The Carrying Handle on the M16A1 and A2 was, in the form it was finally, fielded; "wrong" and "Unneeded". Its original use was negated, by the relocation of the charging handle. That, was a flawed design, any optic gets placed too high, even if slightly. However, ACOG did not refuse to design a scope that would sit in its carry handle, siting a flawed design and hoping to change the military's use of the carry handle.
Whether or not the design of the buffer rail, attop the receiver, and its design advantages and/or disadvantages, suit all, it suits some.
(SPR, SIRS, SWAN Sleeves, Knight's Aimpoint RAS they are all being considered, if not used on the professional level.)
The ACOG's channel/carry handle mount is useless on ANY flattop. Rail or no rail.
The Aimpoint could have an integral carry handle mt., it doesn't. Why not? Its not needed, when its current design allows it to be mounted n any configuration currently used and/ or considered.
Note, the Tri-power has no integral carry handle mt. However when mt. designers wee contacted by Trijicon, the makers of the Tri-Power, they were asked for mounting options that would work w/ all commonly accepted mounting configuration. Hence the ARMS #16T, and Aimpoint type settups. I wonder what Trijicon's thinking was. That the integral mt. design on their previous combat scopes was so effective AND currently appropriate that they woulg go with it again? No.
Mt's and varying monting height rings, spaces etc. should add height when necessary. Not the addition of, now, largely useless metal equaling a design that eliminates a potential use/configuration.
That carry handle mt. on the ACOG, which I own, is yesterday's design, not a progressive one , and it amounts to a "better buggy whip." "It will never be re-designed" and "Perfect"; strong words. Pretty certain they were used by suppoters of the caburetor, too.