Which one piece scope mount would allow me to have the optic in the furthest rearward position (shortest eye relief) between the Gray Ops and Area 419? My small brain can’t figure it out because I think the area 419 rear ring hangs over the last mount bolt more but it appears to have less area between the rings? This is for a G3 6-36
Shortest eye relief? Gray Ops vs Area 419
- Thread starter Sogan
- Start date
If you want to be able to place the scope really far back the 419 mount or even the 419 mid cantilever and put it backwards. Depending on the action, the gray ops may take up most of if not the entire top rail.
I don’t need anything crazy far back. I currently have the gray ops but would like it a little further than I can get with this. I was hoping area 419 would give a little more but I don’t want to purchase it to find out I’m wrong
What rifle is it on? Seems odd you can’t get it back far enough with either mount. Here is the Area419 with a Gen III Razor on my Vudoo. Plenty of slots in the base to move back but no need with the eye relief.
I'm going to assume OP has figured out what he needs, but for people that will come to this thread in the future:
One of the deliberate design choices we made with the Area 419 One-Piece mounts was to inset the mounting feet toward the center of the mount, to give shooters either more mounting position flexibility, or to leave more space for additional things a person may want to attach to the pic rail. Just didn't see any reality where we needed to spread the feet ALL the way to the ends, so allowing for that flexibility made more sense.
One of the deliberate design choices we made with the Area 419 One-Piece mounts was to inset the mounting feet toward the center of the mount, to give shooters either more mounting position flexibility, or to leave more space for additional things a person may want to attach to the pic rail. Just didn't see any reality where we needed to spread the feet ALL the way to the ends, so allowing for that flexibility made more sense.
So how did you guys come up with the erector spacing for the various scope diameters?
Measured a ton of scopes, and then verified what we thought against some other mounts, honestly. We then scraped every forum or post possible about any mounts that didn't work with any scopes. When there is something that doesn't work, there tends to be a thread about it somewhere.
We wanted enough space that anything would fit, with appropriate room to move at least the length of one pic section, but still fit between the bell of the scope and the ocular housing. There's a decent window, we found a spot in the middle that we liked. Same thing with our tube diameters, measure everything we can, figure out the "extreme spread" and make some fit and tolerance decisions on what we want to do.
And to be clear, we got it wrong (kind of) on the 34mm one-piece at first. At the time we rolled them out, they fit EVERYTHING, then the MK4HD dropped, with the longer teardrop shaped erector housing, so we lengthened that mount, so we had to alter the dimensions a bit. It creates less clearance on some scopes front to back, but it was available.
Doing everything you can to get things right at launch is obviously important, but being adaptable (as a company that makes accessories or items that have to integrate with other products) and willing to make mid-production updates is also hugely important.
I appreciate hearing about the thought process. I went with 419 Match Rings cause I thought they would give me more flexibility to get the eye relief right than I would with the mount. I'm still questioning that decision but I do really like the rings. I guess I'll make the leap to the mount if I find the need for a diving board.
Similar threads
