View Full Version : 1.7" Height Scope Mount
Are there any manufacturers that make 1.7" axis height scope mounts? This is the height of lower 1/3 cowitness and I'm looking to mount an LPVO. I've tried the most common 1.5" height but that forces me to scrunch my neck too much, while 1.93" height is a bit too tall, especially when shooting prone.
https://www.badgerordnance.com/condition-one-modular-mount/condition-one-modular-mount-30mm-1-70-lower-1-3rd-tan.html
This seems to be the only 1.7" height mount that I can find, are there any others?
Try a 1.93 if you can't find one that suits you. I run my Aimpoints and Eotechs at lower 1/3 and have LPVOs in 1.93 mounts and it is comfortable switching from one to the other.
I’m only aware of the Badger but it’s the perfect height IMO. I’d pick 1.93 over the 1.54 if I had to but I have two Badgers now.
Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk
I'm really tempted by the Badger, I just never heard of them before and not sure what their track record is compared to something like a Geissele. This is why I was wondering if there are any other 1.7" height mounts for comparisons. Does anyone here have experience with Badger?
I'm really tempted by the Badger, I just never heard of them before and not sure what their track record is compared to something like a Geissele. This is why I was wondering if there are any other 1.7" height mounts for comparisons. Does anyone here have experience with Badger?
Badger was the Geissele before Geissele was Geissele.
In other words, they’re good to go. They just finally caught up to the modern unimounts that Geissele took off with IMO.
I'm really tempted by the Badger, I just never heard of them before and not sure what their track record is compared to something like a Geissele. This is why I was wondering if there are any other 1.7" height mounts for comparisons. Does anyone here have experience with Badger?
Badger was the Geissele before Geissele was Geissele.
In other words, they’re good to go. They just finally caught up to the modern unimounts that Geissele took off with IMO.
Yeah Badger has been making rings, bases, etc for the military for decades. They have a longer and more proven track record than G.
titsonritz
07-21-20, 21:29
The RRA is almost 1.7"
https://www.rockriverarms.com/index.cfm?fuseaction=category.display&category_ID=1501
I'm really tempted by the Badger, I just never heard of them before and not sure what their track record is compared to something like a Geissele. This is why I was wondering if there are any other 1.7" height mounts for comparisons. Does anyone here have experience with Badger?
Badger is top shelf gear. You won't be compromising quality in any way.
RKB Armory
07-22-20, 09:41
I also recommend the Badger Condition One Modular Mount (COMM) in 1.7". I was pretty skeptical that 0.2 inches above the usual 1.5 inch mount would make much of a difference. It turns out that it makes a big difference for me to get my eye behind the scope. I won't be buying any more 1.5 inch mounts.
Badger was the Geissele before Geissele was Geissele.
In other words, they’re good to go. They just finally caught up to the modern unimounts that Geissele took off with IMO.
This, except that the Badger Recon/Unimount predates the Geissele mounts by a several years. One could also say that the G design borrowed several features of the Badger Recon Unimounts. The original Badger Unimounts can be found toward the bottom of the page, here: https://www.badgerordnance.com/unimounts.html.
I have used Geissele mounts in the past, but they have all been sold and replaced with Badger C1 mounts. The modularity of the Badger C1 is where it is at, especially if you need to add an ACI, bubble level, offset sighting system, etc. I run 1.54 height mounts on my Recce and longer range guns, 1.70 height on guns that don't get laser sighting systems and 1.93 height for guns that are used with lasers or gas masks.
Does 1.93" make that much difference through gas masks, especially versus 1.70"? I imagine 1.54" being difficult with gas masks, and people seemed to handled them fine with the old A2 sights which are something like 1.41".
This, except that the Badger Recon/Unimount predates the Geissele mounts by a several years. One could also say that the G design borrowed several features of the Badger Recon Unimounts. The original Badger Unimounts can be found toward the bottom of the page, here: https://www.badgerordnance.com/unimounts.html.
Lol that’s what I meant by “caught up”. Their stuff was pretty outdated compared to what they have now. I had one of their unimounts a while back but it wasn’t cantilevered or high enough for my uses now. I agree that Geissele took the unimount and modernized it. And now Badger has “one-upped” Geissele IMO.
Does 1.93" make that much difference through gas masks, especially versus 1.70"? I imagine 1.54" being difficult with gas masks, and people seemed to handled them fine with the old A2 sights which are something like 1.41".
