Scope mount budgeting
- Thread starter snowplow
- Start date
Well I see it as an "investment" I've mounted several scopes in my time & while I've used Badger for about half, the last couple of times I've used NF rings. IMO it makes things go together easier & accurate, of course after getting the eye relief & spacing right, the rest just seems to fall into place etc. I've been very happy with Badger, NF & Reptilia.
I am however a "but once cry once" kinda guy.
Cheers.
I am however a "but once cry once" kinda guy.
Cheers.
The main thing is you need a scope mount that's quality enough that it performs its primary function of maintaining zero. Beyond that it's essentially what features you want and weight.
If the scope mount is bad, it doesn’t matter how good of scope you put in it.
You’ll probably own the mount longer than the scope. Buy a good one. I’ve settled on ARC Mbrace mounts and own their previous gen M10 rings. Love the whole one-bolt setup. I do, however, own a Spuhr for a particular rifle because, well, it just looks “right” on that gun.
Lots of buzz around Area419’s one-piece mount.
If you’re going to add a WMLRF later, think about how good the bridge design is. I know the above two (ARC/A419) bridge designs are solid (talked to Scott at Vortex). In particular, the ARC bridge design is bombproof.
Thinking of going this route next, if only because I’m curious. I own some of Near’s rails. Richard (the owner) makes phenomenal mounts and rails. I believe the below version of his Alphamount takes Spuhr accessories.
Erik Cortina and some KO1M/KO2M winners or competitors seem to like them: http://trg42.com/alphamounts/
Below is the stock Alphamount
You’ll probably own the mount longer than the scope. Buy a good one. I’ve settled on ARC Mbrace mounts and own their previous gen M10 rings. Love the whole one-bolt setup. I do, however, own a Spuhr for a particular rifle because, well, it just looks “right” on that gun.
Lots of buzz around Area419’s one-piece mount.
If you’re going to add a WMLRF later, think about how good the bridge design is. I know the above two (ARC/A419) bridge designs are solid (talked to Scott at Vortex). In particular, the ARC bridge design is bombproof.
Thinking of going this route next, if only because I’m curious. I own some of Near’s rails. Richard (the owner) makes phenomenal mounts and rails. I believe the below version of his Alphamount takes Spuhr accessories.
Erik Cortina and some KO1M/KO2M winners or competitors seem to like them: http://trg42.com/alphamounts/
Below is the stock Alphamount
Last edited:
One point I will add, & it's not a critisium , just an observation. Take a look @ your scope tube & what kind of spacing you require along with your rail space. Depending on your scope a mount like a Spuhr has limited room for adjusting eye relief & centering your scope in the mount, I like to center my tube as evenly as possible in the mount.Rings can sometimes provide some more room. However in some cases you are able to adjust eye relief by moving it on the rail. Cheers
Great point about spacing, that brings up my next question. This will be going on an AR10. Specifically a Rock River LAR-8 that has a longer receiver. There's a good amount of rail space on these. As near as I can tell, it looks like I should be fine without an offset Mount with a little wiggle room. From what I gather that is common for an air 10 to not need an offset. Also I'm reading that 1.125-1.250 is the preferred height on an AR-10 versus 1.5 on an AR-15.
With all that said, does anybody see any flaws in that plan?
At the moment I'm deciding between the Arc M Brace, the Area 419, and the Seekins Precision mounts. All non offset. I'm sure I could easily get away with standard rings as well.
This is the first build of this kind for me so any input or preferences are helpful
With all that said, does anybody see any flaws in that plan?
At the moment I'm deciding between the Arc M Brace, the Area 419, and the Seekins Precision mounts. All non offset. I'm sure I could easily get away with standard rings as well.
This is the first build of this kind for me so any input or preferences are helpful
It's hard for me to tell over the Internet but one concern I have is that the Arc M Brace might be a little chunky looking and heavy for this basic DMR style build. It's about double the weight of the Seekins and looks to be quite a bit chunkier.
