Just got mine today, and I noticed that there is a light gap between the T-1 and the mount when looking front to rear or rear to front.  It appears that the channel that the T-1 sits in is too narrow, not allowing the horizontal flat surfaces to fully contact, even when torqued in place.  Before torquing, you can rock the T-1 left to right since there are such few points of contact.

Can anyone check theirs and see if this is normal for the mount?  I'd be a bit nervous that the only contact points are the vertical ridges of the mount and the T-1 base, if it took a sharp blow to the side of the optic, I imagine it could move.

Thanks!

ETA: contacted geissele first, but apparently after they closed.  Asking because I am going to the range tomorrow and not sure if I should bother taking this setup, or if there is an issue with my tolerances.

Pics below lead me to believe this is how the mount was designed?  Which seems odd, but none the less....

These are web pics that I located to help describe this:

You can see the gap shadows here:


Edited to show contact.  Blue points are where there is solid contact.  Red is where you can literally look between the mount and body the entire length front to rear:


Tan mount shows where there is a gap a little better than the first.  Mine looks like it has a very similar gap:


Incase you still don't know what I'm referring to.....


According to the limited pictures I can see, this appears normal.  However, it doesn't seem right, atleast not to me...I see no reason not to maximize points of contact between the base of the optic and the mount.

You're saying you can fit something between the mount and optic from the left and right sides?

Yup

Unacceptable.

Acceptable.

Yeah, it surely doesn't seem like it would help....and every photo I've seen shows what I am seeing very clearly.

Well that's not good. Keep us updated

Marksman14
Thank you for the visual as it will help a lot in the explanation of what you are seeing.

The Aimpoint Micro was designed following constraint theory principles and the gaps viewed are normal. From first glance, the Aimpoint optic/mount interface has a top, a bottom, and two angular flats connecting them. If you were to use the top, or bottom surface, to locate the optic it would still allow freedom of movement in rotation. Think of this like setting a book on a table, the book is free to rotate or spin on the table. The angular sides are actually the critical element for locating the mount, and by using them to locate the optic you securely constrain the optic in all degrees of rotation. An example of this would be shooting sticks where the ‘V’ mates up with the rifle stock to locate the rifle. When reviewing the drawing supplied to us by Aimpoint this was communicated by how the drawing was toleranced.

Now, some might wonder why not just have the optic and mount locate off all surfaces? The problem with this is every mass-produced part has an allowable tolerance, each part is not made to the exact same dimension so variance occurs. If we designed the optic to touch on the top surface, as well as the critical angular surfaces, tolerances would prevent contact of all three. By losing this contact you lose alignment. For example if one of the red surfaces in Marksman14’s graphic were to make first contact you would lose the contact of the blue angular surface. In doing so it loses alignment.

I hope that this helps to explain why you see the small gaps in between the surfaces.

I'd rather have the wedge contact than a flat contact where rotation wouldn't be fully constrained.  You can't contact everywhere.

So in short, the critical contact points that maintain the majority of the "hold" are the angled flats that I highlighted in blue?

If so, I trust you guys.  Haven't laid an egg yet, just wanted to make sure.  Its the first mount I've seen that relied solely on those surfaces as a point of contact, and my fear was that if the rifle effectively fell optic first, a sharp blow to the top of either side could allow the optic to move.

I'll loctite it up and get my ass to the range!

That is correct. As for your concerns with dropping the weapon, the same principles apply. If we assume that your optic were mounted on the top face on another mount and then it were dropped, your horizontal alignment would be lost because there would be no tapered walls holding it still.

More profile pics of rifle please.  This thing looks nice.

I have about 6 more that I am waiting for Icloud to sync.  I got impatient and emailed those to myself.......more incoming!  Its a really slick mount.  

The clamping force that this thing has on the rail is absolutely absurd.  Its.....not gonna move.

Awesome.  Tagging for pics when available.

See edited response above.

Looks nice