AR Sponsor
Posted: 5/3/2015 10:42:54 AM EDT
|
I'm looking for a lightweight cantilevered scope mount. Does not have to be quick detach. My main concerns are that it's light and has the center of the optic at the same height as carry handle irons. Made in the USA prefered but not mandatory. 1" dia tube.
Recommendations? I currently have the rock river cantilever mount but it weighs almost 11ounces and is needlesly heavy. |
|
Take a look at Aero Precision's Ultralight scope mount. They make them in both 1" and 30mm sizes. They weigh about 3 ounces, with a center height of ~1.5". Only downside is you may have to do some searching and/or waiting to find them in stock.
Looks like Primary Arms has some currently. |
|
My favorite non quick detachable mount
http://www.nikonsportoptics.com/Nikon-Products/Mounts-and-Mounting-Rings/M-223-Mount.html |
|
Quoted:
Take a look at Aero Precision's Ultralight scope mount. They make them in both 1" and 30mm sizes. They weigh about 3 ounces, with a center height of ~1.5". The only downside is that the rings are vertical split. It took me a few tries to get my reticle perfectly straight, but that could just be me. Other than that, they are amazing. |
|
All those mentioned so far put the optic well higher than the plane of the iron sights. It is hard to find a one-piece mount that doesn't.
I use a YHM extended riser plus Vortex Viper low 1" rings. This puts the center of ring right at the same height over bore as fixed carry handle sights, for perfect cheek weld. The only downside is that only real low profile folding rear sights will fit under the ocular housing. My MBUS and KAC don't fit. Oh well... having the primary optic correctly placed is a lot more important than backups to me. I just keep a zeroed folding rear sight in the butt trap in case I break the optic. FYI the rings in the pic are 30mm, but I have another rig that uses the 1" Vortex rings on that riser, and they are the perfect height too. This was just the best pic I had to show what the riser looks like. Midway is the only place I've been able to find this riser at. 
|
|
Quoted:
All those mentioned so far put the optic well higher than the plane of the iron sights. It is hard to find a one-piece mount that doesn't. I use a YHM extended riser plus Vortex Viper low 1" rings. This puts the center of ring right at the same height over bore as fixed carry handle sights, for perfect cheek weld. The only downside is that only real low profile folding rear sights will fit under the ocular housing. My MBUS and KAC don't fit. Oh well... having the primary optic correctly placed is a lot more important than backups to me. I just keep a zeroed folding rear sight in the butt trap in case I break the optic. FYI the rings in the pic are 30mm, but I have another rig that uses the 1" Vortex rings on that riser, and they are the perfect height too. This was just the best pic I had to show what the riser looks like. Midway is the only place I've been able to find this riser at. http://i281.photobucket.com/albums/kk201/henschman/guns/image_zps2caa7e55.jpg The eyepiece of your scope looks to be much larger in diameter than most, and has something wrapped around it. But, its centerline does not appear to be substantially lower than that of my Leupold VX-R Patrol mounted in a LaRue LT-104, which is the "standard" 1.5" from top of rail to centerline of scope. It is a QD type mount and not lightweight, but I do think that the Aero Precision lightweight cantilever is also in the 1.4" to 1.5" above rail range. Could you measure from the centerline of you scope down to the top of your receiver rail (center of eyepiece to rail may be easiest for you)? My guess is that it is not much different. Wouldn't a one half inch YHM riser under 1" rings bring the center line of your scope to 1.5"? I'm wondering if the problem with clearance on your scope and folding rear sights might be the diameter of the eyepiece. I had that problem with a Leupold LPS which does have a much bigger eyepiece. When I raise the rear folding sight (Magpul Pro) the aperture is - - - 1.4" above the rail, very close to 1.5". 
Edit: Corrected for YHM riser height. |
|
Center of ring is a hair over 1.2" above the rail on mine. Same height as the A1/A2 fixed carry handle sights.
