Think about it, most of the photos you see of Delta running Aimpoints in Mogadishu show no cheek pads or rests.  Just because you can't get a cheek weld does not mean it isn't practical.  Practice makes perfect.

I don't quite understand the compulsion so many people have for super tight cheek weld in a defensive carbine or gun.  On an AR, it's annoying to me.  Standard height, I feel like I'm having to really get down on the stock, and jam my face to it.  Yes, that helps when shooting for accuracy But it's not, IMHO, that great for shooting from different positions, or quickly.  Plus, as a glasses wearer, it forces my head to be a little forward and sometimes the top rim of my glasses is in the way if they are slipped down at all.  Which they do.  At the range it's for the most part OK, because the ear pro keeps my glasses back and tight.  In a real world setting, my glasses are always slipping down and might be in the way of my sight picture.  And I have to push them back.  

There are plenty of pics with .mil guys with set ups higher than typical.  Personally, I don't see how dudes that wear helmets can do it with a strap around their face at the standard height.   I'm sure people must have different shaped heads and faces and it's probably different for everyone.  I don't have a big head though, I don't think.  Maybe it's kind of tall.  Who knows.  I just know I can get decent results, even shooting for accuracy, with a higher set up.

A compact ACOG on a carry handle is IMHO, the optimum height.  I think his (The M1A with the Aimpoint on it) setup would be real close to that and I think, ideal.


Yes, this is 100 yards:










You can see a lot of those groups posted are right around 1.5 MOA.  That's not bad for a 4x scope, skinny barrel and CHIN WELD OH MY GOD.   No, they weren't ALL 1.5 MOA that day, but the better ammo hung around there.  

So the giraffe-neck dudes have a real advantage with this set-up, huh?

Probably so.  Not sure if that's meant to be a rip or not.  But we're all built differently.  I admittedly have kind of a long neck, so it may be why it doesn't bother me as much as some other people.  If you have a close look at this, you'll see that the stock is nowhere near my chin.  And a lot of bolt guns with scopes don't make you jam you face down on them.  Unless they have that monte carlo bump.  Like the Weatherby's and some of the remingtons.  It just depends on the stock.  

Yep.  Looks a bit different, buts it's not bad at all.  After a few mags, it feels "normal".  Going back to a full cheek weld can feel weird.

Just my 2% here............ ignore it if you want........

We've come a long way since Mogadishu in 1993........... mainly the use of flat tops.  Flat tops are the better way to go because:

-for zeroing reasons, it's better to get the optic as close to bore as possible.  The higher the sight-off-set, the more difficult your zeros will be.  At muzzle the AR15 irons (and the optic is EVEN MORE) are about 2.5" above the bore.  Which you have to compensate for out to your zero distance.  But if you add EVEN MORE height with an optic it only gets worse.  But it will mess with the trajectory "on the other side " too.  After your zero distance, the bullet will be rising even more than normal, which means on both sides of your zero, you will have to compensate for the sight off-set.  

- Red dots, like any optic have parallax.  The more sloppy you are with your cheek/chin/nose whatever weld, the more inconsistent your view of the scope will be.  At 25yds or even 100yds the effect might be small but the further out you go, the worse it will get.  

HIH........................      

There's nothing to mess up.  It just depends on how you zero.  If you use a 25 meter zero with standard sight height, it's like 9" high at 200 yards.  It's just a matter of where you want to impact at distance.  You could zero at 100 if your offset is 3.5", then it would be about he same as if you were  1" high with normal height sites at 100.  I typically use a 50 yard zero with my AR's with standard height on them.  You will at least be 1" above the bull or POA because the bullet is still rising.   Now if you had an optic with a height over bore that was 4" and you're still zeroing at 25 meters, well then you'd be pretty high at 200  More than what would be useful probably.  You just have to test it.

