Warning

 

Close

Confirm Action

Are you sure you wish to do this?

Confirm Cancel
Member Login
Posted: 1/28/2006 8:41:07 AM EDT
I know I know. Everyone is going to say "mount it on a flattop" but that's not in the cards right now. I am having an 18" A2 done and that's what I am stuck with for now.

My question:

What's the best scope for carry handle mounting for this kind of a rifle? I'm using a MagPul PRS stock with it so fortunately I have some adjustability with my cheek weld.

Is the Leupold MR/T a good scope for this purpose? Is it calibrated for an SPR type barrel? (What is?)

I don't know much about magnified optics... Just getting into them... (pointing out the obvious)...
Link Posted: 1/28/2006 8:43:30 AM EDT
Mount it on a flattop :p!!!

Seriously though you get get a quality Flat top upper for around $100, probalyl just a little more than you would spend for a quality mount to go on the carry handle upper.
Link Posted: 1/28/2006 8:53:55 AM EDT
Not an option at this point.
Link Posted: 1/28/2006 8:56:22 AM EDT
What about the Leupold Mark 4 MR/T 3-9x36mm M3 Matte Mil Dot
Link Posted: 1/28/2006 9:52:57 AM EDT
The MK4 MR/T 3-9x36 M3 is the scope that I prefer for the SPR type rifles. 3x for the close work, 9x for the longer shots. I went with the tactical milling reticle and I really like it. The elevation is BDC for 62gr. bullets, but it works pretty good with 77gr. MK262. An option with the turrets is to have one made by the Leupold custom shop for any BDC you like.

I have no experience with any of the A2 carry handle mounts, so I'm of no help in that area.
Link Posted: 1/28/2006 10:12:19 AM EDT
[Last Edit: 1/28/2006 11:33:31 AM EDT by ALPHA9000]
You can afford a Leupold scope but you cant afford a stripped uper reciever?

Don't even consider the scope on the handle as a good option because it isn't.
Link Posted: 1/28/2006 10:13:43 AM EDT

Originally Posted By ALPHA9000:
You can afford a Leupold scope but you cant afford a stripped uper reciever?

Don't even consider the scope on the rail as a good option because it isn't.



+1
Link Posted: 1/28/2006 10:35:57 AM EDT
[Last Edit: 1/28/2006 10:38:11 AM EDT by macman37]

Originally Posted By ALPHA9000:
You can afford a Leupold scope but you cant afford a stripped uper reciever?

Don't even consider the scope on the rail as a good option because it isn't.



I've already invested in the carry handle and have sent the upper off to Adco - they're working on it now.

I don't understand your statement "Don't even consider the scope on the rail as a good option because it isn't" ?

It's not really that difficult, is it? Why do people insist on flattops these days? I have an A2, want to keep it that way because for starters, when you upgrade to a flattop, you also have to buy BUIS, right? That's an additional $200-250 on top of the other costs (the costs I've incurred so far: New stock, grip, shipping to Adco for their work, the work I'm having them do (18" SPR barrel, DD rail system), and what I will incur on either an ACOG or some other scope that will require a mount and rings... I'd really rather not have to incur more costs at this point)... I'm doing my best here to build a good rifle.

I'm just asking for help guys. If it were as clear and easy as just throwing any old optic on the upper I wouldn't be here asking for help from people that know more about this than me.

Edit: If the scope on the carry handle isn't a good idea then why does the military use ACOGs on their carry handles? Again, I'm looking for some help out of a bit of a jam here.

I am leaning toward the MR/T at this point so I can use it with the carry handle and then if I convert the upper to a flattop I can use it for that too. Thoughts?
Link Posted: 1/28/2006 10:38:56 AM EDT

Originally Posted By michealj:
The MK4 MR/T 3-9x36 M3 is the scope that I prefer for the SPR type rifles. 3x for the close work, 9x for the longer shots. I went with the tactical milling reticle and I really like it. The elevation is BDC for 62gr. bullets, but it works pretty good with 77gr. MK262. An option with the turrets is to have one made by the Leupold custom shop for any BDC you like.

I have no experience with any of the A2 carry handle mounts, so I'm of no help in that area.



