AR Sponsor
How to shoot from a 1.54" optic height comfortably? (Page 2 of 3)
You Must Be Logged In To Vote
|
1. Shrug your shoulder up and roll it forward. 2. Place buttstock on the nice flat spot in your pec you just made. 3. Lean forward until the optic lines up nice. I swear its like these people never shot a bolt gun, never shot irons, and have zero training yet have to voice an opinion on everything. |
|
Originally Posted By Marksman14: Tech has been a joke for a while now. More than one active thread on the first page of main that wouldn’t be here up until recently. I don’t get it. This account specifically should have been banned a while ago. Originally Posted By Marksman14: Originally Posted By King_Mud: This passes for tech now? Tech has been a joke for a while now. More than one active thread on the first page of main that wouldn’t be here up until recently. I don’t get it. This account specifically should have been banned a while ago. I saw this thread title in the feed and thought it was a new thread. Nope, it's the same one still up. I remember catching an edit for posting a gif as a response to a thread back in the day and now this thread is apparently good to go. |
Joined:
Sep 2022
Posts:
3073
EE: 0% (0)
USA
|
Originally Posted By DevL: 1. Shrug your shoulder up and roll it forward. 2. Place buttstock on the nice flat spot in your pec you just made. 3. Lean forward until the optic lines up nice. I swear its like these people never shot a bolt gun, never shot irons, and have zero training yet have to voice an opinion on everything. Seems to be the equivalent of bar risers on dirt bikes. IYKYK. |
|
Originally Posted By tet493: How do you lose SA with lower optics? Originally Posted By tet493: Originally Posted By DefenderAO: I lose too much SA and comfort with lower 1/3 and absolute mounts How do you lose SA with lower optics? Because my face is buried low in the stock vs more heads-up |
Those who would give up essential liberty, to obtain a little temporary safety, deserve neither liberty nor safety
|
OP, you should watch this video from Kyle Litzie who is objectively the best carbine shooter alive on the planet right now. https://www.instagram.com/tacticalhyve/reel/Da4BAjhTszX/ |
|
Originally Posted By DefenderAO: Because my face is buried low in the stock vs more heads-up |
Your boos mean nothing, I've seen what makes you cheer
|
Originally Posted By RolandofGilead: I don't understand how this makes any difference. Head should be up either way, the stock won't obscure vision whatsoever, whether it's against your cheek or your chin. Originally Posted By RolandofGilead: Originally Posted By DefenderAO: Because my face is buried low in the stock vs more heads-up |
|
Originally Posted By ClangClang: It doesn't make a difference. "More situational awareness" is marketing nonsense invented to sell tall mounts to people who already bought normal height mounts. Originally Posted By ClangClang: Originally Posted By RolandofGilead: Originally Posted By DefenderAO: Because my face is buried low in the stock vs more heads-up Agree. Tall mounts are for NVG IMO. I will say the few times I’ve used a long gun ‘real world’ I kept finding myself wanting to look over my optic at the target not the sights, moreso at close range. Which, to me that’s a training issue, but that’s the closest I’ve ever got to all the skyscraper mount philosophy. |
|
Originally Posted By ClangClang: It doesn't make a difference. "More situational awareness" is marketing nonsense invented to sell tall mounts to people who already bought normal height mounts. As noted, tall mounts certainly make sense for NVG use, otherwise this is GBRS propaganda meant to sell $300 6061 aluminum mounts. |
Your boos mean nothing, I've seen what makes you cheer
|
Originally Posted By DefenderAO: Because my face is buried low in the stock vs more heads-up Can you post a photo of you shouldering the rifle with a 1.5" optic? I am just not seeing how this is a thing. For me, it is a lot more distracting to my situational awareness when I mount a gun and I end up below the optic plane and lose my target for a split second or have to keep a rifle indexed with a 12 o'clock mini red dot over the scope because I dont have a cheek weld reference and worry about losing speed getting my mini red dot up vs just doing everything but shooting at a high ready looking over the gun and quickly mounting the stock to take shots. |
|
