One thing to keep in mind is higher is not necessarily better. You need some lift to fit the bigger tires, but you can fit 40s on 3.5". the higher you go, the higher that center of gravity is, and the quicker you feel pretty tippy when you're getting off camber.

Long arm kits really all have their own issues. Nobody makes a great out of the box solution, and you start getting more in to custom stuff.....not to mention you're not improving your articulation any....they're just helping with the high lift height some apparently want. I would never tell you to go long arm kit myself.....and I wouldn't say run out and swap your springs for something lower......just some food for thought is all.

I intially wanted a max net of 4" and now Im stuck at 4.75" and Ive been correcting for it accordingly and probably looking back I should have just gotten a 3.5" spring and not a 4" spring. Flipping the drag link tomorrow and reloacting track bars front and rear. It does drive really stable good now ...im running no stabilizer. Hopefully, it'll be ready for my fire road pipeline running, I am an inspector on the pipeline, need it to be as durable as possible with my weak D30.

Can I run the control arms in the geometry correction brackets to maintain a minimal angle on the arms? Or is this just defeating the purpose of adj. control arms?

4.75" of lift? What size tires are you running? Geo correction brackets are better if you can stand the loss of ground clearance. If you run the adjustable arms at the same length as stock then you should be fine running both but, yes you didn't need to buy adjustable arms if you are using brackets.

These springs gave me almost an extra inch. They are 4" ICON springs. Running 35's I purchased the adjustable to replace these worn stock ones and just wanted better. I'd like to lose the brackets but not if it will be detrimental to ride. I was thinking just get some MC 3.5" springs and lose the geo brackets and use the adj. properly.

Depending on the weight, you may not be losing much height with those. Have you considered the 2.5"? Should be plenty for your 35's, especially if you are running flats.

I have a set of 2.5" MC springs sitting in my garage, boxed up and ready to go....under 10k miles on em. They're listed in the "Marketplace" if you care.

As you see, a lot of springs will net you more than the stated number, especially on a lighter jeep if you're not weight down by heavy bumpers, armor, winch, etc. IDK, it's personal opinion, but that's a lotta lift for 35s. If it works for you and you like the looks, doesn't matter what anyone else things. IMO, 2.5" for 35s, 3.5": for 37s, and no reason to get crazy going higher. Even at solid 3.5" net lift, I think I have a lot of open space with my 37s, but that is probably exaggerated since I don't have fender flares.

If your old arms are not in terrible shape, and you're ok with the loss of ground clearance, the geo brackets are and factory arms are going to produce a better ride. It sounds like for your use though, which is not aggressive off roading, you would be fine throwing those arms on and ditching the brackets.

This discussion reminds me of the recent lift kit vs. Franken lift approach discussion. This seems like a Franken lift scenario approach where unless you really understand the complete geometry of the suspension, then going with a Franken lift approach may not be the best idea for the average joe.

So the OP is starting with springs that are at a height that requires either arm replacements or geo brackets but the height of the springs are in an area where there is a lot of uncertainty of where to start with those arm lengths, where it seems the best approach would be to start with the MC recommended lengths since MC has done that geometry engineering work but then the question comes into play of how much different are the heights of the MC springs from the Icon springs once installed? So the solution to that question is to move to the MC 3.5" springs, so we can feel more certain about the length of the arms. Do I have this summarized pretty well?

Sounds like a fun project trying to figure that all out and dial it in, if you're a suspension engineer. :D

When I look at this situation where the original goal was to get 4inches of lift and mount 35s I would have taken a totally different approach of either saving up my duckets for a 3.5" MC Game changer lift or if I wanted to pay less for a good value lift, then go with the Mopar 4in lift and add some Franken lift components to it at a later time as needed.

You are not going to know until the coils are installed and settled in. Personally moving to 3.5" MC coils is a bad move and he will likely be in the same place or close to it. If a coil swap is done I would go with the 2.5 which will likely net 3"+ of actual lift since he is just running 35's. Even at 3" some corrective measures should be taken for axle placement. On adjustable short arms you are really not dealing with geometry since you are not moving any brackets. you are dealing with restoring caster and adjusting pinion angles and correcting axle shift.

That would be the correct thing to do.

However, to be PC we should be polite and ask the reasons the original goal was to target for 4inches of lift, while planning to mount 35s? I've found there are typically 3 reasons. ;)
1. Looks (They like that look of the high rise although most of us know it doesn't provide any benefit while increasing the costs for correction).
2. Longer term plan (Considering leaving their options open to be able to mount 37s or larger tires in the future).
3. Additional belly clearance (Which is the typical answer from someone that lacks the understanding that their axles and other components are still hanging down and reducing clearance).

I will give you a 4th reason, ignorance. Not understanding the JK is factory set up for big tires and offer the room to go 35's with little effort compared to older jeeps. The older models came with 28"-30" tires and took a lot of lift to run a 35" tire. People equate a jeep on 35's need 4" of lift. The JK comes with 32" tires and making theme to 35's is rather trivial. To make the same comparison you would be looking at increasing tire size by 5"-7" on a JK and running a 37-39" tire on 4" of lift. Unfortianally with he larger tire size on the JK and moving up to such a large tire creates other issues like axle strength and lack of power from the factory motor to push that big rubber moving the real expensive from the lift to the other things needed to handle such big tires.