NObody using convential scope rings anymore?

[jayjaypunisher]

what i'd like to hear from all you counter-culture types who are poo-pooing the de facto standard, is how exactly you plan to remove this optic you've secured with $20 steel rings when it breaks, so you can use your BUIS?


btw, jayjay, ARMS stinks. do a search if you're not familiar with their shenanigans.

not saying they don't but i'm not tracking any "shenanigans", can you steer me in a little closer direction?

and also every deployment kit we have has a 1/2 inch wrench for those "depolyable" types and my range bag has a small set of tools including a 1/2 inch wrench when not playing real world

 

[bkjeffrey]

taliv, excuse me if I dont understnad the wording in your post. What exctly were you trying to say there? You are or are not a propoent of standard scope rings?

 

[R.W.Dale]

what i'd like to hear from all you counter-culture types who are poo-pooing the de facto standard, is how exactly you plan to remove this optic you've secured with $20 steel rings when it breaks, so you can use your BUIS?


btw, jayjay, ARMS stinks. do a search if you're not familiar with their shenanigans.

Ahem I use $80 rings thank you


Anyway when I have an optic go belly up I say darn!, pack the rifle in question up with the rest of my range kit go home and get a diffrent rifle.

I'm vastly more worried about being struck by lightning and attacked by a polar bear in the same day than I am about being left high and dry in a "situation" by a defunct optic.

In fact all my guns with optics stay locked up in the safe. Any social event I find myself in can be taken care of with a trusty Sigma and 15rds of 9mm.

You fellas take this stuff waaaaay too seriously sometimes.

 

[Zak Smith]

Here's the deal on magnified optics mounting on the AR platform:

Most experienced AR-15 shooters end up with a head position that places their nose somewhere between touching the charging handle or approx 1" back from it. I could provide dozens of examples in photographs, but I'll include just three at the bottom of this post.

With a nose to charging handle (NTCH) head position, the average person has approx 1.5" distance from their eye to the tip of their nose, IE, at the charging handle. So if you have an optic with 2.4-2.5" of eye relief, such as the TA11 ACOG (pictured below on the tan rifle), the ocular lens of the optic needs to be approx 1" forward of the charging handle (ie rear end of the receiver). So the eye relief of the optic is distributed with approx 1.5" rear of the receiver and 1" forward of the receiver.

This is why when the TA31/01 ACOGs - with 1.5" of eye relief - are mounted for a similar head position, their ocular lenses are about even with the rear of the receiver.

But most magnified optics have eye relief in the 3.5-4.5" range. The S&B Short Dot pictured below (the last photo) has eye relief at least 3.5". Consequently, you can see that the shooter has it mounted about another 1" forward of where I have my TA11 ACOG mounted (ie, approx 2" forward of the CH) to get proper eye relief. He is shooting exactly NTCH just like I am on the tan rifle. To accomplish this, he is using the LaRue EER mount.

Now there are cheaper options for a cantilevered scope mount compared to the LaRue. ArmaLite has had a cheap 30mm cantilever mount for years, and although it was never as popular as the LaRue SPR, it's a lot cheaper. However, LaRue mounts simply work very well, and all the "tacti-cool" whining aside, if you can afford one it's simply the best way to mount an optic on the AR-15 platform and will prevent mount-related issues down the road.

 

[Tirod]

And now the contrary point of view: Separate rings/mounts are what is wrong.

Rings came into use because scope makers needed a way to put their products on any and every rifle out there to make a sale. I've got a Rem 700 with scope - special little mounts for the prepped holes on the receiver, rings, and the scope all fit nicely. Since it's a .30-06, if I were to move it to a short action or even a side mount on a lever, something could be done, probably using the same rings. They are convenient for that.

On a AR with a high sight line and a picitinny rail? Most military optics have integrated mounts - Aimpoints and Acogs don't need rings. It's when a conventional scope is mounted that the problem crops up. A long scope that has required eye relief and that uses rings will need a rail mount to accomodate it.

If the AR in question is being used for prairie dog shooting, antelope, or deer hunting across bean fields, it makes some sense. If it's precision shooting at distance, it's almost more important than the ammo.

