Scoping an A1

[Bimmer]

Some of the cantilever mounts work pretty well, and some …

These mounts are one good way to mount a red dot on a fixed carry handle upper without resorting to mounting on top of the carry handle.

Dumb question: Wouldn't it be easier to just use a railed handguard and mount a co-witnessing optic there?

[SoDak]

Dumb question: Wouldn't it be easier to just use a railed handguard and mount a co-witnessing optic there?

It would be if one went with something like the DD Omega. Of course the best thing to do would be to just swap the upper out to a flattop. I didn't want to do that with this A1 upper in the off chance people get as nostalgic for retro M16A1s and they do for garands and this upper becomes worth something.

[Amicus]

Dumb question: Wouldn't it be easier to just use a railed handguard and mount a co-witnessing optic there?

Here in the Peoples Republic of Massholes all kinds of swapping and modifying of prebans has occurred because we are restricted to prebans (of you want a flash suppressor, adjustable stock, or any of the "evil features"). In fact, until the recent buying craze, the only decent deal was to buy a preban Colt and either put on a different upper (e.g., flat top) or put on a cantilever mount.

Actually, it is probably easier to put on a cantilever than to put on a free float rail. I know that for red dots a lot of people feel that free floats are not necessary, but I would rather have an optic (or any sighting system) fixed as much as possible.

Also, once you have incorporated the rail and the extra high ring(s) or riser, you have paid for several cantilever mounts and put more weight forward on the forearm than you may want.

[Bimmer]

Thanks for the offer, but I ended up getting a leupold mount. It looks to be a decent mount. It seems to sit a tiny biy lower than some of the other carry handle mounts I compared it to.

SoDak, how do you like this? I just put mine on my rifle, and I'm a bit put-off by how much the iron-sight-picture is infringed upon by the bolt in the Leupold mount... I can barely see the top half of the front post through the rear aperture sight now.

It's almost as if the "tunnel" in the Leupold mount is too high, or I've got my sights set too low. I'm tempted to raise both the front post and the rear sight, but really I want something with a better sight channel.

Do the other carry-handle mounts offer a better view through the iron sights? I've seen photos of the ARMS mount, but it costs twice as much, and I'm not convinced that it'll be much better.

Please advise,

Bimmer

[Amicus]

Bimmer,

Believe it or not, one of the better Weaver slot carry handle mounts out there is made by (drum roll) ProMag.

If I absolutely have to stick something on to the top of a carry handle I use their mount, which retails for a whopping $11.20 from Midway ($7.99 if you have “dealer” status). The opening for using the iron sights is rectangular (TV style) and admits more light than the circular openings. There is a short obstruction of the base of the sight channel caused by the base of the fixed screw, which protrudes down through a hole in the mount and is attached on the lower part of the carry handle by a circular nut. The nut does have a propensity for shooting loose unless you use a lock washer or loctight.

This is in contrast with the common practice of using a round-headed screw to pass upwards into the carry handle and thence the mount, such screw then creating an obstruction to the sights in the sight channel.

Check this fairly good mount out (and the reviews) at:

https://www.midwayusa.com/Search/#Pr...le____-_1-2-4_

Amicus

[Bimmer]

Hi Amicus,

You're right, I hardly believe it.

I was looking at how to replace the bolt in the Leupold mount, but also considering the Smith Enterprises mount (which also has a square see-through channel). The IOR/Valdada and A.R.M.S. mounts seem to have the same problem as the Leupold...

If you hadn't told me to, then I wouldn't have considered any of the $10-15.- ProMag, CCA, Leapers, and other Chi-Com stuff.

I'm now going to order one of the ProMag mounts... Thanks for the heads-up.

Bimmer

[Amicus]

You hardly believe I am right about something? Now my feelings are hurt.

Well, the ProMag is probably not the absolute best (whatever that is) but it has always worked for me. I hope it works for you. I usually use it for testing scopes or ammo, and, by intention, it rarely stays on very long.

Looking at it again, my only real complaint is that the sight channel is somewhat reflective; I have never understood why some manufacturers do this. My usual solution is to hit the offending surface with black matte paint.

Good luck.

Amicus

[Bimmer]

Hi Amicus,

Don't be offended... I'm just used to all the mall-ninjas on arf.com telling everybody how "GTG" the stuff is from Tapco, CCA, ProMag, Leapers, etc.

FWIW, I've got a CCA stock saddle which is great, and I've got a ProMag recoil pad that seems perfectly serviceable.

I like the idea of spraying the sight channel with matte paint — I noticed the shininess in the Leupold mount.

Like you, I'm only planning to use this for occasionally mounting a scope.

As for needing to use lock washers or Loc-Tite, I'm not worried. My vague plan is to Loc-Tite (red) the bolt in the mount permanently, and then use a lock washer to secure it to the carry handle.

Bimmer

[SoDak]

SoDak, how do you like this? I just put mine on my rifle, and I'm a bit put-off by how much the iron-sight-picture is infringed upon by the bolt in the Leupold mount... I can barely see the top half of the front post through the rear aperture sight now.

It's almost as if the "tunnel" in the Leupold mount is too high, or I've got my sights set too low. I'm tempted to raise both the front post and the rear sight, but really I want something with a better sight channel.

Do the other carry-handle mounts offer a better view through the iron sights? I've seen photos of the ARMS mount, but it costs twice as much, and I'm not convinced that it'll be much better.

Please advise,

Bimmer

I got the thing mounted friday, and hopefully I will be able to shoot it tommorow if it's not too windy. I ended up putting a nylon washer between the lock washer and nut and blue lock tighting the whole thing. I'm interested to see if this will work. I will agree that the thing really does obscure the irons. I mean they are usable, but aren't all that great. Of course I don't plan on using the irons much any more, so it's not a deal breaker. I have been thinking though that the tunnel in the mount itself might make a good ghost ring if a person had to use the sights up close. I ended up putting an aimpoint on this mount and I think that's all I would ever try on a carry handle mount. An acog might be ok, but I can easily see now that if this were a serious use gun, I would just toss the A1 upper and have a flattop put on. The only reason I did this was that the mount was only $30 and I already had the aimpoint that wasn't being used so I figured it might be worth trying.

[Amicus]

SoDak and Bimmer:

Please let us know how these mounts turned out for you.

And Bimmer:

No offense taken; just joshing you.

Good luck.