Opinions on AR carry handle mount optics

[JustinJ]

I personally like the heads-up position they afford, and they still allow the use of irons. The height of a carry handle mounted optic on an AR is only 1/2"-3/4" higher than what you'll find on a typical bolt rifle in terms of cheek rest to scope centerline.

Handle mounted optics don't afford a heads up position, they force it, and i fail to see how not having a cheekweld is advantageous with a magnified scope. While i don't have one in front to measure i suspect it's far more than a 1/2" from rear sight to reticle. Regardless, without a riser you can't have a handle mount and a proper cheek weld and proper shooting technique is more than just preference.

And yes, i've shot with a scope mounted carry handle. Briefly though, as i realized how poor of an option it was.

I like them on top, and I like having my irons separate rather than co-witnessed.

Cowitness isn't really an option with magnified optics to begin with but what is the reason to have an offset mini red dot and irons below your optic? Just curious.

 

[taliv]

i'm not directing this specifically at you either mach, but i will explain why i say they suck. they suck inherently because they are not attached by solid rings front and rear with 2-3 screws each. instead, they are mostly attached by a single thumb screw that uses the groove in the top of the carry handle to align it.

if a groove like that, with so many points of contact was even remotely capable of consistently holding a zero, people wouldn't have to bed their bolt-gun actions to their stocks. i guess maybe you could solve part of that problem with some marine tex bedding, unless you're trying to put a rubber-coated NCStar in there.

it sucks inherently because you have so many more pieces in play. most of these contraptions have the carry handle, a thumb-screw mounted pic rail, and then rings mounted to the rail, and then the optic in the rings. more parts in the system just gives you more places for things to come loose and move around or break.

they suck inherently because your height over bore drives the formula for your hold overs and when you increase that number, that means your holds can become challenging. if you're trying to shoot some guy in the face at 10 yards with your standard carbine sights, you have to hold the hairline. if you add another 1.5" to the 2.4" standard height over bore, then you've got to hold off the head.

we will have to agree to disagree on the head position.

 

[MachIVshooter]

Handle mounted optics don't afford a heads up position, they force it, and i fail to see how not having a cheekweld is advantageous with a magnified scope. While i don't have one in front to measure i suspect it's far more than a 1/2" from rear sight to reticle.

You missed my point. The distance from cheek rest to scope centerline on that AR-10 with 3-9x Nikon is 2-7/8". The distance from cheek rest to scope centerline on my 700 BDL with Leupold VXIII 4.5-14x using low rings is 2-1/8". That's a 3/4" difference.

It's not like I can't put my face on the stock and use the optic. It just alters the contact point.

Cowitness isn't really an option with magnified optics to begin with but what is the reason to have an offset mini red dot and irons below your optic? Just curious.

Because I had a GG&G 45* mount and an extra mini RDS sitting around.

 

[jim243]

MachIV, save your breath, there is no explaining to these internet know it alls that we have been shooting AR's longer than they have years. My first one was in 1967, a Armilite AR-15 with carry handle and it was scoped with a 3-9x40mm, used it that way for 20 years without any problems at all.

But everyone knows better, right?
Jim

 

[MachIVshooter]

if a groove like that, with so many points of contact was even remotely capable of consistently holding a zero, people wouldn't have to bed their bolt-gun actions to their stocks. i guess maybe you could solve part of that problem with some marine tex bedding, unless you're trying to put a rubber-coated NCStar in there.

That's more an issue of quality than design. A crappy A2 upper/carry handle, or a shoddy mount, yeah; maintaining zero will prove problematic. However, I have never had to re-zero when swapping between red dot and scope. I don't use cheap carry handle adapters, though; A.R.M.S. and Leupold. Obviously they reinstall consistently, or there'd be a lot more living hogs and praire rats.

it sucks inherently because you have so many more pieces in play. most of these contraptions have the carry handle, a thumb-screw mounted pic rail, and then rings mounted to the rail, and then the optic in the rings. more parts in the system just gives you more places for things to come loose and move around or break.

Same number of parts as using any riser on a flat top.

they suck inherently because your height over bore drives the formula for your hold overs and when you increase that number, that means your holds can become challenging. if you're trying to shoot some guy in the face at 10 yards with your standard carbine sights, you have to hold the hairline. if you add another 1.5" to the 2.4" standard height over bore, then you've got to hold off the head.

I don't disagree that mounting a scope as close to bore as possible is best, but the AR (and most autoloaders) are challenged in this respect anyway. And it's definitely not an additional 1.5" to 2.4" from standard A2 sight height; I measure 1.2" on the AR-10, and that still allows seeing irons through the mount under a 40mm scope.

