View Full Version : 1.54 vs 1.93 optic height for Razor 1-6
Just ordered a Razor Gen 2 1-6 and looking at mounts. This will be mounted on a BCM 11.5" pistol with SBA3 brace and a BCM 16" Recce. I am trying to decide on which height and brand of mount. I like the looks of Geissele and Scalarworks. This will just be for range use and home defense. I like the looks of the 1.93" but hate to spend so much $$ and then find out it is not for me. Are there any suggestions that would steer me toward a particular height ? thanks
The 1.93 height places the center of the optic at the same height as an EOTech EXPS, for reference.
“Better” is subjective, but I greatly prefer the slightly higher mounting of a 1.93 mount. Lets me keep my head more upright when shouldering the rifle and feels more natural than a lower mount.
There was another discussion on mounts and IIRC consensus seemed to be that 1.93 was better for all positions except for prone.
Then it seems you have an answer.
The overwhelming majority of shooters would not be able to tell a difference when shooting prone. Don’t let that worry you. I go between an ACOG (which sits lower) and the 1.93 height stuff frequently and it’s negligible.
Then it seems you have an answer.
The overwhelming majority of shooters would not be able to tell a difference when shooting prone. Don’t let that worry you. I go between an ACOG (which sits lower) and the 1.93 height stuff frequently and it’s negligible.
Thanks, I tend to overthink things. I was just looking for some validation regarding the 1.93". I am leaning towards Geissele since Scalarworks won't be available for about a month.
Height over bore matters to me. I need an absolute height, nothing less and nothing more. I was about to order an ADM for my PST 2 when I spotted a 104 not doing anything so I used it. It's darn perfect at 1.5 for me while prone or just standing.
https://i.imgur.com/HGECdXv.jpg
Then it seems you have an answer.
The overwhelming majority of shooters would not be able to tell a difference when shooting prone. Don’t let that worry you. I go between an ACOG (which sits lower) and the 1.93 height stuff frequently and it’s negligible.How can they not tell? The difference in a cheek weld barely touching the stock and feeling welded to it is very noticeable between the height differences. Too low, and prone is just unbearable. Too high, I feel like my head is barely on the stock and it actually effects my accuracy negatively at distance.
I really think it all depends on how you shoot. If you don't shoot in the prone at least 50% of the time, most people will be better suited with the 1.93. I think the "face barely touching the stock" is vastly overblown, but then again, I rarely shoot prone and I do feel like my neck is scrunched when shooting with a 1.54.
I just wish they ( Geissele ) made an 1.93" extended. From what I have read, the Razor 1-6 needs a lot of eye relief.
So what you're saying is that the height is at best, subjective and not based on the best height because that too is just an opinion and not something universal.
Been shooting the AR since 1990, first issued rifle was the M-16A1. I just may know a thing or two about shooting from both the prone and standing/kneeling/sitting and know what's best for me in regards to marksmanship. I was there for the ride when the transition was done between carry handle irons to today's modern CQO and RCO uses of marksmanship. Trained to use both as time went on and deployments came and went into two theaters of GWOT.
So what you're saying is that the height is at best, subjective and not based on the best height because that too is just an opinion and not something universal.
Been shooting the AR since 1990, first issued rifle was the M-16A1. I just may know a thing or two about shooting from both the prone and standing/kneeling/sitting and know what's best for me in regards to marksmanship. I was there for the ride when the transition was done between carry handle irons to today's modern CQO and RCO uses of marksmanship. Trained to use both as time went on and deployments came and went into two theaters of GWOT.
So which height mount suits your type of shooting best ?
Mrgunsngear
01-25-19, 16:44
I just wish they ( Geissele ) made an 1.93" extended. From what I have read, the Razor 1-6 needs a lot of eye relief.
You've read correctly. FWIW, I've used my II-E Razor in both mounts and I prefer the 1.54 mount. I'm 6'0'' FWIW. I think if I was 6'5'' or taller I'd probably lean 1.93. The only time I preferred the 1.93 is with armor.
Just ordered a Razor Gen 2 1-6 and looking at mounts. This will be mounted on a BCM 11.5" pistol with SBA3 brace and a BCM 16" Recce. I am trying to decide on which height and brand of mount. I like the looks of Geissele and Scalarworks. This will just be for range use and home defense. I like the looks of the 1.93" but hate to spend so much $$ and then find out it is not for me. Are there any suggestions that would steer me toward a particular height ? thanks
Trying to use the same mount/scope on 2 different rifles never works if they don't both have the same stock. I cannot imagine you having a pistol brace on the 16" BCM Recce anymore than I can imagine you putting a LPV scope on the pistol. Your anatomy and shooting style dictate scope height. What are the odds of what I like working for you? Would you think I was crazy if I ask for a shoe size recommendation? That's pretty much what you did.
Maybe it's due to decades of using irons and magnified optics on traditional stocked rifles before buying an AR, but 1.5" mounts feel absolutely correct to me.
