User Panel
User Panel
User Panel
|
Posted: 3/24/2005 4:31:57 PM EDT
[#1]
I have been working with a manufacture to develop a mount that addresses what I feel are the particular needs of the TR21 on the AR system. I have a prototype I am testing right know and am expecting the first production versions any day. I can’t reveal the manufacture or release pic until they give me the OK. IMO we have really answered the mounting issues with this one. Working with people who are willing to change their product to your needs with no guarantee that it will work out and result in sales for them is a true REFLECTION OF THEIR PATRIOTISM.
Out. 2011BLDR |
|
|
|
Posted: 3/24/2005 5:05:14 PM EDT
[#2]
Cool, I for one am stoked to see that mount.
|
|
|
|
Posted: 3/24/2005 5:06:21 PM EDT
[#3]
LARUE... my guess |
|
|
|
|
Posted: 3/24/2005 8:46:29 PM EDT
[#4]
tag
|
|
|
|
Posted: 3/25/2005 6:28:53 AM EDT
[#5]
Actually, I'm a little confused. I asked this question yesterday in the Rifles/Barrels forum and C4iGrant told me that LaRue already had a solution. He even posted this picture of the new LaRue EER mount:  Is this the one you're talking about 2011BLDR? (Not like I'm spilling the beans here if this is the mount in question, since Grant already posted it  )Mount in this post towards the bottom ETA: I'd love to know what trigger that is on that AR as well  ETA2: I also emailed Mark LaRue about it yesterday and this is what he had to say about the mount:
|
|||
|
|
|
Posted: 3/25/2005 9:23:00 AM EDT
[#6]
Either way, that is a slick mount. I'll be curious to see if this was what 2011BLDR was talking about.
|
|
|
|
Posted: 3/25/2005 12:25:16 PM EDT
[#7]
Yes: LaRue SPR-EER is the mount. I and all the Operators that will soon be using them greatly appreciate the effort Mark and his crew put in to this, modifying his design to fit my needs.
The long eye relife in TR21 results in it needing to be so far FWD as to bridge the receiver and handgard. Not the ideal situation unless your rail system happens to attach to the receiver and extend out over the barrel giving you a contentious straight, level and true mounting platform ( refer back to pic of my CQBR). The height on this mount will work directly on the receiver or on receiver mounted rail systems. It is also about 50% lighter than the mount I was using before and shifts what weight there is rearward, reducing the nose heavy feel a little. out. 2011BLDR |
|
|
|
Posted: 3/25/2005 4:43:25 PM EDT
[#8]
My $500 effort at this very question...........
|
|
|
|
Posted: 3/26/2005 7:02:05 AM EDT
[#9]
Thanks for the work you put into helping develop that mount! It looks like a really great solution. Is that your rifle in the pic? I'm still trying to figure out what trigger that is 
|
|
|
|
|
Posted: 3/28/2005 11:28:24 AM EDT
[#10]
How is the TR21 at lower powers with a standard front site?
|
|
|
|
Posted: 3/28/2005 3:31:12 PM EDT
[#11]
It'll have a ghost image in the scope. Bugs the crap out of me so I went with a YHM flip up. YMMV. |
|
|
|
|
Posted: 3/28/2005 4:41:18 PM EDT
[#12]
It'd probably bug me, too. Can anyone live with it?
|
|
|
|
Posted: 3/28/2005 11:26:07 PM EDT
[#13]
tag
|
|
|
|
Posted: 3/29/2005 4:23:17 AM EDT
[#14]
Yup. I can. :) Been living with it since day one with my AR. Don't even notice it anymore really. |
|
|
|
|
Posted: 3/29/2005 8:14:39 AM EDT
[#15]
Underdog,
NICE. What kind of mount is that? Also, I know this is kinda late, but y'all might want to take a look at the US Optics group buy going on in the EE. Looks promising! Rich |
|
|
|
Posted: 3/29/2005 8:19:39 AM EDT
[#16]
looked at it, if I could afford it, i'd be all over it. |
|
|
|
|
Posted: 3/29/2005 8:20:15 AM EDT
[#17]
Thanks, I've seen the group buy. Unfortunately, the US optics scope is a little out of my price range  . I've seen the Accupoint as low as $500 and it seems to fit the bill for what I want to do with my rifle.
|
|
|
|
|
Posted: 3/29/2005 8:53:37 AM EDT
[#18]
Me too. I figured though with all the guys talking about Nightforce and S&B..... Rich |
||
|
|
|
Posted: 3/29/2005 9:02:52 AM EDT
[#19]
I think I like the TR21 better regardless of price--at least on paper. Lot lighter, no batteries, etc.
