Scope Mount for Beginners

[Digital_Damage]

"aren't that good," in what respects?

Nothing wrong with them at the time of release, however they are getting long in the tooth.

I still like the 1-8 I have, find it hard to switch. If the Minox had half mil marks I would switch to that.

[Hunt3r]

"aren't that good," in what respects?

Illumination is not sufficiently bright in either the SFP or FFP case for the Bushnell SMRS optics. The same is true of the Trijicon Accupower. Bushnell also isn't bringing anything special to the table in terms of FOV, in general the XTR II 1-5x is going to beat it there, the only place where Bushnell is really "winning" is that their zoom at the high end goes higher.

In the case of the Accupower, the field of view is even narrower than the Bushnell SMRS.

Pretty much the only reason to not go for something like the Burris XTR II 1-5x or Vortex Razor HD II 1-6x is weight. You'll save roughly 8 ounces by going with the Accupower or SMRS.

If you want to see reviews of all of these optics other than the Accupower, take a look at SuperSetCA's videos. He's a 3-gun competitor and has tried pretty much everything from the Swarovski Z6i/Kahles K16i to the Primary Arms 1-6x. His observations are quite illuminating.

I don't mean to dump on these optics. There's nothing wrong with them in the end, and a few years ago they were some of the best you could get for the price. However, the market has moved on especially with the Squad Common Optic program looming every manufacturer seems to have kicked their efforts into overdrive.

I would definitely be interested in seeing Bushnell release refreshed FFP and SFP variants of their SMRS optics. It could be very interesting if they could dethrone the Vortex Razor HD II.

[elephantrider]

Illumination is not sufficiently bright in either the SFP or FFP case for the Bushnell SMRS optics. The same is true of the Trijicon Accupower. Bushnell also isn't bringing anything special to the table in terms of FOV, in general the XTR II 1-5x is going to beat it there, the only place where Bushnell is really "winning" is that their zoom at the high end goes higher.

The Bushnell SMRS FFP reticle is a mess and has been since initial release. The SFP reticle is very usable. No, it is not daylight bright, but it doesn't really need to be as it is plainly visible in most situations without illumination. The daylight usability without illumination is a desirable feature for those that don't want to rely on batteries and electronics, or just don't want to run their LPV like it is a red dot.

FOV? Bushnell FOV is 105.8 ft.; Burris FOV is 108 ft. 2.2 ft. at 100 yds. is a significant difference?

Pretty much the only reason to not go for something like the Burris XTR II 1-5x or Vortex Razor HD II 1-6x is weight. You'll save roughly 8 ounces by going with the Accupower or SMRS.

Burris is about 4 oz. more, and Vortex is about 8 oz. more than the Bushnell, but not the only reason to choose one over the other.

If you want to see reviews of all of these optics other than the Accupower, take a look at SuperSetCA's videos. He's a 3-gun competitor and has tried pretty much everything from the Swarovski Z6i/Kahles K16i to the Primary Arms 1-6x. His observations are quite illuminating.

Seen them a while ago.

[Hunt3r]

The Bushnell SMRS FFP reticle is a mess and has been since initial release. The SFP reticle is very usable. No, it is not daylight bright, but it doesn't really need to be as it is plainly visible in most situations without illumination. The daylight usability without illumination is a desirable feature for those that don't want to rely on batteries and electronics, or just don't want to run their LPV like it is a red dot.

FOV? Bushnell FOV is 105.8 ft.; Burris FOV is 108 ft. 2.2 ft. at 100 yds. is a significant difference?

I was thinking more of the Razor HD II in this case, which is a good step up from both of those.

Burris is about 4 oz. more, and Vortex is about 8 oz. more than the Bushnell, but not the only reason to choose one over the other.

That's fair. My calculus with regard to LPV choice may be very different from your's. I just wanted to make sure that you've considered your options and you know what you want as if your priorities are similar to mine (RDS speed at 1x, good perf at 6x) then those could be rather painful choices.

[elephantrider]

I was thinking more of the Razor HD II in this case, which is a good step up from both of those.