Again, I'm not saying it's better. I'm simply saying carry handle mounts work just fine for me, have for many years, and have not been a handicap for me when hunting or when competing with guys running flat tops.

 

[MtnCreek]

Head size probably makes a difference. I had a red dot mounted on a b square carry handle mount. I had chin weld rather then cheek weld. It may have fit someone with a larger head better.

OP, if you decide to go with direct mount to the upper, there are choices in mounts that change the amount of front sight you'll see. With a 1/3 CW you won't see the front sight at magnification.

 

[Sam Cade]

B.S. They work very well.

The broken scope box at the FLMOD is full of NcStar and Barska.

 

[X-Rap]

My first AR was a Colt Hbar and I put a scope on it, shot fine off the bench but nevr felt right and was far from quick to get correct sight picture.
I still have that old rifle but it is open sights only. I would only say that in evaluating your options to take a look at the position of the carry handle sights and compare with the flat top systems. Many, not all sit at the same point as the carry handle and it is rare for them to be over 1/2 higher. I would caution against mounting as low as possible on a flat top since that forces you to low. Strive to match the carry handle height and the gun will point as natural as it was made to, the higher or lower you go from that point the more it will suck.

 

[mtrmn]

I've shot A2's with carry handle mounts for years. Still do with no problems. Once you actually shoot it enough to get used to it they are not a problem whatsoever. Is a flattop better? Yes, as long as you use a riser mount. Lotta folks have to put up with their A2's due to finances or just want to keep it original. Long as you get a decent one, the carry handle mount will serve you well.

 

[taliv]

if you add another 1.5" to the 2.4" standard height

not adding 1.5 - 2.4 to the standard height. adding 1.5 to the 2.4 standard height. iow, you have about 4" height over bore. and that doesn't just affect the holdovers on carbines. if you're trying to shoot that rifle from a bench for 100 yard groups, you now have to pay a lot more attention to keep the gun level. canting the rifle will move your bullets almost twice as much per degree.

Same number of parts as using any riser on a flat top.

i'm not advocating that either but at least risers attach with more than a thumbscrew

MachIV, save your breath, there is no explaining to these internet know it alls that we have been shooting AR's longer than they have years. My first one was in 1967, a Armilite AR-15 with carry handle and it was scoped with a 3-9x40mm, used it that way for 20 years without any problems at all.

But everyone knows better, right?
Jim

yeah, i guess we do. at least we know a lot more than we did in '67. we know the reason everyone shoots better than you do now is not because of the differences in age, but because improvements have been made since '67. some people have adapted and others haven't. there is much better hardware available today than there was in '67. and the techniques for using it are much better as well. this is true for rifles and carbines and pistols. and it's evident in both civilian competition and military operations. and yes, to a great extent, the internet has facilitated and fostered that innovation and improvement.

maybe in '67 people were innovating around the carry handle mounts because flattops didn't exist. but you won't find that today. no one is out there designing awesome new carry handle mounts. they are churning out a poorly machined piece of crap for people who don't know any better. the last decent product i saw for a carry handle was trijicon's ACOG which mounts directly to it, not requiring additional pieces. but they didn't do that because they were advocating carry handle mounts. they did it because a lot of guys in uniform were issued fixed carry handles and had no optionfor a flat top, unlike the OP in this thread who can simply unscrew his.


x-rap is right. the reason the sights are up there on an AR is not because the army required a carry handle. it's because it's a straight stock and not a drop comb. so when you use a proper cheek weld, most peoples' eyes are 2.4" above the bore. so that's where they put the sights. moving them up or down from there is worse, unless you have an unusual face.

 

[PlaneJain]

It sounds like you have a fundamental misunderstanding of optics and the front site. It will disapear with magnification or be behind a dot. Trust us it's been done before.
And the NcStar will suck.

+1

Here is my scope and the front sight post dissapears when looking through the lens. And yes, there are more threads on AR-15 forums about how crappy NCsta, Barska and the likes do suck. Do a google search and compare pros and cons for yourself.

 

[MachIVshooter]

no one is out there designing awesome new carry handle mounts. they are churning out a poorly machined piece of crap for people who don't know any better.

There isn't much room for innovation there, so I don't know what kind of "awesome new mount" we could possibly see. All you can really do with it is add more pieces of rail, and I do agree that the triple rail and Z-rail mounts are generally imported junk.