It absolutely does and is the biggest reason why it came to be. 1.54 means that you pretty much need to get nose to charging handle or really work to mash that mask down on your stock to get a good sight picture, but this is at the risk of breaking the seal on your mask. With 1.93, this is almost completely eliminated and allows for some flexibility with regard to stock position and cheek weld. 1.70 is a little better, but I really haven't played with it enough to give you a definitive yes or no.
Lol that’s what I meant by “caught up”. Their stuff was pretty outdated compared to what they have now. I had one of their unimounts a while back but it wasn’t cantilevered or high enough for my uses now. I agree that Geissele took the unimount and modernized it. And now Badger has “one-upped” Geissele IMO.
I agree completely and knew what you meant, but most people probably didn't catch it. I really like the Recon version of the Unimount, but the C1 takes it to a whole other level. Badger also made some other versions of the Recon, but they weren't available to the general public.
Belmont31R
07-25-20, 02:47
I'd like to see more mounts between lower 1/3rd and 1.93"
The 1.93" only exists because that's what would clear a PEQ2 on a carbine handguard using a Short Dot well over a decade ago.
1.7" or 1.8" mounts would sell really well but here we are over 10 years later and there's like 2 or 3 options.
1.93" red dots and LVPO's feel nice when shooting upright but as soon as you go prone the chin weld sucks. Lower 1/3rd level is a little too cheek in the stock to be fluid but works well when you can choose your shots. So we're stuck with stupid co-witness, 1/3rd or chin weld 1.93".
If Scalarworks started selling 1.75" RDS mounts they'd be OOS and back ordered a year or two out lol
Badger is GTG as mentioned. One of the OG reliable companies in the last few decades in a sea of junk and gimmicks. They just never really made a hard push into the AR market when their bolt gun bases and rings were kind of a gold standard.
The only “common” 1.75” height optic is the EoTech EXPS sights, but other than that, this height is not very common and especially with LPVO limited to just one or two options. And these mounts are quite expensive so it’s hard to try them out ahead of time, and everyone’s bodies are different. Personally since I’m not that big at just under 5’ 9” and average neck, not sure if 1.93” is a bit too high.
I have tried both the 1.930” and the 1.700” high BO mounts, and I prefer the 1.930” height, it just works a little better, *for me*, but 1.700" height may work better for you.
win&legend
12-19-20, 08:42
I have tried both the 1.930” and the 1.700” high BO mounts, and I prefer the 1.930” height, it just works a little better, *for me*, but 1.700" height may work better for you.
Did you try shooting at anything past 300 yards? Parallax becomes an issue with high mounts if your not prone because it's hard to get a consistent "cheek weld" as 1.93 is more of a "jaw weld" for most people. Obviously everyone's body is different, so 1.93" may still give you a soft cheek weld if your bigger stature or have low cheek bones. But for the average face, 1.7" is an intermediate between heads up and getting a consistent cheek weld, it's probably a better balance with an LVPO if your going to shoot at longer ranges. Either that or use a 1.93" if you have a stock that can accept risers, so if you need more cheek weld, just add a riser like on the Magpul CTR's.
https://www.arbuildjunkie.com/high-scope-mounts-on-the-ar-15-a-qa-with-mark-smith/
Take a look at the video about half way down which a guy talks about that very issue.
pstennisace
12-20-20, 21:16
Go with badgers 1.7 C1. Best blend of heads up shooting, without being uncomfortable in the prone.
Failure2Stop
12-21-20, 11:14
Badger makes one of the best optic mounts on the market.
I am saying this as a manufacturer of optic mounts.
They do pretty much everything right: 65in/lb installation torque on the proper thread for the base, STANAG clamping method, and clean machine work.
I really like their 1.70 height mounts on rifles that don't have visual occlusion issues with forward-mounted laser units.
davidjinks
12-22-20, 07:21
Would this height mount be “better” for prone shooting or is it an all encompassing, good height for all positions while shooting?
On a side note, I looked up “Badger mounts” on Google, I didn’t realize how many taxidermists there are in this country who special in Badger mounts.
Badger makes one of the best optic mounts on the market.
I am saying this as a manufacturer of optic mounts.
They do pretty much everything right: 65in/lb installation torque on the proper thread for the base, STANAG clamping method, and clean machine work.
I really like their 1.70 height mounts on rifles that don't have visual occlusion issues with forward-mounted laser units.