I've got a few lower 1/3 mounts for RDS, and due to the lack of perfectly situated eye position, they work well and I don't feel like my cheek is gonna fall off the stock. In my opinion, I'm not going to get the same super quick and consistent cheekweld with a 1.93" high mount that I'm able to achieve with a 1.5". I sure not going to spend any money myself to find out.
Naturally, your face shape and shooting history is likely completely different from mine, and you may end up in the opposite situation. We can't say for certain what will and will not work for you.
So which height mount suits your type of shooting best ?Absolute at 1.5. But that is just for myself in personal use. I don't know what works best for others because height and length of pull is different with us all.
Look, my honest take here but if you're looking for a solid answer here before you commit is this: Buy all the heights. Yes I know, it's an expensive option but you can always sell or trade later the disregards. Take a carbine course that has you going up and down, a lot of stress and body fatigue. Or do it on your own after cloning a good drill to do from a vetted instructor on the Tubes. You're not going to really know what is best for you, what works and what doesn't, until you actually start using your rifle. It took me years to find out that my resistance to the VFG was wrong. I had always thought of it as a VFG and not a hand stop when moving at pace. Ingenius using it that way, now everything feels natural and hits are a lot more quicker.
You've read correctly. FWIW, I've used my II-E Razor in both mounts and I prefer the 1.54 mount. I'm 6'0'' FWIW. I think if I was 6'5'' or taller I'd probably lean 1.93. The only time I preferred the 1.93 is with armor.
Do you have the 1.54 extended or regular length ?
A 1.93" height mount will place a 30mm tube at the same height as an EOTech EXPS.
Your cheek will firmly be in contact with the stock. I am not a big person and the difference between the two heights is so negligible in reality, it's a non issue. You will not be craning your neck like a giraffe to shoot in the prone, and you won't have some pseudo chin weld with the stock when standing.
The 1.93 height wasn't developed for any other reason other than a now deceased CAG Operator working furiously with LaRue to clear the FOV of a 1-4x Short Dot over a PEQ on the top rail. It wasn't to use with a gas mask. It wasn't to give a more heads up shooting position. It wasn't to help shoot with NODs. Any of the previous are coincidental by products.
The difference is less than 0.4". Get a ruler and make two tick marks on a dry erase board 0.4" apart and ask yourself if that's truly the difference between floating in space or still maintaining a cheek weld. And if you have ever shot an EOTech EXPS: you have shot an optic equivalent in height to a 1.93" mount.
Here's a photo essay:
https://i.imgur.com/MgNsqTq.jpg
https://i.imgur.com/gAUFaDn.jpg
https://i.imgur.com/XTwT9Ud.jpg
If you lack the ability to grab a rifle and get a sight picture, and the difference in 0.4" of optic height is what ****ed you up, then I don't know what to say.
How can they not tell? The difference in a cheek weld barely touching the stock and feeling welded to it is very noticeable between the height differences. Too low, and prone is just unbearable. Too high, I feel like my head is barely on the stock and it actually effects my accuracy negatively at distance.
Please reference my photos above.
A 1.93” height mount does not elevate the optic anywhere near as much as people make it out to.
Please reference my photos above.
A 1.93” height mount does not elevate the optic anywhere near as much as people make it out to.You do not have any understanding of both the length of pull and height. Or you simply do not shoot enough. Both?
Your narrative doesn't fit what's actually going on in real life when the actual feedback of your song versus what's really happening comes into play. Use your rifle, adjust it to YOU and not what you think we should all use.
I have been running a 1.930” height mount way before they became more popular. IMHO, unless you actually try one, you are pretty much guessing or relying on other people’s opinions on what mount height works best for you.
I have been running a 1.930” height mount way before they became more popular. IMHO, unless you actually try one, you are pretty much guessing or relying on other people’s opinions on what mount height works best for you.I've tried all three. So not guessing at all. I think that the actual user knows what's best them, right?
I've been by told by a former action guy that the 1.93 mounts are popular due to the SOCOM guys latest shooting position/stance that lowers the butt of the stock more on the chest vs high in the shoulder pocket for better stability and recoil management. This position lowers the rifle more into the body to absorb recoil and the higher mount allows them to still keep their head up for situational awareness.
TexasAggie2005
01-25-19, 18:38
I really think it all depends on how you shoot. If you don't shoot in the prone at least 50% of the time, most people will be better suited with the 1.93. I think the "face barely touching the stock" is vastly overblown, but then again, I rarely shoot prone and I do feel like my neck is scrunched when shooting with a 1.54.
Totally agree. I hardly ever shoot prone, so 1.93"+ is much more suited to my shooting.
I just wish they ( Geissele ) made an 1.93" extended. From what I have read, the Razor 1-6 needs a lot of eye relief.
Agreed. A 1.93" extended would be perfect. I'm about to trade off my 2.04" G mount, just so I can can an extended. **edited to add: my comments were in regards to mount height, not necessarily regarding use with a Razor. I use a Trijicon TR25 1-6.**
A 1.93" height mount will place a 30mm tube at the same height as an EOTech EXPS.
