Aimpoint Questions

[VorpalSpork]

I want to buy a NIB Compact Aimpoint with a 4moa dot for my flattop AR. Before I go buy one, I have some questions I need answered to help me decide which one I want, how to mount it, and where to buy it at.

M2 or M3?
From Aimpoint's web sight I gather that the only improvements the M3 has over the M2 is that it has significantly longer battery life, is water proof at even lower depths, and has a rubber protective cover. The rubber protective cover is the only real selling point for me here, as the battery life and water proof depths on the M2 are plenty sufficient as far as I'm concerned. The problem is, I'm not sure how the rubber cover works, as the only picture I have seen of it are on Aimpoint's web sight. From that picture it looks like it goes over the 30mm tube where the mount would attach to the sight. How does that work? Does the rubber go over the mounting rings somehow? What holds it in place? Can anyone post some pictures of this?

M or ML?
The M has 4 NVD and 6 daylight brightness settings, while the ML has 1 off and 9 daylight settings. The M has a band pas lens coating for NVD compatibility, the ML doesn't. While I don't have any NV goggles now, I more than likely will in a few years. Other than having 3 more daylight settings, which I don't think I will need, do you know of any way that the ML is better for use in daylight than the M?

What should I mount it with?
The flattop AR it will be going on has a standard fixed front sight, and a flip up rear iron sight. I'm not sure how far forward I want to mount the Aimpoint, other than I know that I don't want it so far back that it obstructs the action of the flip up rear iron sight. A cantilever mount would give me a few more forward mounting positions to try. What are the disadvantages to a cantilever style mount? From the reading I have done, I have noticed people recommend the ARMS #22M68 and the Larue M68 a lot. It seems people think the Larue is better than the ARMS mount, because it returns to zero better. The ARMS mount on the other hand is more modular. What mounts do you like, and why?

Where should I buy it from?
These are some prices I have come up with so far. Do you know where I can get a better deal?
$362 CompML2 http://www.mstn.biz/
$403 CompM2 http://www.mstn.biz/
$427 CompML3 http://www.nmtactical.com/
$476 CompM3 http://www.nmtactical.com/

Any answers to these questions would be helpful, but please remember that I don't really care what you think, I only care why you think it.

 

[ocabj]

I have a Comp ML2 4moa on my AR.

To address the first question, 2 vs 3, I can't really tell you. I didn't look into the new product revision. I haven't seen the new rubber protective cover. From what I can gather from the Aimpoint site, it appears to be just some kind of wrap on cover than you put on the optic body.

M vs ML. The only 'downside' to the M is the fact that you don't have an off switch so it's always on. But given that the Aimpoint battery lasts years while on, this isn't a big issue. So get the M.

I think there's a FAQ on the AR-15 Forums regarding which mount and iron sight pairs are compatible for cowitnessing on a flat top.

As far as price, if you have a C&R, you can get a dealer discount from Midway (all prices below dealer discounted for 1x 4MOA versions)

$313 CompML2
$371 CompM2
$378 CompML3
$421 CompM3

 

[226]

Only have experience with the CompM2 4MOA. There are 9 click settings so you can reduce the brightness in a sunny day, or just use a few clicks for low light. If you keep the front cap on and both eyes open, you can use it when going from a low light to a daytime situation and still have good target aquisition.

Here's a deal I found: $370.00 for a CompM2.

If you want an expert opinion, Larue Aimpoint QD mount \ Troy BUIS.

 

[444]

I have both the ML2, ML3, and the M3. The M3 is a 2 minute dot and the rest are 4 minute.
The only thing I was aware of that changed was the battery life. I don't know what this rubber cover is: I never got one unless you are talking about the flip up caps which are the same on both models.
If you intend to get night vision then get the compatible optic now. When you fork out the money for the night vision optic, you won't want to spend even more to upgrade your Aimpoint also.
I haven't added much to this thread, but believe me on one thing: buy the LaRue mount. I have used a GG&G mount, an ARMS mount, and the LaRue. The LaRue is miles ahead of the rest.

