Geissele Super Precision Scope Mount 1.93" Height - Page 1

AR Sponsor:

[ARCHIVED THREAD] - Geissele Super Precision Scope Mount 1.93" Height

Posted: 6/15/2017 4:54:48 PM EDT

I'm interested in going with the Geissele Scope Mount in the 1.93" height, it'll most likely be for a Swarovski Z6i 1-6x (Gen 2) optic. Other scope options i'm looking at are the Kahles K16i 1-6, and the Vortex Razor HD II 1-6. The Vortex being the cheapest, but also being the heaviest, which is the biggest turn-off to me.

It'll be for my mini recce build, this is what it looks like as of today.

I just want to see if anyone here is running that specific Geissele mount, if so, i'd love to hear your thoughts about it, and pictures would be great, if you had some.

Google didn't provide too many in-the-wild photos since it's still fairly new, and it's a very specific mount, for a very specific crowd.

Mostly i'm trying to decide whether to run with the 1.93" mount, or run a regular height Geissele Super Precision Scope Mount + a riser from LaRue or KAC, that way i'd be able to run it in a tall configuration so i can clear an ATPIAL/DBAL, and run it low if i don't run a laser device on the top rail. I know running just the 1.93" would be the best option, i wouldn't have to deal with more weight from a riser, and less parts to worry about, but a regular height mount + riser would give me more options. I'm not opposed to either option, and money isn't the issue. I just wanted to see what y'alls opinion is on this particular setup.

Also, if you guys have any other 1-6x scope options you'd recommend, feel free to chime in, i'm still open to other options. Price range is $1k-2.5k, not including the mount, brownie points if the optic is on Amazon Prime.

Posted: 6/15/2017 5:25:38 PM EDT

[#1]

I got the 1.93" Geissele mount during their Memorial Day sale last month. I also own a MI QD high mount. I'm in the high mount camp.

I had 2 rifles side by side- one with a regular height scope mount and the other with a high mount. Both of these having LVPOs in the mounts. Its faster and more comfortable with less neck strain, IMO, with the high mount vs the regular height mount.

I am not bench rest shooting or going for groups at 300+.

The high mounts are becoming more popular- Redback One and Sentinal Concepts speak highly of using high mounts even if you are not using a DBAL or some sort of IR laser.

Posted: 6/15/2017 11:04:06 PM EDT

[#2]

Quote History

Quoted:
Its faster and more comfortable with less neck strain, IMO, with the high mount vs the regular height mount.

The high mounts are becoming more popular- Redback One and Sentinal Concepts speak highly of using high mounts even if you are not using a DBAL or some sort of IR laser.

View Quote

That's what i've read and heard so far, great for quick shooting and having your head up so less strain on your neck. It'll also come in handy for running head-mounted NODs.

What optic are you running your Geissele mount?

Posted: 6/16/2017 4:23:21 AM EDT

[#3]

I'm another 1.93 convert. I own both the 30mm Geissele as well as the T1 1.93 mounts.

The natural head position is far more comfortable and allows for better situational awareness rather than being scrunched down.

It also clears my ATPIAL and front sight.

I then threw it on this rifle to get repurposed as my 3 gun rifle for a match last week.

I was torn between optics. For me it was between the Razor, the Kahles and the Mk6.

Hated that the Razor was stupid heavy. Heard that the Mk6 had a finnicky eyebox. When the Kahles showed up in the EE for a price I couldn't pass up, I jumped on it.

Incredibly clear, daylight bright, a featherweight of an optic. Brand new price is hard to swallow but definitely worth it now that I've been using it.

Posted: 6/16/2017 9:03:56 AM EDT

[#4]

I created a huge excel doc comparing every data point you can think of between ~25 optics. 1 to 4-8s, elcan , ACOGs, etc.

1-6 seems to be the sweet spot in terms of utility for 10-16" rifles. It came down to the razor 1-6, Mk6 w/ CMR, and the Kahles.

Biggest negatives that stand out:
Razor- weight.
MK6- finnicky eyebox+illumination flicker.
Kahles- weaker warranty compared to Vortex and Leupold, needs to go to Austria for most warranty work, most expensive.

Biggest positives:
Razor- In use w/ some special unit dudes which proves its supposed durability that everyone considers this optic to have.
Daylight bright red dot, simple but solid reticles.

MK6- only real FFP option if thats your thing, made primarily for .mil contracts so you can check off that durability box.

Kahles- One of the brightest reticles available in an LVPO.
Eotech-like reticle (SM1)
Kahles USA ran by the guy who ran Nightforce for years. NXS 1-4 used a kahles scope to build from when engineering so you can determine the durability from there.
In use by at least one dude in 7th SFG.

Posted: 6/18/2017 2:11:50 AM EDT

[#5]

Quote History

Quoted:
I was torn between optics. For me it was between the Razor, the Kahles and the Mk6.

