Opinions, beefs, bitches, raves I am leaning toward the Larue M68, but still have an open mind.....

it really is a dead horse. decide what ya want to do with it.how much ya wanna spend and then just pick one. everybody will tell ya LaRure or ARMS or KAC or GG&G or the Aimpoint mount. I have an ARMS and Like it alot. If I had waited a year and then started looking I would possibly  have got a LaRue and would have liked it a lot. all boils down to preference. I like a Cantilver mount. I also wanted quick detach with a good return to zero. Based on my two preferences I picked the ARMS22M68 with the cantilver spacer. Knowing want I know about the mount I picked now I would recommend it cause I have experience with it that has been positive. (one unit and only one experience..mine)

Other guys on this board who's opinions I respect will point to LaRue and I would have a hard time believing that would be a bad choice based on their experience and how it worked for them. I don't have experience with anything but the ARMS and the Aimpoint QRD mount (it was issued) That mount worked fine but I never got to really wring it out and shoot a lot while attaching/removing it and checking my zero. and the large Knurled Ratcheting knob is kinda a pain (literaly). There..that's my opinion..good luck on your choice. I hope you'll be happy with the one ya make.

Larue.

Christ man it isn't like there are already 300 threads on this topic. Go read those rather than making people post their opinions twice. DON'T BE LAZY!

Larue if you want a QD straight-up mount.

Knights if you want a cantilever.

-z

Quoted: Christ man it isn't like there are already 300 threads on this topic. Go read those rather than making people post their opinions twice. DON'T BE LAZY!

Not so easy sifting through 300 threads and 65000 posts, the whole idea of a forum is to ask specific questions and get specific answers, now I have my own thread with links for buying a mount thanks....

Larue. And buy it from G&R Tactical... Simple!!

Speaking of which, any idea when the cantilever LaRue mount is going to be making its debut?

Scott

The ARMS 22M68 is modular so it can be raised or lowered via a spacer, or cantalever extention. Throw levers that are realy spring loaded. Built in buffer pad so the bottom angles of a rail don't get eaten up or worn from on/off opening/closing of the attachment foot. Spring loaded locking not crushed by any tools needed. Recomended and also sold by Aimpoint.
Good shootin, Jack

Quoted: LaRue PRI Knights I wouldnt hesitate to use any of them.

I agree 100%. I own all three of the above mounts, and Lumpy even listed them in my order of preference!

-Cap'n

Quoted: Larue. And buy it from G&R Tactical... Simple!!

GideeUp!!

What Grant said.  If you want the most solid mount that will get your Aimpoint up high enough to co-witness in the bottom 1/3 go Larue.  It's hard to find a nicer guy or better customer service than Larue.

Quoted: Quoted: The ARMS 22M68 is modular so it can be raised or lowered via a spacer, or cantalever extention. Throw levers that are realy spring loaded. Built in buffer pad so the bottom angles of a rail don't get eaten up or worn from on/off opening/closing of the attachment foot. Spring loaded locking not crushed by any tools needed. Recomended and also sold by Aimpoint. Good shootin, Jack Let's tell the other side of the story Dick (sorry Jack). The screws that go into the spacers strip as they are two diff. types of metal (bad idea). Throw levers that are injection molded, making them prone to breaking (bad idea). A buffer pad that makes it impossible to put the mount directly onto the rail as it must be angled and the pad must be pushed over to the side to go on (bad idea). Throw levers that a designed to fit on the ARMS rails, which do not follow the 1913 Picatinny spec. This makes them either two tight on the rail or to loose on the rail (bad idea). ARMS makes NOTHING in-house, which means their QC is going to be lower (bad idea). Good shootin Jack! C4

AJNTSA  

Quoted: Quoted: The ARMS 22M68 is modular so it can be raised or lowered via a spacer, or cantalever extention. Throw levers that are realy spring loaded. Built in buffer pad so the bottom angles of a rail don't get eaten up or worn from on/off opening/closing of the attachment foot. Spring loaded locking not crushed by any tools needed. Recomended and also sold by Aimpoint. Good shootin, Jack Let's tell the other side of the story Dick (sorry Jack). The screws that go into the spacers strip as they are two diff. types of metal (bad idea). Throw levers that are injection molded, making them prone to breaking (bad idea). A buffer pad that makes it impossible to put the mount directly onto the rail as it must be angled and the pad must be pushed over to the side to go on (bad idea). Throw levers that a designed to fit on the ARMS rails, which do not follow the 1913 Picatinny spec. This makes them either two tight on the rail or to loose on the rail (bad idea). ARMS makes NOTHING in-house, which means their QC is going to be lower (bad idea). Good shootin Jack! [spank] C4