Have you ever set up a scope on an AR before? I ask because you might find out you need a cantilever mount.Great point about spacing, that brings up my next question. This will be going on an AR10. Specifically a Rock River LAR-8 that has a longer receiver. There's a good amount of rail space on these. As near as I can tell, it looks like I should be fine without an offset Mount with a little wiggle room. From what I gather that is common for an air 10 to not need an offset. Also I'm reading that 1.125-1.250 is the preferred height on an AR-10 versus 1.5 on an AR-15.
With all that said, does anybody see any flaws in that plan?
At the moment I'm deciding between the Arc M Brace, the Area 419, and the Seekins Precision mounts. All non offset. I'm sure I could easily get away with standard rings as well.
This is the first build of this kind for me so any input or preferences are helpful
For a cantilever, Badger makes an attractive looking one. You’ll have to dig for reviews, though…I don’t know too much about them. I know in general they are well-regarded.
I should’ve added, you might also find out you need a super-high mount. I did…I went for a 1.89” (or was it 1.93”?) mount on the AR.
For bolt guns I like 1.5” or thereabouts.
As @carbonbased said, you will want a cantilever style mount for an AR rifle.
If you want quality on a budget, and don't need a lot of features, you can typically find NF Unimounts on the used market for decent prices.
If you want more feature rich and have the budget, then there's NF ultramounts, Badger, Reptilia, etc.
If you want quality on a budget, and don't need a lot of features, you can typically find NF Unimounts on the used market for decent prices.
If you want more feature rich and have the budget, then there's NF ultramounts, Badger, Reptilia, etc.
Have you mocked up the setup with whatever you have? Including approximate ring placement on the scope itself? Assuming you already own the exact scope in question.
That’s what I’d do before anything.
I’ve got a pile of damn rings from when I was trying to figure out what I like. That and rear bags…gaaaah! Almost unavoidable.
Yep all mocked up as good as l could figure without a mount. (I don't have any 34mm). Doesn't look like l need a cantilever. Looks about like this.
Attachments
Definitely get at least a 1.5” height. Do not go lower. AR10 is the same as an AR15 for height. Not about clearance but being comfortable behind the scope.
No that is not a steadfast rule. I have never put anything lower than 1.5” on my large frame ARs and never an issue but I did try a 1.3” mount on an AR15 and had to push my face down hard to get down behind it and get a good sight picture. It was traded out swiftly to a 1.5”.
Also depending on the rifle if it has a full picatinny rail down the hand guard a 56mm scope like the EP-5 will also need more height to make sure it clears.
Rob is correct. 1.5-1.7 is about what you want with most optics with an AR. It keeps you from smashing face into but stock which will cause all sort of issues.
Much like optics, there is a law of diminishing returns when it comes to mounts as well. Back in the early 2k's, all I ran was Badger bases and rings because they were "the best" back then. Obviously a lot has changed since then. For me, I still want quality but I have trouble grasping the concept that a $350 mount can do the same thing over 1.5 times better than my $150 Badger rings that have served me well for literally decades. I'm not hating here, I've had Spuhr, Geiselle, etc mounts and they are really nice and if that's your thing, do it. I am simply saying that from a budget stand point, quality is available at different price points. Now when it comes to levels, diving boards, etc, your options begin to get smaller and that is definetly where the high end mounting solutions really shine. For the OP, since you are setting a gas gun, you will almost have to run a 1.5'ish cantilever mount which again reduces your options. Personally I would consider a Geiselle or Vortex precision series cantilever mount.
CM
CM
Imagine spending 5k on a rifle 3k on glass and then trying to justify some Chinese piece of shit interface between the two. Do you put Walmart tires on a Lambo?
I have 2 Warne cantilever mounts one on a AR15 the other is on a SIG Cross basically an AR platform that work very well.
Mbrace is a POS. Highest failure rate by far of any mount I know of in last 5 years or so.
IMO 419 makes the best current mounts. And they are a bit cheaper than spuhr/grey ops. Great design, good mount system and bored exactly to dimensions. The cantilever is perfect on an AR.
If your Gona use shitty Chinese optics then who cares what mount you use? You already decided to fail so why waste more money.