Thank you for your input.
Link Posted: 1/28/2006 10:40:00 AM EDT

Originally Posted By macman37:

Originally Posted By ALPHA9000:
You can afford a Leupold scope but you cant afford a stripped uper reciever?

Don't even consider the scope on the rail as a good option because it isn't.



I've already invested in the carry handle and have sent the upper off to Adco - they're working on it now.

I don't understand your statement "Don't even consider the scope on the rail as a good option because it isn't" ?

It's not really that difficult, is it? Why do people insist on flattops these days? I have an A2, want to keep it that way because for starters, when you upgrade to a flattop, you also have to buy BUIS, right? That's an additional $200-250 on top of the other costs (the costs I've incurred so far: New stock, grip, shipping to Adco for their work, the work I'm having them do (18" SPR barrel, DD rail system), and what I will incur on either an ACOG or some other scope that will require a mount and rings... I'd really rather not have to incur more costs at this point)... I'm doing my best here to build a good rifle.

I'm just asking for help guys. If it were as clear and easy as just throwing any old optic on the upper I wouldn't be here asking for help from people that know more about this than me.

Edit: If the scope on the carry handle isn't a good idea then why does the military use ACOGs on their carry handles? Again, I'm looking for some help out of a bit of a jam here.

I am leaning toward the MR/T at this point so I can use it with the carry handle and then if I convert the upper to a flattop I can use it for that too. Thoughts?



Well IMO. I wouldnt do it, but changing to a flattop you do not HAVE to put BUIS. If you are not using it for any kind of duty work then you will not be worried about what happens when the scope fails (which it shouldnt), unless you are an armchair commando and have to be correct as to what a military rifle would have. If you can afford to put a BUIS on it now just get the flattop/rings/scope and get the BUIS later on. That would be my choice. Thats what I did with my EOTech I bought the flattop mounted it and got my BUIS later on.
Link Posted: 1/28/2006 10:42:24 AM EDT

Originally Posted By macman37:

Originally Posted By michealj:
The MK4 MR/T 3-9x36 M3 is the scope that I prefer for the SPR type rifles. 3x for the close work, 9x for the longer shots. I went with the tactical milling reticle and I really like it. The elevation is BDC for 62gr. bullets, but it works pretty good with 77gr. MK262. An option with the turrets is to have one made by the Leupold custom shop for any BDC you like.

I have no experience with any of the A2 carry handle mounts, so I'm of no help in that area.



Thank you for your input.



I have never mounted a scope on a flattop, but I think this is what you need here, along with rings for the scope.

Hope this helps.

Josh
Link Posted: 1/28/2006 11:26:21 AM EDT

Originally Posted By jcovercash:

Originally Posted By macman37:

Originally Posted By ALPHA9000:
You can afford a Leupold scope but you cant afford a stripped uper reciever?

Don't even consider the scope on the rail as a good option because it isn't.



I've already invested in the carry handle and have sent the upper off to Adco - they're working on it now.

I don't understand your statement "Don't even consider the scope on the rail as a good option because it isn't" ?

It's not really that difficult, is it? Why do people insist on flattops these days? I have an A2, want to keep it that way because for starters, when you upgrade to a flattop, you also have to buy BUIS, right? That's an additional $200-250 on top of the other costs (the costs I've incurred so far: New stock, grip, shipping to Adco for their work, the work I'm having them do (18" SPR barrel, DD rail system), and what I will incur on either an ACOG or some other scope that will require a mount and rings... I'd really rather not have to incur more costs at this point)... I'm doing my best here to build a good rifle.

I'm just asking for help guys. If it were as clear and easy as just throwing any old optic on the upper I wouldn't be here asking for help from people that know more about this than me.

Edit: If the scope on the carry handle isn't a good idea then why does the military use ACOGs on their carry handles? Again, I'm looking for some help out of a bit of a jam here.

I am leaning toward the MR/T at this point so I can use it with the carry handle and then if I convert the upper to a flattop I can use it for that too. Thoughts?



