Warning

 

Close

Confirm Action

Are you sure you wish to do this?

Confirm Cancel
BCM
Member Login

Site Notices
Posted: 12/18/2003 9:05:47 AM EDT
...look no further than the LMT fixed BUIS. I just received mine from MSTN (thanks again Paul!!) and I have to say the darn thing is impressive. It's built like a tank. I can't wait to get the thing mounted and zero'd. I also like the fact that it's just like a carry handle BUIS with the elevation knob. So, if you're looking at the ARMS #40 to use with a red dot, you owe it to yourself to check out the LMT. It's worth every penny.

FWIW, I do have an ARMS #40 under my TA-31 but the Aimpoint rifle gets the LMT.
Link Posted: 12/18/2003 2:55:00 PM EDT
Can't see how that's better than a DPMS Detachable Rear Sight:

http://www.del-ton.com/images/accessories_img/sights/dpms_detachable_sight.jpg
Link Posted: 12/18/2003 3:18:46 PM EDT
Link Posted: 12/18/2003 4:03:50 PM EDT
Originally Posted By ar15seeker:
Can't see how that's better than a DPMS Detachable Rear Sight:

http://www.del-ton.com/images/accessories_img/sights/dpms_detachable_sight.jpg
View Quote



Umm....no
Link Posted: 12/18/2003 4:43:25 PM EDT
Originally Posted By ar15seeker:
Can't see how that's better than a DPMS Detachable Rear Sight:

http://www.del-ton.com/images/accessories_img/sights/dpms_detachable_sight.jpg
View Quote


HAHAHAHA

Tell you what you can have mine if it is ever found - got knocked clean off my rifle on ex

the screws are to thin and weak.


Get the LMT or cut a carry handle yourself.
Link Posted: 12/18/2003 4:48:34 PM EDT
To me, for a non folder, I prefer the well poven carry handle unit, cut off. For folders give me the #40, which never gets in my sight picture if I don't want it to.
Good shootin, Jack
Link Posted: 12/18/2003 8:36:26 PM EDT
Originally Posted By ar15seeker:
Can't see how that's better than a DPMS Detachable Rear Sight:

http://www.del-ton.com/images/accessories_img/sights/dpms_detachable_sight.jpg
View Quote


A lot of AR accessories look the same to most people, especially newbies.  That is the problem.  Looking at an RAS, you can't really see the difference betwenn it and a Bushmaster float tube or an Oly FIRSH.  A LMT sight looks very similar to the DPMS or a Yankee Hill BUIS.  However, the similarities are only skin deep.  Until you actually feel and then use the better products, everything seems to be the same.  However, once you have the top of the line, you will dfinitely know the difference in quality, sturdiness, and reliability.  For range shooting, I guess just about anything short of the Chicom knockoffs would serve you just fine.  A lot of us, however, like to use and abuse our equipment and must demand the best there is to stand up to the punishment.

And yes, I love my LMT BUIS.
Link Posted: 12/19/2003 4:55:58 AM EDT
I had the DPMS. Could not get it to zero. The numbers go from 300 to 600, but I could never get my knob to move past 400. I asked DPMS about it, and they told me that I'd never shoot past 400 anyway so what was the big deal. They also told me most carry handle sights were the same way. Something about the length of the screws. Then why are they marked to 600?

Anyway they couldn't fix it, and I couldn't get it to zero, even with different front sight posts. The sight takes up a lot more of the rear rail then the LMT, and the atatchment screws are flimsy. It is lighter then the LMT, but is made of aluminum where as the LMT is all steel.

Then I got an LMT. Simply the best FIXED rear sight for a flat-top uppers there is. (In my opinion.) If you use the DPMS, then use the LMT you'll be sold. It looks good, works great, and yes that pesky little wheel goes all the way to six. (As do both of my Bushmaster removable carry handles.)

Link Posted: 12/19/2003 8:35:51 AM EDT
It has to be better than the DMPS because it costs twice as much!

[:)]

Keep watching for my synthetic ruby line of gun sights coming soon.
Link Posted: 12/19/2003 10:50:35 AM EDT
Originally Posted By Troy:
The LMTs are nice, but they're bulkier than a cut carry handle for no real reason (at the rear in particular).  -Troy
View Quote


Bulkier how?  I thought they were the same profile as a cut CH.  Is it the reinforcement on the front, or the thumbscrew?
Link Posted: 12/19/2003 11:26:06 AM EDT
Link Posted: 12/19/2003 11:42:14 AM EDT
If its gone down hill, its because people dont differentiate between tools and toys.  Someone solicits an opinion and you always get a clash of the two different schools of thought.

I have tools and I have toys, and enjoy them both.

