LPVO Ring Height

[Default.mp3]

So, I'm currently paying off a Kahles K16i (thanks to CS Tactical for working with me on that). I'm wondering, has anyone had any experience with high ring mounts, such as the LaRue LT135 or Midwest Industries QD 30mm High Scope Mount? Over at P&S, the argument is that the higher rings (~1.9" optic centerline height) allow for a more head-up shooting style, which makes it easier to mount the gun, less muscle fatigue, and less eye fatigue (also applicable to red dots, enough that people try to mount higher than 1/3 cowitness). I've done a little bit of Googling, and it appears that some 3 gunners do use higher mounts (e.g., Daniel Horner), but it's hardly universal, with the general recommendation being the standard 1.5" heights.

Primary use on my end would be just a GP 14.5" AR.

Any thoughts?

[SamuelBLong]

1.93 does reduce fatigue and will help primarily if you're using either a helmet, a DBAL or both (me...which is why I like it).

It does change up your cheek weld, so if you're used to making really solid contact, it's going to take a bit to get used to it.

Overall I say go for it. If you hate it, there are plenty of people like me who will swap you a standard 1.54 mount.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

[El Cid]

I've have the sister scope to your Kahles, the Swarovski Z6i 1-6. I have it on two rifles (5.56 & .308), and haven't noticed any of those issues. They've been run in local steel matches, classes, and various drills, etc. In Defoor's advanced carbine we spent 2 days doing everything from prone at 100, 200, 300, and 400 yards, to up close work with and without barricades. We did some shooting and moving as well - no head, eye, or neck strain for me. I also used them in other classes with similar results. The FOV is so magnificent that up close I found it quicker than my T-1.

I went with a QD mount instead of rings. It's the Recon X from American Defense. I'm 6'2" and have fairly long arms so that may mean what works for me won't for you depending on your build.

[Erick Gelhaus]

I'm pretty happy with the 1.93 mount for my scopes. The caveat is I have not ever used a shorter mount.

[Sigfan26]

I like the ADM Scout High rings because they allow me the same cheekweld as my lower 1/3 red dots.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

[SteveB]

So, I'm currently paying off a Kahles K16i (thanks to CS Tactical for working with me on that). I'm wondering, has anyone had any experience with high ring mounts, such as the LaRue LT135 or Midwest Industries QD 30mm High Scope Mount? Over at P&S, the argument is that the higher rings (~1.9" optic centerline height) allow for a more head-up shooting style, which makes it easier to mount the gun, less muscle fatigue, and less eye fatigue (also applicable to red dots, enough that people try to mount higher than 1/3 cowitness). I've done a little bit of Googling, and it appears that some 3 gunners do use higher mounts (e.g., Daniel Horner), but it's hardly universal, with the general recommendation being the standard 1.5" heights.

Primary use on my end would be just a GP 14.5" AR.

Any thoughts?

I think you go with the mount that fits your head position, not try to fit your head position to the mount. I've found optics that piggyback an RDS, for example, put the dot too high; I get more of a chin weld than a cheek weld, & have found this to be suboptimal for the quick and close. SamuelB's point about gear driving the decision is an obvious exception to this.

[HCM]

Speaking of gear, higher mounts are particularly useful if you wear RX glasses. The higher mount better allows you to look through the optic with your glasses in prone, rather than looking over them.

[CS Tactical]

So, I'm currently paying off a Kahles K16i (thanks to CS Tactical for working with me on that). I'm wondering, has anyone had any experience with high ring mounts, such as the LaRue LT135 or Midwest Industries QD 30mm High Scope Mount? Over at P&S, the argument is that the higher rings (~1.9" optic centerline height) allow for a more head-up shooting style, which makes it easier to mount the gun, less muscle fatigue, and less eye fatigue (also applicable to red dots, enough that people try to mount higher than 1/3 cowitness). I've done a little bit of Googling, and it appears that some 3 gunners do use higher mounts (e.g., Daniel Horner), but it's hardly universal, with the general recommendation being the standard 1.5" heights.

Primary use on my end would be just a GP 14.5" AR.

Any thoughts?

You're welcome! Like we discussed, I prefer American Defense over LaRue due to how it interfaces the rail. I'll get you whatever height you want though

[TAZ]

I too am looking at the recon H (1.93). Just can't seem to get standard mounts to work OK with the LPV. Can't crane my neck enough to get the eye box right. Doesn't seem as big a deal with my RDS, but my LPV is pretty sensitive to eye position.

I'm with the guy who said that we should get the equipment that works best rather than make what everyone else uses work.