I think it comes down to what setup works best for you. Like I said, I tried the Aimpoint and a traditional scope in just about every configuration possible. With my M14 having the Aimpoint PRO down low on the gun serves four purposes for me. It co-witnesses with the iron sights, so if the sight fails I still have the irons without needing a quick release mount or a see through mount. It also provides a traditional cheek weld that works better for me when shooting a 7.62 power level cartridge. Having it sit low on the gun minimizes the chance it will bump into or snag on things. Having it sit out on the forearm balances this gun better for me, instead of having the weight over the receiver. My accuracy and control are the best with this setup. Your mileage may vary. Also, regarding weight, our fathers (maybe your grandfathers) were able to haul this through some pretty harsh terrain for days on end, So man up (JK) or stick with an AR!  

Good points.  I don't disagree at all.  Although I'm not going to "man up" though.  I'm 44 have lyme disease and not as strong as I used to be.  And even still, I humped a Garand during Deer season once and it's not something I really wanted to repeat.  It gets heavy when doing a lot of walking.   I think if you could get it down to like 8.5 pounds loaded, that would be awesome, but I'm pretty sure that's not going to happen.  

Plus mine is a loaded.  I always regretted that fact and wanted a standard.  But it might aid in accuracy.  Plus the extra weight from shooting from prone or the bench is probably a good thing.

JJREA:
Firstly if you are shooting well and happy with your set up.............. Rock on!  Have fun and yes, the set up "fitting" you is half the battle.  

But you're not entirely seeing my point....

So with an AR or M1A or FN etc, the higher off the bore the optic is, the harder it is to zero.  So in your picture, the optic on top of the carry handle is about 3.5" off the bore.  

The first half is up to your zero.   OK you zero at 25yds or 50yds.  The first 0-10yds or so you want to make a precision shot (say a head shot).  You'll have to account for the off set and aim on his forehead to hit center mass  (forehead minus 3.5") .  So you have to aim  ABOVE the intended point of impact.  The off set lessens to your zero.  

But then the second part occurs:  With such a steep angle, now AFTER your zero, you need to hold UNDER the intended point of impact.  

So along with every thing else to make a precision shot......... you need to keep all that in mind.  

Needless to say the increased off set will throw off any book zero's............. ie 50/250yd zero.  So yes, you'll need to shoot all the way out to your realistic max range.  

So you decide to be slick and zero at say 100yds.  So out to 100yds the off set is pretty much below and a slow closure to zero range.  But then at around 200 and certainly 300 you have the full drop of the bullet to account for.  

And YES............I've tried this problem out and so I can say this from experience.      

           

When I had my M1A zero'd at 100 with the springy Gen III mount and a scope on top of that, it was dead on at 200 to my recollection (it's been a while).  If my memory is correct, it's not much different than having a 50 yard zero on an AR.  And actually I think if you zero'd the M1A at 50, it would be very similar the first few hundred yards.  Although admittedly, I can't remember if I did any adjusting that time.  But I'm pretty sure I didn't.  You just have to know your dope.  Don't ballistic calculators allow you to put in offset?   And of course it depends on which rounds you are comparing in either rifle.  

Yes, I see your point about offset and closer range shots.  It's one of the things about an AR that is a THING.  Right now, I have my M1A set up that same way.  Gen III mount, Scope with some rings.  And the offset from the center of the barrel to the center of the scope is still a hair less than the standard offset of an AR's sights.  Well at least when I'm comparing it to my A2 I have sitting here.    So I'm not really sure why you'd think it would be any worse then an AR?  And on an AR, if you're putting something on the carry handle, that's why you can zero at 100 because the sights are higher.  How high are you at 100 yards with a 50 yard zero?  Or 25 meter for that matter?  The 50 yard zero on an AR works about to be pretty close to a 100 yard zero with a carry handle scope.   Probably a bit of a difference but close.  A 25 meter zero would put you higher yet at 100, and gives you some more distance downrange.  But it makes it like 9" high at 200.  I'm pretty sure zeroing at 100 with a carry handle scope will have less of a steep angle, as you refer to it, as a 25 meter zero.  

