Karma Shooter, Looking at our Body Position

#201
ma smith said:
Point being this isn't a dogmatic discussion, the real world of shooting always works buy guys figuring it out first, then figuring out how to explain why it works. Later on you get guys who can take the "why it works" and extend it.
Click to expand...

This.

All I'm saying is that the jury is still out on some of this (for at least some of us).

Is trying to adjust your shit to get a better, more ergonomic, heads-up position behind the gun sound like a good idea? Facts.

But, should we all be throwing 2" risers on our rigs without putting some consideration into what potential cons might come with raising that ~2.5lbs of scope/mount 2" above the existing bore-axis of our rigs without maybe doing a little more T&E (that's 10% or more of the total weight of one's rig if they're running a 25lb pig of a gun, and it's a larger percentage for those of us running lighter ones)? IDK...
 
#202
I mean, this guy's rings look pretty normal and it doesn't seem to be holding him back. Heads up, looks pretty relaxed to me. Maybe some of us just suck at shooting and need to practice more lol (I know I do)?

(Whether one hates PRS or not, you've got to respect dude's gangster as far as managing recoil like a boss and making a plate at 400 yards look way too easy lol)

 
  • Like
Reactions: Ethang and obx22
#203
His head is rolled over and his pupil is it at the top of his eye socket.

It’s Ben Gosset he is a kick ass PRS shooter and a great general shooter. But what if he raised his scope and got faster? Or was able to spot at 150yards his impacts and process information faster?

Let’s be honest majority of the people follow the crowd and never ask why?
 
  • Like
Reactions: Nik H
#204
Eric32 said:
Let’s be honest majority of the people follow the crowd and never ask why?
Click to expand...
Exactly

No method works for everyone. When an expert finds a promising technique, it is up to the individual to try it. In this case, there are many variables. Without photos to indicate your eye's position relative to the optic's centerline, you're guessing. I tried a 0.625" riser and my 1.54" mount. It worked well, but it was a shade too high. My next try will bring it down by a 0.25". It will be perfect.

Reticle jump is better. It has little to do with managing recoil as much as it has to do with ensuring the recoil pulse is moving in a straight line, and your body is aligned to the path of the rifle when it recoils. The upright head position allows me to place the rifle closer to my body's centerline. No need to overthink it.

People follow the crowd. People also give something a cursory try and say it doesn't work. In this case, you need to purchase items to give it a try. How many did?

There is no shortcut to the experimental method.
 
  • Like
Reactions: lash and Eric32
#205
It’s a lot of Us,

Left to its own devices the rifle will do the same thing over and over. We add in the living being and things change in a variety of ways.

I think the why is the head and shoulders as well as the brain.

1. No roll the head is neutral
2. The rifle CG under recoil is lower, or at least the same. The scope is just to see, it doesn’t have a controlled explosion. So moving it from the head changes the brains perception
3. Index, vs Anchor, look at every picture of a shooter, they anchor to the cheek. That is downward pressure.

that’s my why
 
  • Like
Reactions: lash, Nik H and Eric32
#206
CK1.0 said:
I just think there’s a point where it becomes a low bore-axis versus high bore-axis thing (sort of like with pistols) and in a lot of cases having a higher bore-axis isn’t desirable or worth the trade-off. JMHO/YMMV
Click to expand...
This statement doesn’t support your argument as a con. The fact is, raising the height of the sight axis actually lowers the center of the rifle body position to more in line with the body’s position. Thus, effectively lowering the bore axis. Which we can all agree is usually a good thing, right?
 
#207
lash said:
This statement doesn’t support your argument as a con. The fact is, raising the height of the sight axis actually lowers the center of the rifle body position to more in line with the body’s position. Thus, effectively lowering the bore axis. Which we can all agree is usually a good thing, right?
Click to expand...
No cheek riser, no problem...
1738095432729.png
 
  • Like
Reactions: doubloon, obx22 and lash
#208
ma smith said:
No cheek riser, no problem...
View attachment 8603470
Click to expand...
Not sure what your point is.

My Anschutz 64 MPR has no cheek riser. I use low (0.92") rings. The stock design and low rings allow the scope to line up perfectly with my eye. My head is upright and prone is comfortable. Works well!

