• Win a RIX Storm S3 Thermal Imaging Scope!

    To enter, all you need to do is add an image of yourself at the range below!

    Join the contest

Cantilever/One-piece vs. rings

OlieTheDog

Private
Minuteman
Jul 22, 2017
48
5
Maryland, USA
Sorry if this is posted elsewhere, but I was wondering what the thought of the hivemind was on rings vs. one-piece mounts on a .308 build. I have a set of 30mm rings already, and if I could save the extra money on a mount, I'd like to do that. It's for target shooting only.
 
if the rings are high enough and allow you to get a proper eye relief without bridging the upper receiver and hand guard then its not a problem.
a one piece mount can give you the proper eye relief while remaining on the upper, give you the proper height (generally around 1.5") and give you sone cant (generally 20MOA)
 
Last edited:
I’m making sure to keep the rings on the receiver for sure. I’m wondering how much impact not having the 20 moa cant will have though. I don’t see myself taking this past ~800, but this is my first semi-auto long range gun so I’m not sure. How much of a factor is that cant?
 
It may work but most AR specific mounts and rings are 1.5".
Yeah, I was noticing that. I’m assuming that’s because they assume a 50mm obj on most optics. Worst case scenario I’ll have to get a mount and will have some extra rings. But you know what that means. Extra parts = get to start a new build :devilish:

I used the scope ring height calculator to figure out if I was good to go or not.
http://www.mil-rad.com/scope_ring_calculator
 
Why not try the rings you already have and see if they are high enough???? You already have them right? I have found the 1.5” height too high for me to get a good cheek weld. I use the Larue RISR on my AR stocks to get proper cheek weld. I also have a very skinny face.
 
Well....... your rifle won’t split in half from using rings instead of a 1 piece. ?. The big reason for the cantilever mounts is to get proper eye relief. A lot of people shoot nose to charging handle and the scope has to be pushed farther forward than what standard rings would allow without bridging over to the hand guard which is not good unless it’s a monolithic upper. As far as the height. 1.5” seems standard to help clear the charging handle and a lot of people get good cheek welds at that height. Like I said, I don’t and your height ring would probably work well for me as long as the scope your using will clear the rifle at that height.
 
Well....... your rifle won’t split in half from using rings instead of a 1 piece. ?. The big reason for the cantilever mounts is to get proper eye relief. A lot of people shoot nose to charging handle and the scope has to be pushed farther forward than what standard rings would allow without bridging over to the hand guard which is not good unless it’s a monolithic upper. As far as the height. 1.5” seems standard to help clear the charging handle and a lot of people get good cheek welds at that height. Like I said, I don’t and your height ring would probably work well for me as long as the scope your using will clear the rifle at that height.
Well that's good to know. Glad my rifle will stay in one relative piece. I don't have any experience, outside of dry fire, on my AR-10, but I know on my 15's I don't do nose to CH anymore. With a lot of the positional work I do, I find it more comfortable to sit back off the receiver a bit. I am open to the fact that that may change down the road once I get my optic in (Just found out I'm looking at 3-4 months wait :mad:)