Well IMO. I wouldnt do it, but changing to a flattop you do not HAVE to put BUIS. If you are not using it for any kind of duty work then you will not be worried about what happens when the scope fails (which it shouldnt), unless you are an armchair commando and have to be correct as to what a military rifle would have. If you can afford to put a BUIS on it now just get the flattop/rings/scope and get the BUIS later on. That would be my choice. Thats what I did with my EOTech I bought the flattop mounted it and got my BUIS later on.



I'm not an armchair commando, I just want good stuff. If it happens to be what the military is using, great. If not, that's fine too.

I'm playing the hand I was dealt (or more accurately, I unknowingly dealt myself). If I'd known then (when I sent the upper in) what I know now I'd have probably delayed sending it in long enough to save up for a flattop and then do it all at once.
Link Posted: 1/28/2006 11:35:26 AM EDT

Originally Posted By macman37:

Originally Posted By jcovercash:

Originally Posted By macman37:

Originally Posted By ALPHA9000:
You can afford a Leupold scope but you cant afford a stripped uper reciever?

Don't even consider the scope on the rail as a good option because it isn't.



I've already invested in the carry handle and have sent the upper off to Adco - they're working on it now.

I don't understand your statement "Don't even consider the scope on the rail as a good option because it isn't" ?

It's not really that difficult, is it? Why do people insist on flattops these days? I have an A2, want to keep it that way because for starters, when you upgrade to a flattop, you also have to buy BUIS, right? That's an additional $200-250 on top of the other costs (the costs I've incurred so far: New stock, grip, shipping to Adco for their work, the work I'm having them do (18" SPR barrel, DD rail system), and what I will incur on either an ACOG or some other scope that will require a mount and rings... I'd really rather not have to incur more costs at this point)... I'm doing my best here to build a good rifle.

I'm just asking for help guys. If it were as clear and easy as just throwing any old optic on the upper I wouldn't be here asking for help from people that know more about this than me.

Edit: If the scope on the carry handle isn't a good idea then why does the military use ACOGs on their carry handles? Again, I'm looking for some help out of a bit of a jam here.

I am leaning toward the MR/T at this point so I can use it with the carry handle and then if I convert the upper to a flattop I can use it for that too. Thoughts?



Well IMO. I wouldnt do it, but changing to a flattop you do not HAVE to put BUIS. If you are not using it for any kind of duty work then you will not be worried about what happens when the scope fails (which it shouldnt), unless you are an armchair commando and have to be correct as to what a military rifle would have. If you can afford to put a BUIS on it now just get the flattop/rings/scope and get the BUIS later on. That would be my choice. Thats what I did with my EOTech I bought the flattop mounted it and got my BUIS later on.



I'm not an armchair commando, I just want good stuff. If it happens to be what the military is using, great. If not, that's fine too.

I'm playing the hand I was dealt (or more accurately, I unknowingly dealt myself). If I'd known then (when I sent the upper in) what I know now I'd have probably delayed sending it in long enough to save up for a flattop and then do it all at once.



I edited it to say handle rather than rail...


What is adco doing to it?
Link Posted: 1/28/2006 11:49:49 AM EDT

Originally Posted By ALPHA9000:

I edited it to say handle rather than rail...


What is adco doing to it?



I sent the upper off to Adco to have them remove the standard barrel and the regular float tube that was on it and install an 18" SPR barrel w/Vortex FH and Daniel Defense rail system.
Link Posted: 1/28/2006 12:13:59 PM EDT

Originally Posted By macman37:

Originally Posted By ALPHA9000:

I edited it to say handle rather than rail...


What is adco doing to it?



I sent the upper off to Adco to have them remove the standard barrel and the regular float tube that was on it and install an 18" SPR barrel w/Vortex FH and Daniel Defense rail system.



So if it isn't too late call them and ask them to install a flat top on it.

I have never seen a carry handle spr before. The whole point is to get the scope as close to the barrel as possible. If you have the scope up that high it is hard to get a consistent cheek weld. Any cams the scope comes with will be off since they are not configured for the scope being that high.