Would this height mount be “better” for prone shooting or is it an all encompassing, good height for all positions while shooting?
On a side note, I looked up “Badger mounts” on Google, I didn’t realize how many taxidermists there are in this country who special in Badger mounts.
It does everything well IMO.
I have used both the 1.930” and the 1.700” high BO mounts, using them both from 0-400yds) and *for me* the 1.930” height just works a little better, but 1.700" height may work better for you. It's really just personal preference, but IMHO you won't really know for sure which one suits you best unless you have *tried/used* both heights.
Completely agree. Highly individual. For anyone wondering, here's an NX8 in a 1.7", and DBAL-A3 in its' factory mount.
https://live.staticflickr.com/65535/50748692907_502b928627_b.jpg
DBAL disappears at about ~3.5x
https://live.staticflickr.com/65535/50748592856_d9ce6b54ce_b.jpg
https://live.staticflickr.com/65535/50744177023_3155f76585_b.jpg
Completely agree. Highly individual. For anyone wondering, here's an NX8 in a 1.7", and DBAL-A3 in its' factory mount.
https://live.staticflickr.com/65535/50748692907_502b928627_b.jpg
DBAL disappears at about ~3.5x
https://live.staticflickr.com/65535/50748592856_d9ce6b54ce_b.jpg
https://live.staticflickr.com/65535/50744177023_3155f76585_b.jpg
I've definitely been curious about that, thanks.
MC_Oper8or
12-22-20, 23:12
Did you try shooting at anything past 300 yards? Parallax becomes an issue with high mounts if your not prone because it's hard to get a consistent "cheek weld" as 1.93 is more of a "jaw weld" for most people. Obviously everyone's body is different, so 1.93" may still give you a soft cheek weld if your bigger stature or have low cheek bones. But for the average face, 1.7" is an intermediate between heads up and getting a consistent cheek weld, it's probably a better balance with an LVPO if your going to shoot at longer ranges. Either that or use a 1.93" if you have a stock that can accept risers, so if you need more cheek weld, just add a riser like on the Magpul CTR's.
https://www.arbuildjunkie.com/high-scope-mounts-on-the-ar-15-a-qa-with-mark-smith/
Take a look at the video about half way down which a guy talks about that very issue.
Trying to contact you but I think your inbox is full.
Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk
davidjinks
12-23-20, 06:36
This is the question I wanted to ask but didn’t know how to properly ask it. Thank you!
I would definitely like to know more in regards to proper stock weld and parallax issues.
Did you try shooting at anything past 300 yards? Parallax becomes an issue with high mounts if your not prone because it's hard to get a consistent "cheek weld" as 1.93 is more of a "jaw weld" for most people. Obviously everyone's body is different, so 1.93" may still give you a soft cheek weld if your bigger stature or have low cheek bones. But for the average face, 1.7" is an intermediate between heads up and getting a consistent cheek weld, it's probably a better balance with an LVPO if your going to shoot at longer ranges. Either that or use a 1.93" if you have a stock that can accept risers, so if you need more cheek weld, just add a riser like on the Magpul CTR's.
https://www.arbuildjunkie.com/high-scope-mounts-on-the-ar-15-a-qa-with-mark-smith/
Take a look at the video about half way down which a guy talks about that very issue.
I've definitely been curious about that, thanks.
No worries
win&legend
12-23-20, 10:20
According to both badger and a vendor I recently spoke to after not being able to get a 1.70 C1 for a while (due to being out of stock), it has become their most popular height for that very reason. Lower 1/3 for most people tends to provide a more heads up position than 1.54 without making prone or range range applications excruciatingly difficult.
Again, it always depends on the person, I'm sure there's some people out there where a 1.93 for them is more like a 1.70 to me due to differences in body structure. The same could be true for a 1.54 vs. a 1.70 on a very small statured person. But for the average person, lower 1/3 with an LVPO is a really good balance overall and probably the most balanced for the average person considering the role of a 1-6x LVPO is 0-500 practically (aka the infantry 1/4 mile as it were).
win&legend
12-23-20, 10:26
BTW USTacticalSupply is the only vendor I can find with the C1 at 1.70 height in stock: https://ustacticalsupply.com/conditiononemodularmount.aspx
I recently ordered a 1.70 C1 myself and it is in transit since I run a SureFire V400 under the hand-guard for IR / White Light applications (MUCH lighter weight and more compact than the more typical Steiner/ATPIAL-C/MAWL-C + White Light setups), so no need to clear an electronics package out front. I like simple and low drag.