Personally, I don't think I'm missing your point, I think you're missing mine.  And somehow we're looking at it differently and have different experiences.  If you want I can show you the measurements on my M1A the way it is set up now.

I have my own M1A's to look at............(and tried to scope)

It doesn't matter what rifle you are talking about.............. M14. M1, AR, SKS, Rem 700 etc etc etc.  It's not an "AR Thing," it's a "any rifle you perch an optic on top of-thing."    

A 2.0" off set is higher than a 1.5."  A 3.5" is higher than a 2.5."

The higher it is, the more it influences the flight of the bullet vs the optics line of sight.

We're good..............  Take care.
Good shooting BTW....                

I just meant that it's higher than say the irons on an M1A or some other traditional guns.  

I didn't mean to offend, but I didn't really agree with the point that it's all that hard to zero.  If you don't want a lot of rise after your zero, you just lower your zero.  If you wanted more of a flat line shooter with a less drastic rise.  If you're optic is 3.5" above the bore, you could zero 1" low at 100 and it would be like sighting in a bolt gun with an offset of 1.5" at the center of the scope and it being zero'd 1" high at 100.   Either way you have to compensate for bullet drop at distance.  The more you dial it in for distance, the higher it's going to be at 100 and 200.  Unless you're using a BDC reticle.  So the higher your scope is, the further it will be before it crosses the path of your eyeball.  

Some of the sniper rifles now are getting high above the bore because of rails and such.  

I guess this is an M24A2.  That's about as high as my Gen III mount and scope above the bore.  


xm2010


I guess your point is that if you do plan to shoot at smaller things at closer distances, the offset is going to be more of a challenge. And that I agree with.  I guess I was looking at it more from a beyond 50 yards prospect.    If you're shooting at torso sized  targets, a 2.5 - 3.5" offset isn't going to make much a difference.  I've admittedly never tried to perform headshots at 10 yards with my  AR with the carry handle scope on it.

Way too much giraffe-necking going on with these scoped M1As on traditional stocks to be accurate beyond 100yds.

C'mon guys, let's get serious ...  Look, if you want to turn an M1A into a scoped, range-effective semi-auto 7.62 rifle, then just invest in one of the high quality AR-10 variants, like the LMT MWS, LM8, or one of the a DPMS models. Don't try to turn your M1A into an AR-10.

Aside from the better cheekweld of the AR-platform relative to optic-over-bore height, the AR's modularity carries over to the stock. You can pick one that puts your cheek where it needs to be without all the up-n-down, sliding-your-face-around-on-the-stock crap that plagues other non-AR systems.

I've gotten some decent groups with my scoped M1A.  Never shot an AR-10 and I'm not buying one.  I already have a semi auto .308.  Not saying the M1A is better.  I'm just saying it has worked for me.  I find a traditional stock more comfortable.  Especially with the extra recoil of the .308.  (I'm comparing to a 5.56)

I'm getting old, so nostalgia suits me.  Plus plenty of dudes ran these things back in the day.  I'm pretty sure they ran them with deadly efficiency.  Even if they weren't "optimal".  

Great pics! Thank you!

Looks like this thread is hyping up the AR boys. Here's some gasoline for that fire:  

They used to kid Randy Shughart because he shunned the modern rifle and ammunition and carried a Vietnam era M-14, which shot a 7.62 mm round without the penetrating qualities of the new green tip. It occurred to Howe as he saw those Sammies keep on running that Randy was the smartest soldier in the unit. His rifle may have been heavier and comparatively awkward and delivered a mean recoil, but it damn sure knocked a man down with one bullet, and in combat, one shot was often all you got. You shoot a guy, you want to see him go down; you don’t want to be guessing for the next five hours whether you hit him, or whether he’s still waiting for you in the weeds.

Word.

M14 vs whatever shitposting belongs in GD.  The m1a/m14 is a fine weapon.  Adapt your plans around its strengths and she will serve you just fine.

