shoot near 1/2 moa) and then I would have slapped a 25X scope in one of LT-104 mounts and I would have shown how much better our repeatability is than their cross-bolt version thing. I would have also included the "tool" language I put in my opening post. I would also have zoomed-in on that anodizing knocked-off by the ADM mount and compared it to the "burnished" spot our mount would have produced.   But hey, that's just me and I am understandably biased. ML

I switch back and forth between the LT-104 and my ACOG mounted in the LT-100 and the only marks on my QUAD-S upper are grease marks!  My Colt uses a LT-105 Compact ACOG mount, IRON DOT, LT-150 (Tripower) and the LT649-30 flip mount with no damage or marking on the upper.  I've never had a zero retention issue.

Originally Posted By LaRue_Tactical: Originally Posted By murderman: Pretty decent write-up, but I find it coincidental that this independent, yet ANONYMOUS reviewer uses the term "burnishing" in the context of the contact marks for LT, but uses the term "wear" in the context of the contact marks for ADM.   Hmmm, let's see, where have we heard that before? Maybe next time you speak with this reviewer, you can ask him [or her] what exactly the difference between burnishing and wear is?  Or, if you just tell us who the reviewer is, than we can ask them ourselves. I know I use the word "burnishing" repeatedly, and have drilled it into everyone's head,  as that seems to be the best description.  YMMV.  I'll take this moment to again point out that some end-users of LT mounts keep the leading radius of our levers lubed/slicked-up with a little something ... everything is better wetter.   I can assure you the evaluator/report generator is obsessed with objectivity.   As to his name, I think he's keeping himself unknown just to be in the true fashion of ADM. It's up to him. ML ETA - Again, you can certainly take it all with a grain of salt.

Like I said, the report seems pretty decently authored, by whomever it was that wrote it.

To me the most specific term would be lapping [even though there is no compound involved], rather than either burnishing or wearing, since in effect what is happening is a more precision mating of two parts which were manufactured separately through the application of contact forces between them.

Originally Posted By murderman: Originally Posted By LaRue_Tactical: Originally Posted By murderman: Pretty decent write-up, but I find it coincidental that this independent, yet ANONYMOUS reviewer uses the term "burnishing" in the context of the contact marks for LT, but uses the term "wear" in the context of the contact marks for ADM.   Hmmm, let's see, where have we heard that before? Maybe next time you speak with this reviewer, you can ask him [or her] what exactly the difference between burnishing and wear is?  Or, if you just tell us who the reviewer is, than we can ask them ourselves. I know I use the word "burnishing" repeatedly, and have drilled it into everyone's head,  as that seems to be the best description.  YMMV.  I'll take this moment to again point out that some end-users of LT mounts keep the leading radius of our levers lubed/slicked-up with a little something ... everything is better wetter.   I can assure you the evaluator/report generator is obsessed with objectivity.   As to his name, I think he's keeping himself unknown just to be in the true fashion of ADM. It's up to him. ML ETA - Again, you can certainly take it all with a grain of salt. Like I said, the report seems pretty decently authored, by whomever it was that wrote it. To me the most specific term would be lapping [even though there is no compound involved], rather than either burnishing or wearing, since in effect what is happening is a more precision mating of two parts which were manufactured separately through the application of contact forces between them.

bur·nish    (bûrnsh) KEY  

TRANSITIVE VERB:
bur·nished , bur·nish·ing , bur·nish·es
To make smooth or glossy by or as if by rubbing; polish.
To rub with a tool that serves especially to smooth or polish.

Ya, burnishing is completely wrong

From Merriam-Webster's Online

Burnish 1 a: to make shiny or lustrous especially by rubbing b: polish 3 2: to rub (a material) with a tool for compacting or smoothing or for turning an edge Wear   1 to cause to deteriorate by use b: to impair or diminish by use or attrition : consume

I'd say the evaluator chose his words well.

Originally Posted By mfingar: From Merriam-Webster's Online Burnish 1 a: to make shiny or lustrous especially by rubbing b: polish 3 2: to rub (a material) with a tool for compacting or smoothing or for turning an edge Wear   1 to cause to deteriorate by use b: to impair or diminish by use or attrition : consume I'd say the evaluator chose his words well.