But, the AR in 5.56 is really not that much of a hunter's best choice at long ranges that need a scope. It's better at lever action ranges - within 200m, especially when hunting rough terrain or woodlands. That's red dot or iron sight usage, scopes not needed.

I don't see mounting a big ol' sniper scope on a poodle shooter as the best application of either technology. It's sure done a lot, tho.

My close in guns use iron sights and red dots, the long range gun a scope, and I try to go where the gun shoots better, rather than force myself to use something cranked up to 9 power in woods I can barely see 50m. There are those who do that, tho.

Rings on an AR? Makes as much sense as an expensive quick detach mount. Fine for someone who owns a case full of optics, like Uncle Sam, not so much for the average hunter. I don't have the budget for half a dozen different toys.

 

[taliv]

jayjay, really, any search on 'ARMS' here or at arfcom, m4c, lf, etc will tell you more than you wanted to know, but here's a relatively tame link http://thehighroad.org/showthread.php?t=493791

taliv, excuse me if I dont understnad the wording in your post. What exctly were you trying to say there? You are or are not a propoent of standard scope rings?

for people like krochus, who only shoot off a bench and keep more tools in their range bag than i have in my garage, standard rings are a better solution.

for people who walk around and do practical shooting and don't want their day (hunting trip, match, whatever) to be over because they got mud all over their lens, back up irons are a great idea.


my comment really is that the above seems so obvious that it seems almost silly to discuss it. I don't understand why some shooters from one group feel the need to continuously dog shooters from the other group, but I'm developing a profound lack of respect for some of these people.

 

[Slamfire]

How close to original zero to you get when you reattach a scope using one of these Quick Detachable mounts?

I would like to be able to swap off scopes between rifles if I could. A Leupold target scope is $800.00. Would be great if I could use it on multiple rifles and all I had to do was dial in the elevation and windage and not worry about misalignment.

Personally, I don't like having a scope permanently attached to a rifle. The way my equipment gets bashed in transport going to rifle matches, I would prefer to dismount a scope, put it in a storage container away from all my heavy gear.

 

[taliv]

anyone who shoots HP knows zeros are a funny thing that can change a wee bit even using built-in iron sights.

my experience with the larue (I think I have about 6 of them, and regularly detach 3 of them for storage and transport, and only 2 of those are sub-MOA rifles) is less than 1 MOA, assuming it's properly adjusted.

i'm saying, i think it can change a very tiny amount, but it's good enough in each case for what i'm using the gun for.

 

[jayjaypunisher]

TALIV
yeah as soon as I posted that reply I did the research, very interesting! I was not aware of any of that nonsesne, Ive been in and out of the country for the past couple years and at times nowhere NEAR any relevant news let alone Computers, but Sure glad I know now. I bought the few pieces I own of theirs more than 2 years ago, maybe they'll make good catfish weights.

back to point, when I'm not here with HADJ i shoot action, 3 gun, some IDPA, startin IPSC and have used both setups but would agree that for action use set rings is probably not the way to go. Again I think both ways are fine depending on the APPLICATION at hand and the scope used

 

[jayjaypunisher]

I TOTALLY agree, "zero's are NEVER complete" an PSG once told me and it's stuck with me

 

[Slamfire]

anyone who shoots HP knows zeros are a funny thing that can change a wee bit even using built-in iron sights.

Zero's change with different bullets, different powder, primer changes, brass changes, hot versus cold, but mostly due to positional changes.

And then there is the wind......:banghead:

That's why we get sighters in Highpower. Unless you are shooting leg matches, it is OK to be off a click or two on your sighting shots. But when you are off by feet, you will not get the mess sorted out with only one remaining sighting shot.

Which is why Long Range shooters get unlimited sighters, they just have to finish within 20 minutes.

Or the buggers would take all day before their first shot for record.

 

[R.W.Dale]

for people like krochus, who only shoot off a bench and keep more tools in their range bag than i have in my garage, standard rings are a better solution.

for people who walk around and do practical shooting and don't want their day (hunting trip, match, whatever) to be over because they got mud all over their lens, back up irons are a great idea.

Look I'm going to strive to keep this high road.

