I'm done with one-piece scope mounts

[henschman]

None of those cheek riser stocks work for me because the cheek piece is always well rearward of where my cheek rests. If I use a collapsible stock, I set it basically to A2 length to shoot nose to charging handle, so my cheek is always resting on the buffer tube instead of the body of the stock, where the riser would be. Anything that clears the charging handle, like the PRS, is also too far to the rear.

The ADM, Spuhr, and Badger are not extended cantilever type mounts, so they wouldn't put the optic far enough forward to get eye relief.

I ordered this extended riser from IOR Valdada: http://www.brownells.com/optics-moun...prod42982.aspx
I'm hoping that it plus some 0.9" tall Leupold rings I have will put me where I need to be.

[steyrman13]

None of those cheek riser stocks work for me because the cheek piece is always well rearward of where my cheek rests. If I use a collapsible stock, I set it basically to A2 length to shoot nose to charging handle, so my cheek is always resting on the buffer tube instead of the body of the stock, where the riser would be. Anything that clears the charging handle, like the PRS, is also too far to the rear.

The ADM, Spuhr, and Badger are not extended cantilever type mounts, so they wouldn't put the optic far enough forward to get eye relief.

I ordered this extended riser from IOR Valdada: http://www.brownells.com/optics-moun...prod42982.aspx
I'm hoping that it plus some 0.9" tall Leupold rings I have will put me where I need to be.

That riser is .416" high plus .9" rings. You would want lower rings because that puts you at 1.3" high still. Maybe I missed it, but what scope are you using? You could always sell your upper and get a monolithic upper like a mega or LMT MRP to help with keep the scope farther forward and low.

[henschman]

According to Valdada, that mount raises the rail 3/8", which is 0.375". With the 0.9" rings, center of optic should be 1.275" over the rail. Hell, even 1.3" would be fine really. I am using a Burris TAC30 on the rifle I'll be putting its setup on. A mono upper isn't a bad idea either, though I haven't seen many I like.

[steyrman13]

According to Valdada, that mount raises the rail 3/8", which is 0.375". With the 0.9" rings, center of optic should be 1.275" over the rail. Hell, even 1.3" would be fine really. I am using a Burris TAC30 on the rifle I'll be putting its setup on. A mono upper isn't a bad idea either, though I haven't seen many I like.

It may. I was just looking at the specs provided from brownells on the link you provided. The height they have may be including the part that goes under your upper rail to lock on rather than the height it puts your rings off the top of the receiver rail

[henschman]

It may. I was just looking at the specs provided from brownells on the link you provided. The height they have may be including the part that goes under your upper rail to lock on rather than the height it puts your rings off the top of the receiver rail

I looked a few different places when I was checking this option out, and that appears to be the case. Brownell's lists the overall dimensions of the product, not how high it raises the rail surface.

[henschman]

Well, the Valdada riser arrived today. Long story short, it works... just not quite as well as I was hoping. When installed, the riser actually raises the rail surface 0.55"... a lot higher than I had hoped! The Leupold rings put the scope just a hair higher than the irons, but it's at least a good 0.1" lower than the Primary Arms mount it was in before. Cheek weld is noticeably better. The combo of the riser block and the solid steel Leupold QRW rigs is unfortunately a good bit heavier than the aluminum PA mount though. I may try some slightly lower rings, but with the height of that riser, I only have about 0.1" of clearance between the ocular housing and the riser, so I can't go too much lower with this setup. I will try to find a lower riser.

[BobinNC]

Henschman,

You may want to give Badger Ordnance a call. Their AR Riser Rail is listed as being 0.430" high. https://www.badgerordnance.com/produ...rail-22-moa-2/

[sinister]

Not sure there's some kind of conspiracy to specifically mess with you, but the Army did/does issue these little gadgets and some folks don't care to off-set them on the port or starboard side:




600-yard requirement? Gimme a break. Most troops will never shoot past 300 meters, ever, period, full stop.

[henschman]

Hmm, I didn't think about IR lasers as a reason... but didn't they used to mount those on A2s also? Seems like the irons cleared them fine, even with their slightly lower sight plane. I don't know why a scope at the same height would have any more trouble... no more an a front sight post would cause anyway. As far as putting 600m sights on the M4... yeah, the DOD's tendency to insist on service rifles being designed for across the course High Power competition rather than actual combat shooting is annoying. Pretty sure nobody would have gotten killed if they'd kept the same sight height and only given them adjustment out to 500, lol.

I found this YHM 0.5" riser that looks like it would be better, and went ahead and ordered one, along with some Vortex Low rings (0.83"). It looks like I could set it up in lower rings with the optical housing hanging past the back of the mount.
http://www.midwayusa.com/product/269...ProductFinding

[Alaskapopo]

To each his own. I like one piece mounts and have never had an issue with the height.
Pat