View Full Version : Higher Mount with LPVOs Opinions Needed
Hey guys, I'm looking now (and not finding!) any of the quality mounts I want to use with my LPVO (Razor III 1-10). I've been reading up on the height of the mount and am finding there appears to be a growing consensus around 1.93"/2" for a LPVO to make it easier to get on target with it from various non-prone positions and situations. Also, a person's body size/head size appears also to be a factor. I am 6'3" and have a big old melon, longish/square head.
Can I hear from guys with experience using LPVOs with higher mounts such as I'm describing?
Thanks.
titsonritz
08-25-20, 12:06
Geissele SP and Scalarworks LEAP mounts in 1.93" and would never back to a lower mount. Scalarworks are currently in stock but expensive. also check out Badger Ordnance, they are lighter that a G mount and cheaper than a S mount.
Thanks for the advice, unfortunately looks like the LEAP is OOS in 1.93" ... or did you see them somewhere else?
ExplorinInTheWoods
08-25-20, 16:33
Not a lot of time with higher mounts but I’m 6’2 and I don’t have any problems with a standard height mount. The 1.93 may be .1 faster on a shot timer but shooting in the prone and actually having a consistent cheek weld is more important to me. Plus everyone forgets that you have barricades/ports that may now be out of play because of the higher mount, if you’re shooting urban prone or junkyard and your rifle is canted that offset is now increased, your in close holds now have to be held higher. I wouldn’t mind a 1.7 mount since that’s 1/3 co witness height like an Eotech but only badger ordnance makes one.
IMHO, like a lot of things one size does not fit all, and the only way to truly know what height you prefer the most is to try it. I tried both the 1.700 and 1.930 height Badger mount, and overall *I* preferred the 1.930" height.
RKB Armory
08-26-20, 07:45
On a 1-6 LPVO with second focal plane, I definitely prefer the higher mount (I like the Bader Ordnance in 1.7") because of the ease of attaining a sight picture on 1x power. However, on a 1-10 with First Focal Plane, maybe you're not as interested in that. Would you would rather have the more traditional cheek weld that a traditional 1.5" height mount provides? Perhaps the traditional 1.5" height would provide you a more stable, repeatable shooting position for using the higher magnification.
TexasAggie2005
08-26-20, 08:21
In my complete hobbyist (non-professional & non-competitive use) I have come down to these opinions for myself.
- If shooting 75% or more prone or bench, I prefer a typical ~1.5" mount. Standing and moving is certainly possible, but less than ideal.
- If shooting 75% or more standing or moving, I prefer a 1.93"+ mount. Prone is possible with this height, but certainly less than ideal.
YMMV
This is sort of like holsters. You almost have to try it and see. I have been running American Defense high mounts for years with 1-4 and 1-6 and feel they are just about perfect for ME. When I hand those rifles to my shooting buddy he grumbles about them. If you grab a quality mount and it does not fit the bill you won't have any trouble selling/trading for what you need.
Why do you need a higher mount? Do you have a Laser at the 12 o'clock? If that is the case then a 1.93 mount is needed, is not the a 1.5 should be used. Is there any other reason to have a higher mount?
Defaultmp3
08-26-20, 11:24
Why do you need a higher mount? Do you have a Laser at the 12 o'clock? If that is the case then a 1.93 mount is needed, is not the a 1.5 should be used. Is there any other reason to have a higher mount?Lot of folks argue that the higher mount gives you a more heads up position, which is more comfortable (particularly if you have less flexibility, as you no longer have to scrunch your neck down as much) and allows you to get the optic into a more neutral eye position, which some will argue is a bit faster to acquire the reticle, and also allows for better use of corrective lenses. There is also the argument that you can get better recoil control, as you can sink the stock lower into the shoulder pocket. While the 1.93" did come out of the need to clear a PEQ-2 with an S&B Short Dot, it seems like there are definitely other unintended effects that have been beneficial for some shooters (e.g., Daniel Horner uses a tall LPVO mount despite not needing to use an MFAL for 3 gun).
Why do you need a higher mount? Is there any other reason to have a higher mount?
Explained in the OP.
vicious_cb
08-26-20, 14:47
Lot of folks argue that the higher mount gives you a more heads up position, which is more comfortable (particularly if you have less flexibility, as you no longer have to scrunch your neck down as much) and allows you to get the optic into a more neutral eye position, which some will argue is a bit faster to acquire the reticle, and also allows for better use of corrective lenses. There is also the argument that you can get better recoil control, as you can sink the stock lower into the shoulder pocket. While the 1.93" did come out of the need to clear a PEQ-2 with an S&B Short Dot, it seems like there are definitely other unintended effects that have been beneficial for some shooters (e.g., Daniel Horner uses a tall LPVO mount despite not needing to use an MFAL for 3 gun).
