My buddy and I are gearing up for a Rogers carbine class very soon.  

I'm running an ARMS #22M68 with full spacer on my Aimpoint, and he's running the Larue LT150.  I love the Larue too, but I've had my ARMS long before I've even heard of Larue.

So my buddy shows me why the Larue is better.  He is able to take my ARMS mount as mounted on my CMT upper and move it fore-aft on the receiver rail.  There is zero side-to-side movement, but about 0.125" in the fore-aft direction.

Do you think this is a problem?  Will it affect my zero?  I'm currently sighted at 50 yards.

Probably not enough to worry about.

Over it time it MAY get looser.

For now shoot it and enjoy it. For later start saving your money for a LaRue.

I had a 22M68 with the cantilever and it was fine. I sold it to another guy and it slid all over his upper.

Quoted: My buddy and I are gearing up for a Rogers carbine class very soon.   I'm running an ARMS #22M68 with full spacer on my Aimpoint, and he's running the Larue LT150.  I love the Larue too, but I've had my ARMS long before I've even heard of Larue. So my buddy shows me why the Larue is better.  He is able to take my ARMS mount as mounted on my CMT upper and move it fore-aft on the receiver rail.  There is zero side-to-side movement, but about 0.125" in the fore-aft direction. Do you think this is a problem?  Will it affect my zero?  I'm currently sighted at 50 yards.

you are fine...the movement will not effect your accuracy.  it is although a very nice selling point for LaRue. and another reason for me to buy LaRue since i can get a bit anal about things liek this.

Lancelot is right... over time it might loosen.. but you can always call ARMS and they will fix it for you.. their CS are getting better and better.

take the gun... shoot it and have a ton of fun at Rogers' class, you are about to be schooled by one of the finest in the business.  enjoy your class...take lots of pictures....:)

Your fine... Mine has done that the last Two classes with Pat, and it will work again on his next one....right after yours....

Someday I will switch to a LaRue, but not until my ARMS pukes on me or breaks.. it works for me.

Some ARMS mounts are super loose on a rail.  Some are so tight you cant close them on the same rail.  The flap makes it a tad bit more annoying to close the lever in the dark.  Those are the main reasons I dislike ARMS levers compared to Larue.

10-4 gentlemen.  Thanks for the info.

And yes, I'll take lots of pictures!

Quoted: My buddy and I are gearing up for a Rogers carbine class very soon.   I'm running an ARMS #22M68 with full spacer on my Aimpoint, and he's running the Larue LT150.  I love the Larue too, but I've had my ARMS long before I've even heard of Larue. So my buddy shows me why the Larue is better.  He is able to take my ARMS mount as mounted on my CMT upper and move it fore-aft on the receiver rail.  There is zero side-to-side movement, but about 0.125" in the fore-aft direction. Do you think this is a problem?  Will it affect my zero?  I'm currently sighted at 50 yards.

There are two basic types of mounting systems, hard mount and soft mount. Hard mounts clamp very tight, either by a thumb nut, allen wrench, or reg. wrench. The soft mounts are spring loaded, and do not normally require a tool like some hard mounting. The older ratchet thumb nut also has a spring in it as it breaks away like a torque wrench, and was designed to give repeat tension. However that one wears when sand gets in, and sounds very loud when tightened, like a coffee mill. It is also prone to break, because it sticks out so far and also gets caught up in gear. plus expensive.
Hard mounts also transfer the shock waves to the electro optic devices, which the early optics didn't have to worry about, not having electrical connections in them. Many of our military heavy weapons went to soft mounting a long time ago, thru the tripods, and platform suspensions, to help aim and give longer life to weapon, and aiming devices, not to mention the gunner.
The ARMS levers are spring loaded, and are designed to absorb shock waves from firing. The fact you can move the sight back and forth with enough pressure, just shows that the mount is doing what it's supposed to do. All mounts want to move forward in firing, they don't go backwards, or back and forth.
The vast majority of the electro optic and laser military community of manufactures, do use one type of soft mounting or another, most being ARMS levers. Another benefit of the ARMS lever design is that they have pre-set tension, so that what ever the tension is factory set at, the springs return to that tension once it quickly does wear in, like new shoes. Another reason that pre setting is good for the military, they don't want soldiers adjusting the mounts, anymore than they will let the gas and buffer system be adjustable. If they can adjust it wrong, they will, plus any adjusting or unmeasured tightening, will usually screw up any hope of a repeat on off zero. That is best observed when using lasers to aim with.
The buffer pad might be a pain to a few, but it sure beats the alternative of wearing out or crushing indentations into a precision alum. rail.
Brian