It has definitely been stated on here that 5.56 basically does anything a .308 does.  I've heard this from both angles of performance on target, and shooting at distance.  I still have never totally bought into that.  I can see the argument for HiPower guys.  I guess AR's dominate.  But I've also heard guys say they switch to .308 for going longer range.  I've never done a side by side comparison at longer distance.  But my own limited experience tells me .308 buck the wind better.  You probably have to look at bullets of similar quality.  

And then there is the whole effectiveness.  I've seen some tests claim the 5.56 is just as good through block walls.  And then there was that a shot at distance are going to be a pass through for either.  

I just scratch my head because none of that adds up to me.  I'm no expert.  But it seems like there is a reason sniper rifles were based around the .308 and not 5.56.  If it was just as effective, why would they even need a .308?  To shoot a gun with more recoil for no apparent reason?  I don't think so.  

Anyways, I like AR's.  They're definitely lighter and for me a more user friendly GP type rifle.  But I'm really skeptical when people say there isn't enough of a difference to matter for either long range shooting or performance on target.   I wouldn't want to be the one to say Shugart was full of it.

Uhh, meh, ...  ... Travis and his ghey Johnson like to say:   "Dudes! It's a 5.56 world."

Does that mean you're a range tool if you have a thing for M1 Garands or M1As?  

Or, ...  can the '06 and 7.62/.308 rifles be employed as serious "tactical devices" with real-world applications?

Hope so, ... 'cause I like 'em.  

i just added a mini scout mount to my M1. I tried an Eotech EXPS-3 and it is way to high to use practically. I currently have a Comp M4s with the spacer removed and it is a better fit, but it will still need a but-stock  pad to able able to get a consistent cheek weld. Eventually I will put on a scout long eye relief scope.

I put a Trijicon MRO on my SOCOM. I don't think it matters if its an AR-10, M1A, 10/22, or Glock 19, red dots provide an advantage over straight irons in certain types of shooting.

Has anybody tried the Hopco Mount?

Does that completely eliminate your rear iron sight? If so, I would be real hesitant to use it.

Yes , though apparently when used in conjunction with a JPoint you still have rudimentary iron function (photo from Hopco):




Another approach I've seen is the clip guide mount, which I think is from Springfield. Haven't read much about this setup though:

It looks to me like the rear sight would still be usable based on that setup. I wonder if the clip guide mount is subject to impact from ejecting cases? Probably not since it is actually in use.

Yeah,that second one looks real interesting.  I don't think it should affect function, seeins how there are scope mounts that use the clip guide section as a mounting point.  Although it might be really low.  I know some guys used to have issues with the really low ARMS mounts.  At times.

JJREA:

Ok... I'm back.  

You didn't offend me, if you had I'd break out the "F-bomb."  But I rapidly realized you had no experience in what I had brought up.  

I'll try this one more time, as you are stuck on my terminology.  The higher the off set between the optic and bore makes the overall zero harder to understand and use.  You can get a rifle to zero, meaning hit a target point at a fixed distance, with a high off set.  But to me a zero isn't just hitting the mark at 25, 50 or 100yds.  It is understanding what the "zero's" are ALL ALONG THE BULLETS PATH, out to a max range.  

So I don't say I have a rifle zero'd just because I hit the X at 100yds.  I want to know where the bullet is at 25yds or 75 and then at 150 or 200yds.  I use my Carbine out to 300yds.  I know its trajectory out that far.  

Thats because a Deer wont say, "Oh this guys zero is 100yds, so let me scoot over there and let me give him the best shot."  The competitions I shoot in have various distances involved.  When I was in Iraq, they didn't stop and stand at 25m for us.

Now the higher off set on an M1, M14, AR, M2000, M3000, means you are shooting below the POA up to your zero and then above it after the zero.  That is something you have to mentally play with and under stress you will forget.      

So the lower the off set, the less effect and the less to #$%^ up.  