On a side note....you have over 10,000 posts. Didn't you read all the info about SPRs and all of that?
Link Posted: 1/28/2006 1:04:01 PM EDT
Is there anything particular about the MR/T that makes more advantageous than say, a 3.5-10x40 LR/T? Other than BDC, which can be fixed.
Link Posted: 1/28/2006 7:18:48 PM EDT

Originally Posted By ALPHA9000:

Originally Posted By macman37:

Originally Posted By ALPHA9000:

I edited it to say handle rather than rail...


What is adco doing to it?



I sent the upper off to Adco to have them remove the standard barrel and the regular float tube that was on it and install an 18" SPR barrel w/Vortex FH and Daniel Defense rail system.



So if it isn't too late call them and ask them to install a flat top on it.

I have never seen a carry handle spr before. The whole point is to get the scope as close to the barrel as possible. If you have the scope up that high it is hard to get a consistent cheek weld. Any cams the scope comes with will be off since they are not configured for the scope being that high.

On a side note....you have over 10,000 posts. Didn't you read all the info about SPRs and all of that?



I've never had magnified optics on a rifle before.

It is probably too late for the upper though. I'll figure something out, likely a MR/T with low rings.
Link Posted: 1/28/2006 7:21:06 PM EDT

Originally Posted By Slu54:
Is there anything particular about the MR/T that makes more advantageous than say, a 3.5-10x40 LR/T? Other than BDC, which can be fixed.



If you're asking me why I think the MR/T is right for me, I thought it was a nice compact package, that is tough (from what I've read) and has good magnification.

I was leaning toward one of the ACOGs with integral carry handle mount but everybody says to put a flattop on the rifle.

I'm putting an order in tomorrow. I still don't know exactly what I will get because nobody can get past the carry handle.
Link Posted: 1/28/2006 9:13:49 PM EDT

Originally Posted By macman37:

Originally Posted By Slu54:
Is there anything particular about the MR/T that makes more advantageous than say, a 3.5-10x40 LR/T? Other than BDC, which can be fixed.



If you're asking me why I think the MR/T is right for me, I thought it was a nice compact package, that is tough (from what I've read) and has good magnification.

I was leaning toward one of the ACOGs with integral carry handle mount but everybody says to put a flattop on the rifle.

I'm putting an order in tomorrow. I still don't know exactly what I will get because nobody can get past the carry handle.



ARMS makes a good mount. I had one and I couldn't stand the scope being 10 feet off the rifle.

I/we are telling you because we all know you will not like it and end up spending the money for the flat top anyways. The damn ARMS adapter for the rail is like $80. Why not get the flat top reciever for a little more and get all the advantages of that system?

You don't need adco to do that for you. Have a gunsmith throw the barrel on that new reciever and Git 'R Done!

Link Posted: 1/28/2006 9:54:52 PM EDT

Originally Posted By Slu54:
Is there anything particular about the MR/T that makes more advantageous than say, a 3.5-10x40 LR/T? Other than BDC, which can be fixed.



I prefer the MR/T over the LR/T for the size. 2" and 3oz. makes a difference to me. I also consider the FOV and the eye relief to be a factor, even though I don't think the eye relief of the MR/T is perfect and I sometimes wish there was a focus turret, I do think its a good scope. For an AR15 the MR/T seemed to be a better choice when I considered everthing that was important to me.
Link Posted: 1/29/2006 4:57:11 AM EDT
i would call adco and have them replace the a2 while they are at it.


the sight over bore is going to be rediculous and shooting out to further ranges it will become clear why mounting on an a2 is not optimal
Link Posted: 1/29/2006 6:36:48 AM EDT
The only optic that works well on a carry handle is the ACOG.

Get an ACOG, or call Steve at ADCO and have him swap out the upper. ADCO is GREAT to deal with, and I'm sure would take care of your needs.

A flat top upper is only around $100, and YOU ARE GOING TO SPEND $100 EASILY trying to make an optic work on your carry handle, so you're going to break even!

And on top of that, you could sell your old A2 upper on the EE to fund the BUIS.

BUIS cost is more like $50 - $150 rather than your stated $200+.

You will regret it if you don't, take it from someone who tried that route first!
Link Posted: 1/29/2006 6:57:52 AM EDT
Guys, thanks for your honesty and your input.