Originally Posted By RolandofGilead: Yup. As noted, tall mounts certainly make sense for NVG use, otherwise this is GBRS propaganda meant to sell $300 6061 aluminum mounts. Originally Posted By RolandofGilead: Originally Posted By ClangClang: It doesn't make a difference. "More situational awareness" is marketing nonsense invented to sell tall mounts to people who already bought normal height mounts. As noted, tall mounts certainly make sense for NVG use, otherwise this is GBRS propaganda meant to sell $300 6061 aluminum mounts. LARPing and actual shooting says otherwise. Taller mounts, with a more heads-up posture, is much more pleasant with better results. YMMV |
Those who would give up essential liberty, to obtain a little temporary safety, deserve neither liberty nor safety
|
Surprised folks have trouble seeing how lower optics challenge SA. Attached File Attached File Attached File |
Those who would give up essential liberty, to obtain a little temporary safety, deserve neither liberty nor safety
|
Originally Posted By Joedirt199: Well that hat is blocking a lot of the peripherals. True operators turn it around backwards.  Lower optics require heads lower. Granted people are shaped differently; 2.26" works for my needs. |
Those who would give up essential liberty, to obtain a little temporary safety, deserve neither liberty nor safety
|
Attached File Attached File |
Those who would give up essential liberty, to obtain a little temporary safety, deserve neither liberty nor safety
|
Originally Posted By DefenderAO: LARPing and actual shooting says otherwise. Taller mounts, with a more heads-up posture, is much more pleasant with better results. YMMV I don't have an unpleasant experience at all with 1.5" sights or scopes. I have a piggy back dot that sits high, and it's fine for what it is, but I prefer normal height. |
Your boos mean nothing, I've seen what makes you cheer
|
Originally Posted By DefenderAO: Surprised folks have trouble seeing how lower optics challenge SA. https://www.ar15.com/media/mediaFiles/183262/SA1_png-3807271.JPG https://www.ar15.com/media/mediaFiles/183262/SA2_png-3807272.JPG https://www.ar15.com/media/mediaFiles/183262/SA3_png-3807273.JPG Guess I'm just a Larper though. |
Your boos mean nothing, I've seen what makes you cheer
|
Originally Posted By DefenderAO: Lower optics require heads lower. Granted people are shaped differently; 2.26" works for my needs. ETA that dude in NAM was doing the best with what he had. Not many options when you have a non removable carry handle. I can show you lots of pictures with guys with ACOGs in Iraq and Afghanistan at 1.5". |
Your boos mean nothing, I've seen what makes you cheer
|
this is why i hate that mount height has become the standard of measurement instead of height over bore. it doesn't tell you anything useful about the true height of the optic because every optic's dimensions different. especially with ballistic calculators, you need to know the actual height over bore. doesn't a 1.5" mount basically give you standard co-witness 2.7" height with an ACOG? |
|
Absolute Co-Witness: ~1.41" – 1.42" (Irons align in the center of the window). Lower 1/3 Co-Witness: ~1.57" – 1.63" (Irons sit in the lower third of the window). Heads-Up / NV Height: 1.93" and higher (Cleaner view, better for night vision or gas masks) I cannot do ACW (1.42”) - at one point I had a lot of my mini-ACOGs at this height and it sucked balls and I could never figure out why my neck was so contorted. I then did, and standardized on the MI-QDTAM QD mount which put em all at 1.63” centerline height. Life was SO much better. I’m actually raising my hunting scope from 1.50” to 1.70”. 1.63” seems to be about the minimum I can stand now. Maybe my face got fatter, lol. |
|
Originally Posted By mcantu: this is why i hate that mount height has become the standard of measurement instead of height over bore. it doesn't tell you anything useful about the true height of the optic because every optic's dimensions different. especially with ballistic calculators, you need to know the actual height over bore. doesn't a 1.5" mount basically give you standard co-witness 2.7" height with an ACOG? Yes and no. The HOB measurement is the center of the optic. An eotech sitting at 1.5 and an aimpoint t2 have the same 2.7" centerline using a 1.5" mounting solution. |
|
Originally Posted By Minnesotadude:
Tall mounts are for people who shoot rifles at pistol distances. You can manage speed at distances under 25 yards with tall mounts because nothing is hard with a rifle at those distances. If you start to push speed beyond those distances (such as a 50 yard bill drill) you will find yourself abandoning tall mounts for more stability and predictable dot movement. Maybe shoot more. |
Point shooting will give you monkeypox. - John_Wayne777
The Emu War could have been won if the Australians used red dots on their handguns.