HA!  I beat Mark to something!  

Originally Posted By bullitt5172: Originally Posted By mfingar: From Merriam-Webster's Online Burnish 1 a: to make shiny or lustrous especially by rubbing b: polish 3 2: to rub (a material) with a tool for compacting or smoothing or for turning an edge Wear   1 to cause to deteriorate by use b: to impair or diminish by use or attrition : consume I'd say the evaluator chose his words well. HA!  I beat Mark to something!

Figure 14. Wear on receiver rail caused by ADM mount.

The wear seen in the picture provided can only be caused by movement between two objects
when in contact. Friction is the cause, plain and simple. Most likely from fore / aft movement
during live-fire. That coupled with the fact that I have experienced no such wear between my
uppers and ADM mounts would lead me to believe that the author's mount was not adjusted
properly which in turn allowed the mount to move while mated to his/her upper. The same
type of wear would occur between any two objects if not secured properly. Loosely ( and I use
the term loosely here ) mate two objects and subject them to the violent forces of recoil and
yes, even a LaRue mount would cause friction and/or impact marks.

So I think its fair to say...

Figure 14. Wear on receiver rail caused by an improperly adjusted ADM mount.

Originally Posted By JTrusty: i265.photobucket.com/albums/ii210/LaRueTactical/Evaluation/Fig14.jpg Figure 14. Wear on receiver rail caused by ADM mount. The wear seen in the picture provided can only be caused by movement between two objects when in contact. Friction is the cause, plain and simple. Most likely from fore / aft movement during live-fire. That coupled with the fact that I have experienced no such wear between my uppers and ADM mounts would lead me to believe that the author's mount was not adjusted properly which in turn allowed the mount to move while mated to his/her upper. The same type of wear would occur between any two objects if not secured properly. Loosely ( and I use the term loosely here ) mate two objects and subject them to the violent forces of recoil and yes, even a LaRue mount would cause friction and/or impact marks. So I think its fair to say... Figure 14. Wear on receiver rail caused by an improperly adjusted ADM mount.

Not entirely true.  If the ADM mount wasn't adjusted correctly, it wouldn't have held zero.  If it was loose enough to move, the pattern would have looked like a shotgun blast.  Also, the "wear" seems to be from high points on the ADM mount and could have been done while installing the mount.  Either way, it should not remove material from the upper receiver and should be dehorned better.

I am in the middle of doing some work on a truck engine just now, so I'll have to get back with y'all a little later this evening to continue this discussion when I can give you my focused attention which you deserve.

Originally Posted By JTrusty: i265.photobucket.com/albums/ii210/LaRueTactical/Evaluation/Fig14.jpg Figure 14. Wear on receiver rail caused by ADM mount. The wear seen in the picture provided can only be caused by movement between two objects when in contact. Friction is the cause, plain and simple. Most likely from fore / aft movement during live-fire. That coupled with the fact that I have experienced no such wear between my uppers and ADM mounts would lead me to believe that the author's mount was not adjusted properly which in turn allowed the mount to move while mated to his/her upper. The same type of wear would occur between any two objects if not secured properly. Loosely ( and I use the term loosely here ) mate two objects and subject them to the violent forces of recoil and yes, even a LaRue mount would cause friction and/or impact marks. So I think its fair to say... Figure 14. Wear on receiver rail caused by an improperly adjusted ADM mount.

That was exactly the response I expected.

Also, the "wear" seems to be from high points on the ADM mount and could have been done while installing the mount.

Unlikely, assuming the author has been 100% upfront with his/her findings. You will note
that during the evaluation both mounts were installed, removed and installed again before
live-fire testing. One would assume that the author would have noticed the marred upper
during this fitment sequence and reported accordingly.

Either way, it should not remove material from the upper receiver and should be dehorned better.

Agreed. Assuming that the marring occurred due to high points on the ADM mount. Which as
I have already stated hasn't occurred on my end.

edited to add:

That was exactly the response I expected.

Glad I was able to live up to your expectations.