First of all my name isn't Dick!!! From what I see= Stainless steel screws into stainless steel bushings, (your bad observation) Injection molded feet and levers for precision tolerances by large manufacturers who spend engineering time to meet mil-specs for this process, for better than CNC QC, and the method used for many of the internal components in the M16 and other devices of war, if you don’t like MIM then you better sell your AR Quick, ( ignorance on your part very evident), Tilting a mount on is no different than dropping on as it still goes on, as all Weaver style mounts must hook one side or the other first to go into place, the buffer pad keeps the host rail from being ruined from an attachment foot cutting thru the protective hard finish that prevents salt eating away bare softer alum., (not having that protection is a very bad idea), The ARMS throw levers are designed to fit mi-standard 1913, 90 degree included rail angles, and to say the ARMS rails are not to spec is gross ignorance on your part, or if it was the case, you better tell the US gov't inspectors that they don't know what they are doing, (either way you talk about things you obviously don't have a clue about, The last is about as ignorant as the rest of your nonsense, as government contracts that ARMS have been filling for years are controlled by ARMS, tooling, prints, and government inspectors that have been going to ARMS various manufacturing facilities for many years. Obviously you have never been to any, at any time.
By the way, The spring loaded throw levers are preferred by most all makers for several very good reasons, they repeat zero better than anything out there because no one has to tighten anything after mounting, because the ARMS throw levers are pre measured to a given distance and locked there. To tighten them down after installation will crush any spring until it not longer provides a shock absorber effect to an optic/laser device. The manufactures and government have already determined that the shock to mounted devices from firing has been lessened by a factor of ten do to the ARMS spring system acting much like shock absorbers do on a vehicle, to include shock tests of all types, that's another (why) ARMS throw levers are used on so many weapons in so many countries. Years of actual evaluations and years of combat, (not made up junk messages)have proven the opposite of the nonsense you foster on this web.  (bad Idea!) I have personally worked with all kinds of products issued in large numbers to our troops, and the ARMS products are top shelf. To verify this, you can go to the government and find out, and if you wish, go to the ARMS web. at armsmounts.com and see lots of the certificates of appreciation from our military for the work they do, and the same products you underhandedly and ignorantly make up crap for attack, so you can sell something different. Facts are somthing you keep denying no matter what the source, so I suppose you won't reason enough to look anywhere for ducumentd facts I suggest.
According to your reasoning, the goverment ducuments published by many sources in the Black Rifle book must be wrong, the certificates of appriciation on the ARMS web. must be suspect cause you don't like them. Well there are non so blind as those who will not see, especially if looking means you are proven to be full of BS.
Jack

Quoted: First of all my name isn't Dick!!! From what I see= Stainless steel screws into stainless steel bushings, (your bad observation) Injection molded feet and levers for precision tolerances by large manufacturers who spend engineering time to meet mil-specs for this process, for better than CNC QC, and the method used for many of the internal components in the M16 and other devices of war, if you don’t like MIM then you better sell your AR Quick, ( ignorance on your part very evident), Tilting a mount on is no different than dropping on as it still goes on, as all Weaver style mounts must hook one side or the other first to go into place, the buffer pad keeps the host rail from being ruined from an attachment foot cutting thru the protective hard finish that prevents salt eating away bare softer alum., (not having that protection is a very bad idea), The ARMS throw levers are designed to fit mi-standard 1913, 90 degree included rail angles, and to say the ARMS rails are not to spec is gross ignorance on your part, or if it was the case, you better tell the US gov't inspectors that they don't know what they are doing, (either way you talk about things you obviously don't have a clue about, The last is about as ignorant as the rest of your nonsense, as government contracts that ARMS have been filling for years are controlled by ARMS, tooling, prints, and government inspectors that have been going to ARMS various manufacturing facilities for many years. Obviously you have never been to any, at any time. By the way, The spring loaded throw levers are preferred by most all makers for several very good reasons, they repeat zero better than anything out there because no one has to tighten anything after mounting, because the ARMS throw levers are pre measured to a given distance and locked there. To tighten them down after installation will crush any spring until it not longer provides a shock absorber effect to an optic/laser device. The manufactures and government have already determined that the shock to mounted devices from firing has been lessened by a factor of ten do to the ARMS spring system acting much like shock absorbers do on a vehicle, to include shock tests of all types, that's another (why) ARMS throw levers are used on so many weapons in so many countries. Years of actual evaluations and years of combat, (not made up junk messages)have proven the opposite of the nonsense you foster on this web.  (bad Idea!) I have personally worked with all kinds of products issued in large numbers to our troops, and the ARMS products are top shelf. To verify this, you can go to the government and find out, and if you wish, go to the ARMS web. at armsmounts.com and see lots of the certificates of appreciation from our military for the work they do, and the same products you underhandedly and ignorantly make up crap for attack, so you can sell something different. Facts are somthing you keep denying no matter what the source, so I suppose you won't reason enough to look anywhere for ducumentd facts I suggest. According to your reasoning, the goverment ducuments published by many sources in the Black Rifle book must be wrong, the certificates of appriciation on the ARMS web. must be suspect cause you don't like them. Well there are non so blind as those who will not see, especially if looking means you are proven to be full of BS.hr

Sir would it be safe to say you work for ARMS?  

Nope, But I do work with their stuff and that of a lot of other military suppliers.
Jack

Ordered the Larue mount yesterday from G&R. thanks