Aimpoint CompM4s and Swiss Arms Charging Handle

Scocou

Scocou

Regular
EE Expired
Rating - 97.1%
33   1   0
Location
An island, in the Pacific
Hiya;
Anyone have experience mounting an Aimpoint CompM4s on a SAN CQB/ Carbine/ Rifle?
Any interference with the battery compartment while operating the Swiss Arms charging handle?
Cheers
 
Last edited:
Scocou said:
Hiya;
Anyone have experience mounting an Aimpoint CompM4s on a SAN CQB/ Carbine/ Rifle?
Any interference with the battery compartment while operating the Swiss Arms charging handle?
Cheers
Click to expand...


I am using a comp M4 on my SA and there is no interference with the charging handle. I did buy the M4 with the battery tube on top of the unit rather than the newer low profile unit. Remember, charge palms up!!!!



DSC_0400.jpg
 
Thanks for the reply. I was looking specifically for info regarding the compM4s, that being the newer model with the battery compartment in the lower position. Yes, charge 'palm up', however I think there will be some interference either way. Nice setup you have there!
Cheers
 
Scocou said:
Thanks for the reply. I was looking specifically for info regarding the compM4s, that being the newer model with the battery compartment in the lower position. Yes, charge 'palm up', however I think there will be some interference either way. Nice setup you have there!
Cheers
Click to expand...

Look at the distance between the rail and charging handle in the photo. There is a lot of room and I believe you will have absolutely no issues.
 
Scocou said:
Thanks for the reply. I was looking specifically for info regarding the compM4s, that being the newer model with the battery compartment in the lower position. Yes, charge 'palm up', however I think there will be some interference either way. Nice setup you have there!
Cheers
Click to expand...

Here are some more photos, mounted the aimpoint and put a surefire flashlight body where the battery compartment would be on the M4s. I believe you would have more clearance than these photos demonstrate.

DSC_0433.jpg


DSC_0435.jpg
 
Steyr101 said:
There is no way the battery compartment in the bottom would interfere with the CH.
Click to expand...
I agree, it's operating the charging handle I am more concerned with (interference with my hand ;)).


dizzy said:
Look at the distance between the rail and charging handle in the photo. There is a lot of room and I believe you will have absolutely no issues.
Click to expand...
I really appreciate the pictures, they are exactly what I needed. Based on what I see, I think it would be fiddly to operate with the CompM4s. I will think more about the CompM4.


furet said:
Might work, but the battery on top definetly offers more wiggle room for operation.
Nice setup.
Click to expand...
Agreed. If you were in a hurry it might become a problem, particulaly if you were wearing gloves.


I used an ACOG TA31F on my CQB...
pic-0030r.jpg


...but want something different for the carbine.
SAN_Carbine-042509-0002r.jpg


Probably I will get an Aimpoint CompM4 and eventually an ACOG TA31RCO-M4.
Thanks for the responses fellows :).
Cheers
 
If you use a COMP M3 or M2, you can rotate the sight 90 deg left, that would bring the switch to the upper left side of the rifle rather than upper right side.
Your windage and elevation knobs would be reversed, but it doesn't effect anything being a red dot.
 
furet said:
If you use a COMP M3 or M2, you can rotate the sight 90 deg left, that would bring the switch to the upper left side of the rifle rather than upper right side.
Your windage and elevation knobs would be reversed, but it doesn't effect anything being a red dot.
Click to expand...
Thanks, that's definitely an option. I am in the market for a 2MOA dot so the CompM2 is out...
It seems a CompM3 2MOA is produced but not commonly available in Canada (to my knowledge).
Cheers
 
Just an added thought.

From the first pic I doubt that an M4 with the control at the top would be an issue.

Also, keep in mind from my M3 suggestion is that the control will then be in your weak eye's line of sight, you might first want to try it to see if that bothers you.
 
Scocou said:
Thanks, that's definitely an option. I am in the market for a 2MOA dot so the CompM2 is out...
It seems a CompM3 2MOA is produced but not commonly available in Canada (to my knowledge).
Cheers
Click to expand...

Scocou, what about going with a nightforce 1-4x24 or a s&b short dot? Your carbine is very accurate and a little magnification is wonderful for long shots and both above optics work very well in close quarters on the 'no-magnification' setting as you can use them with both eyes open.

I put a Nightforce on my carbine and use the M4 on the CQB. Love them both.
 
Whatever you do DON'T replace the charging lever with an aftermarket one that's bent down unless you talk with someone who has used the one you are looking at. They can make a real mess of the rubber dustcovers in a hurry.
 
dizzy said:
Scocou, what about going with a nightforce 1-4x24 or a s&b short dot? Your carbine is very accurate and a little magnification is wonderful for long shots and both above optics work very well in close quarters on the 'no-magnification' setting as you can use them with both eyes open.

I put a Nightforce on my carbine and use the M4 on the CQB. Love them both.
Click to expand...
Well, yes a magnified optical sight is on the list. I mentioned before I will likely get an ACOG TA31RCO-M4.

Along the lines of what you mention (more traditional tubes) I am leaning towards a U.S. Optics SN-12R (see below);
SN-12R.jpg


Cheers!
 
dizzy said:
Whatever you do DON'T replace the charging lever with an aftermarket one that's bent down unless you talk with someone who has used the one you are looking at. They can make a real mess of the rubber dustcovers in a hurry.
Click to expand...
Another user PM'd me a link about the aftermarket charging handle you mention, looks like a decent option if I decide to go with the CompM4s.

If anyone is interested the link is http://www.griffin-tactical.com/ and they look like this;
sig556_pic1.jpg
 
Aftermarket charging handles do help out with buying much needed space, just some are bad and some are good. Talk to others who have used them on your particular hardware.

Not sure I would use the SN-12r as its fixed at 4x, doesn't allow you the option of CQB, can't shoot with both eyes open. SN-4s might be a better option.
 
dizzy said:
Aftermarket charging handles do help out with buying much needed space, just some are bad and some are good. Talk to others who have used them on your particular hardware.

Not sure I would use the SN-12r as its fixed at 4x, doesn't allow you the option of CQB, can't shoot with both eyes open. SN-4s might be a better option.
Click to expand...

I don't like variable power glass in a combat optic... I will use the appropriate sights for the given application.

I like a <widget-name-here> to perform one task superbly. I will use a CQB optic when required, else a magnified optic if range dictates its' necessity.

One possible exception is the Elcan Spectre DR, it seemed attractive but I have decided against it. Thanks for the opinions though :).

22ivan said:
The M4s will shred your hand- go for the regular M4.
Click to expand...
Yes, I have reached the same conclusion. The aftermarket charging handle would work but will also bump the cost up $100+.

Cheers
 
re

I have no problems running my M2 Comp/ QRP on my SA CQB. I do however, have troubles with the Eotech 553 on the CQB as the charging handle config makes it quite a close call.........that aftermarket charge handle might be a consideration?
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top Bottom