LMT MWS ring size for 42 optic bell size ?

[m4hk33]

IMO, 1.4 to 1.5 is too high for a large frame AR,

I am running a Mk6 3-18x44 and I am running 1.25 Seekins rings nice low mount, great in the prone or off the bench, could not get a consistent sight picture with Leupold 1.4's

badger has a nice 1.3 unimount and some 1.35 rings

im sure that there are others out there but those have worked with a 34mm scope with a 44mm bell

1.4


1.3

[Boba Fett v2]

Pappabear, this is Blackfoot 7, Roger I've got an S&B 4-16x42 PM II wrapped up in a 20 MOA Spuhr 4602 mount. This is about as low as I wanted to go in order to maintain the lowest possible profile which still allowed for comfortable (to me) head positioning and consistent cheek weld.

[Pappabear]

Pappabear, this is Blackfoot 7, Roger I've got an S&B 4-16x42 PM II wrapped up in a 20 MOA Spuhr 4602 mount. This is about as low as I wanted to go in order to maintain the lowest possible profile which still allowed for comfortable (to me) head positioning and consistent cheek weld.

That looks very sharp. I broke down and bought a Geiselle 20 MOA mount to get the extra 20. I have not shot it yet. I may get a PRS2 if I need the cheek weld.

I like your set up.

PB

[Boba Fett v2]

That looks very sharp. I broke down and bought a Geiselle 20 MOA mount to get the extra 20. I have not shot it yet. I may get a PRS2 if I need the cheek weld.

I like your set up.

PB

Pappabear, I came back to this thread and it got me thinking about my previous set-up. Curiosity got the best of me and I ended up ordering a 20 MOA Spuhr SP-4601 to see how the height over bore compared to the SP-4602 I was running. I figured worse case if it didn't work out like I had hoped then I could at least return it and go back to the original configuration. I'm happy to report that the SP-4601, which has a height of 1.18" (as opposed to the SP-4602 at 1.5"), brings the scope down to where the bottom of the bell housing sits a 1/4 inch above the rail. While the scope does sit lower overall, I found that the cheek weld and head positioning was more than adequate and still quite comfortable while seated or laying in the prone (see pics for visual reference). I'm not sure what you ultimately decided to go with, but I felt I owed you some feedback based on my experience with the new mount so far.

ETA: I see that you went with the Geissele. Nevertheless, I hope you find this information useful should you decide to give the Spuhr mount a try.



A better view of the gap between the bell housing and the rail:

[Pappabear]

Boba,

That set up looks very good. I'm glad it worked out for you. I bought a Geissele 20moa mount that is 1.54 high. I have a bowling ball for a head, so I was fine on head alignment.

On my AR15 SPR I have a 20 moa Nightforce mount and have a Luth AR stock with cheek riser on it. I had to remove the cheek riser to get my eyes down.

I think it's very important to play with mounts and stocks to get a perfectly natural point of aim so you can relax and send rounds down range. It's a big deal and worth the extra effort IMHO.

Congrats on your rig.

PB

[KalashniKEV]

Whoa!

1) Is it possible to see out of that thing without adopting side-of-the-head weld?

2) What is the eyebox on that optic like? It might just be the cap, but it would appear that your eye would have to be closer to the buttplate than the CH...

[Pappabear]

Whoa!

1) Is it possible to see out of that thing without adopting side-of-the-head weld?

2) What is the eyebox on that optic like? It might just be the cap, but it would appear that your eye would have to be closer to the buttplate than the CH...

I dont understand side of head weld?

PB

[KalashniKEV]

I dont understand side of head weld?

PB

If the shooter takes up a good position, with the optic mounted that low, the eye line will be about level with the writing on the top turret.

The facial cheek bone will not allow the eye to get that low unless the bone is in line alongside the RE instead of on top. You would then roll your skull to get your eye centered in in line with the optic and you would have... side-of-the-head weld.

As for the placement so far to the rear, either:

1) The eyebox is normal, as I assume it to be, and you'd have your head waaaaay far back on the stock.
2) They eyebox is extremely forgiving (like an ACOG is)... in which case get ready to kiss it!

[Boba Fett v2]

Whoa!

1) Is it possible to see out of that thing without adopting side-of-the-head weld?

2) What is the eyebox on that optic like? It might just be the cap, but it would appear that your eye would have to be closer to the buttplate than the CH...

1) Absolutely. If it didn't work I wouldn't have recommended it. I have a medium to large sized head (at least according to my lid size when I was in the service). At first I thought that there would might be an awkward head positioning due to such a low profile, but I'm able to get a good cheek weld and retain good body positioning without craning my neck uncomfortably. Sight picture is just as good as it was when it was sitting at 1.5" above bore.

2) The optic has good eye-relief at 3.5". The Tenebraex cover does give the illusion that the eyepiece is further back than it actually is, but the end of the eye-piece actually resides a little past the charging handle and just slightly above the QD end plate. I'm running a Magpul Enhanced RE, which has a gazillion adjustments (10 positions I believe). I run mine at position 5 (position 4 if kitted up).

[Boba Fett v2]

If the shooter takes up a good position, with the optic mounted that low, the eye line will be about level with the writing on the top turret. I'm taking up a good position with a good cheek weld and my eye is lining up just fine.

The facial cheek bone will not allow the eye to get that low unless the bone is in line alongside the RE instead of on top. You would then roll your skull to get your eye centered in in line with the optic and you would have... side-of-the-head weld. This is not what I'm experiencing... unless I'm just abnormal and my face is shaped weird or something. My cheek is firmly planted on the slope of the stock.

As for the placement so far to the rear, either:

1) The eyebox (you mean eye relief) is normal it is, as I assume it to be, and you'd have your head waaaaay far back on the stock. Nope.
2) They eyebox (you mean eye relief) is extremely forgiving (like an ACOG is)... in which case get ready to kiss it! I think you meant unforgiving. It isn't. I know better.

See above comments in red. I would invite anyone who doubts what I'm saying to come see for themselves. I know of at least a few guys on here who could validate my claim.