Originally Posted By JTrusty: Also, the "wear" seems to be from high points on the ADM mount and could have been done while installing the mount. Unlikely, assuming the author has been 100% upfront with his/her findings. You will note that during the evaluation both mounts were installed, removed and installed again before live-fire testing. One would assume that the author would have noticed the marred upper during this fitment sequence and reported accordingly. Either way, it should not remove material from the upper receiver and should be dehorned better. Agreed. Assuming that the marring occurred due to high points on the ADM mount. Which as I have already stated hasn't occurred on my end.

Assuming you have been 100% upfront with your findings.

Assuming you have been 100% upfront with your findings.

My last name is Trusty. I have lived up to that name for the 37 years I have had it.

I would be more than happy to offer up whatever means of proof you would find acceptable.
However, I find it unlikely that any form of proof other than first hand would be acceptable to
many ( or any for that matter ). So, I invite you to join me here in winter wonderland. You
can accompany me out to the range to report your findings of my findings for 100%
confirmation.

Originally Posted By JTrusty: Assuming you have been 100% upfront with your findings. My last name is Trusty. I have lived up to that name for the 37 years I have had it.

No offense Trusty, but in that other thread, your grasp of mechanics didn't give me any warm and fuzzies.

Again, no offense.

ML

No offense Trusty, but in that other thread, your grasp of mechanics didn't give me any warm and fuzzies.

None taken. The feeling was mutual, I can assure you.

As an aside, I do so enjoy how you manipulate a conversation from its original intent (
assuming of course that your intent was to offer a legitimate comparison between your
product and a competitors product ) into a personal conversation between yourself and
someone with legitimate feedback regarding the original intent. Thus derailing a thread of
your own devise. Its a bit counter productive don't you think?

We can argue credentials if you like. But it doesn't change the fact that the marks
derived from the contact between the ADM mount and the authors upper are friction based.
It doesn't take an engineering degree to comprehend that. Two objects in contact and in
motion cause wear.

some one should send me this mount ADM mount since i have these classes this summer besides my own Training matches and  LEO/MIL classes like Dave Harrington, Vtac, Pat rogers,SDI, LMS  on tap this year....I bet is toast by the time a year of my training  is done with no excessive  abuse done to mount.


Austin i have a email inbound to you as well.


Steve

Originally Posted By JTrusty: No offense Trusty, but in that other thread, your grasp of mechanics didn't give me any warm and fuzzies. None taken. The feeling was mutual, I can assure you. As an aside, I do so enjoy how you manipulate a conversation from its original intent ( assuming of course that your intent was to offer a legitimate comparison between your product and a competitors product ) into a personal conversation between yourself and someone with legitimate feedback regarding the original intent. Thus derailing a thread of your own devise. Its a bit counter productive don't you think? We can argue credentials if you like. But it doesn't change the fact that the marks derived from the contact between the ADM mount and the authors upper are friction based. It doesn't take an engineering degree to comprehend that. Two objects in contact and in motion cause wear.

"But it doesn't change the fact that the marks derived from the contact between the ADM mount and the authors upper are friction based." - JTrusty



Don't quite understand how the feeling could be mutual as I don't recall giving any summations on the dos-and-don'ts of the 1913 rail spec ...

... but we are in agreement on your one point in red above.

ML

ETA - "The Auto Lock Lever™ will not gouge your upper receiver." - ADM  

Originally Posted By JTrusty: Two objects in contact and in motion cause wear.

Yeah, but they aren't touching very much.

Since this is a public forum I'm going to add my 2 pennies worth.

I would be hard pressed to tell a butcher how to cut meat, just like it would be difficult to know more about vagina's than a gynecologist.

Therefore arguing about mounts with a man like Mark Larue is kind of like doing open heart surgery with a high school diploma. It just ain't a wise decision.

Mark, you know where I stand on LaRue. You guys have been great to me and I will continue to buy LaRue kit.

However, I think you have made your point. Maybe it's time to put this to rest.

For those of us that know good kit when we see it as well as having in the past bought LaRue, will continue to buy LaRue.

For those that for whatever reason either hate LaRue or want other makers kit, they will go elsewhere.