This. And the added benefit of having your line of sight more parallel with the ground for situational awareness when look through the optic vs your natural line of sight pointed at the ground in a 1.5" mount. Having used all 3 heights over the years Ill only ever use a lower 1/3 height or 1.93" mount going forward for my optics.
Explained in the OP.
Not well. Hence the question.
Lot of folks argue that the higher mount gives you a more heads up position, which is more comfortable (particularly if you have less flexibility, as you no longer have to scrunch your neck down as much) and allows you to get the optic into a more neutral eye position, which some will argue is a bit faster to acquire the reticle, and also allows for better use of corrective lenses. There is also the argument that you can get better recoil control, as you can sink the stock lower into the shoulder pocket. While the 1.93" did come out of the need to clear a PEQ-2 with an S&B Short Dot, it seems like there are definitely other unintended effects that have been beneficial for some shooters (e.g., Daniel Horner uses a tall LPVO mount despite not needing to use an MFAL for 3 gun).
I see what you are saying here. I do think this is yet another one of the 3 Gun things that people are trying to apply to other facets in shooting.
But whatever works for them. I use a 1.93 on most of my rifles because I have a PEQ on it. I have also been using them for a very long time so I have gotten accustomed to them. I do use a LaRue riser on a CTR stock with all of my 1.93 scope mounts. That helps a great deal to get the proper sight picture, that is a huge improvement.
I have a k16i in a Geissele 2.04 mount. It was previously in the standard height Geissele mount. I greatly prefer the 2.04. I also have an ATACR 1-8 in a standard height Geissele mount and wish they offered a 1.93 or 2.04 in 34mm. I have a long neck and the taller mount is more comfortable for me on a gas gun.
sidewaysil80
08-26-20, 22:19
My only experience with a 1.93” mount was with a NX8. I didn’t care for it to be honest. With LPVO’s, especially FFP ones (having a tighter eyebox) I feel the consistent eye relief is worth more then the potential milliseconds saved by the extra .43” in center bore height.
Defaultmp3
08-27-20, 00:27
I have a k16i in a Geissele 2.04 mount. It was previously in the standard height Geissele mount. I greatly prefer the 2.04. I also have an ATACR 1-8 in a standard height Geissele mount and wish they offered a 1.93 or 2.04 in 34mm. I have a long neck and the taller mount is more comfortable for me on a gas gun.Any reason you want to stick with Geissele? If not, KAC, Spuhr, and Badger Ordnance all make 34mm tall mounts (my ATACR is in a Spuhr 1.89").
Any reason you want to stick with Geissele? If not, KAC, Spuhr, and Badger Ordnance all make 34mm tall mounts (my ATACR is in a Spuhr 1.89").
At this point, I'd be happy to find what I need in stock from any of these guys.
Defaultmp3
08-27-20, 08:38
At this point, I'd be happy to find what I need in stock from any of these guys.https://www.milehighshooting.com/spuhr-sp-4024-cantilever-scope-mount-34-h48mm-1-89-0-mil/
https://www.operationparts.com/kac-knights-armament-one-piece-scope-mount-err-mod-1-34mm/
https://www.knightarmco.com/16124/shop/sighting/optic-mounts/34mm/34mm-kac-eer-mod-1
https://www.milehighshooting.com/spuhr-sp-4024-cantilever-scope-mount-34-h48mm-1-89-0-mil/
https://www.operationparts.com/kac-knights-armament-one-piece-scope-mount-err-mod-1-34mm/
https://www.knightarmco.com/16124/shop/sighting/optic-mounts/34mm/34mm-kac-eer-mod-1
I've got particular needs:
FDE
1.93"
0 MOA mount
That combination is tough to find in stock, so I've my name on the waiting list.
My preference is for the Geissele in Desert Dirt to match my Geissele Super Duty rifle.
Defaultmp3
08-27-20, 09:21
I've got particular needs:
FDE
1.93"
0 MOA mount
That combination is tough to find in stock, so I've my name on the waiting list.
My preference is for the Geissele in Desert Dirt to match my Geissele Super Duty rifle.FDE is easy, just Cerakote the mount, or Hell, hit it with some paint like I did.
