Super high rise optics----thoughts?

[ExplorinInTheWoods]

They fill a niche for guys wearing gas masks, respirators, or guys doing passsive aiming through their nods. I’ve used one for passive aiming and it is good for that. However I think because CAG has used them and someone mentioned it now everyone is all about them. For 99% of the people out there they are not needed.


The cons with them are:
1 an increased height over bore so now your in close CQB holdovers are ridiculous. For all the swat guys you see using them it’s not good considering they’re expected to make low percentage shots. With a single dot to make a shot to the ocular box you’re holding your dot over the person’s head as opposed to holding hairline.

2 Shooting through a port or under a vehicle can now be more difficult because you may see through a port but your muzzle is obstructed.

3 your zero is no longer a 50/200 or follows the normal trajectory because height over bore plays into that.

4 Prone is less comfortable and not as repeatable because of the lack of a chin weld. If you’re using a high scope mount and following the trend of everything must be first focal plane you’ll have more eyebox issues. FFP have tigher eye boxes and this issue is exacerbated when you don’t have a consistent cheekweld

[TehLlama]

They fill a niche for guys wearing gas masks, respirators, or guys doing passsive aiming through their nods. I’ve used one for passive aiming and it is good for that. However I think because CAG has used them and someone mentioned it now everyone is all about them. For 99% of the people out there they are not needed.


The cons with them are:
1 an increased height over bore so now your in close CQB holdovers are ridiculous. For all the swat guys you see using them it’s not good considering they’re expected to make low percentage shots. With a single dot to make a shot to the ocular box you’re holding your dot over the person’s head as opposed to holding hairline.

2 Shooting through a port or under a vehicle can now be more difficult because you may see through a port but your muzzle is obstructed.

3 your zero is no longer a 50/200 or follows the normal trajectory because height over bore plays into that.

4 Prone is less comfortable and not as repeatable because of the lack of a chin weld. If you’re using a high scope mount and following the trend of everything must be first focal plane you’ll have more eyebox issues. FFP have tigher eye boxes and this issue is exacerbated when you don’t have a consistent cheekweld

Most of these aren't nearly as bad if you're not in a SWAT/HRT scenario where POI shift up close is truly relevant - and having it be a 50/225m BZO ends up being remarkably serviceable as well. For rapid engagements where precision isn't the goal, I'd argue it's fully a wash.. not needed, but a possible serious upgrade.

The prone (and barrier) shooting discomfort is really where the downsides exist, because getting repeatability on eyebox even for a Micro aimpoint can be a legitimate struggle, when I have that setup on my beater carbine instead of the LPVO I really do find myself having to fall way back onto Bindon aiming muscle memory from ACOGs to actually fire from awkward positions without wiggling myself around endlessly to actually get the eye position and relief correct - the jankier the position, the more noticeable it is.

Still, nothing beats it once rehearsed for rapid engagement of close stuff with quick target to target transitions with a reflex optic. I just think magnification is the primary reason not to run it.

[Corse]

They fill a niche for guys wearing gas masks, respirators, or guys doing passsive aiming through their nods. I’ve used one for passive aiming and it is good for that. However I think because CAG has used them and someone mentioned it now everyone is all about them. For 99% of the people out there they are not needed.


The cons with them are:
1 an increased height over bore so now your in close CQB holdovers are ridiculous. For all the swat guys you see using them it’s not good considering they’re expected to make low percentage shots. With a single dot to make a shot to the ocular box you’re holding your dot over the person’s head as opposed to holding hairline.

2 Shooting through a port or under a vehicle can now be more difficult because you may see through a port but your muzzle is obstructed.

3 your zero is no longer a 50/200 or follows the normal trajectory because height over bore plays into that.

4 Prone is less comfortable and not as repeatable because of the lack of a chin weld. If you’re using a high scope mount and following the trend of everything must be first focal plane you’ll have more eyebox issues. FFP have tigher eye boxes and this issue is exacerbated when you don’t have a consistent cheekweld

I think you’re right, not needed for 99%.

How much time are the majority of people who are using these ultra tall mounts spending looking through the optic where it is a huge benefit for comfort?

[One More Time]

For scopes I'm liking a 1.93" mount.
I tried a .5" riser first to see how that worked out with a 1.5" mount.

On the 1-8 a 1.6" mount is about as low as I have. It'll probably get a 1.93" as well.

Prone, sitting or standing is not a problem for me like it was with a lower mount.
For me it's a normal sized mount with a long neck and such, gives me a better, more consistent cheekweld anyway.

For the red dot, co-witness is fine, a bit scrunchy when prone but not uncomfortable or getting tangled up with my muffs.