What kind of design feature is it when on one ARMS mount you have to beat the damned thing closed with some foreign object and on another you can flip it with your pinky easy as pie?  If the ARMS mounts were consistant I would agree with some of their claims as they seem like they should be true and make sense.  Since I have operated enough of them I now know they are just a problem due to not being adjustable and avoid them.  If you have a good ARMS moutnt here is n real reason to switch.  But claims like ARMS mounts dont mar the upper and things like that are not true.  They do mar the upper... not as bad but they still mar it. They are also NOT consistant from one to another.  And are you claiming that Larue mounts dont return to the same torque setting like an Aimpoint? Kind of seemed like it. It also seemed like you were trying to insinuate that Larue mounts would damage electronic optics due to transfered recoil.  Is that what you were saying?

I use ARMS and Larue , they both work fine for me.

Off topic , but I tie a 1 inch loop of small paracord to my sling, using it ,instead of my fingers, to get the tighter mounting levers off.

That's a cool idea.  I'm a sucker for paracord and 100mph tape.  Gonna adopt this!

The Larue SPR Mount truely is a wonderful thing.

Quoted: What kind of design feature is it when on one ARMS mount you have to beat the damned thing closed with some foreign object and on another you can flip it with your pinky easy as pie?  If the ARMS mounts were consistant I would agree with some of their claims as they seem like they should be true and make sense.  Since I have operated enough of them I now know they are just a problem due to not being adjustable and avoid them.  If you have a good ARMS moutnt here is n real reason to switch.  But claims like ARMS mounts dont mar the upper and things like that are not true.  They do mar the upper... not as bad but they still mar it. They are also NOT consistant from one to another.  And are you claiming that Larue mounts dont return to the same torque setting like an Aimpoint? Kind of seemed like it. It also seemed like you were trying to insinuate that Larue mounts would damage electronic optics due to transfered recoil.  Is that what you were saying?

If you have to beat any mount with anything, then you don't have the cross bar in the notch, or you have debri in the notch, or an over size dovetail not meeting 1913 specs. If one of those levers is easy enough to open with your pinky, you have an undersize dovetail not to 1913 spec's, or you have an exceptionaly strong pinky. One of the things that can be misunderstood, is friction vs. tention. For instance, I found that when the ARMS lever is new and being pushed against the buffer pad, that is friction, untill it is smoothed out, since that is metal rubbing on metal. That friction leasons as the metal smooths out, but is not the measure of tention. The measure of tention can only be done after the friction has been abated, usually after a few opening and closings.  If you are getting any marks on a rail, then that again would indicate that the rail prob. isn't to 1913 spec. most likely undersize., or do to you beating it caused by some other outside problem. Without a buffer system of some kind, the wear on the rail is significant, so a buffer that is easily replaced, is much cheaper, less than a dollar, and faster than replacing an expensive receiver.
I'm satisfied with the fact that the majority of the military and optic makers choose the ARMS product for some of the reasons that I and obviously many others concure with. I do know that any nut tightened by hand, can and does loan its self to come loose. If  tightened by a wrench, and only governed by feel of the hand, overtightening & rail crushing is sure to happen sooner than later. Shock waves to optics/lasers is also going to be at a much higher level, like all hard mounting does. Write to the military and optic companies that tested the various mounts, and tell them thier testing does not meet your expertise, and findings. If you like adjustment for your needs, great, but there are down sides too, which I pointed out and derived from many sources, to include gov't and commercial optic and laser facility evaluations,. I'm sure that many companies will provide thier test results and methods if you ask them. Trijicon, Aimpoint, Elcan, Luepold, Eotech, Surefire, of the ones we all frequently see. Not every one chooses the same thing, because everyone has thier own requirerments.
Brian

Recently, I got my $2200 DBAL-A2 in, with it's ARMS 17S mount. No biggie, I have my fair-share of ARMS hardware.