So for an M1A and red dot, or any rifle, the lower the optic is (so closer to the bore) the better.  
Those last pictures of those red dots mounted low would probably be great.

PS:
In todays world (with the 80SMK's and the Berger bullets) the 223 bullets are just as good "wind bucking" as the 308's, if not better. It's a fact, the BC's are as good.  And yes, that is with 223/556 velocities.  (If you want to regain the edge in a 308........... use the Sierra TMK's).  

PSS:
Go to the "Precision Rifles" pages and read.  The 308 has been replaced by other cartridges for LR shooting.

None of this is "M1A" bashing.  Or AR bashing.  Any rifle has it's limitations ...........................


Dude go out and shoot.................. type less.  :)                  

I've shot at all different ranges with a lot of different set ups.  I'm no expert, and I thank you for your service, but just because we're disagreeing doesn't mean I don't know what I'm talking about.  I understand trajectory and have talked about it in my posts.  Not sure how you are missing that.  

We have to agree to disagree but I don't appreciate the condescending tone you're taking just because I don't agree with you.  I, and other people, have shown you and made reference to several people that seem to shoot for a living that don't have scopes right down on the bore.  Some set ups by these guys are higher than an AR's standard height.  Which is BTW, higher than a run of the mill bolt gun with some low rings.  Or the irons on a bolt gun.  Or an M1A's irons.   But all of these set ups are used and you just have to know your "trajectory" as you say.  Which is what I've said a few times now.  So......

That was not very nice.  

Any way you slice it, for example, if you want a 300 yard zero with a 5.56, it's got to raise a certain amount over the bore to hit dead on at 300 (which will be like 9" at it's highest point, approx at 200 yards approx.)  Whether your sights are low or not.  It's still going to be high at 100 and 200,  The lower you scope is to the bore, the higher it's going to hit over your sight line at 100 and 200.   But in the end that little bit of difference in sight line isn't that big of a deal.  IMHO.  


there's your 9" above the bore for a trajectory that will hit longer than 300 yards zero.  Of course your barrel length, and ammo used will be a factor and will change these a little bit.  And the height of your sight will change it slightly, but not that much, IMHO. Or not enough to make it unable to use.  Your POI at 100 will be closer to your sight line with the same trajectory with an offset of 3.5" as opposed to 2.5".  Why is that so hard to use?  



If you ask me, you're the one not really understanding.  It might be the way I'm explaining.  Or it might be you're just refusing to accept someone has a differing opinion than you.  

Sir:

You've said alot of different things in this thread.............. but understanding a trajectory and understanding your zeros are 2 different things.  The first is theoretical and the other is actual use.

I've been trying to explain to you how this off set can make effectively using your zeros much more difficult and you admit " I've admittedly never tried to perform headshots at 10 yards with my AR with the carry handle scope on it."  So you don't know your trajectory, which is fine.   So I tried another way of explaining it.  

You posting a picture of some guy with a sniper rifle, doesn't mean: its' relevant to this thread, you understand what the sniper is doing or why, put any more weight to your comments or really anything.    

Those diagrams you posted are for a standard?  AR, with Iron sights?  that are, well the text book is 2.5" over bore.  Your AR set up is around 3.5."   All your comments are your assumptions..............  atleast use the ballistic calculators that allow you to set the off set and then post what you get.  Use the better ones that adjust for bl length etc.    

But then shoot it out...................  theory is good and all but it doesn't mean its accurate.  

And yes, if you want to use an AR or any rifle close in................  shoot it close in.  See what that off-set does for you.  I've shot my carbine from about 5yds all the way out to 300yds.  At that distance the 2MOA dot becomes a bit much.                

I shoot at black bulls a lot about he size of a head.  But yeah, I NEVER did that with my 4x carry handle scope.  So you tell me, how low will it be if I have a 100 yard zero with a carry handle scope on?  Since you are claiming it's so difficult.  I know it will be lower than my POA.  Just as if I used my irons with a 25 meter zero.  Or 50 yard zero.  I did some shooting with my AR at close range this summer.  I actually don't know the EXACT hold to use.  But at 10 yards I used the bottom of the FSP.  Where it meets the FSB and was in the black.  If my memory serves me correctly.