The Emu War could have been won if the Australians used red dots on their handguns.
|
Originally Posted By 45-Seventy: I run them for everything and have won a lot of matches like that. Maybe shoot more. Originally Posted By 45-Seventy: Originally Posted By Minnesotadude: Tall mounts are for people who shoot rifles at pistol distances. You can manage speed at distances under 25 yards with tall mounts because nothing is hard with a rifle at those distances. If you start to push speed beyond those distances (such as a 50 yard bill drill) you will find yourself abandoning tall mounts for more stability and predictable dot movement. I run them for everything and have won a lot of matches like that. Maybe shoot more. Agreed. |
|
Originally Posted By 45-Seventy: I run them for everything and have won a lot of matches like that. Maybe shoot more. Maybe the optic height isn't as relevant as people who sell high optic mounts would like us to believe. |
Your boos mean nothing, I've seen what makes you cheer
|
Originally Posted By RolandofGilead: I won a match Saturday with a 1.5" optic. Maybe the optic height isn't as relevant as people who sell high optic mounts would like us to believe. It’s only relevant if it works better for you. You’ve made your point, you like lower mounts. For some applications I agree, for others, I disagree. And guess what. That’s ok. I don’t think its a conspiracy being pushed by tall mount makers. |
|
Originally Posted By Marksman14: It's only relevant if it works better for you. You've made your point, you like lower mounts. For some applications I agree, for others, I disagree. And guess what. That's ok. I don't think is a conspiracy being pushed by tall mount makers. Please look through my posts here. I don't give a shit what people use, by all means if you like tall mounts use them. I have piggy backs that are tall and I shoot just fine with them. The only thing I take issue with is people making absurd claims about "SA" or talking about how clearly superior tall mounts are. |
Your boos mean nothing, I've seen what makes you cheer
|
Originally Posted By RolandofGilead: First off, I'm clearly joking about the propaganda bit. You didn't catch that? Lol. Please look through my posts here. I don't give a shit what people use, by all means if you like tall mounts use them. I have piggy backs that are tall and I shoot just fine with them. The only thing I take issue with is people making absurd claims about "SA" or talking about how clearly superior tall mounts are. Sounds good  I have found taller mounts to work better for during sims training. It’s unnatural for me to roll my head forward to pick up the sights, versus keeping it where it is while I am walking through a structure, which is straight up. Less to think about, and aids me in acquiring the dot quickly and consistently. That may possibly be what people mean by “SA”. It’s also possible to train around this, but I sure found it easier with taller mounts. People with different facial structures may have a different opinion as well. |
|
Originally Posted By RolandofGilead: Have you considered not lowering your head, but raising the rifle? ETA that dude in NAM was doing the best with what he had. Not many options when you have a non removable carry handle. I can show you lots of pictures with guys with ACOGs in Iraq and Afghanistan at 1.5". Originally Posted By RolandofGilead: Originally Posted By DefenderAO: Lower optics require heads lower. Granted people are shaped differently; 2.26" works for my needs. ETA that dude in NAM was doing the best with what he had. Not many options when you have a non removable carry handle. I can show you lots of pictures with guys with ACOGs in Iraq and Afghanistan at 1.5". Attached File |
Those who would give up essential liberty, to obtain a little temporary safety, deserve neither liberty nor safety
|
Not sure what point you think you're making here. |
Your boos mean nothing, I've seen what makes you cheer
Just gonna leave this here and hope we can lock the thread... Let’s talk real numbers on riser height. |
|
Originally Posted By RolandofGilead: Have you considered not lowering your head, but raising the rifle? ETA that dude in NAM was doing the best with what he had. Not many options when you have a non removable carry handle. I can show you lots of pictures with guys with ACOGs in Iraq and Afghanistan at 1.5". Originally Posted By RolandofGilead: Originally Posted By DefenderAO: Lower optics require heads lower. Granted people are shaped differently; 2.26" works for my needs. ETA that dude in NAM was doing the best with what he had. Not many options when you have a non removable carry handle. I can show you lots of pictures with guys with ACOGs in Iraq and Afghanistan at 1.5". Imagine if you're an Israeli grunt with this-style optic. Attached File |
"An age of glory passed like a lightning flash. The mandate of heaven passed from you but you didn't see. Times change and power passes. It is the pity of the world."