[Edited for clarity] |
|
|
|
Posted: 3/29/2005 9:34:50 AM EDT
[#20]
I'm confused, are you saying that regardless of price you like the US optics better than the TR21? Or did you mean to have a period after "I'm not sure"? Personally, I think I almost like the TR21 better than the US optics regardless of price....at least on paper (since I haven't actually tried either). Hopefully sometime later this year I'll be able to get my TR21. Of course, I'm not by any means an expert, so it would be very interesting to see what someone like 2011BLDR would have to say in a direct comparison of the two. I'm sure regardless, both are very nice optics though. |
|
|
|
|
Posted: 3/29/2005 10:27:39 AM EDT
[#21]
Sorry, that was a typo. It's a high stress day at work, and my mind's all over the place. I'm with you. I think I like the TR21 better than US Optics regardless of price. The price is gravy. Five hundred and change isn't to be sneezed at, but it's pretty great in comparision to the competition. I'm in a holding pattern with my purchases, because I might be moving to a non-free state (yikes!) but I think this is the way to go (for me, at least). Like you, I'm not a expert. I'll probably spend a lot of time on irons in interest of good, solid training before I plunk down money on the TR21, but the introduction of this new mount reinforces my decision. But who knows. I might change my mind tomorrow. Just my 2 cents. 
|
|
|
|
|
Posted: 3/29/2005 10:33:09 AM EDT
[#22]
No problem, I thought that's what you meant.
|
||
|
|
|
Posted: 3/29/2005 12:59:33 PM EDT
[#23]
Are the rings part of the mount? What is the cost? |
||||
|
|
|
Posted: 3/29/2005 1:06:23 PM EDT
[#24]
Yes, it comes as a unit. I believe the cost is about $195. At least that is the price of the SPR mount, which is basically the same thing, only it doesn't move the scope quite as far forward. |
|||||
|
|
|
Posted: 3/29/2005 2:28:15 PM EDT
[#25]
Are the rings part of the mount? What is the cost? Yes, it comes as a unit. I believe the cost is about $195. At least that is the price of the SPR mount, which is basically the same thing, only it doesn't move the scope quite as far forward. How does it mount to the flat top? Is it QR with a lever or nut? |
|
|
|
|
Posted: 3/29/2005 2:57:59 PM EDT
[#26]
What optic is that? My M1A is needing an optic, and that looks like it has a few things that I'm looking for. -Cap'n |
|
|
|
|
Posted: 3/30/2005 6:22:00 AM EDT
[#27]
I haven't actually seen a picture of the opposite side of the SPR-E mount, but I would imagine that it is pretty much exactly the same as the SPR mount and has two QR levers. They are the same QR levers that La Rue uses on all the rest of their mounts. From what I'm told they work very well and are adjustable for tension. They are supposed to be extremely well designed. Here is a picture of the SPR mount. From the pictures it looks like the SPR-E is the exact same thing except that the SPR-E moves the scope further forward. 
|
|
|
|
|
Posted: 3/30/2005 8:41:59 PM EDT
[#28]
There is no front sight visible or ghosted in my TR21 setups at any magnification. All are carbine length front sight positions so I can’t speak for any mid or rifle length issues. As for living with front sight ghosts, every operator with an ACOG has had to since 1994 when SOPMOD first came in to use. If it really bothers you replace it with a fold down you like. out. 2011BLDR |
|
|
|
|
Posted: 3/30/2005 9:05:51 PM EDT
[#29]
US optics has the same issues with a small reticle up close (CQC) and it increases in size and area of target covered as the power increases like all the other scopes mentioned in this class except the TR21( pics on comparson sight). All the outer ring inner dot target coverage data in my previous post would also appaly. If I am wrong and there is a 1-4x optic besides the TR21 that dose not do this let me know and I will test it. out. 2011BLDR |
||
|
|
|
Posted: 3/31/2005 5:17:57 AM EDT
[#30]
This doesn't make sense. With a first plane reticle (which I believe all US Optics are) the area subtended is fixed as magnification is increased or decreased. If at low power the dot covers 1/3 the width of a torso, as magnification is increased it continues to cover the same 1/3 width/area of the torso. Granted, the dot does get bigger looking through the scope, but the torso gets bigger right along with it. What you lose is FOV as mag is increased. With a second plane reticle, the area subtended area decreases. The size of the reticle remains the same as you look through the scope, but the target image gets larger or smaller as mag is increased and decreased. This can be useful for nailing small targets at distance since you can magnify the target, but still retain fine precision with a reticle that doesn't cover the target up. |
|||
|
|
|
Posted: 3/31/2005 6:19:10 AM EDT
[#31]
2nd plane reticles lose the use of the mildot for ranging at non max mag.
