I’m getting another 1-4, or 1-6 variable. I was thinking about going with rings over a mount. Just wondering why it seems so rare that you see a 5.56 rifle with rings.
I get the whole qd deal with a mount, but I have had a bunch if scopes with mounts and once I slapped it on I never removed it. I was thinking with everyone wanting “light as possible”, why aren’t more users going to rings?
- the upper receiver and rail aren’t a single piece in most AR uppers so the ability to mount it on just the upper receiver is only possible with either a single piece mount that’s cantilevered forward or by using a rail “sleeve” over top of the entire rail like on a Mk12 or Vltor CASV.
- QD, so if your scope fails or is otherwise inoperable, you can access your BUIS
I totally forgot about the cant.
Remembering cant I think it is also prudent to include that there aren’t a lot of rings I can think of that will bring a scope up to the proper eye height that a dedicated mount will and be as secure. Also most dedicated mounts make mounting and installing the scope considerable easier in my experience as well. Though if you are willing to try you can mount a 3-9X40 on a flattop AR in a set of low rings. Don’t ask just accept it. :dirol:
Koshin nailed it…first and foremost, a QD cantilever mount allows one to get the proper eye relief all the while keeping the actual optic mounted on the upper receiver. Unless you got a MRP/MWS, or one of the few other mono designs like the VIS, or Mega’s mono design…you’ll have to deal with less than ideal eye relief, or go full retard and mount one ring on the upper rec., and then the other on the actual rail.
His second point is true as well.
And to add a third point…it makes perfect sense to run the most modular mounting design with easily the most modular firearm design. Rings are for boring ass hunting bolts, not for the super cool, high speed ARs of today 