User Panel
User Panel
User Panel
|
Posted: 10/16/2003 10:53:41 AM EDT
[#1]
The AimPoints were purchased as a package deal with the AimPoint Rail-Grabber mount. Thus, this is the mount you almost always see. ARMS mounts are more expensive (that often disqualifies you from being general military issue), and would have been an additional hassle, being another vendor.
Those of us spending our own money can get whatever we want, and since the ARMS mount is the best, that's what most of us have. -Troy |
|
|
|
Posted: 10/16/2003 12:45:28 PM EDT
[#2]
Basically Aimpoint QRP railgrabber(NSN-1240-01-439-7265) with half moon spacer is official issue.
Backup sights are the Knights 300 meter that come with the SOPMOD kit. I have seen the Knight's Cantilever mount used with the Force Recon Guys and Standard Knight's mount used with the DEVGRU guys. |
|
|
|
Posted: 10/16/2003 3:28:33 PM EDT
[#3]
The BIS I was referring to isn't a Knight's. Look in the latest issue of Small Arms Review, about page 61. There is an article about 3-187 of the 101st. Look closely at the BIS's those guys have on their M-4's.
|
|
|
|
Posted: 10/16/2003 3:34:07 PM EDT
[#4]
The BIS I was referring to isn't a Knight's. Look in the latest issue of Small Arms Review, about page 61. There is an article about 3-187 of the 101st. Look closely at the BIS's those guys have on their M-4's.
|
|
|
|
Posted: 10/16/2003 5:42:39 PM EDT
[#5]
Quoted: Those of us spending our own money can get whatever we want, and since the ARMS mount is the best, that's what most of us have. I'll keep my QRP. The 22M68 ARMS I had was loose on my Bushmaster flattop. No problems with the QRP. Even assuming the ARMS fit correctly, it's tit for tat. |
|
|
|
Posted: 10/17/2003 4:21:55 AM EDT
[#6]
There is a lot of ARMS stuff in the field. If you look at the cover of Newsweek soon after 911, you yill see a spec ops guy with the #38 rail with the #40 built in, being used by spec ops. Aimpoint sell the #22M68 as a package to Gov't orders.
Good shootin, Jack |
|
|
|
Posted: 10/17/2003 8:18:23 AM EDT
[#7]
Quoted: a wierd one with the 101st that has a sliding elevation scale Was the sight this one? [img]http://web.utk.edu/~utpolice/Graphics/buis.jpg[/img] This is a sight that the picatinny arsenal came up with. Never seen it up close but looks a little complicated for a backup sight. |
|
|
|
Posted: 10/17/2003 8:53:41 AM EDT
[#8]
3rdtk-fill us in about the problems concernig the picatinny BUIS. I remember snagging.
|
|
|
|
Posted: 10/17/2003 10:35:47 AM EDT
[#9]
That's it! Is this sight available on the market or was it a contract only? I've never seen it advertised on this site or any other dealer of stuff unique to the M-4.
|
|
|
|
Posted: 10/17/2003 11:00:28 AM EDT
[#10]
I think also the Picatinny buis was also folding when hit under contact and snapping off at the base of the aperature as well
|
|
|
|
Posted: 10/17/2003 6:52:47 PM EDT
[#11]
Only one aperature, small, no good for QCB.
Nick name RAT TRAP, because it acts like one since when you raise it for elevation the center arm goes up and when lowering, it can get jammed (UP) from the slightest bit of debri light dirt, twigs, etc. etc. It hurts like hell when the protruding elivation knob gets ya. They tried to emulate the spring action of the ARMS #40, but they put a catch that grabs the sight post if you hit it more than a little and thus defeats the spring back action. Takes up more space of the top rail than it should, and therefore screws up eye relief adjustment for short eye relief optics, and espec, NV monoculars. The cheap and thin securing socket head screw loves to break during instalation. Those are just some of the problems. Very bad shootin, Jack |
|
|
|
Posted: 10/17/2003 11:49:05 PM EDT
[#12]
No its not avalible as of yet. but really the arms 40 is much better than that one.
