What he said. I do like the Aimpoint lever mount on some rifles that beg for a low mounting solution, like the Sig 550. The lever can run on either side for clearance and it gets the Aimpoint very low.Originally Posted by TactTeam
H
|
||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Member
What he said. I do like the Aimpoint lever mount on some rifles that beg for a low mounting solution, like the Sig 550. The lever can run on either side for clearance and it gets the Aimpoint very low.
H
Site Sponsor
I run multiple M4S's. Each has been run hard in multiple quality classes with no issues. I like the AA battery option as well as the extra settings. Also use the NV settings so for me it's a good way to go. I buy the LaRue package deal for 1/3 lower co.
Member
The A.R.M.S. #74 Comp M4 full spacer will work with the QRP mount and bring the compm4 to lower 1/3 cowitness. The bolts that come with the A.R.M.S. spacer are shaped for the countersink on the A.R.M.S #74 mount and may have a different shoulder on the head and need reshaping...a new set of bolts with the flat shoulder may be needed. The spacer costs around $15.
This spacer will do the same thing for the Aimpoint PRO with the QRP2 mount also. COMPM4 and PRO have identical mounting interface dimensions.
http://www.armsmounts.com/default.as...ub=spacers&id=[hsh]74%20SP
mount is found on bottom left of page
Last edited by MelloYellow; 08-20-13 at 15:20. Reason: info add
Member
Good to know....Wish I knew 2 weeks ago when I ordered the Larue. I love the Larue, but with the reliability aimpoint build into the qrp2 I could have dealt with the big knob for a $125 savings.
**On closer look, it does appear to have a different face that only fits their proprietary base. Look like you would have to do some milling to the spacer's bottom face or the QRP's top face to get a good reliable interface. I may be wrong since I dont physically have it in hand, but thats what the pictures look like.**
Last edited by TactTeam; 08-20-13 at 20:54.
Member
The base of the COMP M4 will mount directly to the qrp2 mount sans spacer. The COMP M4 will mount to the A.R.M.S. #74 mount in the same respect, sans spacer. Take a closer and longer look and I think you will see this for yourself. The #74 spacer and aimpoint qrp2 spacer would logically have identical mount surface dimensions.
Member
IYes, the bottom of the c4, the top of the qrp spacer, bottom of the qrp spacer, and the top of the qrp all have matching milled channels that correspond to on another.
The top of any of the ARMS spacers designed for the c4 have the same corresponding milled channels so they will mount to the bottom of the c4.
The difference lies in the bottom of any of the ARMS spacers and top of the ARMS throw lever base. The bottom of the ARMS spacers have a different milled pattern so they will only bolt to their proprietary base.
Aimpoint QRP
Last edited by TactTeam; 08-21-13 at 04:27.
Member
The ARMS spacer fits the QRP2. Ned at Mounts Plus did a mock up for me and it fit as though ARMS copied the QRP2 dimensions when creating the #74 and spacers.. This is because they are designed to fit the same optic in a raised configuration, or for use on a SG or higher rail.
Member
Okay, fair enough. One will have to take your word for it because the bottom of the their spacer as pictured online and top of their #74 mount as they have pictured online does not look like the above.The ARMS spacer fits the QRP2. Ned at Mounts Plus did a mock up for me and it fit as though ARMS copied the QRP2 dimensions when creating the #74 and spacers.. This is because they are designed to fit the same optic in a raised configuration, or for use on a SG or higher rail.
Last edited by TactTeam; 08-21-13 at 04:32.
Member
I now see that I am wrong. I wonder how the arms spacer would have fit the qrp2/PRO when Ned did a check for me. I will verify this and let you know. My fault brother.
Member
I think I figured it out. Part of the problem was me doing the research on my phone and some of the pictures were not available. Only the mount pics, none with the comp M4 mounted pics were available.I now see that I am wrong. I wonder how the arms spacer would have fit the qrp2/PRO when Ned did a check for me
If you look at the bottom of the spacer in the picture I posted you will see there is the "male side" of the milled protrusions that correspond to the "female side" of the qrp II. On the bottom of the spacer you can also see a shoulder toward the outside portion of the spacer. This shoulder is on both the M4 bottom and the spacer bottom.
It looks like the ARMS mount and spacer have had a plain channel milled out that is deep enough to accommodate the milled protrusion on the bottom of the Aimpoint stuff. Thus, only the edge shoulder and flat portions on the bottom of the aimpoint stuff suppoorts the interface instead of the protrusion recessing down in like on the aimpoint.
Effectively, when an aimpoint is sitting (not screwed in) on its own mount properly with the protrusions recessed it will not slide front to back or side to side. Where as if you site the aimpoint stuff on the ARMS mount or spacer (not screwed in) it would slide front to back but not side to side.
Make sense??????
All this should be null and void once everything is screwed together.
I think the ARMS will work, they just worked around what was probably a patent issue with the Aimpoint's proprietary base by making a plain channel that will still interface.
Posting Permissions
Reply With Quote
Bookmarks