Give it to me straight(Objective too big)

[teknikallysekure]

I sort of inherited this American Rifle Company scope mount, and everything on paper says it should be ok, thing is rock solid, but the scope(Steiner m7xi) is absolutely breathing down the neck of the front handguard.

I'm wasting my time trying to make this work right?

I've tried 2 different scope caps and it just ain't happening.

I'm not really wanting to mill my handguard for this should I just pick up a badger C1 that's a little taller and sell it?

 

[Matches Malone]

Yeah, if it was me, I’d get a slightly taller mount.

The only other thing is maybe seeing if there’s a thinner cap for the front, but it looks pretty tight in there.

 

[Kickin45]

Taller mount

 

[redbullitt]

If you're not attached to the scope cap maybe mod that a little? A little file work may do it?

Done it on some butler creeks and worked fine, but they are kinda disposable lol.

I guess the real question is how's the cheek weld? If your face is smashed down, then new mount looks like the way...

 

[264win]

Definitely get a higher mount.

 

[Rio Precision Gunworks]

There's almost nothing negative that comes with getting high rings. The only reason to keep optic as low as possible is if you somehow can't get a good cheek/jaw weld or for aesthetics.

All the other reasons of the past have been debunked.

So, just get a higher optic mount and reap the benefits along with being able to use the scope caps you want.

 

[teknikallysekure]

Steiner actually doesn't include the centerline measurement on this scope so I'm waiting for tech support to hit me with that.

Gonna just sell this scope mount and sort out which C1 will do the trick. Guessing the 1.7 most likely.

Thanks for the advice guys, the cheek weld seems fine but I realize I've probably been cranking down more than I need to be I'll make my life easier and do it right.

 

[teknikallysekure]

The objective of this scope is 62mm.

C1 comes in at 1.7" or 43.18 mm.

If I subtract 62mm - 43.18mm = 24mm or .94 inches. Puts me at say 15/16" from the bottom of the objective Bell OD to the top of the handguard I believe(maybe it's actually the relief in the mount height actually.

I feel like that's a little higher than my bolt action scopes ever ride, does that sound normal? Looking at 15/16 on a tape measure that seems pretty reasonable.

 

[tna9001]

There's almost nothing negative that comes with getting high rings. The only reason to keep optic as low as possible is if you somehow can't get a good cheek/jaw weld or for aesthetics.

All the other reasons of the past have been debunked.

So, just get a higher optic mount and reap the benefits along with being able to use the scope caps you want.

Can you elaborate on this, please? I'd like to understand this more fully.

 

[teknikallysekure]

Totally did that calc wrong and none of you called me out yet posers.

62mm / 2 = 31 mm or 1.2"

Therefore 1.5" would give me .3" of clearance, or 1.7" would give me .5" of clearance. Back in my day mistakes like that on the Hide would have atleast a dozen hard nosed warriors telling you how the cow ate the cabbage. Things have gone soft around here. Must be shot show time.

 

[Rio Precision Gunworks]

Can you elaborate on this, please? I'd like to understand this more fully.

There's a plethora of older things such as inducting more cant error in the system or really dumb things like your head being up higher and bigger target if being shot at. Just a ton of things that don't matter.

Most of it was just random stuff people made up because they just think an optic should be as low as possible.


When what it actually does is give your head a more natural and comfortable position, while also allowing you to bring the stock closer to the centerline of your body with is much better for recoil management.

 

[LRRPF52]

Banana Ballistics voice: “And now it’s time to GRIND!"

 

[tna9001]

There's a plethora of older things such as inducting more cant error in the system or really dumb things like your head being up higher and bigger target if being shot at. Just a ton of things that don't matter.

Most of it was just random stuff people made up because they just think an optic should be as low as possible.


When what it actually does is give your head a more natural and comfortable position, while also allowing you to bring the stock closer to the centerline of your body with is much better for recoil management.

Thank you!

 

[teknikallysekure]

Banana Ballistics voice: “And now it’s time to GRIND!"

not so fast apparently 1.7" Centerline mounts with 20moa cant aren't a thing? Starting a new thread on this topic.

 

[Part Timer]

Alternatively, these scope caps might fit that purpose. Internal Scope Cap. A bit on the spendy side but some of them look like they're a flush fit with little to no overhang, depending on scope or model.

Edit: typo

 

[cas6969]

If it fits, it ships.

Looks like it fits. Dust cap looks like it would keep dust out.

Or clearance it like a set of headers.

 

[st1650]

There's almost nothing negative that comes with getting high rings. The only reason to keep optic as low as possible is if you somehow can't get a good cheek/jaw weld or for aesthetics.

All the other reasons of the past have been debunked.

So, just get a higher optic mount and reap the benefits along with being able to use the scope caps you want.

All my bolt gun rings are either 1.42, 1.5 or 1.62
Way better recoil control and quicker/easier to get behind.

 

[Rio Precision Gunworks]

All my bolt gun rings are either 1.42, 1.5 or 1.62
Way better recoil control and quicker/easier to get behind.

Be it precision guns, dmr type, patrol, or cqb rifles, we have never had anyone not prefer higher mounts once they try them. Except aesthetically.

That don't always look great, but the practicality and comfort is just better for almost everyone.


The social media drama and hype aside, we sell a very good amount of GBRS mounts once people actually try them in person. Same with 1.5" rings and mounts for normal scopes.

 

[teknikallysekure]

Alternatively, these scope caps might fit that purpose. Internal Scope Cap. A bit on the spendy side but some of them look like they're a flush fit with no to no overhang, depending on scope or model.

Man, with a ton of mech eng and product development under my belt I've considered a few times bothering to do something along these lines this is the way.

I can't tell if he's got these mounting to the scope objective by sliding into the ID of the objective? Hard to tell from the website no schematics anywhere and none of the vids really show well how they mount. They appear to be very low profile. I'd really like something like this.

 

[Bigjake83]

You got a few options you can go with that are cheaper.

(1) $35 Vortex Defender caps, they have a cut out on the bottom that will allow you to use ultra low mounts, I've got a couple that I can post pics of in a few.



(2) $90 GG&G rail riser.

 

[teknikallysekure]

You got a few options you can go with that are cheaper.

(1) $35 Vortex Defender caps, they have a cut out on the bottom that will allow you to use ultra low mounts, I've got a couple that I can post pics of in a few.



(2) $90 GG&G rail riser.
View attachment 8594897
View attachment 8594930View attachment 8594931

These really qualify as solid solutions. I think I'm going to take the advices of the folks above and get myself another 9/16s of clearance and just pick up a 1.7 Centerline mount. I imagine a slightly higher centerline will be a little more comfortable to shoot with anyways and I've probably just gotten so used to all my optics hugging the barrel I've never thought about it much. My LPVO is also riding at a 1.7 centerline right now so I think there's probably something to be said of the NPA between the two rifles I shoot the most having the same exact sort of positioning.


Man, those handguards are slick.