If Matt is happy with his LMT sight and it meets every requirement he might have of it, then he's good to go.
Link Posted: 12/19/2003 11:46:37 AM EDT
[Last Edit: 12/19/2003 11:53:42 AM EDT by Duffy]
When folks ask for opinions on knock-offs and gears that are obviously of dubious value and quality (e.g. BEC scopes, Airsoft KAC lookalikes, etc.), we just tend to point them at another direction: well established, time tested and proven products instead.  
When it comes to hobby, I think most of us toss logic out the window, never mind we probably will never use these expensive products in the battlefields conditions for which they were designed.  Many of us will also rearrange our priorities in order to obtain them, it's emotional, not logical.  Need is rarely an issue, want accounts for most of the impetus.
Link Posted: 12/19/2003 12:01:42 PM EDT
Link Posted: 12/19/2003 2:00:28 PM EDT
Egads, what did I start? I just wanted to make a post because I was excited about a new piece of gear that not everyone is aware of and I wanted to thank Paul @ MSTN in public for his great service. I hate "versus" threads because they eventually degrade to a pissing contest.

After reading my original post again, perhaps I came off too much like a "commercial" and that wasn't my intention. If a certain piece of gear helps you shoot your best, than that's the best piece of gear for you, right?
Link Posted: 12/19/2003 2:36:30 PM EDT
So the Whole LMT rearsight is made of steel?
Link Posted: 12/19/2003 3:37:59 PM EDT
[Last Edit: 12/19/2003 3:52:52 PM EDT by Troy]
Link Posted: 12/19/2003 6:28:05 PM EDT
I dont own a CCH or the LMT sight, but does that little aluminum make it THAT much more bulky?  
Link Posted: 12/19/2003 6:33:47 PM EDT
Originally Posted By Lumpy196:
If Matt is happy with his LMT sight and it meets every requirement he might have of it, then he's good to go.
View Quote


Not as happy as I am with my Aimpoint :)
Link Posted: 12/19/2003 8:12:13 PM EDT
Well...

Part of the reason the LMT is bulkier than a cut carry handle is because it was DESIGNED to be the configuration it's in, and it's designed to be extremely durable, where a cut carry handle is more or less a "field modification". I really can't believe some of you people; willing to spend over $1000 dollars to get a top-quality optic that'll take the worst abuse you can throw at it, but bitch about $165 for the same in an iron sight? And complain about how much "bulkier" the LMT is? Yeah, all those extra grams or so of aluminum must be a real bitch to hump around, huh? Jeez...
Link Posted: 12/19/2003 8:45:48 PM EDT
Originally Posted By Zardoz:
Well...

Part of the reason the LMT is bulkier than a cut carry handle is because it was DESIGNED to be the configuration it's in, and it's designed to be extremely durable, where a cut carry handle is more or less a "field modification". I really can't believe some of you people; willing to spend over $1000 dollars to get a top-quality optic that'll take the worst abuse you can throw at it, but bitch about $165 for the same in an iron sight? And complain about how much "bulkier" the LMT is? Yeah, all those extra grams or so of aluminum must be a real bitch to hump around, huh? Jeez...
View Quote


A much needed kick in the nuts.
Well said.
Link Posted: 12/20/2003 3:30:22 PM EDT
Link Posted: 12/20/2003 9:38:52 PM EDT
Originally Posted By Troy:
The LMT sight is made of forged aluminum, just like a detachable carry handle.  There are a couple of differences between the LMT and a CCH:
1. The sloped rear area is much thicker.
2. The "claw" is wider and further forward [This is, IMO, the only improvement over a CCH.
3. There is a slanted vertical reinforcement in the front.
4. The slot for the elevation wheel is not square, but has been drilled through and then machined, leaving big round dirt-collecting holes.
None of this stuff is horrible, just less than ideal, except for #2, which IS an improvement.
-Troy
View Quote


Thanks Troy.  Lump/Zardoz, my main concern about extra bulk was taking up an extra notch on the receiver and or fitting under the rear of an optic.  And I'm a scrawny fella, so a few grams might be the proverbial straw...[;)]
Link Posted: 12/20/2003 9:42:13 PM EDT
Id like to see the rings that'd let any scope get above the LMT sight [;)]
Link Posted: 12/20/2003 10:18:56 PM EDT
[Last Edit: 12/20/2003 10:19:57 PM EDT by MarineSniper8541]
Originally Posted By Troy:
4. The slot for the elevation wheel is not square, but has been drilled through and then machined, leaving big round dirt-collecting holes.

