The height difference between the 3S and 3T is advertised to be .195".
Is it possible that you received a 3T that was mis-marked at the factory as a 3S?
Anything is possible I suppose. It is my understanding that the lower half of the mounts that attaches to the rail are the same. The difference is in the milling of the ring portion that actually pivots as this is where the 3T or 3S etching is located. I honestly think the Magnifier mount is good to go. Using the distance between the BIUS and the bottom of the magnifier as a height reference, the chart’s magnifier and my magnifier appear to be the same.
I made a better picture to show the inconsistencies. This time I moved the optic forward as pictured in the chart and I also flipped the RDS mount around to put the throw lever on the other side and out of view as there are no inconsistencies there.
OK…I’m REALLY not trying to be difficult but…
Why did you buy the HK-416 mount? Are you running an HK? I do agree with you that the 3S SHOULD give you the same alignment that is shown on their website but if is not working out and the thing is still new then I would think that LaRue would be able to help you out with getting an LT-660 (that should solve your alignment problem). Did you just buy both optics or are you upgrading with the 3xMag? If both sets were new, I would ask them if you could send both back and start over, just to be sure and be finished! I really think they would be very helpful as their customer service policy is GREAT!!
Also, they say that the LT-660HK wil not work “properly” with standard DI uppers! My thought would be that, with the height discrepancy as big as it is even with a 3S, that an LT-660 would center you up.
Sparky
It’s one thing if they did advertise something that doesn’t meet your expectations as advertised, but they also advise against ordering the HK model for regular ARs.
That is the chart when purchasing the optic only. They don’t advise against it because it’s not compatible with the rifle or the magnifier, they are just making it clear that it’s not compatible with the height of standard AR iron’s if you are looking for a proper lower 1/3 co-witness.
If someone can point out the difference between an HK’s upper receiver rail and an AR’s upper receiver rail that is causing this misalignment and I’ll gladly shut up and apologize to Larue Tactical for my stupidity but there is no difference that I am aware of. As far as I can tell the rifle in Larue’s Chart is one of their stealth uppers…not a piston driven or HK rifle and the short magnifier mount and the medium optic mount line up.
I’m not trying to be snarky but whether or not I have and HK or an AR is irrelevant imo. I wanted an absolute co-witness. The medium optic mount provides that. Then I wanted the magnifier and the shorty magnifier is advertised as being compatible with the medium optic mount albeit “slightly” high. My magnifier is definitely not “slightly” high when compared to LT’s Chart.
Is it just me? Have I gone full-retard?
It appears to me that the top photo has a problem. The Micro appears to be laying on top of the rails, and not attached. Compare the location of the lever in relationship to the magnifier’s mount in both pics…hmm.
That appears to be the case. A guy on the weapon evolution boards made this.
…FML
Oh yeah, look at that. Nice catch.
Perhaps there is some chicanery afoot. 
SkyPig,
OK, all I was asking was why you bought a lower mount if you did not have a piston gun…you answered that question. You are correct in that a rail is a rail when you are talking about linear alignment. I agree that the graphic may have had problems and it was my thought upon close examination as well. I will say that on my LT-660 you can see light under the mount if you are just below level with it even though it is securely mounted to the rail!
I understand your frustration and just was wondering why you had chosen that combo…absolute co-witness is fine; I had figured that with no indicated “need” of a shorter mount that you might spare yourself the difficulty and just go with the 3T and the LT-660.
I really hope you get what you are looking for as LaRue makes great gear and has excellent customer service!
Sparky
In hindsight I wish I had said screw absolute co-witness.
Sorry for getting uppity.
I’m thinking I’m pretty much screwed here. I have had the aimpoint micro and mount for a few months now and have put rounds through the rifle with the optic attached. I won’t be holding my breath for LT to tell me to send it all back in exchange for tall mounts. I would however hope that they would swap the magnifier mount out for a tall one and I can just buy the tall H-1 mount.
Anyone in the market for an Aimpoint Micro HK mount minus the Aimpoint?
I’m also tossing around the idea of having a buddy at work make me a spacer of sorts to raise the optic to where I need it. We don’t have a full CNC shop but an tin-bender on helos can come up with some pretty wild stuff in a pinch.
Well, if anything I at least hope LT will go back and either modify the graphic, because I do feel it’s misleading, or make their own spacer so it works as well for the micro as it does for the traditional Aimoint optics.
