AD Recon scope mount - standard or extended

[SHIVAN]

While searching, I did find this thread of his, https://www.m4carbine.net/showpost.p...35&postcount=1, and you can see the turrets are right up against the front ring on this standard mount, limiting any further forward adjustment.

Right, and that's the regular M4 mount. Which he writes up as being good, but limited for the very reason you see.

These rifles have the extended mount, and I can see the turrets are still against the forward ring, but I can also see there is more room between the eye and the eyepiece on the shooters. There's also plenty of room to slide to the rear if the scope requires it.

Yep, and I think that is how he has his actual duty gun setup too. Might IM him. He posts his write up all the time, as it's well thought out, it's been edited over time, and it covers nearly every angle of this decision.

I'll IM him too so he posts here.

[SHIVAN]

I actually did a search and found that for the Leupold 1.5-5 USMC03 says that the SPR mount is good for eye relief, and the SPR-E moves it too far forward on an AR-15.

I use the SPR-E and MR/T 1.5 on an AR-10, but it's not mounted all the way forward.

Since the Recon and Recon-X mimic the SPR and SPR-E, you'd probably be able to get by with the X version, but it might not be ideal based on USMC03's attempted usage of the extended LaRue E mount and that optic.

Sorry, the mounts are just too new to say for sure. When you get it, do a review and let us know for sure.

[SHIVAN]

Here's even more information on TOS, bottom of page 2 USMC03 talks more about the different LaRue mounts, and their use with different combos.

Again, the ADM Recon and Recon-X mimc the SPR and SPR-EER, so this should help.

http://www.ar15.com/forums/topic.htm...=331992&page=2

[royta]

I actually did a search and found that for the Leupold 1.5-5 USMC03 says that the SPR mount is good for eye relief, and the SPR-E moves it too far forward on an AR-15.

Since the Recon and Recon-X mimic the SPR and SPR-E, you'd probably be able to get by with the X version, but it might not be ideal based on USMC03's attempted usage of the extended LaRue E mount and that optic.

According to the Leupold site, the specs (eye relief, tube length, length of tube both fore and aft of turrets, etc.) for the MR/T 1.5-5 and MR/T 2.5-8 are very similar. The only difference worth noting is the 1.5-5 has .6 to .7 more eye relief through out it's range. How much further forward are the rings on a Recon-X / SPR-E then on a Recon / SPR mount? I'm surprised the SPR-E would put the 1.5-5 too far forward, since the 1.5-5 has a longer eye relief. IF the difference between the SPR-E and the SPR is .7 inches, then the SPR would put the 2.5-8 too far forward just like the SPR-E puts the 1.5-5 too far forward.



MR/T 1.5-5
Tube Length (B) 5.8 in
(C) 2.1 in
(D) 2.5 in
Eyepiece Length (E) 3.1 in
Eye Relief (in) 3.6 (4.4)

MR/T 2.5-8
Tube Length (B) 5.8 in
(C) 1.9 in
(D) 2.4 in
Eyepiece Length (E) 3.1 in
Eye Relief (in) 3.0 (3.7)

[SHIVAN]

I think his reference frame, from reading the above, is that he's using an A2 stock. I believe he is 5'6", so it might actually, be too far in that setup.

From other correspondence with USMC03:

"The SPR-E (extended) is more *versatile* in my opinion. With most quality optics, the eye relief is quite generous. Often times the eye relief is so generous that we have a problem getting the optic far enough forward on the AR's upper receiver.

What makes the SPR-E more versatile is that it has the ability to mount the optic further forward, but can also mount the optic almost as far to the rear as you can with the standard SPR mount. If the SPR-E puts the optic too far forward you have a couple options. You can move the optic rearward in the mount and / or you can move the mount to the rear on the upper receiver."

[Stickman]

I've used both brands, and the extended variants certainly seem to offer more options.