User Panel
Posted: 12/18/2003 9:05:47 AM EDT
...look no further than the LMT fixed BUIS. I just received mine from MSTN (thanks again Paul!!) and I have to say the darn thing is impressive. It's built like a tank. I can't wait to get the thing mounted and zero'd. I also like the fact that it's just like a carry handle BUIS with the elevation knob. So, if you're looking at the ARMS #40 to use with a red dot, you owe it to yourself to check out the LMT. It's worth every penny.
FWIW, I do have an ARMS #40 under my TA-31 but the Aimpoint rifle gets the LMT. |
|
Can't see how that's better than a DPMS Detachable Rear Sight:
http://www.del-ton.com/images/accessories_img/sights/dpms_detachable_sight.jpg |
|
While I like the idea behind the DPMS sight, the screws are prone to breaking with very little abuse, and it's easy to raise your rifle only to discover you have no rear sight.
The LMTs are nice, but they're bulkier than a cut carry handle for no real reason (at the rear in particular). I like the repositioned screw/knob, but not enough to pay double the cost of a carry handle. I spent less than 10 minutes with a Dremel and some Alumablack and am very happy with the results. -Troy |
|
Quoted: Can't see how that's better than a DPMS Detachable Rear Sight: http://www.del-ton.com/images/accessories_img/sights/dpms_detachable_sight.jpg View Quote Umm....no |
|
Quoted: Can't see how that's better than a DPMS Detachable Rear Sight: http://www.del-ton.com/images/accessories_img/sights/dpms_detachable_sight.jpg View Quote HAHAHAHA Tell you what you can have mine if it is ever found - got knocked clean off my rifle on ex the screws are to thin and weak. Get the LMT or cut a carry handle yourself. |
|
To me, for a non folder, I prefer the well poven carry handle unit, cut off. For folders give me the #40, which never gets in my sight picture if I don't want it to.
Good shootin, Jack |
|
Quoted: Can't see how that's better than a DPMS Detachable Rear Sight: http://www.del-ton.com/images/accessories_img/sights/dpms_detachable_sight.jpg View Quote A lot of AR accessories look the same to most people, especially newbies. That is the problem. Looking at an RAS, you can't really see the difference betwenn it and a Bushmaster float tube or an Oly FIRSH. A LMT sight looks very similar to the DPMS or a Yankee Hill BUIS. However, the similarities are only skin deep. Until you actually feel and then use the better products, everything seems to be the same. However, once you have the top of the line, you will dfinitely know the difference in quality, sturdiness, and reliability. For range shooting, I guess just about anything short of the Chicom knockoffs would serve you just fine. A lot of us, however, like to use and abuse our equipment and must demand the best there is to stand up to the punishment. And yes, I love my LMT BUIS. |
|
I had the DPMS. Could not get it to zero. The numbers go from 300 to 600, but I could never get my knob to move past 400. I asked DPMS about it, and they told me that I'd never shoot past 400 anyway so what was the big deal. They also told me most carry handle sights were the same way. Something about the length of the screws. Then why are they marked to 600?
Anyway they couldn't fix it, and I couldn't get it to zero, even with different front sight posts. The sight takes up a lot more of the rear rail then the LMT, and the atatchment screws are flimsy. It is lighter then the LMT, but is made of aluminum where as the LMT is all steel. Then I got an LMT. Simply the best FIXED rear sight for a flat-top uppers there is. (In my opinion.) If you use the DPMS, then use the LMT you'll be sold. It looks good, works great, and yes that pesky little wheel goes all the way to six. (As do both of my Bushmaster removable carry handles.) |
|
It has to be better than the DMPS because it costs twice as much!
[:)] Keep watching for my synthetic ruby line of gun sights coming soon. |
|
Quoted: The LMTs are nice, but they're bulkier than a cut carry handle for no real reason (at the rear in particular). -Troy View Quote Bulkier how? I thought they were the same profile as a cut CH. Is it the reinforcement on the front, or the thumbscrew? |
|
Quoted: It has to be better than the DMPS because it costs twice as much! [:)] Keep watching for my synthetic ruby line of gun sights coming soon. View Quote You make a good point....VALUE FOR THE DOLLAR! I had a DPMS rear sight a few years ago, and it was a decent unit, I ended up selling it with an M4 upper I had. The guy I sold it to is currently using it for 3 gun shooting and works well for him. A1/Stand Alone Rear Sight from us MSRP $65.00 DPMS detachable A2 rear sight MSRP $80.00 LMT A2 rear sight $135.00? I've seen and used all 3 units for the type of shooting and use I subject my guns to, there is no appreciable difference between the 3. I never use the elevation knob, especially on a carbine. Then consider that these sights are back up to an already expensive red dot sight, and you will probably never need to use them (and if you do your rifle has become seriously messed up, and most likely you were injured in the process). The price of the LMT sight is almost half that of a decent optic, where should the average consumer spend their money? The AR discussions side of things on the site has seriously gone down hill in the 5 years I have been here. Posts used to be more application/use oriented as applied to individual shooters. You can't argue with what someone's personnel preference is, especially when they really use their gear. Posts now are generally equipment/brand name oriented. It's akin to saying "I wear wrangler jeans, if you don't wear wranglers your jeans are crap!" I think we all would do well to actually shoot more, than to shoot our mouths off on the internet all the time... |
|
If its gone down hill, its because people dont differentiate between tools and toys. Someone solicits an opinion and you always get a clash of the two different schools of thought.
