I'm done with one-piece scope mounts

[henschman]

Yeah, but neither one makes any of the lower ones that are extended cantilever type mounts.

[Biggy]

http://www.precisionreflex.com/Detai...33988&CAT=4275

[henschman]

Awesome... thanks dude

[henschman]

According to LaRue's website, the SPR series of mounts are not available in lower ring heights. Only the LT-120, which is not a cantilever mount, is lower.


Same deal with ADM... the chart on their website lists only the ADM-SL (which is not a cantilever mount) as being lower than 1.4" in 30mm size.


I will give this YHM riser a try, and might get one of those PRI extended mounts for a different rifle too.

[BobinNC]

Henschman,

Spuhr of Sweden is coming out with a new low AR Mount http://spuhrwebshop.com/en/mounts-fo...r/sp-3026.html Pricey indeed, but only 1.26" high and a long cantilever

[henschman]

That Spuhr looks pretty beefy! It's good to see there are at least some options for a one-piece that is the right height for good cheek weld.

[JoshNC]

That Spuhr looks pretty beefy! It's good to see there are at least some options for a one-piece that is the right height for good cheek weld.

They are surprisingly light for as beefy as they are. Spuhr mounts are quite literally art in metal.

[henschman]

I got the YHM riser today. It does pretty much what I was hoping it would. I am still using the Leupold 0.97" rings. As you can see, I can go to quite a bit lower rings without clearance issues, since the ocular housing hangs over the back of the mount, unlike with the Valdada riser. This is also significantly lighter than the Valdada. The combo of this riser and the rings, even being steel rings, is still lighter than a Burris PEPR. I have some aluminum Vortex low rings on the way, and if this works like I think it will, there will be no reason for me to spend more on a one piece mount. Also this way if I ever get clip-on NV, all I have to do is put a little higher rings on it. This pic is with it installed on my M&P 10 by the way.

[thopkins22]

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.

You're missing the point. It has nothing to do with getting the the PEQ-2 out of the sight picture(as you noted that's not a problem even with things that stick up higher.) They were designed to allow both items to physically fit on the same rifle without putting the PEQ on the side where it's much more prone to being damaged.

Take a carbine length gas system(or a mid length for that matter in case you want to be able to actually change batteries even with an Aimpoint M4S) with a fixed front sight base add your PEQ-2 at 12, and then tell me how else you're going to put a short dot(or other variable) on it. The high base starts to make a whole lot of sense because it won't physically fit unless its mount has the objective end higher than the PEQ. Also remember that for a lot of dudes that had short dots and other premium variables even available to them when these were first coming out(those who drove the requirement for more than 1.5" of height,) the daylight optic was rarely used and in most cases the DBAL/PEQ WAS the primary aiming device and therefore it was more important to have it where you wanted it and protected than getting a slightly better cheek weld for your optic.

[henschman]

That makes a lot of sense thopkins. It is strange that manufacturers kept the same height when selling to the civilian market though. Only a tiny fraction of domestic ARs will ever see a DBAL or AN/PEQ. I guess what the military uses frequently ends up driving the civilian market. Take M-4 profile barrels for instance.