View Full Version : Question for Pat Rogers regarding the M73 article and mounting an Aimpoint
April 28, 2005, 10:01 AM
Loved the M73 article. I appreciate your succinct and factual writing style. Of course, I'd expect nothing less from a man with your experience.
One question: You referred to several issues with mounting an optic on non-FF handguards. I am unfamiliar with the issue you referenced specifically regarding mounting the Aimpoint forward. I have mine mounted about 3/4 of the way forward on my reciever, as I did not want the weight forward, slowing me down (I'm slow enough as it is.) You specifically mentioned an issue related to the Aimpoint, though, and I would like to know what you were referring to. I see a lot of guys that mount it forward (amost like it's trendy,) and I've wondered what the attraction is.
April 30, 2005, 05:33 AM
Good Morning Techbrute!
Thanks for the kind words! I enjoy writing for SWAT. The editor and publisher are two top notch guys!
The Aimpoint- like all red dots- are meant to be used with both eyes open. This obviously permits faster target acquisition.
Consider the Aimpoint tube to be similar to a larger (ghost ring type) aperture rear sight. On the receiver (i too place mine about where you do- at about the address T10) you will be looking through the sight- the tube itself will be indistinct.
If you throw it waaaay up front, you are now looking through a tunnel.
Consider that you won't see an aperture rear sight mounted on the forend- there is a similiar reason for that.
For the mil side, the 12 0'clock position on the forend is reserved for the AN/PEQ-2A (or other Laser aiming sight/ IR illuminator). Mounting it too far forweard will interfere with that.
Some claim that they mount it up front to clear an AN/PVS-14 mounted on the rear of the receiver as an ad hoc NVS in tandem with the Aimpoint.
If you have a Larue Aimpoint mount and Larue PVS-14 mount, you can mount the PVS-14 behind the Aimpoint on T10, the 14 behind it, and BUIS will not interfere (fold down BUIS anyway).
And, as you point out, that weight up front slows you down as you try to mount the carbine.
Trendy is the right word. The greater majority of gun owners are not shooters. They may physically possess a firearm, but for a great number of reasons do not/ cannot shoot them often.
Very few have any training, and a lot of what they may do is the result of internet chatter or polls (Yikes!).
There is no doubt that you need to make things work for you. Individual size, strength, attitude etc will cause things to be different for each.
I see a bunch of people come through with some very strange configurations.
I'll point out the pro/ con of things, and eventually most will come back to a more reasonable mounting solution.
Hope this helps!
Off topic, but i drove through Dallas last night.
April 30, 2005, 07:01 AM
Thanks for the information. I was confident in my rig before, and now I'm confident+1.
Also, I'm in the middle of building a new rifle. (I say building because I'm waiting on Form 1). In your writings where you mention LaRue mounts, you seem to speak very favorably of them. My current rifle is equipped in the pre-LaRue era hardware, but far be it from me to deprive a fellow Texan of my future business. :D
If you are ever in this neck of the woods are are in the mood for some Texas hospitality, please drop me a line. It would be a complete pleasure to treat you to a BBQ or Steak dinner, and heck, we even have a good vegitarian place nearby.
May 1, 2005, 05:18 PM
Thanks for the invite!
I was at Mark Larue's shop on Saturday. His optic rings mounts are the absolute best quick release mounts available- bar none. They are the only ones that i trust to return to zero, and several of us have mounted/ dosmounted. remounted several hundred times with no loss in zero.
Likewise his rail is the standard by which all others aspire.
Mark is a great American. He responds readily to requests (and produces rapidly as he actually makes everything in house- unlike most of the others who sub out).I'm still in TX, but in west Texas now.
May 12, 2005, 04:41 PM
Mr. Rogers...sorry for being somewhat dense, but I wanted to be sure of the Aimpoint location on the receiver.
Do you favor the LaRue standard or cantilever mount on a non-NVD carbine?
May 24, 2005, 11:34 AM
Tn Po Po,
Sorry for the delay, but have been traveling and limited time available for netsurfing.
I use a standard Larue M68 Mount for all seasons...
You can use the standard mount and a PVS-14 with a Troy or KAC BUIS with no problem.
A cantilever mount may (if the Aimpoint is mounted very far forward on the receiver) conflict with the PEQ-2A.
The Aimpoint seems to be less effective when it is mounted too far forward.
Hope this helps, and sorry for the delay!
May 28, 2005, 11:00 PM
Thank you, sir.
June 3, 2005, 03:03 PM
May I ask what your opinion is of mounting an Aimpoint to the "hump" of a KAC RAS-II? Is that too far forward for optimal use? (Not that I need to be 'optimal' to savage paper plates, but I'm curious.)
June 3, 2005, 04:03 PM
The hump looks to be GTG. The issues you need to consider are if you are going to mount a PEQ-2A or similar on the 12 0'clock rail- you need to be able to clear that.
I have seen a bunch mounted on the RAS 11 hump- they all worked fine.
June 27, 2005, 06:42 AM
Mr. Rogers...well, you were right.
I ordered the LaRue Cantilever (actually, before I initially posted) because:
1. just about everyone said that was the way to go, versus the M68.
2. spare battery compartment.
3. I could always bring it back on the rail if I wanted.
I got out of the military in the mid '90s and all we used were irons, so I had no formal experience with Aimpoints.
After screwing around with it for a couple of weeks, my M3 is sitting exactly where it would be if I had the standard M68! Target acquisition speed is faster, FOR ME, when mounted there.
Thanks again for solid advice.
vBulletin® v3.8.7, Copyright ©2000-2014, vBulletin Solutions, Inc.