Introduction/Background

This review took quite a bit of time to complete, not only because I wanted to get a very accurate assessment of each mounts’ strengths and weaknesses, but because I work in the firearms industry, and it took me a while to figure out how to write this without stepping on too many toes.

I would like to add that this is a technical discussion of the mounts ONLY and that I do not wish to discuss any other issues. I am not a lawyer, nor do I consort with lawyers.

I was first introduced to LaRue Tactical by a friend who now works for – wait for it – Vltor Weapons Systems. I was pretty impressed with the ACOG mount he had, as it seemed to be head and shoulders above the dual thumbscrew mount that was foisted upon me when I was in the military. A while later, I purchased a few used Aimpoints. I bought a LaRue cantilever mount, and had problems with it. LT did fix it, although I had to complain loudly before they did, and there was a fumble or two along the way. I will say that I now have more than enough Dillos.

My first brush with American Defense came from Eric Kincel, El Jefe of Vltor. We got off to a rocky start due to a misunderstanding of sorts, but he was nice enough to give me a full tour of Vltor, and an ADM cantilever Aimpoint mount. He also gave me a thorough rundown of the differences between the first and second generation ADM mounts, and the reasons for the changes.

Mr. Kincel told me that he was shown the “Gen 1” ADM mount by a friend in the industry. He liked the concept, but suggested that ADM change a few things, namely the clamping bar, the clamping bolt, and the complicated detent/spring/nut/snap ring assembly which, he said, would seize up after exposure to salt air. He also suggested a use of different springs for the clamping bar, such as the M16/AR15 disconnector spring, as this would be more readily available should someone manage to lose a spring. ADM, who did not know Eric Kincel from Ronald McDonald, said “Thanks for the input, dude” and went ahead with production of their mount.

After a while, ADM came back to Mr. Kincel and said, “Hey, what was it that you were saying about changing the design, or something?” Some of his suggestions were implemented, such as the switch from a large aluminum clamping bar to a smaller steel one, and the move away from the nut secured by a snap ring, and the switch from the round to the square bolt. Some, such as the spring suggestion, were not. Apparently ADM is not going to run out of their current springs any time soon.

Aside from giving him enough free mounts that he felt prosperous enough to simply give one to me, ADM did not reward Mr. Kincel monetarily. He simply requested that he be given credit for his input, and have his name placed on the patent application.

The Test

I had 2 Aimpoint M2s, and was given a third by my employer, as a thank you for doing a really good job sweeping the floor at work. These optics were mounted on several different rifles – two Bravo Company uppers, a Lewis Machine & Tool upper, and a Smith & Wesson 5.45 upper, specifically. The specific mounts involved in this test were two LT129s, two LT150s, and one LT150 RAS II, as well as two ADM AD-68Hs (one Gen 1 and one Gen 2), one AD-15 (Gen 1 version of the AD-68C), and one AD-68L. The AD-68L and LT-150 RAS II mounts were used on a Bravo Company midlength upper equipped with a Vltor CASV-M.

Customer Service

Initially I planned to take a cursory look at both mounts, go to the range once, and write a short review.

I changed my mind and decided to do a “long term test” of sorts after some problems. The first LT-129 mount I received had an improperly seated (crooked) insert, which made it impossible to thread in one of the screws securing the Aimpoint. After the previously mentioned fumble, LaRue replaced the mount via Next Day Air. I should mention that I did not encounter any problems with only three screws securing the Aimpoint.

I ordered an AD-68H from MidwayUSA, because I wanted to compare the AD-15’s Gen 1 design with the Gen 2 design. Unfortunately, Midway sent me a Gen 1 mount, then insisted that there was no possible way that I could have received a Gen 1 mount, because they had only Gen 2 mounts. My protestations of having been given a rundown of the differences between the two by the designer of the Gen 2 mount meant nothing to them. So I called ADM, and they generously offered to replace the Gen 1 mount with a Gen 2 mount.

Initial Thoughts/Appearance

I have to say that I prefer the appearance of the LaRue mount. I don’t like the angles, or the lightening holes, or the skeleton ring design of the ADM. I also prefer the finish of the LaRue. I don’t like the idea of little exposed springs, either, and certain nincompoops have managed to take apart their ADM mounts and lose small parts. I’m told that SOCOM is getting a special version of the ADM throw lever with a staked nut as a result. I would also like to add that the ADM mount works fine without those springs.

Mounting

The ADM mount is much easier to adjust, and much easier to attach to a variety of out-of-spec Picatinny rails than the LaRue mount. However, I don’t own any out-of-spec Picatinny rails, and I don’t tend to move optics from rifle to rifle that often – other than for the purposes of this test.

Believe it or not, I lost my personal 3/8” wrench, misplaced the LaRue wrench after a few months, and didn’t feel like driving 4 miles to my hangar to get another wrench. Happily, my SOG multitool adjusted the LaRue mount just fine.

I still prefer the ADM mount for this portion of the process, however.

I will say that both mounts mar the upper receiver – whether the LT mount “gouges” or “burnishes” is up to someone else, but the ADM mount’s clamping bolt moves slightly from side to side when the throw lever is moved, and this results in wear on the two rails which the bolt rubs against. This is not an issue with the Gen 1 mount, as its bolt is not designed to double as an indexing lug. However, the Gen 2 bolt is a stronger design. Life is full of compromises.