FYI the YHM riser is 0.5" tall. It's not just that scope. I have a Leupold 3-9x40 with a 1" tube mounted at the same height on another upper, and it won't clear BUIS either. It would probably clear that low profile one in your pic though. 
|
|
Quoted:
All those mentioned so far put the optic well higher than the plane of the iron sights. It is hard to find a one-piece mount that doesn't. I use a YHM extended riser plus Vortex Viper low 1" rings. This puts the center of ring right at the same height over bore as fixed carry handle sights, for perfect cheek weld. The only downside is that only real low profile folding rear sights will fit under the ocular housing. My MBUS and KAC don't fit. Oh well... having the primary optic correctly placed is a lot more important than backups to me. I just keep a zeroed folding rear sight in the butt trap in case I break the optic. FYI the rings in the pic are 30mm, but I have another rig that uses the 1" Vortex rings on that riser, and they are the perfect height too. This was just the best pic I had to show what the riser looks like. Midway is the only place I've been able to find this riser at. http://i281.photobucket.com/albums/kk201/henschman/guns/image_zps2caa7e55.jpg So all those AR scope mount makers, who make them according to scope holdovers and zero recommendations for ballistics, are not making AR scope mounts that correctly place the scope? Wow! You could rule the market among so many fools. |
| I thought that carry handle sights are 2.6" above the center of the bore, or 1.4" above the top of the rail. I have to admit that I haven't measured. I have an ADM recon mount on another rifle but I never take the scope off so the QD feature is something I don't want ro spend money on. I like the mount though. |
|
Quoted:
So all those AR scope mount makers, who make them according to scope holdovers and zero recommendations for ballistics, are not making AR scope mounts that correctly place the scope? Wow! You could rule the market among so many fools. Quoted:
Quoted:
All those mentioned so far put the optic well higher than the plane of the iron sights. It is hard to find a one-piece mount that doesn't. I use a YHM extended riser plus Vortex Viper low 1" rings. This puts the center of ring right at the same height over bore as fixed carry handle sights, for perfect cheek weld. The only downside is that only real low profile folding rear sights will fit under the ocular housing. My MBUS and KAC don't fit. Oh well... having the primary optic correctly placed is a lot more important than backups to me. I just keep a zeroed folding rear sight in the butt trap in case I break the optic. FYI the rings in the pic are 30mm, but I have another rig that uses the 1" Vortex rings on that riser, and they are the perfect height too. This was just the best pic I had to show what the riser looks like. Midway is the only place I've been able to find this riser at. http://i281.photobucket.com/albums/kk201/henschman/guns/image_zps2caa7e55.jpg So all those AR scope mount makers, who make them according to scope holdovers and zero recommendations for ballistics, are not making AR scope mounts that correctly place the scope? Wow! You could rule the market among so many fools. Do you even cheek weld bro? |
|
Quoted:
I thought that carry handle sights are 2.6" above the center of the bore, or 1.4" above the top of the rail. I have to admit that I haven't measured. I have an ADM recon mount on another rifle but I never take the scope off so the QD feature is something I don't want ro spend money on. I like the mount though. You are correct. Here is official mil-spec dimensions. The source is Armalite, which I trust. Rear Sight Aperture Height (in.) Detachable Carry Handle (M-15) 2.62 M-15 A2 Upper Receiver 2.58 The .040" difference is for the height difference for "F" marked and non marked front sights. Either way, this adds up to approximately 1.4" above the top rail for most AR15s with M4 style uppers. Our stocks are designed for optimal cheek weld with our eye on this plane. I agree that some of us need lower scope to achieve a custom cheek weld that we like best. But there is a fact-based reason that most scope mounts put the centerline of the scope between 1.4" and 1.5" above the top of the rail. That matches the plane of iron sights, including carry handle sights. |
|
Quoted:
I thought that carry handle sights are 2.6" above the center of the bore, or 1.4" above the top of the rail. I have to admit that I haven't measured. I have an ADM recon mount on another rifle but I never take the scope off so the QD feature is something I don't want ro spend money on. I like the mount though. There is a difference in height between fixed carry handle sights and detachable/flat top sights. Fixed sights are about 2.4" over bore. Back when Gene Stoner designed the AR-15, it was determined that this was the optimal sight height for the average soldier to have good cheek weld, and also resulted in a favorable trajectory for battle sight zero. I must be pretty close to average, because an A1/A2 fits me perfectly. When they introduced the detachable carry handle with the M4, they raised the sight height about 0.2" to accommodate a 600m setting (because the most important thing is that every GI be able to compete in the High Power matches at Camp Perry  ). The taller rear sight is why the taller "F" marked front sights had to be introduced for the flat top carbines. Then when SF guys started asking for extended mounts for Short Dots and whatnot, the issue was that the M4 had such a short handguard that with a scope sitting out there, the only place an IR laser/designator would fit is under it, which required a taller mount to clear. Use with night vision is more important to those guys than having perfect cheek weld for daylight use. Also it needed to clear the mil issue Matech BUIS. LaRue et al started making their mounts 1.5" + over the rail for these reasons, and every other mfg. more or less followed suit.
