View Full Version : AD Recon scope mount - standard or extended
I'd like to start using my 16" mid-length AR as my coyote and bunny rifle, so I'll need to install a scope of course. I've been checking out the optics picture thread on TOS and have noticed that with the majority of scoped rifle pictures, the eyepiece is even/flush with the charging handle. I haven't taken a depth measurement from the tip of my nose to my eyeball, but wouldn't a nose to charging handle stance put your eye too close to the eyepiece for proper eye relief (3 - 3.7 inches on a Leupold MR/T 2.5-8)?
Then I look at this picture below on the Leupold site, and wonder where the nose to charging handle stance is at?
http://www.leupold.com/_images/beauty/tactical/beauty4-9.jpg
I just want to make sure I get the correct mount, either the standard or the extended.
http://www.bravocompanyusa.com/v/vspfiles/photos/AD%20RECON%2030-2.jpg
http://www.bravocompanyusa.com/v/vspfiles/photos/AD%20RECON%20X%201-2.jpg
Advice please.
Also, where can I find the measurements for the two different mounts, so I can verify the distance between rings and placement of rings will allow for proper scope placement and correct eye relief?
Thanks.
Robb Jensen
12-18-07, 22:11
Either will work with the MR/T 1.5-5x.
Personally I would get the extended.
Sorry. I know the picture is of the 1.5-5, but I plan on getting the 2.5-8.
PALADIN-hgwt
12-18-07, 22:38
xxxxx
I shoot NTCH using an old non-trapdoor M16 stock, and the eye relief spec of this Leupold is 3.7 to 4.5 inches IIRC. You might not want the Recon-X.
Paladin
http://mysite.verizon.net/respz08b/sitebuildercontent/sitebuilderpictures/Captured_2005-8-20_00002.jpg
Do you think it will place a 3 - 3.7 inch eye relief scope too far forward? How does your ring placement compare to the extended mount? Could you measure how for forward your eyepiece is in comparison to the CH? Could you also give the measurements of your scope? You know, the standard measurements between the turrets and where the bell starts flaring out? Also the overall measurement between bells where the bells start to flare (the overall length of the tube itself)? Length of eyepiece and length of objective? Or...are the specs the same as a current 2x7 (which one?) on their website?
Thank you.
Robb Jensen
12-19-07, 06:09
The 2.5-8x will work in the extended as well.
I've been checking out the optics picture thread on TOS and have noticed that with the majority of scoped rifle pictures, the eyepiece is even/flush with the charging handle. I haven't taken a depth measurement from the tip of my nose to my eyeball, but wouldn't a nose to charging handle stance put your eye too close to the eyepiece for proper eye relief (3 - 3.7 inches on a Leupold MR/T 2.5-8)?
This was always a huge annoyance for me. There are so many retarded set-ups posted over there.
I would just have to laugh when some goofball would post a carbean with a 4-pos stock and some monster scope with the eyepiece behind the charging handle, and in some high scope rings. :rolleyes: And they were just as proud as can be over their set up!
I swear in the years I spent over there, I could count the number of pics of of rifles with magnified optics mounted remotely correct on one hand.
This was always a huge annoyance for me. There are so many retarded set-ups posted over there.
I would just have to laugh when some goofball would post a carbean with a 4-pos stock and some monster scope with the eyepiece behind the charging handle, and in some high scope rings. :rolleyes: And they were just as proud as can be over their set up!
I swear in the years I spent over there, I could count the number of pics of of rifles with magnified optics mounted remotely correct on one hand.
I wish there was a spreadsheet of where the eyepiece should be for different scopes when utilizing NTCH, or at least remotely close to NTCH. I know everybody's face is different, but I've only seen a few people with extra deep eye sockets coupled with extra long noses. I don't want to buy a mount (based on pictures of other setups), then have to pay for shipping to send it back so I can get the other mount.
I'm still a bit uncomfortable mashing my nose to the charging handle, but I'm at least either touching the tip, or within a 1/4 inch. Plus, I don't want any CLP marking up my nose. :)
How about some pictures of the right setups?
There was some info on some scopes posted here with there various eye reliefs, but I can't remember which thread.
Then I look at this picture below on the Leupold site, and wonder where the nose to charging handle stance is at?