As previously stated, this is not a one-size-fits-all technique. Every rifle will be different.
 
  • Like
Reactions: Baron23 and lash
#209
Nik H said:
As previously stated, this is not a one-size-fits-all technique. Every rifle will be different.
Click to expand...
This. During all this academic discussion, let’s not forget that for best precision, a rifle system needs to be well fit and adjusted to the shooter.

We can all (assumption) shoot what we pick up, but when we are looking for the best out of a rifle, we are best served to adjust the system to the person and the purpose we intend to use it for.
 
  • Like
Reactions: Nik H
#211
I run 1.5” rings so I suspect I am pretty close already.

With that being said, I just had my AI AT stock upgraded to the AX and added the additional height rail.

The AX stock lets me adjust the recoil pad height and the Anarchy Outdoors cheek piece lets me get very low if I need to.

Soon I will take my AI AT and mount it on my tripod at a height where if I stand on the side of the rifle with the barrel pointing to my left the center of my eye is centered on the parallax knob.

This will get my eye centered on the scope occular in a manner that ensures I don’t subconsciously “turtle” my neck in case this is a training scar.

I will then drop the recoil pad until it aligns best with my high medial area.

I will then remove the rifle from the tripod and test it in the prone.

My gut tells me I will end up with the recoil pad 1/2” or so lower than traditionally set and the additional height rail and low cheek pad will take care of the rest.

Or, shorter, I am willihg to accept, prior to testing, the theory of losing a bit of recoil management by moving my recoil pad down 1/2” in order to achieve a more comfortable head position.

Of course this is all theory until this weekend during setup and eventual range testing.

-Stan
 
#212
Hmmm,
Opinionated jerk here, so take it with a grain of salt:
You are not raising the scope, you are lowering the rifle.
Stay with me here:
If you view pics of Olympic shooters, they try to keep the eyes level in all their shooting positions. Level eyes (visual cues) and level ears (balance control) translates to the ultimate in steady aiming.
If you study their gear, most are running sights on tall blocks, and often they are canted over to align with the shooters level eyes (gun to shooter, not shooter to gun.)
Look at silhouette shooters, which went crazy with ladder mounts-scopes jacked way up and rifle lower to the shoulder, again all about balance with level eyes/head.
Now we have the barricade rifle/shooter system. Viewed from the side, the sighting system, grip, foreward support, and buttplate. The shooter’s eye, grip/trigger finger, support elbows, and shoulder.
If the barrel/trigger is the fixed point in space- aiming at the target, then the first variable is the height the bore is above ground (for now I’m discussing aiming at a target the same elevation as the barreled action).
Since the human element comes in such a variety of shapes and sizes, the rifle cannot be a “one size fits all”.
Likewise, and what I think doesn’t get enough consideration:
The height the rifle has to be above ground (obviously supported by the shooter) dramatically impacts the angles the shooter’s body is in, as well as the best “form” the rifle should take to yield the best shot.
Look at it another way-
The most comfortable shooting position is from a bench. The rifles weight is fully supported- fixed in space. Now you build your position behind the rifle with grip, shoulder, cheek. If the bench and rifle is too low, you are hunched over. Now your eye is closer to the scope, so you drag your face back, kink your neck, who knows with the length of pull whether the buttplate is even touching your shoulder pocket, is beneath it, or dead pressed in so hard it’s ridiculous. So- rifle and bench height are important, but so are the rifle adjustments.
If the rifle can not be moved, now you have to rely on adjusting what you can to make it interface/ fit your body properly for the best results. That’s just from a frikken bench!
You start prone, ok- what is your optimal shoulder height above ground level?
What height and angle is your head to give the most comfort, but also the clearest vision (yes, the angle your eyes are looking out of your skull effects your vision/clarity/and amount of induced strain.)
Think of your shoulder and eyes as the fixed points in space: Now the cheekpiece and buttplate must be adjusted to fit this ideal.
What distance from your shoulder places your grip/trigger hand at it’s optimum for both elbow angle and support, but also grip control AND trigger control. Wait,(that hand) it’s also pulling the rifle into your shoulder as well.
Throughout rifle design the grip has largely been an afterthought, yet it controls EVERYTHING!
Sooo much to consider…
Now, if you are not going to reset your rifle adjustments for each different position, then one logic would be to lock it into an “average” so while it would never shine in any position, it won’t absolutely suck in one particular position. Ok, what if you adjust it to best fit your worst/most unsteady position, and then let your body compensate for the rest?
No, I don’t have all the answers, but I do have a boatload of questions 😉
 
