User Panel
User Panel
User Panel
|
Posted: 6/30/2003 12:41:28 PM EDT
[#1]
Do it right, and get the ARMS #40 BUIS and the ARMS #22M68 AimPoint ring with the new cantilever spacer for mounting on the flattop. No need for a rail, which would compromise the mounting height if you decide to use something else as an optic later.
-Troy |
|
|
|
Posted: 6/30/2003 1:28:28 PM EDT
[#2]
WHAT TROY SAID...
AND SAVE UP FOR THE ML2. YOU'LL NEVER BE ABLE TO GIVE THE "C" AWAY. WES |
|
|
|
Posted: 6/30/2003 3:05:25 PM EDT
[#3]
Bullshit....I have to disagree with the "YOU'LL NEVER BE ABLE TO GIVE THE "C" AWAY." comment...everytime one comes for sale here, it's gone in a heartbeat...I have one, and since I'm not going to dive to 80 feet of water, or use it in -50 to +160 degrees, I'm pretty sure the CompC will serve me well...
As for the mount that comes with a CompC, it's a pretty good mount, for which will serve well until you get a 22m68. You can get either the ARMS #40 a 22m68 and the cantilever spacer, or a #38 and the 22m68 without the spacer....either way is a great combo.... I have the #38 std, with a CompC with the factory mount and I will be getting the 22m68 in the near future....Shoot me a e-mail, I would be happy to answer any questions, I have gone through the same agony in my red dot optic/mounting problems... |
|
|
|
Posted: 6/30/2003 3:16:49 PM EDT
[#4]
thanks for the help...I was checking prices last night on the 22M68 actually...couldn't decide on the cantilever spacer or the regular one. I know some folks prefer the Aimpoint a little further out on the rifle...I don't know if it matters that much to me.
I *may* try and snag the Aimpoint tomorrow, based on how much it is locally here, if anyone has one in stock. Once again, thanks for the help. |
|
|
|
Posted: 6/30/2003 5:13:27 PM EDT
[#5]
I went with the ARMS#40 flip up rear, the ARMS #22M68 and I also ended up needing the longer front sight post as well. Some people say they don't need it and some people say they do. Check out Bushmasters web page, they claim with the ARMS #40 or a Colt flat top upper you need the taller front sight post. I like my setup a lot.
|
|
|
|
Posted: 6/30/2003 8:40:35 PM EDT
[#6]
Settled for an Aimpoint? You settle for a BSA or Bear red dot, not an Aimpoint.
|
|
|
|
Posted: 7/1/2003 4:58:06 AM EDT
[#7]
I think what he means is that he was languishing between which Aimpoint to get because of his budget, not that he "settled" on the Aimpoint as a brand...
|
|
|
|
Posted: 7/1/2003 5:45:19 AM EDT
[#8]
How much difference in price is there from a Comp C to a ML2? Can not be that much. I picked up my ML2 for $300 new. I imagine a Comp C is at least $250 new or more. Definitely wait an extra week or two to save the additional $50 for the ML2.
|
|
|
|
Posted: 7/1/2003 7:11:22 AM EDT
[#9]
There is not a thing wrong with the CompC for use on a AR...I simply do not understand why everyone but me in this thread has a hang-up with the CompC...
