Warning

 

Close

Confirm Action

Are you sure you wish to do this?

Confirm Cancel
Member Login
Posted: 9/15/2003 11:59:06 AM EDT
I just puchased an RR Arms CAR 16" SS A4 with a tactical carry handle and want to mount an Aimpoint on it. I wanted to be able to use the peep sights as a back up as well. Anyone know a nice scope mount that will allow this?
Link Posted: 9/17/2003 3:04:21 AM EDT
I used a low-profile Weaver ring for the first few months. You just have to cinch it down pretty tight. Eventually I switched to the Aimpoint ring. It's wider and it has a thumbscrew so you can take it off easier (I find it easier to shoot the irons with the Aimpoint off, but they work fine with it on -- I have the XS .230" aperture and that helps). The tac handle will stay on if you hand-tighten it, but you need to use a coin for the Aimpoint ring -- the knob isn't big enough to lock it down by hand. I had problems with it coming loose initially, and I'm still keeping an eye on it to make sure it stays put. I will probably ditch the tac handle entirely and go with the ARMS #22M68 cantilever and the #40A rear sight. The tac handle looks cool but it's heavy and it mounts the Aimpoint a little closer than I'd like. jafager
Link Posted: 9/17/2003 3:44:38 AM EDT
Do yourself a favor and lose the RRA "Tactical" Carry handle. Its terrible. It puts the Aimpoint higher than it should be and is only compatible with one of the worst mounts. You'd be MUCH better off getting a back up iron sight like an ARMS #40 and something like an ARMS #22M68 with an extended riser.
Link Posted: 9/17/2003 4:24:50 AM EDT
Link Posted: 9/17/2003 4:53:56 AM EDT
Tactical is a word that some companies apply to anything that they have. In this case I'd say toilet paper has it hands down over the so called Tac?-carry handle, at least for tactical application:) Good Shootin, Jack
Link Posted: 9/17/2003 5:35:28 PM EDT
I really don't understand everybody's disdain for the tac-handle(other than the name in which case I agree).The sights are the same height as an A2 carry handle,which is the same height as the highly touted ARMS 40 when deployed to a functional condition,the sights are constantly available without springs,levers or other twiddling around,excellent elevation controls are in place where they are absent in the ARMS unit,night sights are easily and inexpensively installed,a Picatinny rail is integral(albeit a little short),spare battery storage is provided for your Aimpoint and overall the thing is pretty well made and substantial in construction. The extra wide Aimpoint ring will allow a perfect cowitness with your irons being in the lower third of the sight and also is a pretty substantial mounting.I suspect that other shit would break off your gun before this ring did(if it had 2 cross bolts it would be better).The greatest shortcoming of this whole affair is the fact that you cannot mount the sight far enough forward on the handle to allow the rear lense cover to fold flat on top of the rail.If this is a big issue to you you need to spend about $200 on ARMS sight/mounts to move the sight forward an additional inch or so.Or live with the thing flipped up instead which I don't personally find to be a great concern.YMMV. This ring sells for about $25. What am I missing here guys?Where are the great shortcomings in this rig that have caused such rampant dislike for it.It is certainly in my eyes better than the goose neck horse shit A2 carryhandle mounts and everybody doesn't puke when someone asks about them,so what gives?I'd like to hear a legitimate problem with these not just some diatribe from a bunch of brand snobs(no offense intended....unless of course the shoe fits you know).I like quality in materials,design,configuration and application and feel as though I'm reasonably capable in identifying it. I don't however give two shits who's name is on it or if anybody else goes...ooooooh.
Link Posted: 9/17/2003 7:30:42 PM EDT
I dont think it has anything to do with brand snobs, RRA is a good rifle company who make nice gear. But the Tac carry handle creates more problems than anything. To name a few... It raises the top rail too high to be used with any mount except one of the weakest mounts you can get... i.e. the X-wide Aimpoint Ring. Am I saying the X-wide ring is crap? No, but it is crappier than several other mounts that are stronger and mount the Aimpoint in a better spot. Using the RRA handle, as you mentioned, also prevents you from flipping the caps down and out of the way. You can flip them up, and have them restrict your FOV, you can mount them to either side, and have them restrict your FOV, or you can just take them off and lose the ability to protect the lenses. You can do this if you want and you're right, its not a big deal really, but that doesnt change the fact that there is a better way. For example, Get the GG&G Cantilever, the Knights Cantilever or the ARMS #22M68 with the extended spacer. Each of these forward mount the Aimpoint further over the handgaurds. As you may or may not know, forward mounting non magnified dot optics is advantageous for several reasons. It clears your field view, speeds the acquisition of your targets, makes focusing on targets easier and makes two eye open shooting simpler and faster. They will also allow you to flip your Aimpoint caps down and out of the way. These are some of the reasons why so many people like these extended mounts. They actually enhance the performance of the rifle. Use the RRA Tac carry handle and you have just robbed yourself of all these advantages. And what have you gained? Nothing at all. Any good thing you can say about the RRA