Is there any reason it must be 1.93"? A tall mount is a tall mount; I can see a requirement for something exactly 2.04" in order to be able to 0.5" risers with clip-ons and have a perfectly centered image, but for pure daytime shooting, unless you've tried all the minor different heights and have found them lacking specifically to 1.93", the general added height is more than enough to gain all the benefits of a tall mount.
Is there any reason it must be 1.93"?
Read the discussion in this thread as to why I'm going with a 1.93" height mount.
Defaultmp3
08-27-20, 09:26
Read the discussion in this thread as to why I'm going with a 1.93" height mount.I'm not sure I understand the issue. Are you saying that 0.04" too low (Spuhr) or 0.01" too high (KAC) will negate all the advantages of a 1.93" for you?
I'm not sure I understand the issue. Are you saying that 0.04" too low (Spuhr) or 0.01" too high (KAC) will negate all the advantages of a 1.93" for you?
Ah, no, I'm not being pedantic about it from the perspective of 100th of inches, I thought you were chiming in on the topic of the thread: mount height for LPVOs.
I'll probably just wait for the Geissele high mounts to come back in stock and use my 20% off coupon that came with the rifle.
I prefer the higher mounts for my GP carbines with LPVO. My two 14.5” guns have an NXS 1-8 and a P4Xi 1-4, both in Geissele 2.04” mounts. Very happy with both setups.
so, I looked at what Geissele offers and they offer no 34mm high mount, so...ixney.
Now, Spuhr does, no FDE though, but they have a cantilevered mount that is 1.8"
KAC...just does not appeal to me.
It's looking like Badger may be the best option for me at this point.
I don't quite think ADM is of the same quality.
So, here's the end of my story. I just ordered a Badger Ordnance mount, FDE, from a shop down in Louisianna, their last one in inventory, 1.93" height, so feeling pretty good. Thanks very much for the helpful advice guys. Now I have to decide what red dot I want with it: Aimpoint or RMR.
So, here's the end of my story. I just ordered a Badger Ordnance mount, FDE, from a shop down in Louisianna, their last one in inventory, 1.93" height, so feeling pretty good. Thanks very much for the helpful advice guys. Now I have to decide what red dot I want with it: Aimpoint or RMR.
This shit is so damn expensive it makes the choices that much harder.
I think I'm going with the badger condition 1 as well but the 1.7" hight.
Haha seeing a trend here? I just ordered a Condition One from Brownells yesterday.
I liked everything about the mount: size, weight, modularity, and the fact it's NOT QD. Very nice design for a sight you don't plan to move on/off the rifle too often. And really, more affordable than options like Spuhr and Scalarworks.
Haha seeing a trend here? I just ordered a Condition One from Brownells yesterday.
I liked everything about the mount: size, weight, modularity, and the fact it's NOT QD. Very nice design for a sight you don't plan to move on/off the rifle too often. And really, more affordable than options like Spuhr and Scalarworks.
Yes, it came down to the feature-set of the Badger, and I was able to find on in stock that was with the height I wanted, color, etc.
Any reason you want to stick with Geissele? If not, KAC, Spuhr, and Badger Ordnance all make 34mm tall mounts (my ATACR is in a Spuhr 1.89").
I have been eyeballing the 1.89 Spuhr for the past year. I like Spuhr and used to have a S&B 4-16x50 pm2 mounted in one. I just have too many irons in the fire and it’s not a priority.
I am surprised nobody mentioned Bobro yet.
http://www.bobroengineering.com/Single-Lever-193_p_98.html
Currently showing 1.93 34mm in-stock. They have one of the nicest lever-based QD mount I've ever used. Also, ADM do offer 34mm in 1.93 (Recon-H).
I don't quite think ADM is of the same quality.
Why do you feel this way? I've never had any problem with mine. Holds zero on a 6.5 Cre and RTZ like a champ, and I have the titanium version.
morpheus562
09-03-20, 11:20
My wife has the Razor 1-6 in the Geissele 1.93" and I am running the Razor 1-10 in the Badger 1.93". We both like the speed and getting the optic up and on target with the higher mount. I am definitely faster with the lpvo in a 1.93" than I am with an aimpoint in a lower 1/3rd mount. I did notice it was harder for me running barricade drills with the higher mount though.
Powered by vBulletin® Version 4.2.5 Copyright © 2024 vBulletin Solutions, Inc. All rights reserved.