  • Like
Reactions: CK1.0
#213
obx22 said:
Hmmm,
Opinionated jerk here, so take it with a grain of salt:
You are not raising the scope, you are lowering the rifle.
Stay with me here:
If you view pics of Olympic shooters, they try to keep the eyes level in all their shooting positions. Level eyes (visual cues) and level ears (balance control) translates to the ultimate in steady aiming.
If you study their gear, most are running sights on tall blocks, and often they are canted over to align with the shooters level eyes (gun to shooter, not shooter to gun.)
Look at silhouette shooters, which went crazy with ladder mounts-scopes jacked way up and rifle lower to the shoulder, again all about balance with level eyes/head.
Now we have the barricade rifle/shooter system. Viewed from the side, the sighting system, grip, foreward support, and buttplate. The shooter’s eye, grip/trigger finger, support elbows, and shoulder.
If the barrel/trigger is the fixed point in space- aiming at the target, then the first variable is the height the bore is above ground (for now I’m discussing aiming at a target the same elevation as the barreled action).
Since the human element comes in such a variety of shapes and sizes, the rifle cannot be a “one size fits all”.
Likewise, and what I think doesn’t get enough consideration:
The height the rifle has to be above ground (obviously supported by the shooter) dramatically impacts the angles the shooter’s body is in, as well as the best “form” the rifle should take to yield the best shot.
Look at it another way-
The most comfortable shooting position is from a bench. The rifles weight is fully supported- fixed in space. Now you build your position behind the rifle with grip, shoulder, cheek. If the bench and rifle is too low, you are hunched over. Now your eye is closer to the scope, so you drag your face back, kink your neck, who knows with the length of pull whether the buttplate is even touching your shoulder pocket, is beneath it, or dead pressed in so hard it’s ridiculous. So- rifle and bench height are important, but so are the rifle adjustments.
If the rifle can not be moved, now you have to rely on adjusting what you can to make it interface/ fit your body properly for the best results. That’s just from a frikken bench!
You start prone, ok- what is your optimal shoulder height above ground level?
What height and angle is your head to give the most comfort, but also the clearest vision (yes, the angle your eyes are looking out of your skull effects your vision/clarity/and amount of induced strain.)
Think of your shoulder and eyes as the fixed points in space: Now the cheekpiece and buttplate must be adjusted to fit this ideal.
What distance from your shoulder places your grip/trigger hand at it’s optimum for both elbow angle and support, but also grip control AND trigger control. Wait,(that hand) it’s also pulling the rifle into your shoulder as well.
Throughout rifle design the grip has largely been an afterthought, yet it controls EVERYTHING!
Sooo much to consider…
Now, if you are not going to reset your rifle adjustments for each different position, then one logic would be to lock it into an “average” so while it would never shine in any position, it won’t absolutely suck in one particular position. Ok, what if you adjust it to best fit your worst/most unsteady position, and then let your body compensate for the rest?
No, I don’t have all the answers, but I do have a boatload of questions 😉
Click to expand...

Facts.

I'd never received any form of bolt-gun rifle training when I first started, but coming from a USPSA/IDPA background with a shit ton of lead having been slung... I decided fairly early on that if prone/bench were the most stable positions I'd ever find myself shooting from, I'd worry about those last (as far as setting up my gun fit).

For me, I'm still in the honeymoon phase where I'm still getting used to seeing 90+% of my "long-range precision rifle" shots (whether impact or splash). And that's come mostly due to the pursuit of getting better at being able to shoot off whatever position I'm presented with, which means me trying purposely not to shoot prone or off the bench too much, and during that time I've been experimenting with my gun fit a lot.

Personally, I think shooting off just a bag under the forend is a blast, it's hard and can be as brutal as it is rewarding. But I feel like I've learned a lot from it because when I find myself in more stable positions like prone or with the gun locked into a tripod, that shit just seems to take care of itself and seems relatively easy.