BTW, I cleared my inbox. I make no claims of being an expert in all things optics, but I do have about seven years of regular training with former Army Rangers (scout sniper) and Marines (they run the local range / training), I've learned a lot over those years about what works and what doesn't. Couple points to consider:
1. Too much crap on the rifle with not only slow you down, but it substantially affect your ability to shoot when fatigue sets in, try to keep things as light weight as possible. There's a lot of gizmos out there, but only a few things really are necessary for general civilian applications and even most military / LE applications.
2. Do lots of dry fire practice, lots of guys (I used to fall into that category) shoot thousands of rounds over a few months but actually improve very little to none. Why? While live fire is absolutely necessary, there are a surprising amount of issues that are difficult to identify during actual live fire that you start to notice when doing dry fire training. Maybe it's not as fun, but if you want to shoot well, 70~80% of your training is dry fire.
3. Shoot what your going to run, if you want to run a gun with a DBLA A2 brick on the end of your gun, you need to train with it (your going to quickly find out why I'm such a stickler for weight). Don't take crap off for training then think you can use it when it matters. Consistency is the key!
4. Regarding optics heights, it is indeed highly subjective, every person and their application is different (as well as the equipment, RDS is different from Holographic Sights which is different from fixed parallax LVPO's which is different from adjustable parallax high mag scopes, each has different optical properties). Just because some SOF guy runs it, does NOT mean it's ideal for you and your application (BTW, you'll see a WIDE variation of rifle setups even among elite soldiers depending on that individual and their typical mission requirements). And know that there is NO perfect height, there are always applications where something is going to work better for one situation than another. Balance is usually the key for most of us.
But for fixed parallax LVPO's, you do need a somewhat consistent eye position relative to the scope for any intermediate range applications (300 yards or more it becomes a big issue if there's poor consistency). Remember with a LVPO you have a physical reticle that is in a fixed position inside the scope body and your trying to line up three points, your eye, the cross hairs and the target. If any one is too far out of position, precision goes to hell even if accuracy is still there (pending you have a consistent hold).
Definition of Precision - having the ability to place a shot exactly where you want it (you can have a single shot of high accuracy but have issues with repeatability)
Definition of Accuracy - having the ability to place a shot repeatedly in the same position (you can be way off the target but be consistent in groupings)
Parallax affects precision, but not necessarily accuracy. Hopefully that sheds some light on why cheek welds are more important with LVPO's or magnified optics using etched reticles than holographics or RDS optics. The range at which you can actually identify a target and both precisely and accurately shoot that target with an LVPO is quite a bit further than with an RDS or Holographic sight.
Failure2Stop
12-23-20, 16:14
Would this height mount be “better” for prone shooting or is it an all encompassing, good height for all positions while shooting?
I definitely prefer 1.7 over 1.9 height when shooting from bipods/prone and from higher/standing/mobile positions with heavier recoiling rifles.
But I do think that it has a lot to do with individual face size/shape and how much cheek weld pressure you individually prefer/need for the application.
BTW USTacticalSupply is the only vendor I can find with the C1 at 1.70 height in stock: https://ustacticalsupply.com/conditiononemodularmount.aspx
I recently ordered a 1.70 C1 myself and it is in transit since I run a SureFire V400 under the hand-guard for IR / White Light applications (MUCH lighter weight and more compact than the more typical Steiner/ATPIAL-C/MAWL-C + White Light setups), so no need to clear an electronics package out front. I like simple and low drag.
BTW, I cleared my inbox. I make no claims of being an expert in all things optics, but I do have about seven years of regular training with former Army Rangers (scout sniper) and Marines (they run the local range / training), I've learned a lot over those years about what works and what doesn't. Couple points to consider:
1. Too much crap on the rifle with not only slow you down, but it substantially affect your ability to shoot when fatigue sets in, try to keep things as light weight as possible. There's a lot of gizmos out there, but only a few things really are necessary for general civilian applications and even most military / LE applications.
2. Do lots of dry fire practice, lots of guys (I used to fall into that category) shoot thousands of rounds over a few months but actually improve very little to none. Why? While live fire is absolutely necessary, there are a surprising amount of issues that are difficult to identify during actual live fire that you start to notice when doing dry fire training. Maybe it's not as fun, but if you want to shoot well, 70~80% of your training is dry fire.