Once it was attached to my rail, It wobbled. Unsat. I guess this would have been OK, if it was adjustable. Furthermore, the little slider gets hung-up when trying to mount it one-handed. In the dark (where you use IR equip) this would be annoying at best. I have ordered a LT mount to replace it (should be here this week).

Keep up the good work Mark! I hope you've seen my pics...it's no secret, that I'm a big fan.

mfingar

Quoted: Quoted: Quoted: What kind of design feature is it when on one ARMS mount you have to beat the damned thing closed with some foreign object and on another you can flip it with your pinky easy as pie?  If the ARMS mounts were consistant I would agree with some of their claims as they seem like they should be true and make sense.  Since I have operated enough of them I now know they are just a problem due to not being adjustable and avoid them.  If you have a good ARMS moutnt here is n real reason to switch.  But claims like ARMS mounts dont mar the upper and things like that are not true.  They do mar the upper... not as bad but they still mar it. They are also NOT consistant from one to another.  And are you claiming that Larue mounts dont return to the same torque setting like an Aimpoint? Kind of seemed like it. It also seemed like you were trying to insinuate that Larue mounts would damage electronic optics due to transfered recoil.  Is that what you were saying? If you have to beat any mount with anything, then you don't have the cross bar in the notch, or you have debri in the notch, or an over size dovetail not meeting 1913 specs. If one of those levers is easy enough to open with your pinky, you have an undersize dovetail not to 1913 spec's, or you have an exceptionaly strong pinky. One of the things that can be misunderstood, is friction vs. tention. For instance, I found that when the ARMS lever is new and being pushed against the buffer pad, that is friction, untill it is smoothed out, since that is metal rubbing on metal. That friction leasons as the metal smooths out, but is not the measure of tention. The measure of tention can only be done after the friction has been abated, usually after a few opening and closings.  If you are getting any marks on a rail, then that again would indicate that the rail prob. isn't to 1913 spec. most likely undersize., or do to you beating it caused by some other outside problem. Without a buffer system of some kind, the wear on the rail is significant, so a buffer that is easily replaced, is much cheaper, less than a dollar, and faster than replacing an expensive receiver. I'm satisfied with the fact that the majority of the military and optic makers choose the ARMS product for some of the reasons that I and obviously many others concure with. I do know that any nut tightened by hand, can and does loan its self to come loose. If  tightened by a wrench, and only governed by feel of the hand, overtightening & rail crushing is sure to happen sooner than later. Shock waves to optics/lasers is also going to be at a much higher level, like all hard mounting does. Write to the military and optic companies that tested the various mounts, and tell them thier testing does not meet your expertise, and findings. If you like adjustment for your needs, great, but there are down sides too, which I pointed out and derived from many sources, to include gov't and commercial optic and laser facility evaluations,. I'm sure that many companies will provide thier test results and methods if you ask them. Trijicon, Aimpoint, Elcan, Luepold, Eotech, Surefire, of the ones we all frequently see. Not every one chooses the same thing, because everyone has thier own requirerments. Brian Brian, to be blunt you sound like an ARMS shill to me. Two posts today already expounding the virtures of the SIR and now the ARMS optics mounts? I haven't seen anyone who was not issued a SIR with one in ages and although I have an ARMS mount for my aimpoint that is certainly not the brand you see most often on ARs owned by the military and law enforcement professionals that I see at classes and so on.