I still don't know exactly what i am going to do. Likely, I will keep the A2 upper for now (I know, I know...) and get an ACOG to put on it.
Link Posted: 1/29/2006 7:36:28 AM EDT

Originally Posted By Onslaught:
The only optic that works well on a carry handle is the ACOG.

Get an ACOG, or call Steve at ADCO and have him swap out the upper. ADCO is GREAT to deal with, and I'm sure would take care of your needs.

A flat top upper is only around $100, and YOU ARE GOING TO SPEND $100 EASILY trying to make an optic work on your carry handle, so you're going to break even!

And on top of that, you could sell your old A2 upper on the EE to fund the BUIS.

BUIS cost is more like $50 - $150 rather than your stated $200+.

You will regret it if you don't, take it from someone who tried that route first!





Big +1. I went down a similair road and tried to get a decent optics set up on an A2. Spent money on mounts and was never happy. Get a flat-top.

Another way to think about it is this:
you've spent a good deal of money on a quality barrel and Free Float tube. YOu will likely never achieve the accuracy potential of your rifle with a carry handle mounted optic. You will be so high over the bore that you well have a horrible time achieving a decent (let alone repeatable) cheek-weld and so your shot to shot accuracy will be crapola....

By trying to save 100 on a new upper, you will be wasting the several hundred dollars you've spent on other improvements. Call adco, they are awsome to work with and I am sure that you guys can figure something out.
Link Posted: 1/29/2006 9:26:22 AM EDT
would probably be best to set it up how you want it to begin with, saves money and headache that way
Link Posted: 1/29/2006 9:37:48 AM EDT
OK, Court of Arfcom Opinion, you have spoken and I have listened.

If my order has not shipped from ADCO yet I am going to purchase the flattop upper and have them install the barrel and float tube on it.

NOW, should I go with the Leupold MR/T or the ACOG?

(I have learned a LOT in the last 2 weeks let me tell you...)
Link Posted: 1/29/2006 11:20:18 AM EDT

Originally Posted By macman37:
OK, Court of Arfcom Opinion, you have spoken and I have listened.

If my order has not shipped from ADCO yet I am going to purchase the flattop upper and have them install the barrel and float tube on it.

NOW, should I go with the Leupold MR/T or the ACOG?

(I have learned a LOT in the last 2 weeks let me tell you...)




The acog isn't really for a precision rifle; it is just there to give more magnifacation to a battle rifle. The Leupold would be better since it has the Mil-dot and adjustable turrets.
Link Posted: 1/29/2006 11:58:30 AM EDT

Originally Posted By ALPHA9000:

Originally Posted By macman37:
OK, Court of Arfcom Opinion, you have spoken and I have listened.

If my order has not shipped from ADCO yet I am going to purchase the flattop upper and have them install the barrel and float tube on it.

NOW, should I go with the Leupold MR/T or the ACOG?

(I have learned a LOT in the last 2 weeks let me tell you...)




The acog isn't really for a precision rifle; it is just there to give more magnifacation to a battle rifle. The Leupold would be better since it has the Mil-dot and adjustable turrets.



So noted, thank you very much.

jim
Link Posted: 1/29/2006 3:05:18 PM EDT
Even if it's on its way home, CALL STEVE. Even adding 50 bucks for shipping and installation to the hundert for the flattop, it's still worth it. Besides, he'll prolly give you a break.

The guys are all right on the optic/A2 thing: you won't be happy with anything other than an ACOG, and even then you'll have to adjust to a bizarre cheekweld. If you've shot alot, you'll find it harder than a beginner would.
Link Posted: 1/29/2006 7:11:38 PM EDT
One thing about just switching to a flat top upper. Isn't it recommended to get another bolt and bolt carrier when doing this? Then the flat top, then BUIS.

I understand the arguments, but some of it just doesn't make sense. If you zero your scope at say 100 yards and the scope is over the bore say 3", you'd have less adjustment to do downrange because it's on a steeper flight path up than if the scope was lower. That just don't make sense to me that you have bigger problems downrange. BAd cheekweld makes sense but I had my leupy on my A2 with an ARMS 2 mount, cheap rings, and I could consistently get under 1.5 moa at 100 yards with it with 52 bthp's. (which is what I had at the time and that was accurate in that rifle). And that was with a chrome lined, Govt profile, non free floated barrel. And a stock, heavy trigger. But I do agree, when prone, it is a pain. It's not as bad off a bench.