Song dynasty poet
Song dynasty poet
|
Originally Posted By Strela: Imagine if you're an Israeli grunt with this-style optic. https://www.ar15.com/media/mediaFiles/6163/Israeli1_jpeg-1761450_jpg-3814851.JPG 
|
Your boos mean nothing, I've seen what makes you cheer
|
Originally Posted By Strela: Imagine if you're an Israeli grunt with this-style optic. https://www.ar15.com/media/mediaFiles/6163/Israeli1_jpeg-1761450_jpg-3814851.JPG Originally Posted By Strela: Originally Posted By RolandofGilead: Originally Posted By DefenderAO: Lower optics require heads lower. Granted people are shaped differently; 2.26" works for my needs. ETA that dude in NAM was doing the best with what he had. Not many options when you have a non removable carry handle. I can show you lots of pictures with guys with ACOGs in Iraq and Afghanistan at 1.5". Imagine if you're an Israeli grunt with this-style optic. https://www.ar15.com/media/mediaFiles/6163/Israeli1_jpeg-1761450_jpg-3814851.JPG By the logic of some, that poor pvt has evolved past being situationally aware, he is now aware of all situations. |
Joined:
Apr 2025
Posts:
156
EE: 0% (0)
USA
|
Originally Posted By PistoleroJesse: Just gonna leave this here and hope we can lock the thread...  https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=LGbdr_L01YYBut dude is talking about stock height to optic and stock width. He doesnt really get into why high risers bad at all. |
|
Originally Posted By DefenderAO: Surprised folks have trouble seeing how lower optics challenge SA. https://www.ar15.com/media/mediaFiles/183262/SA1_png-3807271.JPG https://www.ar15.com/media/mediaFiles/183262/SA2_png-3807272.JPG https://www.ar15.com/media/mediaFiles/183262/SA3_png-3807273.JPG For me it’s an issue of neck discomfort with lower mounts. 1.93” allows me to comfortably shooting offhand, off the bench, prone, off barricades very comfortably. |
|
Originally Posted By RolandofGilead: Sounds like GBRS propaganda. I don't have an unpleasant experience at all with 1.5" sights or scopes. I have a piggy back dot that sits high, and it's fine for what it is, but I prefer normal height. All of this is so personalized based on anatomy. Neck length, history of neck strain, history of c-spine disease or previous surgery, arm length, shoulder anatomy, etc. What works well for one person may not be good for another. |
|
Originally Posted By KorneoDahGreat: But dude is talking about stock height to optic and stock width. He doesnt really get into why high risers bad at all. You missed the plot. They aren't bad if they work for you and you zero correctly. I'm a member of the lolly pop guild and I don't need more than 1.93" and am perfectly fine with 1.54". Neither 1.54" or 2.26" are 'trash'. The context that determines 'trash' or not it is the shape of the shooter using it. |
How to shoot from a 1.54" optic height comfortably? (Page 2 of 3)
AR Sponsor