Confirm Action

Are you sure you wish to do this?

Confirm Cancel
Member Login
Site Notices
9/22/2017 12:11:25 AM
Posted: 6/20/2003 3:23:11 PM EDT
[Last Edit: 6/20/2003 5:14:59 PM EDT by Wespe]
Decided to try out both for zero retention after removal from flat-top rail. Both companies make claims that they hold zero after removal and reinstalling mount and I found that to be a pretty hard to believe claim. I posted here earlier about which one is better and the consensus was the ARMS took the top pick from members here.

While the ARMS costs a bit more than the Aimpoint, it also appears to have much more machining done to it and appearance wise seems to have more attention to detail and quality, not to say the Aimpoint isn't a quality mount, just not as nice looking I guess. Looks aside, I was looking for function.

Both seemed to lock up well with the rail, with the ARMS feeling more solid than the Railgrabber. The throwlever also doesn't stick out as much as the torqueing knob on the Railgrabber. Both methods keep the mounts tightened with the same pressure each time they are remounted after removal. For people who have a tendency to overtighten things, these methods both work great.

Using the same ammo, Aimpoint sight and rifle for both mounts, the Aimpoint repeated perfect in windage but required 2 clicks in elevation at 50 yards to re-zero. With the ARMS M68, elevation was perfect, but required 4 clicks in windage to re-zero the sight.

I hate to say this to all the ARMS fans out there, but the Aimpoint mount outperformed the ARMS mount. The ARMS may look like a more solid unit, but my test showed that not to be the case when testing repeatability, granted I only tried it once with each mount, so if tested more, it may turn out differently. Either way, neither could hold their claim to repeatable zero, but the Aimpoint was twice as good at it for less money in that respect. I was pretty surprised at the results myself. I'll have to test them out a few more times to really get a better feeling about which is better I think. Just my $.02
Link Posted: 6/20/2003 6:24:20 PM EDT
Interesting info, Wespe. Thanks for posting. I'm about to get an Aimpoint for my new RRA, and the Rail Grabber will be the first mount I try.
Link Posted: 6/20/2003 6:27:49 PM EDT
When you re-attached the mounts, did you first draw the optic to the rear, push it foward, or did neither before tightening? Good shootin, Jack
Link Posted: 6/20/2003 7:26:27 PM EDT
I am also about to get an Aimpoint and would be very interested in your results after a few more tests. Thanks for your effort Wespe, I think more than a few people would be interested in the results.
Link Posted: 6/20/2003 7:59:55 PM EDT
The reason I asked how it was mounted is that the throw levers have been proven more repeatable than any other type of attachment buy many others to include spec ops for the SPR sniper weaponns. The throw levers are also used on gun ships for the laser aiming at very long distances and are know for dead nuts repeatability under very severe conditions. The direction of lever force pulls the ring down, not across, so windage doesn't change like on thumb nuts. Thumb nuts pull across and are never tightened with the same amount of force, hence windage shift do to un equell pressures from mounting to mounting. The throw levers do rely on the quality of the dovetail to be a (true) mil spec 1913 dim., not just one made that looks like it might be. What flat top was used, and how were they mounted in in the notch, would help us. Good shootin, Jack
Link Posted: 6/20/2003 8:09:21 PM EDT
I have both. Don't give yourself a doubt. Go with ARMS 22M68.
Link Posted: 6/20/2003 8:19:28 PM EDT
When I reattached the sights I used the same method of pushing it forward until it stopped and then clamped the sight down. The Railgrabber has a ratchet type thumb screw that slips once it get to a certain amount of torque so it remains the same every time it is put on. I understand the way the throw lever pulls the mount down on to the rail so the angled surfaces seat against one another and it seems as though this would be a better method than the thumb screw, but actually I lost no windage with the Railgrabber, just elevation, the ARMS mount was needing adjustment in windage, but elevaton was perfect. Oh yeah, was a Bushmaster flat top that I used to mount them to. I don't know if it is really possible to get exact repeatability without custom fitting the mounts to the rails, they both have tolerances that if are on the opposite end of the tolerance, they may not mate up perfect.
Link Posted: 6/20/2003 11:45:24 PM EDT
Originally Posted By MaverickMkii: I have both. Don't give yourself a doubt. Go with ARMS 22M68.
View Quote
Link Posted: 6/20/2003 11:49:15 PM EDT
I tested this same thing the other day. I moved my ARMS 22M68 with cantilever extension to 3 different locations on my flat top. No change of POI. Not saying thats not possible with the Aimpoint mount, because I dont own one and have never played with one.
Link Posted: 6/21/2003 6:11:44 AM EDT
FWIW, I had an ARMS 22M68 that wouldn't clamp down tight enough on my Bushy flattop. The Railgrabber works great on the same rifle due to the thumbscrews greater range of motion. I know, my rail must be out of spec... Personally, I prefer the Railgrabber anyway.
Link Posted: 6/21/2003 6:15:43 AM EDT
Almost forgot, the Railgrabber rezeros almost perfectly when removed and reinstalled. It's usually well under and inch from zero @ 50 yards.
Link Posted: 6/21/2003 8:56:58 AM EDT
Not all picatinney rails are created equal. I had an ACOG strapped to a 19S, same throw lever system as the 22M68. It would not lock onto the detachable rail for my AUG, so I had to fall back on the good old TA-51 mount. This same 19S will fit on any of my flattop receivers, as does the TA-51. Go figure. When a mfg. says picatinney, it should be picatinney spec. all the way.
Link Posted: 6/21/2003 7:16:39 PM EDT
Zeroed my aimpoint sith ARMS M68 2 once and have never lost zero since. I remove it when doing a detail clean. Never used a Railgrabber so I cannot give input there.
Top Top