IMO 419 makes the best current mounts. And they are a bit cheaper than spuhr/grey ops. Great design, good mount system and bored exactly to dimensions. The cantilever is perfect on an AR.
If your Gona use shitty Chinese optics then who cares what mount you use? You already decided to fail so why waste more money.
As long as you use a reputable mount, you don't need to spend $400, and no matter what optic you have you probably don't want to spend less than $100. On an AR10 you likely don't need a canti mount but probably want a 20 MOA mount. That said I've never ran into a system where I could not make a canti mount work, but I've ran into lots of setups where I could not make a non-canti mount work, so I just default to them now often.
Used to be the Seekins MXM was my go to "budget" option, back when you could snag them for about $160, but now they are in the $250 range I'd rather run a NF unimount or Badger for the same $. The Warne xSkel used to be a great budget option but I've seen a couple iffy ones the last few years. The Burris canti mount or the Leupold Mark AR canti are not horrible options under $150. I've ran higher dollar Sphur, 419, Mbrace etc. and they are nice, esp. if you want to attach things to them, but I've yet to have a NF or Badger Unimount or Seekins MXM let me down either.
Used to be the Seekins MXM was my go to "budget" option, back when you could snag them for about $160, but now they are in the $250 range I'd rather run a NF unimount or Badger for the same $. The Warne xSkel used to be a great budget option but I've seen a couple iffy ones the last few years. The Burris canti mount or the Leupold Mark AR canti are not horrible options under $150. I've ran higher dollar Sphur, 419, Mbrace etc. and they are nice, esp. if you want to attach things to them, but I've yet to have a NF or Badger Unimount or Seekins MXM let me down either.
Most people use 20 moa mounts on bolt guns and an AR usually just comes with a flat picatinny upper receiver so a mount with 20 moa won’t hurt anything but allow you to have more elevation. Really all depends on the scope and how far you plan to shoot.
Again for me it's more about flexibility, even if I don't "need" the 20 MOA, I see no harm in it.
You can go further down the rabbit hole and in optics, doesn't matter if it's binoculars, spotting scopes, cameras, etc. basically the center of the optical path will always (barring some manufacturing defect or poor lens alignment) be the highest resolution area of the optic. By running a 20 MOA mount there's the thought that instead of having the best optic clarity at say 100 yds for your zero, you'd rather have it somewhere at a longer distance downrange. However that really depends on your use case, caliber, distances you plan to shoot etc. If you primarily plan to shoot 100yds etc. then it's probably better not to have it.
For me I see no harm in having it, so it just means that if I change the mount out, or change setups, that mount is likely more flexible for future uses.
You can go further down the rabbit hole and in optics, doesn't matter if it's binoculars, spotting scopes, cameras, etc. basically the center of the optical path will always (barring some manufacturing defect or poor lens alignment) be the highest resolution area of the optic. By running a 20 MOA mount there's the thought that instead of having the best optic clarity at say 100 yds for your zero, you'd rather have it somewhere at a longer distance downrange. However that really depends on your use case, caliber, distances you plan to shoot etc. If you primarily plan to shoot 100yds etc. then it's probably better not to have it.
For me I see no harm in having it, so it just means that if I change the mount out, or change setups, that mount is likely more flexible for future uses.
The flip side is in most scopes, the best image quality is in the middle of the erector range. So unless you need to shooter farther than about 1/2 your elevation range, you are probably better off with no can't. It also depends where most of your shots are going. Quick math of most probable distances and where in erector it will be dialed for those distances , can give you an idea where you want to be centered.
Now most custom rifle actions have 20moa baked in but ARs don't.
I am of the camp where I want the best image quality so stack a high end optic with a ton of elevation range in a 0moa mount and you will be golden. Especially in applications where I rarely have to dial over 10mils. ( PRS)
Now most custom rifle actions have 20moa baked in but ARs don't.
I am of the camp where I want the best image quality so stack a high end optic with a ton of elevation range in a 0moa mount and you will be golden. Especially in applications where I rarely have to dial over 10mils. ( PRS)
Similar threads