We're all still learning, and we all should be questioning the status quo and trying new shit if we think we're onto something, none of this shit is settled law at this point.

But we discover new stuff all the time and will continue to do so...

Like this I found today, whether you give a shit about PRS or not, Mr. Colon casually breaks down in a few minutes what has taken me like 2-3 years to figure out (and I still don't really have it figured out lol):

 
  • Like
Reactions: lash, Emerson0311 and obx22
#214
So I just was finally able to actually sit down and watch the original video…
My initial reply was based on the other replies in the thread🤣 funny to see almost the same points gone over👍(but with the graphic, far more easy to understand)!
Only negative that stands out to me, and it is likely just lack of proper experience, would be speed. I’m one of those guys who tries to lock in tight with a bunch of cheek pressure to maintain some semblance of consistency when running a bolt gun fast (an excellent example would be trying to flip a spinner target). I’m not Mr. Smooth, so it takes pressure to stay on target through the cycling process now that I (mostly) keep my face on the cheekpiece.
A couple of other takeaways from the video:
Noticing the relationship of the cheekpiece relative to your face.
Initially it’s on nearly the same level as your nose, next rifle near your moustache area, next rifle near your lips, so roughly an inch-inch and a quarter of change. However your cheekbones create a wedge face shape (narrower towards the jaw) which allows you to get your face/eyes closer to square on to the scope (and less side pressure on the cheekpiece because it’s lower/out of the way) without tilting your head.
Notice all of your cheekpieces are a radius size similar to an AR gas tube (or larger), rather than say a diameter half or 1/3 the size, which would allow it to be higher for that consistent anchor point, while still allowing your face to get closer to the rifle’s centerline with level eyes. Just observations 😉
Instead of taller scopes, would narrow cheekpieces and a slightly lower buttplate do the same thing (raising the rifle rather than just the scope), or would that take the recoil impulse away from bore line?
 
  • Like
Reactions: Emerson0311
#215
ChrisWay said:
Holy Shitballs I hadn’t looked at this thread since it was posted. Goddamn man, it’s pretty funny.
Not that any of our opinions are worth any more than another, none of you messaged me so I’ll jump in unsolicited!
First, lolicopter.
Second, why do threads start bringing up random camps / my dad can beat your dad up? We’re all trying to shoot stuff, whatever you call it seems ridiculous to argue about who prefers to shoot what and at what speed.
Third, there’s a longer video I put out that discusses some of the stuff mentioned and left other stuff out. Rather than wear the glass down on my phone with my thumbs, I’ll post a link and see if any of you take a peek. I’m not saying I’m right, but I sure think I am! (I’m always kind of kidding so calm down weirdos).
Podcast Video
Click to expand...
Enjoyed your thoughts in this video and have a few for you to ponder. Around 19minutes in (right after shhh the pooch) you mentioned the lack of muzzle rise and that you didn’t understand what changed from raising the scope. Later when you mentioned “people concerned with wearing out scope mounts” you perhaps unintentionally answered your own question.
Physics-
Raising the scope changes the center of mass of the system. If the mass above the bore line is the same as below it, the barrel must recoil straight back (and in a slight twisting motion) unless acted on by another outside force such as a bipod or tripod (which adds its own variable).
Also, the reason you have a better chance at seeing the bullet trace, is the geometry of the bullets path in relation to the line of sight. Lowering the bore (in relation to the line of sight through the scope) shifts the ballistic curve further away from the shooter. The slug crosses the sight path closer to the target, rises less above the line of sight, before striking the bull. All this is happening closer to the focus point of the scope, thus it has a better chance of being perceived by the shooting eye.
Thoughts?
 
