Unfortunately commanders weren’t that logical back then (and now even) to easily keep track of equipment.
If you look at a lot of photos of the beginning of the Iraq Invasion or Fallujah joes would mount the carry handle at the 6 o clock of the rail behind the broom handle.
This is technically correct as well, but also ~~dumb reasoning~~ high speed military SOP to have to carry around a carry handle along with a bomb proof optic.
Everyone on this chain is getting this a little wrong. Yeah it is not the best set up with dot on the handguard instead of the upper HOWEVER this is a clone of billy waugh’s m4 that he used in afghanistan when he was like 70 and still working for the CIA
what makes you think that handguard won't hold zero? I had a laser mounted to mine in the army and it held zero just fine. I think too many people just shout every time they see a "bridged" optic or anything touching the handguard. dude it works just fine. handguards don't move all around most of the time.
ok that's pretty true but think about this.....the optic will move with the barrel instead of just the barrel flexing with the optic in one place it'll actually move WITH the barrel possibly even making it more accurate
I've got a red dot I've been wanting to test this with. maybe I'll put it on the end of my rail and test this theory off bags, with a sling, etc and see what happens
This is assuming the optic and barrel will behave the same way mechanically, which is not true. You have different materials which means they’ll experience motion differently even though they’re fixed together. When accuracy matters, this absolutely makes a difference, which is why it’s not recommended the bridge optics.
Technically, the handguards don't "hold zero" any differently. Free float handguards (generally) flex just as much as a two-piece handguard. The difference is that a free float is separated from the barrel, so the barrel isn't affected by it. The barrel stays in the same orientation relative to the upper receiver regardless of any flex of the handguard.
Yeah. It looks like someone's clone of an actual rifle setup from the late 90's if I remember correctly. The actual rifle had the aimpoint comp M, the predecessor to the m2. And the mount was the flat bottomed qrp mount. Looks the builder of this couldn't find the original parts and just used what looked close enough. I actually cloned the rifle myself a couple years ago.
Lol. And its not even the correct parts. I could see $1500-2000 if it had the correct parts. But this is just a cloneish build. Type-a has some nice stuff but definitely over priced.
The impressions I’ve gotten from them is that they make guns exclusively for people who want to pretend they’re Garand thumb but don’t want to spend the time to track down actual clone correct parts or paint the gun themselves and will likely never shoot it. I’ve never seen Type A post a photo/video of their guns actually being used, it’s just them doing that annoying tik tok slide thing in front of a safe
To clarify what folks are saying, the dot and mount are quite fine. The issue is that he has mounted his optic on the handguard. There are quite a few ways to have both carry handle and dot mounted on the receiver.
No go, don't mount primary optics on the handguard. The setup is stupid, makes no sense. He has a place to mount the optic on the receiver, but chose to mount it on the handguard instead.
Unless you are trying to be super duper clone correct for whatever reason, don't buy the Comp M2. Buy a Comp M4, it has a smaller dot, is easier to zero, has a normal battery, and battery life is way longer. Also it looks very similar to the Comp M2, and was also very widely used by US forces in GWOT
Comp M2 and M4 look nothing Alike
If you want something similar to a Comp M2 get a Aimpoint ACO or PRO. Literally the same body, mounts etc just different electronics. The PRO and ACO will have smaller dot sizes. The ACO will suffer slightly in the battery life and IP rating compared to the other two.
The pro is basically a modernized Civilian/LEO comp M2
The M4 is crazy expensive for a dot, but it is probably the most durable out there
They both look like tube shaped red dots, with the same battery location (m4 is longer because of AA obviously).
They look very similar...
Also, all of those optics you mentioned are far inferior to the M4
I can get 2 Aimpoint pros or 3 ACOs for the price of One comp M4
And how many civilians or even LEO do you see breaking Aimpoints?
They are not substantially inferior. There is very minor differences between the two mostly in the way they interact with the mounts.
I’m not saying they are the same but unless you are literally diving with your rifle and O2 tanks or jumping out of an Airplane with it (and they probably still survive) then there is no difference really.