Another thing that don't make sense to me, "an acog not good for precision work". Well, I didn't hear him say he want's to shoot tiny little groups so he could brag to every one. If shots on target is what he's talking about, it is my understanding that DMR rifles( among others) have shown that the acog is capable of acheiving hits at pretty respectable distances.

But on top of all that macman37, you have money for an acog, an expensive scope, an spr barrel, so on and so forth, and not a flat top? Somethings not adding up there either.

Sounds like you got it figured out though and it sounds like it will be very nice. You gotta post pics when you get it back. !!!!!!
Link Posted: 1/29/2006 7:49:29 PM EDT

Originally Posted By JJREA:
snip

But on top of all that macman37, you have money for an acog, an expensive scope, an spr barrel, so on and so forth, and not a flat top? Somethings not adding up there either.

Sounds like you got it figured out though and it sounds like it will be very nice. You gotta post pics when you get it back. !!!!!!



I saved up for the rifle build (such that it was) thinking I could save $100 by reusing the A2 upper. It's in great shape, and I'm trying to reuse what I can to save a FEW bucks! It's what the guys over in the sandboxes are using, right? So I was able to send it off to ADCO for the barrel and float tube. This way I can shoot it with the A2 sights until I can afford a scope. Then I start thinking about it more and researching it, and I want to "finish" off the rifle with a quality optic (so I start this thread). I do searches based on the two types of scopes I'm interested in (ACOG and MR/T) and see tons of pics, all of which are on flattops, which goes in the steel trap that is my brain.

I start wondering if I've been approaching this project right, and I have posts here in the optics forum and am firing emails to ADCO left and right (Steve, if you're reading... I know I thanked you in the emails but here it is again: Thanks) and, well, now I'm getting a flattop.

So, long story longer, that's how I have the money for an ADCO upper build and a pricey scope (that will require rings no doubt, can anyone help me figure out what rings to buy?) but "cheaped out" by trying to reuse the upper I had.

I think I mentioned this in another post... but I have learned a LOT in the last two weeks.

Cheers.
Link Posted: 1/29/2006 9:49:29 PM EDT
[Last Edit: 1/29/2006 9:49:52 PM EDT by ALPHA9000]
For rings you could go with the Larue if you want detachable. Whatever you get make sure it is strong. Try www.snipershide.com/ and see if there are reviews for good rigns.
Link Posted: 1/30/2006 6:06:05 AM EDT

Originally Posted By ALPHA9000:
For rings you could go with the Larue if you want detachable. Whatever you get make sure it is strong. Try www.snipershide.com/ and see if there are reviews for good rigns.



I'll check into the Larue rings.

BTW this came to me last night while I was running this all over in my head instead of sleeping (show of hands, who else does that? Nobody? OK me neither... )...

Do I need extra high rings to see over the front sight base? I'm using a standard FSB. In fact that, the bolt/bolt carrier and the gas tube are now the only things transferring over to the new upper
Link Posted: 1/30/2006 12:04:06 PM EDT

Originally Posted By macman37:

Originally Posted By ALPHA9000:
For rings you could go with the Larue if you want detachable. Whatever you get make sure it is strong. Try www.snipershide.com/ and see if there are reviews for good rigns.



I'll check into the Larue rings.

BTW this came to me last night while I was running this all over in my head instead of sleeping (show of hands, who else does that? Nobody? OK me neither... )...

Do I need extra high rings to see over the front sight base? I'm using a standard FSB. In fact that, the bolt/bolt carrier and the gas tube are now the only things transferring over to the new upper




I would probably get a fold-down front sight but I don't think it is completely neccesary. I think you only see a little hint of a shadow at the bottom of the scope. There was a picture around here somewhere showing what it looked like.

I am not sure what size rings would be good. If I had to guess I would just say medium; that way I could fit a slim buis under it.
Top Top