Warning

 

Close

Confirm Action

Are you sure you wish to do this?

Confirm Cancel
Member Login
Posted: 11/21/2003 2:15:42 PM EDT
Here is the deal.

We have lots of CQB optics, of various stripes and configurations. Mostly EOTech 551s, which everyone likes and does pretty well with. Almost all of those were bought by my employer.

We also have access to military surplus channels, through a nice government program that gives your local LE folks stuff that the military stupidly throws away or sends to the grinder (I know it is a shame, but we'd be stupid not to get the free stuff).

So our standard is the EOTech. I have also acquired a bunch of M68 Close Combat Optics (Aimpoints) free from the military. All look well used. Some don't work, and Aimpoint was unable to fix them. Some work great. For that matter, I even have an almost new Trijicon Reflex that was free from Uncle Sam, as well as some early-model Holo sights (Bushnell variety), and a handful of decade-old ACOGs. We really do have a "well-rounded" optical complement, if I do say so myself.

Most of the Aimpoints are mounted on sims uppers or on the older M16s that go to new guys, perimeter folks, and other people who don't quite rate the super high-speed gear. Some of our folks seem to have a bit of trouble working their EOTechs, though, and I just had one crater at the range, so some of our "higher-speed" folks will be working with Aimpoints for the forseeable future.

The Aimpoints are in many different configurations. All have the military mount for mounting on a cantilever mount (wwhich we have plenty of, again free) or mounting on the flat top rifles. My questions are:

For mounting on a cantilever mount, do you use the spacer or not? (I have plenty of spacers).

For mounting on the flat top, do I use a spacer or not?

Why are the dots on some of the Aimpoints dull, and the dots on others so danged bright? Is there any way to upgrade the older ones so that the dot is brighter (dot contrast as compared to the EOTech is my biggest operator complaint)?

Are ther any 1913 rails for these that can go on Remigton 870s? I have such a surplus of Aimpoints (not a bad thing) that it seems like it wouldn't be a bad idea to move some further down the chain to the Patrol grunts (or possibly on my shotguns when I go back to the streets soon; being the Armorer does have some benefits).

Any Aimpoint expert advice would be welcome.
Link Posted: 11/21/2003 2:52:43 PM EDT
The M68 CCO uses the "M4 Spacer" when mounted on the M4 Carbine or other flattop. There are spacers for both the issue Quick Release mount and the ARMS #22M68 mount, the two most common. When mounted on the Aimpoint Forward Mount, over the handguards attached to a fixed handle, the M4 spacer is not used. Same for the ARMS #39A2+ rail mount, or the SIR System. -- Chuck
Link Posted: 11/21/2003 4:10:09 PM EDT
Thanks. I think that handles it. These mounts are two piece, held together with allen screws, and do not have a QD throw lever. They have a large round knob that protrudes from the side (right, I think) about 2" or so that twists on and off for attaching the optic to the rail. The spacers bolt in between the top an bottom halves. The bottom half is permanently mounted to the 1913 railgrabber.
Link Posted: 11/21/2003 5:21:03 PM EDT
That's the issue Quick Release mount. Torque screw is tightened two clicks when mounting. The M4 Spacer mounts as you note with a longer set of Allen screws. -- Chuck
Link Posted: 11/21/2003 5:22:58 PM EDT
Link Posted: 11/21/2003 7:14:53 PM EDT
The old ratchet knobs do get bent or worn out from the the ratcheting. The best all round modular ring for any ht. for the Aimpoint, is the 22M68 from arms with throw levers, and three dif. hts. to mount it at via spacers,one of which is a cantilever spacer, plus one other option that lets the ring go into the solid carry handle. ARMSMOUNTS.com They don't have anything for the Eotech that you could use with those current weapon set ups. Good shootin, Jack
Link Posted: 11/21/2003 9:30:13 PM EDT
Link Posted: 11/22/2003 4:06:26 AM EDT
Our S.O. just got a bunch of the M16s, and I get to smith on them. Since I'm former LEO I get to play with them and set them up. (They know I'm an AR nut). Please PM me so I can get some info on getting optics for them. These guys don't get paid much and can't afford some of the stuff that the military is DXing. I'll pass the info on, or even do the paperwork for them if necessary. TIA.
Link Posted: 11/22/2003 6:24:08 AM EDT
Originally Posted By natez: M16A1 rifles. $27 each from Uncle Sam
View Quote
Am I the only one here that has a problem with this? I'm a strong supporter of our local police but the fact is, they have no need for select fire weapons! Supposedly they are accountable for every round fired! They are not the military. The Gov't has no business militarizing our civilian police forces. Like natez says, it's hard to say no to free gear (needed or not). The fact that the same gov't that treats ordinary citizens like criminals through the NFA and other firearms law (even though many are former military and used the select fire weapons in question in official capacity) has no problem giving the weapons to local law enforcement. But I do. Hell, they won't even give law abbidding, tax paying "civilians" surplus magazines anymore! What a crock...
Link Posted: 11/22/2003 6:58:56 AM EDT
Natez Are you currently able to get gear from DRMO? I am the CO of an active duty unit at a remote site. We are around 90 miles from large base with a DRMO facility. We went down there a few days ago checking for some gear we could use. The facility manager told us that neither we nor anyone else could get gear from DRMO right now because of a review of what has happened to gear that was DMROed. Allot of gear that was suppose to be used for official purposed has ended up being sold to surplus stores and on EBAY. So if a LEO agency can still get it, but active duty military cannot. I am going to have to talk to the next higher level of command to see if that can be fixed. Although I don't have any problem giving the gear to LEO, I think DRMO has to take care of the military first.
Link Posted: 11/22/2003 9:52:26 AM EDT
Thanks for the info, I knew we were set up, but didn't know if there was anything specific for the optics since they didn't get them with this delivery. Regarding the FA aspect, these M16s are only for the SWAT guys and are maintained in the Armory. Personally I think they should be rendered semi only, and I'm going to talk to the bossman about that, but these are not out to the regular patrol. They are permitted to do a personal purchase for the patrol guys. We are maintaining ALL the parts just in case the guns go back to the military. And the guys have to foot the bill on "upgrades". Thanks for the info.
Link Posted: 11/22/2003 12:17:36 PM EDT
Natez I will have my supply chief look into it, in addition to refrigs etc we were trying to get some duece gear, that might have been the problem. But I cannot see not transfering duece gear to AD Marines.
Link Posted: 11/25/2003 4:49:44 AM EDT
What is the big damn deal? I have looked at a lot of BDUs through NODs and I really don't see what the big hoo-raw is regarding that IR absorbent coating. If you just never wash your BDUs in detergent with brighteners you pretty much get the same effect (if any.)
Link Posted: 11/25/2003 9:18:02 AM EDT
On the IR coatings, I'm not really too knowledgeable on that aspect, but I used to work for Procter and Gamble in research and development on their laundry products. The optical brighteners in detergents like...Tide for example, are UV brighteners, not IR. (Yes, I did make up batches of my own brightener-free detergent) As for textiles with an IR enhancement of some sort, I can only think that its purpose is to not so much to absorb incoming IR light, but to conceal the IR heat signature of the wearer.
Top Top