Confirm Action

Are you sure you wish to do this?

Confirm Cancel
Member Login
Site Notices
1/25/2018 7:38:29 AM
Posted: 10/14/2003 11:48:27 AM EST
I'm thinking about this scope for a 20" barrelled flat-top, but I'm concerned about eye relief and clearance for backup iron sights. Does anyone have experience and/or pics of such a setup? Issues are height sufficient to clear an ARMS #40 with the eyepiece and eye relief sufficient to set the scope in front of the #40.
Link Posted: 10/14/2003 12:09:30 PM EST
[Last Edit: 10/14/2003 12:10:29 PM EST by Aimless]
Link Posted: 10/14/2003 7:15:53 PM EST
Here is my setup. Colt MT6400 with ARMS #38 S Ex with ARMS #22 high rings. This set up DID NOT clear an ARMS #40 BUIS mounted on the flattop, which is why I switchted to the #38. (I got the long version because I may mount an EOTECH forward at some point later on.) I love the setup and the scope. [img]http://home.insightbb.com/~karlknapp2/Colt02.jpg[/img]
Link Posted: 10/15/2003 12:48:38 AM EST
Link Posted: 10/15/2003 1:16:06 AM EST
I was gonna ask the same question, also, how do you rate the illuminated reticule? I've been eyeballing that scope for a long time now.
Link Posted: 10/15/2003 6:01:43 PM EST
I have been able to get a good cheek weld and shoot fairly decently. I love the scope. Very high quality. If you want to read more about it we had a lengthly discussion a while back: [url]http://www.ar15.com/forums/topic.html?b=3&f=18&t=159450[/url]
Link Posted: 10/16/2003 10:31:38 AM EST
First, thanks for all the help and input. This looks like it might work. I'm thinking this may be the right combination. I probably won't be able to physically check it out until the SHOT show in Feb 04, but if someone else has info on ring/mount heights, please let me know. First, I refuse to give up a BUIS. My preference is the ARMS #40, but if necessary, Knight's 300m sight probably has the lowest folded height. To get a clean look & height for the scope, I'm thinking the ARMS #5 multibase ($59.95) [img]http://www.mountsplus.com/images/products/item-5.gif[/img] and the ARMS #21 30mm Stanag rings ($75.00) [img]http://www.mountsplus.com/images/products/item-21.gif[/img] What do you think? I'm trying for an integrated, solid look without being overly extravagant with the $$.
Link Posted: 10/16/2003 3:32:20 PM EST
Dorsai, I tried mounting the M2 on an ARMS #19 using the #21 STANAG rings and it didn't work. The problem was the bulge where the turrets are was about 1mm or 2mm too large for the height the rings mounted the scope. If you didn't mind milling the base to give the scope more clearance, then you'll be ok, but as the hardware comes from the factory, I doubt it will work.
Link Posted: 10/17/2003 7:04:26 AM EST
Dorsai, The ARMS #38 Swan Sleeve has the ARMS#40 BUIS integrated into it. I also wanted the #40, but this setup gave me both the #40, an extended rail and clearance under the scope.
Link Posted: 10/28/2003 10:21:33 PM EST
Here's mine. [img]http://photos.ar15.com/ImageGallery/Attachments/DownloadAttach.asp?iImageUnq=18099[/img]
Link Posted: 11/7/2003 1:19:09 AM EST
Would it clear the #38 wit medium rings? It looks like you have alot of extra room under there and am interested in a similar package but would like to keep it lower for a better cheek weld.
Link Posted: 11/7/2003 4:02:06 PM EST
I'm not sure if medium rings would work. My scope is pretty close to the built-in BUIS.
Top Top