make it first plane for me thx. |
|
|
|
Posted: 3/31/2005 6:32:48 AM EDT
[#32]
Kev ya might have that mixed up. Second plane reticals don't increse or decrease in size with changes uin magnification, the first focal plane retical does appear to grow or shrink in size as the power is changed. |
|
|
|
|
Posted: 3/31/2005 7:05:30 AM EDT
[#33]
This thread goes into some discussion of intermediate variables in the context of SPRs versus Recce carbines, which I thought was pretty interesting. The thread got me thinking. How waterproof and shock resistent is the TR21?
|
|
|
|
Posted: 3/31/2005 7:07:01 AM EDT
[#34]
Yes which is why the mildot stays the same relationship with the appearance of the tgt - which is why you can mil at low and high mags... |
||
|
|
|
Posted: 3/31/2005 7:24:36 AM EDT
[#35]
I don't think a 1st focal plane will really work that well for ranging with low power(4x). I know with my IOR 4-14 at 4 power the MP8 retical is not all that great for ranging as the mil lines are rather small. Though I have to admit I've yet to use it to range anything on 4 power, so I could be very wrong about that. But the apperance of the retical just doesn't seem to led to well to ranging at 4 power. When you get up to 6 power I think it's a lot better. I'll have to get out and really look at it though, perhaps this weekend or something. I think, unless you can find the right retical design, a second plane retical would be better on these types of optics. Of course I prefer first focal plane retical scopes. Not sure why there would be a need to have range finding abilities at the lower power settings(I'm sure there are some) as if you have a target at distance(at least for me) all you have to do is up the magnification and there ya go you can than range it no problem as well as ID them as a friend or foe. You can't do that at the low power settings anyway. From what I'm hearing out of Astan and Iraq about the beauty of the ACOGs is just that, it gives you a good way to ID targets/potential hostiles without having to use a set of binocs and than go to the gun and reaquire the target or have somone pointing out targets to other shooters, one person could do it all. Using the low power variables is much the same thing. You can still work up close and personal, but than you can reach out and touch somone with a greater degree of precision than somone with a dot site, pluse you also get the added benefit of being able to ID potential targets at longer ranges. |
|||
|
|
|
Posted: 3/31/2005 8:42:48 AM EDT
[#36]
I agree it is not great for ranging at low mag- but the mil is astill a mil - and if you are calling or receiving tgts it helps if you and the spotter or sniper are on the same sheet of paper.
That is one of the reasons for the USMC's RCO ACOG reticle |
|
|
|
Posted: 3/31/2005 9:07:19 AM EDT
[#37]
Right but if your going to be id'in targets and trying to range them, you wouldn't do that on the low power settings as is. I can see where being able to range on the low settings would help with some quick down and dirty ranges, but it would still just be better to jack up the power and range at 3 or 4 power. |
|
|
|
|
Posted: 3/31/2005 11:41:02 AM EDT
[#38]
I think your missign my point - or I phased it poorly.
If you are indicating tgts to some one who will ID and range them (or if you are adjusting indirect fire) it helps if your method for adjustment is the same as theirs. Some one with bino's can call adjustments for a shooter - and a shooter can dial up or down and adjust Arty of Mortar fire A little anecdotal info. I was down in Ft. Lewis doing ukn dist shooting with some folk from 1st Gp, in addition there where LE snipers. During some shooting I was partnered with a LE shooter who did not have mil-dots and as a result the tgt indications and corrections where difficult to say the least. That is what happens if shooters/observers are not on the same net in regards to distance/direction measurment. As such I like 1st focal plane adjustment. |
|
|
|
Posted: 3/31/2005 11:56:13 AM EDT
[#39]
I see what you are saying, I think I might not be explaining what I'm saying right though. I'm about to have a shift change and be out of here but I'll see if I can't come up with a better way of saying what I was saying. Perhaps I can get some pics or something to illustrate what I mean. |
|
|
|
|
Posted: 3/31/2005 2:04:23 PM EDT
[#40]
Dammit, I was typing that exact thing and then noticed that you had already posted it. When using a 5.56 rifle as a DM gun, I think it's most useful as a spotter/sniper support rifle, so Kev's point is very valid. -Cap'n |
|
|
|
|
Posted: 3/31/2005 2:27:41 PM EDT
[#41]
score one for mildots.... Rich |
||
|
|
|
Posted: 3/31/2005 4:06:17 PM EDT
[#42]
No offence to anyone here, but mil dot reticles make no sense to me on a low power variable. This ain't no sniper scope. These are awesome, versatile 0-400 yard optics for a general purpose rifle, IMHO.
