Best scope and mount for an M1a????

[ARCHIVED THREAD] - Best scope and mount for an M1a????

Posted: 9/20/2004 4:39:25 AM EDT

I am looking at putting a Super Sniper 20x on an M1a but I would like other peoples experience on this scope and the best mount/rings for the application? I have heard good things about the ARMS and others but I have grown to trust others advice/experience.Thanks

Posted: 9/20/2004 8:04:22 AM EDT

[#1]

Mine is a brookfield style mount made by TSA and it has worked very well for me over these last 5 years. I have the SS 10x42 and enjoy it as well.

Posted: 9/20/2004 10:11:50 PM EDT

[#2]

My $0.02,

Short answer - Smith Enteprise M14 scope mount

Long answer - M14 Scope Mount FAQ at www.imageseek.com/m1a

Posted: 9/21/2004 6:44:38 AM EDT

[#3]

Quoted:
My $0.02,

Short answer - Smith Enteprise M14 scope mount

Long answer - M14 Scope Mount FAQ at www.imageseek.com/m1a

+1

Posted: 9/22/2004 11:01:05 AM EDT

[#4]

ARMS #18.

Reason: Sits lower to the bore and allows for better use of the iron sights.

IMHO

Posted: 9/24/2004 4:18:43 PM EDT

[#5]

This is my choice:

M1A Loaded
Smith Enterprises see thru mount
ARMS 22L Low Rings
Leupold Model 51182 Mark IV 3.5 x 10 x 40mm Scope
Whamo Camo Stock Set with Rooster 33 cheekrest

Regards,

Gary

Posted: 9/24/2004 8:42:42 PM EDT

[#6]

LastDefender, you have excellent taste in M14 accessories.

Posted: 9/25/2004 3:31:18 AM EDT

[#7]

Different,

Thanks...... as you will note, I did my research here and learned from those more knowledgeable. These forums are just a fantastic way of gaining information.

Thank you again to all who took the time to help educate me on how best to set up my M1A.

Regards,
Gary

Posted: 9/25/2004 11:29:22 AM EDT

[#8]

I used an ARMS once but the shells kept hitting it and bouncing back into the action so I got the 3rd gen SA mount. It works great because it has more space.
0.02

Posted: 9/26/2004 6:04:21 AM EDT

[#9]

The Smith works just fine for me.

Posted: 9/26/2004 8:03:30 AM EDT

[#10]

Quoted:
ARMS #18.

Reason: Sits lower to the bore and allows for better use of the iron sights.

IMHO

It looks so low that it blocks the iron sight path. Are you able to see under the ARMS #18? It looks like you'd have to unmount the scope and look over the rail. Still looking under the rail puts the scope way up there and hard to get a good cheek weld.

Posted: 9/26/2004 12:58:36 PM EDT

[#11]

Quoted:
Quoted:
ARMS #18.

Reason: Sits lower to the bore and allows for better use of the iron sights.

IMHO

It looks so low that it blocks the iron sight path. Are you able to see under the ARMS #18? It looks like you'd have to unmount the scope and look over the rail. Still looking under the rail puts the scope way up there and hard to get a good cheek weld.

www.armsmounts.com/viewimg.php?item_id=7ℑ=picture

When using the #18 base with iron sights you look over the rail. Without some sort of see through rings, which would put the scope awfully high, you do need to dismount the scope to use the irons.

Posted: 9/26/2004 3:49:33 PM EDT

[#12]

Being a Scout Scope devotee, I have become convinced that the closer the scope is to the line of sight of the existing iron sights, the better.
There is something intuitive, and natural about having your scope close to the bore of your rifle.
Personally, I prefer a quickly detachable scope with a "see-over" mount over other configurations.
Reason is fundamamental: better, more consistant cheek weld, usually without a chek riser. More natural/less training.

Personally, I would suggest a 'see-over' style mount, an appropriate scope such as an IOR Valdada M2, amd appropriate qd rings such as made by Leupold. The complaints voiced here about the ARMS mount interfereing with brass ejection are the very first I have heard. Interesting in that the mount has been available for quite a while.

I have such on my FAL, and do not need a cheekpiece. Yet. should I wish, the scope is removeable within seconds, and is very nearly spot-on when re-attached.

Any scope-to mount-to rifle equation is complex. Define your intended use, examine the alternatives without emotion, and the answer will spring out.

Posted: 9/26/2004 7:09:39 PM EDT

[#13]

Quoted:
Quoted:
ARMS #18.

Reason: Sits lower to the bore and allows for better use of the iron sights.

IMHO

It looks so low that it blocks the iron sight path. Are you able to see under the ARMS #18? It looks like you'd have to unmount the scope and look over the rail. Still looking under the rail puts the scope way up there and hard to get a good cheek weld.

www.armsmounts.com/viewimg.php?item_id=7&image=picture

In this case, the irons are your BUIS and it is far better to remove any malfunctioning/disabled optic. My DMR Clone has ARMS #22 Low ring which allows me remove the scope rather expeditiously. The #18 has a channel that runs parallel to the bore which allows for a proper sight picture when using the irons. Even with possibly the lowest mounting platform a std M1A receiver can have ( I have seen receivers that have the picatinney rails milled right into them), I found it necessary to install a cheekpiece for proper cheekweld.

Posted: 10/1/2004 2:26:07 AM EDT

[#14]

Optics: Leupold, Zeiss
Rings: Larue Tactical
rail: havnt a clue

Posted: 10/1/2004 7:11:37 AM EDT

[#15]

Quoted:
Optics: Leupold, Zeiss
Rings: Larue Tactical
rail: havnt a clue

Are you serious? LaRue make some really good stuff, but that mount does not belong on an M1A.

Mounts the optic way forward and way to high for a M1A. Unless you turn the mount around and cantilever it backward (probably would not work), but the optic would still be too high over the bore.

[ARCHIVED THREAD] - Best scope and mount for an M1a????

Armory » M1 / M14 / M1 Carbine

Warning

Confirm Action

About AR15.COM

Stay Connected

Newsletter

Contact Us