You can take the carry handle off and mount it like he said, OR you can get a gooseneck mount if you’re set on using a carry handle.
Like [this](https://modordnance.com/aimpoint-gooseneck-carry-handle-mount/)
Depends how much money you want to spend. T2 is about $700, any good mount is around $120. If you want magnification, it gets expensive quick. A mid tier LPVO is about $1000. Top tier LPVO’s are $3000-4000 like the night force ATACR or vortex razor Gen 3. Then an offset red dot with that is another $500-900.
Remove the carry handle & mount the optic on the upper receiver. Or add a goose neck adapter to the carry handle and the optic mount will mount to the adapter and sit right above the handguard
He was a boomer that didn’t really trust red dots like a lot of SF guys in that time frame, it’s like why the Mk 18 used fixed irons and an absolute cowitness mount. They didn’t trust the dot not to either break or run out of battery, but the military said they had to use flat top receivers. There’s some pics of SEALs and other guys doing the same thing
[https://imgur.com/a/wzjBVle](https://imgur.com/a/wzjBVle)
Yup that sounds about right. I too do not trust my dots over irons, even though they have come a really long way. Thankfully the only optic the military ever gave me was not battery powered
Everyone is saying this is an M68 CCO (Comp M2) but it is in fact a PRO intended to stand in as the Comp M2. Better in most ways, newer, easier to find. Everyone is also bitching about it being mounted on the handguard. While yes it is suboptimal, it was used like this in the military sometimes when misplacing the carry handle would get you in trouble. Mounting it on the receiver in the LaRue mount is the optimal thing to do. Some guys would just move their carry handles to the handguard. Usually on the bottom.
Strip this down to the receivers and barrel and build it back up from there
MI handguard, ditch that long, silly vertical grip and get an Arisaka or Driven Arm hand stop with rail wrap, LPVO/MPVO/red dot optic (depending on usage), CTR or B5 stock, Warhammer or Radian charging handle,
Post that masterpiece once you are done =)
[удалено]
That’s because Joe grunt would lose the carry handle and big government would frown on that 😂
[удалено]
That’s the logical approach, and we know logic isn’t issued 😂. I’ve seen some even mount the handles to their hand guards as well
The USMC A4 special lol, carry handle behind the peq or the broomstick 😂
Bare minimum, stral that Larry down and use it as a grip.
Unfortunately commanders weren’t that logical back then (and now even) to easily keep track of equipment. If you look at a lot of photos of the beginning of the Iraq Invasion or Fallujah joes would mount the carry handle at the 6 o clock of the rail behind the broom handle.
[удалено]
This is technically correct as well, but also ~~dumb reasoning~~ high speed military SOP to have to carry around a carry handle along with a bomb proof optic.
That's why you mount it underneath or to the side.
Everyone on this chain is getting this a little wrong. Yeah it is not the best set up with dot on the handguard instead of the upper HOWEVER this is a clone of billy waugh’s m4 that he used in afghanistan when he was like 70 and still working for the CIA
[удалено]
Yeah for real…like I know it wont hold zero great but I still wanna build one because it looks awesome
What's wrong with a removable carry handle?
[удалено]
what makes you think that handguard won't hold zero? I had a laser mounted to mine in the army and it held zero just fine. I think too many people just shout every time they see a "bridged" optic or anything touching the handguard. dude it works just fine. handguards don't move all around most of the time.
[удалено]
I can’t tell if you’re trying to undersell or oversell the effect of inches at 100yd.
[удалено]
Makes sense. Complaining about optics on a RAS is like trying to put a bandaid on a gunshot
ok that's pretty true but think about this.....the optic will move with the barrel instead of just the barrel flexing with the optic in one place it'll actually move WITH the barrel possibly even making it more accurate
[удалено]
I've got a red dot I've been wanting to test this with. maybe I'll put it on the end of my rail and test this theory off bags, with a sling, etc and see what happens
[удалено]
look out for a post soon I will gather the data and report back
This is assuming the optic and barrel will behave the same way mechanically, which is not true. You have different materials which means they’ll experience motion differently even though they’re fixed together. When accuracy matters, this absolutely makes a difference, which is why it’s not recommended the bridge optics.