|
|
|
|
Posted: 3/31/2005 4:42:37 PM EDT
[#43]
Agreed. BUT in a mil shituation, what KevB said makes a lot of sense too. Rich |
|
|
|
|
Posted: 4/1/2005 1:20:37 AM EDT
[#44]
Yes it is valid, what I was getting at was thta the ranging feature on the retical is usless(if it's a first ocal plane) at the low powers for just that reason(well that and you probably won't be able to see the mil dots if it's a mil dot scope), because if you really need to range it, or your observing or whatever you will have that scope up on the higher power. That and what ipschoser1 shooter said, though thats not to say you can't use it for that reason.... 
|
||
|
|
|
Posted: 4/1/2005 6:30:54 AM EDT
[#45]
Photoman,
I agree with you that you would not be ranging at 1x or the like. I alos admit that in my perfect CQB reticle it would not be a mil-dot but... Given the topic was Intermediate Ranges and Close Quarters on One Rifle? I thought the mil-dot an option and explained my thoughts as to why someone would put them in the sight. For <600m non precise I think the ACOG ranging stadia bar is ideal - it gets the shooter on quickly. |
|
|
|
Posted: 4/1/2005 7:30:54 AM EDT
[#46]
Ok, so we were on the same page than  I'm partial to stadia lines as well(basicly the same thing for the MP8 retical) I'd say the MP8 would be pimp if you could add a say 3MOAish circle(illuminated) around the center of the crosshair(like on the leupold SPR retical, but thats more than 3MOA IIRC) and the illumination was bright enough to allow BAC. But like I said before the MP8 may not be all that great at 4power, I'll have to play with it this weekend at the range and really give it a working to see how it would be. |
|
|
|
|
Posted: 4/4/2005 8:24:12 AM EDT
[#47]
I played around with the IOR this weekend and at 4 power I think the MP8 retical with a few slight changes would actually be perfectly fine for ranging and use in a 1-4 variable. I could read/see all the mil lines(including the shorter 1/2 mil lines) just fine. But it would need something to use as a CQB aiming point besides the crosshairs......
|
|
|
|
Posted: 4/11/2005 9:27:15 AM EDT
[#48]
Ok, after reading 10 pages I was hoping to see a recomendation for the perfect scope that would cover my needs for both short and long range, especialy at a more affordable price (under $500).
Is there even such a thing as the prefect cross hair? Cuz |
|
|
|
Posted: 4/13/2005 7:41:22 PM EDT
[#49]
Posted by hycheng
 Men, just got one of this SOCOM 16 today! Now I need a B&S Shot Dot and a Knights M1A RAS. Sorry to off-track the subject. 
|
|
|
|
Posted: 5/3/2005 10:38:40 AM EDT
[#50]
Kick
because this thread is too good to die! |
|
|
Win a FREE Membership!
Sign up for the ARFCOM weekly newsletter and be entered to win a free ARFCOM membership. One new winner* is announced every week!
You will receive an email every Friday morning featuring the latest chatter from the hottest topics, breaking news surrounding legislation, as well as exclusive deals only available to ARFCOM email subscribers.
AR15.COM is the world's largest firearm community and is a gathering place for firearm enthusiasts of all types.
From hunters and military members, to competition shooters and general firearm enthusiasts, we welcome anyone who values and respects the way of the firearm.
Subscribe to our monthly Newsletter to receive firearm news, product discounts from your favorite Industry Partners, and more.
Copyright © 1996-2024 AR15.COM LLC. All Rights Reserved.
Any use of this content without express written consent is prohibited.
AR15.Com reserves the right to overwrite or replace any affiliate, commercial, or monetizable links, posted by users, with our own.