Hated that the Razor was stupid heavy. Heard that the Mk6 had a finnicky eyebox. When the Kahles showed up in the EE for a price I couldn't pass up, I jumped on it.

Incredibly clear, daylight bright, a featherweight of an optic. Brand new price is hard to swallow but definitely worth it now that I've been using it.

View Quote

Yeah, i like there Razor, but the weight is a killer compared to my other options.

Thanks for the photos, pretty sure i'm sold on the 1.93" height for my setup.

Posted: 6/18/2017 2:31:23 AM EDT

[#6]

Quote History

Quoted:
I created a huge excel doc comparing every data point you can think of between ~25 optics. 1 to 4-8s, elcan , ACOGs, etc.

1-6 seems to be the sweet spot in terms of utility for 10-16" rifles. It came down to the razor 1-6, Mk6 w/ CMR, and the Kahles.

Biggest negatives that stand out:
Razor- weight.
MK6- finnicky eyebox+illumination flicker.
Kahles- weaker warranty compared to Vortex and Leupold, needs to go to Austria for most warranty work, most expensive.

Biggest positives:
Razor- In use w/ some special unit dudes which proves its supposed durability that everyone considers this optic to have.
Daylight bright red dot, simple but solid reticles.

MK6- only real FFP option if thats your thing, made primarily for .mil contracts so you can check off that durability box.

Kahles- One of the brightest reticles available in an LVPO.
Eotech-like reticle (SM1)
Kahles USA ran by the guy who ran Nightforce for years. NXS 1-4 used a kahles scope to build from when engineering so you can determine the durability from there.
In use by at least one dude in 7th SFG.

http://i.imgur.com/ko1fgg3.jpg

View Quote

If you don't mind me asking, did you consider the Swarovski K16i (Gen 2) 1-6x optic?

Posted: 6/18/2017 9:48:56 AM EDT

[#7]

Quote History

Quoted:

If you don't mind me asking, did you consider the Swarovski K16i (Gen 2) 1-6x optic?

View Quote

Swarovski doesnt make the K16i, Kahles does. Do you mean the Z6i?

Posted: 6/19/2017 11:15:13 PM EDT

[#8]

Quote History

Quoted:

Swarovski doesnt make the K16i, Kahles does. Do you mean the Z6i?

View Quote

Yes, the Z6i, sorry, they're all starting to blend together haha.

Posted: 6/19/2017 11:20:48 PM EDT

[#9]

I don't like tall mounts. 1.54 is as high as I go.

That said, I would skip the riser idea. Zero will change if you take it off the riser and mount it direct.

Posted: 6/20/2017 1:04:17 AM EDT

[#10]

One thing that sucks for wanting mid range rifles, glass and mounts is that it's not really easy to get a check ride.

So I ended up on the interwebs looking at a lot of opinions and few facts.

I ended up with a DDM4V11 Pro, a G Super (Extended) mount 0 cant, a L Mark 6 1x6x20 in a 34mm tube.

I came to the title thinking that tall mount? No way. So as I started my reply, it's hard to know without putting a 1x6 in a tall mount to my cheek weld. realizing cheek weld why?

So to go back to my original point, wouldn't it be nice if we could test drive rifle, mounts, glass from the LGS? Three day test drive or their range, hell my Mark 6 was $1800, the G mount $350, DDM4V11P $1750. Why is it to much to ask if I'm spending 4 grand to see how it works for me?

Since the Mark 6 1x6 was mentioned, here is my experience. At 1x, gorgeous, it a two eye open red dot. It ticked my boxes, FFP, reticle, 0 stop. I sent it back and am waiting for its return at max illum setting it was intermittant. Either off, or on or usually in between. There it is at the factory waiting repair out of the box. Do I like it? Hell yea but I want it to work.

I want to say that I have never seen mentioned, the 1x6x20, 20 mm objective? It's impossible to know the engineering/optical formula decision to go with a 20mm objective in a 34mm tube. Is it an obsolete design in the days of 24mm 28mm or is it light and battle ready sturdy?

Good scope nonetheless. Make the man make what they sell you regardless of the brand.

Posted: 6/20/2017 7:24:08 AM EDT

[#11]

The MK6 has some of the best FOV in the 1-6 arena, great eye relief, and one of the only FFP options all in a durable lightweight body. I know you said it has the 20mm obj going for it but that doesnt seem to affect its optical clarity or FOV- maybe light transmission? I dont know since ive never been behind one.

Im sure the MK6 is plenty durable but that raises the question- are scopes with the increased diameter of the tube body at the objective like the razor gen 2, k16i, or the accupower 1-8 more durable than those scopes without the diameter boost?