I have tools and I have toys, and enjoy them both. If Matt is happy with his LMT sight and it meets every requirement he might have of it, then he's good to go. |
|
When folks ask for opinions on knock-offs and gears that are obviously of dubious value and quality (e.g. BEC scopes, Airsoft KAC lookalikes, etc.), we just tend to point them at another direction: well established, time tested and proven products instead.
When it comes to hobby, I think most of us toss logic out the window, never mind we probably will never use these expensive products in the battlefields conditions for which they were designed. Many of us will also rearrange our priorities in order to obtain them, it's emotional, not logical. Need is rarely an issue, want accounts for most of the impetus. |
|
Quoted: If its gone down hill, its because people dont differentiate between tools and toys. Someone solicits an opinion and you always get a clash of the two different schools of thought. I have tools and I have toys, and enjoy them both. If Matt is happy with his LMT sight and it meets every requirement he might have of it, then he's good to go. View Quote I wouldn't have responded to this thread if the cheaper sights hadn't been slammed on. I do not dispute the fact that Matt has an LMT sight and likes it and it works well for him. Let's be honest here...for most of the membership on this site their rifles are toys that can be pressed into service for self defense if/when needed. As much as we would all like it to, the Shit is not going to hit the fan. Most of us will never have the opportunity to fire shots in anger (thankfully). Lumpy you're a cop...your tools may differentiate greatly between those that a SWAT operator, an Infantry soldier, and someone assigned to executive protection would use. I'm sick of hearing all the hard core shit from people constantly here on AR15.com, deriding products I have used and know work (relative to their costs and design parameters), or that I see people using in the 2-3 matches I attend monthly. Skill matters [b]a lot more[/b] than any gear you have. Competition shooters define what is the best currently available for the civilian market. These are people that spend a good deal of their disposable income for guns, gear, training, ammo, travel, and match fees that range up tro $300 to have a chance at winning some substantial prizes. Competition shooters actually wear guns out, beat them up, and abuse them harder than probably even some military units do....when's the last time someone you know wore a gun out? The Luepold CQT you guys all hate so much is one of the more common optics I see competition shooters using....that's just one product I see people talking shit about constantly on here, that I also see [b]shooters[/b] actually using with good results. When people talk in absolutes about products, they're simply talking trash. |
|
Egads, what did I start? I just wanted to make a post because I was excited about a new piece of gear that not everyone is aware of and I wanted to thank Paul @ MSTN in public for his great service. I hate "versus" threads because they eventually degrade to a pissing contest.
After reading my original post again, perhaps I came off too much like a "commercial" and that wasn't my intention. If a certain piece of gear helps you shoot your best, than that's the best piece of gear for you, right? |
|
The LMT sight is made of forged aluminum, just like a detachable carry handle. There are a couple of differences between the LMT and a CCH:
[img]photos.ar15.com/ImageGallery/Attachments/DownloadAttach.asp?iImageUnq=20657[/img] 1. The sloped rear area is much thicker. 2. The "claw" is wider and further forward [This is, IMO, the only improvement over a CCH. 3. There is a slanted vertical reinforcement in the front. 4. The slot for the elevation wheel is not square, but has been drilled through and then machined, leaving big round dirt-collecting holes. None of this stuff is horrible, just less than ideal, except for #2, which IS an improvement. -Troy |
|
I dont own a CCH or the LMT sight, but does that little aluminum make it THAT much more bulky?
|
|
Quoted: If Matt is happy with his LMT sight and it meets every requirement he might have of it, then he's good to go. View Quote Not as happy as I am with my Aimpoint :) |
|
Well...
Part of the reason the LMT is bulkier than a cut carry handle is because it was DESIGNED to be the configuration it's in, and it's designed to be extremely durable, where a cut carry handle is more or less a "field modification". I really can't believe some of you people; willing to spend over $1000 dollars to get a top-quality optic that'll take the worst abuse you can throw at it, but bitch about $165 for the same in an iron sight? And complain about how much "bulkier" the LMT is? Yeah, all those extra grams or so of aluminum must be a real bitch to hump around, huh? Jeez... |
|
Quoted: Well... Part of the reason the LMT is bulkier than a cut carry handle is because it was DESIGNED to be the configuration it's in, and it's designed to be extremely durable, where a cut carry handle is more or less a "field modification". I really can't believe some of you people; willing to spend over $1000 dollars to get a top-quality optic that'll take the worst abuse you can throw at it, but bitch about $165 for the same in an iron sight? And complain about how much "bulkier" the LMT is? Yeah, all those extra grams or so of aluminum must be a real bitch to hump around, huh? Jeez... View Quote A much needed kick in the nuts. Well said. |
|
Show me where I was whining.
