Mounting over the "gap" situation *Updated w/ pics*

[krisjon]

I know it's typically not good to straddle the receiver and rail directly with an optic because any expansion/shifts can affect your zero.

But what are people's thoughts if that same optic (Eotech XPS2-0) is on a rigid LaRue LT-110 mount that straddles the receiver and my DD Omega about 60% receiver/40% rail, locks up very tight and doesn't flex?

With my BUIS, Po Boy Magnifier/LaRue mount and Eotech/LaRue mount I'm running out of space on the receiver. I'm also playing with flipping the LaRue LT-110 mount backwards to get back some of the wasted receiver space because of the mount's extra length.

Thanks!

[krisjon]

All these views and no one has any insight or recommendations? :confused:

[JohnnyC]

You may not be able to feel any flex when you put some ass into it, but there's certainly flex during recoil. There's some good high speed footage somewhere around here. Bottom line, if it wasn't an issue why would people that know such things say it was a bad idea.

[krisjon]

You may not be able to feel any flex when you put some ass into it, but there's certainly flex during recoil. There's some good high speed footage somewhere around here. Bottom line, if it wasn't an issue why would people that know such things say it was a bad idea.

Thanks.

Was just wondering if the rigidity and bar-like mounting of the LT-110 (and the fact that my Omega provides a continuous rail from the receiver) would offset or negate the twisting/flex that can occur?

I guess I need to play with flipping the mount backwards to get the Eotech back fully on the receiver if I can and/or reconsider this setup. I wish that LT-110 mount were shorter - lots of wasted space.

[JSantoro]

With my BUIS, Po Boy Magnifier/LaRue mount and Eotech/LaRue mount I'm running out of space on the receiver.

...which begs the question: Just what else do you intend to put on the receiver that requires extra space?

"Running out of space" strongly implies that space remains, and that you may simply be starting to chase the mice running around in your head as to what to do with it, like folks under the mistaken impression that one must fill...

Every.
Single.
Space.
Of PALS webbing on a MOLLE armor carrier. :rolleyes: :p

It's not a great idea to straddle (why introduce a potential variable if it can be avoided and there's no pressing reason to do so?) but IF YOU DO, reduce the potential for variables by making it so that the recoil lug of the optic/mount you are using is in the forwardmost rail slot of the receiver.

If you have two recoil lugs, put the forwardmost lug in the forwardmost slot.

[krisjon]

I hoping these pics better show/explain what I'm dealing with.

I don't think having a BUIS, FTS magnifier and Eotech is going overboard and that I'm "just trying to fill rail space." I've heard of/seen many people running a similar type of setup.

The big issue is accounting for the extra length/riser section on the LaRue LT-110 mount that's not being used. There just aren't a lot of options out there (and I'd encounter the same issue with the YHM mount being too long as well). I have flipped it around now so it's backwards. I got the idea from a post Kyle Defoor had who runs his the same way and part of his LT-110 mounts over the gap, too. (see pic in next post)

Given that my XPS' battery pack is really the only thing hanging over the gap and the rest of the sight is technically on the receiver, am I ok here with this mount overlap? The XPS has a recoil lug built into its screw mount and the LT-110's lug is now under the QD lever (since it's flipped around).

Or am I still asking for trouble and need to consider an EXPS with a built-in riser and scrap this setup? I don't want to cause problems or unneeded stress on my rifle.

Thanks, guys!

[krisjon]

Here's how Kyle Defoor has mounted his LT-110 over the gap.