1.54 vs 1.93 optic height for Razor 1-6

[FightinQ]

I have been running a 1.930” height mount way before they became more popular. IMHO, unless you actually try one, you are pretty much guessing or relying on other people’s opinions on what mount height works best for you.

I've tried all three. So not guessing at all. I think that the actual user knows what's best them, right?

[prepare]

I've been by told by a former action guy that the 1.93 mounts are popular due to the SOCOM guys latest shooting position/stance that lowers the butt of the stock more on the chest vs high in the shoulder pocket for better stability and recoil management. This position lowers the rifle more into the body to absorb recoil and the higher mount allows them to still keep their head up for situational awareness.

[TexasAggie2005]

I really think it all depends on how you shoot. If you don't shoot in the prone at least 50% of the time, most people will be better suited with the 1.93. I think the "face barely touching the stock" is vastly overblown, but then again, I rarely shoot prone and I do feel like my neck is scrunched when shooting with a 1.54.

Totally agree. I hardly ever shoot prone, so 1.93"+ is much more suited to my shooting.

I just wish they ( Geissele ) made an 1.93" extended. From what I have read, the Razor 1-6 needs a lot of eye relief.

Agreed. A 1.93" extended would be perfect. I'm about to trade off my 2.04" G mount, just so I can can an extended. **edited to add: my comments were in regards to mount height, not necessarily regarding use with a Razor. I use a Trijicon TR25 1-6.**

A 1.93" height mount will place a 30mm tube at the same height as an EOTech EXPS.

Your cheek will firmly be in contact with the stock. I am not a big person and the difference between the two heights is so negligible in reality, it's a non issue. You will not be craning your neck like a giraffe to shoot in the prone, and you won't have some pseudo chin weld with the stock when standing.

The 1.93 height wasn't developed for any other reason other than a now deceased CAG Operator working furiously with LaRue to clear the FOV of a 1-4x Short Dot over a PEQ on the top rail. It wasn't to use with a gas mask. It wasn't to give a more heads up shooting position. It wasn't to help shoot with NODs. Any of the previous are coincidental by products.

The difference is less than 0.4". Get a ruler and make two tick marks on a dry erase board 0.4" apart and ask yourself if that's truly the difference between floating in space or still maintaining a cheek weld. And if you have ever shot an EOTech EXPS: you have shot an optic equivalent in height to a 1.93" mount.

Here's a photo essay:





If you lack the ability to grab a rifle and get a sight picture, and the difference in 0.4" of optic height is what ****ed you up, then I don't know what to say.

Good to know! I was under the impression that the EXPS was closer to traditional lower1/3 height.

[Wake27]

I've been by told by a former action guy that the 1.93 mounts are popular due to the SOCOM guys latest shooting position that lowers the butt of the stock more on the chest vs high in the shoulder pocket for better stability and recoil management. This position lowers the rifle more into the body to absorb recoil and the higher mount allows them to still keep their head up for situational awareness.

I'm all about different solutions for different people, but as GTF's photos illustrate, its really not that big of a difference. Also, OP, I use the 1.93" with a Razor and don't have any need for an extended version.

[GTF425]

TexisAggie,

The lower 1/3 height is a generic term that simply means cowitnessed iron sights will be in the lower 1/3 of the FOV of the optic.

As an example; a T-1 with lower 1/3 LT mount sits lower than an EXPS. It’s almost identical to a standard XPS.

If you were to, say, use a G33 with a T-1 in that same LT mount, it mates up perfectly without the 7mm spacer that the G33 uses to align with an EXPS.

[Outlander Systems]

Lulz. Wut!?

You do not have any understanding of both the length of pull and height. Or you simply do not shoot enough. Both?


Your narrative doesn't fit what's actually going on in real life when the actual feedback of your song versus what's really happening comes into play. Use your rifle, adjust it to YOU and not what you think we should all use.

[FightinQ]

Lulz. Wut!?

We took it to PM, we're good. Lost in translation over the internet.

[ggammell]

GTF, I shamelessly stole that pic of the exps in front of the scope. That’s amazing. Thanks

[TexasAggie2005]

TexisAggie,

The lower 1/3 height is a generic term that simply means cowitnessed iron sights will be in the lower 1/3 of the FOV of the optic.

As an example; a T-1 with lower 1/3 LT mount sits lower than an EXPS. It’s almost identical to a standard XPS.

If you were to, say, use a G33 with a T-1 in that same LT mount, it mates up perfectly without the 7mm spacer that the G33 uses to align with an EXPS.

Yeah, I know what lower 1/3 means. I've never owned an EXPS, only Aimpoints & MROs. I just didn't realize that the EXPS sat higher than the common Aimpoint & MRO lower 1/3 mounts.

[GTF425]

Gotcha.

****, I’m batting 0 for intuition tonight.