-Troy
View Quote


YES! Way to go LMT! Finally an elevation knob with enough relief in its mount to not seize up when foreign matter gets jammed into it such as dirt, mud, bits of rock or vegetation. Or to freeze in place when the moisture of the afternoon becomes ice in the evening.
Now the elevation knob has enough clearance in its mount to allow that stuff to be simply spun out by the flick of the knob!
Link Posted: 12/20/2003 11:49:00 PM EDT
my main concern about extra bulk was taking up an extra notch on the receiver and or fitting under the rear of an optic.
View Quote
Yeah, the added length IS kind of a drawback, especially if (like me) you're lusting after a S.I.R. As far as scoping the rifle with an LMT, one option would be to get a 5-inch rail extension from BM (or the 7-inch version directly from Yankee Hill Machine Co.), and mount the scope using ARMS #22H rings. This would still only raise the center of the scope about 1/2 inch above the sight aperture, so you'd be limited to a scope with a fairly long eye relief which would be in front of the LMT. anything higher would be pretty much useless.
Link Posted: 12/21/2003 8:44:47 AM EDT
Link Posted: 12/21/2003 9:50:11 AM EDT
I like the dirt grooves.  Where is my 3/32 chain saw file...
Link Posted: 12/21/2003 1:55:45 PM EDT
I agree with the rifleman. He's making a very good point.
Link Posted: 12/21/2003 6:38:12 PM EDT
Link Posted: 12/21/2003 7:45:02 PM EDT
The scary thing is not lumpy -

its Coldblue running rampant with his chainsaw file...[;)]
Link Posted: 12/21/2003 9:16:05 PM EDT
Originally Posted By Troy:
I know Lumpy was joking about using the LMT or a CCH with a magnified optic, but since a couple of you didn't get the joke, let me point out that this setup is intended for use with a non-magnified optic such as an AimPoint, EOTech, OKO, or similar.

-Troy
View Quote
My post was intended to show that while a non-folding BUIS may not be designed to work with a scope, it can be done, if the owner is dead-set on the idea.
Link Posted: 12/21/2003 11:10:06 PM EDT
Originally Posted By MarineSniper8541:
Originally Posted By Troy:
4. The slot for the elevation wheel is not square, but has been drilled through and then machined, leaving big round dirt-collecting holes.

-Troy
View Quote


YES! Way to go LMT! Finally an elevation knob with enough relief in its mount to not seize up when foreign matter gets jammed into it such as dirt, mud, bits of rock or vegetation. Or to freeze in place when the moisture of the afternoon becomes ice in the evening.
Now the elevation knob has enough clearance in its mount to allow that stuff to be simply spun out by the flick of the knob!
View Quote


Yeah, I'm pretty sure LMT doesn't produce anything without reasoning behind every aspect of the design.  If it weren't for expressed desire and input from those who had used the chopped carry handle, Crane and LMT would not have wasted the time and resources to come up with the beefed up design.  Some on the boards don't feel it necessary, don't like the design, don't like the price, and don't need the improvements over the cut carry handle.  I respect that.  Personally, if I didn't like it, I wouldn't have droppped the cash  on it.  However, I do and I did.  I'm happy with it and anyone else who has bought these probably do too.

Sinistral, I like your sight as well.  If I sounded like I was being a price snob, I wasn't trying to be.  Yours is probably the best designed nonfolding sight designs next to the LMT and being priced less than any others at the same time.  I wouldn't hesitate putting your sight on any of my weapons.  The cost of your sight is probably low because of its simplicity.  I like that.  However, I also know your company insists on the best parts and materials available and I trust CavArms to deliver a good and robust product.  I expect the same of LMT, ARMS, and Knights.  I see that in the products produced by all of four.

Link Posted: 12/22/2003 5:30:57 AM EDT
[Last Edit: 12/22/2003 7:39:54 AM EDT by Lancelot]
Originally Posted By Troy:
The LMT sight is made of forged aluminum, just like a detachable carry handle.  There are a couple of differences between the LMT and a CCH:

[url]photos.ar15.com/ImageGallery/Attachments/DownloadAttach.asp?iImageUnq=20657[/url]

1. The sloped rear area is much thicker.

2. The "claw" is wider and further forward [This is, IMO, the only improvement over a CCH.

3. There is a slanted vertical reinforcement in the front.

4. The slot for the elevation wheel is not square, but has been drilled through and then machined, leaving big round dirt-collecting holes.

None of this stuff is horrible, just less than ideal, except for #2, which IS an improvement.

-Troy
View Quote


Funny. The folks at MSTN sold me my LMT sight. They told me that it was not aluminum but all steel.

I'm going to cut a handle this week and try it out. But I'm still happy with the LMT.

None of my Bushmaster carry handles line up perfectly witht the rear of the upper receiver. The LMT does. The fit and finish are superior (in my opinion,) to any carry handle I have ever seen. Both could be listed as improvements.

Top Top