#216
obx22 said:
So I just was finally able to actually sit down and watch the original video…
My initial reply was based on the other replies in the thread🤣 funny to see almost the same points gone over👍(but with the graphic, far more easy to understand)!
Only negative that stands out to me, and it is likely just lack of proper experience, would be speed. I’m one of those guys who tries to lock in tight with a bunch of cheek pressure to maintain some semblance of consistency when running a bolt gun fast (an excellent example would be trying to flip a spinner target). I’m not Mr. Smooth, so it takes pressure to stay on target through the cycling process now that I (mostly) keep my face on the cheekpiece.
A couple of other takeaways from the video:
Noticing the relationship of the cheekpiece relative to your face.
Initially it’s on nearly the same level as your nose, next rifle near your moustache area, next rifle near your lips, so roughly an inch-inch and a quarter of change. However your cheekbones create a wedge face shape (narrower towards the jaw) which allows you to get your face/eyes closer to square on to the scope (and less side pressure on the cheekpiece because it’s lower/out of the way) without tilting your head.
Notice all of your cheekpieces are a radius size similar to an AR gas tube (or larger), rather than say a diameter half or 1/3 the size, which would allow it to be higher for that consistent anchor point, while still allowing your face to get closer to the rifle’s centerline with level eyes. Just observations 😉
Instead of taller scopes, would narrow cheekpieces and a slightly lower buttplate do the same thing (raising the rifle rather than just the scope), or would that take the recoil impulse away from bore line?
Click to expand...
The narrow and lower cheek piece is a thing now. Like a judo push/pull, it’s about the relationship between 2 points.
 
  • Like
Reactions: obx22
#217
The more I think about this, the more i realize I need to adjust my scope up. Went to the range today, I never realized how squished up I am to get down behind the scope, 35mm scope with .95 rings. Standing it's not so bad, but after being prone awhile, my neck gets really tight and feels like I need an adjustment. Ordered a riser to see if that will help.

Seeing where my head felt neutral and my eyes lined up naturally, put it at the bottom 3rd of my turret, just above the ocular which should be right at 2 inches to the cent of the tube. So need to raise everything up close to an inch by best guess.
 
  • Like
Reactions: lash and Nik H
#218
CK1.0 said:
I watched the video and thought it was pretty good.

But, nothing about how raising the scope will change how the rifle rig recoils was covered… and it seems like this is being attacked from a prone/tripod shooting perspective only (which I had no idea so many guys had so much trouble with honestly).

Most guy’s scope/mount combos are going to weigh ~40oz or more and raising that much weight up from where most of a rig’s weight rides (barrel/action) is going to have an effect on how a rig tracks under recoil, especially on a bag.

Personally, I thought not tightening the scope down a little made the head positions shown in the video misleading (as Chris had to hold onto to the scope too), instead of just getting into a realistic firing position… the standard mount without the riser looked about fine to me if he had realistically got behind the gun like it was going to kick some.

IMHO, there’s a reason most guys (including most pros) who spend a lot of time shooting off bags aren’t raising their scopes up too high for the most part, with most sticking to that “mediumish” height of ~1.25-1.34”, and it’s probably because most guys who aren’t too concerned with trying to make relatively easier and inherently more stable positions like prone shooting or shooting when locked into a tripod more comfortable don’t really care about those positions as much as when shooting off bags or front-bag and tripod-rear support, where recoil management and how the guns track under recoil is far less forgiving.

I’d like to see some live fire video from the side perspective off a bag while experimenting with how high is too high… I bet it wouldn’t be too hard to spot some of the negative impacts of raising that much weight higher up on the gun.
Click to expand...
 
  • Like
Reactions: lash and RG0099
#219
stanley_white said:
I run 1.5” rings so I suspect I am pretty close already.

With that being said, I just had my AI AT stock upgraded to the AX and added the additional height rail.

The AX stock lets me adjust the recoil pad height and the Anarchy Outdoors cheek piece lets me get very low if I need to.

Soon I will take my AI AT and mount it on my tripod at a height where if I stand on the side of the rifle with the barrel pointing to my left the center of my eye is centered on the parallax knob.

This will get my eye centered on the scope occular in a manner that ensures I don’t subconsciously “turtle” my neck in case this is a training scar.

I will then drop the recoil pad until it aligns best with my high medial area.

I will then remove the rifle from the tripod and test it in the prone.

My gut tells me I will end up with the recoil pad 1/2” or so lower than traditionally set and the additional height rail and low cheek pad will take care of the rest.

Or, shorter, I am willihg to accept, prior to testing, the theory of losing a bit of recoil management by moving my recoil pad down 1/2” in order to achieve a more comfortable head position.

Of course this is all theory until this weekend during setup and eventual range testing.

-Stan
Click to expand...
I have executed this plan for dry fire purposes only at this point.