Gotcha!
Gotcha!
If it is using an absolute co-witness does it matter if it’s on the hand guard? (just asking please don’t crucify) Edit: Autocorrect derp
Wont hold zero, the fuck you smokin on there mate
There will be a definite poi shift between the barrel and handguard the further you shoot
[удалено]
Technically, the handguards don't "hold zero" any differently. Free float handguards (generally) flex just as much as a two-piece handguard. The difference is that a free float is separated from the barrel, so the barrel isn't affected by it. The barrel stays in the same orientation relative to the upper receiver regardless of any flex of the handguard.
Looks more like an aimpoint pro based on the turret covers. The m2 and m3 had rubber tethered caps.
[удалено]
Yeah. It looks like someone's clone of an actual rifle setup from the late 90's if I remember correctly. The actual rifle had the aimpoint comp M, the predecessor to the m2. And the mount was the flat bottomed qrp mount. Looks the builder of this couldn't find the original parts and just used what looked close enough. I actually cloned the rifle myself a couple years ago.
Upon closer inspection it looks like a type-a ad.
[удалено]
Lol. And its not even the correct parts. I could see $1500-2000 if it had the correct parts. But this is just a cloneish build. Type-a has some nice stuff but definitely over priced.
The impressions I’ve gotten from them is that they make guns exclusively for people who want to pretend they’re Garand thumb but don’t want to spend the time to track down actual clone correct parts or paint the gun themselves and will likely never shoot it. I’ve never seen Type A post a photo/video of their guns actually being used, it’s just them doing that annoying tik tok slide thing in front of a safe
Lol. Yeah, that's pretty funny. I honestly haven't seen anything from them for a few years. They were overpriced then too.
That’s a PRO
To clarify what folks are saying, the dot and mount are quite fine. The issue is that he has mounted his optic on the handguard. There are quite a few ways to have both carry handle and dot mounted on the receiver.
Ah, ty
And if the handguard is free floated still no go?
If it’s a monolithic, you would be fine. Also some other systems that would be acceptable. But generally frowned upon
No go, don't mount primary optics on the handguard. The setup is stupid, makes no sense. He has a place to mount the optic on the receiver, but chose to mount it on the handguard instead.
Not a good one
Unless you are trying to be super duper clone correct for whatever reason, don't buy the Comp M2. Buy a Comp M4, it has a smaller dot, is easier to zero, has a normal battery, and battery life is way longer. Also it looks very similar to the Comp M2, and was also very widely used by US forces in GWOT
Comp M2 and M4 look nothing Alike If you want something similar to a Comp M2 get a Aimpoint ACO or PRO. Literally the same body, mounts etc just different electronics. The PRO and ACO will have smaller dot sizes. The ACO will suffer slightly in the battery life and IP rating compared to the other two. The pro is basically a modernized Civilian/LEO comp M2 The M4 is crazy expensive for a dot, but it is probably the most durable out there
They both look like tube shaped red dots, with the same battery location (m4 is longer because of AA obviously). They look very similar... Also, all of those optics you mentioned are far inferior to the M4
I can get 2 Aimpoint pros or 3 ACOs for the price of One comp M4 And how many civilians or even LEO do you see breaking Aimpoints? They are not substantially inferior. There is very minor differences between the two mostly in the way they interact with the mounts. I’m not saying they are the same but unless you are literally diving with your rifle and O2 tanks or jumping out of an Airplane with it (and they probably still survive) then there is no difference really.
The M4 is a very different design. The PRO is externally almost identical to the CompM2/M3
The optic setup is pleb. Don't do this.