I did not consider the Swarovski Z6i as its really just a 3 gun/hunting optic. Kahles is Swaro's 'tactical' line of scopes and thus has a bit more of an expanded capability than the Z6i. Kahles scopes are also apparently one of the least failure prone scopes out there for tactical and 3 gun use according to a major optic retailer- up there with nightforce and razor gen 2 in terms of durability, hence all 3 being used in some capacity by some special .mil people.

Posted: 6/20/2017 7:57:21 AM EDT

[#12]

Quote History

Quoted:

The MK6 has some of the best FOV in the 1-6 arena, great eye relief, and one of the only FFP options all in a durable lightweight body. I know you said it has the 20mm obj going for it but that doesnt seem to affect its optical clarity or FOV- maybe light transmission? I dont know since ive never been behind one.

Im sure the MK6 is plenty durable but that raises the question- are scopes with the increased diameter of the tube body at the objective like the razor gen 2, k16i, or the accupower 1-8 more durable than those scopes without the diameter boost?

I did not consider the Swarovski Z6i as its really just a 3 gun/hunting optic. Kahles is Swaro's 'tactical' line of scopes and thus has a bit more of an expanded capability than the Z6i. Kahles scopes are also apparently one of the least failure prone scopes out there for tactical and 3 gun use according to a major optic retailer- up there with nightforce and razor gen 2 in terms of durability, hence all 3 being used in some capacity by some special .mil people.

View Quote

I compared my K16i to my MK6 last night. Literally one in one hand, one in the other. Looking through them alternatively as the sun set, looking into brush, at walls/fences, etc. The K16i may have been EVER SO SLIGHTLY BRIGHTER on 6x vs. the MK6, or maybe the larger FOV allowed me to see more of lighter colored objects as background and I just PERCEIVED it as brighter. They both "browned out" green foliage at about the same time. Both lost resolution looking into shadows at about the same time. I honestly can't swear I could make a shot with one when I couldn't the other. If there is a difference, it's on paper.

Posted: 6/23/2017 11:44:13 PM EDT

[#13]

Just talked to a friend who gotten some solid range time in, with both optics, on a similar style upper. Didn't know he had the Swarovski, until recently when i asked him the same question i asked you guys.

Looks like i'll be rolling with the Z6i Gen 2, and the Geissele 1.93" mount.

Thanks again to everyone for the help!

Posted: 6/24/2017 7:46:55 AM EDT

[#14]

Quote History

Quoted:

I compared my K16i to my MK6 last night. Literally one in one hand, one in the other. Looking through them alternatively as the sun set, looking into brush, at walls/fences, etc. The K16i may have been EVER SO SLIGHTLY BRIGHTER on 6x vs. the MK6, or maybe the larger FOV allowed me to see more of lighter colored objects as background and I just PERCEIVED it as brighter. They both "browned out" green foliage at about the same time. Both lost resolution looking into shadows at about the same time. I honestly can't swear I could make a shot with one when I couldn't the other. If there is a difference, it's on paper.

View Quote

So then it seems at this point it becomes user preference. Busy BDC reticle vs circle dot with busy mil hashes, 30mm vs 34mm, kahles vs leupold warranty, etc, etc.

Posted: 6/25/2017 1:18:03 AM EDT

[#15]

I'm glad I came back to this thread because it reminded me to turn the Illumination on the Mark 6 off.

The thread was derailed (with my help) from scope heights to scopes. Today's range trip had me thinking about this.

On a standard height G mount, it really wasn't comfortable. Accurate sure but it would be nice try heights side by side.

On the Mark 6 (back to derail), I like it. I guess the 20 mm objective in a 34 mm tube might be a half generation back in design. That 0.5 dot under the horse shoe is a thing of beauty. Plenty of warts, good scope.

I see a K in my future.

Thank you guys for great thoughts.

Posted: 6/25/2017 9:30:00 AM EDT

[#16]

Returning to scope height, my experience with 1.93" mounts was necessitated by use of a long 6-24x50 target scope with 4" sunshade. It extended so far forward that the sunshade would not clear my folded front sight. I wanted a QD setup to swap the scope with a more traditional tactical scope, so I went with a Larue LT-135 1.93. Works well for me.

Posted: 6/25/2017 10:15:41 AM EDT

[#17]

I'm just laughing. Carry-handle mount height, tubular handguards, and pencil barrel is the new super sexy. Nothing really is new under the sun.

Posted: 6/25/2017 10:19:09 AM EDT

[#18]

Quote History

Quoted:
I'm glad I came back to this thread because it reminded me to turn the Illumination on the Mark 6 off.

The thread was derailed (with my help) from scope heights to scopes. Today's range trip had me thinking about this.

On a standard height G mount, it really wasn't comfortable. Accurate sure but it would be nice try heights side by side.

On the Mark 6 (back to derail), I like it. I guess the 20 mm objective in a 34 mm tube might be a half generation back in design. That 0.5 dot under the horse shoe is a thing of beauty. Plenty of warts, good scope.

