seamasterpro
2/2/2011 11:56:18 PM
I tossed the two around before I bought and ended up with the LT-681 on my A4gery and glad I did. because of the short eye relief of the TA31 I mounted mine really far back, farther than I could have gone with the LT-100. the LT-681 mounts extremely solid so all things being relatively equal I figure you might as well get the one you can Scope Mount furthest rearward and equally as far forward.
flpickupman
2/4/2011 7:01:24 PM
The RCO Scope Mount is going to give you worlds more adjustment for eye relief. Mine has been more than solid. No complaints.
boricua9mm [Member]
2/4/2011 7:30:45 PM
If you want to tuck a BUIS under the ACOG, then go with the LT100. If not, the RCO Scope Mount is a good choice.
socommatthews (West Bridgewater, MA) – The matter of Atlantic Research Marketing Systems, Inc. v Austin Precision Products, Inc. d/b/a LaRue Tactical, United States District Court for the District of Massachusetts, Civil Action No. 1:09-cv-10034(DPW), was settled and dismissed with prejudice. LaRue Tactical has taken a fully paid up, royalty free license under U.S. Trademark Registration Nos. 3,466,163 and 3,478,909.
–
—Might not mean much to some, but does to me and deffinately says something about the WRITERS lack of understanding basic ‘gun’ terms. As I say—hard facts like dates, production #’s, etc. is good to go with sites like that—because thats easy to research. But do you think the guy trying to find out “info” on the FAL was a gun guy, do you think he went past the FIRST info he found or read—no—he probably just repeated it. Hemi-Cuda 6/15/2006 12:10:26 PM Originally Posted By AZ-Dave: Originally Posted By Hemi-Cuda: Originally Posted By Dave_A: My submission to the What-If game is this: What if Stoner had gotten the AR-10 ready a few years earlier… IMHO there never would have been a M14…. A few years earlier everyone would have laughed at it since it barely worked as a proto-type. You keep throwing out little “snipits” (quotes) from various places that are NOTHING more than opinion of the WRITER. No more correct than YOUR opinion or MINE. The encyclopedia info. you posted (that I quoted above) is included in this. If you are looking for numbers and dates, I would trust their info. fully, because that is easy to research—-With Wikipedia, if you are looking for REASONS for ANYTHING—you will get limited info/research from a writer. To prove their lack of gun knowledge—-read the part that says “and its lack of DURABILITY under harsh desert conditions……” Durability?