AR's were not meant to be hunting rifles....

[bluedsteel]

Redneck2;

Are those Badger Ordnance mounts and rings? I am looking to set up an AR in the configuration you have, with the same Leupold Scope as well...

Thanks.

bluedsteel

 

[countryrebel]

Who said they are not meant to be hunting rifles?You cant just put a bunch of crap on your ifle and expect it to work just for you.Eye relief wrong you said?maybe its the scope you picked?

 

[browningguy]

For whoever asked about the .50 Beowulf, it's essentially a 45-70 in an AR. Mine shoots 325 gr. JHP's at 1900 FPS. Good enough for about anything in the continental US out to 100 yards. It does drop fast after that.

 

[walking arsenal]

(trying this quick reply thingy)

No, see, the problem isn't the rifle it's you, your all outa wack.

My bet is your built too much like a normal person. See, if you dislocate your right shoulder and let it heal with out medical help then get all hunchy and stuff, move your nose a little to the left with an improper cheek weld on a large bore rifle and then lop off a 1/4 inch of your trigger finger then wham! The AR will fit you just fine.


Or you could not put optics on the thing like the good lord intended.

 

[tasco 74]

i'm thinkin a flat top ar would make a great hunting rifle for me.... I LOVE THE PRICE IN THAT OLD ADD!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!! under $200

 

[Rembrandt]

....Dude...you're making it way too complicated.....You need to re-think your mounts and/or scope.....This is a Leupold 6.5x20x44 on my Bushie Varminter.

Redneck2, I'm glad your rifle works for you, but it's a good example of what fits one person doesn't work for all. I have the same rifle and same scope. Looking at yours it appears the eyepiece is set back over the stock about 1.5" or more. Front ring is closer to the turret knobs than to the bell, that's what I don't want. (Nice pic)

For a proper fit I need a longer stock (fixed that with thicker butt pad), eyepiece needs to be even with the front of the stock. To get the scope that far forward (on flat tops), the front ring ends up supporting the scope in front of/against the turret knob. Just my personal preference, I don't care for that much of the scope tube to hang out over the handguard un-supported.

Many of the aftermarket combo (fixed ring/base) mounts work fine for shorter scopes, but they don't get the ring spacing correct for longer scope tubes.

 

[HGUNHNTR]

Rembrandt, it sounds like you may be experiencing some similar issues to what I had when I started my black rifle fetish. First off it is better to go with a flat top upper if you are trying to mount a scope. Yes, mounting a scope on a carry handle presents all kinds of problems, and never really feels right. Get a good quality flat top, and follow the excellent advice offered by the other THR's.
Best of luck

 

[redneck2]

Looking at yours it appears the eyepiece is set back over the stock about 1.5" or more. Front ring is closer to the turret knobs than to the bell, that's what I don't want.

So, if I understand, you don't want it to protrude past the rear of the receiver, nor very far in front. It sounds like you're trying to get a 12" long scope to fit over a 6" long receiver. You're gonna run out of room on the front or rear, particularly with this long of optics.

Maybe your build is way different than typical. I'm 5'7", my son-in-law is about 6' and it works for us.

Redneck2;

Are those Badger Ordnance mounts and rings? I am looking to set up an AR in the configuration you have, with the same Leupold Scope as well...

Don't know the brand. They have a diamond with "yHm" in the middle. They were on it when I got it.

 

[Bartholomew Roberts]

Don't know the brand. They have a diamond with "yHm" in the middle.

That is Yankee Hill Machining. They do a lot of work for Bushmaster (in fact, you'll notice a lot of Bushmaster upper receivers with a "Y" on the back of the rear takedown lug.

 

[plexreticle]

Light weight and chambered in an almost perfect varmint round.

I think it's an excellent hunting rifle.

 

[Shear_stress]

I LOVE THE PRICE IN THAT OLD ADD!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!! under $200

Yeah, but that was 44 years ago. $189.50 in 1963 dollars is $1220.35 in 2006 dollars.