So having a mount that high makes some sense if you are stuck with an issued M4 with short 7" rail, issued BUIS, and need to be able to run an IR aiming laser and magnified optics together... or if your face is shaped like Mr. Ed's. Personally, I don't have those issues, so I opt for a setup that lets me get into a proper shooting position with good cheek weld. Another plus is that the riser/ring combo is very light weight. |
|
Quoted:
There is a difference in height between fixed carry handle sights and detachable/flat top sights. Fixed sights are about 2.4" over bore. Back when Gene Stoner designed the AR-15, it was determined that this was the optimal sight height for the average soldier to have good cheek weld, and also resulted in a favorable trajectory for battle sight zero. I must be pretty close to average, because an A1/A2 fits me perfectly. When they introduced the detachable carry handle with the M4, they raised the sight height about 0.2" to accommodate a 600m setting (because the most important thing is that every GI be able to compete in the High Power matches at Camp Perry ). The taller rear sight is why the taller "F" marked front sights had to be introduced for the flat top carbines. Then when SF guys started asking for extended mounts for Short Dots and whatnot, the issue was that the M4 had such a short handguard that with a scope sitting out there, the only place an IR laser/designator would fit is under it, which required a taller mount to clear. Use with night vision is more important to those guys than having perfect cheek weld for daylight use. Also it needed to clear the mil issue Matech BUIS. LaRue et al started making their mounts 1.5" + over the rail for these reasons, and every other mfg. more or less followed suit.
So having a mount that high makes some sense if you are stuck with an issued M4 with short 7" rail, issued BUIS, and need to be able to run an IR aiming laser and magnified optics together... or if your face is shaped like Mr. Ed's. Personally, I don't have those issues, so I opt for a setup that lets me get into a proper shooting position with good cheek weld. Another plus is that the riser/ring combo is very light weight. Quoted:
Quoted:
I thought that carry handle sights are 2.6" above the center of the bore, or 1.4" above the top of the rail. I have to admit that I haven't measured. I have an ADM recon mount on another rifle but I never take the scope off so the QD feature is something I don't want ro spend money on. I like the mount though. There is a difference in height between fixed carry handle sights and detachable/flat top sights. Fixed sights are about 2.4" over bore. Back when Gene Stoner designed the AR-15, it was determined that this was the optimal sight height for the average soldier to have good cheek weld, and also resulted in a favorable trajectory for battle sight zero. I must be pretty close to average, because an A1/A2 fits me perfectly. When they introduced the detachable carry handle with the M4, they raised the sight height about 0.2" to accommodate a 600m setting (because the most important thing is that every GI be able to compete in the High Power matches at Camp Perry ). The taller rear sight is why the taller "F" marked front sights had to be introduced for the flat top carbines. Then when SF guys started asking for extended mounts for Short Dots and whatnot, the issue was that the M4 had such a short handguard that with a scope sitting out there, the only place an IR laser/designator would fit is under it, which required a taller mount to clear. Use with night vision is more important to those guys than having perfect cheek weld for daylight use. Also it needed to clear the mil issue Matech BUIS. LaRue et al started making their mounts 1.5" + over the rail for these reasons, and every other mfg. more or less followed suit.
