What scope or scope with base is high enough

Collapse
X
 
  • Time
  • Show
Clear All
new posts
  • S.B.
    Senior Member
    • Aug 2009
    • 241

    #1

    What scope or scope with base is high enough

    to see over a flat top receiver, comfortably?
    Steve
    The Original Point and Click Interface was a Smith & Wesson
  • togor
    Banned
    • Nov 2009
    • 17610

    #2
    Low to medium heights work fine on a flat top. Depends to some degree on the size of your scope objective. I have a 3-9x50 on ARMS medium height rings over a .308 flat top. Check rest is fine, no pad needed for a riser.

    Comment

    • S.B.
      Senior Member
      • Aug 2009
      • 241

      #3
      Those don't work good for me?
      Steve
      The Original Point and Click Interface was a Smith & Wesson

      Comment

      • gwp
        Senior Member
        • Aug 2009
        • 1088

        #4
        They make scope mounts specifically for flat top ARs. I have a few different mounts from Burris, Nikon and Aero Precision. For conventional rings I like Warne Ultra High Rings.

        Comment

        • S.B.
          Senior Member
          • Aug 2009
          • 241

          #5
          gwp
          thank you, Steve
          The Original Point and Click Interface was a Smith & Wesson

          Comment

          • NuJudge
            Senior Member
            • Aug 2009
            • 248

            #6
            There are several lengthy threads on this on the National Match forum:

            Comment

            • S.B.
              Senior Member
              • Aug 2009
              • 241

              #7
              The link you post is for donations?
              Steve
              The Original Point and Click Interface was a Smith & Wesson

              Comment

              • Litt'le Lee
                Senior Member
                • Aug 2009
                • 653

                #8
                don't listen to the children here--for a flat top for us senior 's you need a 1" scope RISER then a med to high scope rings,,
                that's one thing the unknowns will face later in life if they are lucky--STIFF NECKS--....THE AR is built for fungy-youngees

                Shop by department, purchase cars, fashion apparel, collectibles, sporting goods, cameras, baby items, and everything else on eBay, the world's online marketplace
                Last edited by Litt'le Lee; 04-23-2017, 10:01.

                Comment

                • emmagee1917
                  Senior Member
                  • Sep 2009
                  • 1492

                  #9
                  The is no " standard " for the terms Lo - Med - Hi . Each maker picks their own . I find about 22-25 mm from top of picatinny to bottom of tube comfortable . That's 37-40 MM to center of a 30mm tube . If you have a narrow face it may be a bit too tall . Padded cheek pieces may make this too low . 37 work good on a standard fixed / collapsible Ar15 . I put a 39 on my Barret M82A1 with an 1/8 - inch stick on cheek piece to protect from the Arizona sun on the metal cover that fits good .

                  Comment

                  • Litt'le Lee
                    Senior Member
                    • Aug 2009
                    • 653

                    #10
                    What's with this METRIC stuff--America first !!!....I know TWO metrics-7.62 and 5.56 and the 7.62 is BS because 7.62
                    nato is 308 and elsewhere it's 310

                    Comment

                    • Andouille
                      Senior Member
                      • Aug 2009
                      • 203

                      #11
                      I'm a big fan of these and have several. They ain't cheap but they're durable and in my experience return to zero every time. Also easy to mount a scope in them without twisting if you follow the directions. They also make one that's cantilevered out a bit farther and would be the one to use if you do a lot of prone shooting.

                      http://www.larue.com/larue-tactical-...ount-qd-lt-104

                      The 1.5" height from top of rail to center of scope should provide you with a clue about what ring height to use if you prefer something a bit more conventional or cheaper.
                      "There it is"
                      LOAD AND BE READY!

                      Comment

                      • emmagee1917
                        Senior Member
                        • Sep 2009
                        • 1492

                        #12
                        Originally posted by Litt'le Lee
                        What's with this METRIC stuff--America first !!!....I know TWO metrics-7.62 and 5.56 and the 7.62 is BS because 7.62
                        nato is 308 and elsewhere it's 310
                        Two reasons :
                        1) Most of the manufacturers use MM in their specs , so I was making it easier for him to look .
                        2) Because I'm a math and science whiz ( spelling ...not so much ) . The metric system is far easier to do complicated figures in your head . I've taken up long range shooting and Mrad / meters is much faster than MOA / yards .
                        Most people get all fouled up with metric by trying to convert it . If you get used to metric without trying to convert it , it's far easier .
                        I always try for the easy way out , all other factors being equal .
                        Chris

                        Comment

                        • Litt'le Lee
                          Senior Member
                          • Aug 2009
                          • 653

                          #13
                          EASY FOR YOU TO SAY !!!--what are you,a community organizer ?? I'm a Goverment contractor retired and worked on
                          20 different places and not once did I hear mm

                          Comment

                          • emmagee1917
                            Senior Member
                            • Sep 2009
                            • 1492

                            #14
                            Originally posted by Litt'le Lee
                            EASY FOR YOU TO SAY !!!--what are you,a community organizer ?? I'm a Goverment contractor retired and worked on
                            20 different places and not once did I hear mm
                            You've led a very sheltered life . I started in the automotive / truck business in 1971 . I was around for the great change from fractions to mm . It drove most people nuts because they wanted to convert the " new " metric into the old system to the Nth decimal place . Not needed . I know a liter is a bit more than a quart , so a gallon is a bit less than 4 liters . Good enough for life . People tend to need to know it's 3.78541178 liters to the gallon . But yet , if I put a tub by the gas pump , and told them to pump in 3.78541178 gallons , how close do you think they would get ( no dials , just by eye ) ?
                            I always felt that if they had picked a model year and just made everything metric ( rather than half and half ) from then forward , it would have stopped 90% of the problems . Maybe even put a big raised "M" on metric bolt heads to remind everyone .
                            Chris

                            Comment

                            • Litt'le Lee
                              Senior Member
                              • Aug 2009
                              • 653

                              #15
                              BLAH-BLAH BLAH-if you consider 6 yrs USMC and 22 yrs ma-bell and 20 yrs GOVERMNENT contractor-your'e Left

                              Comment

                              Working...