 

[VorpalSpork]

No, I was not referring to the flip caps over the lenses. Compare these two pictures from Aimpoint's web sight. CompM2 CompM3
(As a side note, notice how they the M3 picture is slightly more zoomed out, so as to make the M3 look smaller) The only major difference between the pictures is the rubber protective cover that I was talking about, which is wrapped around the same part of the scope where the 30mm mounting ring would go.

The LaRue is miles ahead of the rest.

In what way? Specifically in comparison to the ARMS mount, which is clearly more modular than the LaRue.

 

[Blackhawk 6]

Here is my advice.

1. Unless you are planning on mounting a night vision monocular behind the optic on your rifle, the fact that you have night vision goggles has little bearing on whether or not to purchase the M vs. the ML. It is very difficult to line up NVG's with an Aimpoint quickly enough to engage a target.

2. I think you are getting ahead of yourself with the mounts. As you indicate you will mount it on a flat-top AR, use the mount provided by Aimpoint for the sight. Use the rifle in this configuaration. Figure out what Aimpoint's mount is not doing for you that you want it to do and replace it with an appropriate after-market mount.

My recommendation would be to buy the ML unless you plan on mounting an NVD behind the aimpoint. Then buy the M. Worry about the mount once you determine what the factory mount isn't doing for you.

 

[boofus]

I don't think the armored cover should be your main selling point. They aren't even available yet. My M3 came with a postcard where I could put my name and address and Aimpoint said they would ship me 2 covers when they were available. Still no covers so far...

The armored covers also will fit on the M2 or ML2, as the M3 series is pretty much identical in size and shape to the older model.

I went and got the M3 just so I would never have to worry about battery life. The 2 MOA dot doesn't hurt either.

 

[VorpalSpork]

It is my understanding that the mount Aimpoint makes, does not come with the sight, but that it would be an additional purchase. I would like to avoid buying multiple mounts for a single sight.

As far as using the NVGs, I'm not sure how I will use them. I don't like the idea of only mounting them on the gun, since I don't want to point the gun at everything I look at. At the same time I can see how it would be somewhat awkward to get a good sight picture with head mounted NVGs sticking out 6" from your face. It sounds like you have some experience with this Blackhawk. You say it's something that is difficulty to do "quickly enough to engage a target". Which of course could vary greatly, depending on the target. Could you give an approximate quantification of that seconds?

 

[Blackhawk 6]

It is my understanding that the mount Aimpoint makes, does not come with the sight, but that it would be an additional purchase.

My Comp M came with the whole set up. Flat-top mount, spacer and gooseneck. I purchased it from SWFA.

You say it's something that is difficulty to do "quickly enough to engage a target". Which of course could vary greatly, depending on the target. Could you give an approximate quantification of that seconds?

While wearing the NVG's it took me approixmately 5 seconds to align the optic and the lens of the NVG. I then had to move my entire upper body as one unit in order to keep from disturbing this alignment. The targets were the standard "Ivan" target that the Army uses, ranges were from 50 to 300 meters, target exposure times were from 3 to 10 seconds depending on the distance to the target and the number of targets exposed. In my opinion, and that of everyone present, there was no way this was a viable method for use in a combat situation.

I experienced a greater degree of success using the PVS-14 mounted behind the M-68. We determined that this was a viable, though not preferred, method of engaging targets at night.

The AN/PEQ-2 remains the preferred method of engaging targets when equipped with an NVG. Unfortunately this is an option unavailable to the general public.

 

[Jeff White]

Blackhawk 6 said;

The AN/PEQ-2 remains the preferred method of engaging targets when equipped with an NVG. Unfortunately this is an option unavailable to the general public.

There is nothing wrong with using a visible laser with NVGs. Visible lasers are available to the general public and they work. Unless you are worried about the prarie dogs or paper targets noticing the visible laser and escaping everything should work out fine .

Jeff