I wouldn't read too much into that promotional pic.
That's looks to be a tactical scope for one. The shooter is kinda bladed off for another.
Your set up will not be like this dude's.
There are so many retarded set-ups posted over there.
A lot of shooters don't shoot NTCH. Doesn't mean it's right, doesn't mean it's best, and doesn't mean it's the way the military teaches it.
I certainly don't shoot the AR10 with NTCH. To do otherwise is asking for a contusion to your proboscis.
The way I check if my mount is correct is to mount the optic to the rifle, pick up the rifle with my eyes closed, and then shoulder the weapon.
If I open my eyes and the optic is "right there", then I have it mounted properly for ME. If I open my eyes and I have to make major adjustments to get a good sight picture, or find the reticle, then it needs adjustment.
Also, I have a long cheekweld area, apparently. So the high Badger rings work well for me. I see a lot of people who fit themselves around the rifle and not the other way around.
Oh, and BTW, if you search out USMC03's responses, you will see a very good case for why the SPR-EER, or ADM Recon-X is probably the best solution for most magnified optics that don't have a PEQ in front of them.
A lot of shooters don't shoot NTCH. Doesn't mean it's right, doesn't mean it's best, and doesn't mean it's the way the military teaches it.
I certainly don't shoot the AR10 with NTCH. To do otherwise is asking for a contusion to your proboscis.
The way I check if my mount is correct is to mount the optic to the rifle, pick up the rifle with my eyes closed, and then shoulder the weapon.
If I open my eyes and the optic is "right there", then I have it mounted properly for ME. If I open my eyes and I have to make major adjustments to get a good sight picture, or find the reticle, then it needs adjustment.
Also, I have a long cheekweld area, apparently. So the high Badger rings work well for me. I see a lot of people who fit themselves around the rifle and not the other way around.
All valid points. But you know what I mean...
Some of the shit that gets posted wouldn't make sense for any human body type. Set ups that you know damned well the goober behind the trigger isn't even touching his face to the stock to shoot it, let alone get a proper cheekweld.
All valid points. But you know what I mean...
Yep, I know precisely what you mean. Not sure how many M1A's I've seen with those high risers, and medium or high rings....
Then no cheekpiece. :rolleyes:
Yet they assure you that they can see through and use the scope well enough to shoot sub-MOA groups at 500yds using South African surplus or better yet Indian milsurp. :p :p
Exactly. I always like to ask how they get a cheekweld?
And they always respond with something along the lines of what you posted.
Exactly. I always like to ask how they get a cheekweld?
Cheekweld?!? I thought it was chinweld!
I think "buy before try" leaves many folks with something that doesn't really fit well. They probably don't know they could improve their setup, or are unwilling to spend to try something else.
Don't know if this will help but here's a 1.5-5 in a 1.93 LaRue mount and a 3.5-10 in a 1.5 LaRue mount.
I don't shoot nose to CH but almost, I shoot where I feel most comfortable. I run the stock in one notch when wearing a coat and even though on lower powers I could mount them further forward, when you crank up the power your eye relief closes in.
If you shoot NTCH the extended mount might work better but maybe this will give you an idea.
http://img.photobucket.com/albums/v374/TOM64/000_0751.jpg
Oh, and BTW, if you search out USMC03's responses, you will see a very good case for why the SPR-EER, or ADM Recon-X is probably the best solution for most magnified optics that don't have a PEQ in front of them.
PEQ??
PEQ-2A (http://www.insightlights.com/products-peq2a.htm)
PEQ-2A (http://www.insightlights.com/products-peq2a.htm)
Thanks.
Oh, and BTW, if you search out USMC03's responses, you will see a very good case for why the SPR-EER, or ADM Recon-X is probably the best solution for most magnified optics that don't have a PEQ in front of them.
He's got too many posts. :) While searching, I did find this thread of his, https://www.m4carbine.net/showpost.php?p=87635&postcount=1, and you can see the turrets are right up against the front ring on this standard mount, limiting any further forward adjustment. Then I see other pictures in this post, https://www.m4carbine.net/showthread.php?p=71052#post71052. These rifles have the extended mount, and I can see the turrets are still against the forward ring, but I can also see there is more room between the eye and the eyepiece on the shooters. There's also plenty of room to slide to the rear if the scope requires it.