I see a K in my future.

Thank you guys for great thoughts.

View Quote

I have owned multiple K16i's and a MK6, and sold my K16i and am buying another MK6. That 20mm objective isn't a problem, it gathers the same amount of light to my eye at night and dusk as the K16i. I was surprised, but I couldn't tell much, if any, difference. The MK6 illumination is MUCH brighter, and I find it a bit "flatter" on 1x. I like the option to "dial" OR "hold". Or a comb (dial for wind, hold for elevation). The K16i is hold-only.

Both are fantastic optics, I just prefer the MK6, as I am sure others prefer the K16i, but optically, the only place I found the K16i superior was in FOV, where it wins handily. Not a big issue on 1x, but is kindof nice on 6x. It's dumb, but that extra 1 feet at 100 yards of FOV feels a lot more substantial than it is on paper. MUCH more substantial than the "light gathering" of the extra 4mm objective lens, IMO/IME.

Posted: 6/25/2017 9:05:41 PM EDT

[#19]

I went back to see why I didn't choose the K.

2nd FP, I couldn't find if it had 0 stop turrets, covered turrets, 30mm tube.

The Mark 6 was only "missing" a 24/28 mm objective.

The Illumination doesn't really flicker. The scope does demand you put your eyeball in the box. The 0.5 MOA center dot is a thing of beauty at 6x.

FWIW, I paid $300 less for it at my LGS than current web prices.

Posted: 6/28/2017 11:19:42 PM EDT

[#20]

Quote History

Quoted:
I got the 1.93" Geissele mount during their Memorial Day sale last month. I also own a MI QD high mount. I'm in the high mount camp.

I had 2 rifles side by side- one with a regular height scope mount and the other with a high mount. Both of these having LVPOs in the mounts. Its faster and more comfortable with less neck strain, IMO, with the high mount vs the regular height mount.

I am not bench rest shooting or going for groups at 300+.

The high mounts are becoming more popular- Redback One and Sentinal Concepts speak highly of using high mounts even if you are not using a DBAL or some sort of IR laser.

View Quote

I so agree about the height. Esp if you shoot near NTCH and even more so if you also shoot 3-gun/SOF CQB style with rifle butt lower and pushed over to the clavicle. This really tames muzzle rise allowing for a faster shot cadence. I do all of the above and found that the higher scope mounting makes for far faster, more comfortable shooting. Even when I sometimes shift the butt back to the shoulder pocket for a slow, long shot, I find the high mount works for me.

In my case all this DID create a problem with cheek weld. I was perplexed because no one made a cheek riser for my stock which I really love and all of the other stars were finally coming into alignment for me. Ended up making a riser myself and now it all works fabulously!

The other problem I encountered with my shooting style and scope, was getting the scope pushed OUT far enough for correct eye relief. None of the higher mounts extended far enough for me and my scope (MK6 1x6). Cause I'm a lightweight guy, I went with an Aero Precision 34mm SPR mount on top of a lightweight Yankee Hill 5 inch x 1/2 inch riser. This gave me the height AND allowed me to push the mount out over the handrail on the hanging extension of the riser giving me just enough eye relief. If a guy wanted QR feature and didn't mind the weight he could use a Larue LT101 throw lever riser instead but it is 5/8 tall.

For me this setup is faster, lighter, and more comfortable than anything else I could find. And I searched far and wide.

Posted: 6/28/2017 11:23:12 PM EDT

[#21]

High mounts are where it's at. More
Natural head position and a direct carry over from 1/3 cowitness RDS's.

Posted: 6/29/2017 12:10:20 AM EDT

[#22]

Quote History

Quoted:
High mounts are where it's at. More
Natural head position and a direct carry over from 1/3 cowitness RDS's. https://www.AR15.Com/media/mediaFiles/104386/IMG-3359-240989.jpg

View Quote

Agreed.

Maybe the only downsides being fewer mounting solutions and more difficulty finding a good zero for the best good point blank trajectory. I've got a 14.5 running 77 grain MK262. Just finished my mount. Any suggestions for the best zeroing distance with an MK6 1x6 CMR-W 7.62 reticle?

Posted: 6/29/2017 8:24:42 AM EDT

[#23]

Quote History

Quoted:

Agreed.

Maybe the only downsides being fewer mounting solutions and more difficulty finding a good zero for the best good point blank trajectory. I've got a 14.5 running 77 grain MK262. Just finished my mount. Any suggestions for the best zeroing distance with an MK6 1x6 CMR-W 7.62 reticle?

View Quote

Why adjust zero for a mount that is something like .43" higher over bore? Keep everything the same and just aim half an inch higher at targets up close.

Posted: 6/29/2017 2:09:12 PM EDT

[#24]

Quote History

Quoted:

Why adjust zero for a mount that is something like .43" higher over bore? Keep everything the same and just aim half an inch higher at targets up close.