LaRue has been the industry leader in innovation in AR parts and accessories,  Customer Service and not to mention the thousands of dollars of LaRue kit that you have donated to our soldiers.

LaRue has nothing to prove, ADM on the other hand does. I finally have seen one in person and I was not impressed. I'll never buy ADM.

LaRue's kit speaks for it's self as well as the end user.

How about letting that be the final word on the LaRue vs ADM?

THE SOLUTION?????

Originally Posted By ARCANGEL: THE SOLUTION?????

Got two of 'em.

Originally Posted By LaRue_Tactical: Originally Posted By ARCANGEL: THE SOLUTION????? Got two of 'em.

I'll bet my first name that you have them is ADM who should get at least a good one

Originally Posted By Dog1: Mark, you know where I stand on LaRue. You guys have been great to me and I will continue to buy LaRue kit. However, I think you have made your point. Maybe it's time to put this to rest. For those of us that know good kit when we see it as well as having in the past bought LaRue, will continue to buy LaRue. For those that for whatever reason either hate LaRue or want other makers kit, they will go elsewhere. LaRue has been the industry leader in innovation in AR parts and accessories,  Customer Service and not to mention the thousands of dollars of LaRue kit that you have donated to our soldiers. LaRue has nothing to prove, ADM on the other hand does. I finally have seen one in person and I was not impressed. I'll never buy ADM. LaRue's kit speaks for it's self as well as the end user. How about letting that be the final word on the LaRue vs ADM?

So you're thinking we're ahead enough that it's time to put in our 3rd string, and ignore the BCS polls ?

Originally Posted By LaRue_Tactical: So you're thinking we're ahead enough that it's time to put in our 3rd string, and ignore the BCS polls ?

LT has competition?

Since when?

Originally Posted By LaRue_Tactical: Originally Posted By Dog1: Mark, you know where I stand on LaRue. You guys have been great to me and I will continue to buy LaRue kit. However, I think you have made your point. Maybe it's time to put this to rest. For those of us that know good kit when we see it as well as having in the past bought LaRue, will continue to buy LaRue. For those that for whatever reason either hate LaRue or want other makers kit, they will go elsewhere. LaRue has been the industry leader in innovation in AR parts and accessories,  Customer Service and not to mention the thousands of dollars of LaRue kit that you have donated to our soldiers. LaRue has nothing to prove, ADM on the other hand does. I finally have seen one in person and I was not impressed. I'll never buy ADM. LaRue's kit speaks for it's self as well as the end user. How about letting that be the final word on the LaRue vs ADM? So you're thinking we're ahead enough that it's time to put in our 3rd string, and ignore the BCS polls ?

Are you ahead enough? No...if you rest on your laurels, you will get passed up.

I got a feeling you do not have a 2nd string, let alone a 3rd..

Ignore the compentition? No..

What I think you should do, is tone down your, for lack of a better word, rants about LaRue/ADM.

Look, I like a person that is not afraid to speak their mind, which you do, as do I. For me I do things my way and I pay a high price.

However, like I posted before, LaRue has nothing to prove, it's all on ADM. They have many things to prove.

Will they back up their products like LaRue does? Only time will tell, but I'm going to say not to the same level that LaRue does.

Do they do the little things, like throwing in hats, dillos, ect, that LaRue does? I'm going to say no. And before anyone of LaRue's detractors say that it's bribery, it's not-it's showing the customer that they DO matter and that LaRue appreacatiates their customers.

Will they send thousands of dollars of kit to soldiers for nothing? More than likely not.

I'm not suggesting that LaRue ignore any one that wants to compete with you, I'm just saying that you have made your point and it's time to let the products compete and stand on their own, to whihc I have no doubt that LaRue will come out on top.

Does any of what I posted make sense? I hope so cause I'm sick as a dog and my head is swirling...  

Originally Posted By Dog1: What I think you should do, is tone down your, for lack of a better word, rants about LaRue/ADM. I'm not suggesting that LaRue ignore any one that wants to compete with you, I'm just saying that you have made your point and it's time to let the products compete and stand on their own, to whihc I have no doubt that LaRue will come out on top. Does any of what I posted make sense? I hope so cause I'm sick as a dog and my head is swirling...