So it's not the one the military, so what? I'm not in the military, I don't dive to 80 feet, I don't do HALO jumps, I don't have the right NVD scope to use with a M2-ML2, and I don't operate in -50 to +160 degree temps..and if I did, then I would have been [i]ISSUED[/i] the M2 or ML2.. It's just as good as the M2-ML2, it has the same CET technology, it takes all of the rings, mounts and accessories that are for the M2-ML2... I too, like John, have a budget and I look at relality, and that is that the CompC will do me just fine thank you... If the CompC is what he wants then fine, in fact what he [i]really[/i] asked was the best iron sight/mounting combo.... |
|
|
|
Posted: 7/1/2003 11:32:11 AM EDT
[#10]
Quoted: Settled for an Aimpoint? You settle for a BSA or Bear red dot, not an Aimpoint. settle "on", not settled "for"...my mental debate was which one to get...by no means do I mean I'm stepping down to an Aimpoint. |
|
|
|
Posted: 7/2/2003 7:46:46 AM EDT
[#11]
I have a CompC with the QRP (with spacer) mount. I think it great -- allows co-witnessing of BUIS and quick removal/reattachment while maintaining zero (I especially like this because I remove the sight every time I clean my rifle). It is also worth noting that the CompC is EXACTLY the same instrument as the CompM. Only difference is that Aimpoint charges more for the CompC to cover the more rigorous conditions outlined in the warranty. Their actuaries calculated the probablity of failure (and the future cost of honoring the warranty) for a CompC in the more rigorous conditions and added it to the price of the CompC -- calling it the CompM. Still a "rose by any other name."
|
|
|
|
Posted: 7/2/2003 2:09:30 PM EDT
[#12]
Quoted: It's just as good as the M2-ML2, [u]it has the same CET technology[/u], it takes all of the rings, mounts and accessories that are for the M2-ML2... Wes of MSTN had mentioned that the CompM/ML used a masked diode as its aiming point, whereas the M2/ML2 used an unmasked, "straight" diode, which made the dot better defined. Also the M2/ML2 has a much improved battery life than the previous Aimpoint models. I think the extended battery life is what alot of us are looking at when buying the M2/ML2 over the older ones. Chris |
|
|
|
Posted: 7/3/2003 4:31:58 AM EDT
[#13]
"Aimpoint has now introduced the [i][b]CET[/b][/i]echnology, a radical advancement in red dot sighting performance with over 30 times longer battery life than the previous XD-sights"
Page 2 All Models- "Battery Life-1000-10,000 hours, depending on brightness setting" Page 2 Directly from the manual, and I followed that up with a phone call to the technical people...ALL Aimpoint Comps-CompC, CompM2 and ML2 have the [i]same[/i] CET diode....battery life is constant across the Comp line... |
|
|
|
Posted: 7/3/2003 4:46:52 AM EDT
[#14]
Quoted: "Aimpoint has now introduced the [i][b]CET[/b][/i]echnology, a radical advancement in red dot sighting performance with over 30 times longer battery life than the previous XD-sights" Page 2 All Models- "Battery Life-1000-10,000 hours, depending on brightness setting" Page 2 Directly from the manual, and I followed that up with a phone call to the technical people...ALL Aimpoint Comps-CompC, CompM2 and ML2 have the [i]same[/i] CET diode....battery life is constant across the Comp line... I wasn't aware that there's a current generation CompC. I thought that it was a previous generation CompC that was being referred to. In a few years of checking out this forum, I cannot really remember anyone considering "C" models over the "M". Anyways .... it shouldn't be a problem with how you spend YOUR money. If you want a "C" model, get the "C" model. Chris |
|
|
|
Posted: 7/3/2003 9:10:21 AM EDT
[#15]
Anyways .... it shouldn't be a problem with how you spend YOUR money. If you want a "C" model, get the "C" model. That was the point I have been trying to make, along with trying to correct the mis-information that has been posted about the current generation CompC.... |
|
|
|
Posted: 7/3/2003 12:59:09 PM EDT
[#16]
On the bushmaster website the ARMS #22 is available in low, medium, and high rise.
http://www.bushmaster.com/shopping/scopes/arms22l.asp Which height would be used on just a normal flat top?(would be used with ARMS #40 and the taller front sight post) Also this is the same thing as the "22m68" right? or no? Also how hard is it to install the higher front sight post for use with the ARMS #40 rear sight? Can it be done buy any average "dude"? Thanks for the help |
|
|
|
Posted: 7/3/2003 1:42:11 PM EDT
[#17]
The ARMS #22 are scope rings to be used with rifle scopes...
