Before anyone gets their panties in a wad I am not saying anything bad about any of these companies. I think they are all top notch, just using them as examples. I think many people (myself included) replace things because they are tacticool, not because of any proven improvements. For example, I have two Aimpoint M4s and thought I would replace the factory mount with something “better”. So, one of them I used a BOBRO mount and the other an American Defense. Both great mounts and solid. But, so was the original mount. When I installed the Aimpoint in the original mount I never had my zero shift, come loose, it did not fall off the gun, it was solid also. Also did the same thing with my Acog. I replaced the original mount with a Larue mount. Same thing applies, original was solid as a rock and never changed zero on me.
So, I have a question. Is the point of replacing things like this because the factory mounts are PROVEN to loose zero, break or whatever, or is it because they are cool? Or, maybe the mounts can be taken on and off and return to zero much better than a factory mount does. In that case that is total personal opinion. I personally do not take my sights off once they are on. No need to, if they went down you have BUIS anyway. In fact, all of our rifles at work have factory Aimpoint mounts and have never, I repeat have never had a problem with them. We do tons of training, in and out of vehicles all the time, shot every single week etc… and never an issue. As a matter of fact they are on our training weapons that get thrown around, dropped, banged etc… and never seen one break, come off, loose zero or any other catastrophic failure.
If someone has real examples I would love to hear them, not hearsay but real encounters of why one is better than another.
This also applies to many other things as well. This has been addressed before, but the whole railed uppers when 90% of people do not put one thing on their rifle. That seems like it is starting to change though, probably due to a lot of talk on here.
Anyway, call me crazy or whatever just my thoughts. Again, not bashing, as a matter of fact I will keep my Aimpoints and Acog with the new mounts but in retrospect I think I could have saved about $300 in mounts.
My experience is the same as yours - the original mounts worked fine. The main advantage of the replacement mounts, IMO is that they can be very quickly removed if necessary. How important this is, in reality, for the average Joe, I can’t speculate.
For a while I used the Aimpoint low mount ring on a RRA “tactical” carry handle, and it worked fine, held zero, etc. too. It was just bulky and heavy.
I have a Bobro mount for my ML3. Reason I picked it up instead of using the standard Aimpoint mount (like what is on my duty/deployment M4) is that I’m not a fan of the huge knob sticking off the side and I love the quick release design that Bobro uses. Just personal preference. I never had any real issues with my Aimpoint mount while deployed, just chose to go a different route over some minor, minor things. I don’t think it was for “tacticool” reasons either. ymmv.
It really depends on what mounts and what the purpose is.
I swapped mine out on my AimPoints so to have a quick detach mount. Most of the problems encountered with the red dot becoming unusable was because of fouling the lens. If you’re in the sh*t, you don’t have time to clean it off, and you don’t have time to whip out the screwdriver and break loose the Loc-Tite to get it off. With a quick detach, you just flip it off, throw it in your dump pouch and flip up your BUIS.
I also tend top stick with standard handguards for my rifles because I don’t hang much stuff off them. I put a little rail section on top for a Vltor offset light mount, and one other rifle has a rail ont he bottom with the QD mount for a bipod on it.
If I ever get the money do drop the coin on some of the good IR NVGs and such and want to mount lasers and stuff like that, then rails become a good idea.
The problem with classifying something as “tactical” vs “Mall ninja” is hard without knowing the person. All of the good (read: not airsoft) add-ons are useful – but not in all situations. Does the person have a situation that requires that piece of gear? Does he have the other things required to use that piece of gear effectively?
The other side of the coin is the rifles are so modular, some guys just build them as a hobby, it’s a work of art so to speak. So even there, those things have a purpose.
Speaking personally, I don’t give a cup of warm [CENSORED] what anyone thinks of my reasoning for replacing a piece of gear with another piece of gear. If I want to attach the garden-weasel 9000 on my AR so I can edge my garden while shooting, by God I’ll do so. Because my ego doesn’t bruise like a ripe peach, I won’t melt down because somebody with some sense tells me that is the stupidest idea they’ve ever heard of, either. If I want to do it because I just want to do it, I’ll [CENSORED] do it, and I’ll say as much. There will only be a problem if I insist that I’m attaching the garden weasel to my rifle because of some important tactical need that others are incapable of seeing because they are not as awesome as I am.
It just so happens that I’m a cheap bastard so I tend not to put stuff on my rifle unless I think it will add a capability I didn’t have before. Example: I bought a Surefire weapon light that was attached to a rail system via an ARMS mount. I did not buy a replacement LaRue mount for that light because I thought it was cool, or because I think Mark LaRue is just awesome, or because I wanted more dillo dust…I bought the LaRue mount because it gave me something I didn’t have with the ARMS, namely the ability to stay on the [CENSORED] rifle. The ARMS mount, you see, hadn’t mastered that seemingly basic requirement of a mount. Since I’m not a fan of expensive pieces of equipment that spontaneously jettison themselves from my weapon, I saw the need for a new mount.
