I’ve searched, and I can’t find an answer anywhere…
I’m currently running an Aimpoint PRO with a 3X magnifier in a factory twist mount. What I’ve found is that the magnifier does not line up properly with the optic, unless the optic is also in a factor mount such as the QRP 2 or the LRP (before the PRO I had a T-1 on the gun). Right now my PRO is in a Bobro 180, and like all other lower 1/3 co-witness mounts, it sits to high for proper alignment. The alignment does not inhibit functionality, though I would not be surprised if it caused some minor parallax issues. Regardless, it bugs me.
I’m going back to a T-1 now that I’ve gotten a hold of a 2MOA version. It will be coming with a LT660, which won’t properly align with the magnifier in the twist mount. The simple solution would be to get a factory LRP mount, which I rather like anyway, but I can not find one for a reasonable price, and they don’t exist on any for the “for sale” forums. So now I’m considering the KAC mount, which is the same price as a LRP once you get the base and 39mm spacer…
So my question is this (and the answer is not to get a LaRue mount for the magnifier, I like the twist mount, I don’t want the extra weight on my rifle when it’s not in use). With the ability to adjust the height of the KAC mount with their spacers, will I be able to achieve a proper alignment with the factory Aimpoint magnifier in a twist mount?
Has anyone else noticed how the twist mount doesn’t line up with most other mounts on the market? And that all the factory Aimpoint mounts aren’t quite lower 1/3 and not quite absolute, that they’re more of a lower 40% co-witness?
I can provide heigh measurements and photos for visual reference when I get home this weekend, if that information is helpful to anyone…
I almost mentioned the GG&G in the OP, but the reason I’m not interested in it is the weight. They seem very well built, but built like a tank = weight…
Well I don’t like it because you have to remove it from the rifle. Which means it won’t be with you when you need it and its also slower to put on. A flip mount is pretty much required if your running a magnifier in my view.
Pat
I get where you’re coming from. If I was in over in Afghanistan on patrol and seconds counted, I’d want the flip mount. For what I’m doing with the rifle I rather take the extra few seconds to get it out of the pouch on my vest; B27 targets at rifle classes don’t shoot back.
At the end of the day, I think the mount is totally a matter of personal opinion.
Anyway, I’ve just decided to stick with my LT660 mount. The difference in height just isn’t enough to bother switching out equipment, no to mention re-zeroing.
This has pretty much been my experience. When the 3x magnifiers first came out I thought that it would be great to keep one on my armor. It didn’t work out like I wanted, no matter that I really wanted it to. I tried a variety of different concepts and mounts in an effort to gain capability with 1x optics. The conclusion that I came to was that I needed a flip to side mount if I was going to bother with the magnifier at all. In the end I decided that the low powered variable was a superior option, but that’s a different discussion.
Typos brought to you via Tapatalk and autocorrect.
I am using factory mounts for both the PRO and magnifier and it still doesn’t line up correctly. I do like the twist mount but am sure the only fix will be a Larue mount. Just don’t want to drop the chips on one… or two. Does anyone know what needs to be done to totally co-witness the magnifier and PRO without spending a fortune on Larue stuff?
I think that it’s absolutely relevant to bring low powered optics into this discussion.
If I was to run my 3X with a flip mount, I would be better off just going out and getting a Leupold CQ/t. An Aimpoint and Magnifier in mounts weigh the same as a CQ/t; the CQ/t has got a way better reticle (especially at 3X where Aimpoints are just a terrible amoeba), the glass quality is better, and transitioning between power levels is just as quick. Now I realize that a lot of people hate Leupold, and certain statements are subjective, but lets not dwell on them. I could use a USO 1-4 as comparison (I’ve owned both the USO 1-4 and a CQ/t) but the Leupold is a 1-3X, like the Aimpoint magnifier If I wanted to cary around the extra weight all the time, I don’t know why I wouldn’t get a 1-3X, 1-4X, or even a 1-6X scope. The only disadvantage of a scope is eye relief and even that isn’t a big deal (in my opinion). When I think about it, an Aimpoint with a magnifier is pointless unless I can remove the magnifier/bulk when I don’t want it. The whole reason I ditched the low-power scopes was to save weight…
So with so many great low-power scope options on the market, why does anyone run a flip mount when it’s arguably a very silly option?
If you don’t mind the extra weight, get a low-power variable optic. That’s just my personal opinion.
I only went with an Aimpoint + Magnifier because I was trying to be more weight conscious on my last build; I still wanted the flexibility of some extra power for longer shots, but I didn’t want to cary the bulk on the rifle.
I plan on building another Recce style rifle next year, and it will certainly have a 1X? optic or an Elcan.
And if anyone is curious, this is the rifle/optics setup I was making a fuss about. In the end, the difference in height between the T-1 on a LT mount and the magnifier in the twist mount isn’t enough of an issue to continue to care about. It’s not as bad with the micros as it is with standard Aimpoints like the PRO.
It’s pretty easy to see the difference in height/misalignment between the PRO in the Bobro 180 mount and the 3X in the twist mount, 5.3mm. The height difference with the T1 in a LT660 is only 2.7mm, so not worth fussing about… Like I said in the OP, a T1 in a factory LRP is perfect, as one would expect.
Center of optic to top of rail.
3X in Twist Mount - 39.1mm
T1 in LT660 - 41.8mm
PRO in Bobro 180 - 44.7mm