So having a mount that high makes some sense if you are stuck with an issued M4 with short 7" rail, issued BUIS, and need to be able to run an IR aiming laser and magnified optics together... or if your face is shaped like Mr. Ed's. Personally, I don't have those issues, so I opt for a setup that lets me get into a proper shooting position with good cheek weld. Another plus is that the riser/ring combo is very light weight. The above data I posted from Armalite's tech bulletin says fixed sights are between 2.58" and 2.62" above bore, not 2.40" And the difference between F marked and non-F marked is .040", that is forty thousandths of an inch, not two hundred thousandths, the difference between 2.40" and 2.60". Accordingly I must respectfully disagree. The same Armalite tech bulletin also measured three different flip up rear sights. While they all were different in height to the aperture, all were within the same .040" variation from 2.60" (not 2.40"). I can understand that some of us need a lower sight, but the data I am looking at and measuring myself puts the typical detachable handle sight and folding rear sight about .200" higher. This is not slight. It is close to a quarter inch. Is Armalite wrong in its measurements? Is Magpul wrong is placing its aperture at the same level as the three sights Armalite measured? That tech bulletin also measured front sights. I appreciate your explanation, but the data seems otherwise. Armalite Tech Bulletin 115 here. |
|
My measurements for the fixed carry handle sights were based off a Colt 604 I used to own.
In any case, almost all one piece scope mounts are in excess of 1.5" high. Most closer to 1.6". Significantly taller than any iron sights. If you can get cheek weld with your iron sights, you almost certainly don't have it when using a one-piece mount. |
|
Quoted:
My measurements for the fixed carry handle sights were based off a Colt 604 I used to own. In any case, almost all one piece scope mounts are in excess of 1.5" high. Most closer to 1.6". Significantly taller than any iron sights. If you can get cheek weld with your iron sights, you almost certainly don't have it when using a one-piece mount. ... ... Wait, so my 1 piece ADM mount that cowitnesses a Vortex 2.5-10 x 32 with my std height irons only exists in my head..!!! I wish ADM would make them cause I bet there's a market for them. If your neck is flexible enough to get a sight picture with irons right on the top rail go for it. I'll stick with an ergonomic position that everyone else uses. Posted Via AR15.Com Mobile |
|
Lower 1/3 co-witness or absolute?
A red dot can be well above the plane of the iron sights and still co-witness. Also the good ones don't have parallax, so cheek weld isn't as important. Anyway we were talking about extended mounts for magnified optics, not co-witnessed red dots. Unless you are saying that you are somehow co-witnessing your irons through your magnified optic. Shit, if you want to be like everyone else, just put extra high rings straight on the receiver and mount the scope way too far to the rear, then scrunch your head back on the stock to get eye relief. At least that seems to be the most popular setup at the gun range and on Armslist. I learned a long time ago that just because a lot of people do something, it isn't necessarily the best way, especially when it comes to shooting... and that sometimes the reasons behind the most popular setups are kind of stupid... witness the "gov't profile" barrel. |
|
Quoted:
My measurements for the fixed carry handle sights were based off a Colt 604 I used to own. In any case, almost all one piece scope mounts are in excess of 1.5" high. Most closer to 1.6". Significantly taller than any iron sights. If you can get cheek weld with your iron sights, you almost certainly don't have it when using a one-piece mount. With respect, my LaRue LT-104 pictured above is not in excess of 1.5" above the rail top. My calipers are in my shop, down in my barn, but for the time being, perhaps a tape measure will serve. It is no more than 1.5" and may be a bit less. Facts can sometimes be difficult things to accept. When LaRue calls this model SPR 1.5, they have named it properly. Apologies for poor quality of quick cell cam photo. If OP is still following this thread, the lightweight fixed Aero Precision mount, only about 3.5 ounces, will serve him well, and his cheek weld should be fine. 
|
|
I'm no mathematician, but last I checked, 1.5" > 1.4".
