Warning

 

Close

Confirm Action

Are you sure you wish to do this?

Confirm Cancel
Member Login
Posted: 2/25/2006 3:06:10 PM EDT
Link Posted: 3/2/2006 2:33:37 PM EDT
Link Posted: 3/2/2006 9:20:52 PM EDT
Link Posted: 3/2/2006 11:40:02 PM EDT
Link Posted: 3/3/2006 4:52:44 AM EDT
[Last Edit: 3/3/2006 4:55:55 AM EDT by ABNAK]
What is the difference? Maybe a fraction of an inch? Doesn't seem like it would be worth a changeover for that small of a change.


OOOPS! Just read where you mention 1/16" of an inch. That's what I mean by it not being worth the $$$ for a changeover. Of course when it's DoD, money is no object (since it's yours and mine)!

What is lowering it 1/16" supposed to do?
Link Posted: 3/3/2006 5:44:48 AM EDT
Was there a reason given for this change?
Link Posted: 3/3/2006 6:05:10 AM EDT
not following whats going on too well but wouldnt a slight adjustment of the elevation on the reddot bring it below the fsp be much easier that replacing a mount or spacer?


the half spacer for the arms mount has been out for a long time now so i dont see how this is "new". also the spacer having anything to do with where you set the reddot in correlation to the fsp isnt making any sense either.

Link Posted: 3/3/2006 7:07:23 AM EDT
[Last Edit: 3/3/2006 8:36:57 AM EDT by SULACO2]

Originally Posted By eklikwhoa:
not following whats going on too well but wouldnt a slight adjustment of the elevation on the reddot bring it below the fsp be much easier that replacing a mount or spacer?


the half spacer for the arms mount has been out for a long time now so i dont see how this is "new". also the spacer having anything to do with where you set the reddot in correlation to the fsp isnt making any sense either.




True ARMS stocks 1/2, Full and Medium.
Medium, is what Rob is describing. The Medium Ht. is named so because of ARMS current stock of available ht.s ie. 3. However, the "Medium" is the ht. of the new spec. to the center of the occular in an ARMS #22M68, mounted directly to the receiver rail. The Canti Lever spacer is the same Ht. as the Full Spacer, w/ a canti-lever spacer ath the Medium/new spec. Ht. to follow.


/S2
Link Posted: 3/3/2006 7:11:05 AM EDT
my CCO was issued with the aimpoint rail grabber and spacer.
Link Posted: 3/3/2006 7:19:19 AM EDT
Link Posted: 3/3/2006 3:39:26 PM EDT
Link Posted: 3/3/2006 3:46:01 PM EDT
I still think that the full spacer is the best choice for the #22M68.
Link Posted: 3/3/2006 3:52:09 PM EDT
Link Posted: 3/3/2006 3:59:14 PM EDT
Link Posted: 3/3/2006 4:14:04 PM EDT
[Last Edit: 3/3/2006 4:17:00 PM EDT by SULACO2]

Originally Posted By TalonArms_R:

Ok, here is what I have.

DoD was looking to get all optics on the same plane with iron sights.
Right now the EOTech mounted directly to the flat top is at the right height with the top of the center dot equal to the top of the front sight. The Aimpoints had been slightly higher with the dot resting on top of the front sight. With the new medium spacer, the top of the Aimpoint dot will be the same height as the top of the EOTech dot and therefore the same height as the front sight. FYI, the new Elcan is also set up to be on the same plane.

ARMS has just come out with the MED spacer to meet the new spec. My guess is that the full spacers that are in the supply chain will continue to be issued and will be replaced as the new spacer will be phased in. Right now there is no cantilever spacer for the new spec, but I am sure there is one on the way.
This new spec answers some old questions.
All of the speculation that DoD would go with a mount with lower 1/3 co witness is proven to be false. They have decided that a true co-witness is best way to operate all weapon systems regardless of optics. As we all know, even the most durable optic system is not 100% indestructible. With any optic, if your reticle goes down, you can continue to fire and you do not need to adjust yourself behind the sights to stay in the fight. Also, any weapon system you use will work exactly the same. Uniformity in weapon sighting systems makes it much easier to transition between them. You won't have to learn the nuances of each reticle.



There is one on the way _R, it's being worked on right now. Did you get your std. Med. Spacer?
How well do Samson's 3X magnifier flip mounts mate up w/ the M68 on a flattop? As soon as I have the specs on hand, the actual spec'd ht. to center of occular I'll get it up here....

/S2
Link Posted: 3/3/2006 6:47:18 PM EDT
[Last Edit: 3/3/2006 6:48:46 PM EDT by C4iGrant]
Link Posted: 3/3/2006 8:49:16 PM EDT
the medium spacer has been out for some time now, is this spacer not the same? the "half spacer"
Link Posted: 3/3/2006 9:26:40 PM EDT
Link Posted: 3/3/2006 10:56:33 PM EDT
[Last Edit: 3/3/2006 10:58:01 PM EDT by SULACO2]

Originally Posted By eklikwhoa:
the medium spacer has been out for some time now, is this spacer not the same? the "half spacer"



ARMS, Inc. always stocked 2 spacers; 1/2 and full spacers. They now stock 3; 1/2, full and the htt. between the 2; Medium. The Medium spacer is not the same ht. as the 1/2 spacer.


/S2
Link Posted: 3/5/2006 9:56:50 AM EDT
bump for any info
Link Posted: 3/5/2006 12:11:02 PM EDT
[Last Edit: 3/5/2006 12:11:33 PM EDT by Yojimbo]
Interesting news indeed, maybe now EOTech will release 553 version that isn't on a raised mount...

Link Posted: 3/5/2006 4:08:22 PM EDT

Originally Posted By C4iGrant:
This is interesting as CRANE/SOCOM had EOTech add a riser to the 553 (putting ones irons in the lower 1/3).



Same thing I was thinking. As I said, if I had to use a #22M68, I'd want the full spacer.
Link Posted: 3/5/2006 4:12:58 PM EDT

Originally Posted By Yojimbo:
Interesting news indeed, maybe now EOTech will release 553 version that isn't on a raised mount...




Not unless someone wants to pony up for the intial order. They're willing to do it, but only if someone gives up the cash to have them made.
Link Posted: 3/6/2006 6:08:19 AM EDT

Originally Posted By Capn_Crunch:

Originally Posted By Yojimbo:
Interesting news indeed, maybe now EOTech will release 553 version that isn't on a raised mount...




Not unless someone wants to pony up for the intial order. They're willing to do it, but only if someone gives up the cash to have them made.



My thinking was if what TalonArms said is true then maybe the military will be requesting it and if anyone has the cash to make it happen it's Uncle Sugar...
Link Posted: 3/16/2006 4:16:41 PM EDT
Link Posted: 3/16/2006 4:18:56 PM EDT
Link Posted: 3/16/2006 4:54:05 PM EDT
I still havent recieved a initial issue of M68s, elcans, or anything else.
Link Posted: 3/16/2006 5:28:23 PM EDT
I would be interested in checking out a new spec cantilever spacer for the sake of comparison when they become available. To tell you the truth though, I'm pretty happy with the way my Aimpoint and my EO-Tech are set up and working on those two carbines. It ain't broke, what's to fix?
Top Top