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

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...

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.

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

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

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