I’d like to start using my 16" mid-length AR as my coyote and bunny rifle, so I’ll need to install a scope of course. I’ve been checking out the optics picture thread on TOS and have noticed that with the majority of scoped rifle pictures, the eyepiece is even/flush with the charging handle. I haven’t taken a depth measurement from the tip of my nose to my eyeball, but wouldn’t a nose to charging handle stance put your eye too close to the eyepiece for proper eye relief (3 - 3.7 inches on a Leupold MR/T 2.5-8)?
Then I look at this picture below on the Leupold site, and wonder where the nose to charging handle stance is at?
I just want to make sure I get the correct mount, either the standard or the extended.
Advice please.
Also, where can I find the measurements for the two different mounts, so I can verify the distance between rings and placement of rings will allow for proper scope placement and correct eye relief?
Do you think it will place a 3 - 3.7 inch eye relief scope too far forward? How does your ring placement compare to the extended mount? Could you measure how for forward your eyepiece is in comparison to the CH? Could you also give the measurements of your scope? You know, the standard measurements between the turrets and where the bell starts flaring out? Also the overall measurement between bells where the bells start to flare (the overall length of the tube itself)? Length of eyepiece and length of objective? Or…are the specs the same as a current 2x7 (which one?) on their website?
This was always a huge annoyance for me. There are so many retarded set-ups posted over there.
I would just have to laugh when some goofball would post a carbean with a 4-pos stock and some monster scope with the eyepiece behind the charging handle, and in some high scope rings. :rolleyes: And they were just as proud as can be over their set up!
I swear in the years I spent over there, I could count the number of pics of of rifles with magnified optics mounted remotely correct on one hand.
I wish there was a spreadsheet of where the eyepiece should be for different scopes when utilizing NTCH, or at least remotely close to NTCH. I know everybody’s face is different, but I’ve only seen a few people with extra deep eye sockets coupled with extra long noses. I don’t want to buy a mount (based on pictures of other setups), then have to pay for shipping to send it back so I can get the other mount.
I’m still a bit uncomfortable mashing my nose to the charging handle, but I’m at least either touching the tip, or within a 1/4 inch. Plus, I don’t want any CLP marking up my nose.
A lot of shooters don’t shoot NTCH. Doesn’t mean it’s right, doesn’t mean it’s best, and doesn’t mean it’s the way the military teaches it.
I certainly don’t shoot the AR10 with NTCH. To do otherwise is asking for a contusion to your proboscis.
The way I check if my mount is correct is to mount the optic to the rifle, pick up the rifle with my eyes closed, and then shoulder the weapon.
If I open my eyes and the optic is “right there”, then I have it mounted properly for ME. If I open my eyes and I have to make major adjustments to get a good sight picture, or find the reticle, then it needs adjustment.
Also, I have a long cheekweld area, apparently. So the high Badger rings work well for me. I see a lot of people who fit themselves around the rifle and not the other way around.
Oh, and BTW, if you search out USMC03’s responses, you will see a very good case for why the SPR-EER, or ADM Recon-X is probably the best solution for most magnified optics that don’t have a PEQ in front of them.
Some of the shit that gets posted wouldn’t make sense for any human body type. Set ups that you know damned well the goober behind the trigger isn’t even touching his face to the stock to shoot it, let alone get a proper cheekweld.
Yep, I know precisely what you mean. Not sure how many M1A’s I’ve seen with those high risers, and medium or high rings…
Then no cheekpiece. :rolleyes:
Yet they assure you that they can see through and use the scope well enough to shoot sub-MOA groups at 500yds using South African surplus or better yet Indian milsurp.
I think “buy before try” leaves many folks with something that doesn’t really fit well. They probably don’t know they could improve their setup, or are unwilling to spend to try something else.
Don’t know if this will help but here’s a 1.5-5 in a 1.93 LaRue mount and a 3.5-10 in a 1.5 LaRue mount.
I don’t shoot nose to CH but almost, I shoot where I feel most comfortable. I run the stock in one notch when wearing a coat and even though on lower powers I could mount them further forward, when you crank up the power your eye relief closes in.
If you shoot NTCH the extended mount might work better but maybe this will give you an idea.
He’s got too many posts. While searching, I did find this thread of his, https://www.m4carbine.net/showpost.php?p=87635&postcount=1, and you can see the turrets are right up against the front ring on this standard mount, limiting any further forward adjustment. Then I see other pictures in this post, https://www.m4carbine.net/showthread.php?p=71052#post71052. 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.
Do you happen to know which threads I can find some written statements? Thanks.