Interesting, giving facts is being a shill? OK,  then what is the non tech hoopla suppot that doesn't hold up by Devl called? From Devl all I see is shill opinions, and not real facts. If you see some of the attendies at a class with various different mounts, rails, optics, weapons, slings, ammo, mag pouches, pistol grips, or hats, that's great and fun, but for crying out loud, there are more important issues besides the Gucci syndrom.
Brian  

Quoted: Interesting, giving facts is being a shill? OK,  then what is the non tech hoopla suppot that doesn't hold up by Devl called? From Devl all I see is shill opinions, and not real facts. If you see some of the attendies at a class with various different mounts, rails, optics, weapons, slings, ammo, mag pouches, pistol grips, or hats, that's great and fun, but for crying out loud, there are more important issues besides the Gucci syndrom. Brian

If I understand your comments correctly, you believe that the OEM & military communities' decision to use ARMS on may products is a measure of the overall ruggedness, dependability, and quality.  






if so, PT Barnum was right.

After seeing scores of "other brand" mounts come loose on student guns, we use LaRue Mounts. I have them on my AR platform guns as well as a LaRue 34mm mount for the S&B PMII on my Remington 700. The bottom line is that they work great and Mark is right, the repeatability is fantastic.

Tim
10-8 Consulting, LLC
http://www.10-8forums.com

Quoted: I would not normally do this but here is Brian's e-mail address [email protected]

Aimless, great finding, but don't be offended by no one being surprised.

As long as he's civil, I don't mind seeing his input. Not to stir the pot, but I see it as a blessing that he's posting instead of Dick.

Quoted:

"an over size dovetail not meeting 1913 specs"

"rail prob. isn't to 1913 spec. most likely undersize"

"you have an undersize dovetail not to 1913 spec's"

The point is none of this is an issue w/ Larue mounts. -Justin

Don't think I would like it.
JR

Quoted: My buddy and I are gearing up for a Rogers carbine class very soon.   I'm running an ARMS #22M68 with full spacer on my Aimpoint, and he's running the Larue LT150.  I love the Larue too, but I've had my ARMS long before I've even heard of Larue. So my buddy shows me why the Larue is better.  He is able to take my ARMS mount as mounted on my CMT upper and move it fore-aft on the receiver rail.  There is zero side-to-side movement, but about 0.125" in the fore-aft direction. Do you think this is a problem?  Will it affect my zero?  I'm currently sighted at 50 yards.

As others have said, I don't think the shifting will matter much at CLOSE range, but if you want to shoot your weapon farther, it will matter.

Quoted: Quoted: What kind of design feature is it when on one ARMS mount you have to beat the damned thing closed with some foreign object and on another you can flip it with your pinky easy as pie?  If the ARMS mounts were consistant I would agree with some of their claims as they seem like they should be true and make sense.  Since I have operated enough of them I now know they are just a problem due to not being adjustable and avoid them.  If you have a good ARMS moutnt here is n real reason to switch.  But claims like ARMS mounts dont mar the upper and things like that are not true.  They do mar the upper... not as bad but they still mar it. They are also NOT consistant from one to another.  And are you claiming that Larue mounts dont return to the same torque setting like an Aimpoint? Kind of seemed like it. It also seemed like you were trying to insinuate that Larue mounts would damage electronic optics due to transfered recoil.  Is that what you were saying? If you have to beat any mount with anything, then you don't have the cross bar in the notch, or you have debri in the notch, or an over size dovetail not meeting 1913 specs. If one of those levers is easy enough to open with your pinky, you have an undersize dovetail not to 1913 spec's, or you have an exceptionaly strong pinky. One of the things that can be misunderstood, is friction vs. tention. For instance, I found that when the ARMS lever is new and being pushed against the buffer pad, that is friction, untill it is smoothed out, since that is metal rubbing on metal. That friction leasons as the metal smooths out, but is not the measure of tention. The measure of tention can only be done after the friction has been abated, usually after a few opening and closings.  If you are getting any marks on a rail, then that again would indicate that the rail prob. isn't to 1913 spec. most likely undersize., or do to you beating it caused by some other outside problem. Without a buffer system of some kind, the wear on the rail is significant, so a buffer that is easily replaced, is much cheaper, less than a dollar, and faster than replacing an expensive receiver. I'm satisfied with the fact that the majority of the military and optic makers choose the ARMS product for some of the reasons that I and obviously many others concure with. I do know that any nut tightened by hand, can and does loan its self to come loose. If  tightened by a wrench, and only governed by feel of the hand, overtightening & rail crushing is sure to happen sooner than later. Shock waves to optics/lasers is also going to be at a much higher level, like all hard mounting does. Write to the military and optic companies that tested the various mounts, and tell them thier testing does not meet your expertise, and findings. If you like adjustment for your needs, great, but there are down sides too, which I pointed out and derived from many sources, to include gov't and commercial optic and laser facility evaluations,. I'm sure that many companies will provide thier test results and methods if you ask them. Trijicon, Aimpoint, Elcan, Luepold, Eotech, Surefire, of the ones we all frequently see. Not every one chooses the same thing, because everyone has thier own requirerments. Brian

