Warning

 

Close

Confirm Action

Are you sure you wish to do this?

Confirm Cancel
Member Login
Site Notices
9/19/2017 7:27:10 PM
Posted: 10/8/2002 8:57:38 PM EDT
Hello, I'm looking to buy a GG&G standard aimpoint mount. Will I need to use a spacer to get the correct height for my flattop? I currently use a cantilever mount and I like the height. What mount are the GI's using now? I haven't seen any with a cantilever. Thank you for the help.
Link Posted: 10/9/2002 1:59:26 AM EDT
Yes you will need a spacer or a rail such as the GG&G FIRE rail.
e-mail me and I can send you a pic of a sweet setup.
It just so happens I have one for sale also, just look in the optics for sale area under me.
Link Posted: 10/9/2002 7:38:01 AM EDT
Just curious, why are you ditching the cantilever? It is my favorite Aimpoint mount. It puts the Aimpoint at a great height, and forward mounts it where it should be. It doesnt require the use of a rail or spacer and that saves weight and keep things simple. Heck it even has a spare battery compartment.

Hey, all 3 of us are in FL!!! Please check out the link in my signature!
Link Posted: 10/9/2002 8:52:01 AM EDT
I finally came across a really good price for an AIMPOINT M2, so, naturally, I'm thinking about what type of mount to use.

At first I was looking at standard mounts with spacers, but then I came across the cantilever mount by GGG. It looks like the best mount out there. But is it as sturdy as the conventional mounts? Does it's design have any weak points?
Link Posted: 10/9/2002 2:14:34 PM EDT
The GG&G cantilever mount is super sturdy, you would destroy the Aimpoint before the mount would break.
Link Posted: 10/9/2002 9:47:36 PM EDT
I just prefer the look of the standard mount( I currently own a cantilever). I have shot both mounts and for me it didn't make any difference. So, why not have the look I prefer.
Link Posted: 10/9/2002 11:19:22 PM EDT
Forward mounts like the Cantiler make two eye open shooting easier, clears your field of view, allows for quicker focus and target acquisition and eliminates the tube effect you hear some people complaining about. Other than these small differences they'll both work.
Link Posted: 10/9/2002 11:20:36 PM EDT
Oh, and BTW, if you do go with the standard GG&G mount on a flat top, you will need a spacer.
Link Posted: 10/10/2002 2:52:56 PM EDT
[Last Edit: 10/10/2002 2:53:43 PM EDT by hotaling]
new-arguy, I'm happy that your so in love with the cantilever mount. I own a cantilever presently and have shot with both types of mounts. I do not see any difference and I prefer the look of the standard mount. Plus, sometime in the future I'd like to mount a laser to the top of my handguards and do not want the cantilever to be in the way. Thats why I'm switching back to the standard mount.
Link Posted: 10/11/2002 4:09:18 AM EDT
[Last Edit: 10/13/2002 9:52:20 AM EDT by MSTN]
Link Posted: 10/13/2002 7:59:12 AM EDT
Check this out... it may be what you are looking for;

www.ar15.com/forums/topic.html?b=7&f=23&t=143011
Link Posted: 10/31/2002 12:46:45 PM EDT
Does anyone know if the red dot of an ML2 will
be above the iron sight with the use of ARMS#5
riser and the ARMS throw lever QD ring?
Link Posted: 10/31/2002 7:48:32 PM EDT
New to posting, but having lurked for awhile, I'd like to offer an alternative idea on sight axis and placement of the Aimpoint sight.

I just purchased a Fulton Armory Liberator with the flip-up front sight, a Comp ML2, and a GG&G STANDARD ring (just on the flat-top). Here's what I have found:

1. With the front sight flipped down, the Aimpoint is at about the PERFECT height for a proper (well, MY proper) cheek weld on the fixed A2 stock. Since I will have a hard weld, I can mount the gun with my eyes closed and have the dot just about on-center, REPEATABLY. If I use the regular sight axis, I'd probably have to do a couple thousand repetitions to achieve as good a picture as quickly.

2. The reserve sights, I believe, will still work: when I flip up the front sight and put the sighted-in Aimpoint dot on top of the post, I am looking through the top 1/3 to 1/4 of the tube, BUT I CAN STILL SEE IT! This means, to me, that my reserve sighting system SHOULD NOT require that the ML2 be removed. In that instance, the system will be somewhat slower for me, as I have to hold my head at the right height and find the sight alignment visually, but it will work.

I'm still deciding on the various options for a flip-up rear, whether that be a very low-profile unit like the GG&G MAD, or a larger unit like the A2 types. My decision point lies in whether the larger rear sight will encroach excessively on the Aimpoint view...

Am I the only one with this anatomical issue?

Julian
Link Posted: 11/1/2002 6:50:49 AM EDT
Dr-J,

Whatever works for you.

It doenst work for me though out of a couple of reasons.

First of all The Aimpoint is a CCO (Close Combat Optic) Meaning an optic made for Close Quarters Battle.
The nature of CQB is fast and violent and the nature of such actions does things to your body.

In a stressful situation you will have difficulty achieving a low cheekweld, because your neckmuscles will go against it by nature, meaning you neck will be straight, and you will have to force your head down, making you a slower shot than one with a little higher line of sight.

Another rule of thumb is conform the weapon to you, not conform you to your weapon. Bring the weapon into the line of sight, not your head down into the line of sight.
It's about speed and ergonomics, and a higher mount will make you faster.

Now if you only need the Aimpoint for plinking and this works for you, by all means stay with it.
But like Wes states: There is a reason all the manufacturers mounts have the same height, it works !
Link Posted: 11/1/2002 10:45:57 AM EDT
Dr J, Are you one of those guys with no neck?

The standard mount right to the flat top would have me twisting my head and neck all over the place trying to get comfortable.
Link Posted: 11/1/2002 5:02:57 PM EDT
Keld/new-arguy,
Believe it or not, It's not really a neck issue for me--it's a cheekbone/facial structure issue:

When I mount a regular AR w/ a carry handle, as the gun comes up, I do indeed move my face to meet the comb of the stock (thousands of repetitions on shotguns, perhaps?). I then see only the back of the carry handle, and no sight picture. If the optic is mounted low, as mine is, when my cheekbone rests on the top of the stock, the sight picture is just about perfect any time, without my having to adjust head position. To do this on a high optic, I have to hold my head up and look for the sights, as I find no REPEATABLE physical index.

As far as moving my head down, I do that naturally with the handgun, Gunsite 250 notwithstanding: I find it unnatural to stand up completely straight w/ head erect like Col. Cooper in the old photographs...

Anyway, I am a funny-lookin' guy, but it seems strange that my anatomy would be so different. Is it that most people just get used to "jaw welding" or "chin welding" instead of the cheek weld I learned as a trapshooter years ago? The one exception is when I tried a NAVY SPECWAR DEVGRU guy's Commando length rifle with the collapsible stock. Theirs had "wings" on either side of the comb that my chin would hit, making for a consistent chin weld that put my head in perfect position.

Hey, if the charging handle weren't at the back of the receiver, I would have bought an AR long time ago and just attached a cheekpiece!

Anyway, thanks for the thoughts--I'm still a newbie at this AR thing!

Julian
Top Top