+1  I think at this point we all know where everyone stands on the issue.  It has been established that one product is superior to the other, so no need to keep beating a dead horse.  Heck, all this attention is just free publicity for a company that has never been heard of before.

I disagree. Beat that horse and make a coat out of him, let him know that you won't stand silent not for one minute. The second the enemy silences you, it encourages and emboldens him.

I think it's refreshing that someone speaks their mind, however brash it may seem to others. I'd do it more here but I'd get the boot quicker than you would.

Originally Posted By DHSGMAN: I disagree. Beat that horse and make a coat out of him, let him know that you won't stand silent not for one minute. The second the enemy silences you, it encourages and emboldens him.

Who is the "him" you speak of.  There is no him, there is a company that nobody knew nothing about weeks ago.  So who are you hurting, some mystery company?  Why give them the attention and air time.  But heck, what do I know, I just do this type of consulting for a living...  

There's always a "him", someone always runs a company.

Head to head comparisons shows the consumer which product is worth their money.

The little guy is always fighting harder to gain recognition and prove something. Sometimes when a company is on top they rest on their laurels. (Mark, this is not aimed at LT) Always fight for what is rightfully yours. Always show your the best.

But as someone that "consults" for a living, you already know that.

Originally Posted By DHSGMAN: But as someone that "consults" for a living, you already know that.

Are you feeling  "encouraged and emboldened" yet?  

For some reason I love reading the LT Forum, by far the most entertaining on ARFCOM.  Mark's rants keep it interesting.

IMO on this one I think the ADM mount looks a lot more like a knock-off GGG then an LT rip-off.  The shape and locking mechanism is much closer.

With all the products out there it has been very hard to choose who I wanted to go with.  But the verdict is in and I will be going with LT for an ACOG mount and BUIS.  From all I have seen and heard it looks like you guys are second to none in quality and customer service.  

Originally Posted By bullitt5172: Originally Posted By murderman: Originally Posted By LaRue_Tactical: Originally Posted By murderman: Pretty decent write-up, but I find it coincidental that this independent, yet ANONYMOUS reviewer uses the term "burnishing" in the context of the contact marks for LT, but uses the term "wear" in the context of the contact marks for ADM.   Hmmm, let's see, where have we heard that before? Maybe next time you speak with this reviewer, you can ask him [or her] what exactly the difference between burnishing and wear is?  Or, if you just tell us who the reviewer is, than we can ask them ourselves. I know I use the word "burnishing" repeatedly, and have drilled it into everyone's head,  as that seems to be the best description.  YMMV.  I'll take this moment to again point out that some end-users of LT mounts keep the leading radius of our levers lubed/slicked-up with a little something ... everything is better wetter.   I can assure you the evaluator/report generator is obsessed with objectivity.   As to his name, I think he's keeping himself unknown just to be in the true fashion of ADM. It's up to him. ML ETA - Again, you can certainly take it all with a grain of salt. Like I said, the report seems pretty decently authored, by whomever it was that wrote it. To me the most specific term would be lapping [even though there is no compound involved], rather than either burnishing or wearing, since in effect what is happening is a more precision mating of two parts which were manufactured separately through the application of contact forces between them. bur·nish    (bûrnsh) KEY   TRANSITIVE VERB: bur·nished , bur·nish·ing , bur·nish·es To make smooth or glossy by or as if by rubbing; polish. To rub with a tool that serves especially to smooth or polish. Ya, burnishing is completely wrong

Also from Merriam Webster:

Main Entry:
lap
Function:
verb
Inflected Form(s):
lapped; lap•ping
Date:
14th century
transitive verb
5 a: to dress, smooth, or polish (as a metal surface) to a high degree of refinement or accuracy b: to shape or fit by working two surfaces together with or without abrasives until a very close fit is produced

I stand by my previous comment that lapping is a more precise description of what is happening than burnishing.