I have owned KAC, DD, TROY, LT and MI rails. Some of the ARMS mounts I have owned were so hard to open that I had to use a screw driver to pry them open! Would you like to tell me that the the above companies rails do not follow the M1913 spec?? So the problem is NOT with the rails, but with your companies levers and their "pre-set" tension.

I have spoken to many of the companies you have listed as "references." They tell me that the only reason they went with ARMS mounts is because some bean counter made them! If they had their say, they would have gone with the trigger pullers choice (LT).

Quoted: I would not normally do this but here is Brian's e-mail address [email protected]

This should be a shock to NO ONE. ARMS has been running around this board under fake names for as long as I can remember giving out "tech facts" to the unsuspecting consumer.

Quoted: I would not normally do this but here is Brian's e-mail address [email protected]

Hahahahaha LMAO. Hahahaha now that is what I call Owned.

Quoted: I would not normally do this but here is Brian's e-mail address [email protected]

For someone protesting that they're not a shill, you'd think they would be smart enough not to leave a trail like that.

Yeah, no surprise, but about time ARMS 'management' was outed. I can't count all the fake personnas
that have been used over the last few years to bash reputable mfg's. and spread disinformation.

I think this puts the ARMS credibility issue to rest for all time. And yes, Mark LaRue makes the finest mounts you can buy. Period.

I respect the proper heads-up to everyone. Thanks, Aimless.


Jeff Cahill
TangoDown LLC

Thank You Mark for an awesome product!how
Love the mount and look forward to buying more LaRue products in the future.

Quoted: Please adjust our billet levers to where they are tough to close and a bitch to open...then get your zeros.  I will compete our system for car titles against anything out there.  It's startling how close our stuff repeats.  Use it with confidence. Again, Team LaRue appreciates the heck out of your business. Mark LaRue

Nice one Aimless.



In all honesty this would not bother me in the least IF DICK/Brian had just had the common decency to post what company they work for (or own) in the first place. Under cover posting/bashing of a competitor is damn low.

The truly sad part is that companies should really be encouraged to post about their products; it’s just a damn shame ARMS chooses to do it this way.

Quoted: Nice one Aimless. In all honesty this would not bother me in the least IF DICK/Brian had just had the common decency to post what company they work for (or own) in the first place. Under cover posting/bashing of a competitor is damn low. The truly sad part is that companies should really be encouraged to post about their products; it’s just a damn shame ARMS chooses to do it this way.

Agree. I could care less if ARMS posted that such and such company sucked or their product is the best as the consumer would be able to figure out where the noise was coming from. They don't operate like that though. I guess they think they can pull the wool over everyones eyes and run around this board pushing ARMS products and bad mouthing others and get away with it.