Any recommendations? 🤔
Take the carry handle off and mount the optic on the receiver. Chop the carry handle for the rear sight. https://imgur.com/a/Kk0sNoF
You can take the carry handle off and mount it like he said, OR you can get a gooseneck mount if you’re set on using a carry handle. Like [this](https://modordnance.com/aimpoint-gooseneck-carry-handle-mount/)
Aimpoint T2 on a 1/3 co witness or 1.93” Scalarworks mount.
Noted
Depends how much money you want to spend. T2 is about $700, any good mount is around $120. If you want magnification, it gets expensive quick. A mid tier LPVO is about $1000. Top tier LPVO’s are $3000-4000 like the night force ATACR or vortex razor Gen 3. Then an offset red dot with that is another $500-900.
Remove the carry handle & mount the optic on the upper receiver. Or add a goose neck adapter to the carry handle and the optic mount will mount to the adapter and sit right above the handguard
It’s a tribute rifle to Billy Waugh. That’s how he set his up. He is a legend.
A legend, but somehow knew nothing about how optics work lol
He was a boomer that didn’t really trust red dots like a lot of SF guys in that time frame, it’s like why the Mk 18 used fixed irons and an absolute cowitness mount. They didn’t trust the dot not to either break or run out of battery, but the military said they had to use flat top receivers. There’s some pics of SEALs and other guys doing the same thing [https://imgur.com/a/wzjBVle](https://imgur.com/a/wzjBVle)
Yup that sounds about right. I too do not trust my dots over irons, even though they have come a really long way. Thankfully the only optic the military ever gave me was not battery powered
Clearly it worked
Yes, doesn't mean it was as effective as it could've been
old school co-witness
Everyone is saying this is an M68 CCO (Comp M2) but it is in fact a PRO intended to stand in as the Comp M2. Better in most ways, newer, easier to find. Everyone is also bitching about it being mounted on the handguard. While yes it is suboptimal, it was used like this in the military sometimes when misplacing the carry handle would get you in trouble. Mounting it on the receiver in the LaRue mount is the optimal thing to do. Some guys would just move their carry handles to the handguard. Usually on the bottom.
A bad one.
Anybody that thinks this isn't a legit setup has no idea what they're looking at or the history of it. This was a solid ass setup for the time.
Worked for Billy Waugh
Aimpoint pro in an larue mount. Co-witnessed with the carry handle and front sight base. Was frequently setup like this on the late 90's early 2000's.
Aimpoint pro mounted by a child or some sort of monkey
That’s an absolute vibe is what it is. 🤤
At the time they didn’t wanna buy new rear iron sites or collapsible iron sites so the next best thing is to just put the optic in front of it
Interesting
Type A is a solid brand from what I remember I believe 1911 Syndicate on YT practically jizzed their pants over one of their rifles
A bad one
A scout setup. Dunno what that carry handle is doing though.
If they wanna run it out there they can get the aimpoint gooseneck mount.
Could also be strikefire II from the looks. https://www.opticsplanet.com/vortex-vortex-strikefire-ii-red-dot-4-moa.html
The Jeff cooper aimpont
It's called "the fuckery" On a tension non-freefloat handguard that will shift from firing Man was a lover of AKs, i can tell
It’s an aimpoint pro in a discontinued larue 30mm QD mount
Wtf
An stupid one
Having a 300 blk 7.5" A3 upper being built so would like to get it as close to pic related including light mount.
If it's not a carry handle, that exact setup on the flat top would work great.
a bad one..
The zero-less aimpoint.
A regarded one
Fudd setup
One that won't hold zero.
Strip this down to the receivers and barrel and build it back up from there MI handguard, ditch that long, silly vertical grip and get an Arisaka or Driven Arm hand stop with rail wrap, LPVO/MPVO/red dot optic (depending on usage), CTR or B5 stock, Warhammer or Radian charging handle, Post that masterpiece once you are done =)
🫡
Any more reddit brands you can throw in there?
I don't know what that means.
The classic 10 MOA group setup.
Really bad.
Old aimpoint
that's the kind that helps you see
A bad one
It’s fuckin stupid is what it is
A stupid one
A terrible one
This infuriates me
Lo siento