User Panel
[#3]
So the giraffe-neck dudes have a real advantage with this set-up, huh?
|
|
[#5]
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.
|
|
[#6]
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........................ |
|
[#7]
Quoted:
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........................ View Quote 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. |
|
[#8]
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!
|
|
[#9]
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. |
|
[#10]
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. |
|
[#11]
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. |
|
[#12]
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.... |
|
[#14]
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. |
|
[#17]
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. |
|
[#18]
Quoted:
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. View Quote 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. |
|
[#19]
Quoted:
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. View Quote 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. |
|
[#20]
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. |
|
[#21]
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.
|
|
[#22]
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.
|
|
[#24]
Quoted:
Has anybody tried the Hopco Mount? http://i332.photobucket.com/albums/m353/joelogic/Hopco%20USA/Directions/f3a0cb7b.jpg View Quote Does that completely eliminate your rear iron sight? If so, I would be real hesitant to use it. |
|
[#25]
Quoted:
Does that completely eliminate your rear iron sight? If so, I would be real hesitant to use it. View Quote View All Quotes View All Quotes Quoted:
Quoted:
Has anybody tried the Hopco Mount? http://i332.photobucket.com/albums/m353/joelogic/Hopco%20USA/Directions/f3a0cb7b.jpg 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: |
|
[#26]
Quoted:
Yes , though apparently when used in conjunction with a JPoint you still have rudimentary iron function (photo from Hopco): http://i332.photobucket.com/albums/m353/joelogic/Hopco%20USA/IMG_5739.jpg Another approach I've seen is the clip guide mount, which I think is from Springfield. Haven't read much about this setup though: http://blog.cheaperthandirt.com/wp-content/uploads/2016/01/Springfield_SOCOM_0833.jpg View Quote View All Quotes View All Quotes Quoted:
Quoted:
Quoted:
Has anybody tried the Hopco Mount? http://i332.photobucket.com/albums/m353/joelogic/Hopco%20USA/Directions/f3a0cb7b.jpg 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): http://i332.photobucket.com/albums/m353/joelogic/Hopco%20USA/IMG_5739.jpg Another approach I've seen is the clip guide mount, which I think is from Springfield. Haven't read much about this setup though: http://blog.cheaperthandirt.com/wp-content/uploads/2016/01/Springfield_SOCOM_0833.jpg 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. |
|
[#27]
Quoted:
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. View Quote View All Quotes View All Quotes Quoted:
Quoted:
Quoted:
Quoted:
Has anybody tried the Hopco Mount? http://i332.photobucket.com/albums/m353/joelogic/Hopco%20USA/Directions/f3a0cb7b.jpg 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): http://i332.photobucket.com/albums/m353/joelogic/Hopco%20USA/IMG_5739.jpg Another approach I've seen is the clip guide mount, which I think is from Springfield. Haven't read much about this setup though: http://blog.cheaperthandirt.com/wp-content/uploads/2016/01/Springfield_SOCOM_0833.jpg 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. |
|
[#28]
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. :) |
|
[#30]
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. |
|
[#32]
|
|
[#33]
Quoted:
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. <a href="http://s794.photobucket.com/user/ozarkgunrunner/media/DSCF1928_zpsftqm4tot.jpg.html" target="_blank">http://i794.photobucket.com/albums/yy225/ozarkgunrunner/DSCF1928_zpsftqm4tot.jpg</a> View Quote Oh you know we need a pic of the rest of that thing. Love your stock, what I can see of it. |
|
[#35]
Quoted:
<a href="http://s794.photobucket.com/user/ozarkgunrunner/media/M1A-1%207.62mm%20NATO_zpsxin2oxhw.jpg.html" target="_blank">http://i794.photobucket.com/albums/yy225/ozarkgunrunner/M1A-1%207.62mm%20NATO_zpsxin2oxhw.jpg</a> I'm going to use this rifle this deer season. View Quote 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. |
|
[#36]
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.
|
|
[#38]
Quoted:
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. View Quote View All Quotes View All Quotes Quoted:
Quoted:
<a href="http://s794.photobucket.com/user/ozarkgunrunner/media/M1A-1%207.62mm%20NATO_zpsxin2oxhw.jpg.html" target="_blank">http://i794.photobucket.com/albums/yy225/ozarkgunrunner/M1A-1%207.62mm%20NATO_zpsxin2oxhw.jpg</a> 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. 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. |
|
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.