FNAR w/ ACOG

[coyote315]

Gentlemen; for your consideration:
Do you think the comb height of an FNAR will preclude using a 4 or 5x acog in the standard ar15 height?
I know the 6x acog machine gun sights are slung half an inch lower, however they're a thousand bucks more.
THoughts?

 

[Z-Michigan]

It will be roughly 1/4" higher than what I consider ideal, but will be workable, especially if you install the highest comb-piece that comes with the rifle.

That's near the last optic I would put on the FNAR though. No need for a super tough, relatively small one-trick pony on a rifle that isn't as tough, is not small or light, and is capable of being useful out to 1000 yards with the right ammo and scope. The cost of a 4x ACOG ($1000+) will open the door to a LOT of really nice variable scopes that would be better suited to the FNAR. In case it's not obvious, I have an FNAR. Mine currently wears a Weaver Tactical 3-15x50, which I consider a good fit. I think at least 10x makes sense, and up to 20-25x wouldn't be unreasonable if you want to do some longer distance shooting.

 

[coyote315]

I appreciate your response. I'll throw up a little more information:
This rifle will be used for primarily deer during day and pigs and coyotes 24hrs... so I need something compatible w/ my PVS 14. i have found illuminated reticals are not essential, but low power works best and fastest so I'd like to stick with the 4x- 6x range. I don't think I will be shooting small targets past 600 yards with this rifle. As for toughness, that is something i value highly: i HATE not trusting my scope if I slip in the snow or the 4 wheeler ride in is too rough. One piece tubes and solid mounts go a long way for my applications. Actually, right now I'm looking at civilian POSP variants; the last PSO I had was built like a tank.

 

[Z-Michigan]

A couple thoughts:

1) I've had an ACOG and don't love the way its illumination works. Be sure you've tried one in a range of conditions before you buy. IMHO it's a largely obsolete technology now that electronics are reliable. Note that even Trijicon is offering battery-electric illumination in some models. Other than the illumination, it was certainly a small and rugged optic.

2) On my FNAR the picatinny rail is bent upward right at the barrel-receiver junction. I get around this by mounting the front rings behind that, so that the rail is flat/straight from front ring to rear ring. I mention this because I don't know if a night vision device mounted on the rail in line with the scope is going to line up. Check the flatness/straightness of your rail before going down this path. If I were setting up a rifle for NV use it would be a monolithic design, such as the SCAR or any monolithic AR upper.

3) I understand your plans better now, but would still consider variables. There are some very tough moderate power variables - one I would look at is the SWFA SS 3-9x42, which is only $599, has a first focal reticle and three heavy posts to help at night. You can get illumination in the Vortex Viper PST 2.5-10x32, for around $700 (best price), which is another good scope.

4) I'm not down on the FNAR - I'm keeping mine and enjoy shooting it - but I would consider any of the above scopes as tough as the FNAR, and if I wanted a really, really tough setup it would not start with the FNAR, but something more like a Colt 901 or LMT MWS.

 

[coyote315]

Will check out the SWFA... I liked the ACOG cuz it always held up when i needed it at work, but the price tag when it's not Uncle Sam buying it is scary.
As for the FN, curious what you don't like about it? I swapped out my ar15ish stock for some nice oiled wood; for the same reasons I liked the ACOG i'm trying to get away from the AR feel, don't want thinking about the bad old days ruining my hunting times. I felt like the FNAR was tougher than anything I plan to throw at it. Of course, your bent rail mount makes me curious if yours is factory defective; that's not proper!

 

[Z-Michigan]

Again, I like my FNAR, but I recognize that it's a moderately toughened/improved version of a civilian hunting rifle. I'm very happy with the low recoil and accuracy, and the ergonomics are pretty good, but it just doesn't have the "tough as nails" feel of a good military-derived rifle.

Check your picatinny rail for flatness/straightness and let me know what you find. Look at the barrel-receiver junction and how the rail is supposed to fit over that area, and you'll see the potential for misalignment causing the rail to be out of perfectly true. From what I've read many of these rifles have some issue with the rail, and people who are focused on accuracy will often remove and bed the rail (like you would a scope mount on a bolt-action rifle). Mine is very accurate with the scope mounted as described.

 

[coyote315]

I'll measure that out; right now I am far removed from it but I shall be reunited this weekend. I hadn't used the front few inches for anything more than the offset light mount for the surefire, so i may have overlooked it. Bedding the mount would be a good solution though.
I'd agree, it's a sport rifle. I wouldn't want to bet my life for it surviving a year in a war zone unless I had to.

 

[coyote315]

checked my rail- it's square to my eye and also my calipers and level. I think it's a newer rifle, maybe they fixed their production issues.

 

[Z-Michigan]

Great. Mine is somewhat older production.

 

[coyote315]

wonder if you send it back they'll fix it then? or maybe replace it!