3. Shoot what your going to run, if you want to run a gun with a DBLA A2 brick on the end of your gun, you need to train with it (your going to quickly find out why I'm such a stickler for weight). Don't take crap off for training then think you can use it when it matters. Consistency is the key!
4. Regarding optics heights, it is indeed highly subjective, every person and their application is different (as well as the equipment, RDS is different from Holographic Sights which is different from fixed parallax LVPO's which is different from adjustable parallax high mag scopes, each has different optical properties). Just because some SOF guy runs it, does NOT mean it's ideal for you and your application (BTW, you'll see a WIDE variation of rifle setups even among elite soldiers depending on that individual and their typical mission requirements). And know that there is NO perfect height, there are always applications where something is going to work better for one situation than another. Balance is usually the key for most of us.
But for fixed parallax LVPO's, you do need a somewhat consistent eye position relative to the scope for any intermediate range applications (300 yards or more it becomes a big issue if there's poor consistency). Remember with a LVPO you have a physical reticle that is in a fixed position inside the scope body and your trying to line up three points, your eye, the cross hairs and the target. If any one is too far out of position, precision goes to hell even if accuracy is still there (pending you have a consistent hold).
Definition of Precision - having the ability to place a shot exactly where you want it (you can have a single shot of high accuracy but have issues with repeatability)
Definition of Accuracy - having the ability to place a shot repeatedly in the same position (you can be way off the target but be consistent in groupings)
Parallax affects precision, but not necessarily accuracy. Hopefully that sheds some light on why cheek welds are more important with LVPO's or magnified optics using etched reticles than holographics or RDS optics. The range at which you can actually identify a target and both precisely and accurately shoot that target with an LVPO is quite a bit further than with an RDS or Holographic sight.
Genuinely curious, distraction in the lower third of your site picture is your reason for putting a light/IR in the least ideal (6 o’clock) position?
Everyone’s setup (should) have a specific purpose. If that purpose is use with NV there’s no comparing the 400V with something that has dual lasers, IR illuminator, etc. Especially when the argument is weight and the delta between the 400v and a DBAL is 3.2oz.
Sure, gross weight matters. But the placement of that weight and the balance are more important. More to it than just what the scale tells you IMO.
Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk
davidjinks
12-24-20, 12:08
Excellent thank you!
I definitely prefer 1.7 over 1.9 height when shooting from bipods/prone and from higher/standing/mobile positions with heavier recoiling rifles.
But I do think that it has a lot to do with individual face size/shape and how much cheek weld pressure you individually prefer/need for the application.
win&legend
12-31-20, 10:29
The DBAL will require you to use a separate light. Now you have 5-7oz for a light and the weight of the DBAL, btw not sure which DBAL your talking about being only 3.2oz, but the I2 @ 8oz is comparable to the ATPIAL-C in performance. That's nearly a whole pound of weight out at or in front of your support arm between the light and IR unit. The X400V is NOT a perfect solution for all things, your giving up the ability to transition from IR to White lite immediately and some white light performance, it also lacks a visible laser, but your total weight is only 5oz, battery life for white lite is 2.5 hours and you still have both an IR pointer and IR illuminator.
However, even with my L3 Gen VII omni tube (unflimed white phosphor), I cannot realistically identify a target beyond 100 yards at night without magnification even if I can shoot that target at 150 or more. And I think people are full of BS if they say they really identify a threat at 200y or 300y with NODS because most people can't do that in broad daylight without magnification (take a look at Kyle Defoor's video on LVPO's and he talks about this very fact). I'm realistic, not best case when the stars align while your standing on one leg dancing on the 13th day of the month kinda thing.
I agree with this review in terms of practical engagement distances of using a X400V on a carbine: https://youtu.be/7pSSDGzeMmE
And I previously ran an ATPIAL-C (7.5oz) + SureFire Ultra 300 (600 lumens version, 5oz) + Unity TAPS Pro (2.2oz), it was a $2,000 setup. Comparatively, the X400V's IR performance is about on par with the ATPIAL-C, at least the one I had, unless they got remarkably better...there wasn't much practical difference. All of these civilian IR units are limited by regulations and are fairly close unless you get into the big dollar ones (MAWL-C, DBAL A4 etc, but those are super expensive, still pretty heavy at 10 to 12oz et.c). Both the ATPIAL-C and the V400 IR pointers were visible well past 100, but both their lights were limited to about 100ish. And 350 lumens of white lite is not bad at all for ranges one can practically identify a threat at night if you don't have to compensate for powder residue affecting brightness. Most of my IR is geared towards realistic engagement distances of about 100 yards and the reality that for civilian uses, IR is going to be more of a surveillance / information tool or first strike capability. I'm not lasing targets for air strikes, I'm not fighting in a combat unit. I'm defending my family, friends, neighbors and myself.