Quoted: Quoted: Quoted: What kind of design feature is it when on one ARMS mount you have to beat the damned thing closed with some foreign object and on another you can flip it with your pinky easy as pie?  If the ARMS mounts were consistant I would agree with some of their claims as they seem like they should be true and make sense.  Since I have operated enough of them I now know they are just a problem due to not being adjustable and avoid them.  If you have a good ARMS moutnt here is n real reason to switch.  But claims like ARMS mounts dont mar the upper and things like that are not true.  They do mar the upper... not as bad but they still mar it. They are also NOT consistant from one to another.  And are you claiming that Larue mounts dont return to the same torque setting like an Aimpoint? Kind of seemed like it. It also seemed like you were trying to insinuate that Larue mounts would damage electronic optics due to transfered recoil.  Is that what you were saying? If you have to beat any mount with anything, then you don't have the cross bar in the notch, or you have debri in the notch, or an over size dovetail not meeting 1913 specs. If one of those levers is easy enough to open with your pinky, you have an undersize dovetail not to 1913 spec's, or you have an exceptionaly strong pinky. One of the things that can be misunderstood, is friction vs. tention. For instance, I found that when the ARMS lever is new and being pushed against the buffer pad, that is friction, untill it is smoothed out, since that is metal rubbing on metal. That friction leasons as the metal smooths out, but is not the measure of tention. The measure of tention can only be done after the friction has been abated, usually after a few opening and closings.  If you are getting any marks on a rail, then that again would indicate that the rail prob. isn't to 1913 spec. most likely undersize., or do to you beating it caused by some other outside problem. Without a buffer system of some kind, the wear on the rail is significant, so a buffer that is easily replaced, is much cheaper, less than a dollar, and faster than replacing an expensive receiver. I'm satisfied with the fact that the majority of the military and optic makers choose the ARMS product for some of the reasons that I and obviously many others concure with. I do know that any nut tightened by hand, can and does loan its self to come loose. If  tightened by a wrench, and only governed by feel of the hand, overtightening & rail crushing is sure to happen sooner than later. Shock waves to optics/lasers is also going to be at a much higher level, like all hard mounting does. Write to the military and optic companies that tested the various mounts, and tell them thier testing does not meet your expertise, and findings. If you like adjustment for your needs, great, but there are down sides too, which I pointed out and derived from many sources, to include gov't and commercial optic and laser facility evaluations,. I'm sure that many companies will provide thier test results and methods if you ask them. Trijicon, Aimpoint, Elcan, Luepold, Eotech, Surefire, of the ones we all frequently see. Not every one chooses the same thing, because everyone has thier own requirerments. Brian I have owned KAC, DD, TROY, LT and MI rails. Some of the ARMS mounts I have owned were so hard to open that I had to use a screw driver to pry them open! Would you like to tell me that the the above companies rails do not follow the M1913 spec?? So the problem is NOT with the rails, but with your companies levers and their "pre-set" tension. I have spoken to many of the companies you have listed as "references." They tell me that the only reason they went with ARMS mounts is because some bean counter made them! If they had their say, they would have gone with the trigger pullers choice (LT).

That's the truth.

I've used many mounts and the only thing I trust an ARMS mount to hold is my Surefire. I use the LT150 for my Aimpoint.

This kind of "misinformation" is what companies spread when they KNOW they have an inferior product. Sorry ARMS, but ever since I've had SEVERAL ARMS products go Tango Uniform on me, I have not bought anything made by ARMS. I don't think I would even trust a mouse pad from you guys anymore.

Your customer service also sucks. Took me months to get a replacement  for a mount that stripped out (a KNOWN issue to boot) and two levers that broke (is this a surprise to anyone?) Good thing my life wasn't depending on these products at the time of the incidents.

FWIW, I have a ARMS #19s for my ACOG TA01NSN on a COLT M4 upper and it moves forward and back...great mounting system. I guess my Colt is out of spec... but I really blame Mark LaRue for this issue as every time I try to get a LaRue replacement, no one has one in stock!


ARMS, STOP THE BULLSHIT AND MAKE BETTER PRODUCTS. FYI, MIM SUCKS.

Quoted: I think this puts the ARMS credibility issue to rest for all time.

+10000000

I am shocked i tell you, shocked...........

Quoted: I am shocked i tell you, shocked...........

Holy fucking hand grenades Batman!!! Pat Rogers posting on AR15.com?

I'm going to go buy a lottery ticket.