You can loose all respect for folks like me you want but some of the flak you fellas catch isn't completely undeserving. Especially when folks make posts that basically say that YOU WILL DIE if you don't have X piece of equipment. It makes me wonder how many of you fellas have a fire extinguisher in the kitchen, ALWAYS wear a seatbelt and eat the healthiest foods things that will kill you in the 21'st century long before the lack of a BUIS will. If everybody (both sides) would tone down the rhetoric a bit a lot more education would come fourth with a lot less emotion.

On the "practical shooting angle" Most shooters in this country DON'T live in the desert southwest or have access to a premier shooting facility where you can run around and shoot in a bunch of directions. For us you square up to the firing line and send lead downrange and that's it. Now I can see how distance to the range would factor in. If you drive 120 miles to go shoot then yes a backup isn't a bad notion.


Now as to the hunting aspect the same reasoning applies to a BUIS as see thru rings. Mud can be wiped away, But unless the reticle falls out of your optic chances are you're NOT going to know anythings amiss till you shoot at an animal and miss or make a very bad hit. At which point your hunt is already ruined. A backup sight only accounts for one part of a firearm that can put said rifle out of service. For me if the trip is very far I bring two rifles and in the process have a backup everything not just the sights.

 

[Bullnettles]

Didn't even realize there was this much of a debate on perma-rings and QD. Wow. For what it's worth, I will be setting up a rifle that can do much better than I can at the moment, and I will be using permenant rings. I see it as BUIS are good for my SHTF rifle, but for long distance (needing magnifier), I don't want the BU sights. If my scope fails, then let the deer go. If I'm EVER in combat, which I hope to never be, quite honestly, I will have my main gun with red dot and buis and a sidearm. I may not have added anything to forming a solution to this question, but maybe what I'll be doing and my reasoning may help someone, I don't know.

 

[Zak Smith]

Tirod,

There are roughly well-established applications for a carbine for both military use and sporting use. The following article describes them in a martial/competition context but the sporting applications of each should be pretty obvious. Like it or not, the Type III application is best served by conventional-style long-range scopes (however the ideal ones for the AR platform are scaled down a bit), and those are currently based on round tubes. So we need a way to mount them.


article | Fighting Carbine Optics

One obvious application of the "poodle shooter" is to shoot prairie dogs, which are relatively small and are often shot at hundreds of yards.

How close to original zero to you get when you reattach a scope using one of these Quick Detachable mounts?

My experience with the LaRue mounts is that when I remove and replace them, they are within 0.5 MOA of the original POI, more often the same POI as far as I can tell. For some time I had three optics I used regularly for 3-Gun competition, all in LaRue mounts, and I would swap them on match morning. Never had a problem and it worked great.

The point of my earlier post was that framing the question as a "ZOMG I NEED BACK UP IRON SIGHTS FOR ZOMBIES" is misplaced. Proper optic position to set the eye relief based on a good shooting position is the most important thing, having a solid mount that doesn't move or shift zero is second, and being able to remove and replace it - for any administrative reason - without requiring a re-zero is third. LaRue mounts are simply very good and do those three things better than virtually every mount out there, averaged over the entire product line.

 

[bkjeffrey]

I guess my original request for information was more or less about scope holding capabilities. I think a good set of steel rings, that have been properley installed and lapped, are perfectley capable of keeping the scope secured and centered and zeroed.

I dont have any problems maintaining a proper cheek weld and sight picture with my set up (PRS stock, Leupold Mark AR scope and Smith Enteprises steel rings).

I was wondering if the newer one piece QD mounts were any better at holding the scope in place during firing.

This rifle has irons, but is set up for 300-500 yard plinking, Ill never need the Irons.

I have another AR with an Aimpoint Comp M2 sitting in a QD mount. It co-witnesses with my irons.

BUT, in either case I have no need for forward mounting of either optic, they both work just fine sitting on the upper recievers strip of p-tinney rail.

Ill keep what Ive got, it works just fine. The only reason I could forsee having to modify my long range AR's set up would be to get a 15 MOA rail for more elevation.