[Five_Point_Five_Six]

They fill a niche for guys wearing gas masks, respirators, or guys doing passsive aiming through their nods. I’ve used one for passive aiming and it is good for that. However I think because CAG has used them and someone mentioned it now everyone is all about them. For 99% of the people out there they are not needed.


The cons with them are:
1 an increased height over bore so now your in close CQB holdovers are ridiculous. For all the swat guys you see using them it’s not good considering they’re expected to make low percentage shots. With a single dot to make a shot to the ocular box you’re holding your dot over the person’s head as opposed to holding hairline.

2 Shooting through a port or under a vehicle can now be more difficult because you may see through a port but your muzzle is obstructed.

3 your zero is no longer a 50/200 or follows the normal trajectory because height over bore plays into that.

4 Prone is less comfortable and not as repeatable because of the lack of a chin weld. If you’re using a high scope mount and following the trend of everything must be first focal plane you’ll have more eyebox issues. FFP have tigher eye boxes and this issue is exacerbated when you don’t have a consistent cheekweld

Calling the CQB holdovers ridiculous is a bit fantastical, yes they're different but learning them is no different than learning them with a lower optic. Time on the range.

Not everyone uses the 50/200 zero, and it's not a 50/200 to begin with. It's either a 50/200something or a 50something/200. The added height over bore is a lot easier to contend with using a 100m or 100 yard zero.

I think you’re right, not needed for 99%.

How much time are the majority of people who are using these ultra tall mounts spending looking through the optic where it is a huge benefit for comfort?

Range trips and training classes can be several hours or days long. Unless you shoot 50 rounds and go home, then it wouldn't really matter.

[DefenderAO]

I use them for passive NODs and normal applications. I find lower1/3 uncomfortable as I have to cant my face, to some degree, over the stock to get the dot. I never walk like that. It's not comfortable. A taller mount allows for more heads up, comfortable shooting.

[titsonritz]

Calling the CQB holdovers ridiculous is a bit fantastical, yes they're different but learning them is no different than learning them with a lower optic. Time on the range.

Not everyone uses the 50/200 zero, and it's not a 50/200 to begin with. It's either a 50/200something or a 50something/200. The added height over bore is a lot easier to contend with using a 100m or 100 yard zero.




Range trips and training classes can be several hours or days long. Unless you shoot 50 rounds and go home, then it wouldn't really matter.

All of this.

[skatz11]

I recently switched to 2.26” Unity mounts. I wanted to be able to use passive aiming with NODs even if I don’t have a high demand for it in my normal shooting. The more upright head position is a bonus and I have not had difficulty shooting prone.

I checked offset at different distances. I took my time and use a tripod to shoot this since I used it to zero my RDS and laser anyway.





I like to use a 100y zero but did not have time to get to the rifle range. I plan on repeating this to compare with a 100y zero.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

[TehLlama]

There's a reason I specifically mentioned the 50/225 BZO at that optic height...

Not everyone uses the 50/200 zero, and it's not a 50/200 to begin with. It's either a 50/200something or a 50something/200. The added height over bore is a lot easier to contend with using a 100m or 100 yard zero. .

for what these excel at, a tight 50yd or 50m is going to totally get it done, realistically that will get it done. I might be exposing my laziness with that, but I'm not going to pretend to be so good that a 225 or 250m POI shift is going to actually turn a hit into a miss at my level.

[KTR03]

First off, those are great pics and super useful. Thanks for those.

I started with the unity tactical mount on a Sig Rattler and a Sig Tac Ops. I liked the heads up position and i use NODs so I was pretty well pleased. I use them with a 3x aimpoint magnifier in the Unity "fold to center" mount. I then put one on an 11.5 inch virtus pistol. I have that backed up with the unity tactical omni fold to center mount with the 6x vortex. The flip to center mount is enabled by the height of the mount. So for me that is another plus of the high mount in that it eliminates the "dangling magnifier" snag hazard.

Another data point:

On a lark I put a holoson 503G with the ACSS reticle on the mount and it works great with the magnifiers. At 6x the reticle stays sharp and clear and gives you an ACOG type ranging capability. The chevron gives you a sharp aiming point. Slap it down and you are back at 1x. Its a pretty slick system although you can't use the back up iron with the magnifier mounted. It comes with a qd so no big deal. I use the 3x on 300 blackout and the 6x on the 5.56 pistol.

I originally started with the high mount to use with NODS. But I have to say, the fold to center mount, combined with a ranging reticle red dot is really pretty sweet. Yeah, the mounts cost what the optic does... but who cares. This combo gives you a multi gun 1 or 6x (or 1 or 3x) that is lighter than an LPVO, can be moved from rifle to rifle, and is lighter and cheaper for multiple platforms. Excellent for the 200 yard carbine. Much farther than that, I go with an LPVO in a high scalar works mount.

D