Do you happen to know which threads I can find some written statements? Thanks.
Roy
While searching, I did find this thread of his, https://www.m4carbine.net/showpost.php?p=87635&postcount=1, and you can see the turrets are right up against the front ring on this standard mount, limiting any further forward adjustment.
Right, and that's the regular M4 mount. Which he writes up as being good, but limited for the very reason you see.
These rifles have the extended mount, and I can see the turrets are still against the forward ring, but I can also see there is more room between the eye and the eyepiece on the shooters. There's also plenty of room to slide to the rear if the scope requires it.
Yep, and I think that is how he has his actual duty gun setup too. Might IM him. He posts his write up all the time, as it's well thought out, it's been edited over time, and it covers nearly every angle of this decision.
I'll IM him too so he posts here.
I actually did a search and found that for the Leupold 1.5-5 USMC03 says that the SPR mount is good for eye relief, and the SPR-E moves it too far forward on an AR-15.
I use the SPR-E and MR/T 1.5 on an AR-10, but it's not mounted all the way forward.
Since the Recon and Recon-X mimic the SPR and SPR-E, you'd probably be able to get by with the X version, but it might not be ideal based on USMC03's attempted usage of the extended LaRue E mount and that optic.
Sorry, the mounts are just too new to say for sure. When you get it, do a review and let us know for sure.
Here's even more information on TOS, bottom of page 2 USMC03 talks more about the different LaRue mounts, and their use with different combos.
Again, the ADM Recon and Recon-X mimc the SPR and SPR-EER, so this should help.
http://www.ar15.com/forums/topic.html?b=3&f=118&t=331992&page=2
I actually did a search and found that for the Leupold 1.5-5 USMC03 says that the SPR mount is good for eye relief, and the SPR-E moves it too far forward on an AR-15.
Since the Recon and Recon-X mimic the SPR and SPR-E, you'd probably be able to get by with the X version, but it might not be ideal based on USMC03's attempted usage of the extended LaRue E mount and that optic.
According to the Leupold site, the specs (eye relief, tube length, length of tube both fore and aft of turrets, etc.) for the MR/T 1.5-5 and MR/T 2.5-8 are very similar. The only difference worth noting is the 1.5-5 has .6 to .7 more eye relief through out it's range. How much further forward are the rings on a Recon-X / SPR-E then on a Recon / SPR mount? I'm surprised the SPR-E would put the 1.5-5 too far forward, since the 1.5-5 has a longer eye relief. IF the difference between the SPR-E and the SPR is .7 inches, then the SPR would put the 2.5-8 too far forward just like the SPR-E puts the 1.5-5 too far forward.
http://www.leupold.com/_images/scope-diagram.gif
MR/T 1.5-5
Tube Length (B) 5.8 in
(C) 2.1 in
(D) 2.5 in
Eyepiece Length (E) 3.1 in
Eye Relief (in) 3.6 (4.4)
MR/T 2.5-8
Tube Length (B) 5.8 in
(C) 1.9 in
(D) 2.4 in
Eyepiece Length (E) 3.1 in
Eye Relief (in) 3.0 (3.7)
I think his reference frame, from reading the above, is that he's using an A2 stock. I believe he is 5'6", so it might actually, be too far in that setup.
From other correspondence with USMC03:
"The SPR-E (extended) is more *versatile* in my opinion. With most quality optics, the eye relief is quite generous. Often times the eye relief is so generous that we have a problem getting the optic far enough forward on the AR's upper receiver.
What makes the SPR-E more versatile is that it has the ability to mount the optic further forward, but can also mount the optic almost as far to the rear as you can with the standard SPR mount. If the SPR-E puts the optic too far forward you have a couple options. You can move the optic rearward in the mount and / or you can move the mount to the rear on the upper receiver."
I've used both brands, and the extended variants certainly seem to offer more options.
http://stickman.rainierarms.com/galleries/American%20Defense%20MFG/IMG_9123%201028%20Stick.jpg
Powered by vBulletin® Version 4.2.5 Copyright © 2024 vBulletin Solutions, Inc. All rights reserved.