AR Sponsor
Posted: 8/14/2008 2:45:31 PM EDT
|
I'm thinking of getting the Millet in 56mm obj. and wondering what kind of ring's would I need to clear the barrel? Anybody running this big of an obj? Larue sounds to be good but man they are high. Any suggestion's would help. http://i167.photobucket.com/albums/u136/Rusty1bucket/DSCF0621.jpg |
|
For AR optics, the goal is to have the centerline around the same height as the iron sights, which is 1.4", so this determines the ring or mount centerline height. It's not like a traditional rifle where you want the scope as close to the bore as possible, and the objective bell size determines the ring height. As a result, most mounts are from 1.3-1.7" centerline (a few are higher and lower, but 1.5" is a popular height), and clearing the handguard isn't a problem. The real question is how far forward you need the scope mounted (whether you shoot NTCH or further back), how high you want it (which partly depends on whether you'll need to clear a BUIS), and details like QR, weight, flexibility, etc. |
| As mentioned the real trick is to get the eye relief you need. Also you don't mention if you are running buis under your scope? If so you might want to look into the larue lt-193 which gives you plenty of clearance for the buis at the rear and the bell of your scope up front plus will give you room to move the scope forward for eye relief. |
|
The standard LaRue mount centerlines are 1.5"/38mm (30mm tube), or 1.41"/36mm (1" tube). This would clear an objective bell with a diameter of 76mm (30mm tube) or 72mm (1" tube). Figure a max of 10mm for the bell wall thickness (Leupold Mk4 LR/T bell diameter is 58mm for a 50mm objective lens), and that would be good for any scope with an objective lens under 60mm or so. For a rifle with a handguard that is higher than the rail, you'd lose some clearance, but the OP's picture shows the handguard to be below the rail, so you'd get even more clearance. The BUIS height is much more likely to be a problem than bell clearance. |
|
just cause the objective is 56mm don't mean its a good peice of glass. The quality of the glass is much more important. I've seen many scopes in the 40mm that are much, much better then some 56mm's I've seen. Look for high quality optics, and guts. And try to find a 30mm tube vs. 1" tubes. Personally I think 56mm is just too big for my taste. I don't see any advantage in them. |
The larger tube generally just gives more MOA of adjustment, especially when one adjustment axis is much off the centerline. Some claim it's stronger, but that depends on the material and design. If you're going to be shooting long range and using click adjustments rather than holdover, the extra range of the 30mm tube may be worth it. Otherwise, it's not a big deal for most people. |
|
Hey paddle3: Is that handguard top-rail at the same level as the receiver rail? I've got one continuous rail from receiver to handguards on my AR. Thanks.
|
|
Cool. I've been thinking about that exact setup on my AR, but wasn't sure if the huge 56mm objective would work with the Larue on the single rail. Thanks.
|
Many folks consider the 5.5-22x56 complete "overkill" for an AR optic. Personally, I utilize the combination for benchrest type applications. At 22x I don't have to use a spotting scope to ascertain shot placement on target, and my middle aged eyes appreciate the clear, bright 56mm objective. |
|
This is for a .308 AR. Actually, I've been thinking about the 5.5-22 and the 3.5-15 as well, but both with a 56mm objective. Plus, I also love it when the zoomed-in image is bright and clear as the zoomed out image.
|
I would think either optic would function well with a .308 AR. What are you shooting? Have you checked out LaRue's "combo" packages of mount and glass? |
AR Sponsor