Your cheek will firmly be in contact with the stock. I am not a big person and the difference between the two heights is so negligible in reality, it's a non issue. You will not be craning your neck like a giraffe to shoot in the prone, and you won't have some pseudo chin weld with the stock when standing.
The 1.93 height wasn't developed for any other reason other than a now deceased CAG Operator working furiously with LaRue to clear the FOV of a 1-4x Short Dot over a PEQ on the top rail. It wasn't to use with a gas mask. It wasn't to give a more heads up shooting position. It wasn't to help shoot with NODs. Any of the previous are coincidental by products.
The difference is less than 0.4". Get a ruler and make two tick marks on a dry erase board 0.4" apart and ask yourself if that's truly the difference between floating in space or still maintaining a cheek weld. And if you have ever shot an EOTech EXPS: you have shot an optic equivalent in height to a 1.93" mount.
Here's a photo essay:
https://i.imgur.com/MgNsqTq.jpg
https://i.imgur.com/gAUFaDn.jpg
https://i.imgur.com/XTwT9Ud.jpg
If you lack the ability to grab a rifle and get a sight picture, and the difference in 0.4" of optic height is what ****ed you up, then I don't know what to say.
Good to know! I was under the impression that the EXPS was closer to traditional lower1/3 height.
I've been by told by a former action guy that the 1.93 mounts are popular due to the SOCOM guys latest shooting position that lowers the butt of the stock more on the chest vs high in the shoulder pocket for better stability and recoil management. This position lowers the rifle more into the body to absorb recoil and the higher mount allows them to still keep their head up for situational awareness.
I'm all about different solutions for different people, but as GTF's photos illustrate, its really not that big of a difference. Also, OP, I use the 1.93" with a Razor and don't have any need for an extended version.
https://uploads.tapatalk-cdn.com/20190126/2383e1b626899b2c6b5527099ec5ba5a.jpg
TexisAggie,
The lower 1/3 height is a generic term that simply means cowitnessed iron sights will be in the lower 1/3 of the FOV of the optic.
As an example; a T-1 with lower 1/3 LT mount sits lower than an EXPS. It’s almost identical to a standard XPS.
If you were to, say, use a G33 with a T-1 in that same LT mount, it mates up perfectly without the 7mm spacer that the G33 uses to align with an EXPS.
Outlander Systems
01-25-19, 18:55
Lulz. Wut!?
You do not have any understanding of both the length of pull and height. Or you simply do not shoot enough. Both?
Your narrative doesn't fit what's actually going on in real life when the actual feedback of your song versus what's really happening comes into play. Use your rifle, adjust it to YOU and not what you think we should all use.
Lulz. Wut!?We took it to PM, we're good. Lost in translation over the internet.
GTF, I shamelessly stole that pic of the exps in front of the scope. That’s amazing. Thanks
TexasAggie2005
01-25-19, 20:03
TexisAggie,
The lower 1/3 height is a generic term that simply means cowitnessed iron sights will be in the lower 1/3 of the FOV of the optic.
As an example; a T-1 with lower 1/3 LT mount sits lower than an EXPS. It’s almost identical to a standard XPS.
If you were to, say, use a G33 with a T-1 in that same LT mount, it mates up perfectly without the 7mm spacer that the G33 uses to align with an EXPS.
Yeah, I know what lower 1/3 means. I've never owned an EXPS, only Aimpoints & MROs. I just didn't realize that the EXPS sat higher than the common Aimpoint & MRO lower 1/3 mounts.
Gotcha.
****, I’m batting 0 for intuition tonight.
I would love it if Geissele would offer a 1.75", but it wouldn't fit much of a market. I have used the 1.5" for some time, but may need the 1.93 for a newer work rifle as it will wear a PEQ15 full time. I don't think the standard mount will work well, and might even eliminate the lower 1/3 FOV due to the PEQ15.
I went with a 1.93 mount for the reason that I wear glasses. Sometimes they slide down with out me noticing. With the 1.5 mounts from a cold shouldering I’d get a double dot with my px4i. The slightly more heads up position works better for me.
SeriousStudent
01-26-19, 12:43
FightinQ - you need to dial back on the attitude. It is possible to discuss issues politely. Give it a try.
Good to know! I was under the impression that the EXPS was closer to traditional lower1/3 height.
That's what I thought too.
I'm all about different solutions for different people, but as GTF's photos illustrate, its really not that big of a difference. Also, OP, I use the 1.93" with a Razor and don't have any need for an extended version.
https://uploads.tapatalk-cdn.com/20190126/2383e1b626899b2c6b5527099ec5ba5a.jpg
I think a lot of it has to do with how you run your stock. You appear to have yours extended for a proper LOP and therefore don't need an extended scope mount. Guys who like to run their stocks collapsed all the way and NTCH always seem to be the ones who can't get their scope far enough forward.
Great looking setup by the way.
Mrgunsngear
01-26-19, 17:11
Do you have the 1.54 extended or regular length ?
https://i.imgur.com/RCTIFlvl.jpg
Powered by vBulletin® Version 4.2.5 Copyright © 2024 vBulletin Solutions, Inc. All rights reserved.