Rifle Scopes SPR - ARMS #22 w/ LeupMK4 40mm Obj. & SWAN Sleeve

SPDGG

Sergeant
Full Member
Minuteman
Nov 30, 2005
252
0
TX, USA
www.rdprecision.net
Hello, Any input regarding the info. below is Greatly Appreciated.

Has anyone tried this or does anyone know if this will clear: ARMS #22 LOW 30mm w/ Leupold 40mm Obj. Scope & SWAN Sleeve, SPR Mod 0. Anyone using a really long riser with a similar setup?

ARMS #22 LOW 30mm
.925 Center of Optic to Base Height
w/
Leupold 40mm Obj. Scope & SWAN Sleeve or Extended Riser
<span style="text-decoration: underline"><span style="font-style: italic">
My measurements are:</span></span>

Leupold Obj. Dia. = 1.831"
Tube Dia. = 1.182" = .649" difference / 2 = .3245"

Tube Dia. 1.182" / 2 = .591"+.3245" = .9155"

<span style="font-weight: bold">The ARMS #22 LOW Height .925"-.9155" = .0095 of room from base to objective. [ ??? ]</span>

Reason I ask, Sometimes Manuf. are +/- with their #(s), so wondering if anyone has successfully used #22 LOW with an extended rail under the scope objective. Also, I have already put in consideration of the Obj. Flip Cap. I am using a 2.5" sunshade with Flip Caps. I am using a Riser thats REALLY Long, so I have put the BC Flip Cap into consideration. The Sunshade with Flip Cap extends far enough forward to clear the long riser/rail.

I dont want to use any higher rings then needed as I find this height perfect; 1.425" w/ riser/rings.

I am trying to find out the exact amount of space there is below the Objectives Largest OD portion "without" flip cap to the top of the ARMS SWAN Sleeve/Ext. Riser.

Thank you for the help,
FTK
 
Re: SPR - ARMS #22 w/ LeupMK4 40mm Obj. & SWAN Sle

The pic below has ARMS#22 low with a Leupold MRT 36mm Obj. The ocular with Butler Creek looks like it is touching the BUIS but it is not....there is a tiny gap. Your 40mm objective would not make it with a flat rail or a long riser....you would need a short riser or just use higher rings. Hope this helps.

IMG_0138.jpg
 
Re: SPR - ARMS #22 w/ LeupMK4 40mm Obj. & SWAN Sleeve

<div class="ubbcode-block"><div class="ubbcode-header">Originally Posted By: SPDGG</div><div class="ubbcode-body">Hello, Any input regarding the info. below is Greatly Appreciated.

Has anyone tried this or does anyone know if this will clear: ARMS #22 LOW 30mm w/ Leupold 40mm Obj. Scope & SWAN Sleeve, SPR Mod 0. Anyone using a really long riser with a similar setup?

ARMS #22 LOW 30mm
.925 Center of Optic to Base Height
w/
Leupold 40mm Obj. Scope & SWAN Sleeve or Extended Riser
<span style="text-decoration: underline"><span style="font-style: italic">
My measurements are:</span></span>

Leupold Obj. Dia. = 1.831"
Tube Dia. = 1.182" = .649" difference / 2 = .3245"

Tube Dia. 1.182" / 2 = .591"+.3245" = .9155"

<span style="font-weight: bold">The ARMS #22 LOW Height .925"-.9155" = .0095 of room from base to objective. [ ??? ]</span>

Reason I ask, Sometimes Manuf. are +/- with their #(s), so wondering if anyone has successfully used #22 LOW with an extended rail under the scope objective. Also, I have already put in consideration of the Obj. Flip Cap. I am using a 2.5" sunshade with Flip Caps. I am using a Riser thats REALLY Long, so I have put the BC Flip Cap into consideration. The Sunshade with Flip Cap extends far enough forward to clear the long riser/rail.

I dont want to use any higher rings then needed as I find this height perfect; 1.425" w/ riser/rings.

I am trying to find out the exact amount of space there is below the Objectives Largest OD portion "without" flip cap to the top of the ARMS SWAN Sleeve/Ext. Riser.

Thank you for the help,
FTK </div></div>

Long story short, you will not clear with the butler creek caps on using ARMS lows.

Without the cap you only about .030" of space between a ARMS SPR-PEQ sleeve and a Leupold w/ 40mm objective

Not to mentioned your optics height will not be ideal for a AR platform and that depending on your rear BUIS your ocular of the scope will hit before the objective does. I had to use ARMS#40L intead of the proper MOD0 ARMS#40

If you want to go as low as possible without interference you can do what I eventually did and use Badger highs ( 1.125" ) instead of the ARMS Med ( 1.150 ). It only gives a .025 lower ( and a much better ring ! )

Lastly, you obviously know the history of a MK12Mo0 . Crane went with ARMS Med for this combo. I would would be confident to say they know what they were doing
 
Re: SPR - ARMS #22 w/ LeupMK4 40mm Obj. & SWAN Sleeve

Thank you "USMC 308" & "trg42" for posting the info./feedback.

My setup will be:

- PRI Gen III FFT - Rifle Length
- PRI REECE Rail/Riser
- Leupold MK4 4.5-14x40 w/ 2.5" Sunshade BC Flip caps

The Reece riser/rail extends a little further than the top pict. rail on the Gen III handguard.

The Scope "with" Sunshade extends further forward than the RECCE Rail. The Flip Caps will Clear the rail so clearence for the Flip Caps is GTG. I agree without the sunshade there is NO Way that the Flip Caps would have clearance. I'm probably going to use the KAC Mirco 300-600 BUIS for its Adj. & Really Low Profile. Believe lowered its lower than the ARMS #40L.

The ARMS #22 Medium Rings 1.150" & RECCE Riser .50" = 1.65" IMHO is too high for my liking.
<span style="font-weight: bold">
<span style="font-style: italic">But, the ARMS #22 Low Rings .925" & REECE Riser .50" = 1.425"
IMHO: Perfect height range for AR optics. Main reason I'm trying to see if it will work or not?
With that I measure only about .0095" clearance from Objective to Rail
crazy.gif


But, IF it will work without grinding on the rail I'm all for it. </span></span>

The ARMS #22 High on the SPR Mod 1 Height is 1.450" & I believe the LaRue SPR line ranges from about 1.41" to 1.50".
<span style="font-style: italic">* All Ring heights from Center of Optic to Base</span>

Thank you Again for the help/feedback. Any additonal input would be greatly appreciated.

Pic of setup:
100_0532.jpg


 
Re: SPR - ARMS #22 w/ LeupMK4 40mm Obj. & SWAN Sle

I am sorry to not have any useful input for you on the required heights, but I will say please post photos of your setup when you are done. I am considering an SPR with a PRI tube and what you have there so far is looking great!