View Quote

On second thought, I don't want to drift this thread with my question off topic.

But I will respond. Alas. its not near as simple as you imagine. It is my understanding that due to higher mounting over the bore, the angles required to point the optic toward the POI (esp at shorter ranges) and the arc of trajectory, higher mountings make it more diffucult to obtain what is called good point blank range. The latter term being the ranges at which ones bullet flight arc does not go higher or lower than required to make good combat hits.

Please see the thread in this section about zeros (which is where I should be having this discussion) to get the full skinny on all this. Correctly set up optics on an AR 15 is rather more involved than I once thought.

Posted: 6/29/2017 4:56:34 PM EDT

[#25]

Quote History

Quoted:
I'm just laughing. Carry-handle mount height, tubular handguards, and pencil barrel is the new super sexy. Nothing really is new under the sun.

http://media.liveauctiongroup.net/i/17485/17059283_2.jpg?v=8D0673907795970

View Quote

Except for the free-floating handguard, the non-triangular handguard, the adjustable stock, the mount not being 3"+ above the bore but ~1.9 at the very most....yeah, aside from all the functional differences and the barrel length, you've got a point.

Posted: 7/1/2017 9:53:31 AM EDT

[#26]

Anyone else liking these higher mounts for general carbine use? I wonder if this will catch on?

Posted: 7/3/2017 8:26:57 PM EDT

[#27]

Quote History

Quoted:
I have owned multiple K16i's and a MK6, and sold my K16i and am buying another MK6. That 20mm objective isn't a problem, it gathers the same amount of light to my eye at night and dusk as the K16i. I was surprised, but I couldn't tell much, if any, difference. The MK6 illumination is MUCH brighter, and I find it a bit "flatter" on 1x. I like the option to "dial" OR "hold". Or a comb (dial for wind, hold for elevation). The K16i is hold-only.

Both are fantastic optics, I just prefer the MK6, as I am sure others prefer the K16i, but optically, the only place I found the K16i superior was in FOV, where it wins handily. Not a big issue on 1x, but is kindof nice on 6x. It's dumb, but that extra 1 feet at 100 yards of FOV feels a lot more substantial than it is on paper. MUCH more substantial than the "light gathering" of the extra 4mm objective lens, IMO/IME.

View Quote View All Quotes

View All Quotes

Quote History

Quoted:

Quoted:
I'm glad I came back to this thread because it reminded me to turn the Illumination on the Mark 6 off.

The thread was derailed (with my help) from scope heights to scopes. Today's range trip had me thinking about this.

On a standard height G mount, it really wasn't comfortable. Accurate sure but it would be nice try heights side by side.

On the Mark 6 (back to derail), I like it. I guess the 20 mm objective in a 34 mm tube might be a half generation back in design. That 0.5 dot under the horse shoe is a thing of beauty. Plenty of warts, good scope.

I see a K in my future.

Thank you guys for great thoughts.

I have owned multiple K16i's and a MK6, and sold my K16i and am buying another MK6. That 20mm objective isn't a problem, it gathers the same amount of light to my eye at night and dusk as the K16i. I was surprised, but I couldn't tell much, if any, difference. The MK6 illumination is MUCH brighter, and I find it a bit "flatter" on 1x. I like the option to "dial" OR "hold". Or a comb (dial for wind, hold for elevation). The K16i is hold-only.

Both are fantastic optics, I just prefer the MK6, as I am sure others prefer the K16i, but optically, the only place I found the K16i superior was in FOV, where it wins handily. Not a big issue on 1x, but is kindof nice on 6x. It's dumb, but that extra 1 feet at 100 yards of FOV feels a lot more substantial than it is on paper. MUCH more substantial than the "light gathering" of the extra 4mm objective lens, IMO/IME.

Hoping I'm not hijacking this thread, but the difference between the brightness of a 24mm objective compared to a 20mm should not be viewed as slight or minimal. It is surface area that is determinant, not diameter, given equal optical design and lens quality. The formula for the area of a circle demonstrates that seemingly small changes in diameter produce big changes in area. It is area that matters.

A 24mm diameter lens has a surface area of 452.39 square mm. A 20mm lens only 314.16 square mm. A 24mm lens has over 40% greater surface area. That is a huge difference in the amount of light entering the tube. A 40mm objective has a whopping 1,256.6 square mm of surface area!

Posted: 7/3/2017 9:36:36 PM EDT

[#28]

I understand that a high-mount is required in some special cases (like seeing over a laser-aiming module), but otherwise this crap about situational awareness and neck strain is just ridiculous.

It's called a cheek-weld people . . . not a chin-weld. If you're not resting your cheek on the stock, your neck muscles are doing more straining . . .

I guess I'm old-school, but I run my 1-6x optic with a 1.3" or 1.4" centerline max.

