View Full Version : ARMS, Inc. 40L
ARMS, Inc. 40L rear flip up sight
"Selected as the best and was awarded a contract from Crane NSWC for use by U.S. Spec. Forces".
Is this statement true? I was under the impression that ARMS products were junk. The sights look good, but I heard they had so many small parts they were unreliable.
Sorry if this has already been discussed, I did a search and came up with nothing.
sinlessorrow
09-05-12, 08:25
ARMS, Inc. 40L rear flip up sight
"Selected as the best and was awarded a contract from Crane NSWC for use by U.S. Spec. Forces".
Is this statement true? I was under the impression that ARMS products were junk. The sights look good, but I heard they had so many small parts they were unreliable.
Sorry if this has already been discussed, I did a search and came up with nothing.
ARMS is junk, their #40L is the exception. It is actually a very nice BUIS. Idk about the SF using them but I know navy EOD uses them on their MK18's.
I never had problems with the 40 or 40L sights. We had them on our GUU-5's and M-4's.
AF went with G G & G for their M-4's IIRC.
Both setups worked.
The statement was true when it was made. As a sight, it's no worse, or better, than any other high quality rear folding sight. Your impression of ARMS products is most likely a result of the LaRue Range War.
I borrowed an ARMS 40L once. I don't like flip up anything.. but the ARMS was a nice sight. I kinda wanted to keep it....
Had that sight on a work rifle, Colt rifle with the arms backup rear sight. Worked just like any other rear folding sight. Only a small sample with only 12 rifles but they all worked fine.
polymorpheous
09-05-12, 09:25
ARMS isn't junk, it's just old hat.
Are Knight's RAS rails junk?
Nope, but there are better options out there now.
A.R.M.S. actually had nice stuff for the time. It is only now that there are much better options that they have come to be viewed as junk. You've got to remember that most of what A.R.M.S. offers is tech that dates to early OEF/OIF and as such is ancient by today's standards. I have never had the opportunity to use any of A.R.M.S.'s BUIS, but their S.I.R. seemed pretty solid.
Submariner
09-05-12, 10:26
... their S.I.R. seemed pretty solid.
Bulky and heavy, too.
Most of the negative comments I've heard about ARMS has came from this sight. I have no experience with ARMS, all my rifles wear TROY battle sights.
So does CRANE still have a contract for these for special forces, or have they upgraded as BUIS have gotten better? I thought they used Matechs or KAC BUIS.
Most of the negative comments I've heard about ARMS has came from this sight.
Most of the time that stuff is coming from LaRetard's Toadies. But ARMS did pull some stupid stunts that pissed off people.
There's mentally unstables in many of the gun gadget companies. LaRue, the old AAC, ARMS, etc.
What about ARMS qd optic mounts, are they gtg? I've also heard these were unreliable.
... S.I.R. seemed pretty solid.Bulky and heavy, too.
Like I said, pretty nice for the time, but their are much better options out there. At the time the only other options that were available were the early KAC rail systems and of those only the RAS II was free floating, and I think the PRI sleeve handguards. In the end time marches on and most of A.R.M.S. products have been left behind.
I've always had an interest in the A.R.M.S. #41-B silhouette folding front Sight with gas block. I think this was a great idea if it is solid. It would be nice to have a "F" type front sight that was foldable.
What about ARMS qd optic mounts, are they gtg? I've also heard these were unreliable.
They aren't as horrible as some have said, but they have issues with tolerances on some uppers which can often times lead to loss of zero. The A.R.M.S. mounts are one of the reasons that the Elcan Specter was notorious for losing its zero, and they didn't particularly help the early Eotechs when they used them.
They aren't as horrible as some have said, but they have issues with tolerances on some uppers which can often times lead to loss of zero. The A.R.M.S. mounts are one of the reasons that the Elcan Specter was notorious for losing its zero, and they didn't particularly help the early Eotechs when they used them.
I can understand how ARMS has lost the popularity contest, when Larue or other (better) products can be had for around the same price.
skullworks
09-05-12, 13:11
They aren't as horrible as some have said, but they have issues with tolerances on some uppers which can often times lead to loss of zero.
The real problem is that the Mil-Std-1913 is so poorly speced out that a piece of rail and whatever is supposed to clamp onto it both can be within the specified tolerances but still be incompatible with each other (that's why we now have the little known STANAG 4694). The result is that on some rails A.R.M.S. old non-adjustable throw level mounts will be too loose and on others you will break the lever trying to get it on there (and just to add to the fun some manufacturers mentioned chose to spec their parts so that A.R.M.S old-style mounts won't fit properly). That doesn't mean there's anything wrong with either part though - since they're both within the specs.
The LaRue workaround is of course that their clamping mechanism is adjustable; something A.R.M.S. now offers with their "Throw-Lever™ Mk. II"
Had a 40L. Worked well, especially liked the pistol style blade for up close work. There have been reports of spring fatigue and failure to full deploy though.