I think it's probably not realistic to engage threats you don't have to and you shouldn't be engaging anyone you can't verify is a legitimate threat, otherwise you may end up being the bad guy! Regarding mounting at six o'clock position, it serves several purposes: 1. IR pointer is zeroed at 50 yards like my optic and has no lateral offset, so it's easy to make very precise hits from 0 to 100 and beyond 100 if I could maybe identify them, but should I get into a gun fight at night and it some how goes longer (in that case, I already know the treat), one could engage out to 200 or further where POA is POI. Lateral offsets are much harder to us to compensate for than elevation offsets instinctively (at least for me) and considering the human torso is about twice as tall as it wide, I'd rather deal mostly with elevation whenever possible and avoid windage.
2. I store my AR in a wall safe. Due to constraints of storage, it's easier to fit in the safe mounted under neath, although that isn't absolutely necessary for this purpose. Also regarding balance, I can't run something as bulky as a DBAL-I2 or ATPIAL-C on the side, it's too wide to fit in the wall safe, so it has to be up top. I hate wrapping my hand around that bulky IR unit, so I run a pressure pad, which means the IR unit has to be in front of my hand. I like consistency and am not a fan of change support arm position (where you run the ATPIAL behind your support hand for day, then move your hand back for IR use). Anything that changes my consistency I consider bad.
3. I run a 45 degree off-set Sig Romeo5 RDS as a back-up (in case the LVPO gets damaged or fogs up) and prefer a less obstructed sight picture when using the RDS. I'm running a very similar setup to Garand Thumb's setup in this video (Razor HD Gen 2 E, Badger 1.70" mount, 45 off-set RDS, but mine is a Sig Romeo 5, not an aimpoint T2), but I"m not running a surefire scout light or ATPIAL-C, instead the X400V and a magnesium aluminum hand guard from JL billet that's 4.8oz for the hand guard and 3.9oz for a steel barrel nut I adapted for use with my AA piston gas system. Balance point is right at where the receiver meets the hand guard. You'd have to shoot it to appreciate it, words on forums can only convey so much.
4. The light doesn't get dirty at all from powder, literally I have fired 1500 rounds over the last six months and there's no powder on the lens due to the combination of location and brake design. It simply doesn't get on the lens at all unlike my hand guns. A 600 lumen light completely covered in thick powder residue is a lot dimmer than a 350 lumen light with a clean lens....that's one of the reasons people use super bright lights, it's not just for long range identification or to "sear the bad guy's retinas", you can do that with 300 lumen + effectively, but realistically you loose a ton of light transmission as the powder starts to cover the lens which can be pretty rapid and severe with a lot of guns, the shorter the barrel the worse it is. Also over time you can damage the glass on the light and permanently affect it's output, I had this happen with an Inforce WMLx 600 lumen light that was too close to the brake at 45 degrees on a CZ Scorpion 9mm.
5. There aren't many barriers around here I'd rest my rifle on, mostly I'd use a corner or wall to brace against or go prone. If I do need to rest my rifle on something, I grab the bottom of the verticle fore grip and use my arm to hold my hand down against the surface to create a stable platform. It works just as well as resting the hand guard on a barricade. I use the BCM angled stubby vfg as a hand stop and for the previously mentioned purpose as kind of a mono pod. Even if I needed to, it's not hard to rest the light itself on something, I don't care how scraped to scratched it gets and the lense is heavily recessed so it's well protected from scraping / impact.
Don't forget, the more white lite you throw out there, the more likely someone really far away (miles) might see you and decide to pay you a visit if they think you have something they want in a SHFT situation. For regular home defense, super bright lights indoors can be a bad idea as well as you can end up blinding yourself. I think around 200 to 400 is ideal for indoors and close range out doors.
