AR Sponsor
Posted: 5/15/2013 9:47:37 AM EDT
|
I've got a few A2s laying around and I was wondering what mounting solutions you guys were using for these? Maybe an "Optics on A2 picture thread" is in order? I would like to make one or more of these set up out to 5-800 yards. |
|
Augee, IIRC, hates carry handle mounts with a passion because the thumbscrews come loose. The Trijicon Reflex's gooseneck is tightened with a detented lever so it won't come loose. Ostensibly one could use locktite, but perhaps a more ideal solution is a free-floated rail and putting the red dot in front of the carry handle. It won't add a terrible amount of weight either. I weighed the handguards from my FN takeoff M16A2 upper and they weigh just under 10oz, most FF rifle-length rails are about 15oz, that's a little more than the weight of a 2" rail section and plastic VFG.
[EDIT] Ohhh...long-range... Get an ACOG and stick it up there (or a Burris AR536, they seem to be really good glass and are 5x). That, or buy flattops and put the A2s on the EE. There's no graceful way to mount a true 'scope' on a carry-handle. |
|
I have a few A2 uppers I use as "poor man's LMGs" at shoots. I prefer the simple mount on top for my M3. It seems alot more solid than the gooseneck my brother prefers.
AP used to make a kinda dedicated gooseneck for the M2s. Now I guess I'd get an ARMS version that has more rail slots. But.......... Since you're interested in 500+ I would want some serious magnification and I'd want it on top. A tiny bit of mount wobble will kill you at 800 yds. The top of CH mounts are solid. I have never had my ARMS version - or any other - loosen even slightly. But I snug them up with a flat driver. These things see alot of FA use. Loctite if you are really worried. You have to deal with a 3+" above center of bore offset. But if you're accustomed to shooting at 500+ yds you already understand this better than me. Ugly? Yeah. Personally, I could give a crap about aesthetics. Sam |
|
It's not so much that I hate carry handle mounts - it's simply a much better solution to use a flattop receiver to mount a long scope. I do hate gooseneck mounts for RDS (you can't really put a magnified optic on a gooseneck and get the proper eye relief). There are a lot of issues with them, and I would rather mount an optic to a non-FF rail in front of the carry handle than to use a gooseneck. Using an RDS on a carry handle mount is not all that bad.
For magnified sights, the only sights I would really use on a fixed carry handle upper are ACOGs, as they were designed with this in mind. The old Colt 3x and 4x work as well and are great for Retros, but are old tech for a modern build. For shooting out to 500-800m, with the products available now, I would consider it pointless to use an optic mounted on a fixed carry handle upper. In the past, before upper receivers with accessory rails were available, there wasn't always a lot of options for scope mounting, and even then, those that were serious about distance shooting often cut down fixed carry handles to mount scopes to weaver rails bolted and brazed on to the receiver. Even the Colt Model 656 experimental sniper rifle for use in Vietnam used a modified receiver with an accessory mounting rail, though quite different from modern designs. ~Augee |
|
What I see as the issue with lifting a scope higher than the carry handle is the consistency of the cheek weld you can get on the stock. I have tried some, and have never been able to find a spot I could consistently hit without any trouble. It may be I just did not work at it long enough or have spent too much time behind standard height sights that it just "felt" wrong for me.
|
|
Quoted: What I see as the issue with lifting a scope higher than the carry handle is the consistency of the cheek weld you can get on the stock. I have tried some, and have never been able to find a spot I could consistently hit without any trouble. It may be I just did not work at it long enough or have spent too much time behind standard height sights that it just "felt" wrong for me. Hadn't considered that. I wonder if a scout scope would work with a dog-leg mount? |
|
http://www.mountsplus.com/AR-15_Accessories/AR-15_Scope_Rings/ARMS-2.html
I have used the above mount with no problems( ARMS-2). I have one A2 that I want to keep "OLD SCHOOL". Yes , the cheek weld is more of a chin weld but it is not bad. You can get cheek risers to use if you feel you need it. This mount kind of snaps into the carry handle and the nut has detents that hold it in place to keep it from getting loose. Dave |
|
Quoted:
Quoted:
What I see as the issue with lifting a scope higher than the carry handle is the consistency of the cheek weld you can get on the stock. I have tried some, and have never been able to find a spot I could consistently hit without any trouble. It may be I just did not work at it long enough or have spent too much time behind standard height sights that it just "felt" wrong for me. Hadn't considered that. I wonder if a scout scope would work with a dog-leg mount? I wouldn't use a dogleg to support a scoutscope. Midwest Industries has good FF rails that don't cost more than $200 and only add about 5oz to a rifle-gas AR. |
AR Sponsor