The same would apply to an optics mount that returns to zero. If I have to buy a mount for my optic, why not buy one that will actually stay on the rail if I want it to, and that allows me take the optic on and off without screwing up my zero? It’s not like it costs all that much more. If, perchance, some chowderhead wants to come along and insist that I don’t “need” that capability and therefore should not have it because I’m not a Delta operator, I would respond that I’m probably a better judge of my needs than he is and that he can go politely fornicate himself with a cactus.
If, on the other hand, I am asking for advice from some people on the forum about buying X Aimpoint optic that costs 400 bucks versus the Y Aimpoint that costs 530 bucks but also has a night vision feature, it shouldn’t offend me in the least to hear someone tell me that unless I have NV equipment or plan to get it anytime in the near future the extra 130 bucks spent on the feature I’ll never use is wasted.
Notice that I’m drawing a few distinctions here:
If I have a stated goal in mind that makes sense and I just don’t know how to go about getting there, I’m welcome to all sorts of input from people who know more about getting there than I do. I’m not a carbine expert and so I’m absolutely willing to listen to the input of competent people about a wide number of possible purchase issues relating to a carbine and the equipment needed to make it useful. Similarly, if some of my underlying assumptions about my stated goal are fruitier than Elton John in a strawberry patch, I’m open to revision.
If I have identified a specific deficiency in a piece of gear and I am looking to replace it with a superior piece of gear that isn’t plagued by that deficiency, I’m more than happy to listen to any constructive input that competent people have to offer. I am not, however, the least bit interested in hearing some chowderhead claim that I don’t truly “need” a mount that actually stays on my gun because I don’t happen to be kicking down doors in Fallujah at the moment.
If I want to put a spice-rack on my rifle because I just feel the need to have some oregano handy on the range, then I’ll do it. I’ll also have the decency not to get my panties bunched when someone asks what possible practical use such a thing could possibly have. I’ll also have sufficient humility to refrain from being deeply offended when people who know that it’s a fruity idea say so. I’ll simply say that I just want it and that’s all there is to it. I won’t claim that I have an innovative spice technique that makes me a more awesome gunfighter than everybody else with their non-seasoned weapons.
Anyway, call me crazy or whatever just my thoughts. Again, not bashing, as a matter of fact I will keep my Aimpoints and Acog with the new mounts but in retrospect I think I could have saved about $300 in mounts.
I have never saved a dime by buying crappy gear.
There’s nothing wrong with buying stuff to try it out and see if it will work for your needs. I’ve got a big box of stuff that looked like a good idea when purchased but turned out not to work for my needs. No shame in that…and if I do start to resent how much money I spent on that stuff, that’s what equipment exchanges are for.
Some good points but I think you are missing my point. Yes, its your gun… do what you want with it,… that kind of goes without saying. I really do not care what people do. But, what I am saying., is lets’ just examine my examples. Can someone give me examples of failures in gear (ie the mounts discussed). Like someone said they prefered the smaller profile of one over the other. Total personal preference and yes its yours so by all means do it. But, what I am saying is, think some people replace things that they think is better, stronger, whatever with something that really will not give them much in return. I am not saying guys are mall nijas or whatever… chill out!
JohnWayne- take chill pill, have a beer whatever! I am not questioning anyone’s reasoning- yes it is your rifle- gold dip it all I care! Maybe my title of the post was wrong. Can you provide a specific example of when a factory aimpoint mount or Acog broke and where your other would not have. If it has a better profile for you, is lighter, is whatever… that is great. My point is I think many people just replace things becasue in theroy they are better (maybe cool was not the right adjactive).
To address this-
I am not, however, the least bit interested in hearing some chowderhead claim that I don’t truly “need” a mount that actually stays on my gun because I don’t happen to be kicking down doors in Fallujah at the moment.
First, I am not getting into a childish internet pissing contest. But, are you saying other mounts have fallen off your rifle then? Obviosuly, you are being sarcastic, but again are you basing this on actual experience or something you heard.
I agree 100% I do not try to save money on buying crappy gear either. But, the reason for the post is, I think the average guy. By that I mean a guy who takes his AR to the range 2-3 a month a shoots pretty static may not actually get any real benifit from upgrading gear like discussed. I think they could save money and spend it on ammo, beer, whatever.
Like I said we run our rifles harder than any agency I know and I have NEVER seen one break. This is hundreds of rifles also, not giving you one or two examples. I talked to our armores at the academy also and they said the same thing. Never a failure. So, how do we run our rifles with thousands of rounds a year in training venues around the U.S., in an out of vehichles, actual missions, transported on airplanes etc… and they never seem to loose zero, they have not spontanously combusted, fallen off etc… I guess we have just gotten lucky!