To simulate a higher scope mount without purchasing one, once my eye was aligned with the center of the parallax knob in a standing position with my rifle in my tripod I dropped my AI AX stock’s recoil pad as low as it could go to align with my high medial area of my torso.

Looking at the setup, prior to getting in the prone, I thought “Hell no.”

Getting in the prone, oh yeah, this is more comfortable and my eye is lined up.

How do I know my eye is lined up?

I wear short, rectangular style glasses and they tell me, by having the top of the frame get in the way of me seeing through my scope, if my eye isn’t aligned / head upright.

$10 Walmart rectangle glasses as an eye to scope alignment test device discussed here:

https://www.snipershide.com/shootin...ng-at-our-body-position.7242374/post-11969921

So, once Unity comes out with a FAST™ LPVO in 35mm I will purchase one and continue experimenting.

Thank you for this research @Lowlight & @ChrisWay!

-Stan
 
Last edited:
  • Like
Reactions: lash, Nik H and Emerson0311
#220
stanley_white said:
I have executed this plan for dry fire purposes only at this point.

To simulate a higher scope mount without purchasing one, once my eye was aligned with the center of the parallax knob in a standing position with my rifle in my tripod I dropped my AI AX stock’s recoil pad as low as it could go to align with my high medial area of my torso.

Looking at the setup, prior to getting in the prone, I thought “Hell no.”

Getting in the prone, oh yeah, this is more comfortable and my eye is lined up.

How do I know my eye is lined up?

I wear short, rectangular style glasses and they tell me, by having the top of the frame get in the way of me seeing through my scope, if my eye isn’t aligned / head upright.

$10 Walmart rectangle glasses as an eye to scope alignment test device discussed here:

https://www.snipershide.com/shootin...ng-at-our-body-position.7242374/post-11969921

So, once Unity comes out with a FAST™ LPVO in 35mm I will purchase one and continue experimenting.

Thank you for this research @Lowlight & @ChrisWay!

-Stan
Click to expand...
Follow-up…

I re-did this whole evolution and I assess that I do not need a new mount.

Why?

Well, the taller scope rail that was part of my AX stock addition to my AT raised me from 1.5” optics height to 1.75”.

My Limbsaver Recoil Pad Grind To Fit Black Small (1″ Thick/LOP) 10541 drops my heel .25” of an inch.

My Anarchy Outdoors low cheek piece, in its lowest setting, gives me what I need.

As such, the distance between high medial and scope center has been increased by 1/2 of an inch and I suspect this puts my optical center at 2” if you evaluate my entire system.

I redid this test as I realized that my eyes are in the top 1/3 of my rectangular glasses. As such, where the top of the glasses frame is should be the same whether I am looking through a scope or not. With these current settings, it is.

More to follow someday when I have time to test this out for real.

-Stan
 
#222
stanley_white said:
FYI for Leupold users -- I reached out to both Reptilia and Unity Tactical who advise that, as of February 3, 2025, there are no plans to offer 35mm versions of their 1.93" or 2.0" height scope mounts, respectively.

-Stan
Click to expand...
Not surprising

I just ordered a 1.93" Badger COMM for my TT. I'm looking forward to trying it when it gets here. It should be perfect for my AXMC.

I'm still not sure what I will do for my AT. I am leaning towards the AT high rail and using my existing Badger C1 MAX 1.54" mount. This will boost the height to 1.8". That should also work.
 
  • Like
Reactions: stanley_white
#225
Conrad said:
Anyone remember DTubb's chin gun? I think yall are doing good stuff, and I've found taller mounts to be advantageous for myself. Just sharing this because every now and then something will pop up that makes me say, "damn, David's always been decades ahead...."

View attachment 8593822
Click to expand...

Yep, there are a few successful folks who have played with the idea of increasing the distance from cheek to ocular lens before.