I simply answered SlimHazy's question. I never said that I didn't like the LMT sight, but I did point out the things that were different, and the things that I didn't particularly like about it (and the things I DID like). That's called "discussion," and that's the purpose of these forums, right? The idea is to get the insight and opinions of several people and use that information to make YOUR OWN decision about what you feel will serve YOU best. -Troy |
|
Quoted: The LMT sight is made of forged aluminum, just like a detachable carry handle. There are a couple of differences between the LMT and a CCH: 1. The sloped rear area is much thicker. 2. The "claw" is wider and further forward [This is, IMO, the only improvement over a CCH. 3. There is a slanted vertical reinforcement in the front. 4. The slot for the elevation wheel is not square, but has been drilled through and then machined, leaving big round dirt-collecting holes. None of this stuff is horrible, just less than ideal, except for #2, which IS an improvement. -Troy View Quote Thanks Troy. Lump/Zardoz, my main concern about extra bulk was taking up an extra notch on the receiver and or fitting under the rear of an optic. And I'm a scrawny fella, so a few grams might be the proverbial straw...[;)] |
|
Id like to see the rings that'd let any scope get above the LMT sight [;)]
|
|
Quoted: 4. The slot for the elevation wheel is not square, but has been drilled through and then machined, leaving big round dirt-collecting holes. -Troy View Quote YES! Way to go LMT! Finally an elevation knob with enough relief in its mount to not seize up when foreign matter gets jammed into it such as dirt, mud, bits of rock or vegetation. Or to freeze in place when the moisture of the afternoon becomes ice in the evening. Now the elevation knob has enough clearance in its mount to allow that stuff to be simply spun out by the flick of the knob! |
|
my main concern about extra bulk was taking up an extra notch on the receiver and or fitting under the rear of an optic. View Quote |
|
The LMT sights also have the "sight channel" relieved which makes the filed of view much nicer than a choppped carry handle. Also, the locking bar is longer than the one on a carry handle.
|
|
I know Lumpy was joking about using the LMT or a CCH with a magnified optic, but since a couple of you didn't get the joke, let me point out that this setup is intended for use with a non-magnified optic such as an AimPoint, EOTech, OKO, or similar.
-Troy |
|
The scary thing is not lumpy -
its Coldblue running rampant with his chainsaw file...[;)] |
|
Quoted: I know Lumpy was joking about using the LMT or a CCH with a magnified optic, but since a couple of you didn't get the joke, let me point out that this setup is intended for use with a non-magnified optic such as an AimPoint, EOTech, OKO, or similar. -Troy View Quote |
|
Quoted: Quoted: 4. The slot for the elevation wheel is not square, but has been drilled through and then machined, leaving big round dirt-collecting holes. -Troy View Quote YES! Way to go LMT! Finally an elevation knob with enough relief in its mount to not seize up when foreign matter gets jammed into it such as dirt, mud, bits of rock or vegetation. Or to freeze in place when the moisture of the afternoon becomes ice in the evening. Now the elevation knob has enough clearance in its mount to allow that stuff to be simply spun out by the flick of the knob! View Quote Yeah, I'm pretty sure LMT doesn't produce anything without reasoning behind every aspect of the design. If it weren't for expressed desire and input from those who had used the chopped carry handle, Crane and LMT would not have wasted the time and resources to come up with the beefed up design. Some on the boards don't feel it necessary, don't like the design, don't like the price, and don't need the improvements over the cut carry handle. I respect that. Personally, if I didn't like it, I wouldn't have droppped the cash on it. However, I do and I did. I'm happy with it and anyone else who has bought these probably do too. Sinistral, I like your sight as well. If I sounded like I was being a price snob, I wasn't trying to be. Yours is probably the best designed nonfolding sight designs next to the LMT and being priced less than any others at the same time. I wouldn't hesitate putting your sight on any of my weapons. The cost of your sight is probably low because of its simplicity. I like that. However, I also know your company insists on the best parts and materials available and I trust CavArms to deliver a good and robust product. I expect the same of LMT, ARMS, and Knights. I see that in the products produced by all of four. |
|
Quoted: The LMT sight is made of forged aluminum, just like a detachable carry handle. There are a couple of differences between the LMT and a CCH: [url]photos.ar15.com/ImageGallery/Attachments/DownloadAttach.asp?iImageUnq=20657[/url] 1. The sloped rear area is much thicker. 2. The "claw" is wider and further forward [This is, IMO, the only improvement over a CCH. 3. There is a slanted vertical reinforcement in the front. 4. The slot for the elevation wheel is not square, but has been drilled through and then machined, leaving big round dirt-collecting holes. None of this stuff is horrible, just less than ideal, except for #2, which IS an improvement. -Troy View Quote Funny. The folks at MSTN sold me my LMT sight. They told me that it was not aluminum but all steel. I'm going to cut a handle this week and try it out. But I'm still happy with the LMT. None of my Bushmaster carry handles line up perfectly witht the rear of the upper receiver. The LMT does. The fit and finish are superior (in my opinion,) to any carry handle I have ever seen. Both could be listed as improvements. |
|
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.