 

[bkjeffrey]

ZAK, the guys in the pics that are using a forward positioning mount for their scopes could simply move the scope to the rear a bit (conventional mounting) and extend their butt stocks to obtain their eye relief. Why not?

 

[Zak Smith]

Because it will compromise the mechanics and geometry of the human-machine interface. To put it simply, the person will be dramatically less able to operate the rifle effectively. To make a driving analogy: it's the same reason a 4'6" person puts the driver's seat all the way forward so he can reach the pedals instead of wearing boots with 12" riser soles.

And conventional mounting wouldn't move them to the rear "a bit". If those two S&B Short Dot scopes were mounted in a conventional manner (one ring each side of turrets), the ocular housing would be roughly 3 or 4 inches to the rear where it is pictured, which would require another 3-4" of LOP. You can't change the LOP 3-4 from ideal mechanical position and not have it screw things up pretty drastically.

 

[raz-0]

ZAK, the guys in the pics that are using a forward positioning mount for their scopes could simply move the scope to the rear a bit (conventional mounting) and extend their butt stocks to obtain their eye relief. Why not?

Changing the length of the stock changes length of pull. That does two things, change ergonomics and change the size of the rifle. If I NEED a carbine due to space constraints, and I suddenly make it 4" longer, I've done a pretty stupid thing. I'm 6'7", I shoot my AR-15 with an a-2 length stock with an extension to get comfortable, and I'm STILL nose to charging handle. Even if i weren't, I still only get about 2" of eye relief added, and I'm close to a 17" length of pull. It's comfy, but I'm past the 98th percentile for north america. Add 2 more inches of legth, and even I would start finding it awkward.

Zak is very right about the whole scope thing, except he left a couple key bits out.

1) We are only starting to get cheaper cantilever mounts with enough offset on the market. Regardless of whether you NEED QD mounts, for quite some time the difference between a cobbled together mount and a good QD mount was $80-90. For that $80-90 you got better quality, known, consistent clearances, and a good repeatable QD mount. You don't NEED them, but it simply wasn't worth it to cheap out. ((Also the cheap armalite canitlevers will move things out enough on an AR-10 with it's longer receiver, but not on an ar-15 with a LOT of the 1-X power scopes. The burris pepr is cheap and much closer to getting the job done on an ar-15. It's only been on the market for about a year.)

2) Along with rifle size goes rifle weight. Besides the size aspect, 4" of cantilever mount weighs less than 4" of stock most of the time. When you are running and gunning, you don't necessarily want to carry any more around than you have to. (some do, a lot don't).

If you are just going to be plinking from a sitting position like at a lot of rifle ranges with benches. Then no, most of this doesn't matter. Skoot your head back a bit, and you are probably ok enough. Switch between standing and prone, and it will start becoming a PITA getting a consistent cheek weld.

 

[Zak Smith]

Here's the difference just about 1.5" makes in terms of ocular position, with the same optic (a TA11 in this case)



Guess which guy is shooting faster and more accurately.

Look at the relationship between shooter and rifle, hands and controls, and overall geometry of the shooting position.

 

[jayjaypunisher]

Here's the difference just about 1.5" makes in terms of ocular position, with the same optic (a TA11 in this case)



Guess which guy is shooting faster and more accurately.

Look at the relationship between shooter and rifle, hands and controls, and overall geometry of the shooting position.

the guy thats a better shooter, more experienced, and knows his kit better, plain and simple!

 

[Zak Smith]

the guy thats a better shooter, more experienced, and knows his kit better, plain and simple!

The answers to both are one and the same, and not coincidentally.

 

[JDGray]

Don't pooh-pooh LaRue, for building a great scope mount for an AR, or the people that like them or need them, military or civilian! The base is awesome, zeros back up, allows me to use a scope on 2 ARs. Its America, were we can do it if we want too! I'm a Diesel Mechanic, and have $40,000 dollars worth of Snap-on tools. Are they nessesary? No, do I like nice stuff? heck yeah! Will Craftsman work, yeah, but you can tell they are inferior If you can afford it, get it!

On the flip side, my Savage 10 FP sports a $900 Leupold, in a very sturdy set of Warne Maxima rings, that cost me $40

Don't know how conventional the Warns are, as they are a PITA to install!