Daniel Horner used high mounts (1.93 or 1.5 + .5 risers) when he was still on the AMU because it allowed for a more upright and natural posture when shooting the rifle. And Dan has won pretty much everything there is to win in the world of multigun. Most of these pics are from 2010-11, or earlier:


3GN-Dan-Rifle.jpg


RM3G-Dan-Rifle.jpg


daniel-horner-0e4949b6-b0dd-4bb9-aa67-3a0356cc307-resize-750.jpeg


uspsa1704.jpg


hornpro1803.jpg
 
  • Like
Reactions: doubloon and lash
#226
Personally I think we need measurements from bore line so’s we are all talking the same language.
My new build is running 3.018” according to my calipers and that’s currently what I’m feeding my ballistic app. Ya’ll are talking 4 or more inches?
IMG_6183.jpeg
 
#227
obx22 said:
Personally I think we need measurements from bore line so’s we are all talking the same language.
My new build is running 3.018” according to my calipers and that’s currently what I’m feeding my ballistic app. Ya’ll are talking 4 or more inches?View attachment 8607901
Click to expand...
My total bore height on my AXMC is 3.355" (5/8" rail plus a 1.54" mount). It will drop a little to 3.12" when the new mount is installed without a riser.

The height over bore on my AR rifles that use 1.54" mounts is 2.88". If I add a 5/8" riser, it would be about 3.5" inches. I would think 4 inches would be a bit much.
 
  • Like
Reactions: obx22
#229
obx22 said:
Personally I think we need measurements from bore line so’s we are all talking the same language.
My new build is running 3.018” according to my calipers and that’s currently what I’m feeding my ballistic app. Ya’ll are talking 4 or more inches?View attachment 8607901
Click to expand...
Yes More, look at your face it's anchored to the rifle and you are looking through the top of your glasses ?

it almost appears the frame is in the way ?
 
  • Like
Reactions: Tx_Aggie and obx22
#232
Was finally able to go out yesterday and shoot with the 1" riser. At my house I had to raise my cheek rest 2 clicks, but at the range I dropped it back down. I only shot prone, but it was amazing how much better I could see the impacts on paper. My biggest take away was I didn't need to fidget with my support bag after each shot, the rifle kinda stayed there. I also noticed this morning my cheek was sore right where it turns to my chin, so I know I was taller. Still need to get used to it, but so far seems very promising.

One weird thing was that I was expecting my zero to be high as I did not do anything but install the riser. It was actually .3 low to where I had to dial elevation. I know it's a chinese riser so maybe not built to to high a tolerance, but I also wonder if I was putting so much pressure on my cheek rest trying to see through my scope before the riser?

Thanks for the idea to try this Chris and Frank! I sure like what I'm seeing so far.
 
  • Like
Reactions: lash and stanley_white
#233
RG0099 said:
Was finally able to go out yesterday and shoot with the 1" riser. At my house I had to raise my cheek rest 2 clicks, but at the range I dropped it back down. I only shot prone, but it was amazing how much better I could see the impacts on paper. My biggest take away was I didn't need to fidget with my support bag after each shot, the rifle kinda stayed there. I also noticed this morning my cheek was sore right where it turns to my chin, so I know I was taller. Still need to get used to it, but so far seems very promising.

One weird thing was that I was expecting my zero to be high as I did not do anything but install the riser. It was actually .3 low to where I had to dial elevation. I know it's a chinese riser so maybe not built to to high a tolerance, but I also wonder if I was putting so much pressure on my cheek rest trying to see through my scope before the riser?

Thanks for the idea to try this Chris and Frank! I sure like what I'm seeing so far.
Click to expand...
The pressure thing was what I was doing!

I have a new mount coming that will let me get rid of the riser.

Hope all is well with you! Hope to see you at a class this year.
 
  • Like
Reactions: lash, stanley_white and RG0099
You must log in or register to reply here.

Similar threads

Lowlight
The Everyday Sniper Podcast: New Training Seasons Starts Now
Replies
0
Views
347
Lowlight
Lowlight
gr8fuldoug
SHOT Show Day 1
Replies
4
Views
594
gr8fuldoug
gr8fuldoug
robozebra
My Quest for the Big 5 (kinda…)
Replies
81
Views
4K
robozebra
robozebra
Yoteski
Rifle Competition Events Competition Dynamics Burris Optics Team Challenge AAR
Replies
10
Views
1K
dgheriani
D
pangris
Sons of Liberty Armorers Class - AAR
Replies
53
Views
2K
bfoosh006
bfoosh006
Top Bottom
Back
Home
Forums
Merch
Alerts