The 22m68 is made for the Aimpoint Comps only... If you are mounting the 22m68 on a flat-top using the ARMS #40, will also need the spacer the goes between the 22m68 base and ring to bring it up to co-witness with the iron sights. If you use a ARMS #38, which is the Swan Sleeve, like I have, you would then use just the 22M68 with-out the spacer. As for the front sight, although Bushy says it's recommended, many have found that the higher front post was not needed...on that one, to each his own.... As for installing it, anyone can do it, just when you remove the lower front sight, don't loose the dedent ball and spring, then reverse install... |
|
|
|
Posted: 7/3/2003 8:24:58 PM EDT
[#18]
None of my rifles needed a new/longer front site post for use with the ARMS#40! I have it on 2 of 'em!
|
|
|
|
Posted: 7/11/2003 6:29:51 PM EDT
[#19]
Quoted: ...If you are mounting the 22m68 on a flat-top using the ARMS #40, will also need the spacer the goes between the 22m68 base and ring to bring it up to co-witness with the iron sights. If you use a ARMS #38, which is the Swan Sleeve, like I have, you would then use just the 22M68 with-out the spacer.... Regarding the mounting of the Aimpoint: how tall is the spacer used with the #40 to co-witness AND/OR what is the rise given by the #38? The reason I am asking is I'd like to know if Bushmaster's 1/2" modular mini risers would suffice for co-witnessing with just the #40 and mounting ring. Second question---what is the outer diameter of the Aimpoint units. (30mm?) |
|
|
|
Posted: 7/11/2003 7:10:29 PM EDT
[#20]
Both the spacer and the #38 are .460" tall.
-Troy |
|
|
|
Posted: 7/11/2003 7:51:30 PM EDT
[#21]
OK, so if the spacer and #38 are .460 and the Bushmaster mini risers are actually .500 then the sight would be .040 shorter using the spacer or #38. Would this provide better co-witnessing then using the #40 and the optional .040 taller front sight per Bushmaster's recommendation?
Also, what is the height of the gooseneck/cantilever extension used with the #22m68? It seems to raise the optics up bit more than the spacer and #38? Thanks for your help thus far----this whole red dot optics usage is very new to me and financialy I don't have the option of trial-and-erroring so I defer to you. |
|
|
|
Posted: 7/13/2003 11:59:46 PM EDT
[#22]
Both the standard ARMS full spacer (the rectangle) and the cantilever spacer are .460". I would highly recommend the cantilever spacer and mounting the #22M68 directly on the upper. The [s]Bushmaster[/s] Yankee Hill spacer is shorter than the ARMS ring's base, and isn't quite the right height.
You'll be much happier in the long run with the ARMS setup, and saving a few bucks on the Yankee Hill components, most of which are not all that well designed, is a false savings, IMO. -Troy |
|
|
|
Posted: 7/14/2003 6:00:06 AM EDT
[#23]
Thanks Troy---the ARMSs unit is what I'll go with then.
BTW---what's with the "Bushmaster=Yankee Hill" story. A noob like me is curious. |
|
|
|
Posted: 7/14/2003 11:47:08 AM EDT
[#24]
All of the "BMAS" stuff is really designed and manufactured by Yankee Hill Machine. Now, Yankee Hill's Phantom flash suppressor is excellent, but for many of their other products, they're competing against companies like ARMS, GG&G, Knights Armament, and others who have REALLY done their homework. Yankee Hill's products are sturdy enough, but they aren't designed all that well. Mostly, they're designed to be much simpler to manufacture, at the expense of being heavier, less optimized (such as the rear flip-up being too far forward), less consistant, and less compabible with other systems (which all use standard dimensions, allowing them to be combined).