If it provides you a piece of mind, if you find that they return to zero better great but if you replace things because in theroy the factory (whatever it is) sucks without ever testing it or having anything to base it on its a bad decision, in my opinion. But, its a free country and yes try new gear if you find it does not work sell it, use it as a paperweight whatever. Just trying to give some people that may be newer to the AR’s some food for thought.
It seems like you might be lumping useful items in with “accessories”. The mounts you speak of have marked improvements in size and proven zero-retention. The railed handguards allow for greater mechanical accuracy (read mechanical), and attachment of lights, sights, optics, and slings. All of which have a purpose for most any AR user and the above items are considered “standard” for HD purposes. Beyond the “standard” items is where I think the “tacticool” tag comes into play.
John_Wayne_777 captures the rest very well with his spiced carbine.
Agree with John_wayne on this one, but to add more info–the T1 mount that is “integrated” is the suck. I generally upgrade my other aimpoint mounts as well, but I have not had issues with my factory aimpoint mounts other than the T1. The T1 will shoot itself off a hard recoiling rifle (NATO 7.62 and up–unless you use locktite or other such solution). I mounted mine on the sage cantilever solution on my EBR and it was wobbly after only 20rds. Similar results were experienced with an HK91/MFI rail but it lasted into the second mag. . Also note this is 2 different T1s, not the same T1. I’ve since relegated my T1s to 5.56 rifles with the Knights and LaRue mounts. No problems to report with the upgraded solutions. Knights just had a sale on their mounts so I picked up a second one to try to cowitness shorty flip ups mounted to a CAS-V EL. I won’t get to play with that until June.
However when you buy from LaRue its basically as expensive or just a little bit more to get the product from him along with the LaRue mount than it is to buy the product with the factory mount.
The factory ACOG mount is not QD, and I personally think the LaRue is more secure than the factory thumbscrews. At any rate it would also be quicker to get off, and deploy the BUIS than sitting there unscrewing the factory mount.
Up until recently Surefire lights only came with a thumb screw or an ARMS mount. ARMS mounts suck, and again thumb screws are less secure than a LaRue mount. Also roughly the same price as buying from LaRue.
Also by keeping all the mounts the same its just easier all around. If need to remove an optic in a moment of need the operation is the same on everything I have no matter if its an ACOG, Aimpoint, or Short-Dot. My lights all go on and off the same way. VFG’s can be removed easily at the range if I need to shoot off a bench to confirm zero. Not “oh shit half my stuff is a thumb screw, and half are levers.” There are more than two types of mounts but you catch my drift. Besides you can’t get any better than LaRue mounts, and I don’t really see the need to use anything else be is minimal cost savings or having 5 different mount setups on one gun because each product comes with its own deal.
What I consider unnecessary is people putting items on their guns they don’t know how to use, cheap junk that is prone to failure, shit that is more of a hindrance than a help, etc. Like the above I dont really care what people put on their guns but my personal opinion is that people should use quality kit, and to keep their stuff as simple as possible while still being able to accomplish what it is they are using the gun for. All I put on my guns, at most, is a light, VFG, optic, and iron sights. Its all I need for what I do with my stuff.
I am also not saying that everyone is guilty of this either. If it fits your purpose do it! The railed handguards total personal preferance. But I am sure you have seen many, many people with railed handg. with rail covers on all sides. They do not have any NVG’s or all the other stuff but had to have a railed forend. If you get one becasue its free floated and will provide some minor improvement in accuracy great!
For the spelling police- yes- lose! I type fast.
Standard items or accessories does not matter at all, the theroy is the same. I think you should examine why you want to replace something and what gain the other item will provide. The mounts are just examples to illustrate the point of logic. That may be a better way to explain what I ment. I think often some folks do not have any factual information to base their decision on so they go with the masses.
I’m personally growing tired of the gear selection police mentality on the internet. Sometimes I am a party to it, but only now if I feel I can be constructive AND the person asked for advice.
I HATE “tacticool” with a f’ing passion. It’s judgmental and typically stated by people whose opinion is not very valuable to begin with – some exceptions, but not very many. Who is anyone else to decide whether or not I need to un-mount my Aimpoint in a hurry? Why should anyone care if I want to shoot a suppressor all the time? Why would it bother anyone else in the entire world if I choose to use optic mounts that don’t QD?
I’m over the QD fetish. In reality, I.DON’T.EVER.USE.IT! Most people I know don’t either. I like the DD Micro Aimpoint mount better than the LaRue or ADM QD version. My preference, deal with it. The factory micro mount is too low for just about any use on an AR, so I guess I’ll be tacticool with a DD mount. :rolleyes::rolleyes::rolleyes:
The old Aimpoint screw on mount had a big nut that extended beyond the side of the weapon, so a lot of people didn’t want them b/c they dug in to your side or gear.
Ugh, using the word “tacticool” f’ing blows. Quit critiquing other people’s gear with an eye towards the negative UNLESS they ask for advice or help.