higher (1.93) mounts on LPVO - trend or fad?

[overton]

I see more and more people, including very knowledgeable guys like Steve Fisher, going to 1.93 (or even higher) height mounts on their low power variable optics (1-4x, 1-6x, 1-8x) because of
reduced head strain and more situational awareness.

However, when shooting close quarters, under cars or through barricades like the VTAC one, doesn't the huge setoff lead to problems?
What worries me most is that mechnaical offsets gets even higher with those 1.93" mounts- and under stress this is what may happen:


Some years ago there was a situation where man was holding a woman hostage on a sidewalk at the entrance to a city shop. He had one arm around his hostage and was holding a knife to her throat. Police had responded and while a negotiator further down the sidewalk was talking to the man, another officer with a carbine took up a position about 25 yards away, across the street and behind a short wall. With this cover, the assailant had not seen him and so the officer believed he had a clear shot at the man with the knife. The officer took steady aim and pressed off a shot, which impacted the wall that was about 5 yards in front of him. So here the officer had a good sight picture, but he forgot to account for mechanical offset, rendering his shot useless. Then, realizing his mistake, he added elevation to his position to clear the wall and was able to dispatch the knife-wielding assailant with his next shot.
Quote from: https://www.eaglegunrangetx.com/shooting-fundamentals-mechanical-offset/

So, would you put a higher mount on a general purpose 16" carbine? Why? Why not?

[overton]

Found a video that shows the problem of off axis shooting very well (at 10:30):


https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=eY26m52TOgk&t=633s

With that, I am not convinced I want a higher mount.

[HCM]

Mechanical offset is a training issue.

On AR pattern rifles it is approximately 2 1/2". Either you are accounting for mechanical offset at close range or you are not. Another .43" is not going to make a difference.

The higher mounts were originally to clear rail mounted IR Lasers, however a collateral benefit is the allow a more upright head position behind the optic. You see best through the center of your vision so as Jerry Miculek says you want to "shoot with your face flat." The higher mounts also help in positional shoooting you are wearing RX glasses or your neck is not a flexible due to age or injury.

Off axis shooting is a technique performed when necessary, not by choice. The more off axis shooting I've done the more I've realized LAV was correct when he stated guns live in a vertical world.

[arcfide]

I use a Beretta ARX with a T5Xi, and the sight height with a 1.5" Larue LT104 mount is about 3.5" over bore. I definitely wouldn't want to go any higher than that on this rifle, but there is a benefit to be able to have my head straight while shooting. It greatly reduces long term strain and it's very easy to get the rifle up and see through the optic. If you really like a deep cheek weld then it would probably drive you crazy.

Overall I think you just have to know your mechanical offset and work with it.

[call_me_ski]

I have always liked the higher mounts. I am glad that more companies are starting to offer these taller mounts. I am in the hunt to get a pair of geissele 1.93 mounts when they come back.

As for mechanical offset. People have been fucking it up with 1.5in tall mounts and they will do so with 1.93in tall mounts. I don't think the extra .43 will really cause more of a problem, you either remember to account for it or you don't.

[SeriousStudent]

I have run a 6920 with a Trijicon TR-24G 1-4x LPVO in a Larue 1.93 since that scope came out. No issues. Offset measured and remembered.

My head stays up, both eyes stay open, it works like a variable power Aimpoint for me.

I'm an old nerd, and nobody special. It works well for me

[Odin Bravo One]

Knowledgeable people have their reasons for doing what they do. Generally it’s a lot of trial and error over years and years of doing the work in the environment. Their reasons may or may not match someone else’s reasons. There has never been a shortage of people trying to understand what the cool kids are doing and why........ most failing miserably in the process.

If you don’t have your own good reasons for doing something, but do it anyway, no amount of advice from people on the internet is going to help.

[willie]

Maybe uninformed but hopefully not dumb question: would not a fixed stock provide some cheek weld and thus more control or stability with the higher mounts?

[call_me_ski]

I guess you could use a stock like the PRS to add height to the comb to get a different cheek weld. I have never found this to be a problem though. I find the more head up position to be more comfortable in 95% of the shooting that I do even with a normal carbine stock. The first time I tried it, it was just more natural. I find the rifle comes up more naturally, faster and more consistent. I sold off my Larue mount as someone wanted and I intend to move along to Geissele mounts for everything magnified. In the mean time I have a vortex mount holding its place and I miss the taller mount dearly.

It is always nice to experiment to find what works. Buy a used tall mount a resell it for what you paid if you don't like it. YMMV

[TAZ]

Primary drivers for me going to a 1.93 mount on the LPV were neck inflexibility and glasses. As I get older I can’t reliably and quickly get into position behind the scope. Invariably I get the goofy sight picture with the frame if my RX eyepro dissecting the view. PITA. Maybe more practice would have solved the issue. I did put a small riser on the stock to keep cheekweld felling similar. Not sure if it’s really needed though.

[joshs]

The higher mounts are a trade off between the more upright head position for standing and a less solid cheek weld when using a magnified optic with a smaller eye box. This can be overcome by using a stock with a higher cheek piece, but that isn't always an option on an AR because of the charging handle location. If you look at the stock that Daniel Horner uses, you can see how much higher the cheek piece is to compensate for the 1.93 mount.

[theJanitor]

I'm headed toward high mounts, since I started wearing glasses this year (and bifocals to boot). I just can't see properly through "normal" height mounts

[Robinson]

Hmm... I've got a Trijicon AccuPower on my 300 BLK bolt gun and while it's a really nice optic I haven't warmed up to it yet. Too many years shooting lever guns with ghost ring sights maybe. Anyway, I'm currently using low mounts to keep the sight close to the bore but it just doesn't line up naturally for me. I wonder if a bit higher mounts would work better.

[CCT125US]

I used the Vortex (LRBC) long range ballistic calculator to play around with a question I had. And that was: how does a higher scope mount affect bullet drop. My thought was one may help to flatten the trajectory, over the other. The difference inputting BH 77gr OTM from a 1/7 was around .20' over 700 yards. So not really a factor...... Comfort and ease of use seem to be the driving factor.First pic is 2' HOB, 2nd is 1.5 HOB.

21069
21070

[wsr]

Not sure if you just picked random HOB numbers but AR HOB would be closer to 2.5 and 3.0