I certainly wouldn't call the A.R.M.S. or Leupold mounts "poorly machined pieces of crap", though.

i'm not advocating that either but at least risers attach with more than a thumbscrew

In point of fact, many do attach with one or two thumbscrews.

The A.R.M.S. mount uses a thumb screw with holes, so you can crank it down with a hex key or anything else that fits in them.



It's a quality mount, it fits tightly, and it re-installs with repeatability, just as good as any QD mount I've used. You just have to spend a bit more than you will for NCstar or some other piece of cast or plastic junk.

If I'm after real precision, I don't use QD mounts of any kind, or even Weaver/picatinny/STANAG type where it can be avoided. I use one or two piece steel mounts, with steel rings that are lapped, and I don't remove the scope.

Nonetheless, both of my A2 ARs have had the scopes swapped with red dots myriad times (optics stay on the carry handle mounts), and they are always on to the extent that the ~1.25 MOA capability of those guns doesn't reflect any change in POI. I use the M15 with a Redfield 3-9x on praire rats to 200 yards, and the Nikon on the AR-10 always puts a bullet where I want it on the hogs.

 

[Sam Cade]

The A.R.M.S. mount uses a thumb screw with holes

Dick Swan is a thumbscrew with holes.

 

[ole farmerbuck]

My 1st AR (still have it) has a permanent carry handle. I installed probably a cheap mount with one thumb screw and have never had any trouble with it whatsoever. Holds zero just fine. Just my 3 cents worth.

 

[MachIVshooter]

Dick Swan is a thumbscrew with holes.

Haha. Never said I cared for the owner, but they do make quality (if not a bit overpriced) mounts.

In my defense, I bought that mount years ago and knew nothing of Dick's shenanigans. When I learned, I stuck to the other two names I buy, Leupold and Weaver.

 

[Warp]

Seriously, listen to the guys explaining very clearly and concisely why mounting your optic on top of the carry handle pretty much sucks.

Take the carry handle off and mount a scope on the receiver with a good quick release mount. Then put a backup rear sight behind that.

My 6920 with 1-4 scope in a quick release mount, backed by iron sights. Be warned, the scope, mount, and rear sight that I have on mine, purchased new, will run in the ballpark of $1,100+. Good stuff gets expensive fast.

 

[Wertmaniac]

Alright I have heard enough,may the name ncstar never cross these lips again I'm just gonna have to pony up the bucks and do it right.

 

[jim243]

yeah, i guess we do. at least we know a lot more than we did in '67. we know the reason everyone shoots better than you do now is not because of the differences in age, but because improvements have been made since '67. some people have adapted and others haven't. there is much better hardware available today than there was in '67.

Taliv, I really don't think you do.

Jim

100 yards 243 Savage Model 10 NcStar Scope


100 Yards 5 shot group 270 Savage Model 110 NcStar Scope


This must have been one of those bad days at the range. This was sighting in one of those scopes you think sucks.

 

[Warp]

Even a cheap optic that sucks can do its job sitting on a bench for a day.

 

[NeuseRvrRat]

well now i'm really convinced. gonna go sell my leupolds, vortexes, nikons, and swarovskis and buy a stack of NCStars!

 

[madcratebuilder]

My 1st AR (still have it) has a permanent carry handle. I installed probably a cheap mount with one thumb screw and have never had any trouble with it whatsoever. Holds zero just fine. Just my 3 cents worth.

+1

My A1 with a old Colt scope has severed very well for the past 15 years.


Here's a Hako (they made the Colt) on a detachable carry handle.



Can't comment on anything from PRC.

 

[Jeff White]

In addition to the other reasons already posted as to why carry handle mounted optics aren't the best option I'm going to add the following.

The 6920 comes with a removable carry handle. Mounting optics on it is problematic because you have added two more attachments that must remain tight for your optic to maintain zero.

 

[X-Rap]

I wonder if the opinions of carry handle optics mounts would be the same for mounting a scope twice as high as required on a 700 Rem or 70 Win?

 

[mtrmn]

Well, OP, if you have any other questions ask freely. I'm sure all us folks here can gladly give clear, concise answers without any of the bickering, backstabbing and general snobbishness you see on all those other sites.

 

[jim243]

Even a cheap optic that sucks can do its job sitting on a bench for a day.

Yep, I benchrest shoot and they have held their zero for over 5 years now. My rule of thumb is no more than 30% of the cost of the rifle for a scope. Now if you were going to drop 5 grand on a guided hunt, then I could see spending $500 to $800 for a scope.

Just my two cents, MTRMN right on, if three of us get on a thread there ends up being 5 opinions. (LOL)
Jim