handle can be achieved easily and without much, if any added cost with other gear. If you like the fixed iron sight, get one, but get one that only takes up the first one or two rails on your reciever. This will leave the rest of the rails open for you to mount the Aimpoint with any one of the other mounts mentioned. This way you have the fixed iron sight, you have the ability to forward mount (and get all the advantages this entails), flip your caps down, have a fixed back up iron etc. In the end, there is nothing non functional or necessarily BAD about the RRA handle, but there is also nothing good about it. It is as good in some respects (like the fixed iron and battery storage), but it is worse in many others. The carry handle retails from Rock River @ $190!!! For that price and the Aimpoint X-Wide ring you easily get a ARMS #40 and #22M68 with the extended riser. At which point you would have a much better system for the same money. Most of us just dont see the point in this thing? For what reason did they put the rail up that high anyway?
Link Posted: 9/17/2003 7:32:24 PM EDT
BTW, this is too much talk about Aimpoints, I just had to say ACOGs rule. It is in my contract with Trijicon that I am not allowed to type 500 words in the optics forum without saying ACOG at least once. [ROFL2]
Link Posted: 9/17/2003 7:44:17 PM EDT
So you're on Trijicon's payroll too? [img]www.falfiles.com/forums/smilies/uhoh_small.gif[/img] [;)]
Link Posted: 9/17/2003 8:02:03 PM EDT
Arent we all? I'll see you in the break room tomorrow for donuts! [:P]
Link Posted: 9/17/2003 8:06:41 PM EDT
Yeah, serve up more of them freedom fries! [:d]
Link Posted: 9/18/2003 3:22:48 AM EDT
New-arguy:I am aware of the advantages of mounting the sight farther out over the handgaurds and will concur that this is a shortcoming in this mount.By the way where's that ACOG mounted on your gun?Whats that you say short eye relief? As for why they built the handle with the rail that height I would say it's because it was intended to be used with an Aimpoint(as is evidenced by the battery storage) using Aimpoints ring which it does just fine. When you are shooting with both eyes open there is little if any restriction in FOV with the rear cap flipped up much the same way as the sight body disappears.Better ways? Sure. BigHog001,bought a rifle with a tac-handle already on it for probably about $800,he did'nt pay MSRP for it and I'm not advocating that he rig a rifle with it that didn't come that way.But he doesn't need to shitcan part of his new rifle just to effectivly mount an Aimpoint. Nor does he need to buy $200 worth of additional accessories to get it done. I'm looking for a GOOD reason or two that this mount is met with such overwhelming hate,beside the shortcomings that I originally stated and you restated.
Link Posted: 9/18/2003 5:23:16 AM EDT
Link Posted: 9/18/2003 10:03:48 AM EDT
I think we all agree that the tac handle is not the optimum way to mount an Aimpoint. That said, the tac handle came with the gun, and the ridiculous retail price does not seem to be reflected in the overall cost of the rifle, so it might as well be free. With the tac handle, you have the option of spending $5-25 for a passable Aimpoint setup with backup irons. When you've got $200 to spend on a better setup, you can upgrade and only be out a few bucks. jafager
Link Posted: 9/18/2003 10:15:24 AM EDT
c4igrant; Thanks for your input man.I already have one and most likely won't buy another but thanks for the offer.I don't however think it's the coolest thing in the whole world as you suggested.You don't put words in my mouth and I will return the courtesy...deal? Added weight...do you think the tac-handle and Aimpoint ring weigh more than a #22m68 with cantilever spacer and an #40?Quite a bit of steel parts in those ARMS pieces(a good thing) I don't have a postal scale but if it does it would be by a few grams...maybe. No QD.Very true but then again how often do you need to remove your sight and why?If it will cowitness and it isn't broke why tempt fate by removing/replacing it frequently?I generally try not to disturb optics unless it's necessary.QD is however an attribute which I appreciate. It will in fact only cowitness with the Aimpoint ring which I have found to be sturdy and reliable and I believe is cut from 6061T6.Whats cheap other than the price? Won't allow a forward mount.Very true.How much further forward do you get it with a cantilever spacer? An inch? The expense issue has already been addressed in that Bighog001 bought a new rifle with this mount already in place and is not paying an exhorbitant and inflated MSRP for it.I wouldn't give you or anybody else $190 for this piece nor am I recommending that anyone else do so.Where the additional and IMO unnecessry expense is being suggested is in shitcanning the tac-handle and buying $200 in accessories to mount his sight for what are modest gains in performance. Bighog001; I think that your question was answered in the first few posts and I appologize for hijacking your thread.If you want to mount an Aimpoint using your tac-handle you must use the Aimpoint ring. If you have money to burn or have a legitimate need/want for the very best in optics mounting platforms then do as was suggested and shitcan the tac-handle and buy ARMS/Knights/GG&G as suits your taste.
Link Posted: 9/18/2003 1:39:27 PM EDT
[img]http://www.imagestation.com/picture/sraid64/p59fe5b5c0c2c5f7f773a0aff71546175/fc01b244.jpg[/img] after all the 'dissing of the "tactical carry handle", the UTE most really be the red-headed step-child of AR scope mounting...Oh well, the set-up works well for me.
Top Top