KevinB, if it ever becomes possible to get "the other" levers for the 553, I'll finance the change from the garbage "soft mount" to LaRue for you
KevinB, if it ever becomes possible to get "the other" levers for the 553, I'll finance the change from the garbage "soft mount" to LaRue for you
If your rail meets Mil-Spec, there should not be an issue. To my knowledge, all of the rails shipped to the U.S. Military should be within specified tolerances, otherwise they would have been rejected during inspections. The 553 was designed for the U.S. Military. They are the paying customer. We designed what they asked for. All I can say is, "If it don't work, they're gonna make us fix it or they ain't gonna buy it."Originally Posted by jmart
I'm not sure whether or not the LaRue would have met spec. I am not an engineer and was not involved in the design of the 553 or in the discussions with Crane. I do believe the LaRue would have had to protrude out further so the nut can be adjusted. The ARMS levers provides a slimmer profile and tuck nicely under the hood where they cannot be snagged on webgear- if that matters at all.
The LaRue's are nice mounts. I use the LaRue base for the EOTech on one of my rifles. It's a good piece of kit, but I also have ARMS mounts on some of my rifles and I haven't encountered any problems with them. Of course, I'm not in the military. I'm just a lowly sales guy.
Originally Posted by SuicideHz
The model I handled was a Shot. Let me fire off an e-mail and see if they changed something.
C4
The Picatinny spec has variances in it.Originally Posted by Manx
Don't knock sales guys (as I am one).
C4
The optic itself is good stuff, but if you know there is a weak link it should be addressed beforehand rather than "Microsofting" it and shipping out bad goods and assuming a fix will come along.Originally Posted by C4IGrant
Please L3, redesign the mount without those levers!
In a perfect world, non-adjusting throwlevers would be ideal. Unfortunately, there is that +/- .002 on the rail spec which makes certain mounts very selective to whether or not they'll fit too tight, just right, or sloppy ass loose. Tack on that the mounts in question have their own tolerances which seem to vary, and you have a recipe for disaster.
Best case scenario:
EOTech made the clamp opposite of the lever adjustable, and did away with the "soft mount" pad that these particular mounts usually use. Then, the only real negative is that you're using a MIM throwlever.
Damn - I guess I mis-read the intitial - I thought it was going to be able to adapt to Larue levers.
Well I like my 552 on a Larue -- the only real advantage for the 553 to me was the C123's...
My 551's shit the bed in the cold so I dont go that route even for the smaller platfrom.
If some of the real-deal folks like yourself, pass the word on to L3/Eotech that a 553 WITHOUT the ARMS mount and WITHOUT the additional height is what would be preferred, so it can be mounted on a LaRue mount, perhaps they will listen and build it.Originally Posted by KevinB
I'm done -- I'm a money grubbing contractor now -- no one listens to us...
Originally Posted by nickdrak
As I said in my earlier post, I offered to buy HUNDREDS of them and have not gotten anywhere. The main reason is that they are too busy to make anything other than what they have on their plate at the moment.
C4
Bookmarks