Originally Posted By murderman: Originally Posted By bullitt5172: Originally Posted By murderman: Originally Posted By LaRue_Tactical: Originally Posted By murderman: Pretty decent write-up, but I find it coincidental that this independent, yet ANONYMOUS reviewer uses the term "burnishing" in the context of the contact marks for LT, but uses the term "wear" in the context of the contact marks for ADM.   Hmmm, let's see, where have we heard that before? Maybe next time you speak with this reviewer, you can ask him [or her] what exactly the difference between burnishing and wear is?  Or, if you just tell us who the reviewer is, than we can ask them ourselves. I know I use the word "burnishing" repeatedly, and have drilled it into everyone's head,  as that seems to be the best description.  YMMV.  I'll take this moment to again point out that some end-users of LT mounts keep the leading radius of our levers lubed/slicked-up with a little something ... everything is better wetter.   I can assure you the evaluator/report generator is obsessed with objectivity.   As to his name, I think he's keeping himself unknown just to be in the true fashion of ADM. It's up to him. ML ETA - Again, you can certainly take it all with a grain of salt. Like I said, the report seems pretty decently authored, by whomever it was that wrote it. To me the most specific term would be lapping [even though there is no compound involved], rather than either burnishing or wearing, since in effect what is happening is a more precision mating of two parts which were manufactured separately through the application of contact forces between them. bur·nish    (bûrnsh) KEY   TRANSITIVE VERB: bur·nished , bur·nish·ing , bur·nish·es To make smooth or glossy by or as if by rubbing; polish. To rub with a tool that serves especially to smooth or polish. Ya, burnishing is completely wrong Also from Merriam Webster: Main Entry: lap Function: verb Inflected Form(s): lapped; lap•ping Date: 14th century transitive verb 5 a: to dress, smooth, or polish (as a metal surface) to a high degree of refinement or accuracy b: to shape or fit by working two surfaces together with or without abrasives until a very close fit is produced I stand by my previous comment that lapping is a more precise description of what is happening than burnishing.

And you would be incorrect, rings are lapped.  The lever on the mount isn't lapping the upper, it's burnishing it.  It's somewhat polishing the upper surface, good try though.

ETA - your only using "Lapping" instead of "Burnishing" because Mark used the term burnishing.  When I was an engineer in the Auto industry, we burnished brake pads to rotors, not lapped them.  There is a difference.  Lapping is done pro-actively to gain a specific result - as in rings.  Burnishing is caused by two parts moving against eachother, its a result.

Try this experiment, mount one of your LT's in it's "normal" position on a given rail, you know the one with the small semi-circular "burnish" marks.  Then try it in a different, previously unused position on the same rail; the levers will be tighter.  Why, because the new position has not been lapped to create the same precision fit.

This is really a bit of semantics, as we both know what is happening at the interface.

Originally Posted By murderman: Try this experiment, mount one of your LT's in it's "normal" position on a given rail, you know the one with the small semi-circular "burnish" marks.  Then try it in a different, previously unused position on the same rail; the levers will be tighter.  Why, because the new position has not been lapped to create the same precision fit. This is really a bit of semantics, as we both know what is happening at the interface.

I'll agree they are very similar terms.  My LaRue mounts require the same force anywhere on the upper, there is no material being removed by the levers.  The anodizing is just a little shinier, I also use lube on this interface.

What I think you should do, is tone down your, for lack of a better word, rants about LaRue/ADM.

I think thats good advice.  I'm about to place an order for some larue gear so I'm not bashing you guys or anything.  I'm always much more impressed with the vendor who is confident his product is great and lets it stand on its own merit.  Anonymous tests, trading insults with others, and gossiping about the latest thing that so-and-so did that you found insulting just don't do anything to make me want to buy from people.  In this forum I see stuff about aac, stickman, noveske, adm, etc.  None of that makes me want to buy LaRue gear, it just seems childish.  In fact it probably drives me in the other direction.  I'm ordering your gear because you guys make a real quality product and have good customer service.  You don't need to point out how bad the other guys are.  Maybe I'm not appreciating the seperation between your company's goods and your own personal views on seems to be a pretty "dirty" industry but it seems like you're stooping to their level and you shouldn't have to do that if you think you make the best.

My $.02 and all that