Thanks All I’ll update this when I reach a conclusion with LT.
Call me crazy but I think all you need is a LT-660 mount. It would raise your aimpoint up enough to line up the way you want. It will obviously not going to give you the absolute co-witness but you could adjust to the lower third setup. Part of the problem you have is you bought the wrong aimpoint mount to start with. LaRue is one of the few companies that truly takes care of it’s customers and the shooting community in general. I understand you want things to work the way you want but it doesn’t always work that way. It sounds to me that you have presented this problem to LaRue as their issue when it is actually your issue since you have a mount designed to work for a system you don’t have.
As an example of LaRue’s customer service when the were offering to replace any ARMS mounts with their for free I decided to take them up on their offer. I broke about 5 ARMS mount and sent them off. They replaced all the mounts with their comparable items. One of the items I broke was a 17s mount that went to my Samson magnifier mount. LaRue’s replacement would not work because the dimensions of the Samson mount. I called LaRue to let them know that their mount would not work with the Samson mount. I told them this only to save other customers from being in my boat. They immediately offered to send me a free magnifier mount. They even paid for the shipping. The moral of the story is how you present yourself to a company you want something from goes a long way in getting what you want or need.
Matt
It’s not that I want it to work the way I want it to work. I expected it to work they way they portrayed it to work. I wasn’t trying to make it do something that it didn’t look like it was supposed to do. They are pictured together on top of an AR-15 as if to say “Look!!! These work on top of an AR-15 and it looks like this!!!”.
The simple fact is, if I owned an HK, the sights still wouldn’t work as portrayed, but the difference is no one would be giving me grief over choosing the HK mount and short magnifier. They would simply state the obvious, “whoa, that looks nothing like the picture.”
Did LaRue offer any hope or at least a decent solution?
Sparky
LT emailed me first thing Monday morning. Suprisingly, they gave me a couple of the dimensions for the mounts to check myself. I know that giving out that data can be a big no-no with so many competitors springing up in weapon mount business. He also said they would be more than happy to work something out with me if the product just wasn’t doing it for me.
I thanked them for the dimensions but told them there is probably nothing wrong with thier mounts. I explained how the graphic was a little misleading imo but that it was certainly an honest mistake. I also could have just given them a call to find out their definition of “slightly” as it’s always a good idea to do a little homework before you drop almost $700 on something.
I requested to simply return the short mount in exchange for a tall mount for the magnifier and I would keep the medium RDS mount as it is definitely used; I have had it for a few months and have put a few rounds downrange using it. At some later date I will just pick up a tall RDS mount to go with the tall 3X but I’ll have to scrape up a little cash first. Hopefully they’ll go for that.
We’ll see.
Cool…keep us up to date!
Sparky
How in the world is a taller magnifier mount going to fix your issues. LaRue is trying to fix YOUR issue and make you happy. They are trying to make sure you a satisfied with your purchase regardless of who bought the wrong mount. You need to keep the mag mount you have and get a LT660 mount for your T1 or H1. I know you are going to say “well the picture”, but it sure says in bold red writing that the 660HK and 661 WILL NOT WORK PROPERLY WITH A STANDARD AR15. Let the company with the best CS in the business fix the problem.
Matt
I’ve PM’d and E-mailed him that I would buy his mount for 100.00 shipped, as I need one for my MSAR. I’m hoping he’ll see this and respond as I’m running out of time.
Skypig, did you ask them specifically about the Aimpoint seemingly just sitting atop the rail in their photograph? I’d like to think that LaRue was not intentionally trying to deceive anyone. 
How would the OP’s scope to magnifier alignment issues be any different had he mounted them on a 416 rail?
I’m not trying to be unnecessarily argumentative. I’m just trying to understand how an HK owner could avoid the problems being experienced by the OP.
I am not debating that the setup he has is not working the way he wants it to. He purchased a 660hk because he want to absolute cowitness with his aimpoint then he later purchased a magnifier and mount. I understand the picture looks different but I would bet dollars to doughnut LaRue did not take that picture. Much like the catalog HK had done by professional photographers that had the rounds in the mag backwards. The real issue is that the setup he has works but just doesn’t look or line up the way he wants. If he would have bought the right mount to begin with we would not be having this discussion. The really stupid thing is LaRue will make it right for him if he asks them to exchange his 660hk for a regular 660. LaRue is truly a if you aren’t happy we aren’t happy company.