 

[Kentucky]

the guy thats a better shooter, more experienced, and knows his kit better, plain and simple!
The answers to both are one and the same, and not coincidentally.

Rack.

I see here another thread where a certain group has decided that since "good enough" is good enough for them, it is good enough for everyone else as well. Nevermind that others may have different needs and uses for their equipment, or use it harder or in more varied ways. If you are doing are your shooting on a square range, or from a bench with a bunch of tools beside you, or are using a firearm only for hunting, then "good enough" is good enough. If you have more varied applications for your firearm, then it might not be.

I don't really have much interest in benchrest shooting, so I don't pay much attention to what the knowledgeable guys in that field are using. I am very interested in practical shooting as it applies to fighting with a weapon, and I pay close attention to what guys like Zak, Taliv, Pat, and others have to say, and I research what works for them. I then tend to emulate what they use equipment-wise as it fits my needs. Not because I want to impress my friends by being a level 12 Ninja, but because I have a limited amount of time and money and I would rather be able to learn from the experience of someone else who has spent that time and money and not have to waste my own figuring it out. I am 25 years old and I see no reason not to learn from others experience and take advantage of it for myself, it puts me that much farther ahead of the curve.

I don't smoke, drink, or gamble, and I try not to waste much of my money on stupid crap. Part of the reason is so that I can afford to buy the best equipment available for something I feel is important, and afford the training to learn how to best use it as well. I guess some people are threatened by the fact that there are better alternatives than what they are using, even if their needs don't require those alternatives.

Why some folks feel the need to drag others down to their level is beyond me. I recognize it is basic human nature for many, but it is not a desirable trait.

 

[ArmedBear]

More or less the only way to keep the AR from feeling really awkward is to put your face right behind the upper receiver. That's one reason the standard M4 buttstock design is bass-ackwards, in my opinion.

With standard aperture sights, this works fine. With a scope, you'll end up too close to the eyepiece.

IME a quality set of conventional rings will return to zero, with the same consistency and accuracy as Zak described. However, these aren't particularly cheap, either, and they don't provide the right eye relief on an AR.

Bear in mind that the AR platform was designed like this:


Anything different has been shoehorned onto the same receiver, which was never meant to be a mounting platform for a scope. You can expect that you will need some special parts to adapt disparate components. All told, the AR has proven to be ridiculously versatile, with the right add-ons. That also means that it can turn into one hell of a financial rat hole, if you aren't careful.

Also: competitions called "practical shooting" are not the same thing as practical shooting. What's practical for any individual or application may vary. My ARs are pretty spartan; I have more money in a .22 pistol, among other things. That's because I don't compete with the ARs at present, and I don't use them for hunting, either. That .22 pistol is for match shooting, which has improved my overall pistol-shooting ability because it's led me to practice a lot and pay close attention to improvement -- but the pistol, itself, isn't so practical at this point, except for target matches.

Only you can decide what the best choice is, for you. OTOH, while "what's best" can vary a lot, there usually are some universal "worsts", and it's a good idea to avoid them.

 

[Tirod]

Thanks Zak for the link.

I expressed a view I hoped was appropriately titled. No doubt if I ever have the chance to prairie dog shoot, a ring mounted scope on an AR would be high on my list of available choices. The utility of rings on long tube scopes isn't an issue for me, I can't imagine any better way to do it.

My concern is that there doesn't seem to be a better way yet to accommodate various optics on the AR without a pick and chose menu of bits and pieces, some of which are of dubious construction. Fortunately for my use I can simply restrict my optic choice to one with an integral mount. A lot of that ready availability is due to the market creating enough demand for the application.

Perhaps scope mounts on AR's will settle into a more optimum configuration to allow a single unitized mount for them. It may still need pieces - different tube sizes, ring placement, eye relief and height adjustment don't make it easy. I wouldn't dare characterize it as a "universal" scope mount.

A rail friendly system of integrated components would be preferable as a one kit solution to the problem. I guess a picture of the components could easily turn out to look like the SOPMOD Lego poster.

For all I know Larue could be working on it.