Neither Gen 1 nor Gen 2 ADM mounts perfectly line up with the forward end of the upper receiver, however, the older LT mounts I have examined do not line up perfectly, either. Perhaps this will be addressed in a future Gen 3 ADM mount. In the meantime, I don’t really care.

Mounting the Aimpoint

I’ve already shared the issues with the first LT-129 mount, but the replacement AD-68H mount had its share of problems. Namely, I couldn’t get the 30mm ring tight on my Aimpoint CompM2. I started with the lower screws and then tightened the upper ones. Still, the Aimpoint was able to rotate and move in the mount. I also heard alarming crunching noises when I got close to the mount being tight.

So I removed the Aimpoint. After thoroughly cleaning the steel inserts, I tried again. No luck. Finally, using a very long Allen wrench, I proceeded to tighten and loosen each of the six screws several dozen times. After this process, I was able to properly secure the Aimpoint in the mount, although I still had to use the long Allen wrench.

Range Time

I used the replacement LaRue LT-129 and the ADM AD-68L mount during a Larry Vickers pistol/carbine course in December of 2008 (For anyone else who was there, you may have heard me being referred to as Dragnet). By this time, I had a very good idea of what each mount was capable of, and had a favorable opinion of both. Both held zero throughout the class, and in the months of shooting previous to the class.

My real problems with one of the mounts came after the class, however.

The Aimpoint in the AD-68L – a new CompM2 – lost zero, not by inches, but by about 10 feet. I placed the rifle in an Eagle discreet case at the class, brought it home, and set the rifle and case in a little-used hallway in my house. When I prepared to go to the range several weeks later, I noticed that the M2’s dot was no longer in alignment with the iron sights. Time at the range confirmed that zero had indeed changed, by a huge margin. The screws securing the CASV-M, as well as the screws securing the M2 in the mount, were still tight. I am at a loss to explain this issue. It was suggested that perhaps the Aimpoint itself could be the culprit. Testing is ongoing (that is, the Aimpoint is in a different mount in the trunk of my ’68 Mustang, being hammered every day by 5 leaf springs when I drive to work).

In my defense, and to reiterate, I know how to properly adjust the ADM throw lever, and have been fully certified to operate an Allen wrench.

Conclusion

In my opinion, the ADM mounts are, if not in their infancy, perhaps still experiencing growing pains. I feel that 6 screws are overkill, that the lightening holes are ugly, and that vertical split rings need to be changed to another design. Frankly, I don’t even like them on the LaRue mount.

If I were looking to buy an Aimpoint mount at the moment, I’d most likely buy a LaRue mount. That said, I’d take either one if I were to redeploy to Iraq.

I apologize if this review seems long and complicated. I simply felt that it was in everyone’s best interests if I gave the whole story. Again, thanks to Eric Kincel for the ADM mount.

thankyou for a straightforward and honest review of both mounts !

I look forward to hearing more after your ponycar testing

Larue makes the best Aimpoint mount in my opinion

Bump for a good review.

Nice, unbiased review.

+1 for Eric Kincel.  

I knew him when VLTOR was based out of Coeur d'Alene.  

Eric is a brilliant engineer type, and knows almost too much about guns

I support VLTOR because of their great products, but also because of Eric.

+2 for LaRue. I'll let LaRue burnish/shine my rails any time.

It sounds like your mount was 1 in 1,000 (likely more) having a mal-aligned hole like that. Just bad luck that you were the one to receive it. Sucks that it had to be in the review, but that just displays LaRue’s 100% guarantee.

Just an update - the Aimpoint in my trunk has lost zero again - this time in a LaRue mount. So I don't think the mounts are to blame.

Indeed, nicely done and thanks for the impartial review.  I'm with you on most issues, the lightening holes and cuts don't save much weight but do make the mounts somewhat unique looking.
As to the mount being flush with the end of the upper receiver rail, you have stated you don't care.  I don't either, I think whether it's flush or not, it has no merits other than appearance.  In this single instance, I think you might have been influenced by the review LT put out years ago, done by some anonymous, supposedly impartial reviewer.

You put your name on your review and I think it carries more weight
(I thought you were a LaRue cheerleader, now I think otherwise )

I don't know how Eric's name ever got dragged into LT vs the world thing, I wish there wouldn't be an us against them mentality, but some LT followers can't seem to think for themselves.

As an LT kool-aid drinker myself, I agree that some people take it way too far.

 

Only working from a sample size of 3 or 4, but these all seemed to be OK in that regard. I know what you are talking about though. Probably helped that the ones I received were fairly well covered in some sort of lubricant.



Thanks. I think highly of LaRue's products, but also ADM and Vltor and plenty of other companies.

I think that issue came from Eric Kincel's name being on the patent for the mount, and some may have drawn the picture without knowing that they were missing a few dots.

do one with the new Bobro mount as well

I have one coming

Interesting, and a good review.

I'm having an issue with a T1 right now, so I can understand the bizarre Aimpoint issue.

Now accepting donations of Aimpoint mounts

I will contribute to this review when ARMS releases its mounts with the new adjustable throw levers

Bump for a Good Review

Thanks for the info, it's good to have

Are these out yet?

Not that I know of, I have never seen one outside of the SHOT show

Yes, I can do that. IM sent.