Discussion and/or Experiences on the Larue 1.93

[Derek_Connor]

Read some interesting discussions over on 10-8, a particular member had some very valid points on the mounting of 1-4x optics. Specifically the short-dot. I think he might be a member here...but here is what he had to say about the 1.93 mount vs the SP4-M4:


IF your shooting position will give the required amount of eye relief the SPR 1.93 is the best as it allows for the most “heads up” position with zero head angle induced and is better than the 1.5” for the following:
1. Target to target transitions
2. Movement
3. Natural and level peripheral vision on both eyes
4. Less neck strain (X2 if wearing a Kevlar helmet) (X4 if wearing a Kevlar helmet and a NVG)

The SPR stretch into the SPR-E was to meet my need for a mount to use the Trijicon TR21 on top of a CAS-V rail for the CQBR and with the scope reversed on the FWD rail of the MK14 MOD 0/1. It dose not require the additional hight in the 1.93“ as the weapons rails provide it. The benefit to the NCH shooters on other optics is a unplanned fringe benefit without the heads up position benefits.
Out.
Kevin

Per LarueTactical's website, the 1.93 was developed simply to allow the use of the shortdot to clear the peq2 etc...

Has anyone had similar experiences to the observations made above by Kevin?

[USMC03]

I prefer the SPR-E with the Short Dot. Kevin prefers the 1.93. I know several who prefer the 1.5 SPR-E and several who prefer the 1.93.

It comes down to personal preference, body size, and ergonomics. We are not all built the same, nor do we all have the same preferences.



https://www.m4carbine.net/showthread.php?t=6937



Best way to find out what is going to work best for you is to try to get some trigger time on both. And try both from various positions. You may not notice any difference from the two different height mounts from the standing, but when you go prone, you may find that one feels better than the other.




Semper Fi,
Jeff

[Robb Jensen]

There are a few top 3 gunners using the 1.93..........guys like Ernest Langdon, Daniel Horner and some others because the first round on the first target is faster using the taller mount. YMMV.

The fact is LaRue made the taller mount taller because yes it did allow you to see over the PEQ2, it's a side effect is that it's faster than lower mounts. YMMV.

[Derek_Connor]

Interesting....

Did some measurement finding and hte 1.93 puts the shortdot up to the same height as we would have an aimpoint in a larue mount....

so maybe a rephrase is in order, are there any disadvantages to having it up high..

[Robb Jensen]

Interesting....

Did some measurement finding and hte 1.93 puts the shortdot up to the same height as we would have an aimpoint in a larue mount....

so maybe a rephrase is in order, are there any disadvantages to having it up high..

In theory it would be 'less precise' for long shots since your face wouldn't be down on the stock for consistent stock welds. This may or may not matter depending the the skill of the shooter. I think the benefit of speed outways the disadvantage.

[M4Guru]

I have used all 3 (SPR-E, SPR, and 1.93) and I much prefer the 1.93 because it allows me to keep my head up. My boom mic and NVG mount make it hard to use the lower mounts anyways.

[Derek_Connor]

I have used all 3 (SPR-E, SPR, and 1.93) and I much prefer the 1.93 because it allows me to keep my head up. My boom mic and NVG mount make it hard to use the lower mounts anyways.

Makes sense....

Im just going to have to see the scope with both mounts...simple enough..

[CFII]

What has been said is true, the LT135 was designed to put a S&B SD over a PEQ2, but it has gained following for people that like a heads up stance.