That's part of the point. The other part being made is the rail not extending forward far enough and thereby potentially causing eye relief issues with some scopes.

Take a look at this Russian mount (pic stolen from Gunbroker), notice the clearance between the front of the rail and the rear sight. It's pitched forward as far as it can go:

I appreciate that it is QD and has an adjustable locking lever. This point is more of a convenience issue, not a deal breaker for me personally.



My point exactly, great example.



I doubt the picture of the CMR FAC posted would allow the ring to come back one full slot without hitting the turret housing and requiring the scope to move back to make it work. This would in all likelihood force the shooters cheekweld back on the stock to obtain proper eye relief. I have a feeling he already did that to a certain amount because the ring mark on the tube where it was in the LaRue is forward by at least one slot.

The additional rear slots being available are a non-issue as we are talking about moving the optic forward not rearward.

Your locking mechanism should prove to be an improvement over other designs as well as the height of the rail itself. However, the location really just copied the shortcomings of every other combloc mount out there to some extent to include the BP-02, Molot and K-Var’s KV-04 with the exception of the tandem mount Liquidmetal posted IMHO.

The strength of this design is accommodating the conventional scope user as it is currently to much rail for anyone wanting to mount an AimPoint or a Micro. It also lacks the ability to co-witness that those same users seek. Besides, you and the competition already have plans or, are currently making those options. I truly hope you do get the positive feedback from end users you seek. A couple of us are just trying to help you to that end.

Wpns Man

A Eotech will look very high. I do not know of a good option to get those down to a decent height.
TROY
MI

That EOTech doesn't look too bad actually, can we see what it looks like zoomed back to see the whole rifle? Reminds me of seeing Polish Beryl's with their EOTech's.

I shot a Vz. 58 the other day with an EOTech mounted on the front and at first I thought it would be too high, but I found shooting the EOTech without a cheek weld its actually better for me! I forgot who said it but once you get used to shooting without the cheek weld its not that bad

Cheek weld isn't bad with the EOTech. It is on par with other rifles of it's type, meaning the EOTech typically sits a little higher. I've never been too concerned with cheek weld on RDS's. It's not uncomfortably high and feels pretty natural to me. I think it would work well for most shooters assuming you prefer your RDS closer to your eye. Some folks like them further out. Obviously this won't work with magnifiers with this particlar EOTech. I don't have an XPS here to see how many rail slots it would leave open and if I could squeeze a magnifier in there behind it or not.

SO how good does this do centering the rail over the reciever?

I was planning on buying a kvar side mount when I add a scope but this sits even lower, I'll be buying this one when I add the scope, good job.

I just got mine today and was very impressed with the mount over all. The rail is darn near right over the bore on my WASR 2 and the rail is about as low as you could get while still being able to clean the rifle with the optic & rail attached.

But.......The mounting system leaves a bit to be desired.

Understanding that there are many variances in AK side mounts in reguards to depth/width etc. My unit would lock down but I was still able to pull the mount off . And yes I did adjust it properly.
I believe that this is due to the rail on the rifle and NOT the mount itself.

With the center pinch point of the mount is only grabbing a very small portion of the lower part of the rail there is just not enough surface area on the WASR2 rail for the mount to hold on to. Again it is the rail and not the mount that is the problem.

If I may make a sugestion? If the good folks at MI were to include different "shoes" for the mount: say one with a raised and squared bump in the center {which by the way is exactly where the mount grabs the rail} there would be no worry of the mount moving under recoil or any other action taken by the shooter
such as having to mortar clear the weapon.

Now like I said this is with MY rifle. Other rifles may work well with the mount. But for now until I can fab a new mount shoe or MI makes one it will have to sit in my AK parts bin and my old BP-02 mount will have to soldier on.

Wait, So you all are making a 30mm ring side mount for aimpoints that co-witnesses? You got me, I already bought this one.

Like I said the mount itself is very nice But with out some kind of stop on the shoe that clamps to the rail to keep it from sliding off I could not get it to stay on.

Maybe if the threads on the adjustment screw were of a finer pitch? That might help but I still think a small bump in the middle of the shoe would work over a broader range of rifles & side rails.

I have a bunch of wasrs here all work fine.
TROY
MI

These are out of stock on the sight, any idea when more might be in?