The offset on a sort of high set up on an M1A is actually going to be pretty close to an AR height over bore.  You keep saying that's a big problem.  I disagree.   Seeins how it's about the same offset.  The carry handle scope mounted on an AR, sure, you'd have to hold a little higher.  But how is 1" higher hold that big of a problem?   1" is pretty small unless you're shooting at chipmunks.  Which I really wouldn't want to do with the offset of an AR.  

You're right though, a ballistic calculator would make discussing this a more digestible deal.  I apologize, I don't have one.  Maybe you can post how much different a trajectory is between a 2.5" and 3.5" offset on any gun, since you are the one claiming it's so bad.  

The pics were examples of shooters that use a sizeable offset.  Not sure why that isn't relevant.  
You claimed I didn't know anything about trajectory, so I posted trajectory tables to show that I've actually seen them and use them and understand them.  

Look,  I don't claim to be an expert.  I don't claim to be a great shot.  I don't claim to have any real world experience shooting at things, other than deer and a few small game animals.  And paper targets.  I want to be teachable and humble.  If I am off with something here, maybe I'm missing something.  But from all I can tell is you are saying a 3.5" offset is difficult to deal with but haven't posted any hard data to show why this is.  If it is, tell me how it is.  Other than personal insults and what seems to be like misdirecting.  I admit to not necessarily being a great communicator and I'm sure some of what I have said has come across as hodge podge.  And I apologize for any wrongdoing I did.  But I still have failed to see how the offset is such a bad thing.  

If my offset is 3.5" and I have a 100 yard zero, you're saying headshots at 10 yards will make it hard.  And it sounds like you are saying longer range is also more difficult.  For the shorter range simple math would tell us a 100 yard zero will have us 1.75" low at 50 yards, approx 7/8" lower than that at 25 yards, so..... a little less than 2-3/4" and then add another 7/16" to that for 12 yards so right around 3-1/4" low at 12 yard and 10 would be pretty darn close to that.  If I'm aiming at a forehead I'm going to be pretty close to a nose.  So to speak.   Yeah, for surgical strikes if you're DELTA or SEALS, that might not be that great of an idea.  IDK.   I don't plan on doing that at all.  But those guys were set up that way at some point, as someone already posted.



You're longer distance trajectory will be very similar to a 50 yard zero with standard height.  Which I think I've said a few times now.  I don't know EXACTLY what it is, but my guess is it's not far off.  If you have a ballistic calculator, maybe you can prove me wrong if you think I'm that far off.  

I wish we could part as friends after this, because I'm really not trying to be a jerk, I'm just not agreeing with you and I'm trying to show in a respectful way, why that is.

I bought the HOPCO mount this past August and mounted the Fast Fire on it.  I've shot 3-gun with this set up and you can engage targets a lot faster and a lot more accurately than with iron sights.

Oh you know we need a pic of the rest of that thing.  Love your stock, what I can see of it.  

I'm going to use this rifle this deer season.

Shit. I had that idea years ago but dragged my feet creating it.


I'd like to try the above, but I'll tell you from experience: optics suck on an M1A. It's just not a good platform for mounting them.

Sucks, because otherwise it's a great rifle - but it is what it is.

Over the years, I've tried about every set up for mounting a scope, or a red dot sight, and I like this the best.  The mount and the sight only weigh a few ounces, so they add no perceptible weight to the rifle, and they don't alter it's balance.  The sight is low enough that I don't need a cheek piece, and it's high enough that my 100 yard zero is also dead on at 200 yards.

It's beautiful.  Great set up.  I like it a lot.

Feel the same way. But I have to say, Ozarkgunner's set-up would be about the only way I'd run an optic on the M1A platform.