Posted: 7/3/2017 10:43:01 PM EDT

[#29]

Quote History

Quoted:
I understand that a high-mount is required in some special cases (like seeing over a laser-aiming module), but otherwise this crap about situational awareness and neck strain is just ridiculous.

It's called a cheek-weld people . . . not a chin-weld. If you're not resting your cheek on the stock, your neck muscles are doing more straining . . .

I guess I'm old-school, but I run my 1-6x optic with a 1.3" or 1.4" centerline max.

View Quote

Depends how you shoot and your physique.

Recently someone taught me how to dramatically reduce muzzle climb by shifting the stock from the shoulder to the clavicle and down a bit. Kinda on the pec muscle. The first time I pulled the trigger I had to check to see if the gun really went off. No kidding. I heard it, but I didn't feel anything and the muzzle didn't move at all. Magic. I can double tap and hit multiple targets much, much faster this way. Problem is, it forced me to crane my neck down to get sight picture. The higher mount made this much more comfortable. But, you're right about it messing up your cheek weld. I really struggled with that. No one made a cheek riser for my stock, so I finally solved it by making my own little cheek riser. Puts my head right THERE. Fits perfect and, even in the dark, just the feel of it tells me that I'm in position. Mounted it JUST back enough to clear my charging handle.

Not to sound all tacti-cool, but I'm into ARs for combat shooting. Up close, speed kills. Being able to place significantly more shots on target per unit time gives one a big advantage. So for me, all of this was worth it to increase my effective shot cadence by a large margin. As always, YMMV.

Posted: 7/4/2017 8:03:41 AM EDT

[#30]

Quote History

Quoted:

Depends how you shoot and your physique.

Recently someone taught me how to dramatically reduce muzzle climb by shifting the stock from the shoulder to the clavicle and down a bit. Kinda on the pec muscle. The first time I pulled the trigger I had to check to see if the gun really went off. No kidding. I heard it, but I didn't feel anything and the muzzle didn't move at all. Magic. I can double tap and hit multiple targets much, much faster this way. Problem is, it forced me to crane my neck down to get sight picture. The higher mount made this much more comfortable. But, you're right about it messing up your cheek weld. I really struggled with that. No one made a cheek riser for my stock, so I finally solved it by making my own little cheek riser. Puts my head right THERE. Fits perfect and, even in the dark, just the feel of it tells me that I'm in position. Mounted it JUST back enough to clear my charging handle.

Not to sound all tacti-cool, but I'm into ARs for combat shooting. Up close, speed kills. Being able to place significantly more shots on target per unit time gives one a big advantage. So for me, all of this was worth it to increase my effective shot cadence by a large margin. As always, YMMV.

View Quote

Well kudos to you for addressing the cheek weld problem. That is what worries me about this thread. I see no mention of this, and I know from experience that disconnecting your face from the stock greatly increases the chances of loosing your sight picture through the scope, especially under stress.

Do what works for you. I'm a big advocate of that. My only point is that there is no free lunch. What the high mount giveth, the high mount taketh away . . .

Posted: 7/4/2017 11:51:24 AM EDT

[#31]

Quote History

Quoted:

Well kudos to you for addressing the cheek weld problem. That is what worries me about this thread. I see no mention of this, and I know from experience that disconnecting your face from the stock greatly increases the chances of loosing your sight picture through the scope, especially under stress.

Do what works for you. I'm a big advocate of that. My only point is that there is no free lunch. What the high mount giveth, the high mount taketh away . . .

View Quote

For me with the cheek riser on mine it was all giveth and no taketh. I TOTALLY like the higher mounting!

I see no downside except some extra hardware and a few more ounces. But, these things vary from shooter to shooter. I'd just encourage people to try it. If you shoot close range stuff 3-gun/commando style, it's a BIG plus. It's one of those things that has to be experienced to really appreciate it.

Too many people shoot an M4orgery with an LPV as if it were a long range piece. What works best on one, in many cases, is not best for the other. For close range combat shooting it's not ideal to lay in flat and low behind your scope as you would normally do on a long range piece. As long as you can somehow achieve a good cheek weld, getting the head up a bit really does provide better peripheral vision and speed. And then there's the aforementioned advantage of providing for a more solid butt stock position on the chest to defeat muzzle rise for better rapid fire.

For one reason or the other a higher scope moint might not be best for some people. But for many others it's just a matter of not being willing consider something unfamiliar.

Posted: 7/4/2017 3:23:58 PM EDT

[#32]

High mount user here. I'm not jamming my actual cheek bone down on the stock. And I like it, it feels perfectly natural. My natural position is like the side of my jaw with plenty of cheek providing cushion. It's repeatable and I have no accuracy issues. Very fast.