BTW the X400V has both IR pointer and IR Illumination that can be slaved or run independent, rotate the end cap and you have 350 Lumen white light. It only lacks a visible laser which I can do without, but would be nice to have for CQB in my own home (I'd gang the visible laser with the white lite). IR for home defense is really dumb, it's for SHFT. For home defense if you think your going to get all your night vision crap on and ready in the dead of night during a break in your kidding yourself (not to mention the courts are going to ask you how you had so much time to do that), also it's NOT ideal for indoors. White light is best for that. So really, I have quite a few reasons for my specific setup, but I think there are some misconceptions from people who don't actually own a X400V (there is an older Rev A and newer Rev B, the B has better performance, so maybe the older A was not comparable to the ATPIAL-C's IR performance? I have the B variant).
Also there's the new VXL2 with a 400 lumen white light, IR point, IR illuminator and visible green laser, eventually I'll probably transition to that. Same weight at 5oz but you give up 1 hour of white light battery life for another +50 lumens of white light and a visible green laser. After taking 5-7 training classes a year outdoors at our LE / Mil training center (big facility with Hesco barriers etc., 50yds, 100yds and 300 yds) for the last six consecutive years, 8-9 hour classes in the cold, rain, shine etc. I've learned to love lightweight, balance and simplicity when possible. So to me and based on what I can accomplish with this setup, I think the trade offs are worth it. Your always giving up something(s), it's not perfect but I prefer it for the most likely uses I foresee. As mentioned the key is balance and I don't think running an extra lb of weight up front between heavy full length hand guards, ATPIAL's / DBAL's + a heavy scout light most people use is the ideal setup for civilian.
There's quite a few experienced military shooters out there that don't even use NODS, they only run a white light as a civilian. Most of them have fairly simple rifle setups in general. I wanted to have limited NV capabilities primarily for surveilance / close quarters engagements and typical white light capabilties without over loading my rifle. Fatige sucks and is a real issue even for someone physically fit. I run, weight lift (lots of shoulder, arm and core exercises) and eat reasonably well, but I'm just an ordinary guy that tires out like everyone else. Also LVPO's are a lot heavier than RDS / EOTechs (well if you throw on a magnifier they are about on par), so that's another reason, to keep weight low. A lot of these setups with the ATPIAL + SureFire Scout were before LVPO's / RDS dual optic setups were in common use. It just gets heavier and heavier!
Sorry, I was referring to the weight difference between the two being a 3oz delta. But yes obviously you’d have to add a light on top of that separately.
And agree that setup can get heavy, which is why I have more than one rifle, and they all serve a different purpose [emoji1360] it’s all obviously personal preference. If I’m going to have any NV/IR capability on the gun, I want all of it. But different strokes!
Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk
win&legend
01-01-21, 13:15
Agreed, there is no one perfect rifle for all applications. The more specialized you get for one applications, the less specialized you get for another. However some rifle configurations are broadly usable, even if they are not the absolute best at any one application, they have enough dynamic capability and perform well enough at each task they can genuinely be considered a "do it all" rifle. I don't have five different rifles (budget limited, I have a wife and three kido's, an older house in need of work etc.), so my finances limit me to one high end do it all gun vs. three or four tailored guns. Regardless, for my applications a 5 oz X400V has about the same IR performance as my previous ATPIAL-C which ALSO needed another 5oz light.
Given that the ATPIAL-C is 3oz heavier than the X400V and you need another 5oz minimum for a white lite, your at 1/2lb out on the handguard (depending on where you position things). By moving over to an X400V and also moving over to a custom magnesium / aluminum alloy M-Lock hand guard (8.2oz for the hand guard + barrel nut, lighter than carbon fiber), I've literally shaved off an entire pound of weight up front. It handles like a more basic 5.56 mid-weight setup with just a white light, RDS and typical 13.5~15" hand-guard with not much else on it, yet this is a 6.8 SPC rifle with a LVPO, IR and White Light capabilities.
There's one more reason I went on a weight reduction campaign, the caliber. 6.8 SPC stainless steel mags (25rds) fully loaded with 110gr OTM weigh 1lb 3oz vs. the 15oz of a typical 5.56 mag loaded with 62gr which is yet more weight on the receiver, even if not a lot. So this combination for me re-balances the rifle back to the weight of a similarly equipped 5.56 AR with commonly used parts...yet I get the over match advantage of 6.8 SPC (sans the extra 3 rounds per mag, as most load to 28). It's just my cup of tea and I love it!
Powered by vBulletin® Version 4.2.5 Copyright © 2024 vBulletin Solutions, Inc. All rights reserved.