FREE Quoted: That's it! Is this sight available on the market or was it a contract only? I've never seen it advertised on this site or any other dealer of stuff unique to the M-4. |
|
|
|
Posted: 10/18/2003 12:20:28 AM EDT
[#13]
Quoted: No its not avalible as of yet. but really the arms 40 is much better than that one. FREE Quoted: That's it! Is this sight available on the market or was it a contract only? I've never seen it advertised on this site or any other dealer of stuff unique to the M-4. Correctomundo. Go with the ARMS #40. The best BUIS in the market. |
|
|
|
Posted: 10/18/2003 11:29:00 AM EDT
[#14]
Quoted: I'll keep my QRP. The 22M68 ARMS I had was loose on my Bushmaster flattop. No problems with the QRP. Even assuming the ARMS fit correctly, it's tit for tat. I had the same problem with my 22M68. I tried it on several different uppers of different makes and it kept moving, not keeping zero. Then I went to the Aimpoint QRP and no more problems. I believe the ARMS mount is the most overated piece of shit ever. |
|
|
|
Posted: 10/19/2003 2:57:44 AM EDT
[#15]
Quoted: Quoted: I'll keep my QRP. The 22M68 ARMS I had was loose on my Bushmaster flattop. No problems with the QRP. Even assuming the ARMS fit correctly, it's tit for tat. I had the same problem with my 22M68. I tried it on several different uppers of different makes and it kept moving, not keeping zero. Then I went to the Aimpoint QRP and no more problems. I believe the ARMS mount is the most overated piece of shit ever. Have you tried contacting ARMS to let them check out your #22M68? They have great customer service, and it could be something wrong with that individual mount. I've got two M2's in #22M68's that I haven't had any problems with, but [u]guaranteed[/u] that ARMS would hear from me if I was in your situation 'cuz I'd be PISSED! Chris |
|
|
|
Posted: 10/19/2003 12:30:14 PM EDT
[#16]
Quoted: Have you tried contacting ARMS to let them check out your #22M68? They have great customer service, and it could be something wrong with that individual mount. I've got two M2's in #22M68's that I haven't had any problems with, but [u]guaranteed[/u] that ARMS would hear from me if I was in your situation 'cuz I'd be PISSED! Chris Chris I called ARMS and the guy I talked to said the mount should move. He said to slide it all the way forward in the slot and lock the lever. However, when I did this, the mount would slide back after firing the rifle. He said the reason why the mount was made loose is so a soldier can attach the mount when is is covered in mud or snow. I new that was bullshit so I quickly sold the mount. I'm not tring to start a flame war but this is my experience with the mount and is 100% true. |
|
|
|
Posted: 10/19/2003 2:04:27 PM EDT
[#17]
My mount does not move even so much as a nanometer! And as for sliding it forward in the slot...???
To mount mine, I do it from side-to-side and then lock it down. It has been removed dozens of times and every range visit results in perfect accuracy the same as before. I wonder if somehow the fact that I accidently received the TRI-POWER mount in the #22M68 box has something to do with it? Or maybe ARMS released some of these mounts out-of-spec and chose the "movement issue" to hide their screw up? Mine does NOT move! |
|
|
|
Posted: 10/19/2003 4:46:04 PM EDT
[#18]
I use an issue M68 QD mount from Aimpoint. I figured if it was issued to the Army it must be GI proof and have a tested track record of durability. Of everything I have read no soldier has had anything bad to say about it. I use the 300m KAC flip up. Good enough for the Army, good enough for me.
|
|
|
|
Posted: 10/19/2003 8:19:08 PM EDT
[#19]
TOTAL BULLSHIT, NO RING, GOES BACK AFTER FIRERING, they all stay forward, and or move forward if not pushed there. All military mounts are made to fit the mil spec slots in the receiver, for the very reason that the cross bar will not get hung up from going onto the reciver from mud, etc.hence nothch clearance by mil spec! The answer you got from ARMS and or will get from any other mil spec maker will be the same, whether you understand it or not is another issue. There are a lot of undersize out of spec receivers out there that a throw lever won't be tight on, but the scope still doesn't go back from recoil, since for every action there is a reaction, Physics ONE, experience two. Undersize receivers also make the ring tilt more than it should to the left if the lever or knob are on the left, tilt to the right if tightened on the right.
Jack |
|
|
|
Posted: 10/19/2003 8:26:58 PM EDT
[#20]
3rdtk....clear out your IM box man.
|
|
|
|
Posted: 10/19/2003 8:32:11 PM EDT
[#21]
Yep
|
|
|
|
Posted: 10/20/2003 12:28:34 PM EDT
[#22]
Mine is on a Swan sleeve, and does NOT move.
|
|
|
|
Posted: 10/20/2003 3:25:36 PM EDT
[#23]
underdog_m4, if I remember correctly that is an older BUIS design that was being evaluated. I'm pretty sure the design was abandoned by the military. I remember posts about it a year or so ago.
|
|
|
|
Posted: 10/20/2003 10:45:40 PM EDT
[#24]
Quoted: since for every action there is a reaction, Physics ONE, experience two. Wrong, Action/reaction has nothing to do with this. It's Newton's first law which applies here NOT Newton's third law |
|
|
Win a FREE Membership!
Sign up for the ARFCOM weekly newsletter and be entered to win a free ARFCOM membership. One new winner* is announced every week!
You will receive an email every Friday morning featuring the latest chatter from the hottest topics, breaking news surrounding legislation, as well as exclusive deals only available to ARFCOM email subscribers.
AR15.COM is the world's largest firearm community and is a gathering place for firearm enthusiasts of all types.
From hunters and military members, to competition shooters and general firearm enthusiasts, we welcome anyone who values and respects the way of the firearm.
Subscribe to our monthly Newsletter to receive firearm news, product discounts from your favorite Industry Partners, and more.
Copyright © 1996-2024 AR15.COM LLC. All Rights Reserved.
Any use of this content without express written consent is prohibited.
AR15.Com reserves the right to overwrite or replace any affiliate, commercial, or monetizable links, posted by users, with our own.