Recall that the whole point I have been trying to get across is that virtually all scope mounts are taller than the plane of the iron sights (1.4"), and lead to non-optimal cheek weld. Whether most of them are taller than 1.5" or just a lot of them, they are almost all at least 1.5". 1/10" is enough difference to fuck up your cheek weld... and that's if you have perfect cheek weld with 1.4" tall irons (which I personally don't). Cheek touching the stock does not equal cheek weld. The test is to get into a stable position, close your eyes, completely relax your neck and let the stock hold up the full weight of your head, and then open your eyes. If you're looking at anything but crosshairs perfectly centered in the FOV with no black fuzziness visible, you don't have a good cheek weld. If I do that with a 1.5" tall scope mount, like the PA Extended I used to use, I am looking at the bottom half of an ocular lens, below the exit pupil with no image visible. It's not even close to a cheek weld. Even 1.4" tall flat top irons are slightly too tall for perfect cheek weld for me. Seeing how I am pretty average sized, and fit an A1/A2 perfectly, I have a hard time believing most people who use one piece mounts actually have a legit cheek weld. And lots of people shoot just fine without a good cheek weld... but I bet they could be more consistent if they had one. In any case, if I have the choice of a setup where I can get in a technically proper position versus one where I can't, I'm going with the proper one every time. There's just no reason to do otherwise. Anyhow, the dude wanted suggestion on scope mounts -- I stated what works for me and why. If you don't like it, don't use it. |
|
Quoted:
I'm no mathematician, but last I checked, 1.5" > 1.4". Recall that the whole point I have been trying to get across is that virtually all scope mounts are taller than the plane of the iron sights (1.4"), and lead to non-optimal cheek weld. Whether most of them are taller than 1.5" or just a lot of them, they are almost all at least 1.5". 1/10" is enough difference to fuck up your cheek weld... and that's if you have perfect cheek weld with 1.4" tall irons (which I personally don't). Cheek touching the stock does not equal cheek weld. The test is to get into a stable position, close your eyes, completely relax your neck and let the stock hold up the full weight of your head, and then open your eyes. If you're looking at anything but crosshairs perfectly centered in the FOV with no black fuzziness visible, you don't have a good cheek weld. If I do that with a 1.5" tall scope mount, like the PA Extended I used to use, I am looking at the bottom half of an ocular lens, below the exit pupil with no image visible. It's not even close to a cheek weld. Even 1.4" tall flat top irons are slightly too tall for perfect cheek weld for me. Seeing how I am pretty average sized, and fit an A1/A2 perfectly, I have a hard time believing most people who use one piece mounts actually have a legit cheek weld. And lots of people shoot just fine without a good cheek weld... but I bet they could be more consistent if they had one. In any case, if I have the choice of a setup where I can get in a technically proper position versus one where I can't, I'm going with the proper one every time. There's just no reason to do otherwise. Anyhow, the dude wanted suggestion on scope mounts -- I stated what works for me and why. If you don't like it, don't use it. I seriously doubt 1/10" will fuck up anyone's cheek weld. At least we now agree that the plane is between 1.4" and 1.5" from hard data, that most fixed and folding irons fall in that range and at least one well-regarded mount does too. Those who want a lower mount should seek one, but there is a well-documented and sound reason that 1.4" to 1.5" is the most common because that is what mil-spec irons are. |
|
Quoted:
I'm no mathematician, but last I checked, 1.5" > 1.4". Recall that the whole point I have been trying to get across is that virtually all scope mounts are taller than the plane of the iron sights (1.4"), and lead to non-optimal cheek weld. Whether most of them are taller than 1.5" or just a lot of them, they are almost all at least 1.5". 1/10" is enough difference to fuck up your cheek weld... and that's if you have perfect cheek weld with 1.4" tall irons (which I personally don't). Cheek touching the stock does not equal cheek weld. The test is to get into a stable position, close your eyes, completely relax your neck and let the stock hold up the full weight of your head, and then open your eyes. If you're looking at anything but crosshairs perfectly centered in the FOV with no black fuzziness visible, you don't have a good cheek weld. If I do that with a 1.5" tall scope mount, like the PA Extended I used to use, I am looking at the bottom half of an ocular lens, below the exit pupil with no image visible. It's not even close to a cheek weld. Even 1.4" tall flat top irons are slightly too tall for perfect cheek weld for me. Seeing how I am pretty average sized, and fit an A1/A2 perfectly, I have a hard time believing most people who use one piece mounts actually have a legit cheek weld. And lots of people shoot just fine without a good cheek weld... but I bet they could be more consistent if they had one. In any case, if I have the choice of a setup where I can get in a technically proper position versus one where I can't, I'm going with the proper one every time. There's just no reason to do otherwise. Anyhow, the dude wanted suggestion on scope mounts -- I stated what works for me and why. If you don't like it, don't use it. I seriously doubt 1/10" will fuck up anyone's cheek weld. At least we now agree that the plane is between 1.4" and 1.5" from hard data, (not 1.2") that most fixed and folding irons fall in that range and at least one well-regarded mount does too. Those who want a lower mount should seek one, but there is a well-documented and sound reason that 1.4" to 1.5" is the most common because that is what mil-spec irons are. |
AR Sponsor