Ok, what about there newer optic mounts are they good to go? Whats every ones opinion?
ARMS isn't junk, it's just old hat.
Are Knight's RAS rails junk?
Nope, but there are better options out there now.
I would agree with this. At one point had a rifle that was pretty much kitted out with A.R.M.S. everything, SIRS rails, #40 BUIS, A.R.M.S. QD M68 Mount (Now granted I got them through a friend who had a distributor account and paid something like $400 for the entire package back when I bought it) Never really had an issue with any of it, except the mount coming loose when I didn't tighten the screws done proper, which isn't the mounts fault in this case. The rail system is big and bulky though no way around that, but it did work. The BUIS though is nice and has never given me any issue and will remain in my inventory while I traded the rails system for a set of SAPI plates and a bunch of other stuff. Likely going to replace the mount with a Larue mount though. None are on my go to rifle at the moment. Like has been said, its older designs with better options available for similar or a little more.
Ok, what about there newer optic mounts are they good to go? Whats every ones opinion?
I've got a buddy doing OGA stuff, he has been using one since they came out without any problem.
EzGoingKev
09-05-12, 19:42
When I set up my 6920 I put an ARMS rear sight on it and have not had any issues with it at all. Nice quality.
I picked up a used one of TOS and it had some play. I contacted them looking to see if I could get some sort of kit to rebuild it. They said to send it in so they could look at it. I am not too far from them so I brought it by and they just gave me a brand new one with no drama.
The funny thing is the tech was kind of puzzled that it did not have the patent info on it like it was supposed to. Part of me wonders if I ended up with a Chinese airsoft knock off. Either way they gave me a brand new one.
I've been through a few ARMS products from way back and they were solid heavy units. I still have a swan sleeve 40L rear that is a chunk but has never been a problem. I too remember issues with tolerance wear on the rear sight over time and some spring issues, but never witnessed it myself.
Here's my ARMs on my mk18 mod1
http://i6.photobucket.com/albums/y218/gw4k/03387982.jpg
Here's my ARMs on my mk18 mod1
http://i6.photobucket.com/albums/y218/gw4k/03387982.jpg
Just going off the looks of that sight, it looks like just as good a sight as say a Troy Battle sight, and looks much better, and more reliable than an MBUS.
That looks like a nice setup, I take it there's been no problems, maybe ARMS will make a come back some day. I have to say I like the looks and idea of there products. Price could be a little better, but that's the case with all the big name BUIS makers in my opinion!
Has anyone ever used the A.R.M.S.® #41™-B-L Silhouette™
Folding Front Sight with integral gas block?
http://www.armsmounts.com/default.asp?mode=products&sub=sights&id=[hsh]41-B
Here's my ARMs on my mk18 mod1
http://i6.photobucket.com/albums/y218/gw4k/03387982.jpg
What made you chose this over the Troy Battle Sight if you don't mind me asking? There nearly the same price.
What made you chose this over the Troy Battle Sight if you don't mind me asking? There nearly the same price.
The reasons you would want to consider it are...
Lighter
Lower (Stowed)
Tool-less Adjustment
Has anyone ever used the A.R.M.S.® #41™-B-L Silhouette™
Folding Front Sight with integral gas block?
Yes, its nice.
OldGrayGuy
09-11-12, 09:13
Not a lot of love here for A.R.M.S but the federal agency I used to work for had several hundred of their foldable back up rear sights in service and they had a good reputation for durability.
I was impressed enough that I purchased one for my personal AR but this was a while ago, not too many other options back then but I still like mine okay.
I have 4 ARMS 40L and I like them quite well. However, today I would probably go with the Magpul BUIS simply because it is cheaper and works just fine.
chapperjoe
09-11-12, 11:06
I'll just add my two cents.
I think this is a GREAT product (yeah I said great) and is a great execution of a great idea.
Having said that, you'll note it doesn't make use of the TERRIBLE arms lever.
So it actually fits on 1913 rails, and is thus beloved.
As opposed to almost the entire rest of their product line.
I'll just add my two cents.
I think this is a GREAT product (yeah I said great) and is a great execution of a great idea.
Having said that, you'll note it doesn't make use of the TERRIBLE arms lever.
So it actually fits on 1913 rails, and is thus beloved.
As opposed to almost the entire rest of their product line.
So the ARMS qd mounts are not gtg? I've heard mixed reviews on these.
So the ARMS qd mounts are not gtg? I've heard mixed reviews on these.
Just go with their newer adjustable mount which doesn't require a tool. Both types of complaints are about the old style mount.
Just go with their newer adjustable mount which doesn't require a tool. Both types of complaints are about the old style mount.
Good to know, thanks.
Powered by vBulletin® Version 4.2.5 Copyright © 2024 vBulletin Solutions, Inc. All rights reserved.