Posted: 7/4/2017 3:28:03 PM EDT

[#33]

Quote History

Quoted:
High mount user here. I'm not jamming my actual cheek bone down on the stock. And I like it, it feels perfectly natural. My natural position is like the side of my jaw with plenty of cheek providing cushion. It's repeatable and I have no accuracy issues. Very fast.

View Quote

+1
Mega dittos all around!

Edit -- I'd go so far as to predict that this will become more and more popular and that more mount manufacturers will jump in with 2 inch over bore mounts.

Posted: 7/6/2017 5:11:01 PM EDT

[#34]

Quote History

Quoted:
Well kudos to you for addressing the cheek weld problem. That is what worries me about this thread. I see no mention of this, and I know from experience that disconnecting your face from the stock greatly increases the chances of loosing your sight picture through the scope, especially under stress.

Do what works for you. I'm a big advocate of that. My only point is that there is no free lunch. What the high mount giveth, the high mount taketh away . . .

View Quote

You can stop worrying.

You're also not "disconnecting your face from the stock," nor are you using your chin to stabilize the stock.

I too am a big advocate for "Do what works for you," the biggest "conversion" issue I've seen people have going with higher mounted optics is personally getting over the "feels weird" of not having the traditional cheek weld that they've been taught for years they were supposed to have, in large part linked to traditionally configured .30 caliber + rifles with traditional iron sights or older/cheaper scopes with very sensitive eye relief/eye boxes.

Like most things--it's not for everyone, people have different preferences, comfort levels, jobs, equipment, expectations, levels of training, etc., nor does this mean that "old school" techniques are all necessarily obsolete and need to be thrown out in their entirety, but sometimes new techniques (not that high mounted optics are all that new--the very first AR10s and AR15s had the provision for mounting carry handle scopes) require us to disconnect from our attachments to older techniques before we can most effectively use them, which is, of course, easier said than done.

~Augee

Posted: 7/8/2017 11:38:46 PM EDT

[#35]

Quoted:

You can stop worrying.

You're also not "disconnecting your face from the stock," nor are you using your chin to stabilize the stock.

I too am a big advocate for "Do what works for you," the biggest "conversion" issue I've seen people have going with higher mounted optics is personally getting over the "feels weird" of not having the traditional cheek weld that they've been taught for years they were supposed to have, in large part linked to traditionally configured .30 caliber + rifles with traditional iron sights or older/cheaper scopes with very sensitive eye relief/eye boxes.

Like most things--it's not for everyone, people have different preferences, comfort levels, jobs, equipment, expectations, levels of training, etc., nor does this mean that "old school" techniques are all necessarily obsolete and need to be thrown out in their entirety, but sometimes new techniques (not that high mounted optics are all that new--the very first AR10s and AR15s had the provision for mounting carry handle scopes) require us to disconnect from our attachments to older techniques before we can most effectively use them, which is, of course, easier said than done.

~Augee

View Quote

+1 Right on on all that.

I would just add, for anyone running an illuminated LPV on a defensive piece, the best way to check for repeatability is to turn on the illum, take it out in complete darkness, throw the rifle up to your shoulder, and see if the reticle appears more or less where it should be. If you can't find it in the dark like this, then something is not optimal. Might just take a practice. A little cheek riser I made gave me a tactile reference that helped me find my spot and gave me better cheek weld. It's rocking for me now.

Posted: 7/9/2017 8:40:28 AM EDT

[#36]

Quote History

Quoted:
On second thought, I don't want to drift this thread with my question off topic.

But I will respond. Alas. its not near as simple as you imagine. It is my understanding that due to higher mounting over the bore, the angles required to point the optic toward the POI (esp at shorter ranges) and the arc of trajectory, higher mountings make it more diffucult to obtain what is called good point blank range. The latter term being the ranges at which ones bullet flight arc does not go higher or lower than required to make good combat hits.

Please see the thread in this section about zeros (which is where I should be having this discussion) to get the full skinny on all this. Correctly set up optics on an AR 15 is rather more involved than I once thought.

View Quote View All Quotes

View All Quotes

Quote History

Quoted:

Quoted:

Why adjust zero for a mount that is something like .43" higher over bore? Keep everything the same and just aim half an inch higher at targets up close.

On second thought, I don't want to drift this thread with my question off topic.

But I will respond. Alas. its not near as simple as you imagine. It is my understanding that due to higher mounting over the bore, the angles required to point the optic toward the POI (esp at shorter ranges) and the arc of trajectory, higher mountings make it more diffucult to obtain what is called good point blank range. The latter term being the ranges at which ones bullet flight arc does not go higher or lower than required to make good combat hits.

Please see the thread in this section about zeros (which is where I should be having this discussion) to get the full skinny on all this. Correctly set up optics on an AR 15 is rather more involved than I once thought.

The trajectory is the same with a higher optic. The differences are your near zero will change and you will be off more up close. I believe the change at distance is only tenths of an inch between a low mount and high mount.