BMAS products *work*, much the same way that taking a bus from LA to New York *works*, but taking a plane is much more efficient and elegent, and doesn't cost much more. -Troy |
|
|
|
Posted: 7/14/2003 1:36:51 PM EDT
[#25]
Troy,
What would you or the others on here recommend in a flip up front and rear sight? I got the Bushmaster 25th Anniversary model which came with the BMAS flip up sights front and rear. What mount (the ARMS 22m68?) for an Aimpoint would you recommend to go with whatever flip up sights you prefer so I can co-witness? What do you think of the BMAS freefloat rail handguards? |
|
|
|
Posted: 7/14/2003 1:43:40 PM EDT
[#26]
Here is an alternative to the ARMS#22M68 & ARMS#40 BUIS or Swan#38
Rock River Arms makes a removable tactical carry handle mount that provides a mounting platform that when used with the 30mm Aimpoint ring will co-witness w/ the iron sights perfectly. Check out the link here: http://www.rockriverarms.com/upper_receiver_&_related1.htm Pros: I like that I didnt lose my elevation adjustment which is not availible on the ARMS 40 or Swan sleeve #38. Its cheaper than the Swan 38 with Arms 22M68 & spacer thats why I decided on the RRA mount which I picked up on Ebay for $155.00 & $15.00 for the Aimpoint 30mm ring Cons: Some people may not like it because they prefer to mount it farther down on top of the handguard but my eyes didnt notice much difference either way. |
|
|
|
Posted: 7/14/2003 6:21:27 PM EDT
[#27]
Quoted: Troy, What would you or the others on here recommend in a flip up front and rear sight? I got the Bushmaster 25th Anniversary model which came with the BMAS flip up sights front and rear. What you've got will work, and will be the correct height. My preference would be to replace the rear with an ARMS #40, though, but since you already have the BMAS rear, you don't need to be in a hurry to do so. What mount (the ARMS 22m68?) for an Aimpoint would you recommend to go with whatever flip up sights you prefer so I can co-witness? ARMS #22M68, of course. Use the cantilever spacer if you'll be mounting it on the upper recevier, and the standard spacer if you're going to mount it on the top handguard rail. [url]mstn.biz[/url] for the cantilever spacer (heck, you can get everything you'd ever need from them, QUICK too!). What do you think of the BMAS freefloat rail handguards? I haven't got to handle/install one yet, so I can't really say. -Troy |
|
|
|
Posted: 7/14/2003 6:29:23 PM EDT
[#28]
Quoted: Rock River Arms makes a removable tactical carry handle mount Cons: Some people may not like it because they prefer to mount it farther down on top of the handguard but my eyes didnt notice much difference either way. I'm one of them. With the AimPoint mounted that far to the rear, most people, without realizing it, start using it like a conventional scope, and quickly get "tunnel vision" by "seeing" only through the tube. This will slow you down a lot. AimPoints, EOtechs, and other "reflex" devices require a bit of adjustment to use properly, as you have to get used to keeping both eyes open and focusing on the target and not the sight. For this to work, the sight needs to be mounted forward. Once you get used to this setup, you will be very, very fast and probably more accurate as well. The "Tac Handle" is wrong in so many ways that I probably wouldn't take one if someone was giving them away. If I did take one, it would be to cut off the front to use as a cut carry handle. -Troy |
|
|
|
Posted: 7/15/2003 7:15:35 AM EDT
[#29]
Quoted: All of the "BMAS" stuff is really designed and manufactured by Yankee Hill Machine. Now, Yankee Hill's Phantom flash suppressor is excellent, but for many of their other products, they're competing against companies like ARMS, GG&G, Knights Armament, and others who have REALLY done their homework.... Not to further digress from the original topic but I'm curious about Bushmaster subcontracting. "BMAS"---is this a term referring to Bushmaster assessories? Some one in another thread made the statement that Bushmaster basically doesn't make diddy squat of the component used in making their rifles. I am under the impression that Bushmaster makes the major components and (like many other manufactures) subcontracts the more basic components. BTW--what was the connection between Bushmaster and "Quality Parts" years ago? Was Quality Parts just a subcontractor? |
|
|
|
Posted: 7/15/2003 12:26:53 PM EDT
[#30]
Quality Parts IS Bushmaster.