Clint

Clint-

LOL!!! Get me one, too-


One thing 'Brian'/TechFacts did get right...ARMS knows more about out-of-spec MIL-STD1913
accessory rails than anyone in the business....!

Quoted: Quoted: I am shocked i tell you, shocked........... Holy fucking hand grenades Batman!!! Pat Rogers posting on AR15.com? I'm going to go buy a lottery ticket. Clint

Brother Clint!- Yeah, this was too funny. I was wondering how long it would take. A person involved in such things commented on the writing style, grammar, syntax and misspelling, and i was wondering how long it would take.
Ray Charles probably would have seen this one ...
Good Job Aimless!

Well, I don't agree with falsely representing your products, but as a long time ARMS user, I have no complaints. The only problem I've had was a loose 22M68 on an OUT OF SPEC Bushy rail. I see no need to change products, ARMS has worked well for me. I still can't get over people who bash a product line just because some new fashion is out. I'm guessing there's a lot of tangos chatting with allah (below us) that were put there with the help of "garbage" ARMS gear.


There's more than one brand of quality gear on the market. Pick what you want to use and leave everyone else to do the same.

Quoted: The only problem I've had was a loose 22M68 on an OUT OF SPEC Bushy rail.

So you replace your upper to accomodate for a mount?

I see no need to change products, ARMS has worked well for me.

Glad to hear it. ARMS products have failed my friends and I several times. Not ALL their products in all situations mind you (I have a SPR Mk12Mod0 that has various ARMS products which are doing OK so far)

I still can't get over people who bash a product line just because some new fashion is out.

It has NOTHING to do with fasion. It has to do with product reliability. I don't buy ARMS products because THEY BREAK. Plain and simple.

There's more than one brand of quality gear on the market. Pick what you want to use and leave everyone else to do the same.

Leave everyone else to do the same? Who's forcing anyone to buy anything different. We're sharing INFORMATION about bad products. If people read it and STILL want to buy ARMS, that's their problem. I HOPE people still buy ARMS because I have a lot of ARMS items to offload!

I would not normally do this but here is Brian's e-mail address [email protected]

Why don't you guys ban thier IP if thier gonna do this shill crap? Everytime they try with a new IP ban that one too. eventually they will run out of IPs. They are basically advertising as a dealer without paying for it.

Well if the ARMS folks feel this is the way to do buisiness, by slamming superior gear, then I am done with them.

ARMS--this is not the way to get customers.

My arms mount will be in the EE soon, but not after I get a Larue.

(mumbling) fucking tards (mumbling)

It's funny he never replied back.

Yeah, he's been called out now in 3 or 4 threads and hasn't replied back to any ofter his "outings"
Oh god, I just can't stop laughing! Only ARMS stuff I have ever owned was an #40, now that will be my last. This guy is a tool, and obviously doesn't know how to run a business. LaRue mounts and Troy sights for me.

Quoted: I would not normally do this but here is Brian's e-mail address [email protected]

I've seen some of his "informative" posts elsewhere, and was reading the ARMS #40 problem thread when I saw the post on his background.  Searched for reply authors, and have been laughing my ass off ever since.
Good to see you here Pat.
Kind of nice to have him as well as DocGKR posting recently.

Quoted: The only thing I trust an ARMS mount to hold is my Surefire.

Not here - I just picked up an M952XM07 in a deal and the first thing I did was ditch the ARMS mount and replace it with a LT170.  Hell, even my ARMS bi-pod mount was upgraded with a LT170...

Mark & Team: Keep up the excellent work & service (and please get some AR-10 rails out to your dealers!)

Aimless: Freakin' priceless man...

.

an ARMS vs. LaRue debate always brings out the best of AR15.com..

Quoted: an ARMS vs. LaRue debate always brings out the best of AR15.com..

What's even more amazing is the number of arfcom safe queens that have experienced ARMS failures. It's more about fashion than function for most of these folks. Let's face it, the QRP was good enough kit for the US military. I'd say LT improved the breed in some aspects, but that doesn't mean ARMS isn't quite acceptable for any use on the sport utility rifle.