Posted: 7/9/2017 5:56:23 PM EDT

[#37]

Quote History

Quoted:

The trajectory is the same with a higher optic. The differences are your near zero will change and you will be off more up close. I believe the change at distance is only tenths of an inch between a low mount and high mount.

View Quote

Yeah, it's the short range POI vs POA that I'm most concerned about since this is supposed to be a 0-700 weapon. I need to study the zero threads, do some ballistics work on the computer, then confirm on paper. Just got a new scope and mount roughed in. So far just playing with the mounts and positions to try and achieve the best fit.

Way too hot to shoot here now. 115 yesterday! But a quick run through one of those threads seemed to indicate that a wrong zero could make for a lot more offset at various ranges within "point blank range." The goal in most cases is to keep the bullet flight as close as possible to POA within "point blank range" after which, the BDC ret is suppose to be the guide.

Posted: 7/9/2017 6:07:45 PM EDT

[#38]

Quote History

Quoted:
Yeah, it's the short range POI vs POA that I'm most concerned about since this is supposed to be a 0-700 weapon. I need to study the zero threads, do some ballistics work on the computer, then confirm on paper. Just got a new scope and mount roughed in. So far just playing with the mounts and positions to try and achieve the best fit.

Way too hot to shoot here now. 115 yesterday! But a quick run through one of those threads seemed to indicate that a wrong zero could make for a lot more offset at various ranges within "point blank range." The goal in most cases is to keep the bullet flight as close as possible to POA within "point blank range" after which, the BDC ret is suppose to be the guide.

View Quote View All Quotes

View All Quotes

Quote History

Quoted:

Quoted:

The trajectory is the same with a higher optic. The differences are your near zero will change and you will be off more up close. I believe the change at distance is only tenths of an inch between a low mount and high mount.

Yeah, it's the short range POI vs POA that I'm most concerned about since this is supposed to be a 0-700 weapon. I need to study the zero threads, do some ballistics work on the computer, then confirm on paper. Just got a new scope and mount roughed in. So far just playing with the mounts and positions to try and achieve the best fit.

Way too hot to shoot here now. 115 yesterday! But a quick run through one of those threads seemed to indicate that a wrong zero could make for a lot more offset at various ranges within "point blank range." The goal in most cases is to keep the bullet flight as close as possible to POA within "point blank range" after which, the BDC ret is suppose to be the guide.

Maximum point blank range would actually be the farthest with the highest optic mount. This is because the bullet has to go up higher to meet the line of sight. It is just slightly farther however.

Posted: 7/9/2017 10:57:28 PM EDT

[#39]

Quote History

Quoted:

Maximum point blank range would actually be the farthest with the highest optic mount. This is because the bullet has to go up higher to meet the line of sight. It is just slightly farther however.

View Quote

Good to know. I kinda zoomed through one of those threads and got the vague impression that higher mounts made it MORE difficult to keep the offsets low. Hope you're right. Makes sense though. That's the way the original M16 was set up with the sights way up high.

Posted: 7/11/2017 9:41:00 PM EDT

[#40]

On the thread topic...just do what feels best.

On scopes....

Quote History

Quoted:

I have owned multiple K16i's and a MK6, and sold my K16i and am buying another MK6. That 20mm objective isn't a problem, it gathers the same amount of light to my eye at night and dusk as the K16i. I was surprised, but I couldn't tell much, if any, difference. The MK6 illumination is MUCH brighter, and I find it a bit "flatter" on 1x. I like the option to "dial" OR "hold". Or a comb (dial for wind, hold for elevation). The K16i is hold-only.

Both are fantastic optics, I just prefer the MK6, as I am sure others prefer the K16i, but optically, the only place I found the K16i superior was in FOV, where it wins handily. Not a big issue on 1x, but is kindof nice on 6x. It's dumb, but that extra 1 feet at 100 yards of FOV feels a lot more substantial than it is on paper. MUCH more substantial than the "light gathering" of the extra 4mm objective lens, IMO/IME.

View Quote

Now having shot with the Mark 6, K16i, and Vortex. I would agree with most of this, especially the difference in FOV. At 100Y, the K16i has 22 feet over the Mark 6. The Razor falls in between.

To my use, the razor has the brighest illumination and the best value, K16 the best optics and FOV with a great general purpose reticle, and the Mark 6 is FFP and allows you to dial. Mark 6 IMO beats the other two for mid to long range use due to the subtensions, FFP, and turrets, but is more finicky on 1x. All are fantastic optics and this is mostly personal preference.

[ARCHIVED THREAD] - Geissele Super Precision Scope Mount 1.93" Height

AR-15 » Optics, Mounts, and Sights

AR Sponsor:

Warning

Confirm Action

About AR15.COM

Stay Connected

Newsletter

Contact Us