• Winner! Quick Shot Challenge: Caption This Sniper Fail Meme

    View thread

Night Vision Are there any stock/chassis with forward NV mounts that lower the NV clip on?

jeffl838

Private
Full Member
Minuteman
Feb 20, 2013
871
380
I like my low (0.9-1.0) rings on my match set up but would also like to run NVG's with it for hunting... is there a stock that facilitates this without forcing me to take off my scope to either tag it out or add a riser?

Basically an NV mount that's 0.3 to 0.5 inches lower than the scope rail on the receiver.

Would be neat... Thanks.
 
A good torque wrench and a quality riser with half inch nuts may be the way to go. When I added a 5/8 riser to accommodate clip ons on a AR it only moved my zero 1/2” up.

Quality riser and rings should be repeatable
 
Any of the NV rail heights are going to be limited in their design.

Unfortunately, several of the chassis designs seem to not give a shit about how high they make you stick your scope and/or clip-on NV.

The ones that do try to keep their designs low still have constraints.
* The through hole/ bridge usually needs to accommodate the larger barrel contours as well as the smaller ones. Some customers will still insist on using a 1.250" straight non-tapered barrel..... geez. Business economics and efficiencies dictate that each product needs to work with a wide range of other products out of your control.

* The 1913 rail and the bridge span supporting it really needs to retain a reasonable amount of thickness in order to avoid any failures or damage due to impacts with or without $5K to $20K worth of alien tech clamped to it.

These two things alone will limit just how low you can get the 1913 rail in relation to the center of the bore.

Fortunately almost all of the chassis makers have adjustable comb heights that would allow proper head position regardless of how high your rings are.

For what its worth, for the first 25 years I was doing this, we all thought it was a mortal sin to use anything but the lowest ring height possible. Now days the better ring designs (like NF Ultra, etc.) are so rigid that even the extra high versions are equal to or better than the lower models of yesterday.

Bottom line is that you just might have to consider a different ring height to get you where you want to go.

./
 
Any of the NV rail heights are going to be limited in their design.

Unfortunately, several of the chassis designs seem to not give a shit about how high they make you stick your scope and/or clip-on NV.

The ones that do try to keep their designs low still have constraints.
* The through hole/ bridge usually needs to accommodate the larger barrel contours as well as the smaller ones. Some customers will still insist on using a 1.250" straight non-tapered barrel..... geez. Business economics and efficiencies dictate that each product needs to work with a wide range of other products out of your control.

* The 1913 rail and the bridge span supporting it really needs to retain a reasonable amount of thickness in order to avoid any failures or damage due to impacts with or without $5K to $20K worth of alien tech clamped to it.

These two things alone will limit just how low you can get the 1913 rail in relation to the center of the bore.

Fortunately almost all of the chassis makers have adjustable comb heights that would allow proper head position regardless of how high your rings are.

For what its worth, for the first 25 years I was doing this, we all thought it was a mortal sin to use anything but the lowest ring height possible. Now days the better ring designs (like NF Ultra, etc.) are so rigid that even the extra high versions are equal to or better than the lower models of yesterday.

Bottom line is that you just might have to consider a different ring height to get you where you want to go.

./
I don't mind getting higher rings, I just am going to have to get a new stock to accommodate the NVG and am looking for one that will accommodate the lowest possible rings (I'd be happy with 1.2). I wouldn't mind high rings if it wasn't for those barricades (that you see in some matches) that obscure part of your fov. It sounds like the PDC is the way to go right now. I've never seen it and like it a lot.
 
I don't mind getting higher rings, I just am going to have to get a new stock to accommodate the NVG and am looking for one that will accommodate the lowest possible rings (I'd be happy with 1.2). I wouldn't mind high rings if it wasn't for those barricades (that you see in some matches) that obscure part of your fov. It sounds like the PDC is the way to go right now. I've never seen it and like it a lot.

I run the competition version of the Gen5 PDC chassis. IF there's any questions you have, let me know.
 
I don't mind getting higher rings, I just am going to have to get a new stock to accommodate the NVG and am looking for one that will accommodate the lowest possible rings (I'd be happy with 1.2). I wouldn't mind high rings if it wasn't for those barricades (that you see in some matches) that obscure part of your fov. It sounds like the PDC is the way to go right now. I've never seen it and like it a lot.

I'm tracking.

Side note that you likely already know....
A shooter can have up to 3/4 or more of their objective lens blocked and still see the target and have no POI shift. Maybe slightly darker than usual image but totally unaffected otherwise. Obstructing part of your objective does not equal losing any of your FOV.

We teach this and put students in situations that force some or most of their front objectives to be blocked while still demanding precision hits. Amazing how modern optics deconstruct, modify and then reconstruct images so well.

If you do not believe me, take a look at how high many of the top PRS and NRL finishers are mounting their optics. They all shoot through the same barricades, ports and obstacles as everyone else without any negative affects.


./
 
I'm tracking.

Side note that you likely already know....
A shooter can have up to 3/4 or more of their objective lens blocked and still see the target and have no POI shift. Maybe slightly darker than usual image but totally unaffected otherwise. Obstructing part of your objective does not equal losing any of your FOV.

We teach this and put students in situations that force some or most of their front objectives to be blocked while still demanding precision hits. Amazing how modern optics deconstruct, modify and then reconstruct images so well.

If you do not believe me, take a look at how high many of the top PRS and NRL finishers are mounting their optics. They all shoot through the same barricades, ports and obstacles as everyone else without any negative affects.


./
I believe you. Used to tape horizontal slits onto the objective to hide glare. Totally makes sense. I used to run 1.5'' rings and only moved down after one port completely obscured my fov. I'm sure that half an inch would have made a difference. My perspective is tainted by that one experience, honestly.
 
  • Like
Reactions: Terry Cross