That's fair. My calculus with regard to LPV choice may be very different from your's. I just wanted to make sure that you've considered your options and you know what you want as if your priorities are similar to mine (RDS speed at 1x, good perf at 6x) then those could be rather painful choices.

I hear you, the Vortex does have very good FOV. Optic selection is obviously a very preference driven thing. The OP did mention that he is having trouble with his red dots and older eyes, so a LPV with a red dot like reticle may not work best for him. My point was merely that the Bushnell does have a very bold black reticle that works well w/o illumination, so it may fit his needs better.

[majohnson]

Like you I am in my fifties and I can not shoot in the prone position. If you are not trying to shoot long distances there is not much reason to get a 20 moa mount. Trying to keep your scope as low as possible will help prevent you from needing to build up the stock height to get a consistent cheek weld.

On my AR I run a cantilevered mounts, it gives you enough eye relief to keep the scope on the upper receiver. As for optics I run 4-16 scopes. What I seem to find is guys shooting 1-6 type scopes, can not find their hits on paper sometimes even as close as 100yds. I have let more then one person look through my scope so they can find their hits.

I use a Manfrotto 055 tripod and ball head, along with a Hog saddle to shoot off of when a bench is not available.

[HKGuns]

How does being 50 prevent you from shooting prone? Just curious.

[majohnson]

3 surgeries 4 levels fused, plate 6 screws and wire hold my neck together.

[Rmplstlskn]

3 surgeries 4 levels fused, plate 6 screws and wire hold my neck together.

Yep, that will do it...

Rmpl

[WS6]

I just picked up a K16i, and also have a Nightforce 1-4 w/FC-2 reticle. The FOV thing is notable, but the big difference to me at least is the illumination on the K16i is Aimpoint bright, and the Nightforce is not. Further, the NF has a touch more magnification on 1x.

Now...

Neither of these things "matter" a whole lot if you train with the optics. While the K16i is sexier and nicer and "better", the NF is by no means obsolete, unusable, or any other euphemism. I honestly like both. The K16i is in a custom Bobro, and the NF is in a mil-spec NF mount.

I leveled the NF with a micrometer wedged under the turret cluster, and then mic'ed the ring-gaps as I tightened. Ring gaps are +- 0.002" from each other Left/Right, and I double-checked reticle level on my Badger "Dead Level". Seems the micrometer did as good a job as anything, wedged under there.

Before that, I tried the Arisaka wedge deals. They absolutely sucked and the scope was probably 3* off at a minimum.

I used the same methods with the Bobro, except there was not enough room for the micrometer under the housing, so I had to use the Badger exclusively.

I put my margin of error at 1* or less. That is a 5" displacement at 1000 yards. Roughly 0.5 MOA.

I have seen rifle scopes at the range with all sorts of issues, so here are a few to avoid:

-Rings over torqued and TOUCHING!: Buy a Wheeler Fat Wrench, or Vortex, or if you're rich, Proto.
-Rings over lenses/against turret clusters/magnification rings: Use common sense. This can break lenses, and skew tracking or magnification changes.
-Scope not level: For every 1* of cant, that is 5" POI shift at 1,000 yards. Set your margin of error with this in mind.
-Rings not pushed forward in the 1913 slots: All mounts shift under firing. Period. It's just a matter of how much, and how consistently. Push the mount forward in the slots before torquing/tightening your QD

A few thoughts: Loctite acts as a light lubricant. Reduce torque by 15% when using it. Stick to manufacturer torque recommendations of both the rings AND the optic. Try to buy products that have common ground, for example, if Bobro recommends 14-20 inch pounds, and Vortex recommends "no more than 18 inch pounds", then you're G2G. However, if you use a LaRue, and 30 inch-pounds is recommended, then you're going to have to choose who's spec to step outside of with your Vortex optic. That's 10 inch pounds out of spec, whichever one you choose, and if you split it, you're still 5+ inch pounds over or under...not a comfortable place to be, for me at least. (the answer per Vortex, FYI, is to tighten the bottom screws to around 22 and the top to 17-18).

Anyway, just my .02