Way back in the early 80s, before Colt's patent on the AR15 expired, "Quality Parts" was a parts company that made AR15 components. They also manufactured the Bushmaster ARM Pistol (originally designed by Gwinn Firearms) and the Bushmaster Assault Rifle, which was kind of a half-AR, half-AK using mostly AR internals. Later, Quality Parts began making complete guns on Essential Arms receivers, as they didn't make receivers at that time. Eventually, they began making their own forged receivers, and made their own complete guns. By that time, they had changed the company name to Bushmaster, but like Eagle Arms/Armalite, the Quality Parts name is still around. While Bushmaster makes the major components of their rifles themselves, some of the steps are outsourced (this is true of all AR manufacturers, even Colt and FN). For example, the hard-coat anodizing of the aluminum receivers is outsources, as is the chrome-lining of the barrels. The "BMAS" line of accessories are all designed and manufactured by Yankee Hill Machine, based on requests from Bushmaster. Take a look at Bushmaster's part numbers for these components (YHM-xxx). -Troy |
|
|
|
Posted: 7/15/2003 3:13:57 PM EDT
[#31]
Thanks much, Troy! [^]
|
|
|
|
Posted: 7/15/2003 5:09:47 PM EDT
[#32]
Ouch!
"The "Tac Handle" is wrong in so many ways that I probably wouldn't take one if someone was giving them away. If I did take one, it would be to cut off the front to use as a cut carry handle. -Troy" Ok, can you explain why the Tac Handle is such a bad choice? I already have the 22M68 & a spacer give me a reason or 2 why I should "can" the Tac Handle & order a Swan sleeve or #40 BUIS. |
|
|
|
Posted: 7/16/2003 11:04:16 AM EDT
[#33]
The Tactical Handle (which is neither "tactical" nor a "handle") is designed exclusively for the AimPoint, though some of the cheapie BSA and Tasco dots would probably work as well. But that's fine, except that dot sights are designed to be mounted FORWARD, and work the best that way. Mounting a dot over the receiver, like you would do with a magnified optic, usually leads to "tunnel vision", which reduces your situational awareness, and it slows down your target acquisition times a lot.
Though it takes a bit of time to get used to a forward-mounted optic, and keeping both eyes open, it doesn't take long before you become VERY fast with this setup. You lose that advantage with a rear-mounted sight. The Tac Handle requires the use of the cheapie aluminum AimPoint ring, because that's the only thing low enough to allow cowitnessing with the irons. I've seen these rings crack, and I've seen bent ones as well. No thanks. With an ARMS mount, you can forward-mount the AimPoint, it is tough as hell, and you can remove and replace the sight very easy and very fast with the throw-lever. It is without question the best mounting setup for receiver-mounting your AimPoint, is extremely flexible in its configuration. If you later buy a railed handguard, you can simply remove the spacer (SIR, RAS II) or use the standard full spacer (RAS, FF RAS, URX) and not have to buy another mount. If you read through the threads on the top 2-3 pages of the Optics forum, you'll see that I'm not alone with these opinions... [:)] -Troy |
|
|
|
Posted: 7/16/2003 11:22:19 AM EDT
[#34]
Troy is right on the money about the RRA TCH. It is a big, heavy POS! I should know, I USED to own one of them. Sell it on EBAY and get ARMS Swan Sleve...
C4 |
|
|
Win a FREE Membership!
Sign up for the ARFCOM weekly newsletter and be entered to win a free ARFCOM membership. One new winner* is announced every week!
You will receive an email every Friday morning featuring the latest chatter from the hottest topics, breaking news surrounding legislation, as well as exclusive deals only available to ARFCOM email subscribers.
AR15.COM is the world's largest firearm community and is a gathering place for firearm enthusiasts of all types.
From hunters and military members, to competition shooters and general firearm enthusiasts, we welcome anyone who values and respects the way of the firearm.
Subscribe to our monthly Newsletter to receive firearm news, product discounts from your favorite Industry Partners, and more.
Copyright © 1996-2024 AR15.COM LLC. All Rights Reserved.
Any use of this content without express written consent is prohibited.
AR15.Com reserves the right to overwrite or replace any affiliate, commercial, or monetizable links, posted by users, with our own.
